That is pretty clear, but let me add one more thing: I (we?) don't need to answer these "what about Dahmer?", "what about my car?", type questions. What about them? Your answer to them is, effectively, to create, offer and support a system that tortures the few of these guys you manage to catch *after* they commit these crimes, along with a whole lot of others that you throw into the same bag because you do not know, among other things, the difference between a threat and an act. That answer sucks. What remains is, at first, for the rest of us to tear down this sucky system.
Chris writes:
> Another thing. Sionce when did "prison" become synonymous with
> "torturous punishment"? I don't recollect anybody here arguing that
> people who are incarcerated should be brutalized. The only person
> here who has made anything like a case that prison should serve the
> function of revenge is andie.
It doesn't matter what people here are arguing, in comparison to the fact that people who are incarcerated are indeed brutalised. A further argument suggests that such brutalisation is a mostly unavoidable consequence of the context of and motives behind this system.
Andie, btw, if I understand him right, would draw a distinction between revenge (as you imply) and retribution. In fact, I think he has. I will leave this space -> [ ] blank for Jordan to write "No there isn't!".
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/2007/2007-June/011195.html http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/2007/2007-June/011182.html
--ravi
-- Support something better than yourself ;-) PeTA => http://peta.org/ Greenpeace => http://greenpeace.org/ If you have nothing better to read: http://platosbeard.org/