Prison is not a punishment... it is a choice!?

[Serious]

Criminals choose to go to prison, don’t they? The judges do not send the crooks to prison, they simply respect the choice of the criminals, who choose to go there. Think about it for a second, and tell me if I am wrong.

 

[LilyM]

Criminals choose to go to prison, don’t they? The judges do not send the crooks to prison, they simply respect the choice of the criminals, who choose to go there. Think about it for a second, and tell me if I am wrong.

I see where you’re going with this - Christians often say God does not punish people with Hell, it is something they choose for themselves.

First of all - the question of whether it is a punishment is a different question to the question of whether or not the criminal chooses it. People DO voluntarily confess to crimes and hand themselves in to police, knowing that jail will be the outcome, so it cannot be denied that at least some choose it.

And it also cannot be denied that some wrongdoing contains within itself its own punishment separate to whatever might be externally imposed. Someone who is violent towards a spouse is punished by the lack of love from their spouse and the breakdown of the relationship as well as by whatever criminal punishment they might serve if convicted of criminal assault.

These self-imposed sufferings are still nonetheless a punishment - a penalty (albeit a self-imposed one instead of an externally-imposed one) that is suffered for a wrongdoing. So it is BOTH a punishment AND a choice.

A crucial difference between human criminal punishments such as jail and Hell is that people are wrongly convicted of crimes. Often this is due to the fallibility of their fellow humans. Some people may even punish even themselves as if they were guilty for crimes when they did nothing wrong. Eg someone who is insane and delusionally imagines that they have killed someone when they have not, or someone who to save a loved one confesses to a crime that the loved one actually committed - police and journalists are privy to many false confessions to crimes from people who did not commit them for reasons like these.

Whereas no-one is ever wrongly convicted in the afterlife, where perfect self-knowledge and perfect justice prevails. No-one in the afterlife is ever going to go to Hell complaining that they were wrongly sent there, although Hell is going to be unpleasant for them, as being cut off from God for all eternity after having met Him fact to face must be.

 

[inocente]

You’re wrong criminals try really hard to stay out of prison.

If the allusion is non-believers going to hell, non-Christians might be excused for thinking that eternal torment is a bit over the top just for the thought-crime of not believing, hard to square with a God of love unless maybe there’s the possibility of earning an early upgrade to heaven. They might feel that fire and damnation is just a fantasy to scare little kids. An own goal then imho.

 

[Rence]

Criminals choose to go to prison, don’t they? The judges do not send the crooks to prison, they simply respect the choice of the criminals, who choose to go there. Think about it for a second, and tell me if I am wrong.

I think your thinking is a bit flawed. Many criminals, I’d say the majority, are thinking and hoping they won’t get caught. In addition,when they do get caught, they hire lawyers to try and get out of it. So, no, they don’t choose to go to prison. What they choose to do is break the law, and are a risk to the safety and welfare of others, and are therefore sent to jail to separate themselves from the rest of society. And still, there are other criminals who run their criminal ‘businesses’ behind the walls of jail and continue to be a threat to society. Added still is the rehabilitation efforts that are done to try and re-introduce criminals back into society. Some will never be rehabilitated, and some will. It’s a bit simplistic to just say that criminals choose to go to jail. Among other things, it is a punishment related to their crimes, it’s a separation from and for the sake of society, and it is a rehabilitation effort.

 

[Perplexity]

Criminals choose to go to prison, don’t they? The judges do not send the crooks to prison, they simply respect the choice of the criminals, who choose to go there. Think about it for a second, and tell me if I am wrong.

Clever

 

[Serious]

I see where you’re going with this - Christians often say God does not punish people with Hell, it is something they choose for themselves.

They most certainly do.

First of all - the question of whether it is a punishment is a different question to the question of whether or not the criminal chooses it. People DO voluntarily confess to crimes and hand themselves in to police, knowing that jail will be the outcome, so it cannot be denied that at least some choose it.

How many? Percentage-wise? We are not talking about the extremes. Christians do not say that “some” people choose hell, so your objection is without merit.

Whereas no-one is ever wrongly convicted in the afterlife, where perfect self-knowledge and perfect justice prevails.

It depends on what you consider “wrongly”. I would say that no finite deed ever deserves infinite punishment, so in my eyes every sentence is wrong.

No-one in the afterlife is ever going to go to Hell complaining that they were wrongly sent there, although Hell is going to be unpleasant for them, as being cut off from God for all eternity after having met Him fact to face must be.

Well, such a sweeping statement would surely gain some respectability, if it were supported by some videos, when the “damned” would cheerfully agree that their punishment is just… but somehow I just do not see such evidence. And with all due respect, your word just does not cut it. By the way, I really like your subdued phrase of “unpleasant”… why not say “mildly unpleasant” or maybe a “tad inconvenient”?

 

[bmullins]

I think for most it is indeed a choice. The system is imperfect sometimes and at other times corrupt. There are innocents who are in prison (though likely few and far between) and in some prisons around the world there are those who have done things we would consider acceptable, and are in prison for it. In some countries being Catholic or Christian would be enough to put you into prison.

Even then in a way you have chosen to do it.

 

[Serious]

You’re wrong criminals try really hard to stay out of prison.

If the allusion is non-believers going to hell, non-Christians might be excused for thinking that eternal torment is a bit over the top just for the thought-crime of not believing, hard to square with a God of love unless maybe there’s the possibility of earning an early upgrade to heaven. They might feel that fire and damnation is just a fantasy to scare little kids. An own goal then imho.

Very well said.

 

[Serious]

I think your thinking is a bit flawed. Many criminals, I’d say the majority, are thinking and hoping they won’t get caught. In addition,when they do get caught, they hire lawyers to try and get out of it. So, no, they don’t choose to go to prison. What they choose to do is break the law, and are a risk to the safety and welfare of others, and are therefore sent to jail to separate themselves from the rest of society. And still, there are other criminals who run their criminal ‘businesses’ behind the walls of jail and continue to be a threat to society. Added still is the rehabilitation efforts that are done to try and re-introduce criminals back into society. Some will never be rehabilitated, and some will. It’s a bit simplistic to just say that criminals choose to go to jail. Among other things, it is a punishment related to their crimes, it’s a separation from and for the sake of society, and it is a rehabilitation effort.

True. People do not choose to be incarcerated. The judicial system throws them into jail if they catch them. Of course, I hope you know what was my reason to start this thread.

 

[Serious]

I think for most it is indeed a choice. The system is imperfect sometimes and at other times corrupt. There are innocents who are in prison (though likely few and far between) and in some prisons around the world there are those who have done things we would consider acceptable, and are in prison for it. In some countries being Catholic or Christian would be enough to put you into prison.

Even then in a way you have chosen to do it.

Do those Catholics and Christians show up at the prison gate and demand admittance? That would be a choice.

 

[davidv]

Criminals choose to go to prison, don’t they?

No, not directly. They choose to do something illegal. Going to jail is the consequence of the choice.

The judges do not send the crooks to prison, they simply respect the choice of the criminals, who choose to go there. Think about it for a second, and tell me if I am wrong.

In conclusion you are wrong because the situation requires 1) a criminal act and 2) an authority that chooses a just consequence for the criminal act.

It is not an either/or question, it a both/and question.

 

[Simpleton]

Criminals choose to go to prison, don’t they? The judges do not send the crooks to prison, they simply respect the choice of the criminals, who choose to go there. Think about it for a second, and tell me if I am wrong.

Prison is the consequence for committing a crime. When a person chooses to commit a crime they are also choosing to suffer the consequences for said crime (prison). Whether they want suffer the consequences or not is irrelevant.

 

[Serious]

No, not directly. They choose to do something illegal. Going to jail is the consequence of the choice.

It is only a possible consequence of doing something prohibited. If they are not caught, there is no consequence, is there? Even if they are caught, but they can substanitate that they did not know that the act was forbidden, then a just judge will not impose a penalty.

Just one example: many years ago there was a segment of 60 minutes. There was a guy whose business was burglarized many times, and every time the criminal got access to his property through the roof. Eventually, he rigged up a metal wire mesh under the ceiling, and connected it to the electric outlet. The criminal got electrocuted. The owner was prosecuted for setting a deadly trap. Fortunately the judge exercised common sense, when the guy could substantiate that he did not know that the trap was lethal.

The usual phrase: “ignorance of the law excuses nothing” is not absolute. If the person can substantiate that he was ignorant of the law, a just judge will not impose a sentence.

So, I agree with you. People do not choose to go to prison, the judicial system catches them (if they can) and throw the criminals into jail.

 

[Serious]

Prison is the consequence for committing a crime. When a person chooses to commit a crime they are also choosing to suffer the consequences for said crime (prison). Whether they want suffer the consequences or not is irrelevant.

Read what David said above and my answer to him.

 

[sw85]

Criminals choose to go to prison, don’t they? The judges do not send the crooks to prison, they simply respect the choice of the criminals, who choose to go there. Think about it for a second, and tell me if I am wrong.

We’ve trod this ground before.

The issue here is not conscious desires or intentions, but the natural language of one’s actions. Take a man who says to his wife, “I love you, I love you, I love you,” then goes out and sleeps with other women. Which speaks more to the man’s inner state: his words or his actions? Clearly, his actions. His words are meaningless, either because they are spoken out of ignorance, dishonesty, or careless inattention to the duties which those words imply. He is lying through his actions.

It does not matter if he genuinely believes that he loves his wife. He expresses contempt for her through his actions. In civil society, she may rightly leave him and divorce him and neither the state nor most of her (non-Catholic) peers would bat an eye. “you go girl!” and so on.

People go to prison because they commit crimes. Crimes are KNOWN to result in prison sentences. The correlation is not 1 (i.e., it’s not “commit crime and then go immediately and without fail to prison”), but it doesn’t have to be 1 to be known. There are infinite range of values between 0 and 1, after all. There is no sense in murdering someone and then saying “But I don’t want to go to prison!” The consequence is known and predictable. It follows logically from the act. Therefore when the act is willed, so is the consequence.

Likewise, people go to Hell because they commit mortal sins. Mortal sins by definition require full consent of the will and at least the capacity for full knowledge of the evilness of the act (personal negligence and laziness do not excuse one for lacking full knowledge where one has the capacity to rectify one’s ignorance). Given full knowledge or the capacity for it, Hell follows logically from one’s mortal sins. If you can’t commit a mortal sin unless you want to, and if you can’t go to Hell unless you commit a mortal sin, it follows that you can’t go to Hell unless you will your own damnation – that is, that you accept the possibility of damnation tacitly by performing the sinful act with full consent of the will and despite knowledge of its sinfulness.

It is only a possible consequence of doing something prohibited. If they are not caught, there is no consequence, is there?

This is a retarded dodge and you know it. When a convict is brought before the court he cannot claim imprisonment is unjust because it’s only one of many possible outcomes and he genuinely thought he’d get away with it.

And at any rate, does any mortal sinner really think he has a chance of God (omnipresent and omniscient!) just not noticing?

Even if they are caught, but they can substanitate that they did not know that the act was forbidden, then a just judge will not impose a penalty.

Mortal sins require full knowledge or at least the capacity for full knowledge. Invincible ignorance of the sinfulness of an act is indeed a shield against damnation. QED.

A toddler can get away with claiming ignorance of murder’s illegality because his brain is underdeveloped. A traffic lawyer is far less likely to likewise get away with even a relatively minor infraction of traffic laws on that basis – even if he genuinely was ignorant! At that point his ignorance is culpable.

Look, you seem *awfully *concerned about Hell given how frequently you post about it. I can only guess there’s one of two reasons. The first is that you’re a strident and convinced atheist and you’re convinced (for some reason) that the “problem of Hell” is a slam-dunk for atheism, even though literally thousands of works have been penned on the topic and I doubt you’ve read a damn one of them to justify your confidence. Given the fact that no one thought it was a “problem” until recently, the odds are good it’s that *you *are missing some important information, not that millions of people across many centuries didn’t know their faith well enough to figure out that this big glaring “problem” was actually a problem. The other possibility is that, while you’re an atheist, you’re plagued with doubt about your position and genuinely concerned about the prospect of eternal damnation. (This niggling doubt led me away from atheism, too, precisely because of my awareness that atheism is about as historically aberrant as serious psychopathy). In which case I can only imagine you are here in the hopes that conflict and confrontation will resolve this doubt, either by convincing you that Christians are total ignoramuses or that they’re totally right.

If that’s the case, I’m not going to do much to help you solve this dilemma because I’m not a philosopher or theologian and I can’t express the relevant concepts well enough to convince you (and very likely you would use my bumbling half-correct explanations as evidence that the whole of intellectual Christendom is nonsense and so calcify in your obstinacy). Others can and have expressed those concepts well, though. A good place to start would be Edward Feser’s Aquinas. Then read any of the other thousands of books written on Christianity over the centuries, by men far smarter than you.

 

[LilyM]

Put it thus way - people choose the risk, and so when they are caught and put in jail no-one finds it particularly unfair unless they consider the person to be innocent or their punishment is wildly different to punishments imposed by the same or similar judges on people in the same or similar circumstances.

As for a sin not meriting an eternal punishment - put it like this. You choose to drive drunk and injure someone, the punishment will be in accord with the gravity of the injury. The same act on your part will merit a larger compensation payout if you kill someone or leave a child paralyzed for life than it would if the person you hit suffered only a grazed knee or you hit someone who was already in a wheelchair and they were not substantially worse off afterwards.

Now how much injury do you think you can do to an eternal being? The answer is an eternal injury. How can a finite temporary punishment atone for an injury that is eternal? It cannot. So the appropriate punishment can only be an eternal one.

It is only a possible consequence of doing something prohibited. If they are not caught, there is no consequence, is there? Even if they are caught, but they can substanitate that they did not know that the act was forbidden, then a just judge will not impose a penalty.

Just one example: many years ago there was a segment of 60 minutes. There was a guy whose business was burglarized many times, and every time the criminal got access to his property through the roof. Eventually, he rigged up a metal wire mesh under the ceiling, and connected it to the electric outlet. The criminal got electrocuted. The owner was prosecuted for setting a deadly trap. Fortunately the judge exercised common sense, when the guy could substantiate that he did not know that the trap was lethal.

The usual phrase: “ignorance of the law excuses nothing” is not absolute. If the person can substantiate that he was ignorant of the law, a just judge will not impose a sentence.

So, I agree with you. People do not choose to go to prison, the judicial system catches them (if they can) and throw the criminals into jail.

 

[Rence]

True. People do not choose to be incarcerated. The judicial system throws them into jail if they catch them. Of course, I hope you know what was my reason to start this thread.

actually, I thought it was about whether people choose to be punished for their decisions.

 

[Serious]

The issue here is not conscious desires or intentions, but the natural language of one’s actions. Take a man who says to his wife, “I love you, I love you, I love you,” then goes out and sleeps with other women. Which speaks more to the man’s inner state: his words or his actions? Clearly, his actions. His words are meaningless, either because they are spoken out of ignorance, dishonesty, or careless inattention to the duties which those words imply. He is lying through his actions.

Very true, but totally irrelevant.

People go to prison because they commit crimes. Crimes are KNOWN to result in prison sentences. The correlation is not 1 (i.e., it’s not “commit crime and then go immediately and without fail to prison”), but it doesn’t have to be 1 to be known. There are infinite range of values between 0 and 1, after all. There is no sense in murdering someone and then saying “But I don’t want to go to prison!” The consequence is known and predictable. It follows logically from the act. Therefore when the act is willed, so is the consequence.

No, the act is willed, but that does not mean that the consequence is also accepted. Did OJ Simpson accept the consequence of his actions? Do criminals bang of the doors of prisons demanding to be punished? Don’t most criminals believe that they were “right” in what they did?

Likewise, people go to Hell because they commit mortal sins. Mortal sins by definition require full consent of the will and at least the capacity for full knowledge of the evilness of the act (personal negligence and laziness do not excuse one for lacking full knowledge where one has the capacity to rectify one’s ignorance).

Now we are cooking. First: I simply deny that some of those alleged mortal sins are “sins” at all (much less “mortal”). Second: I only know about the “mortal” aspect of those “sins” from listening to you (not personal you, of course) and your word is simply insufficient.

Given full knowledge or the capacity for it, Hell follows logically from one’s mortal sins. If you can’t commit a mortal sin unless you want to, and if you can’t go to Hell unless you commit a mortal sin, it follows that you can’t go to Hell unless you will your own damnation – that is, that you accept the possibility of damnation tacitly by performing the sinful act with full consent of the will and despite knowledge of its sinfulness.

Which, of course means that no atheist can ever be “condemned” to hell, since they do not accept the notion of sin, and thus they cannot be held responsible for full knowledge of the “sinful” nature of the actions. Of course “you” may say that you told me (or us), but unfortunately, your word carries no weight.

This is a retarded dodge and you know it. When a convict is brought before the court he cannot claim imprisonment is unjust because it’s only one of many possible outcomes and he genuinely thought he’d get away with it.

The point was that the person is NOT brought to court. Don’t argue against what I did NOT say. (And if I am retarded, why do you waste your time on arguing a retarded person? That is not very logical, is it?)

And at any rate, does any mortal sinner really think he has a chance of God (omnipresent and omniscient!) just not noticing?

Indeed, that is true - if there is such a being. But he can successfully argue that he did not have sufficient information, since the information only came from people whose “competency” is not accepted. With utmost respect, your word is unacceptable (“your” is also general, not personal).

Mortal sins require full knowledge or at least the capacity for full knowledge. Invincible ignorance of the sinfulness of an act is indeed a shield against damnation. QED.

Which is a fine outcome.

 

[Serious]

actually, I thought it was about whether people choose to be punished for their decisions.

No, not really. And, of course most people do not choose to be punished.

 

[sw85]

Very true, but totally irrelevant.

Not at all irrelevant. He does not get to claim that he doesn’t want his wife to leave him and that his constantly cheating on her should be treated as irrelevant to this outcome.

No, the act is willed, but that does not mean that the consequence is also accepted. Did OJ Simpson accept the consequence of his actions? Do criminals bang of the doors of prisons demanding to be punished? Don’t most criminals believe that they were “right” in what they did?

I am saying it does not matter if the consequence is consciously desired. It is foreseeable and therefore accepted when the act is committed – just as surely as the man who cheats on his wife accepts (whether consciously or not!) the risk that he will be divorced if his wife discovers it.

Now we are cooking. First: I simply deny that some of those alleged mortal sins are “sins” at all (much less “mortal”). Second: I only know about the “mortal” aspect of those “sins” from listening to you (not personal you, of course) and your word is simply insufficient.

You deny them because you are ignorant of Catholic moral theology and your ignorance is culpable because it is not invincible. That’s it.

You have Catechism at your fingertips. You have the witness of a hundred generations of Christians, including thousands of philosophical and theological works and the daily testimony of preachers, homilists, missionaries, and lay Christians. If you are ignorant of basic theological principles, the fault is yours.

Which, of course means that no atheist can ever be “condemned” to hell, since they do not accept the notion of sin, and thus they cannot be held responsible for full knowledge of the “sinful” nature of the actions. Of course “you” may say that you told me (or us), but unfortunately, your word carries no weight.

I am telling you a simple truth. You have a functioning brain and unimpaired rational faculties and countless intellectual resources at your disposal. If you refuse to do your homework than your ignorance is culpable, born of pride and obstinacy.

The point was that the person is NOT brought to court. Don’t argue against what I did NOT say. (And if I am retarded, why do you waste your time on arguing a retarded person? That is not very logical, is it?)

First, I said your dodge is retarded, and I meant it in the most literal sense: it is characteristic of stunted thought. Reading’s hard, man.

Second, your counter-dodge has nothing to do with what I said. Imprisonment is a rationally foreseeable consequence of lawbreaking. It doesn’t matter that you might not get caught: if you do get caught, you will probably go to prison. “But I didn’t think I’d get caught!” isn’t an excuse here, so that imprisonment is only one possible outcome is also not an excuse.

Now given that God is omniscient and omnipresent, you will get “caught” for your sins. You will face judgment for them. Your dodges and excuses will not work on He who knows everything. So, given full consent of the will, full knowledge (or the culpably unexploited capacity for full knowledge), and the gravity of sins, you will go to Hell for them if you do not repent.

You know this now. Your ignorance is gone. If you persist in error it will only be because of your own obstinacy.

Indeed, that is true - if there is such a being. But he can successfully argue that he did not have sufficient information, since the information only came from people whose “competency” is not accepted. With utmost respect, your word is unacceptable (“your” is also general, not personal).

So don’t take my word for it. Use your head. Read a book. Think about the claims within it. It’s hard but worthwhile. Feser’s *Aquinas *is a good place to start.