Philosophy Now Forum

I never drink ouzo and I gave up playing with my ouzo some decades ago when this practice started producing warts on my hands.

What is the AEP policy on the incarceration of people for relatively minor offences? Indeed what does the AEP reckon prisons are actually for?

Obvious Leo wrote:I never drink ouzo and I gave up playing with my ouzo some decades ago when this practice started producing warts on my hands.

What is the AEP policy on the incarceration of people for relatively minor offences? Indeed what does the AEP reckon prisons are actually for?

Imprisonment for any reason is improper according to AEP theory. The only proper government action is minimum control to protect the public. This is original AEP theory practiced by no society since the beginning of time.

bobevenson wrote:This is original AEP theory practiced by no society since the beginning of time.

Unsurprisingly.

Obvious Leo wrote:

bobevenson wrote:This is original AEP theory practiced by no society since the beginning of time.

Unsurprisingly.

And unfortunately, I might add.

Elaborate on "minimum control"

BigWhit wrote:Elaborate on "minimum control"

Minimum control is the least punitive control that keeps the criminal at bay, which at worst would be living in a restrictive area or deported to another part of the world, such as Australia, which I admit might strike some people as worse than prison.

bobevenson wrote:

BigWhit wrote:Elaborate on "minimum control"

Minimum control is the least punitive control that keeps the criminal at bay, which at worst would be living in a restrictive area ...

Like a prison.

You've been watching Escape From New York again haven't you bobby.

Arising_uk wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

BigWhit wrote:Elaborate on "minimum control"

Minimum control is the least punitive control that keeps the criminal at bay, which at worst would be living in a restrictive area ...

Like a prison.

Well, like I said, some people might consider Australia worse than a prison.

So incarceration is improper under any circumstance other than when necessary for the protection of the people.

For the record, as a sailor some of the stories I've heard about Australia and their women make it a place I am pissed I never got to visit. Not to mention the pub scene.

BigWhit wrote:So incarceration is improper under any circumstance other than when necessary for the protection of the people.

I doubt that actual incarceration in a jail cell is ever necessary, but public safety is the first priority.

bobevenson wrote: I doubt that actual incarceration in a jail cell is ever necessary, but public safety is the first priority.

Which is why we have bail over here.

Out of curiosity, what would you suggest for the likes of a murderer, or child rapist, or psychopath like Charles Manson?

BigWhit wrote:Out of curiosity, what would you suggest for the likes of a murderer, or child rapist, or psychopath like Charles Manson?

You use the most limited form of control necessary to prevent reoccurrence (I'm not in a position to delineate possible forms of control).

bobevenson wrote:

BigWhit wrote:Out of curiosity, what would you suggest for the likes of a murderer, or child rapist, or psychopath like Charles Manson?

You use the most limited form of control necessary to prevent reoccurrence (I'm not in a position to delineate possible forms of control).

Make up your mind. Is "innocent until proven guilty" the over-riding principle which you're advocating or isn't it? You seem to think that locking people up without trial is OK but letting them go on a bail surety is not OK. The logic underpinning this stance is opaque, to say the least.

Obvious Leo wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

BigWhit wrote:Out of curiosity, what would you suggest for the likes of a murderer, or child rapist, or psychopath like Charles Manson?

You use the most limited form of control necessary to prevent reoccurrence (I'm not in a position to delineate possible forms of control).

Make up your mind. Is "innocent until proven guilty" the over-riding principle which you're advocating or isn't it? You seem to think that locking people up without trial is OK but letting them go on a bail surety is not OK. The logic underpinning this stance is opaque, to say the least.

I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. The subject being discussed is bail. The AEP position is that if a person charged with a crime is eligible for bail pending trial, that person should be immediately released without bail. Is that so hard for you to understand, notwithstanding the fact that you're from Australia?