Which do you prefer, to punish the guilty or to reduce the rate of immorality?

a reply to: Boadicea

Exactly. The core point of this thread appears to be that prison time is NOT a good deterrent for crimes and creates more problems than it solves. We need to work together to think up better solutions to treat our misbehaving citizens.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

How does prison time fix the leak though? People clearly aren't learning their lessons when they go to jail since the recidivism rate is so high. Heck, many call prison crime college since you go to it for some small time thing and come out with the education to pull WAY more heinous crimes.

Prison time (or the penal system) doesn't fix the leak and that was the point of my very first post in this thread...

Again, the reason prisons exist despite laws is due to the fact freewill cannot be suppressed. It can only be dealt with after the fact. And this is why it cannot be one or the other as you have suggested. Again; the leak (cause) must be addressed and the flood (effect) must be mopped up.

As a juvenile delinquent myself in my teen years (stole cars, ran credit cards, violent assaults) the jail system here (in Canada) did offer much counselling and programs. One example; instead of being forced to pick up trash on the side of the road, we were forced to put X amount of hours volunteering for charities such as food banks and shelter for the homeless. It helped (for me at least) to gain a better grasp of what it is to be part of the community in a positive way. Also, I was placed on a condition that if I showed up everyday to school and maintained a passing grade in all subjects (which meant meet the bare minimum of 65% in each subject ) my probation time would be cut. In the States it seems the system is willing to condemn the young for life for trivial crimes.

If it were not for the nurturing way the Canadian penal system treats its youth here, I would not of been leading the abundantly blessed life I am today. To be honest, there are some in my personal life pissed off at the fact that I broke the rules and still came out on top, but again, it was the system that allowed that all to unfold. I am very grateful for the system addressing the cause (thru counselling) as they simultaneous addressed the effect (incarceration).

Fair point, but there comes a time where one should back his thoughts up with data to make sure he his following a reasonable line of thinking. That's why I posted so many links in my OP.

I have my own personal life experiences (as above) to weigh out concerning the topic at hand. Perhaps, that is what is missing from this equation when others contemplate the subject? The inability to weigh matters out due to becoming too intellectual about it can often result in mental ping-pong.

Another poster also brought up that instead of prison time they should get rehabilitation time. Where someone can sit with the offender and get to the root of why they do what they do, and help them come up with better solutions than to break society's rules.

Yes, address the cause. The root of my deeds in my past was due to suppressed hurt from PTSD acted out as anger. I do resonate with your empathy and compassion from the beginning as I read your initial post....I can see this what motivates you. But again, one cannot choose one or the other and so again I state:

Are you more concerned with punishing the guilty or do you want to reduce the rate of immorality?

A: Both.

To force one to choose either one or the other is inviting philosophy into the equation.

Not necessarily. Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis and it is backed up by a lot of scientific data. It takes MUCH more than just scientific data for a hypothesis to become a theory.

Yet, it still remains not a fact....just a theory.

hy·poth·e·sis
hīˈpäTHəsəs/
noun
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
"professional astronomers attacked him for popularizing an unconfirmed hypothesis"
synonyms: theory, theorem, thesis, conjecture, supposition, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, assumption; More
PHILOSOPHY
a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.

Abiogenesis is the process by which a living organism arises naturally from non-living matter, as opposed to biogenesis, which is the creation of living organisms by other living organisms.

"Naturally" is the scientific way of stating: "I have no clue how it arises".

originally posted by: Involutionist
Prison time doesn't fix the leak and that was the point of my very first post in this thread...

Again, the reason prisons exist despite laws is due to the fact freewill cannot be suppressed. It can only be dealt with after the fact. And this is why it cannot be one or the other has you have suggested. Again; the leak (cause) must be addressed and the flood (effect) must be mopped up.

But my point is that prison time just reinforces the behavior and doesn't teach society as a whole to not do this action because there is a consequence of jail time attached.

As a juvenile delinquent myself in my teen years (stole cars, ran credit cards, violent assaults) the jail system here (in Canada) did offer much counselling and programs. One example; instead of being forced to pick up trash on the side of the road, we were forced to put X amount of hours volunteering for charities such as food banks and shelter for the homeless. It helped (for me at least) to gain a better grasp of what it is to be part of the community in a positive way. Also, I was placed on a condition that if I showed up everyday to school and maintained a passing grade in all subjects (which meant meet the bare minimum of 65% in each subject ) my probation time would be cut. In the States it seems the system is willing to condemn the young for life for trivial crimes.

Well yeah, I'm really focusing on the US prison system here. I cannot speak about any prison systems outside the states because I am unaware of how they work. Here in the states, crime is an out of control problem.

If it were not for the nurturing way the Canadian penal system treats its youth here, I would not of been leading the abundantly blessed life I am today. To be honest, there are some in my personal life pissed off at the fact that I broke the rules and still came out on top, but again, it was the system that allowed that all to unfold. I am very grateful for the system addressing the cause (thru counselling) as they simultaneous addressed the effect (incarceration).

Yea, if you were in the States, you'd probably still be in jail. Or getting ready to go back.

I have my own personal life experiences (as above) to weigh out concerning the topic at hand. Perhaps, that is what is missing from this equation when others contemplate the subject? The inability to weigh matters out due to becoming too intellectual about it can often result in mental ping-pong.

I'm trying my best to be respectful to all people's viewpoints here, because I truly want an open discussion on this issue, because like I said I am TRULY concerned about my country's prison problem.

Yes, address the cause. The root of my deeds in my past was due to suppressed hurt from PTSD acted out as anger. I do resonate with your empathy and compassion from the beginning as I read your initial post....I can see this what motivates you. But again, one cannot choose one or the other and so again I state:

Are you more concerned with punishing the guilty or do you want to reduce the rate of immorality?

A: Both.

To force one to choose either one or the other is inviting philosophy into the equation.

Well what about for so called victimless crimes or things like abortion? Where the offense is less noticeable and doesn't have an effect outside of the individual person? You appear to only be focusing on the more major crimes here, there is also the morality crimes that exist around the world that criminalize personal behavior. Study after study (and real world examples) show that punishing these people with jail time or punishments by the state doesn't correct the behavior and actually even contributes to driving the rate of behavior UP. Do you feel the same way about these crimes?

Yet, it still remains not a fact....just a theory.

hy·poth·e·sis
hīˈpäTHəsəs/
noun
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
"professional astronomers attacked him for popularizing an unconfirmed hypothesis"
synonyms: theory, theorem, thesis, conjecture, supposition, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, assumption; More
PHILOSOPHY
a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.

Abiogenesis is the process by which a living organism arises naturally from non-living matter, as opposed to biogenesis, which is the creation of living organisms by other living organisms.

"Naturally" is the scientific way of stating: "I have no clue how it arises".

A theory is the closest thing you can get to a fact in science though and abiogenesis is STILL a hypothesis that has scientific data supporting it. It just doesn't have enough data to promote it to a theory.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

But my point is that prison time just reinforces the behavior and doesn't teach society as a whole to not do this action because there is a consequence of jail time attached.

I agree. My very first and last comment I addressed this. Freewill cannot be suppressed. The cause must be addressed to why people would want to express themselves in such a way that affects the fabric of society in a negative way. People will do what they please regardless. Look at this way; there are people who have never been to jail and yet, despite all the information out there, will still take risk that might place them in jail. Why?

Well yeah, I'm really focusing on the US prison system here. I cannot speak about any prison systems outside the states because I am unaware of how they work. Here in the states, crime is an out of control problem.

There is not much difference in infrastructure and what society is exposed to when it comes to other first world nations. When one compares the U.S to Canada, Britain, Germany, France, Netherlands, Australia, and a few other first world nations the culture of violence remains pretty consistent among the rest and very high in the U.S. Why? What is the cause?

How come this is not an issue in any other first world nation?

I'm trying my best to be respectful to all people's viewpoints here, because I truly want an open discussion on this issue, because like I said I am TRULY concerned about my country's prison problem.

I feel you. I love America despite my little digs here and there about the overall culture. I have visited 40 states and stayed a few months at a time in Washington, Florida, Cali, N.Y, Texas, Louisiana, Nevada (all about a girl) and Atlanta. Saw Mt. Rushmore with me own eyes and spent a few days fishing in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho (best beer I have ever tasted there!). Myself and some buddies at the age of 19 drove from Toronto to Washington, down the PCH and then back across the middle. It takes 52 hours (only stopping for gas and food) to drive from L.A to Toronto and much to see and experience along the way. We even found an all you can eat Kentucky Fried chicken in the middle of nowhere (first and last I ever encountered in my life). Stopped to watch fighter jets practising over corn fields as the sun sets. I can go on and on about my days in the States. In fact, I was down there for a few weeks not too long ago...always am.

...but there is something in the air there despite all the intelligent, civil and sophisticated people that make up the majority and I cannot put my finger on it except to assume their is twisted encultured programming taking place that can be observed through past and current events....especially looking in from the outside. One must admit there are unique situations that arise there and not anywhere else when compared to America's cousins.

Perhaps, admitting this, may be the first step to addressing the issue of violence taking place in a first world nation that many like to defend (not implying you are guilty of this!).

Well what about for so called victimless crimes or things like abortion? Where the offense is less noticeable and doesn't have an effect outside of the individual person?

I just want to clarify before going further with this part: Do you see abortion as a crime?

You appear to only be focusing on the more major crimes here, there is also the morality crimes that exist around the world that criminalize personal behavior.

No. To be honest, I had no specific crime in mind. This is why I used the "Monkey" example in my very first post in this thread to express the nature of mind is what needs to be addressed. I'm more about the philosophical nature of this discussion instead of the specifics. I'm more about the nature of mind and not the nature of society. Yet, both are mutually inclusive. The word "morality" introduced by yourself is what caused this thought process to arise.

Btw, you brought up "Legalizing murder to reduce murder" (extreme crime) as a thought experiment in this thread in another comment....not I.

A theory is the closest thing you can get to a fact in science though and abiogenesis is STILL a hypothesis that has scientific data supporting it. It just doesn't have enough data to promote it to a theory.

Cool cool. Acquiesce...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

When abortion was illegal in the UK ... So called "Back Street Abortion" was practiced by non medical one's ... often causing harm and even death

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you want to teach society as a whole how NOT to do something, then you have to start having some serious discussions about morality and its nature and how people become moral beings.

The law and the penal system are very different entities.

Wait...why can't we do both and meet in the middle at some point?

Life's a lot of variations of grey, a lot of compromise, a lot of adapting.

Hey, everyone already knows that its very cool to kill babies, and very uncool to kill murdering rapist pedophiles.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think you're drawing the wrong conclusions from the statistics you cite.

Since you used abortion for an example lets address that one first. In the nations where it is legal, they have stronger social safety nets. In the nations where it's illegal they tend to be more along the lines of an early child resulting in destitution. Thus, I think what you should actually be looking at is that people are less likely to have an abortion if it doesn't destroy them financially.

Next lets look at murder. The murder rates have a strong correlation with being higher in those same states that have harsh penalties. Strong punishments don't deter crime, instead they cause people to commit more serious crimes in the hopes of not getting caught. Lets say someone rapes a woman, he is less likely to be ID'ed if he simply kills her afterwards. In contrast we can look at nations which are softer on crime which focus on rehabilitation, or at worst life imprisonment (in decent conditions), and their per capita crime rates are much lower.

So to answer your question, the answer is that preventing these actions is preferable to punishment and it runs contrary to human nature which is to be soft on crime. That's not to say that you don't punish it, but that you don't punish it severely. This is a completely untenable political position though. Everyone likes the hard on crime rhetoric, we push for prosecutors to get 99% conviction rates which throws everyone in jail, we like the idea that people go to jail without being convicted, people take delight in the idea of prison rape for minor offenses, 3 strikes laws, and all the rest. Compare that to other nations, where their worst punishment is admitting they've failed as a society and simply can't let someone wander among other people. We take the opposite view in the US where it's the individual that failed and not the social system surrounding them.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Well that is really the TRUE viewpoint isn't it? Morality is really just relative. So why do we punish people for doing things that we disapprove of? Shouldn't it make more sense for us to make a logical case for them to behave as we think by weighing the pros and cons of the particular morality in question against what they are doing.

For instance, incest. Incest has been shown to be scientifically detrimental to the offspring produced by the incestuous couple. We can then relate to someone this fact so that it discourages them from pursuing any incestuous relationships, but if the person disregards this information and does one anyways, it doesn't make sense to PUNISH this person for this action. In this case, we may have a child that NEEDS parental support more than ever and instead we'd see to putting the parents in jail for creating the child. It doesn't make sense.

Laws and morality aren't the same thing. Ultimately laws exist as a framework by which we can all get along with each other and not have a self destructive society. Morality is more about a personal code of holding yourself to a better standard than "it won't land me in jail".

On the subject of incest, I'm fine with it. If two people really feel that way about each other I don't see anything wrong with them having a relationship. I do think that they should either be sterilized for as long as they have the relationship, or mandatory abortions though on the basis that passing severe genetic defects onto a child is hugely unfair to that child but I would have no trouble with such a couple adopting.

originally posted by: beezzer
Your definition of an unborn child is that it is not human, a person, an individual.

So how do you suggest we address this? I will never see this your way, and you will never see this mine. It seems to me that the only solution is to prevent all unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Would you agree that this is a good compromise?

If it is, how do you propose doing so? Excessive access to birth control seems like it would be a good method, but some want to deny birth control to people, or otherwise make them pay it out of pocket, yet that just leads to people taking risks based on their pocketbook. What about when accidents happen? That would imply a need for emergency contraceptives as well, but those are a whole other can of worms. How do you feel about them?

originally posted by: ketsuko
If you want to teach society as a whole how NOT to do something, then you have to start having some serious discussions about morality and its nature and how people become moral beings.

The law and the penal system are very different entities.

People can have very different views on what is and isn't moral though. I see it as immoral to use a tax rebate, or to deny legal rights to someone due to their sexuality, and I don't see unborn babies as people, I don't even really see newborns as people.

Many people will disagree with me on some or all of those and quite frankly, we're never going to agree. This is why we can't base laws on morality. I'm not an immoral person, I just weight these things and see the world different from how another person sees it.

Now, behavior that we really shouldn't be encouraging in the first place? That's different. I have no problem with abortion, but the world would be a better place if no one ever needed to get one, but I don't see how cutting those services off from people when we have the medical ability to safely do so makes the world a better place. Which goes back to what I said to Beezer. I think the only solution is to make birth control and emergency contraceptives much more widely available (and freely available at that). Preventing pregnancy in the first place means the abortion question never comes up and that to me seems like a reasonable place to start.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Punish and REMOVE those who have kept us all from learning the truth, everything else is a waste of time.

originally posted by: Revolution9
...
Can I just give one criticism of your thread. May be you do not wish to have expressed it so, but using abortion as an example in conjunction with murder is not legally sound. Abortion is not murder. It is a legal right of women. Some people may personally view it as murder, but it is not legally defined so.

A human fetus is an innocent human life. Just because the law suddenly states that it is ok doesn't make it okay. A human fetus is a different lifeform from the mother. Just because the human fetus needs to be in the womb of the mother doesn't make it a part of her body.

Do i see women who abort just because it is "convenient" for them the same as a murderer who on purpose kills out of delight and his/her evil nature? No. Most women who decide to abort have been brainwashed into believing the human fetus growing inside of them is not a human being, which is not true.

originally posted by: Revolution9
I have often wondered why we resort to punishment and causing deliberate suffering to people who break the law. It has no advantage for the victim, especially if they are deceased, other than satisfying the desire for revenge. Personally I see revenge as a negative emotion that achieves nothing, "An eye for an eye will make us all blind", kind of reasoning. It appears that punishment and suffering exists mainly as a deterrent.
...

Punishments for crimes, more so murders, and rapes, etc exist to deter, or stop people from committing the same crime to other people.

The claim that "an eye for an eye will make us all blind" is nothing but a strawman. If no punishment occurs from crimes there woulkd be more and more criminals and in the end the only people standing would be criminals.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Edmund Burke

www.brainyquote.com...

originally posted by: Involutionist
I agree. My very first and last comment I addressed this. Freewill cannot be suppressed. The cause must be addressed to why people would want to express themselves in such a way that affects the fabric of society in a negative way. People will do what they please regardless. Look at this way; there are people who have never been to jail and yet, despite all the information out there, will still take risk that might place them in jail. Why?

This is a VERY good question and appears to be one many are afraid of asking. They think they can just shuffle the problem out of the way and suddenly it goes away. Things don't work like that. That usually results in everything blowing up in your face and you left standing there wondering what happened, even though the evidence has been all around you the whole time. I see it time and again for countless issues, both major and minor. Local and national. It's ridiculous. We need to stop focusing on the punishment and focus on the actual ROOT of the problem that is causing the people to act out.

There is not much difference in infrastructure and what society is exposed to when it comes to other first world nations. When one compares the U.S to Canada, Britain, Germany, France, Netherlands, Australia, and a few other first world nations the culture of violence remains pretty consistent among the rest and very high in the U.S. Why? What is the cause?

How come this is not an issue in any other first world nation?

Well America has by far the highest incarceration rate in the world. In history too I might add (though this is more largely due to the proliferation of the death penalty in ages past). You guys may have similar infrastructure, but there is a SERIOUS desire to jail people in this country. It sprung up in the 80's with Reagan's tough on crime (read: drugs) policies.

As far as why there is resistance to society. There is ALWAYS resistance to society. It isn't a problem that is JUST endemic to the 1st world. The only difference between the 1st and the 3rd worlds is the level of violence the malcontents can use.

Sorry your story is long, I need to snip your story.

...but there is something in the air there despite all the intelligent, civil and sophisticated people that make up the majority and I cannot put my finger on it except to assume their is twisted encultured programming taking place that can be observed through past and current events....especially looking in from the outside. One must admit there are unique situations that arise there and not anywhere else when compared to America's cousins.

I think it is largely due to Americans putting off long standing issues for too long, coupled with the fact that we still are a relatively young country. We have a lot of growth left to do as a nation, and we got BIG in the world way too quickly.

Perhaps, admitting this, may be the first step to addressing the issue of violence taking place in a first world nation that many like to defend (not implying you are guilty of this!).

First step to any solution is to admit there is a problem first. I agree completely.

I just want to clarify before going further with this part: Do you see abortion as a crime?

Well I specifically separated victimless crime from abortion for a reason, but as far as a crime, -I- don't see it as one. Though many do. So it should be included in the discussion regardless of what I think.

No. To be honest, I had no specific crime in mind. This is why I used the "Monkey" example in my very first post in this thread to express the nature of mind is what needs to be addressed. I'm more about the philosophical nature of this discussion instead of the specifics. I'm more about the nature of mind and not the nature of society. Yet, both are mutually inclusive. The word "morality" introduced by yourself is what caused this thought process to arise.

Btw, you brought up "Legalizing murder to reduce murder" (extreme crime) as a thought experiment in this thread in another comment....not I.

Yes I did, but I brought up more topics than just that. It is a rather intriguing part of the debate, but we won't get to any solutions but just analyzing one extreme aspect.

originally posted by: Aazadan
So to answer your question, the answer is that preventing these actions is preferable to punishment and it runs contrary to human nature which is to be soft on crime. That's not to say that you don't punish it, but that you don't punish it severely. This is a completely untenable political position though. Everyone likes the hard on crime rhetoric, we push for prosecutors to get 99% conviction rates which throws everyone in jail, we like the idea that people go to jail without being convicted, people take delight in the idea of prison rape for minor offenses, 3 strikes laws, and all the rest. Compare that to other nations, where their worst punishment is admitting they've failed as a society and simply can't let someone wander among other people. We take the opposite view in the US where it's the individual that failed and not the social system surrounding them.

Yea... But that is a holdover from the 80's, and I believe it is discussions like these that is going to help loosen its grip. We are already starting to see it happen with the marijuana debate. Even in states where it is still illegal, many states have loosened penalties for getting caught.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Laws and morality aren't the same thing. Ultimately laws exist as a framework by which we can all get along with each other and not have a self destructive society. Morality is more about a personal code of holding yourself to a better standard than "it won't land me in jail".

The thing is that laws are really just codified morality. All laws are. Nature doesn't have a rule against murder or rape or theft or being mean to each other. Human morality has determined this. Then humans saw that other humans weren't agreeing with them, so they made it illegal to do certain things. For a few key ideas (murder, rape, theft, etc) those have reverberated through the ages as "good ideas", but in reality they TOO are just morality.

On the subject of incest, I'm fine with it. If two people really feel that way about each other I don't see anything wrong with them having a relationship. I do think that they should either be sterilized for as long as they have the relationship, or mandatory abortions though on the basis that passing severe genetic defects onto a child is hugely unfair to that child but I would have no trouble with such a couple adopting.

We are in agreement here.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: beezzer

But it IS your business to punish them if they don't act how you want them to act then?

No.

It is societies responsibility.

Why?

You want your business to become my business?

That'd be intrusive and authoritarian.

You are contradicting yourself. You say that you have no business to impose on others business, yet you do exactly that when it comes to abortion.

i am selective in both who i want punished [ and for what ] - and the alledged " imorality " i want reduced

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I feel you, my friend. Thanks for taking into consideration my thoughts as well with much thoughts of your own, much respect.

Well America has by far the highest incarceration rate in the world. In history too I might add (though this is more largely due to the proliferation of the death penalty in ages past). You guys may have similar infrastructure, but there is a SERIOUS desire to jail people in this country. It sprung up in the 80's with Reagan's tough on crime (read: drugs) policies.

One of the many things I learned by participating and interacting with the many bright minds here on ATS is this:

American penal institutions are privately owned....it is a corporation that makes profit - $ - per head. That is F#@&% crazy!!!!! In Canada, prisons are governed by Federal and Provincial, not business men. Let that marinate.

That just creates a hornet's nest and chain reactions that lead all the way back to the cop on the beat. Kickbacks and corruption go hand in hand.

This all ties into the morality aspect of this discussion.

I think it is largely due to Americans putting off long standing issues for too long, coupled with the fact that we still are a relatively young country. We have a lot of growth left to do as a nation, and we got BIG in the world way too quickly.

Only 30% of American possess a valid passport or ever had one. That means that most American live and die without ever stepping out of the forest to see the trees for what they are....

Getting back to the morality aspect; I have a hypothesis:

I believe in the theory that if a one year foreign exchange program in Grade.11 becomes mandatory as part of the educational system curriculum, America will begin to breathe a different air over time in the future generations to come. On the surface, nothing looks much different than other nations, but living day to day in one your cousin's lands will show the subtle (yet huge) differences to how these other members of societies interact with each other to form the fabric of society on a day to day basis.

I have travelled the world, not just America, and can easily connect commonalities between nations (including America) but at the same time, America remains a very very very unique entity among its cousins when the interactions of its society and issues are measured and weighed. I mentioned that I have seen 40 states and stayed a few months in some states (more than just once) to emphasize the point that I do really love America and also have seen and experienced more of the U.S than most patriotic Americans, and that includes the 70% who have and will never leave America. I could be wrong tho...perhaps, most Americans have indeed hit up at least 40 States. The point is; I have much to compare America too with my own global travels.

Well I specifically separated victimless crime from abortion for a reason, but as far as a crime, -I- don't see it as one. Though many do. So it should be included in the discussion regardless of what I think.

That is a fair-minded approach. I feel you.

First step to any solution is to admit there is a problem first. I agree completely.

I was in New York and the Florida Keys just recently with a friend visiting from Portugal. It was her first time in America. I asked her: "What are your thoughts about America as a whole now that you are breathing it all in?"

Her response (paraphrasing): "It is a beautiful land, but the people seem so angry and hostile".

Based on my own personal observations, I agree with her. It is important to note that the anger is subtle....yet always ready to erupt....and often times it does.

TRAVEL will open many eyes. Until then, many will not be able to see the forest for the trees.

originally posted by: Involutionist
One of the many things I learned by participating and interacting with the many bright minds here on ATS is this:

American penal institutions are privately owned....it is a corporation that makes profit - $ - per head. That is F#@&% crazy!!!!! In Canada, prisons are governed by Federal and Provincial, not business men. Let that marinate.

That just creates a hornet's nest and chain reactions that lead all the way back to the cop on the beat. Kickbacks and corruption go hand in hand.

This all ties into the morality aspect of this discussion.

This is true. Kinda. Only about 8.4% of the total prison population are in private prisons. Though I won't deny that it IS a problem that I'd like to be seen done away with since the reason for the explosion in private prisons is because of the overflow cost of the war on drugs (which is something I really want to see ended).

Only 30% of American possess a valid passport or ever had one. That means that most American live and die without ever stepping out of the forest to see the trees for what they are....

This is very true. Americans are kind of spoiled in that regard though. An American can drive for a few hours across country and be in a whole new world to them, but still be in America. All without a passport and for relatively cheap.

Getting back to the morality aspect; I have a hypothesis:

I believe in the theory that if a one year foreign exchange program in Grade.11 becomes mandatory as part of the educational system curriculum, America will begin to breathe a different air over time in the future generations to come. On the surface, nothing looks much different than other nations, but living day to day in one your cousin's lands will show the subtle (yet huge) differences to how these other members of societies interact with each other to form the fabric of society on a day to day basis.

This is a decent idea, but how do you front the costs, the legal aspects of shipping all these children overseas at one time, smooth it over with the parents, etc?

I have travelled the world, not just America, and can easily connect commonalities between nations (including America) but at the same time, America remains a very very very unique entity among its cousins when the interactions of its society and issues are measured and weighed. I mentioned that I have seen 40 states and stayed a few months in some states (more than just once) to emphasize the point that I do really love America and also have seen and experienced more of the U.S than most patriotic Americans, and that includes the 70% who have and will never leave America. I could be wrong tho...perhaps, most Americans have indeed hit up at least 40 States. The point is; I have much to compare America too with my own global travels.

I don't know if I've gotten to 40 yet, but I've seen the better part of the states east of the Mississippi river, and 2 west of it. Plus I've been to a few other countries. So I think I have an idea of what you are talking about.

That is a fair-minded approach. I feel you.

Well you'll never get to any real compromises or solutions if you refuse to consider all possibilities

I was in New York and the Florida Keys just recently with a friend visiting from Portugal. It was her first time in America. I asked her: "What are your thoughts about America as a whole now that you are breathing it all in?"

Her response (paraphrasing): "It is a beautiful land, but the people seem so angry and hostile".

Based on my own personal observations, I agree with her. It is important to note that the anger is subtle....yet always ready to erupt....and often times it does.

TRAVEL will open many eyes. Until then, many will not be able to see the forest for the trees.

Well just look at how we behave on the internet. Some of the crazier ideas that we used to consider fringe conspiracy theories have become mainstream ideas thanks to the internet, and while I still don't think a majority of the country believes these things, a sizable chunk does. Plus the media constantly has us at each other's throats and distrusting our neighbors all so they can get ratings and internet clicks. Then there is just the fact that Americans tend to be overly arrogant.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
The thing is that laws are really just codified morality. All laws are. Nature doesn't have a rule against murder or rape or theft or being mean to each other. Human morality has determined this. Then humans saw that other humans weren't agreeing with them, so they made it illegal to do certain things. For a few key ideas (murder, rape, theft, etc) those have reverberated through the ages as "good ideas", but in reality they TOO are just morality.

I disagree, morality has sprung up around these good ideas. Humans biggest advantage is that we band together in ways other animals don't. Part of what allows this to work is that we have almost instinctively figured out certain ideas that lead to a self destructive society.

If everyone can murder, no one can be secure in their lives, thus we fight among ourselves and make the group weaker.
If we steal no one can be secure in their possessions and labor.

Rape is a different animal, it involves seeing women as people which not all societies innately do, though male/male rape is usually considered invasive and banned (unless one person is a young boy, then it's just part of growing up).