1 in 4 young adult American Muslims support suicide bombings

[Darth Wong]

So is 25% what passes for a "small minority" who "pervert a beautiful religion" these days?

It's still better than the >63% of Americans who approve of torture either "rarely", "sometimes", or "often". Link. Interestingly enough, that number jumped to 70% among American Catholics. It was 65% for protestants, and 55% for "secular" (which presumably means people who won't declare a religion on the survey).

[Sarevok]

So is 25% what passes for a "small minority" who "pervert a beautiful religion" these days?

That statistic should have been accompanied by how many of them pray 5 times day. A lot of the westernised muslims are happy to lend theiri voice to the jihad band wagon but not when it comes to sacrificing his westernised lifestyle and taking up rifle or wearing a burqa if the person is a girl. Not saying islamist lifestyle is better it is just that it is easy to cheer for a cause when you are not the one dying.

Oh and while this is strictly anecdotal during my time in New York I noticed muslims in US are a lot more religious than in home. They all band togather in communities for some reason. Maybe it is the us vs them mentality. Surrouned by non muslims everywhere muslims from many different countries look for something to cling to.

[Stark]

Yeah, the lack of integration (which goes both ways) is a problem.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

What's interesting about Marina's observation is that whacking off someones arm or something would be a punishment that militant Islamic jihadists would approve off. After all, it's what they did in the good old days.

I'm aware of that, and it doesn't bother me. Actually, almost all Islamic countries engage in such punishment, not just the militant ones.

I don't approve of cutting off people's hands, though, as they sort of need those. Cutting off the tip of your nose for a serious crime is simply disfiguring, and that I can approve of, though with deep reservations. The ideal would be to cause extremely severe pain without any actual injury, sort of like the Agony Booth.

[Stark]

How would that be better? What format would you use, considering time, regularity, intensity etc, and how would this be anything other than torture which would engender anger and hate?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

How would that be better? What format would you use, considering time, regularity, intensity etc, and how would this be anything other than torture which would engender anger and hate?

I'm not seeing how unimaginably intense pain over the course of several hours (I think it would inhumane for it to last longer than 12 hours or so) would be as bad in a case of say, armed robbery, as spending ten years of your life behind bars completely disconnected from society and all opportunities for improvement or happiness or normal social interaction.

Seriously, it would be an experience you'd never want to feel again, but it wouldn't be ripping a chunk out of your life that you could never have back. Which one do you seriously think would make someone more bitter and filled with an anger and hate? An experience of unimaginable agony lasting a few hours, or coming home from jail to find out that your 2 year old daughter is now 12 and doesn't remember you?

Do you realize what we do to these people? Their whole existences are effectively destroyed by imprisonment.

Now, a combination of fines, restitution, and corporal punishment in the form of agony without maiming, don't you agree that it would be more likely to have a corrective effect? Let's say if you commit an armed robbery you're fined 33% of your assets, have to pay restitution out of the rest of them, and get six hours in an agony booth that stimulations all of your nerves with intense pain feelings.

That would be an exceptionally bad experience you'd never want to suffer through again, but you'd still be, say, a 23 year old with your family around you and the chance to go out and start again in the world, having learned the lesson that crime just brings you an experience so horrific you don't want to suffer through it again.

After ten years of imprisonment... You're a bitter individual who is 10 years behind the times technologically and can't get a job, who doesn't know very much about what's going on in the world and has been entirely socially stunted, has problems functioning in the world, your family has fallen apart, and your child has half-grown up already. All of which is liable to make you go back to crime when you get out, because you've lost everything else, except the criminal skills that you had in the first place.

And how is the confinement supposed to deter you from committing further crimes? By being so unpleasant that you don't want to experience it again?

Or (in other words) the exact same way that inflicting corporal punishment is supposed to work?

Except for the fact that one takes ten years out of your life, and the other one takes a day out of your life.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It doesn't even really pose a threat of allowing criminals to just endlessly commit crimes, as we could still have "Three Strikes You're Out" laws, so that if it's clear that you're willing to take being subjected to the agony booth three times in a row and keep on committing serious felonies, that it's time to just throw you away for good because you'll never learn the lesson and only permanent confinement or execution are the possible methods of controlling you.

But for first time offenders I do believe that the rate of re-offense would drop dramatically if we subjected them to corporal punishment instead of throwing them away in prison, aka Crime School (fuck, that's what the prison guards themselves call it) for 5 - 10 years to come out a dysfunctional, hardened criminal who's spent the last half a decade or decade body-building, has no relevant skills, and no intact social support network.

[Darth Wong]

How would that be better? What format would you use, considering time, regularity, intensity etc, and how would this be anything other than torture which would engender anger and hate?

If you were given a choice between ten minutes in a hypothetical "agony booth" and ten years in prison, which one would you choose?

[Flagg]

How would that be better? What format would you use, considering time, regularity, intensity etc, and how would this be anything other than torture which would engender anger and hate?

If you were given a choice between ten minutes in a hypothetical "agony booth" and ten years in prison, which one would you choose?

Agony booth.

[Stark]

I'm not saying that the prison system is a fine upstanding institution that produces reformed civilians. I'm just interested to speculate on how simply applying pain could be used as a penalty for crimes without being simply torture. Frankly, 12 hours of end-of-the-spectrum pain is NOT going to produce the reformed civilians we should ideally be looking for - I'd expect it to have the same affect as ANY form of abuse, which simply feeds the abuse cycle.

I think your overall suggestions of a reform of punishment are good - particularly changing fines to a proportion. However, if you think that (say) taking someone's savings, crippling their earning power and torturing them is going to have no knock-on effects to their family and social life, that seems a bit of a stretch. Why not use -clinical- methods like ECT instead of torture? Or are you simply concerned with reducing the time (and potential cost) of the punishments without improving their effectiveness?

Like education, I think punishment needs a flexible approach. One thing isn't going to work for everyone: I'm sure imprisonment DOES chasten some people without turning them into antisocial career criminals, but it doesn't work for everyone. It's a fine line between penalties to 'encourage' good behaviour, and penalties that simply make things worse. Just like with social/economic/ethnic problems, if you penalise too hard that simply strengthens the problem and requires harsher and harsher methods which achieve nothing but brutalising both side.

[Stark]

If you were given a choice between ten minutes in a hypothetical "agony booth" and ten years in prison, which one would you choose?

This is a workable example: direct prison-time torture ratios. I had no idea what was being suggested with regard to sustained and regular torture, so I had no basis for comparison.

What would you rather - lose 25% of your wages as restitution for a year, or ten minutes in an agony booth every monday?

[Darth Wong]

If you were given a choice between ten minutes in a hypothetical "agony booth" and ten years in prison, which one would you choose?

This is a workable example: direct prison-time torture ratios. I had no idea what was being suggested with regard to sustained and regular torture, so I had no basis for comparison.

What would you rather - lose 25% of your wages as restitution for a year, or ten minutes in an agony booth every monday?

Where the fuck did this "financial restitution" option come from? We're talking about comparing our present method of long-term incarceration to corporal punishment, remember? It's obviously presumed that the crime is serious enough to warrant long-term incarceration, which in turn means that paying off your debt to society with money should not be an option.

[Stark]

Sorry, Zeon was talking about an all-around overhaul of the penalty system, and I was offering another example. I'd assumed far worse pain:prison ratios (say, hours a day for a week) rather than the brief terms you mentioned.

As Zeon mentioned in her second post, the reoffending rate would be interesting. With no 'prison culture' to reinforce the criminal lifestyle, perhaps rates of reoffending would indeed go down. Instead of being locked up with other criminals for months or years, you get a brief trip to the booth and that's it.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Where the fuck did this "financial restitution" option come from? We're talking about comparing our present method of long-term incarceration to corporal punishment, remember? It's obviously presumed that the crime is serious enough to warrant long-term incarceration, which in turn means that paying off your debt to society with money should not be an option.

I mentioned as part of an example that financial restitution might be used in addition to corporal punishment for a serious offence, along with fines.

But I intentionally set those at such levels that they wouldn't cripple a person, even in the example.

Anyway, shit, part of this is to avoid the stigma of prison terms. If you have to move out of your house and live in an apartment that's acceptable in addition to corporal punishment, I think, if you're not faced with the stigma of prison time on your records which makes you nearly unemployable.

Addressing Stark:

The point of my proposal is that I believe it would reduce the rate of re-offense considerably because you would be delivering the same form of punishment, but over the course of a single day (repeat visits to the agony booth would be absolutely banned as torture, jesus christ. We're trying to teach a lesson here, not torture people--you don't spank a dog a week after it's pissed on your carpet, you do it thirty seconds later). It would also keep these people out of an environment--prison--where they just learn to be better and more dangerous criminals. This would considerably reduce the rate of re-offense, which would an objective improvement over the current system.

[Stark]

Zeon, I agree with your goals. Considering your comments regarding the immediate loss of 'prison life' to be glorified and used as a training centre (and often involving far worse pain than you're suggesting anyway), I think you have a good point.

However (to take the other perspective) many of the arguments used against the death penalty can be used here. While time in prison can't be given back, it is very long and you can get out on appeal or something 'halfway'. The booth would be over in hours or days, so all appeals would have to be exhausted beforehand, and if anyone was ever later found to be wrongfully convicted, it would be too late to do anything about it. However, confidence in the judicial system is a whole different issue.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Zeon, I agree with your goals. Considering your comments regarding the immediate loss of 'prison life' to be glorified and used as a training centre (and often involving far worse pain than you're suggesting anyway), I think you have a good point.

However (to take the other perspective) many of the arguments used against the death penalty can be used here. While time in prison can't be given back, it is very long and you can get out on appeal or something 'halfway'. The booth would be over in hours or days, so all appeals would have to be exhausted beforehand, and if anyone was ever later found to be wrongfully convicted, it would be too late to do anything about it. However, confidence in the judicial system is a whole different issue.

Use the money from all the closed and sold-off prisons as the prison population dramatically declines to establish a trust fund dedicated to paying reparations to anyone falsely convicted and punished. There are people who would volunteer to spend hours in an Agony Booth to get a million bucks.

[fgalkin]

I'd think that being wrongfully convicted and spending a few hours in the agony booth is better than being wrongfully convicted and spending 15 years behind bars.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Flagg]

I'd think that being wrongfully convicted and spending a few hours in the agony booth is better than being wrongfully convicted and spending 15 years behind bars.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Yeah, but here's the problem: Do you want a criminal going into an agony booth for a few minutes and then being immediately released to commit more crimes, or do you want them imprisoned for several years, at least unable to commit crimes while incarcerated? Jail may not be much of a deterrent, but it's more of one than some bad pain for a few minutes. There are tons of violent assholes out there to whom being shot and/or killed is no deterrent. Given the option between prison or agony booth, I think almost everyone will choose agony booth. That's why it shouldn't be an option.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yeah, but here's the problem: Do you want a criminal going into an agony booth for a few minutes and then being immediately released to commit more crimes, or do you want them imprisoned for several years, at least unable to commit crimes while incarcerated? Jail may not be much of a deterrent, but it's more of one than some bad pain for a few minutes. There are tons of violent assholes out there to whom being shot and/or killed is no deterrent. Given the option between prison or agony booth, I think almost everyone will choose agony booth. That's why it shouldn't be an option.

That's why it should be the only option, for first time offenders. Jail is no deterrent, in fact, in gang culture today jail is considered to be where you go--especially if you're sent to a high security facility for dangerous offenders--to end up a "made man" in the gang. Jail simply makes you much more likely to commit more crimes, by leaving with you no options exception committing more crimes, and making all of your social interaction for years on end be only with other criminals.

Furthermore, we're not simply talking about pain here, but exceptional pain, sustained for hours. Nobody is going to want to repeat that again; it's going to be the ultimate form of suffering. Furthermore, did I ever say eliminate jail entirely? No, I did not. If some guy manages to go through the agony booth and the next day goes and robs a bank again, and then goes through the criminal process, gets convicted again, and gets zapped for twice as long, and then goes and robs a bank again the next goddamned day, then you throw them in prison and never let them out again.

And the only "improvement" on that scenario that putting him in a prison for 3 years after each bank robbery would make is that his bank robberies would be spaced three years apart instead of a couple months apart.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Example in point. In this hypothetical justice system, a man commits a crime, call it an armed robbery of a bank, fifteen thousand in cash taken. He's caught, goes through the judicial process, say, six months in all, and is convicted and his appeals fail. He gets put through the agony booth for six hours. Two weeks later he's apprehended following another big armed bank robbery. He goes through the judicial process again, gets convicted, his appeals fail, another six months, then twelve hours in the agony booth. He's released, and a month later he's caught after a string of five armed bank robberies. He goes through the judicial process and gets sentenced to life in prison under a Three Strikes law.

In the modern world: He gets caught for his armed robbery just as above, same time to conviction. On being convicted, he's sentenced to jail for 5 years with 6 months credit time already served. He goes to jail and gets out on parole after three years served, in 2.5 years. Two weeks later he's apprehended following another big armed bank robbery. His parole is revoked and he's sentenced again for the same crime, still with credit for the whole sentencing process incarceration, so he has, oh, 1.5 years of his original sentence left and 5 years of his second sentence. He serves all of the first and 4 years of his second sentence and gets out on parole again. A month later he's caught after the same string of armed bank robberies, he goes through the judicial process again, and under the Three Strikes law he's sentenced to life.

Now can you tell me how the 3 year gap viz. 6 month gap and 6 year gap viz. 6 month gap constitute some kind of reduction in his criminal behaviour which makes prison intrinsically better in dealing with repeat offenders than corporal punishment? All it does for is increase the intervals between an exactly identical number of crimes, which has absolutely no social value whatsoever.

[Flagg]

Yeah, but here's the problem: Do you want a criminal going into an agony booth for a few minutes and then being immediately released to commit more crimes, or do you want them imprisoned for several years, at least unable to commit crimes while incarcerated? Jail may not be much of a deterrent, but it's more of one than some bad pain for a few minutes. There are tons of violent assholes out there to whom being shot and/or killed is no deterrent. Given the option between prison or agony booth, I think almost everyone will choose agony booth. That's why it shouldn't be an option.

That's why it should be the only option, for first time offenders. Jail is no deterrent, in fact, in gang culture today jail is considered to be where you go--especially if you're sent to a high security facility for dangerous offenders--to end up a "made man" in the gang. Jail simply makes you much more likely to commit more crimes, by leaving with you no options exception committing more crimes, and making all of your social interaction for years on end be only with other criminals.

So time in the agony booth will be the new way to 'get your button'. Only now, you aren't taken off the streets for any serious amount of time.While it's true that jail can make you a better criminal, not being in jail doesn;t make you any less of one.

Furthermore, we're not simply talking about pain here, but exceptional pain, sustained for hours. Nobody is going to want to repeat that again; it's going to be the ultimate form of suffering. Furthermore, did I ever say eliminate jail entirely? No, I did not. If some guy manages to go through the agony booth and the next day goes and robs a bank again, and then goes through the criminal process, gets convicted again, and gets zapped for twice as long, and then goes and robs a bank again the next goddamned day, then you throw them in prison and never let them out again.

And in the meantime he gets to rob at least 2 more banks. I also doubt you could subject someone to unmitigated agonizing pain for more than a few minutes at a time without killing them, or at the least doing serious vascular damage.

And the only "improvement" on that scenario that putting him in a prison for 3 years after each bank robbery would make is that his bank robberies would be spaced three years apart instead of a couple months apart.

Yes, and in the span of those 3 years he won't be robbing any banks. You're also making the stupid assumption that this guy is going to be caught every time he robs a bank. Of course after getting locked up for those 3 years, if he gets caught doing it again he'll be going in for a substantially longer period of time.

[Flagg]

Example in point. In this hypothetical justice system, a man commits a crime, call it an armed robbery of a bank, fifteen thousand in cash taken. He's caught, goes through the judicial process, say, six months in all, and is convicted and his appeals fail. He gets put through the agony booth for six hours. Two weeks later he's apprehended following another big armed bank robbery. He goes through the judicial process again, gets convicted, his appeals fail, another six months, then twelve hours in the agony booth. He's released, and a month later he's caught after a string of five armed bank robberies. He goes through the judicial process and gets sentenced to life in prison under a Three Strikes law.

In the modern world: He gets caught for his armed robbery just as above, same time to conviction. On being convicted, he's sentenced to jail for 5 years with 6 months credit time already served. He goes to jail and gets out on parole after three years served, in 2.5 years. Two weeks later he's apprehended following another big armed bank robbery. His parole is revoked and he's sentenced again for the same crime, still with credit for the whole sentencing process incarceration, so he has, oh, 1.5 years of his original sentence left and 5 years of his second sentence. He serves all of the first and 4 years of his second sentence and gets out on parole again. A month later he's caught after the same string of armed bank robberies, he goes through the judicial process again, and under the Three Strikes law he's sentenced to life.

Now can you tell me how the 3 year gap viz. 6 month gap and 6 year gap viz. 6 month gap constitute some kind of reduction in his criminal behaviour which makes prison intrinsically better in dealing with repeat offenders than corporal punishment? All it does for is increase the intervals between an exactly identical number of crimes, which has absolutely no social value whatsoever.

So basically corporal punishment isn't an improvment over prison? Then why do it? Repeat offenders will still commit the same number of crimes, end up in prison for the same amount of time, but they'll just be brutalized beforehand.

At least with prison, you can spend time to improve upon yourself to give you a better chance at succeeding outside. With the agony booth you're just sending them right back out into the same situation they came from with even more of a reason to hate the state.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yes, and in the span of those 3 years he won't be robbing any banks. You're also making the stupid assumption that this guy is going to be caught every time he robs a bank. Of course after getting locked up for those 3 years, if he gets caught doing it again he'll be going in for a substantially longer period of time.

All of this is bullshit I've already shown to be a bunch of red herrings ("in the span of those 3 years he won't be robbing any banks" -- why the fuck does the chronological distribution of crimes matter?) except for the issue that "he may not be caught" after he re-offends.

Except, oops, yes, that's a red herring too.

You know why?

because the same fucking possibility applies when someone is let out of jail after three years.

So if this guy robs a bank, gets zapped, and proceeds to go out and start a string of bank robberies for which he does not get caught, we're supposed to believe that is a different outcome than his spending three years in jail and then starting a crime spree he won't get caught for? Because, guess what, Sherlock, (1 + x) number of robberies = (1 + x) number of robberies! What possible difference does it make for society that there is a three year gap between the 1 and the x number of robberies? Can you name any? I didn't think so.

And as a final note, the scenario you posited is more likely with the guy released from prison, because he would have spent the past three years learning techniques and discussing strategies for getting away with crimes alongside of other hardened criminals who also have lots of experience committing crimes. That increase in the criminal's skill level makes it more likely he will not get caught than the guy who just gets zapped.

Note that the machine itself is hypothetical, and actual implementation would probably be short bursts of pain with intervals between them lasting over a period of hours. Obviously the criminal would be extremely carefully medically monitored during the process, which could be halted at the slightest sign of any genuine threat to his life.

[Flagg]

Yes, and in the span of those 3 years he won't be robbing any banks. You're also making the stupid assumption that this guy is going to be caught every time he robs a bank. Of course after getting locked up for those 3 years, if he gets caught doing it again he'll be going in for a substantially longer period of time.

All of this is bullshit I've already shown to be a bunch of red herrings ("in the span of those 3 years he won't be robbing any banks" -- why the fuck does the chronological distribution of crimes matter?) except for the issue that "he may not be caught" after he re-offends.

Except, oops, yes, that's a red herring too.

You know why?

because the same fucking possibility applies when someone is let out of jail after three years.

So if this guy robs a bank, gets zapped, and proceeds to go out and start a string of bank robberies for which he does not get caught, we're supposed to believe that is a different outcome than his spending three years in jail and then starting a crime spree he won't get caught for? Because, guess what, Sherlock, (1 + x) number of robberies = (1 + x) number of robberies! What possible difference does it make for society that there is a three year gap between the 1 and the x number of robberies? Can you name any? I didn't think so.

And as a final note, the scenario you posited is more likely with the guy released from prison, because he would have spent the past three years learning techniques and discussing strategies for getting away with crimes alongside of other hardened criminals who also have lots of experience committing crimes. That increase in the criminal's skill level makes it more likely he will not get caught than the guy who just gets zapped.

Note that the machine itself is hypothetical, and actual implementation would probably be short bursts of pain with intervals between them lasting over a period of hours. Obviously the criminal would be extremely carefully medically monitored during the process, which could be halted at the slightest sign of any genuine threat to his life.

All conceeded.

But you still are essentitally saying that corporal punishment wouldn't work any better than prison time, so what's the fucking point? If one avenue is less morally repugnant than the other, and they both get you to the same place in the same amount of time, shouldn't you go down the better path?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

So basically corporal punishment isn't an improvment over prison? Then why do it? Repeat offenders will still commit the same number of crimes, end up in prison for the same amount of time, but they'll just be brutalized beforehand.

No, you pompous fuckwad, I was showing total equivalency in cases of the small percentage of hardened criminals who just commit crimes over and over again and end up having to be locked up for life, no matter what you do to them. Corporal punishment remains better for first-offenders because it will reduce the possibility of their re-offending[/b] by avoiding exposure to the prison environment.

At least with prison, you can spend time to improve upon yourself to give you a better chance at succeeding outside. With the agony booth you're just sending them right back out into the same situation they came from with even more of a reason to hate the state.

Do you know the slightest idea of what the inside of an American prison for violent offenders is like? You are usually forced to join a gang to survive, and you smuggle drugs and hide them for that gang, and usually end up hooked on them (massive numbers of cons get hooked), and you smuggle cigarettes, since they're banned, and you commit crimes for your gang, and lift weights, because you have nothing better to do. You theoretically could learn useful skills, but you're spending to much time snorting coke and hiding it from the guards, getting illicit gang tatoos done by hand, and worrying for the possibility of, and trying to avoid, getting raped in the shower or shivved by a member of MS-13.

The result is that 95% of guys who go to jail do not "self-improve", which at any rate you can't be forced to do, it's a choice, which very few of them make!, and instead spend all their time getting even deeper involved in crime, and come out as toned body-builders who are hardened to bloodshed and prepared to commit more crimes, and usually affiliated with a gang which will demand that they do so!

Whereas if you commit a crime the first time and get corporal punishment like we're discussing, you go back home the next day with a sharp lesson in the cost of disobeying society's rules, and NONE of the massive indoctrination and other negative influences which come from a term in prison.