Philosophy Now Forum

This morning I listened to Amy Goodman's interview of Matt Taibbi on Democracy Now about his new book, The Divide:

" Award-winning journalist Matt Taibbi is out with an explosive new book that asks why the vast majority of white-collar criminals have avoided prison since the financial crisis began, while an unequal justice system imprisons the poor and people of color on a mass scale. In "The Divide: American Injustice in the Age of the Wealth Gap," Taibbi explores how the Depression-level income gap between the wealthy and the poor is mirrored by a "justice" gap in who is targeted for prosecution and imprisonment. "It is much more grotesque to consider the non-enforcement of white-collar criminals when you do consider how incredibly aggressive law enforcement is with regard to everybody else," Taibbi says."
http://www.democracynow.org/
http://www.amazon.com/Divide-American-I ... the+divide

The book is about the difference in prosecutions between the rich versus the poor.The rich often are not prosecuted, while the poor slob often winds up in jail when the "stop and frisk" police find a joint in his pocket. Having formerly been a prosecutor, I found the interview to be fascinating.

Few people realize that the office of the prosecutor is the most powerful office in government.

Would you believe that during the Clinton and Bush administrations the Justice Departments prosecuted Wall Street banker/crooks and sent many to prison? BUT, TAIBBI SAID, DURING OBAMA'S FIVE YEARS IN OFFICE THERE HAVE BEEN ZERO PROSECUTIONS!

During the interview, Taibbi casually referred (as self-evident) to the government's "moral obligation" to prosecute the banker/crooks.

I disagree. Only human beings have moral obligations. Governments have only those obligations that are defined by law, only legal obligations.

What do you think?

As I have said before, prisons of any kind should be immediately abolished. If somebody commits a crime, the government can take one of the following three actions:
Punishment
a) For revenge (serves no positive purpose).
b) For rehabilitation (unsupported by psychological evidence).
c) For deterrence (government exploitation).
Restitution
Unequal protection under the law.
Control
Positive action designed to prevent recurrence.

The only proper action is control, whether you're rich or poor.

bobevenson wrote:As I have said before, prisons of any kind should be immediately abolished. If somebody commits a crime, the government can take one of the following three actions:
Punishment
a) For revenge (serves no positive purpose).
b) For rehabilitation (unsupported by psychological evidence).
c) For deterrence (government exploitation).
Restitution
Unequal protection under the law.
Control
Positive action designed to prevent recurrence.

The only proper action is control, whether you're rich or poor.

Bob,
Assume that the ex-KKK leader has been tried and convicted of the shootings.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/ ... MX20140414

State in detail how you would control him.

tbieter wrote:

bobevenson wrote:As I have said before, prisons of any kind should be immediately abolished. If somebody commits a crime, the government can take one of the following three actions:
Punishment
a) For revenge (serves no positive purpose).
b) For rehabilitation (unsupported by psychological evidence).
c) For deterrence (government exploitation).
Restitution
Unequal protection under the law.
Control
Positive action designed to prevent recurrence.

The only proper action is control, whether you're rich or poor.

Bob,
Assume that the ex-KKK leader has been tried and convicted of the shootings.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/ ... MX20140414

State in detail how you would control him.

Obviously, in his present state, he is a danger to others, and can't be permitted to interact with the population at large. Putting somebody behind bars, however, is not the only way to accomplish this, but please don't ask me for a blueprint.

bobevenson wrote:

tbieter wrote:

bobevenson wrote:As I have said before, prisons of any kind should be immediately abolished. If somebody commits a crime, the government can take one of the following three actions:
Punishment
a) For revenge (serves no positive purpose).
b) For rehabilitation (unsupported by psychological evidence).
c) For deterrence (government exploitation).
Restitution
Unequal protection under the law.
Control
Positive action designed to prevent recurrence.

The only proper action is control, whether you're rich or poor.

Bob,
Assume that the ex-KKK leader has been tried and convicted of the shootings.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/ ... MX20140414

State in detail how you would control him.

Obviously, in his present state, he is a danger to others, and can't be permitted to interact with the population at large. Putting somebody behind bars, however, is not the only way to accomplish this, but please don't ask me for a blueprint.

So, you would "control" this criminal, instead of putting him in a prison, but you don't really know how you would do it!

With that deficiency, I'd say that it is unlikely that your recommendation of "control" will ever be adopted as public policy.

Well, since you apparently think the only way to keep a person away from the general population is to put him in a jail cell, let me elaborate by saying that one way would be to set up a commune for people convicted of crimes, where they could carry on some level of normal living and have access to counseling and therapy, but restricted from leaving by a barricade such as a barbed wire fence. All I am saying is that a jail cell is a Neanderthal approach to control.

bobevenson wrote:Well, since you apparently think the only way to keep a person away from the general population is to put him in a jail cell, let me elaborate by saying that one way would be to set up a commune for people convicted of crimes, where they could carry on some level of normal living and have access to counseling and therapy, but restricted from leaving by a barricade such as a barbed wire fence. All I am saying is that a jail cell is a Neanderthal approach to control.

Didn't France use an island for convicts? I seem to recall watching Dustin Hoffman in a movie called Papillion.

tbieter wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Well, since you apparently think the only way to keep a person away from the general population is to put him in a jail cell, let me elaborate by saying that one way would be to set up a commune for people convicted of crimes, where they could carry on some level of normal living and have access to counseling and therapy, but restricted from leaving by a barricade such as a barbed wire fence. All I am saying is that a jail cell is a Neanderthal approach to control.

Didn't France use an island for convicts? I seem to recall watching Dustin Hoffman in a movie called Papillion.

That would be Devil's Island, worse than any prison cell.

"Assume that the ex-KKK leader has been tried and convicted of the shootings. State in detail how you would control him."

Control is not required.

All that's needed is: one bullet (fired from one gun, directed by one capable person) in his head.

Four-legged mad dogs are accorded this mercy, why not the two-legged variety?

henry quirk wrote:"Assume that the ex-KKK leader has been tried and convicted of the shootings. State in detail how you would control him."

Control is not required.

All that's needed is: one bullet (fired from one gun, directed by one capable person) in his head.

Four-legged mad dogs are accorded this mercy, why not the two-legged variety?

Wait a minute, since you're against taxes, who's going to pay for the person, gun and bullet?

"who's going to pay for the person, gun and bullet?"

I've got the shotgun, the shell, and the hand (and eye): I'll do it for free.

Wouldn't be the first time I've put an animal out it's misery for no other reason than 'it' needed to be put down.

henry quirk wrote:"who's going to pay for the person, gun and bullet?"

I've got the shotgun, the shell, and the hand (and eye): I'll do it for free.

Wouldn't be the first time I've put an animal out it's misery for no other reason than 'it' needed to be put down.

I hope you're not willing to that for the entire world. Of course, you'd go broke on ammunition alone, but China would love you. Better restrict yourself to the USA, but you'll still go broke.

tbieter wrote:This morning I listened to Amy Goodman's interview of Matt Taibbi on Democracy Now about his new book, The Divide:

" Award-winning journalist Matt Taibbi is out with an explosive new book that asks why the vast majority of white-collar criminals have avoided prison since the financial crisis began, while an unequal justice system imprisons the poor and people of color on a mass scale. In "The Divide: American Injustice in the Age of the Wealth Gap," Taibbi explores how the Depression-level income gap between the wealthy and the poor is mirrored by a "justice" gap in who is targeted for prosecution and imprisonment. "It is much more grotesque to consider the non-enforcement of white-collar criminals when you do consider how incredibly aggressive law enforcement is with regard to everybody else," Taibbi says."
http://www.democracynow.org/
http://www.amazon.com/Divide-American-I ... the+divide

The book is about the difference in prosecutions between the rich versus the poor.The rich often are not prosecuted, while the poor slob often winds up in jail when the "stop and frisk" police find a joint in his pocket. Having formerly been a prosecutor, I found the interview to be fascinating.

Few people realize that the office of the prosecutor is the most powerful office in government.

Would you believe that during the Clinton and Bush administrations the Justice Departments prosecuted Wall Street banker/crooks and sent many to prison? BUT, TAIBBI SAID, DURING OBAMA'S FIVE YEARS IN OFFICE THERE HAVE BEEN ZERO PROSECUTIONS!

During the interview, Taibbi casually referred (as self-evident) to the government's "moral obligation" to prosecute the banker/crooks.

I disagree. Only human beings have moral obligations. Governments have only those obligations that are defined by law, only legal obligations.

What do you think?

I think governments have a legal and a moral obligation in this respect. In fact I don't see why one necessarily excludes the other.
Having said that, it is up the the legislature to lay down consistent and uniform laws and a executive that can enforce the law when it isn't working. It's all set out in the Constitution.

A moral obligation is in the eye of the beholder, but a legal obligation is in the eye of the law.

bobevenson wrote:

henry quirk wrote:"who's going to pay for the person, gun and bullet?"

I've got the shotgun, the shell, and the hand (and eye): I'll do it for free.

Wouldn't be the first time I've put an animal out it's misery for no other reason than 'it' needed to be put down.

I hope you're not willing to that for the entire world. Of course, you'd go broke on ammunition alone, but China would love you. Better restrict yourself to the USA, but you'll still go broke.

I believe there would be plenty of people who would donate ammunition, and time, and whatever else is needed to move it along.

We should have an open season for those in need.