|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Koreadays
Joined: 20 May 2008
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 8:19 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I am not against him for being in a boyband or Korean, I like Kpop and I like Korea. , actually I like him the most out of the other members, think he looks like a good guy and is the better singer of the bunch.
that's beside the point.
I take it you guys don't drive here?
well, I do drive here and have done so for 10 years, EVERYDAY.
all across seoul all the time. all hours of the night, I know these streets better than most taxi drivers.
the bridge was dark? NO IT WASN'T , there is adequate lighting there, why do you think 100 cars drove past the scene and didn't run over the guy.?
sure maybe Daesung was the only car that drove past. but the taxi managed to stop and get out of the car and walk up to the person, at 1am I know from experience at least 10-20 cars would of drove past during that time, on that bridge.
then here comes fan boy in his audi, speeding across the bridge, and smashes into the taxi and runs over someone, then keeps going and then realizes he hit someone, stops the car, (probably calls his manager who then calls the lawyer and tells him what to do.)
reckless driving, killed someone. drunk or not. doesn't matter..
life was taken, he needs to not get off it with a slap on the wrist.
that's all I am saying..
his license needs to be revoked for good he should not be behind the wheel of a vehicle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Koreadays
Joined: 20 May 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am not against him for being in a boyband or Korean, I like Kpop and I like Korea. , actually I like him the most out of the other members, think he looks like a good guy and is the better singer of the bunch.
that's beside the point.
I take it you guys don't drive here?
well, I do drive here and have done so for 10 years, EVERYDAY.
all across seoul all the time. all hours of the night, I know these streets better than most taxi drivers.
the bridge was dark? NO IT WASN'T , there is adequate lighting there, why do you think 100 cars drove past the scene and didn't run over the guy.?
sure maybe Daesung was the only car that drove past. but the taxi managed to stop and get out of the car and walk up to the person, at 1am I know from experience at least 10-20 cars would of drove past during that time, on that bridge.
then here comes fan boy in his audi, speeding across the bridge, and smashes into the taxi and runs over someone, then keeps going and then realizes he hit someone, stops the car, (probably calls his manager who then calls the lawyer and tells him what to do.)
reckless driving, killed someone. drunk or not. doesn't matter..
life was taken, he needs to not get off it with a slap on the wrist.
that's all I am saying..
his license needs to be revoked for good he should not be behind the wheel of a vehicle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
The deed's been done. The question is not how to prevent the crime but what to do about it. Or maybe I don't understand in what sense you mean "prevent." |
If I commit a murder, the surest way to prevent me from committing one again is to incarcerate me, at least until one has reason to believe I'm trustworthy to re-enter society, and possibly for life. I think this is distinct, however, from incarcerating me to punish me; the former has merely the intention of minimizing the harm I inflict on others, while the latter has the goal of intentionally doing me harm.
You might feel this distinction isn't especially meaningful, but I feel it is. The best example is the death penalty. The death penalty is pure punishment, as there is no crime one can commit which one cannot be prevented from committing again through simple incarceration (unless one happens to have fantastic super powers). As such, while the death penalty can exist in a punishment-based model, it cannot exist in a genuine justice-based model. There are plenty of other examples as well (incarceration for drug abuse, for example).
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| You feel like your dignity is demeaned by the criminal code? |
No, I feel like my dignity is demeaned by society at large insisting that it has the right to levy punishment upon me, as if the threat of physical consequence is all that's keeping me in line. I don't not murder people because of the threat of consequence, I don't murder people because my conscience cries out against it. The same is true of a variety of other causes. Punishment-based social models imply that consequences are required to keep people in line, something I think is generally untrue, and moreover an idea that I think is actually somewhat corrupting, causing us to view our fellow citizens in a different and worse way. Most people want to do good, and they want to do it as an end in itself, not simply for fear of punishment. I have no problem with criminal codes in theory, merely any specific criminal code which predicates itself upon punishment.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| Unfortunately this man-against-man stuff is not an illusion. Hopefully one day we will transcend it, but we're nowhere near there yet. |
I don't want to imply that there are no instances of men being against their fellow men. And obviously we do need a set of standards which, upon being breached, result in the breaching individual being removed from society, either temporarily or permanently, for the sake of others. None the less, I think there's a difference between admitting this phenomenon exists, and making it out to be the norm; the illusion that if not for the threat of punishment, most or all of us would be slavering to do one another harm. The overwhelming majority of people have no interest in harming those around them, and as such, I don't think it's correct to imply that the only thing keeping these people in check is the threat of consequence.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| There are lots of times people commit major crimes they aren't likely to commit again (the wife who shoots the husband she catches cheating, the white supremacist who kills the last black man in his township, etc). Should these people get away clean? |
Anyone unstable enough to do something like murder their husband or kill another person because of their skin color is certainly not stable enough to be immediately trusted in open society. Someone in the situation of the wife you mention might be able to work through her problems and become a productive, safe member of society again relatively quickly, or she might never be trustworthy again; it depends on her. What I'm suggesting isn't as simple as, "Oh, well, you're out of cheating husbands, so clearly you won't be doing any more killing. Have a nice day ma'am." I'm simply less interested in said woman's "debt to society" than I am in keeping her out of society until it can be ascertained she is once again ready to enter it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HijackedTw1light
Joined: 24 May 2010
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| You feel like your dignity is demeaned by the criminal code? |
No, I feel like my dignity is demeaned by society at large insisting that it has the right to levy punishment upon me, as if the threat of physical consequence is all that's keeping me in line. I don't not murder people because of the threat of consequence, I don't murder people because my conscience cries out against it. |
No doubt the prospect of punishment is unnecessary to keep you from doing violent crime. You feel no temptation to rob and kill in the street. You'd be sickened by the thought. The point at which your free will is tested is higher, in another zone, probably outside the zone addressed by the law. I understand that. That's probably true for most people. But there's a significant minority for whom it's not true.
| Fox wrote: |
| What I'm suggesting isn't as simple as, "Oh, well, you're out of cheating husbands, so clearly you won't be doing any more killing. Have a nice day ma'am." I'm simply less interested in said woman's "debt to society" than I am in keeping her out of society until it can be ascertained she is once again ready to enter it. |
Fair enough. You are less interested, I am more interested. But let me ask you something. Didn't you say in another thread that you love justice (as opposed to democracy)? If I've mixed you up with someone else, my mistake. In light of your comments here, I'm curious how you would define justice in the criminal sphere. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| You feel like your dignity is demeaned by the criminal code? |
No, I feel like my dignity is demeaned by society at large insisting that it has the right to levy punishment upon me, as if the threat of physical consequence is all that's keeping me in line. I don't not murder people because of the threat of consequence, I don't murder people because my conscience cries out against it. |
No doubt the prospect of punishment is unnecessary to keep you from doing violent crime. You feel no temptation to rob and kill in the street. You'd be sickened by the thought. The point at which your free will is tested is higher, in another zone, probably outside the zone addressed by the law. I understand that. That's probably true for most people. But there's a significant minority for whom it's not true. |
As long as you agree with that (and I'm glad you do), you agree that the threat of punishment isn't required to keep most people reasonably in line. The question then becomes, "How effectively does it keep the troublesome minority in line?" The answer, at least glancing at American society, seems to be, "Not very." Over the last twenty years crime rates have declined, but they seem to have declined not because of fear of punishment, but rather because of massively increased incarceration rates. That implies to me that the notion of punishment, in addition to (in my estimation, at least) being demeaning, also isn't very effective at its intended purpose.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| What I'm suggesting isn't as simple as, "Oh, well, you're out of cheating husbands, so clearly you won't be doing any more killing. Have a nice day ma'am." I'm simply less interested in said woman's "debt to society" than I am in keeping her out of society until it can be ascertained she is once again ready to enter it. |
Fair enough. You are less interested, I am more interested. But let me ask you something. Didn't you say in another thread that you love justice (as opposed to democracy)? If I've mixed you up with someone else, my mistake. In light of your comments here, I'm curious how you would define justice in the criminal sphere. |
I've tried to draw a distinction between justice and punishment. Punishment generally predicates itself either on the idea of bad actions incurring some sort of intangible social or moral debt (in addition to any actual, say, monetary debt) that can be somehow paid off through the receipt of vengeance, or upon the idea of humans as a kind of trainable animal which, if exposed to harsh consequences enough times, will learn to naturally fear certain actions and thus avoid them.
Justice of the sort I envision, on the other hand, focuses on rectifying misdeeds (and preventing future ones) as completely as possible with the minimum feasible response. With regards to the criminally violent, the results of this system would be not entirely dissimilar to what you see today (excepting the lack of the death penalty and the lack of term-specific sentences); people who are violent threats to others simply must be incarcerated until we can be reasonably sure they no longer pose a risk. However, with regards to non-violent crimes you'd see a very different approach. No amount of unpaid taxes or child support, for example, could end one up in prison, since being in prison in no way rectifies that situation; you'd still owe the money, along with any additional fees associated in the collection process, but sending you to jail simply isn't going to happen. Likewise, drug use or prostitution, as actions that cause no harm, leave nothing to rectify -- justice ignores them entirely. Only a punishment-based system can dream up the decidedly unjust criminalization of such activities.
I think the distinction here is fairly clear. To use the original post as an example, real justice (as I define it) would look at this Daesung fellow and ask two questions:
1) Did his actions inflict any harm that is currently rectifiable through some means?
2) Did his actions mark him as a genuine threat to his fellow man.
If the answer to one of these question is yes, real justice would be forced to step in and either oversee rectification, take preventative measures to avoid this happening again (with options ranging from removal of driving privileges to full incarceration), or both. If the answer to both is no, then real justice would simply mark this as a tragic accident. A punishment system, on the other hand, can receive a "no" answer to both questions and still demand punishment be inflicted upon the individual, either to pay off his ineffable cosmic debt, or in hopes of spreading fear of the system in the common citizen. In fact you have people in this thread demanding just that. "TIME MUST BE SERVED!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HijackedTw1light
Joined: 24 May 2010
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| As long as you agree with that (and I'm glad you do), you agree that the threat of punishment isn't required to keep most people reasonably in line. |
Not so fast. The prospect of punishment isn't required to keep most modern people from heavy-duty violence (at least while society is functioning properly). But it often is required to keep them in line. My own experiences prior to coming to Korea would have been enough to convince me of that, if I didn't already believe it.
| Fox wrote: |
| Punishment generally predicates itself either on the idea of bad actions incurring some sort of intangible social or moral debt (in addition to any actual, say, monetary debt) that can be somehow paid off through the receipt of vengeance, or upon the idea of humans as a kind of trainable animal which, if exposed to harsh consequences enough times, will learn to naturally fear certain actions and thus avoid them. |
People do respond to negative reinforcement. I don't think that's a controversial position. It's not necessary to call them animals for that.
| Fox wrote: |
1) Did his actions inflict any harm that is currently rectifiable through some means?
2) Did his actions mark him as a genuine threat to his fellow man.
If the answer to one of these question is yes, real justice would be forced to step in and either oversee rectification, take preventative measures to avoid this happening again (with options ranging from removal of driving privileges to full incarceration), or both. If the answer to both is no, then real justice would simply mark this as a tragic accident. A punishment system, on the other hand, can receive a "no" answer to both questions and still demand punishment be inflicted upon the individual, either to pay off his ineffable cosmic debt, or in hopes of spreading fear of the system in the common citizen. In fact you have people in this thread demanding just that. "TIME MUST BE SERVED!" |
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss that instinctive reaction people have. There is a social contract people agree to implicitly, and most people's concept of criminal justice involves the payment of a debt to society. Just because you can't always quantify it empirically doesn't mean it doesn't exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
Not so fast. The prospect of punishment isn't required to keep most modern people from heavy-duty violence (at least while society is functioning properly). But it often is required to keep them in line. My own experiences prior to coming to Korea would have been enough to convince me of that, if I didn't already believe it. |
Care to expound upon this a bit more? I'm not sure exactly what you mean, and I don't mind the inclusion of some anecdotes if it helps makes your point clear. Because when I say in line, I'm not expecting perfection, merely a tolerably low level of misbehavior. No one's perfect after all.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| People do respond to negative reinforcement. I don't think that's a controversial position. |
I feel like it's more controversial than the intuition would immediately lead us to believe. People do things in spite of negative reinforcement all the time. That is, after all, why we have an ever-increasing prison population (to say nothing of the myriad non-legal matters upon which humans simply ignore negative consequences).
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| It's not necessary to call them animals for that. |
It's apt, though. That is, after all, precisely how animals are often trained. Animals and children - irrational entities. Would you prefer the latter comparison? Bear in mind I'm arguing most people don't fall under this categorization: unlike the animal and the child, they can reason their way to the logical conclusion of wrong action and opt against it on those grounds alone. They may not be perfect, but in general they are capable of keeping their misdeeds to a tolerably low level.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss that instinctive reaction people have. There is a social contract people agree to implicitly, and most people's concept of criminal justice involves the payment of a debt to society. Just because you can't always quantify it empirically doesn't mean it doesn't exist. |
There is no implicit social contract. The entire concept of a contract which is never made explicitly clear and which no party actually expressly agrees to is bizarre. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HijackedTw1light
Joined: 24 May 2010
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2011 1:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
Not so fast. The prospect of punishment isn't required to keep most modern people from heavy-duty violence (at least while society is functioning properly). But it often is required to keep them in line. My own experiences prior to coming to Korea would have been enough to convince me of that, if I didn't already believe it. |
Care to expound upon this a bit more? I'm not sure exactly what you mean, and I don't mind the inclusion of some anecdotes if it helps makes your point clear. Because when I say in line, I'm not expecting perfection, merely a tolerably low level of misbehavior. No one's perfect after all. |
No one incident, just enough things I saw in high-tech business world (bosses misleading their employees, employees cheating their bosses) and the Vegas gambling world (collusion, cheating, fraud, non-payment of debts) to convince me that fear of punishment and/or shame is important for many if not most people. When people think they can get away with something, they'll often do it, if they have enough incentive.
| Fox wrote: |
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| People do respond to negative reinforcement. I don't think that's a controversial position. |
I feel like it's more controversial than the intuition would immediately lead us to believe. People do things in spite of negative reinforcement all the time. That is, after all, why we have an ever-increasing prison population (to say nothing of the myriad non-legal matters upon which humans simply ignore negative consequences). |
Yes, of course, no one would deny that. But that doesn't mean people don't respond to negative reinforcement. It has its effect, but people have free will to commit crimes despite the threat of punishment.
| Fox wrote: |
| That is, after all, precisely how animals are often trained. Animals and children - irrational entities. |
Negative feedback assumes the subject is rational, not irrational. Irrational would be if they kept doing it knowing they'll get smacked.
| Fox wrote: |
| There is no implicit social contract. The entire concept of a contract which is never made explicitly clear and which no party actually expressly agrees to is bizarre. |
Let's agree to disagree here. That will be too time-consuming and hazy a subject to wrangle about, especially if we get into abstract notions of guilt. The "deterrent to society" factor is enough for one discussion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2011 1:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
No one incident, just enough things I saw in high-tech business world (bosses misleading their employees, employees cheating their bosses) and the Vegas gambling world (collusion, cheating, fraud, non-payment of debts) to convince me that fear of punishment and/or shame is important for many if not most people. When people think they can get away with something, they'll often do it, if they have enough incentive. |
But these people all do in fact live under threat of punishment for their actions. Doesn't that imply a certain substantial degree of ineffectiveness to you? After all, it's not as if I'm saying, "Hey, just let those people steal and cheat." I do of course think the law should be involved as a corrective measure. I just don't think, for example, people should be incarcerated over something like embezzlement. There are other, more appropriate means of righting such wrongs, to say nothing of the non-legal social implications of even petty misdoings (ranging from the destruction of relationships and families to the loss of present employment and future employment opportunities).
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| Yes, of course, no one would deny that. But that doesn't mean people don't respond to negative reinforcement. It has its effect, but people have free will to commit crimes despite the threat of punishment. |
More importantly, they have sufficient rationality to attempt to reason around the consequences. Once you think you can get away with it, the consequences of getting caught cease to be of especial importance, and if you don't think you can get away with it, even the natural consequences of the misdeed coupled with the dictates of non-punitive justice are sufficient to trigger whatever reticence lies in the heart.
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| That is, after all, precisely how animals are often trained. Animals and children - irrational entities. |
Negative feedback assumes the subject is rational, not irrational. Irrational would be if they kept doing it knowing they'll get smacked. |
When I used the word rational, I meant to reference the higher logical faculties of the human mind, which allow for inferring the result of a given action without actually engaging in it, a trait at best poorly developed in children and entirely lacking in most animals. Obviously it can be used the way you use it here as well (and may even be used that way more often), so I apologize for my lack of clarity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HijackedTw1light
Joined: 24 May 2010
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2011 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
No one incident, just enough things I saw in high-tech business world (bosses misleading their employees, employees cheating their bosses) and the Vegas gambling world (collusion, cheating, fraud, non-payment of debts) to convince me that fear of punishment and/or shame is important for many if not most people. When people think they can get away with something, they'll often do it, if they have enough incentive. |
But these people all do in fact live under threat of punishment for their actions. Doesn't that imply a certain substantial degree of ineffectiveness to you? After all, it's not as if I'm saying, "Hey, just let those people steal and cheat." I do of course think the law should be involved as a corrective measure. I just don't think, for example, people should be incarcerated over something like embezzlement. There are other, more appropriate means of righting such wrongs, to say nothing of the non-legal social implications of even petty misdoings (ranging from the destruction of relationships and families to the loss of present employment and future employment opportunities). |
The threat of punishment didn't always stop these people, but then again, sometimes it did. Even very slick people don't want to risk getting caught cheating in some places, and against some people. Severity of punishment combined with risk of detection are weighed against estimated reward--that's probably a con artist's equation when sizing up a job.
I do agree that incarceration would not be the right punishment for many of these crimes. Depending on circumstances and history.
As for Daesung, according to some Koreans I talked to tonight, his career is likely over. His other dream was apparently to go into the Church (there was a Bible in his car) so he may have a chance to do that now. In a way he's lucky. The family of the victim doesn't seem interested in ruining his life to recompense their own loss. He'll have the rest of his years to revisit that one night, which, if he has a conscience, should be punishment enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2011 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Koreadays wrote: |
| I am not against him for being in a boyband or Korean, I like Kpop and I like Korea. , actually I like him the most out of the other members, think he looks like a good guy and is the better singer of the bunch. |
Daesung's main crime though.... is being more popular with K-women than Itaewonguy.
Ahem *cough* I mean "koreadays". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koreadays
Joined: 20 May 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2011 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Julius wrote: |
| Koreadays wrote: |
| I am not against him for being in a boyband or Korean, I like Kpop and I like Korea. , actually I like him the most out of the other members, think he looks like a good guy and is the better singer of the bunch. |
Daesung's main crime though.... is being more popular with K-women than Itaewonguy.
Ahem *cough* I mean "koreadays". |
think you mean K boys! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
