LogFAQs > #900012663

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, Database 3 ( 02.21.2018-07.23.2018 ), DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Let's say that the prisons were 100% accurate...
Zeus 04/20/18 5:57:20 PM #36:	VioletZer0 posted... In this case, would abusing and torturing prisoners still be unethical? Duh? The problem isn't just, "They might be innocent," but that torture is itself both inhumane and ineffective (or, at least, ineffective for anything but vengeance) VioletZer0 posted... In this hypothetical situation, human rights don't apply to objectively bad people. What you've described aren't "objectively bad people" but just "objectively guilty people." Guilty and bad aren't necessarily the same thing. Many criminals merely made really stupid mistakes and are capable of reform. Others are more habitual criminals who require far greater efforts to reform them. Plus it's objectively bad to promote the use of torture as a form of punishment. VioletZer0 posted... darkknight109 posted... It's funny, because this is the complete opposite of true. The more prisons focus on rehabilitation, the lower their recidivism rate. This has been observed all across the world and the US is one of the worst at realizing exactly how much money they're wasting by clinging to the "punishment" model when there are much better alternatives available. You're supposed to rehabilitate yourself. It's not the state's job to mommy you. ...except for the fact that rehab is supposed to be a large part of prisons. Any prison that doesn't seem to rehab inmates is a complete waste of money, especially since the prisoners will be more likely to just end up back in there again. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. <cite>Zeus posted [p:900012663] in Let's say ... [t:76533904]...</cite> <quote><cite>VioletZer0 posted...</cite> <quote>In this case, would abusing and torturing prisoners still be unethical?</quote> Duh? The problem isn't just, "They might be innocent," but that torture is itself both inhumane and ineffective (or, at least, ineffective for anything but vengeance) <cite>VioletZer0 posted...</cite> <quote>In this hypothetical situation, human rights don't apply to objectively bad people.</quote> What you've described aren't "objectively bad people" but just "objectively guilty people." Guilty and bad aren't necessarily the same thing. Many criminals merely made really stupid mistakes and are capable of reform. Others are more habitual criminals who require far greater efforts to reform them. Plus it's objectively bad to promote the use of torture as a form of punishment. <cite>VioletZer0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>It's funny, because this is the complete opposite of true. The more prisons focus on rehabilitation, the lower their recidivism rate. This has been observed all across the world and the US is one of the worst at realizing exactly how much money they're wasting by clinging to the "punishment" model when there are much better alternatives available.</quote> You're supposed to rehabilitate yourself. It's not the state's job to mommy you.</quote> ...except for the fact that rehab is supposed to be a large part of prisons. Any prison that doesn't seem to rehab inmates is a complete waste of money, especially since the prisoners will be more likely to just end up back in there again. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1