Hypothetical Island

[Dan G]

A small groups IS an actual society. The only difference between a small group and a large is the number of people, and the real change that makes is it allows anonymity. Beyond that, however, a small society is just a mirror of a larger society, with less anonymity.

I agree anonimity is the real difference. In a small group the decision is a personal one, in a large group the "unpleasant" decisions are made distant and sanitised. Interesting that the general consensus seems to be for a harsher punishment when the hypothetical example involves a small group.

Having said all that, if resources are short I suggest eating him. Beach BBQ would cheer everyone up!:barf:

 

[sgtmac_46]

I agree anonimity is the real difference. In a small group the decision is a personal one, in a large group the "unpleasant" decisions are made distant and sanitised. Interesting that the general consensus seems to be for a harsher punishment when the hypothetical example involves a small group.

Yes, that's very interesting isn't it? And much as I suspected it would be. Apparently, familiarity breeds contempt when it comes to heinous crimes.

Having said all that, if resources are short I suggest eating him. Beach BBQ would cheer everyone up!:barf:

No man is so bad that he can't be used.....as a tasty meal!

 

[Don Roley]

Having said all that, if resources are short I suggest eating him. Beach BBQ would cheer everyone up!:barf:

Oh no! Meatloaf again?

 

[sgtmac_46]

Oh no! Meatloaf again?

Long pork....the OTHER other white meat. :barf:

 

[Martial Tucker]

I agree anonimity is the real difference. In a small group the decision is a personal one, in a large group the "unpleasant" decisions are made distant and sanitised. Interesting that the general consensus seems to be for a harsher punishment when the hypothetical example involves a small group.

Or, could another factor be that in a small group, say 6-8 people in our "case study", each individual feels more directly threatened by the presence of a single rapist/murderer, especially since that murderer knows each of them personally. If he decides to kill again, each of them has a 15-20% chance of being the next victim.

Contrast this to a large conventional society where the ratio of murderous individuals vs. law-abiding citizens is much lower, making the average person feel far less likely to be a victim. A large society also has LEO's to at least attempt to protect the citizens. The attitude is often seen that violent crime is "something that happens to other people".

The sense of urgency to punish goes down quickly when you don't feel as vulnerable personally. As for me, I would favor execution of a rapist/murderer in either a small, closed group, or in a large conventional society. But I do wonder how individuals that are against capital punishment would feel about it if they were one of the surviving group on the island

 

[Makalakumu]

No man is so bad that he can't be used.....as a tasty meal!

Actually, in the situation you described, on an island where food resources are most likely limited, eating both the perpetrator and the victim makes a lot of sense. If the ultimate goal is survival, then one must do what they must. It is also helpful to remember that on many south pacific islands, cannibalism was widely practiced.

 

[Martial Tucker]

Actually, in the situation you described, on an island where food resources are most likely limited, eating both the perpetrator and the victim makes a lot of sense. If the ultimate goal is survival, then one must do what they must. It is also helpful to remember that on many south pacific islands, cannibalism was widely practiced.

So, sitting around waiting for Mary Ann to whip up a coconut cream pie is out of the question?

 

[Dan G]

Or, could another factor be that in a small group, say 6-8 people in our "case study", each individual feels more directly threatened by the presence of a single rapist/murderer, especially since that murderer knows each of them personally. If he decides to kill again, each of them has a 15-20% chance of being the next victim.

Contrast this to a large conventional society where the ratio of murderous individuals vs. law-abiding citizens is much lower, making the average person feel far less likely to be a victim. A large society also has LEO's to at least attempt to protect the citizens. The attitude is often seen that violent crime is "something that happens to other people".

The sense of urgency to punish goes down quickly when you don't feel as vulnerable personally. As for me, I would favor execution of a rapist/murderer in either a small, closed group, or in a large conventional society. But I do wonder how individuals that are against capital punishment would feel about it if they were one of the surviving group on the island

I think you've hit on the stronger factor. In a small group the threat is more personal, and self/group protection rather than punishment becomes the main consideration.

It would be interesting to see how the responses would change if the hypothetical scenario made clear that there was no chance the perpetrator would reoffend, and there was no threat to the others on the island, and no need for a deterrent precedent. The question then becomes purely one of punishment and personal v state administered responsibility for enforcement of the punishment.

It is interesting that legal systems that arise out of small societies either have no death penalty for tribe members (e.g Masaii tribal custom), a custom of blood feud/vendetta, or largely tend towards a victim centered approach where even if there is a neutral court to intercede the victim or family members can choose either blood money or the death penalty. (e.g. Viking and Saxon law, Islamic law in some states).

My view on the death penalty changes depending on the size of the society, in a small society where the response is personal and conducted by those immediately affected I can accept it despite the obvious scope for witch-hunts, or generation long blood feuds(e.g. parts of Albania) as it is essentially a human response although often foolish or unjust and frequently very very destructive. However, as soon as a society reaches a size where the individual delegates enforcement and justice to the State I am absolutely opposed to the death penalty being imposed by the State.

If I give up the right to seek redress from another, including their death, I do it because creating a justice system makes the society I life in safer overall. I am prepared to give up the right to seek personal redress, but I refuse to delegate to the extent that I give the right to punish another with death, in my name, to the State. It is not a decision I would lightly entrust to another, least of all a politician or a lawyer, the more so because in delegating that right I am giving them the power of life and death over me as well. I wouldn't get my car fixed by a mechanic that was known to be occasionally dishonest or incompetent, I certainly would never see a doctor if I had similar doubts. Similarly I am extremely nervous about extending the power that the State has over me.

As a martial artist I am partly motivated by the desire to take some measure of control over my own safety and livelihood, so it makes sense to me to minimise the number of people who have the power of life or death over me, and the people I care about. If the price that is paid for overall safety is to lose the right to take the full redress that I might want I think that on balance I still come off better.

Having said that my view is based on respect for personal decision making, so on this issue I respect the view of others even if I don't agree with it.

 

[tshadowchaser]

so they castrate him ?

good point on asking how someone opposed to capital punishment would deal with thi situation

 

[sgtmac_46]

Or, could another factor be that in a small group, say 6-8 people in our "case study", each individual feels more directly threatened by the presence of a single rapist/murderer, especially since that murderer knows each of them personally. If he decides to kill again, each of them has a 15-20% chance of being the next victim.

Contrast this to a large conventional society where the ratio of murderous individuals vs. law-abiding citizens is much lower, making the average person feel far less likely to be a victim. A large society also has LEO's to at least attempt to protect the citizens. The attitude is often seen that violent crime is "something that happens to other people".

The sense of urgency to punish goes down quickly when you don't feel as vulnerable personally. As for me, I would favor execution of a rapist/murderer in either a small, closed group, or in a large conventional society. But I do wonder how individuals that are against capital punishment would feel about it if they were one of the surviving group on the island

Of course consider the reason why the ratio is lower in a large society such as ours. It's basically because we began culling criminals out from smaller societies. Consider early American societies, which were smaller and more isolated. Consider how they dealt with serious criminal behavior.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I think you've hit on the stronger factor. In a small group the threat is more personal, and self/group protection rather than punishment becomes the main consideration.

It would be interesting to see how the responses would change if the hypothetical scenario made clear that there was no chance the perpetrator would reoffend, and there was no threat to the others on the island, and no need for a deterrent precedent. The question then becomes purely one of punishment and personal v state administered responsibility for enforcement of the punishment.

It is interesting that legal systems that arise out of small societies either have no death penalty for tribe members (e.g Masaii tribal custom), a custom of blood feud/vendetta, or largely tend towards a victim centered approach where even if there is a neutral court to intercede the victim or family members can choose either blood money or the death penalty. (e.g. Viking and Saxon law, Islamic law in some states).

My view on the death penalty changes depending on the size of the society, in a small society where the response is personal and conducted by those immediately affected I can accept it despite the obvious scope for witch-hunts, or generation long blood feuds(e.g. parts of Albania) as it is essentially a human response although often foolish or unjust and frequently very very destructive. However, as soon as a society reaches a size where the individual delegates enforcement and justice to the State I am absolutely opposed to the death penalty being imposed by the State.

If I give up the right to seek redress from another, including their death, I do it because creating a justice system makes the society I life in safer overall. I am prepared to give up the right to seek personal redress, but I refuse to delegate to the extent that I give the right to punish another with death, in my name, to the State. It is not a decision I would lightly entrust to another, least of all a politician or a lawyer, the more so because in delegating that right I am giving them the power of life and death over me as well. I wouldn't get my car fixed by a mechanic that was known to be occasionally dishonest or incompetent, I certainly would never see a doctor if I had similar doubts. Similarly I am extremely nervous about extending the power that the State has over me.

As a martial artist I am partly motivated by the desire to take some measure of control over my own safety and livelihood, so it makes sense to me to minimise the number of people who have the power of life or death over me, and the people I care about. If the price that is paid for overall safety is to lose the right to take the full redress that I might want I think that on balance I still come off better.

Having said that my view is based on respect for personal decision making, so on this issue I respect the view of others even if I don't agree with it.

Therein lies a minor fallaciousness in the argument. There is no way to ensure that the perpetrator will not reoffend. In fact, the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior.

Moreover, allowing the crime to go unchecked, will almost ensure a similar response in the future, especially if the group seems cowed by the violence of this individual who has already shown his willingness and desire to engage in violence against other members of the group. Given that, the offender seems almost certain to reoffend, especially if he is not only NOT punished, but rewarded (in the sense that the group fears his behavior, and submits because of fear).

Imagine if this offender gains the sympathy of a very minor, but violent faction of the group. They can gain control of the group through threat of violence.

I think the idea of 'punishment' is not really the point. Does he deserve punishment? Arguably, but again, that's not the point. I feel he should 'hang' because the group is not safe with him around. Banishment may work, or it may simply leave a violent and belligerant nemesis for the future.

Any other response will merely create useless baggage for the already taxed resources of the group. Death is the only reasonable answer. Moreover, it sends a clear message about the will of the group to maintain order to anyone else who might contemplate a similar action.

Though there is a 'truism' that the death penalty is not a deterrent, it is a hard case to make that you will watch a man suffer a fate for an action, and be anything but LESS likely to commit that action yourself in the future.

That's my opinion, and mine only. I do have a question along those lines, however. If death is determined to be the appropriate response, who decides? Is it a group vote? Unanimous or majority? And who carries it our?

 

[Martial Tucker]

[sgtmac_46/quote]

I think the idea of 'punishment' is not really the point. Does he deserve punishment? Arguably, but again, that's not the point. I feel he should 'hang' because the group is not safe with him around. [/quote]

Agreed.....I used the term "punishment" in an earlier post when my intent was to describe an action that would protect the survivors from future attacks, rather than a focus of making consequences unpleasant for the offender. The safety of the survivors is paramount. In this situation, IMO, execution of the offender is the only reasonable alternative, and it really has nothing to do with the generally accepted concept of "punishment".

[sgtmac_46/quote]
That's my opinion, and mine only. I do have a question along those lines, however. If death is determined to be the appropriate response, who decides? Is it a group vote? Unanimous or majority? And who carries it our?[/quote]

I think it must be a group vote. Unanimous...no. Majority....yes.
If it is not a decision endorsed by a majority of the survivors, then it regresses back to a different version of someone dictating the rules of engagement on the majority, even if, in this case, the cause is more noble.
Frankly, if the majority chooses to not execute the offender, then they deserve whatever happens to them next. The bigger question is, if the majority votes to let the offender live, what are the implications of conduct and engagement for the minority who wanted the offender executed.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Frankly, if the majority chooses to not execute the offender, then they deserve whatever happens to them next. The bigger question is, if the majority votes to let the offender live, what are the implications of conduct and engagement for the minority who wanted the offender executed.

Agreed. It is the majority decision of the social group, and should rest with them.

As for the implications of conduct and engagement, it is clear that majority have no interest in actually governing. At that point, possibly, a minority may decide that it is up to them to ensure the safety of the group. In that event, the consequences may be dire for the group as a whole.

 

[Dan G]

If death is determined to be the appropriate response, who decides? Is it a group vote? Unanimous or majority? And who carries it our?

It is a defining moment - there are quite a few permutations, but whichever is chosen defines the society.

the 4 issues that seem most relevant to me are:

1) Is the offender perceived to be "in group", "out group" or "other group"?
The first defines him as a criminal, in group but in violation of custom (law).
The second defines him as a threat to all, with no protection of custom (law), and an enemy to all mankind as were medieval outlaws, and pirates until recently. The third creates the concept of an external group and introduces the concept of war.

2) Why is the decision to kill him made?
If it is for his actions whilst as a group member then it creates a crime, and depending on how the decision is taken, possibly a precedent rule that the society members must avoid breaking.
If it is for the threat he poses then it creates a security policy.
If it is for no longer being part of the group through breach of custom then it sets a positive set of social obligations to be obeyed.
If it for being part of a hostile external group then it creates a foreign policy.

3) Who makes the decision and how is the decision made?
This determines the political system that the society adopts, despotic, democratic, collective anarchic etc

4) Who enforces the decision?
This defines the duties and powers of the society member, and depending on the previous variables there are many permutations. Including a group militia, a right to defend given to all group members, a security role for part of the group, a special permission to serve in that role, an obligation to serve in that role, a system which punishes a failure to enforce, or a system that creates a reward for those that enforce...

Given that the society is small and newly formed I would expect the most likely response to be that each member of the group feels threatened and treats the man as an outlaw, to be killed when opportunity arises. It is the decision that creates the least social complexity and is therefore the one most likely to be arrived at in a hurry.

What happens to the body of the victim, and the body of the man once he is killed is the next decision that the society faces, the choice made and the reasons for it also fundamentally define the society.
Again the range of possibilities is large. If the bodies are treated in a similar manner then it may indicate a recognition of humanity over and above group membership - and the society may ultimately have a prediposition towards a spiritual belief that recognise a concept of humanity regardless of actions, and possibly also a potential to create a concept of general human rights extending beyond group membership. If they decide resources are short and put them both on the BBQ then perhaps, but not neccessarily, they have a predisposition towards utilitarian thought and maybe a contempt for the individual, or perhaps a lack of spiritual belief system. Alternatively a practice of eating the dead may arise and become a spiritual custom, or perhaps a national dish...opcorn:

Endless possibilities... I like the hypothetical question, it leads to much more than I initially thought at first glance...

 

[sgtmac_46]

What happens if he is sentenced to death, and he manages to escape before the sentence is carried out?

 

[Dan G]

What happens if he is sentenced to death, and he manages to escape before the sentence is carried out?

BBQ is postponed...

 

[sgtmac_46]

BBQ is postponed...

Hehe

It's on the hoof.

 

[Don Roley]

BBQ is postponed...

A little exercise helps whet the appetite. :EG:

 

[Dan G]

A little exercise helps whet the appetite. :EG:

...and recreational sports are invented on the island... :idea:

 

[Satt]

It sounds to me like either you've been watching "Lost" or you are making some sort of analogy. Maybe Terrorism, crime rates, etc...