Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (15659)	6/26/2002 8:33:43 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 21057

but if you look at it that way you idea is not so different from current ideas as you make it seem I agree. You can't fight human nature. Change is hard enough even when it doesn't go against human nature. That's why it would be impossible to implement my model. My whole basis is that retribution, which is indeed part of human nature, is not a part of us that we should positively reinforce if we are to evolve. I suppose some of the reparations you are talking about could function as, and even be seen as punishments One problem with changing the current system is that the purpose of the pieces has gotten lost or is differently perceived. Do we incarcerate to punish or to isolate a potential repeat offender? Does the death penalty serve as a deterrent or not? I was just trying to better connect purpose with activity and to change the focus. It seems like now the major purpose of our current system is to punish fairly and antiseptically to minimize any backlash about human rights of the criminals. Not that we shouldn't do that, only I don't think that it should have priority over the interests of the victim and society.