Originally Posted By: buickman50401
However, since I did mention the rape cases, when you grow up in a culture where women aren't viewed on equal footing with men (under the law or otherwise) and where the justice systems in place are highly punitive/retributive you explain to me how they will see a system such as Norway's as anything other than "soft" and how they will be able to function in a society where the social norms are vastly different then their country of origin.
Now we're getting somewhere. Isn't this better when we have something substantive on the table to debate?
Purely for the sake of argument, and because I think other points are more worth making here, I'm going to grant you your rather bold assertions about African and Muslim cultures. I won't say you're wrong, but don't for a moment think I actually agree with you on this point.
The main point here is that it doesn't matter how Norway's prisoners view the penal system or what views they come in with; the effect will generally be the same unless the prisoner in question has some kind of identifiable mental illness. This is for two reasons.
First: Human criminality in any culture essentially amounts to a failure of the person to act as though he or she has a lot to gain from and a lot to contribute to a civil society. That failure can be because they don't view themselves that way, or because they have a poor understanding of what it means and thus a myopic view of their actions. If you can give them that perspective, they will function better. It's as simple as that. It's true that different cultures may be better or worse at enforcing rules that promote a civil society. All this means is that their people will be more or less in need of further education and training if they are to function in a civil society.
Second: Rehabilitation isn't about convincing someone to act in a certain way. It's about
making them act a certain way. Norway's penal system does this by dropping people into an environment where there are as few prompts for aggression as possible, and where people have to work together to survive. Most people in that kind of situation simply will develop the necessary sensibilities. For the rest, there's solitary confinement.
Long story short, Norway's penal system simply reflects a decent understanding of human nature and what is required to build a civil society. If someone comes into Norway with an antisocial mindset and ends up going through the penal system, they are very likely to come out a better person regardless of whether their original mindset was of personal or cultural origin.
Originally Posted By: buickman50401
Then we have such shining examples as the following that show how people from certain parts of the world/ethnic/religious backgrounds have/are demonstrating their inability to integrate into the very nations they've chosen to make their new home.
People in other countries can play that game with America and show us in a very similar light. It doesn't make sense for them, and it shouldn't make sense for you.
Originally Posted By: buickman50401
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
1. I agree that there's no spec, but we have to be careful about what we call subjective. "Broken" may be defined with respect to ideas that emerge from our subjective experience, but ultimately it is the result of certain facts about the world (the person's brain, their circumstances, their experiences, etc.), and can be assessed objectively in terms of how far away one is from whatever best- or worst-case scenario we define.
Seems pretty easy to me. We define the short list of "not broken" as:
1) Not murdering
2) Not raping
3) Not stealing
4) Not engaging in violence or abuse of others
Unless you'd like to argue that list is subjective?
The passage you quoted from me argues AGAINST calling things subjective.
As for your list, I'd say we can roll the first three into the fourth one, but other than that it's a good start.
