... It ain't their D&D... sorry, church anymore.
Classic :)
|
Well, I checked and according to standard definitions, Mormons are followers of the ancient prophet Mormon as revealed by Joseph Smith.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon
So you rather thoroughly overlooked these two paragraphs?
"The term "Mormon" is most often used to refer to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). The LDS Church holds that it is incorrect to apply "Mormon" to other groups or their members.[3] The AP Stylebook agrees, specifying that the term "Mormon" is not properly applied to other Latter Day Saint groups founded after the death of Joseph Smith, Jr.[4]
Nevertheless, the term is also often used to refer to fundamentalist groups who continue to practice plural marriage,[5] a practice that the LDS Church officially abandoned in 1890.[6][7] These groups, while numerically much smaller than the LDS Church, continue to use the term "Mormon" and claim to represent "true Mormonism" as taught and practiced by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young."
The vast majority of people who could reasonably be called "Mormons" do not practice polygamy, and have not for over a century. Especially if you intend to use it because of groups that engage in blatant criminal activity aside from multiple marriage, it seems like nothing more than an attempt to defame one group because of the actions of others.
The vast majority of people who could reasonably be called "Mormons" do not practice polygamy, and have not for over a century. Especially if you intend to use it because of groups that engage in blatant criminal activity aside from multiple marriage, it seems like nothing more than an attempt to defame one group because of the actions of others.
This might be the first time, but I have to agree with Sam here. I honestly can't think of anything bad to say about any of the mormons I've met (well, except that they don't drink coffee, which is hard for me to comprehend).
This is certainly true, but why would this be relevant in determining the legitimacy of Mormons (or polygamous followers of the teachings of Joseph Smith if you prefer) who do practice polygamy?[QUOTE: "Samuel Weiss"]
The vast majority of people who could reasonably be called "Mormons" do not practice polygamy, and have not for over a century.
It's equally as relevant in determining the "legitimacy" of Catholics, given that some of them used to hold the Inquisition, I guess. Or of "Protestants" now who bomb abortion clinics. If a religious group can outgrow its more repellent practices, I'm all in favor of that. Why judge them by a few splinter groups who refude to learn -- even if those splinter groups are "more legitimate" by some scriptural standards?
Or, more plainly -- and this is what confuses me -- why single out Mormons, when the same standards can be applied to almost any religious or even political group you might care to name?
The vast majority of people who could reasonably be called "Mormons" do not practice polygamy, and have not for over a century. Especially if you intend to use it because of groups that engage in blatant criminal activity aside from multiple marriage, it seems like nothing more than an attempt to defame one group because of the actions of others.This might be the first time, but I have to agree with Sam here. I honestly can't think of anything bad to say about any of the mormons I've met (well, except that they don't drink coffee, which is hard for me to comprehend).
Orange soda is like cocaine for Mormons. I swear...
Anyway, I think that the church was originally supposed to be the LSD church, and everyone was going to just drop acid and go f%#&ing wild, man. But, somewhere in the process, someone screwed up the letters, and Brigham Young, Sasquatch, and Donny Osmond had to come up with new words.
|
|
So now my question is, why would we accept the word of an institution on the legitimacy of polygamous followers of the teachings of Joseph Smith when this institution has an obvious self-interest in denying legitimacy to these polygamous teaching followers? Doesn't denying these other churches legitimacy avoid the difficulty of having to reason through why their polygamous teachings are closer to what Joseph Smith taught as compared to the doctrines of the main LDS church?
I do not know. Why should anyone accept the word of someone:
I don't know full Mormon doctrine, but since Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught polygamy, those Mormons that teach polygamy have a valid basis for claiming they have the true teaching, at least in this particular area.
like you?
You have no clue about their doctrine yet you want to claim full authority to lump people together based on a particular doctrine you read about that most do not even follow.
I have no sympathy for cases where men engage in welfare fraud so they can collect enough money to support all of their wives. Fraud is criminal. But this isn't about defaming anyone.
Actually I was referring to marrying underage girls and expelling boys with no ability to deal with the outside world in an effort to maintain a "suitable" sex ratio within the cult. Welfare fraud is minor compared to that.
However, if it is not about defaming anyone then why insist so strenuously on linking all people who claim to use the Book of Mormon together on the basis of a practice followed by perhaps 1% of their members at the most, all of which have broken away from the main group of followers?
As I noted, if you want a group where the mainstream, not just random extremists using the name, practices all of polygamy, pedophilia, and incest (to a certain standard), you have Muslims. Or is there some reason not to use them as an example?
You seem to be implying that polygamy is a repellent practice. I can understand why some people reject polygamy, but is your comment a moral objection to polygamy, a practical one, or just your personal preference? Is it because it is against the law?
It's more because I saw an interview with some "multiple wives," who more or less said point-blank that it was demeaning, they hated it, and the ONLY reason that ANY woman would ever consent to it, ever, is religious upbringing. Now, a number of disgruntled polygamous wives is not the full population, but they were clear enough to give me pause. If a practice causes suffering without alleviating any, I consider it immoral, and if it causes more strife within a community than it prevents, I consider it impractical. Granted, those are my personal opinions, but they seem as good as any other definitions. Legality I won't really comment on, except that again, it's obviously impractical for an organization to explicitly require illegal actions -- it would make more sense to change their viewpoint, or maybe their nation of residence.
The LDS church insists that if you practice and/or teach polygamy, you aren't Mormon.
Yes, in exactly the same way that the mainsteam Christian churches say that if you bomb abortion clinics and murder doctors, you're not a Christian. Every mainstream faith is quick to denounce acts that might get them viewed with hatred or distaste. In the same vein, we see a large number of mainstream Islamic groups condemning Al Queda as "Not Muslims." Polygamy is a chapter in the Mormon church's past that causes them some embarrassment, so their reaction is precisely the same; I don't see anything unique about it.
|
|
For example, Mohammedans first. I refer to them under this umbrella because their religion is based on the teachings of Mohammed as brought to him by an angel, but they prefer Muslim so I will use that. There are two main groups, Shiite and Sunni. In my conversing with individuals of both, while each group considers the other to be heretical or at least mistaken, they do consider the others to be Muslim. I never heard one insist the other group is not Muslim.
You obviously missed the Kharijites. They are of course not a main group, but then you are not holding the LDS to that standard. They do not consider other Muslims as Muslim, and are ostracized in turn.
Next Christians. Now there are so many splinters and denominations that I can't say it is universally true that all Christians acknowledge each other as Christians. But in general, this is true. Baptists, evangelicals, Presbyterians will acknowledge other groups as Christians, despite conflict over doctrines. Catholics acknowledge pretty much all Protestants as Christians. Some Christian groups don't accept Catholics as Christians, but many do. This willingness to refer to other groups as Christians is because there is an acknowledgement that accepting Jesus Christ as the only son of God is enough to "qualify". This isn't just general courtesy, as Christians don't consider Mormons to be Christian.
Not all Christians do not consider Mormons to be Christian.
If you found a Christian that insisted on going back to the root teachings of the founder, say by living by a moral code of only that which is found in the four Gospels of the Bible, you can find other Christians that will refer to this Christian as heretical or mistaken because they don't have this or that(whatever it is).
But they will still acknowledge the person as a Christian. They won't say that someone who follows those four Gospels faithfully is not a Christian.
That is not correct. There were quite a few "Jewish Christians" that were gradually anathematized by various ecumenical councils over the years for following the traditions of Jesus much more closely. That includes things like circumicision, keeping kosher, the date of Easter, and other ecumenical elements.
And of course that does not include any of the early fights over doctrine and the various groups anathematized as heretics in the process.Pointing this out isn't intended as a slam or attack on Mormons. This unique aspect is what made me wonder.
It is not a unique aspect at all. That is what you are missing in your analysis. Virtually every group has some aspect like this. You simply do not know of them. What you need to do is expand your research considerably before making such comparisons.
... why single out Mormons, when the same standards can be applied to almost any religious or even political group you might care to name?
Because they're WACKY.
|
Now that I think about it, I recall maybe 15 years ago a story about a Christian minister that practiced polygamy because of the patriarchs in Genesis. He was interviewed and other Protestants were interviewed as well who were quick to explain that polygamy is not sanctioned in Christianity. I wish I could remember if any insisted the guy wasn't Christian.
For what it's worth -- who, what, or how many you are married to (or what have you) has little to nothing to do with whether or not someone is Christian. Worse case scenario -- it might be considered a sin.
At the same time, I think that it is amusing when people decide how they want to live and try and find some justification for it after the fact. Said "patriarchs" were also largely nomadic sheep herders who lived in tents and didn't have access to facilities. I highly doubt he is living that way "because of the patriarchs in Genesis".
(Why are we talking about this on this thread?)
BTW, there's a huge difference between being "poly" and having open but stable relationships out here in the real world, among consenting adults, and forcing tweenagers into arranged marriage harems with old dudes on these compounds.
Those guys need a whuppin' but good. It's slavery.
I don't get "poly" myself, but to each their own. I'm conservative when it comes to matters of the heart.
|
|
Yes, in exactly the same way that the mainsteam Christian churches say that if you bomb abortion clinics and murder doctors, you're not a Christian. Every mainstream faith is quick to denounce acts that might get them viewed with hatred or distaste. In the same vein, we see a large number of mainstream Islamic groups condemning Al Queda as "Not Muslims." Polygamy is a chapter in the Mormon church's past that causes them some embarrassment, so their reaction is precisely the same; I don't see anything unique about it.
Bombing abortion clinics is not doctrine. (Actually, it isn't even close. It would be difficult at best to find anything Biblically to justify that practice.) However, the Mormon belief in polygamy is considered doctrine. Even though the official stance of the church (or organization) is that they will not practice polygamy, they still largely believe that it is "right" and "good" and strongly imply that it will at least happen in the afterlife. To my knowledge they have not taken this belief out of their religious documents.
I don't know enough about what makes a Muslim, Muslim so can't really comment on that. I understand what you are trying to say, and I'm sure that there are "Christian" examples of what you are trying to get across -- but I just wanted to show that the examples you gave aren't quite the same thing.
Director of Game Development
|
(Why are we talking about this on this thread?)
It always seems to roll around to politics or religion. If politics is already the soup d'jour, it naturally rolls right into religion. Strange paths always find their way into one of these forks and the road not chosen winds around to meet you anyway.
I don't get "poly" myself, but to each their own.
Well, Rone, sometimes when a man and a parrot love each other very, very much...
Well, Rone, sometimes when a man and a parrot love each other very, very much...
I don't get "poly" myself, but to each their own.
Well the recent race post taught me that I am indeed a cracker. And if Polly wants me... she can have me.
The whole mormon thing and politics reminded me that during the primaries Romney made a joke about it. He said something like, "As a Mormon I believe marriages is between a man and a woman ... and a woman ... and a woman." It losses something in the writing but his presentation was hilarious. Its good to see that some people can have a sense of humor about their religion.
No, the only logical purpose of incarceration is to punish. It inflicts an unpleasant circumstance on a person, diminishing their quality of life, as a penalty for violating the laws.There is another logical purpose. To remove them from society preventing them from doing more harm.
Thats only worthwhile in those situations where you determine that the individual is never reentering society.
Sushi. Long Duck Sushi Bar, Montreal, Canada. 7:45 PM tomorrow. HURRY! YOU'LL BOTH MISS YOUR PLANES!Really? What reservation was that?Samuel Weiss has cause. I remember the thread were he and Dingo got into it and Dingo was way off the reservation IMO.
Greeeeaaat logic, bro.See, when ANYONE says something like that, I (not just me, either) would automatically assume that he was joking. Which he is.
I'm only a four hour drive away.
No, the only logical purpose of incarceration is to punish. It inflicts an unpleasant circumstance on a person, diminishing their quality of life, as a penalty for violating the laws.
There is another logical purpose. To remove them from society preventing them from doing more harm.
Thats only worthwhile in those situations where you determine that the individual is never reentering society.
Everyone is of course free to say what they think, but there are arguments out there being made about the efficacy of incarceration as a social deterent. As such incarceration in a benefit to society. For example, I've heard it argued that America's high rate of incarceration has resulted in a decrease in crime rates and there are statistics that back this up, that many of the criminals are no longer on the streets and the crime rate has dropped. I'm not sure how much this holds, but it certainly sounds worthy of consideration. Yes, it may just be a rationalization of America's police state mentality... or maybe not. It's not my argument.
And also, I think Jeremy is quite correct: in countries where there is no capital punishment people can be permanently institutionalized. Where they cannot be rehabilitated, and where their standard of living in prison can hardly be called severe punishment, the only other justification for their incarceration is that we need to be protected from them.
I think Sam might not realize just how comfortable Canadian prisons are. I know people in Edmonton, Alberta who have purposefully had themselves thrown in because they couldn't handle life outside. In such a system the "diminishing quality of life" part of the argument tends to fall apart. And hey, I'm not saying that a prison is pleasant, but you try being homeless on the streets of Edmonton during the winter months. When you want out of the cold all you have to do is steal a car, park outside a donut shop, and make a stink inside. Now you'll spend the next 6 months lifting weights, having regular meals, and hanging with the dudes.
Seriously, I'm not kidding.
Man, you've got me wistful for Canadian prison.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'm only a four hour drive away.Sushi. Long Duck Sushi Bar, Montreal, Canada. 7:45 PM tomorrow. HURRY! YOU'LL BOTH MISS YOUR PLANES!Really? What reservation was that?Samuel Weiss has cause. I remember the thread were he and Dingo got into it and Dingo was way off the reservation IMO.
Greeeeaaat logic, bro.See, when ANYONE says something like that, I (not just me, either) would automatically assume that he was joking. Which he is.
What??!?!?! Damnit, I missed a Sam v. dingo dust-up? M+&#@@ f#~~!%. Those are huge amounts of win. I see a few nastygrams got thrown around though. I'm glad to see things remain classy here on the politics threads, where black and white are obvious and logic is unimpeachable to all except the uneducated, idiotic, mouth-breathing, primitive screwhead opponents.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Everyone is of course free to say what they think, but there are arguments out there being made about the efficacy of incarceration as a social deterent. As such incarceration in a benefit to society. For example, I've heard it argued that America's high rate of incarceration has resulted in a decrease in crime rates and there are statistics that back this up, that many of the criminals are no longer on the streets and the crime rate has dropped. I'm not sure how much this holds, but it certainly sounds worthy of consideration. Yes, it may just be a rationalization of America's police state mentality... or maybe not. It's not my argument.
And also, I think Jeremy is quite correct: in countries where there is no capital punishment people can be permanently institutionalized. Where they cannot be rehabilitated, and where their standard of living in prison can hardly be called severe punishment, the only other justification for their incarceration is that we need to be protected from them.
I think Sam might not realize just how comfortable Canadian prisons are. I know people in Edmonton, Alberta who have purposefully had themselves thrown in because they couldn't handle life outside. In such a system the "diminishing quality of life" part of the argument tends to fall apart. And hey, I'm not saying that a prison is pleasant, but you try being homeless on the streets of Edmonton during the winter months. When you want out of the cold all you have to do is steal a car, park outside a donut shop, and make a stink inside....
Dude, are you incapable of logic?!?! There is one single correct and absolute reason for incarceration. Sheesh, get with the program. It's black and white, just like every other political question.
Where is Vomit Guy when you need him? This thread could use some of his "input". Vomit Guy is my hero. He always knows just how and when to say
Sploortchh!!!
|
|
I think Sam might not realize just how comfortable Canadian prisons are. I know people in Edmonton, Alberta who have purposefully had themselves thrown in because they couldn't handle life outside. In such a system the "diminishing quality of life" part of the argument tends to fall apart. And hey, I'm not saying that a prison is pleasant, but you try being homeless on the streets of Edmonton during the winter months. When you want out of the cold all you have to do is steal a car, park outside a donut shop, and make a stink inside....
american prisons aren't cushy at all, but, having been on the wrong side of a prsion fence, i will say this: be glad some people are locked up. now, american prisons are a bit too full of non-violent drug offenders who would probably benefit more from rehab than hard time, but a LOT of people behind the fence belong there, trust me...
...if you really want them to "get out of your face," just let them get married, with equal rights... you'll thereby deprive them of all their publicity.
I'll vouch for this solution. Its worked wonders in Canada. We went from it being a major story in every paper every day to...well I can't remember when I've last seen a story on the topic.
Sploortchh!!!
Guy 1: Hey somebody get some sawdust and throw it on this ... wait, I guess someone already got it.
Guy 2: No, that's just what it looks like when a mummy throws up.
Guy 1: Oh. Gross.
|
|
There was an amusing article up on Conservipedia about Denmark's penal system, that noted with breathless horror how their prison system 'didn't seem to be designed as a punishment at all!' and how it was basically seen as a temporary place in which an offender is rehabilitated, trained in job skills and then returned to society.
The next line, really snarkily, detailed how, 'for some inexplicable reason' the crime rate in Denmark was the lowest in Europe, despite their 'coddling' of their criminals.
Stuff like that makes me smile. The utter frustration some people exhibit when the world just plain doesn't work the way they want it to. Like the pro-death penalty people who get all red-faced when it's pointed out that the states that have the heaviest use of the death penalty also happen to have the highest violent crime rates and the highest homicide rates, as if, just maybe, if you teach your citizens that human life isn't that important, they somehow take that lesson to heart and start believing that human lives aren't important...
The whole polygamy / Mormon thing is just funny. The Mormons where I grew up followed the teachings of the guy who came after Smith, Brigham Young, who said stuff like, "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so."
I was young at the time, and didn't know that these people were Mormons, just that they insisted that black people bore the mark of Cain and our town had a 'blue law' on the books that black people weren't allowed to own property or dwell within the city limits. (Obviously a law that could never be enforced, but none of the racist locals saw a compelling need to officially take it off the books. Comments in school like, 'I'm gonna take my knife and go cut me some n%+*#&s.' didn't even cause the teachers to bat an eye. It was the accepted norm.) The one black family that moved in had their business (a movie theatre), their house and their barn burned down over the course of a single summer (they'd already moved away before the barn burned). All officially 'freak accidents.'
I've spent the rest of my life trying to unlearn the crap I was taught as a child, because I've decided that I want to be a human being.
Polygamy is totally acceptable, by Biblical standards. You are allowed to have multiple wives. You are allowed to have designated mistresses. You are not to have sons by your mistresses, they are just for casual sex, having bastard sons just creates disharmony. If your wife sleeps with someone else, you are allowed to disown or even stone her (in fact, you are supposed to! Letting her get away with it is a sign of weakness and not properly demonstrating your husbandly authority!). If one of your mistresses sleeps with someone else, you are required to disown her, preferably tearing her clothing and sending her out in the street, warning all of the other local men that she's a big 'ho.
But since the LDS wanted Utah to become a state, they had to officially renounce polygamy (despite tens of thousands of them, roughly 5% of the current LDS, still doing that, and 35% of Utah residents polled thinking that there's nothing wrong with it and it shouldn't be a crime). Because they are expanding into Central and South America in a huge way, they've also backed off of their 'black people have the mark of Cain and if you breed with them you'll die' stance, as great numbers of their new cash-cow recuits have African blood somewhere in their ancestry.
There was an amusing article up on Conservipedia about Denmark's penal system, that noted with breathless horror how their prison system 'didn't seem to be designed as a punishment at all!' and how it was basically seen as a temporary place in which an offender is rehabilitated, trained in job skills and then returned to society.
What would be truly sad though, is if criminals ended up being better off after being in prison than many law abiding citizens. "Oh, you can't afford to get special job training, too bad for you. Him? Oh, he stole a car, so we gave him the special job training for free."
Stuff like that makes me smile. The utter frustration some people exhibit when the world just plain doesn't work the way they want it to. Like the pro-death penalty people who get all red-faced when it's pointed out that the states that have the heaviest use of the death penalty also happen to have the highest violent crime rates and the highest homicide rates, as if, just maybe, if you teach your citizens that human life isn't that important, they somehow take that lesson to heart and start believing that human lives aren't important...
"I was going to kill you for sleeping with my wife, but since we don't have the death penalty, I now understand that human life is sacred. Besides, what's the worst that can happen? She gets preggers and we go and scrap that critter out."
There was an amusing article up on Conservipedia about Denmark's penal system, that noted with breathless horror how their prison system 'didn't seem to be designed as a punishment at all!' and how it was basically seen as a temporary place in which an offender is rehabilitated, trained in job skills and then returned to society.
He said "penal" huh uhhh huhhhuuh.
It's more because I saw an interview with some "multiple wives," who more or less said point-blank that it was demeaning, they hated it, and the ONLY reason that ANY woman would ever consent to it, ever, is religious upbringing. Now, a number of disgruntled polygamous wives is not the full population, but they were clear enough to give me pause. If a practice causes suffering without alleviating any, I consider it immoral, and if it causes more strife within a community than it prevents, I consider it impractical. Granted, those are my personal opinions, but they seem as good as any other definitions.
Well if we are on to anecdotal evidence I once had one a very interesting conversation with a couple of woman that argued strongly in favour of the concept. But they wanted to change the rules. It'd work along the lines of two women choose each other as being very compatible and then they pick out a husband between them. Their arguments in favour of this arrangement seemed to boil down to...'I get some one to helps me with the varous domestic chores'. It would seem both of them were in a living arrangement were the other spouses main contribution to domestic house work was...
* opening stuck jars
* tacking out the garbage
* lifting the odd heavy object
* picking up the traps in which small rodents have died
What would be truly sad though, is if criminals ended up being better off after being in prison than many law abiding citizens. "Oh, you can't afford to get special job training, too bad for you. Him? Oh, he stole a car, so we gave him the special job training for free."
You know what would benefit you? Learning a little about Denmark's culture before making such remarks.
"I was going to kill you for sleeping with my wife, but since we don't have the death penalty, I now understand that human life is sacred. Besides, what's the worst that can happen? She gets preggers and we go and scrap that critter out."
What's under consideration in Set's post is not just the hypothetical train of thought of one psychopath, but the values of a culture as a whole, values that are passed on by more than just the legal structure.
I think Sam might not realize just how comfortable Canadian prisons are. I know people in Edmonton, Alberta who have purposefully had themselves thrown in because they couldn't handle life outside. In such a system the "diminishing quality of life" part of the argument tends to fall apart. And hey, I'm not saying that a prison is pleasant, but you try being homeless on the streets of Edmonton during the winter months. When you want out of the cold all you have to do is steal a car, park outside a donut shop, and make a stink inside....
Its possible that this has happened in our Paradise for Beavers (no not that kind of beaver you pervs) but I doubt its really the norm. There are usually homeless shelters for example and yet the homeless often won't use them. At least thats the case in Toronto were the homeless shelter rate of usage rarely exceeds about 50% and yet you can find homeless people out and about even on pretty cold days. The usual reason being that homeless shelters are violent places and your likely to be robbed there of whatever minimal stuff you own...which kind of sounds to me a lot like prison.
I think your example of being purposely thrown in jail is not really an example of what 'homeless' people do but an example of what some one who has just gotten down, very, very, recently on his luck might do to remedy a bad situation. In other words their not homeless for the normal reasons people become homeless (mental illness and drug or alcohol dependency) but a much more normal Joe who have come upon a novel way of getting out of the cold.
I'd also point out that its not really that easy to get tossed into jail. Making a mess of some ones car is some kind of nasty public mischief. Unless you have a criminal record 20 pages long thats not going to be jail time. Its going to be something like 60 hours community service and maybe a fine. You'll be in and out of the cop shop in 12 hours or so and back to square one.
You know what would benefit you? Learning a little about Denmark's culture before making such remarks.
Why? Is that really happening there? I find it kind of disappointed that my own law-abidding countrymen have to pay for their own college education (government does subsides some of the price if you attend a state college, but not all of it), yet criminals are able to get college educations while in prison totally at the tax payers expense. You'd think we'd reward law-abidding citizens more than criminals.
What's under consideration in Set's post is not just the hypothetical train of thought of one psychopath, but the values of a culture as a whole, values that are passed on by more than just the legal structure.
Psychopath? More like temporary insanity I would wager.
Besides it brings up a thought, if a state has the death penalty and more violence, is the death penalty a result of the violence or is the violence a result of the death penalty? As much as people want to paint americans all by the same brush, many parts of the country are quite different and have different perspectives. To compare one state with a low violent crime rate and not having the death penalty to another state with a higher violent crime rate and having the death penalty might be too simplistic of a comparison.
As much as people want to paint americans all by the same brush, many parts of the country are quite different and have different perspectives.
I've never made any commentary on Americans in general. But since you've used the brush metaphor, I would like observe that YOUR comments amount to painting other countries with your American brush.
Why don't you get off your ass and take the time to learn a little about how things are done elsewhere, and what kind of values they have, rather than firing off glib rhetoric from behind your computer screen, because I don't see why anyone around here would be bothered to spend their time explaining to you why the rest of the world isn't red, white, and blue.
Denmark was voted the number place to live as far as people being happy.
The difference between the rich and poor is minor, so most are folks on the same tier. They pay a ton of taxes but the government takes good care of them. They pay for their college, their medical, and their elderly are taken care of. If a woman has a baby, the husband can take 6 months off maternity leave, and the government pays his salary.
This has been brought to you by the Would Someone Please Send Me to Denmark Fund.
Its possible that this has happened in our Paradise for Beavers (no not that kind of beaver you pervs) but I doubt its really the norm.
Quite correct. And I don't want to rip too hard on Canada's penal system because I really don't think it's all that bad. But nevertheless, it is a telling perspective, and I assure you it is quite true.
The person (a veteran of Alberta prisons) who claimed to have done this also called prison "crime school" which, although not always true, is a scathing swipe at our system. To back that up, he explained how he had met a bunch of marijuana growers and learned the trade behind bars. When he was released it took him only a few months to get his growing operation rolling... which resulted in his 5th or 6th time behind bars... can't rightly recall.
How's that for job training in prison?
...
This has been brought to you by the Would Someone Please Send Me to Denmark Fund.
I eat my words, apparently someone could be bothered to comment on Denmark.
|
|
I think Sam might not realize just how comfortable Canadian prisons are. I know people in Edmonton, Alberta who have purposefully had themselves thrown in because they couldn't handle life outside. In such a system the "diminishing quality of life" part of the argument tends to fall apart. And hey, I'm not saying that a prison is pleasant, but you try being homeless on the streets of Edmonton during the winter months. When you want out of the cold all you have to do is steal a car, park outside a donut shop, and make a stink inside. Now you'll spend the next 6 months lifting weights, having regular meals, and hanging with the dudes.
Actually that supports the argument, demonstrating how changing the nature of imprisonment distorts the entire function of it.
If the environment becomes that preferred, then of what relevance is there in sending an "actual" criminal to prison? You are close to rewarding them for their behavior.Also, although still only barely touched on, is the direct correlation between the "War" on drugs leading to a massive number of non-violent drug offenders being locked up for excessive periods of time and the incredibly high population of U.S. prisons.
Yes, U.S. prisons are overcrowded. If any European country gave everyone a 20 year sentence for having 2 grams of cocaine on them they would be just as overcrowded. Prohibition without the death penalty, which is what a lot of Third World countries use to control drug trafficking, always leads to massive crime rate and prison population increases.
Actually that supports the argument, demonstrating how changing the nature of imprisonment distorts the entire function of it.
I don't get it Sam. You still haven't given me a single reason that removing a person from society is not part of the reasoning behind incarceration. If it wasn't people would all just be punished in other ways.
|
|
I don't get it Sam. You still haven't given me a single reason that removing a person from society is not part of the reasoning behind incarceration. If it wasn't people would all just be punished in other ways.
That is because it would take a full look at the history of crime and punishment and how it has evolved to get the reasoning behind using imprisonment as opposed to various alternatives.
Consider what the penalties for crimes were before prisons. Typically they were direct physical punishment, ranging exposure and humiliation, which could be lethal, to whippings, branding, maiming, or just death. For a time exile was used to replace prison, as essentially a form of a huge outdoor prison, but that passed.
Before the period of physical punishments it was generally a choice between a massive fine, exile, both fine and exile, or death. The only alternative there was starting a vendetta that could threaten the stability of the community.
Before that punishments were generally the harshest physical punishments, primarily maiming or death, again with vendetta as an alternative, and exile as a rare alternative, and fines in a few of the more advanced systems.
And the first forms of punishment were exile if they liked you or vendetta if they did not.
So:
First people figured there were two ways of dealing with a crime. They either kicked you out or got you back.
Then someone (actually several someones in different places at different times) decided that was unfair, and that all crimes should be punished equally. Since kicking people out would not always work to satisfy people they tended to go the "eye for an eye" route. A few people made the leap to understanding that would leave everyone with one eye, and managed to sneak in money payments. Also, some left an out for the elite to simply skip town and hope everyone forgot about it after a few years. Naturally some people were not satisfied with this and would resort to personal vengeance.
After a time people began to embrace the whole concept of buying your way out of trouble. If you could, you paid a fee, then were exiled for a bit until things cooled off, and when you came back everything would hopefully be forgotten. If you could not pay, then it tended to default to the "eye for an eye" system. And again people could just decide to ignore community standards and deal with such things by violence.
People eventually decided that you should not be able to just buy yourself out of trouble. They also realized that however it might be intended, exile did not really make people forget, it just made them stew for a bit until the person came back. That meant back to physical punishment. An "eye for an eye" worked for physical injury, but something was needed for property crimes. With no other alternative they went with maiming, and eventually less immediately or automatically lethal punishments.
As that progressed someone came up with the idea of various forms of enslavement for property crimes. This was pretty much the beginning of the prison concept. You took a criminal, put him someplace, then worked him until you decided his labor was the equal of some amount of money, then you let him go. That was later taken up with the concept of exile to produce things like Australia.
Over time the idea of enslavement began to fade, mostly because people decided that working criminals to death was a tad harsh. They also began expanding imprisonment to cover certain lesser personal crimes.
That eventually led into the modern stage, where we have the constant question as to what prison is to be used for. Is it a place just for rehabilitation? It is a form of heavily restricted internal exile? Or is it just the worst thing we feel is appropriate to do to punish people?
So there is no single reason why prisons are not just for removing people from society. It is complex mix of considering those other ways of punishing them, along with the changing standard.
In general, I doubt most people would consider it "reasonable" if prison were just portrayed as a period of internal exile. That is how minimum security are looked at these days.
Likewise despite the actual wording of the 13th Amendment, few people would regard prison as temporary slavery as being acceptable.
Almost all people do however regard prison as an unpleasant place to be avoided at all costs. So much so that they consider it a quite reasonable alternative to slavery, exile, maiming, and any of the other varieties of punishment that have been used in the past.
Oh, and that is not a full look at punishment, but rather a very quick and dirty overview. A really detailed examination would include a lot of other elements, including the very significant differences between Roman and Germanic/Norse law.
The person (a veteran of Alberta prisons) who claimed to have done this also called prison "crime school" which, although not always true, is a scathing swipe at our system. To back that up, he explained how he had met a bunch of marijuana growers and learned the trade behind bars. When he was released it took him only a few months to get his growing operation rolling... which resulted in his 5th or 6th time behind bars... can't rightly recall.How's that for job training in prison?
Well this I buy. I mean they hang out with criminals all day, what does one expect?
Interestingly Boyd's Murder in Canada notes that Canadian prison guards generally prefer to be assigned to the murderers ward. Its the only part of the prison not full of criminals since murderers are usually doing their time for a story along the lines of...
...Well I got off my shift at the auto plant early on account of the main belt being broken. I guess she never expected me to be home this early in the evening as the front door was open and slightly ajar. I caught them getting at it on the bathroom floor and she was moaning THAT f%$$ wad's name. I was still wearing my steel toed boots from work and I saw red...
That is because it would take a full look at the history of crime and punishment and how it has evolved to get the reasoning behind using imprisonment as opposed to various alternatives.
Wow, Sam, that's condescending. I think you must have mistook me for someone who didn’t do his criminology readings.
Dude, you said punishment and rehabilitation were the only logical reasons for incarceration. I said protecting society was also a reason. I didn't say it was the only reason. You disagreed, I believe, or was that just Jeremy? Whatever... that was a nice but not entirely accurate summary of the history of reasoning behind crime and punishment. You left something out. Kirth and I are not the only ones who think prison can serve us by protecting us from criminals, and a little googling would most certainly provide you with some logical incapacitation arguments from others without forcing us to type all that crap out.
If you want to take this further and tell me that incapacitation is not an economically feasible reason let me jump ahead and tell you what I think of that argument. Sure, actuarially speaking incapacitation alone is expensive; it probably costs us more than the cost of the crimes we are preventing, but are you really willing to put a dollar value on rape and murder just to tell me that incapacitation is a rip off? I'm not.
Sam, here's an article that suggests incapacitation reduces burglary rates in New South Wales. I couldn't be bothered to pay for it just prove myself right, but there it is.
And for the record:
Otherwise, the only logical purpose of incarcaration is to prevent a repeat occurrence of the crime, by placing the perperator in a place where he cannot commit it -- and that purpose is better served by a death penalty than by a finite sentence.
No, the only logical purpose of incarceration is to punish. It inflicts an unpleasant circumstance on a person, diminishing their quality of life, as a penalty for violating the laws.
It would be hoped that this has a deterrent effect on the particular individual, but it is not mandated that it have a universal deterrent effect. That should have been managed by childhood training.
There is another logical purpose. To remove them from society preventing them from doing more harm.
So there is no single reason why prisons are not just for removing people from society. It is complex mix of considering those other ways of punishing them, along with the changing standard.
In general, I doubt most people would consider it "reasonable" if prison were just portrayed as a period of internal exile.
In that last one Sam changes from “the only logical purpose” to “So there is no single reason.”