[PAX] Fairness
- Thread starter Gaze
- Start date
I equate fairness to looking through a microscope with a perfectly focused and flawless lens. No blurriness or uncertainty in what you're seeing, no doubt about the matter under investigation. No biases skewing observation and analysis.
[MENTION=4598]hush[/MENTION], I don't understand. Are you proposing that we get rid of prisons and that we allow citizens who threaten other citizens at gun point to roam freely in society? Education is good and can help the effort against crime, however, in the case the member outlined I would be surprised to learn that the violator was unaware that it was illegal to threaten someone at gun point and that the consequences would be prison time if caught. He made a decision aware of those facts so he should be prepared for the consequences. If laws are incorrect there are channels for their correction which should be used. Society does have a responsibility to improve fairness however, it does not override the individual's responsibility to act within the law. Some of society's unfairness is in fact caused by these people who deliberately flout the law. In everything moderation is key, which is the reason for my definition which implies that we all have a part to play in creating fairness. Balance is important. It is very easy to feel so sorry for the perpetrator's circumstances that we forget that they are adults, responsible for their own choices. Also, as good as rehabilitation is, training children as responsible citizens is even more effective. A look at why society is increasingly failing to do that is needed. I suspect the problem is that we don't know how to treat each other with respect and we don't want to make the effort. It is popular to blame lack of education and poverty however for most of history people have been poor and uneducated and many such societies did not have soaring crime problems. What they did have was a sense of belonging and a desire to preserve that.
Fairness is about the same thing happening to everyone if they do the same thing.
Therefore this is about inequality not fairness.
I'm in favour of inequality and fairness.
Therefore this is about inequality not fairness.
I'm in favour of inequality and fairness.
When I say education I don't necessarily mean the educational system we have, I mean actually educating people about life skills, choices, sitting down face-to-face and having a heart-to-heart with them. I meant that instead of something ineffectual like prison, because chances are that prisoner is going to get out eventually and do the same crimes again, I meant in the place of prison actually trying to do something to change behavior, because prison won't, teaching people job skills, setting people up with job opportunities, perhaps trying to instill some empathy, and the like. I don't entirely mean "these people didn't get a sufficient education as children and that's causing this," although, of course, it does play a big part.
We don't teach people the right things. We don't adequately teach them how to survive, or how to care for one another, or how to open one's eyes to the reality of a fellow human being's condition. What we don't have is a society that places emphasis on the right values, on truly becoming better people.
Fine, keep your prisons, even though for some they're a fate worse than death, but lessen the reliance on them - give criminals education, therapy, just talk to them like human beings, in the place of locking them in a cell.
Just because historically that was the case elsewhere doesn't mean it isn't true here. An increase in poverty correlates with an increase in crime, and that's because we don't have the right systems in place to support people when they're going through such times. What's the importance of a law if you have hungry children, and no food to give them? It won't matter much to you, at least not in comparison to getting food in your children's stomachs, and you'll steal if you have to. Of course there are those whose actions can't be excused, nor justified - I worked in a high-risk store and the theft and violence (a 20 year old got shot and killed in our parking lot during one of my shifts) I saw there was out of control, and there was a common theme of poverty amongst the criminals - and, sorry if this pushes your buttons, but a distinct lack of education (of course highly educated people or those not living in poverty commit crimes, too, but that comes back to the greed I discussed earlier, and a lack of empathy).
I guess the problem is that I am opposed to the entire way our society is structured, but it would be unrealistic to do a complete overhaul. It's an overwhelmingly flawed system. And archaic laws often persist much longer than they should, and incorrect laws can't be changed if people never come to realize the harm that they're doing, or if no one cares.
I agree completely with this statement: "I suspect the problem is that we don't know how to treat each other with respect and we don't want to make the effort." No, we don't know how to treat each other with respect, and that includes our response to criminals. Of course they must be held accountable for their actions, but you have to go a step further and find a solution that doesn't worsen their condition or do anything to help the individual. Do I want a rapist roaming the streets freely? That thought makes my skin crawl, for many, many reasons. Do I want us to change the conditions that teach men that power and control must be at their fingertips, and do I want them educated (perhaps while in prison), and to go through therapy, and to go to sessions wherein they discuss what they've done and their motivations? Yes. I want change, I am not satisfied with the stagnancy of prisons.
We could even create institutions, I suppose, that serve as pseudo-holding places for criminals, but instead of keeping them locked up in a cell and teaching them no new skills, knowledge, nor any more emotional intelligence, give them these opportunities.
"training children as responsible citizens is even more effective." This is true, too. I think we both agree that something has to be done and that, clearly, the way our system is set up, too many lives are lost and wasted, both those of the criminals and their victims.
Norton, hush: I honestly think that part of the reason people commit crimes after a certain point is that they've decided no one cares about them anymore. No one's going to get torn up about it if they do something wrong, and people have written them off- so why should they give a crap?
There is no magical moment when one goes from being an ordinary person to being a criminal. A criminal is just an ordinary person who has made some unfortunate decisions.
And I don't want to think about him going to prison for a long time, goneee. I've seen the shows on prisons- the gangs, the environment of exploitation and fear... :/ Each time a person goes to prison, their chances for being able to re-adjust into society are cut. It doesn't help the way we look at them once they've done their time, either.
These people never had a chance.
Radiant Shadow: I agree with your definition.
I used to wish that when I went to the mechanic, that they'd have a set price for everything, and that I wouldn't have to worry about them lying to me and telling me that more is wrong with my car than actually is.
I used to think that a mechanized system for identification of problems and diagnosis of a solution.
A similar system would work for many things to create 'fairness', I think.
There is no magical moment when one goes from being an ordinary person to being a criminal. A criminal is just an ordinary person who has made some unfortunate decisions.
And I don't want to think about him going to prison for a long time, goneee. I've seen the shows on prisons- the gangs, the environment of exploitation and fear... :/ Each time a person goes to prison, their chances for being able to re-adjust into society are cut. It doesn't help the way we look at them once they've done their time, either.
These people never had a chance.
Radiant Shadow: I agree with your definition.
I used to wish that when I went to the mechanic, that they'd have a set price for everything, and that I wouldn't have to worry about them lying to me and telling me that more is wrong with my car than actually is.
I used to think that a mechanized system for identification of problems and diagnosis of a solution.
A similar system would work for many things to create 'fairness', I think.
Some people commit crimes because there are people counting on them. Stealing a loaf of bread for your family cause you are hungry, stealing medicine, stealing money for your poor family, etc.
To me the reasons people commit crimes is out of need or out of the thrill. I dont think many do it for the thrill alone.
What do you mean? The benefit of most crimes are only good for the short term. W/o a way to improve your life you have to find some way to get the day to day essentials.
If we evolved from nomadic hunters, and our bodily systems are still hardwired that way, then where does fairness factor in with nature?
If we're all born different from each other and into different circumstances, unique, then isn't inequality inbuilt?
And even when efforts are made to made the circumstances more "fair", we're still all different from each other, so wouldn't inequality still be inbuilt?
What examples of fairness and inequality are there in nature?
If we're all born different from each other and into different circumstances, unique, then isn't inequality inbuilt?
And even when efforts are made to made the circumstances more "fair", we're still all different from each other, so wouldn't inequality still be inbuilt?
What examples of fairness and inequality are there in nature?
I think that there are a multitude of reasons why crimes are committed. Some are for economic necessity. Some are for lack of ethics and morality. Some crimes are a matter of opportunity and impulse. Other crimes are motivated by hatred (racial, ethnic, etc.). But, some crimes are committed by psychopaths, who are people incapable of empathy and remorse. These people are, perhaps, the most dangerous individuals in any society. They are not really treatable. It's quite possible that psychopathy is genetically determined, i.e., that it is more a matter of "nature," than "nurture." If you've never knowingly encountered a psychopath, you're lucky. If you are ever unfortunate enough to be the target of a psychopath, your attitude to at least this set of criminals will harden.
Maybe.
What examples of the weak pressuring the strong to do its bidding are there in nature?
One example, is when weak individuals band together to attack one strong individual. For example, smaller birds can deter a large bird by a group attack.
Labor unions exemplify the weak pressuring the strong.
If the weak can pressure the strong, then who's the strong?
[MENTION=4598]hush[/MENTION]
My buttons have not been pushed. I invite you to read my posts again and notice that what I'm emphasizing here is balance and responsible behaviour of all involved. I am not against rehabilitation, education and skills training so, I do not understand why you think my buttons would be pushed by such a proposal. I have no particular attachments to prisons either, I just think they are appropriate for certain criminals and based on your reply it seems you do too. There are crimes of different severity and criminals who pose different dangers this is why prisons range from low to maximum security. The placing of criminals in prisons restricts their freedom to re-offend and also punishes. Placing a criminal in a cell is for the protection of the criminal from other criminals in the same prison.
As to the correlation between poverty and crime, it is much more complex than the poor commit crimes. There are billions of poor who do not. The educated on the other hand tend to commit different crimes from the uneducated. The wealthy also tend to afford a better legal defence than the poor. Another, factor which tends to be overlooked is the effect that materialism has on crime. Let us agree to disagree on this topic, at least for this thread.
We both agree on this. I believe part of the solution is in the encouragement of healthy family life and the involvement of the community supported by sensible and not overly-intrusive government policy. Once again, balance. I think you see a system that lacks balance. The system would benefit from the additions you mention but prisons still serve an important purpose.
I think you run a danger with this sort of thinking. I do agree with you that some people have the odds stacked against them but there is always choice. The minute we start blaming our circumstances for our poor decisions is the minute we become able to justify anything regardless of how horrific.
It is true that it is very difficult for a person to turn their life around if no one cares. However, it is for the people who do care to make a personal effort to show that care. A system can be made more humane but a system cannot give love, only human beings can do that. Therefore, if you feel that's something you can do then do it. Just don't jump in without a sensible plan. There is a reason you fear this person. Your brain is telling you there is danger there.
My buttons have not been pushed. I invite you to read my posts again and notice that what I'm emphasizing here is balance and responsible behaviour of all involved. I am not against rehabilitation, education and skills training so, I do not understand why you think my buttons would be pushed by such a proposal. I have no particular attachments to prisons either, I just think they are appropriate for certain criminals and based on your reply it seems you do too. There are crimes of different severity and criminals who pose different dangers this is why prisons range from low to maximum security. The placing of criminals in prisons restricts their freedom to re-offend and also punishes. Placing a criminal in a cell is for the protection of the criminal from other criminals in the same prison.
As to the correlation between poverty and crime, it is much more complex than the poor commit crimes. There are billions of poor who do not. The educated on the other hand tend to commit different crimes from the uneducated. The wealthy also tend to afford a better legal defence than the poor. Another, factor which tends to be overlooked is the effect that materialism has on crime. Let us agree to disagree on this topic, at least for this thread.
We both agree on this. I believe part of the solution is in the encouragement of healthy family life and the involvement of the community supported by sensible and not overly-intrusive government policy. Once again, balance. I think you see a system that lacks balance. The system would benefit from the additions you mention but prisons still serve an important purpose.
I think you run a danger with this sort of thinking. I do agree with you that some people have the odds stacked against them but there is always choice. The minute we start blaming our circumstances for our poor decisions is the minute we become able to justify anything regardless of how horrific.
It is true that it is very difficult for a person to turn their life around if no one cares. However, it is for the people who do care to make a personal effort to show that care. A system can be made more humane but a system cannot give love, only human beings can do that. Therefore, if you feel that's something you can do then do it. Just don't jump in without a sensible plan. There is a reason you fear this person. Your brain is telling you there is danger there.
What a good discussion so far 
willow: I agree with the dangers of trying to justify every action by excusing them due to the perpetrator's circumstances. I think the question should be: at what point is it fair to consider a person's actions inexcusable, even when that person has had 'the world against them', so to speak?
Norton: You're right, I've never met a person whom I would consider 'a violent psychopath'. Almost everyone I've ever met has been rather rational and in control of themselves. If they weren't either, then it was due to the presence of a brain trauma or a birth defect or the application of drugs to their bodies.
I'll have to consent that some people are too broken to be fixed. It's a shame, and everyone deserves a chance- but some people just won't make it.
I do find interesting your comments on genetic determination of psychopathy/criminal activity. I saw something online not too long ago about a gene that's been found to be linked to violent crimes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A
'An association between a rare 2R repeat of the VNTR region of the gene and an increase in the likelihood of committing serious crime or violence has been found.[6][5]'
As with anything else, though, the mix of things has to be just right. A lot of people with that particular version (number of repeats) of that gene aren't violent criminals. It comes down to choice and environment.
brite: 'What examples of fairness and inequality are there in nature?' Really the only thing I could think of is that animals aren't intelligent enough on the whole to 'cheat'. There's a lot of 'unfairness' (animals killing each other, driving each other out of their territories), but little 'cheating'. Good question, though! I'll have to keep thinking on this. Perhaps it's a human-only phenomenon?
willow: I agree with the dangers of trying to justify every action by excusing them due to the perpetrator's circumstances. I think the question should be: at what point is it fair to consider a person's actions inexcusable, even when that person has had 'the world against them', so to speak?
Norton: You're right, I've never met a person whom I would consider 'a violent psychopath'. Almost everyone I've ever met has been rather rational and in control of themselves. If they weren't either, then it was due to the presence of a brain trauma or a birth defect or the application of drugs to their bodies.
I'll have to consent that some people are too broken to be fixed. It's a shame, and everyone deserves a chance- but some people just won't make it.
I do find interesting your comments on genetic determination of psychopathy/criminal activity. I saw something online not too long ago about a gene that's been found to be linked to violent crimes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A
'An association between a rare 2R repeat of the VNTR region of the gene and an increase in the likelihood of committing serious crime or violence has been found.[6][5]'
As with anything else, though, the mix of things has to be just right. A lot of people with that particular version (number of repeats) of that gene aren't violent criminals. It comes down to choice and environment.
brite: 'What examples of fairness and inequality are there in nature?' Really the only thing I could think of is that animals aren't intelligent enough on the whole to 'cheat'. There's a lot of 'unfairness' (animals killing each other, driving each other out of their territories), but little 'cheating'. Good question, though! I'll have to keep thinking on this. Perhaps it's a human-only phenomenon?
brite:
Nature is not fair; Nature is completely amoral. Our entire moral conscience is our sentient Empathy telling us that our natural instincts in certain situations are wrong. Moral sentience may have evolved naturally, but it puts us at odds with natures rules. I want to help the sick, the weak, the old, the unfortunate. Nature wants them dead.
Nature is not fair; Nature is completely amoral. Our entire moral conscience is our sentient Empathy telling us that our natural instincts in certain situations are wrong. Moral sentience may have evolved naturally, but it puts us at odds with natures rules. I want to help the sick, the weak, the old, the unfortunate. Nature wants them dead.
agreed. moral/ethical knowledge is not intrinsic (although equality is probably an obvious thing that can be noticed even by unsocialized people). we learn about moral behaviour through our culture and other forms of social upbringing, which is why different people and people from different cultures often have different POVs from us on what is ethical/justice and what isn't. the only reason that humans developed a sense of ethics or "morality" was because it was more convenient to coexist in harmony that way, in large groups, instead of killing each other. all social values and morals are arbitrary to existence otherwise.