✈ ▌▌

NEVER FORGET

>>27

Well torturing to death a convicted murderer as punishment would be considered moral but not ethical.

How the fuck is that moral? If anything, that's the most immoral course of action possible (short of releasing them back in society with a loaded gun). What's the logic behind this, torturing and murdering people is really really bad, therefore it's okay to torture and murder people but only if they've done certain things (among which torturing and murdering other people)? That's not morality (at least not by my standards), that's vengeance. We've come a long way in apprehending criminals, but we still have a lot to learn about treating them. And yes, some of them are ``untreatable'', but that's not most of them.

Like how Scandinavians only sentence a murderer to only 20 years in a ``prison'' that is equivalent to a 3 star hotel would be considered ethical but not moral.

I'd rather not live in a 5 star hotel where a big black guy named Bubba rapes my ass every few hours for 20 years.

Rape joke aside, the Scandinavians are on to something. If a criminal is kept for a long time in a really violent environment, and knowing that a human is not much more than the sum of their experiences, exactly what kind of person do you think they'll be when they get back out? Would you feel safe near them?

Conversely, if a criminal is habituated to a normal lifestyle and becomes accustomed to the ``good work''-``reward'' positive feedback cycle, they'll be able to see crime as a lesser way of life and will be less likely to do bad things again.