Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Andir]

Philosophical questions (not directed at anyone, no public answers required):  If we could cure the mentally ill, would you?  What limits would you place?  What constitutes mentally ill?  Could a mass murderer be considered mentally ill?  How about a petty thief?  Someone that doesn't agree with societal views on some subject (child porn, IP theft, polygamy)?

Not related to the above:

Not to derail a rousing thread about capital punishment, but I feel the need to point out that my beloved state now has a constitutional amendment on the ballot for next May, to "define marriage as between a man and a woman."

What bugs me about that is the clear intent to enforce (or should I say, establish) religious belief in law.  (Marriage [and restrictions thereof] is really a religious belief, IMHO.)

[Frumple]

I sadly expect this to pass in May, because the primary will be heavy on Republican turnout, less so in an uncontested Democratic Presidential race.

I feel your pain. I was absolutely pissed, if not particularly surprised, when amendment 7 passed down here in Florida. The bloody bill actually took more rights away from heterosexual couples than homosexual ones, but damned if it didn't get spun like it was an anti-homosexual marriage law. And passed.

As it bothers Andir, it bothers me. I really, tremendously wish the legal aspect of marriage was completely decoupled from the religious one. It really does sound (perhaps naively) like it would solve so many problems and make the situation infinitely more clear.

There's solid and beneficial reasons for domestic partnership on a legal level, but no good reason at all to call it marriage or restrict it to heterosexual couples -- or even sexually involved individuals at all, really.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Not to derail a rousing thread about capital punishment, but I feel the need to point out that my beloved state now has a constitutional amendment on the ballot for next May, to "define marriage as between a man and a woman." Not that gay marriage is legal here to begin with, but the state GOPpers want to 'insulate' the state against any kind of judicial challenges. Up until now, we had been the last remaining Southeastern state without one of these. I was proud of that, because North Carolina has always been "the California of the South" -- far more progressive than our Dixie cousins. No longer. I sadly expect this to pass in May, because the primary will be heavy on Republican turnout, less so in an uncontested Democratic Presidential race.

If you're just going to give up like that, then of course the amendment will pass. There's still half a year to build support against it.

[kaijyuu]

Philosophical questions (not directed at anyone, no public answers required):  If we could cure the mentally ill, would you?  What limits would you place?  What constitutes mentally ill?  Could a mass murderer be considered mentally ill?  How about a petty thief?  Someone that doesn't agree with societal views on some subject (child porn, IP theft, polygamy)?

Are not our current rehabilitation efforts and therapies doing exactly that? We throw someone in jail for having child porn or whatever to change the way they think. We put someone in therapy for their angry outbursts in order to change the way they think. We don't have the sophisticated "rewiring" technology you see in science fiction, but we have our mundane equivalents aiming to do exactly the same thing; that's what rehabilitation is.


So yeah, what brainwashing is "good" and what brainwashing is "bad?" Answer that and we'll have the answer to whether we should "rewire" petty thieves and whatnot.

[TheBronzePickle]

The thing I find funny about the arguments around marriage and whether it should conform to nonreligious or religious standards is the fact that marriage is (or was) a religious institution in and of itself that was codified into law. Unless the idea is to find some compromise, wouldn't it be saner to let marriage remain a religious institution following the rules of the religion that codified it and find a nonreligious alternative?

[Virex]

It has very much become a cultural thing though. I wouldn't want to base our current laws on the status quo of 2 millenniums ago.

[RedKing]

Not to derail a rousing thread about capital punishment, but I feel the need to point out that my beloved state now has a constitutional amendment on the ballot for next May, to "define marriage as between a man and a woman." Not that gay marriage is legal here to begin with, but the state GOPpers want to 'insulate' the state against any kind of judicial challenges. Up until now, we had been the last remaining Southeastern state without one of these. I was proud of that, because North Carolina has always been "the California of the South" -- far more progressive than our Dixie cousins. No longer. I sadly expect this to pass in May, because the primary will be heavy on Republican turnout, less so in an uncontested Democratic Presidential race.

If you're just going to give up like that, then of course the amendment will pass. There's still half a year to build support against it.

I'm not giving up, I'm just pessimistic. The GOP knows how to play the game well. They picked a year with a GOP Presidential primary where you're going to have energized turnout, and an uncontested Dem primary with already lackluster morale. Often you use hot-button referenda like this to drive people to the polls, but this a classic instance of using the polls to hedge your chunk of legislation. I'm also pessimistic because I feel like the swing of the pendulum back to "Redneck Southern Conservative" (sorry, guess I'm being racist) isn't just in the legislature, it's in the wider population as well. It's easy for me to forget that there's a whole state out there outside of Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill, and they'uns don't take too kindly to us city-folk what come 'round telling them it's okay for people to do stuff what ain't in the Bible. Even when some of us city folk done been raised down in the country. Git 'er done.



EDIT: I should also note that not only does this solidify the ban on gay marriage, the language of the text also invalidates any alternatives such as civil unions. It specifically states that marriage between a man and a woman shall be the only legal union in the state of North Carolina.

[kaijyuu]

Well that sucks

[Andir]

It means it's pretty much being forced to the federal government level to be resolved... and well, that's not helping things either.

[aenri]

The thing I find funny about the arguments around marriage and whether it should conform to nonreligious or religious standards is the fact that marriage is (or was) a religious institution in and of itself that was codified into law. Unless the idea is to find some compromise, wouldn't it be saner to let marriage remain a religious institution following the rules of the religion that codified it and find a nonreligious alternative?

I disagree, the marriage itself in history was a informal union, which had legal consequences. See ancient Rome/Greece. Only with the rise of Christianity (and chiefly in Middle Ages) was this legal union transformed by canonical law to ceremony we know today (only in recent history you could have the benefits of marriage without religious ceremony - so called civil union). I would propose that marriage would become informal thing - if the people want ceremony, let 'em have it, if they just need a paper from local government - 's fine too!

[G-Flex]

We throw someone in jail for having child porn or whatever to change the way they think.

Does anyone on either side of the debate think this is actually true? I have my doubts that throwing a man in jail is going to cure them of pedophilia (or any other mental condition), or that that's even the goal of the kind of people who don't want other forms of treatment.

[kaijyuu]

So you're saying it's in no way an attempt at rehabilitation?

Hrm. Yeah, I guess you're right.

[Virex]

So you're saying it's in no way an attempt at rehabilitation?

Hrm. Yeah, I guess you're right.

Detention in many cases acts as "dehabillitation" and the rehab circuit has to fix the inmates up after they've gone through an environment where ruthlessness and lawlessness are the norm. No wonder they're doing such a bad job.

[Frumple]

There are attempts to re-integrate ex-convicts back into society, and prepare them for that re-entry while still imprisoned, but...

... the effectiveness of that has been pretty consistently poor. I'm admittedly unsure what exactly all the major issues are.

Among the definite ones, though, is the fact that the majority (or at least a large minority) of (US, or at least fairly large swaths of it) society simply doesn't see rehabilitation as the purpose of imprisonment. To these people, criminals are scum and are 'getting what they deserve' (Note: There is often an effing huge dose of hypocrisy involved here.). Prisoners are not imprisoned to learn and improve and prepare themselves to come back and contribute to the community, they're there to suffer for the wrongs they did, after which they will suffer more by being shunned from gainful employment and decent standards of living. There's progress and in-roads here, but there's still seriously major problems.

Implementation also seems to be a pretty big issue. A lot of folks trying to push through rehab and reintegration still aren't entirely sure what the best way to go about it is, and failure can have some pretty hefty consequences, so progress is slow. The logistic/mechanics part of the issue falls in here as well, as the US has an absolutely tremendous prison population and it generally takes a fairly well trained individual (or more likely, a fairly substantial number of said individuals) overseeing the rehab process to actually get anything done.

In short, it's a, as they like to say around here, melluva'hess.

[G-Flex]

So you're saying it's in no way an attempt at rehabilitation?

Hrm. Yeah, I guess you're right.

Let me put it this way: Those arguing for the rehabilitation route don't see prisons as performing that task, and those who argue against rehabilitation are totally fine with harsh prison sentences.

There are attempts to re-integrate ex-convicts back into society, and prepare them for that re-entry while still imprisoned, but...

... the effectiveness of that has been pretty consistently poor. I'm admittedly unsure what exactly all the major issues are.

On the subject of sex offenders, it's obviously harder for them to reintegrate seeing as how they're basically shunned from society. Whether or not they should be, or what else should be done about them, is obviously debatable, but you certainly won't reintegrate people into society as functioning "normal" people if you turn them into social pariahs.