Sara Sharif murder: ‘sadist’ father and stepmother jailed for life

[PTK]

It is interesting that the other children in the family were not treated the same way.

 

[8ball]

The need to make amends and for there to be consequences for actions, is invoking deterrence and attempting rehabilitation?

How?

You’re mixing up posts now. I’m talking about a parent disciplining a child (though I think I wasn’t sufficiently clear on that, sorry). You’re referring to one of lbj’s interpretations further down.

There seems to be some confusion between that and the (imo rather silly) CEO example.

 

[Spymaster]

You’re mixing up posts now. I’m talking about a parent disciplining a child. You’re referring to one of lbj’s interpretations further down.

No, that's what you've done

You quoted my post #532, which was a response to LBJ posting about amends and consequences. The parent disciplining a child thing came after that.

Also there is some confusion between that and the (rather silly) CEO example.

I can see why you think that, having confused the previous posts. The CEO example is just demonstrating that we can remove all of the practical reasons for punishment (containment, deterrence, rehabilitation etc), but still want to punish. That's because of a desire for retribution.

 

[8ball]

The CEO example is just demonstrating that we can remove all of the practical reasons for punishment, but still want to punish. That's because of a desire for retribution.

Maybe best to try starting again from here, that way you won’t confuse my posts and lbj’s.

It’s easy to argue that if all you do to the CEO is remove his ability to repeat that particular crime, you have not invoked deterrence either for that CEO (in terms of commission of further crimes of a broadly fiduciary nature), or for other CEO’s who may have schemes or their own in mind.

(The above is just a criticism of your thought experiment. The human desire for punishment is not in doubt. I’m not sure whether you have conflated desire with justification somewhere, though).

 

[Petcha]

It is interesting that the other children in the family were not treated the same way.

I think this little girl wasn't the biological child of the new mum, the others were. The judge kind of implied that in his sentencing. She was the daughter of an estranged partner.

 

[Spymaster]

It’s easy to argue that if all you do to the CEO is remove his ability to repeat that particular crime, you have not invoked deterrence either for that CEO (in terms of commission of further crimes of a broadly fiduciary nature), or for other CEO’s who may have schemes or their own in mind.

I'm not arguing that though. Quite the opposite in fact. I think there's a solid case for deterrence, but that's not the point I was making.

The point was that deterrence is often rejected by liberals as a good reason to punish people. I disagree with them, but even if we accept that, there is still no practical reason to imprison the CEO. It's a rebuttal of negative retributivism, which was the subject of the post I was responding to.

 

[PTK]

I think this little girl wasn't the biological child of the new mum, the others were. The judge kind of implied that in his sentencing. She was the daughter of an estranged partner.

Instead of people fantasing about inflicting harm on people, it might be more profitable to try to understand how these horrible things come to be, and how we stop them happenng in future. Social services failed to perform its duties properly, but then it is under-resourced, for which 15 years of austerity is to blame. Is the current governement going to ensure that the cuts in social services funding are reversed? Are mental health services going to be properly funded?

 

[8ball]

The point was that deterrence is often rejected by liberals as a good reason to punish people. I disagree with them, but even if we accept that, there is still no practical reason to imprison the CEO. It's a rebuttal of negative retributivism, which was the subject of the post I was responding to.

On first point, yes, I agree if I understand what you are saying (if you are confusing “liberal” with “left of centre”).

On the second point, prison is a major element of how we publicly enact deterrence. It can be argued that prison is not a suitable reprisal for any kind of non-violent crime, but I’m not sure that’s where you’re going with this.

 

[PTK]

I'm not arguing that though. Quite the opposite in fact. I think there's a solid case for deterrence, but that's not the point I was making.

The point was that deterrence is often rejected by liberals as a good reason to punish people. I disagree with them, but even if we accept that, there is still no practical reason to imprison the CEO. It's a rebuttal of negative retributivism, which was the subject of the post I was responding to.

It would seem odd to imprison the CEO when he had not broken the law. It is the law that should be changed, so that CEOs of privage insurance companies are not in a position to deny healthcare.

 

[8ball]

It would seem odd to imprison the CEO when he had not broken the law. It is the law that should be changed, so that CEOs of privage insurance companies are not in a position to deny healthcare.

Spy isn’t talking about that particular CEO.

See post #528.

 

[Petcha]

It is interesting that the other children in the family were not treated the same way.

It's also worth noting from the judge's summary that there's no way some of the injuries inflicted upon her could have been carried out without someone else holding the child down while the father did his deeds. The 'mother' is just as evil and I hope she gets what's coming to her to.

The uncle must have been present for quite a lot of it and did nothing but it was apparently the woman who was the main accomplice. Burning her bum with the iron etc.

 

[Spymaster]

On first point, yes, I agree if I understand what you are saying (if you are confusing “liberal” with “left of centre”).

On the second point, prison is a major element of how we publicly enact deterrence. It can be argued that prison is not a suitable reprisal for any kind of non-violent crime, but I’m not sure that’s where you’re going with this.

Ok, you've picked up on deterrence which I'm happy to discuss, but it's not the substantive issue here.

Do you think that the CEO, who robbed the pension fund, should go to prison or be otherwise punished, given that he presents no danger to the public, and doesn't need rehabilitating?

 

[PTK]

Spy isn’t talking about that particular CEO.

See post #528.

Thanks. Sorry for confusing things. I should not have jumped in without reading all the relevant posts.

 

[PTK]

Ok, you've picked up on deterrence which I'm happy to discuss, but it's not the substantive issue here.

Do you think that the CEO, who robbed the pension fund, should go to prison or be otherwise punished, given that he presents no danger to the public, and doesn't need rehabilitating?

Is sending to prison the CEO who steals from the pension fund a way of society indicating what they think of such actions? That we hold those who commit such acts in very low regard.

 

[Spymaster]

Is sending to prison the CEO who steals from the pension fund a way of society indicating what they think of such actions? That we hold those who commit such acts in very low regard.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere.

Society is saying "we think what you've done is shit, so were going to make you suffer for it, even if there's no particular restorative value in doing so".

Is that what you're saying?

 

[8ball]

Ok, you've picked up on deterrence which I'm happy to discuss, but it's not the substantive issue here.

Do you think that the CEO, who robbed the pension fund, should go to prison or be otherwise punished, given that he presents no danger to the public, and doesn't need rehabilitating?

Your assertion that he does not need rehabilitating is faulty.

Perhaps start from a simpler version of what you are trying to say - it will make it easier to provide a direct response.

 

[8ball]

Further note: I think you are conflating posts from other urbanites that are in some cases voicing idealism, and in some other cases voicing comparative realism.

Many posters are close to being prison abolitionists for all but the rarest most depraved crimes, while still being outraged when a peaceful but disruptive protester receives a harsher sentence than a long term domestic abuser, for example.

Which is not a hypocritical position.

 

[Spymaster]

Your assertion that he does not need rehabilitating is faulty.

In what way?

If we agree that the reason for seeking to rehabilitate is to prevent reoffending, but he can't reoffend anyway, where does that leave rehabilitation?

Perhaps start from a simpler version of what you are trying to say - it will make it easier to provide a direct response.

Ok. Do you agree that the CEO should go to prison just because he's a nasty bastard who's fucked over loads of people and deserves it?

 

[PTK]

Ok, now we're getting somewhere.

Society is saying "we think what you've done is shit, so were going to make you suffer for it, even if there's no particular restorative value in doing so".

Is that what you're saying?

I think that that is an argument that some people would use.
It is perhaps a negative version of an argument for paying certain people higher wages. One argument for paying some people higher wages is that it is an indication of how much society values them.

 

[PTK]

The hypothetical CEO should be rehabilitated. He may commit other crimes of avarice.

 

[Orang Utan]

Re: deterrence. I’m surprised this is still used as an argument for ANY kind of penalty for breaking laws, let alone custodial sentences.

 

[8ball]

Ok. Do you agree that the CEO should go to prison just because he's a nasty bastard who's fucked over loads of people and deserves it?

First point is a bit of a mess. Rehabilitation is not solely targeted at stopping repeats of only the particular crime committed.

Second point (and assuming you have read my further note above), I think prison would inevitably be the most appropriate option given how we currently do things, but this is from a consistency and deterrence angle on my part. Basically to forego imprisonment in an environment where imprisonment exists for much lesser crimes would be manifestly unjust.

I have never really harboured a strong personal urge for punishment generally speaking, but I don’t claim that is down to some special empathy on my part.

Empathy with the victims could arguably justify retribution in the eyes of many.

 

[8ball]

One argument for paying some people higher wages is that it is an indication of how much society values them.

That’s a point that could fill a thread by itself..

 

[Orang Utan]

One argument for paying some people higher wages is that it is an indication of how much society values them.

Brian Thompson would be raising his hand now if he could.
Does anyone make that argument seriously?

 

[PTK]

Brian Thompson would be raising his hand now if he could.
Does anyone make that argument seriously?

I am not sure if we can call the income of CEOs as "wages". I was thinking more of people who get paid for doing proper jobs. I think medical doctors are paid more because society values their work more.

 

[Spymaster]

I think prison would inevitably be the most appropriate option given how we currently do things, but this is from a consistency and deterrence angle on my part. Basically to forego imprisonment in an environment where imprisonment exists for much lesser crimes would be manifestly unjust.

I agree. But as we can see from OU's post above, many don't agree with the deterrent aspect. What's left is retribution.

Empathy with the victims could arguably justify retribution in the eyes of many.

Agree again. This is retributive justice.

You and I seem to be in agreement that it's a legitimate aspect of punishment. All that we disagree about is the extent to which it should be practiced.

 

[8ball]

You and I seem to be in agreement that it's a legitimate aspect of punishment. All that we disagree about is the extent to which it should be practiced.

No, I agree that it can be justified from a particular angle and in a particular context (the “is”).

I’m less convinced of its legitimacy in a fundamental sense (the “ought”).

Such discussions can obviously become fraught when aired while also discussing a particularly heinous crime (lbj aired a similar point earlier).

 

[Spymaster]

No, I agree that it can be justified from a particular angle and in a particular context (the “is”).

Do you think it can be justified in the context of the OP?

 

[LeytonCatLady]

Yeh, sometimes listening to spy is like those times in black adder where Edmund is trying to worm his way out of something and speaks really slowly as he comes out with an excuse only a lobotomised gibbon would believe.

"My... friend...is...a...missionary."

 

[8ball]

Do you think it can be justified in the context of the OP?

On the “is” front, yes.

On the other front, dunno.