I don’t agree. If that’s the society we wanted, we would already have it. Due process is something we value.
Sure, I get someone killing a person who committed a horrible crime against their child or spouse but in that case, would he care about getting caught anyway?
And if it turns out the child isn’t the man’s kid? He can have his money stolen by the government, be threatened with incarceration in order to make him compliant or even incarcerated and that’s justice?
If a man is ordered to pay support prior to paternity being established, is that going to be a de facto acknowledgment of paternity? This isn’t a man believing rightly or wrongly he is the father and choosing to pay but the court telling him he is the father.
I read somewhere that 30% of men who were reported to be the biological father turned out to not be the father.
I am not sure how this fits in with removing repercussions from committing said crimes.
I think you are greatly overestimating humanity’s civilization. Humans are animals and will act accordingly given the chance. Humanity is violent. Society is held together by a very thin thread.
Simply look at what happens when society breaks down anywhere and consequences are removed. Murder, rape, and crime runs rampantly unabated.
Yes, 100 percent. And I believe the notion that increasingly draconian measures don’t serve as deterrents is a load of crap.
Perhaps you’re familiar with this because you’re a lawyer. If I recall correctly the state of Delaware reintroduced flogging in the 1920’s because of considerable car theft. After one year of this reintroduction, it went down by 66 percent! We also had social pressures and of checks and balances that kept pathological behavior at bay in the West. So when people try to pull the emotional blackmail of “that’s like the Middle East bro!”, perhaps they should be told, “No, it’s more like American.”
Whether true or not, we still value the concept of a civilized society to create and maintain them.
I don’t know. Look at the ghetto and look at the suburbs; there’s a reason why you see certain behaviors in the former and not the latter. In the ghetto you see rampant lawlessness in spite of the laws while the suburbs don’t see anything nearly as bad. Do people in suburbs obey the law out of fear or because of their sense of morality?
I would argue that removing morality is more significant than removing consequences.
It is simple psychology. The punishment or threat of it has to be high enough to deter whatever crime is at issue. We have lost sight of that in many instances in the US.
Only because it is beneficial and currently working. Not based off some higher notion or morality. or else it would never break down.
They have more to lose and have invested more in the system. It is a matter of investment and having a certain quality of life in my mind - not morality.
I will have to disagree here. If this were true, you could simply remove consequences and just focus on morality.
But do they create great societies? You brought up the Middle East; how many people immigrate from the West to the ME vs the other way around? What innovations are coming from the ME? And in spite of draconian policies, the ME is extremely violent.
The Middle East was never like America even when America was more punitive and this is because of several factors.
It is comprised of low-trust societies. The West was never low-trust, even when more punitive, and that’s one of the reasons why people want to move here. And the reason the West was more productive was because of high trust and didn’t function in tribalism and clannishness, punitive measures aside.
And the reason I brought up the ME was because of the emotional blackmail one receives when discussing women and crime and punishment.
Interestingly, the US treats murder, and crime in general, more harshly than Western European nations. Over half the states have the death penalty. Yet, Europe has fewer murders.
On the surface, severity of consequences makes sense but criminals are usually morons with zero impulse control. The majority of bodycam footage of police shootings during an arrest or simple traffic stop show a suspect making the worst choice in that situation. It’s as if they actually believe they are going to win. We shouldn’t ignore IQ when it comes to crime.
From my experience I agree. Intelligence (which usually goes hand in hand with success not always but more often than not and it takes different forms), culture, and socio-economic status are some of the best indicators of potential for crime.
A decrease in crime doesn’t mean whipping had anything to do with it. Whipping accompanied a prison sentence so maybe it was prison and not whipping.
The decrease in whippings was more likely due to public distaste. Regardless, whipping was an exception and not the norm for criminals.
You’ll find many european countries are more permissive towards variables like drug use, abortion. Many have similar no fault divorce clauses to that of the United States
Yet many of these countries have far lower rates of drug addiction, abortion, teen pregnancy and divorce relative to the United States
The laws on paper don’t necessarily dictate how a society functions. A lenient society on paper doesn’t necessarily mean vice isn’t subject to stigmatisation.
How educated a society is also factors in.
Relevant to the initial topic:
The non-answers are beautiful, as is Sen. Braun’s smile every time they can’t answer the question.
His questions were silly and uneducated. Up to the point of birth means what? A woman can give birth well before nine months. Is he talking about a woman who has gone into labor when he says the point of birth? There are three stages to birth.
The idea that a woman would want an abortion, after carrying a baby for nine months, while she is in labor is moronic.
You aren’t that dense (hopefully). He said up to the moment of birth. He didn’t say while she was in labor. You know exactly what that means. He’s asking if they think there should be any limit to when a woman can get an abortion.
What exactly is that? There are three stages to birth. There is no moment of birth. This is what happens when politicians open their mouths on subjects they are ignorant of.
If he means the second stage, when the baby comes out, well, then it’s too late for an abortion.
He means UP TO that moment, and you know it. I’ve never seen someone try so hard as you to act smart by constantly playing word games.
In that case, it would be a medical emergency. Again, do you think a woman would suddenly want an abortion while the baby is in the birth canal, which would probably be too late anyway?
Note, the first woman said these questions should be asked of medical professionals.
The question the representative should be asked is: do you believe a pregnant woman should be allowed to choose life saving medical care at any stage of her pregnancy?
