Amiga.org
Coffee House => Coffee House Boards => CH / General => Topic started by: Cyberus on October 19, 2006, 07:47:15 AM
-
At first I was shocked by this article, because I am wholeheartedly against this, or any form of physical harm of others. But then it became more of an informative article of how attitudes differ from country to country...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6063386.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6063386.stm)
Cue predictable bickering involving usual suspects?
-
I support some tourture. In a world that is as it is you need some threat to wrong doers.
-
i don't since any information gathered by such means is suspect. anyone will say anything to avoid pain, truthful or not. torture also is not limited to the guilty as some countries can use circumstantial evidence as justification to torture, even when based on lies.
-
anyone will say anything to avoid pain, truthful or not
Exactly. There's no way to guarentee the validity of any information obtained in this way. So even if you can put aside any moral qualms about willingly inflicting harm on someone in the hope they'll tell you something (and frankly that says a lot more about you than the suspect), the information you obtain isn't likely to be useful anyway.
-
iamaboringperson wrote:
I support some tourture.
Congratulations!
:pint:
You win the most predictable response of the thread award. ;-)
-
iamaboringperson wrote:
I support some tourture. In a world that is as it is you need some threat to wrong doers.
I believe paedo's should be tortued to death.
-
nicholas wrote:
iamaboringperson wrote:
I support some tourture. In a world that is as it is you need some threat to wrong doers.
I believe paedo's should be tortued to death.
Only 'paedos'?
-
Cyberus wrote:
I am wholeheartedly against this, or any form of physical harm of others.
Same here.
-
I am in any case extremely against torturing.
Also the torturing of paedos and psychopaths and so is beyond anything acceptable. These people are SICK avant la lettre. You simply do not torture sick people. And if people just are that way you take 'em out of society. So be it.
-
Wilse wrote:
Cyberus wrote:
I am wholeheartedly against this, or any form of physical harm of others.
Same here.
Yes indeed. Though I am pro forced treatment in extreme cases.
-
nicholas wrote:
iamaboringperson wrote:
I support some tourture. In a world that is as it is you need some threat to wrong doers.
I believe paedo's should be tortued to death.
how about politains??
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
I am in any case extremely against torturing.
Also the torturing of paedos and psychopaths and so is beyond anything acceptable. These people are SICK avant la lettre. You simply do not torture sick people. And if people just are that way you take 'em out of society. So be it.
Do you mean "sick" to equal "ill"?
Since when does a persons sexual preference make them "ill"? Eh Eyso?
-
Wilse wrote:
nicholas wrote:
iamaboringperson wrote:
I support some tourture. In a world that is as it is you need some threat to wrong doers.
I believe paedo's should be tortued to death.
Only 'paedos'?
And child murderers.
-
Wilse wrote:
Cyberus wrote:
I am wholeheartedly against this, or any form of physical harm of others.
Same here.
You will change your mind once you have children.
-
nicholas wrote:
Since when does a persons sexual preference make them "ill"? Eh Eyso?
When they get so obsessive about it that they gonna abuse people. That's illness. Now we must have a society where someone who has such feelings just can go to the physician or get psychotherapy without fear, so they can live a normal life. For the sake of everyone.
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
nicholas wrote:
Since when does a persons sexual preference make them "ill"? Eh Eyso?
When they get so obsessive about it that they gonna abuse people. That's illness. Now we must have a society where someone who has such feelings just can go to the physician or get psychotherapy without fear, so they can live a normal life. For the sake of everyone.
People said that about homosexuality 30 years ago. ;-)
-
I know. But then, homosexuality harms no one.
And I know our views towards pedophilia is a cultural thing. But then, (difference of) culture can be a harmful thing.
(okay, know it's being written badly, though I hope you get my point)
-
nicholas wrote:
Wilse wrote:
Cyberus wrote:
I am wholeheartedly against this, or any form of physical harm of others.
Same here.
You will change your mind once you have children.
Nonsense.
-
Imagine it though: you have a box of electrodes, a nipple wrench, a cat 'o nine tails, a thumb screw - and a visitor's pass for the Microsoft headquarters...
:idea:
-
I am totally against government, military or police torture as a method to get information.
However, using basic human instinct... if a child, spouse, relative or close friend has been brutally tortured or raped, then I fully support torturing the guilty person - with the following conditions:
1. Torturing can NOT be done for a simple quick murder like shooting someone or crashing a plane. In those cases, quick revenge death is enough. You can only torture someone who has brutally tortured or raped.
2. Torturing can only be done BY the parent, spouse, relative or close friend of the victim - NOT by governments, military, police or people not directly affected.
3. Guilt must be proven 100%. If you torture the wrong person by mistake, THEIR relatives or friends are free to torture YOU. (personally, I'd commit suicide if I brutally tortured the wrong person by mistake)
-
I don't see it as 'acceptable, providing we attach x,y and z conditions', I see it as wrong. Full stop.
Same goes for the death penalty, even if it is a 'paedo in speedos' or whatever, its wrong. Sure, if I had a child and someone sexually abused him/her I would want revenge, but at that point I couldn't make an objective decision about such things anymore....
-
I certainly don't support torture for questioning reasons.
I think it's only necessary in extreme cases.
However, often those who don't have a concience also won't really care about the emotions associated with pain.
-
Wilse wrote:
nicholas wrote:
Wilse wrote:
Cyberus wrote:
I am wholeheartedly against this, or any form of physical harm of others.
Same here.
You will change your mind once you have children.
Noncesense.
You'll see.
-
Cyberus wrote:
I don't see it as 'acceptable, providing we attach x,y and z conditions', I see it as wrong. Full stop.
Same goes for the death penalty, even if it is a 'paedo in speedos' or whatever, its wrong. Sure, if I had a child and someone sexually abused him/her I would want revenge, but at that point I couldn't make an objective decision about such things anymore....
And that is where the Shariah comes in useful. ;-)
-
Cyberus wrote:
I don't see it as 'acceptable, providing we attach x,y and z conditions', I see it as wrong. Full stop.
Same goes for the death penalty, even if it is a 'paedo in speedos' or whatever, its wrong. Sure, if I had a child and someone sexually abused him/her I would want revenge, but at that point I couldn't make an objective decision about such things anymore....
Exactly.
-
Wilse wrote:
Cyberus wrote:
I don't see it as 'acceptable, providing we attach x,y and z conditions', I see it as wrong. Full stop.
Same goes for the death penalty, even if it is a 'paedo in speedos' or whatever, its wrong. Sure, if I had a child and someone sexually abused him/her I would want revenge, but at that point I couldn't make an objective decision about such things anymore....
Exactly.
Exactly proving my point that when you have kids you will think differently.
-
You'll see.
Not likely mate. I'm 34 and still don't want kids. My g/f is 36 and has a ten year old daughter.
To parahprase Prot in K-Pax:
Every being in the universe knows right from wrong.
Let me tell you something. You humans, most of you, subscribe to this policy of an eye for an eye, a life for a life, which is known throughout the universe for its... stupidity.
And I'm baffled as to why you think Sharia would help over our existing laws, in the case of a relative who cannot see things objectively.
-
Cyberus wrote:
I couldn't make an objective decision about such things anymore....
And therefore, you shouldn't.
-
Every being in the universe knows right from wrong.
Let me tell you something. You humans, most of you, subscribe to this policy of an eye for an eye, a life for a life, which is known throughout the universe for its... stupidity.
Unfortunately, this is nonsense. Most beings that we know of (life on Earth), ruthlessly do whatever is necessary for their own survival. "Right and wrong" or "fairness" is a human invention. Social animals (including humans) have developed a method of dealing with other group members that looks like fairness - but it is merely a way to improve chances of survival. If you hog all the food and your group members starve, there is no one left alive to help you get more food. It is well known that this "fairness" disappears in situations where personal (or offspring) survival is at stake.
It is a tragedy, but overall, life has absolutely nothing to do with fairness. Just about every life form is killing and consuming other life forms. If there is a God monitoring day to day activities, he certainly doesn't care about fairness or justice. Otherwise, how can innocent grazing sheep be butchered and served up for dinner for a CEO of a huge corporation that is polluting and raping the planet for profit?
I don't see it as 'acceptable, providing we attach x,y and z conditions', I see it as wrong. Full stop.
Torture is a horrible evil thing. If this horrible evil thing is done to someone you care about, I don't see how you can ever get over it until you get at least a bit of "anger releasing justice".
Imagine you have a beautiful 5-year-old daughter who was kidnapped, brutally raped for weeks, tortured with cigarette burns, beaten with a pipe, then left for dead in the woods. She lives, but with permanent physical and psychological damage. She will never be the same again. She survived, so the villain is not charged with murder and only gets 12 years in prision. With good behaviour, he can get out in 6-8 years.
Imagine you see the {bleep} in 7 years and he's smiling and laughing at you. He "served his time" so he's free. Meanwhile, your whole family is permanently damaged. How could you live with yourself? Wouldn't you feel more "closure" if you could have caught the {bleep} before the police did and spent a few weeks damaging him? At the least, you need to have done something that permanently reminds him why he shouldn't have done it. (maybe cutting off his genitals and feeding them to your dog?)
-
Such atrocities cannot be done when someone is sane (though it may look like, insanity can be very well hidden).
And everyone knows prison sentence isn't the appropriate thing in such a case, though (enforced) medical interference is.
But such an enforcement is against human rights nowadays and I can understand why, but it isn't good in the cases mentioned in this thread. (and I hope the discussion here coninues about particularly this).
-
mr_a500 wrote:
Every being in the universe knows right from wrong.
Let me tell you something. You humans, most of you, subscribe to this policy of an eye for an eye, a life for a life, which is known throughout the universe for its... stupidity.
Unfortunately, this is nonsense. Most beings that we know of (life on Earth), ruthlessly do whatever is necessary for their own survival. "Right and wrong" or "fairness" is a human invention.
Agreed - I should've cropped the first sentence from that quote.
The point I meant to highlight was that "an eye for an eye" is stupid.
What are your thoughts on that?
-
The point I meant to highlight was that "an eye for an eye" is stupid.
What are your thoughts on that?
I think it's not!
-
i dont believe that torture is something that should be seen as acceptable, i do however believe that if some one is commited of a henious crime for which he or she has been found guilty without doubt then they should be executed, torture is not something men should be involved in people will pay for their crimes on the day of judgement.
As for child abuse, without a doubt that should be a swift execution such people are the worst of humanity! its better not to lower ourselves to the level of people without mercy, it is better to take the moral high ground.
And that is where the Shariah comes in useful.
In islam the best of people will forgive, but they also have the right to insist on punishment. This is after the person has been found guilty of course, so objectivity isnt the issue its how the victim feels justice should be done.
An eye for an eye is not stupid, it would make people seriously consider the consquences of their actions, leading to a prevention effect. without a doubt it works better than a spell in prison (hotel)
Basically criminals need to pay for the damage they do to society, the real crime is that they are undermining the fabric of society, and if steps arent taken to seriously rebuke such people then society will be {bleep}ed, pretty much as it is now actually!
-
Such atrocities cannot be done when someone is sane (though it may look like, insanity can be very well hidden).
I don't agree. Some people who could be considered sane do horrible atrocities. There seems to be a percentage of the population that has no empathy. They can't "feel" another beings' pain or suffering. A person with no empathy can easily torture or butcher someone because they don't make the connection with that person's pain.
There are lots of people who have no empathy for "food" animals - skinning snakes while they're still alive (in Vietnam), boiling live lobsters, clipping the eyes and mouth parts off living crabs, confining and force-feeding cows for veal. I've seen live pigs packed on a truck in Korea - the pigs packed on top of each other 3-deep with the ones on the bottom getting crushed and screaming loudly. The truck went over a speed bump and the screams were horrible to hear. The driver didn't care. These people without empathy for animals could probably just as easily have no empathy for people and still be considered "sane".
The point I meant to highlight was that "an eye for an eye" is stupid.
What are your thoughts on that?
It depends on the situation. In some cases, Jesus is right - it's best to "turn the other cheek". In other cases, you just need to kick some ass.
-
mr_a500 wrote:
Such atrocities cannot be done when someone is sane (though it may look like, insanity can be very well hidden).
I don't agree. Some people who could be considered sane do horrible atrocities. There seems to be a percentage of the population that has no empathy. They can't "feel" another beings' pain or suffering. A person with no empathy can easily torture or butcher someone because they don't make the connection with that person's pain.
There's a big difference between people who has no empathy, and people who have an urge to cause pain (or have an unstoppable urge to have intercourse). It can be proven that such a person actually IS ill.
Though I agree that there's a very thin cultural line. How else could the Holocaust happen? (I also believe in culture diseases)
-
There's a big difference between people who has no empathy, and people who have an urge to cause pain (or have an unstoppable urge to have intercourse). It can be proven that such a person actually IS ill.
Yes, of course there are some that are mentally ill too. I was pointing out that not ALL are atrocities are done by someone who is insane, replying to your statement "Such atrocities cannot be done when someone is sane (though it may look like, insanity can be very well hidden).".
Some commit atrocities because of group peer pressure, to get publicity, or even just out of curiosity (a couple cases, the morons said "I just wanted to see what it was like"). It is these people that have a total lack of empathy because if they had any empathy, they couldn't possibly do what they did.
-
Wilse wrote:
You'll see.
Not likely mate. I'm 34 and still don't want kids. My g/f is 36 and has a ten year old daughter.
Never say never! ;-)
To parahprase Prot in K-Pax:
Every being in the universe knows right from wrong.
Let me tell you something. You humans, most of you, subscribe to this policy of an eye for an eye, a life for a life, which is known throughout the universe for its... stupidity.
And I'm baffled as to why you think Sharia would help over our existing laws, in the case of a relative who cannot see things objectively.
This fella is more eloquent than I (http://youtube.com/watch?v=4BGPc9Dv2RU)
How do you define "objective thinking"?
If get on the sleeper to Glasgow tonight, and rape your girlfriend and daughter, then murder them slowly.
Why should I not be put to death?
-
Hyperspeed wrote:
Imagine it though: you have a box of electrodes, a nipple wrench, a cat 'o nine tails, a thumb screw - and a visitor's pass for the Microsoft headquarters...
:idea:
...then you get there, and the intended victim says 'oooh I have one of those...and one of those...' :crazy:
-
I suppose if your victim is a pain loving masochist, you'd just have them sat infront of a smorgisbord of deeply unsettling torture equipment. Then simply keep making him cups of tea, chatting and ignoring them...
-
people will pay for their crimes on the day of judgement.
and if the wronged person doesnt believe in that ?
the rest of your post is reasonable enough, but to quote Einstein:
'an eye for an eye leaves us all blind'.
-
I get on the sleeper to Glasgow tonight, and rape your girlfriend and daughter, then murder them slowly.
Why should I not be put to death?
what if you arent the right person?
espousing the death sentence is one thing, but you have to be really really REALLY sure you actually have the perpetrator, and that the perpetrator really did the things he was accused of.
besides, in the belief systems of those who have no god, or promise of afterlife, sentient life is sacrosanct and precious, and who has the right to take away someone elses life?
-
Agafaster wrote:
I get on the sleeper to Glasgow tonight, and rape your girlfriend and daughter, then murder them slowly.
Why should I not be put to death?
what if you arent the right person?
espousing the death sentence is one thing, but you have to be really really REALLY sure you actually have the perpetrator, and that the perpetrator really did the things he was accused of.
besides, in the belief systems of those who have no god, or promise of afterlife, sentient life is sacrosanct and precious, and who has the right to take away someone elses life?
I couldn't have said this better myself
-
...to quote Einstein:
'an eye for an eye leaves us all blind'.
I was wondering when that quote would come up. Did Einstein actually say that? It doesn't really seem logical. "An eye for an eye" would ONLY leave us ALL blind if exactly one half of us are guilty of the horrible crime of personally poking out someone else's eye - the other half being victims. If this is the case, we SHOULD be all blind.
True "eye for an eye" justice leaves only the criminal and the victim "blind". (Einstein was probably referring to stupid endless "blood feuds" and cycles of revenge - where family groups stupidly don't accept the justice done and try to get "revenge" for something that they started in the first place...or the "justice" was done badly and affected some innocent people who then need to get their own justice...and so on)
Still, I don't believe in the death penalty. I don't think any government or organisation has the right to put someone to death. (only personal "eye for an eye" justice when necessary - if 100% sure of guilt)
-
nicholas wrote:
Wilse wrote:
You'll see.
Not likely mate. I'm 34 and still don't want kids. My g/f is 36 and has a ten year old daughter.
Never say never! ;-)
That's why I said 'not likely'. ;-)
And I'm baffled as to why you think Sharia would help over our existing laws, in the case of a relative who cannot see things objectively.
This fella is more eloquent than I (http://youtube.com/watch?v=4BGPc9Dv2RU)
And he contradicts himself: "Islam shows a way to have no robbery"?
If that were true, why are people still having their hands and heads cut off in Suadi?
http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/saudi/issues/dp.html
Sadiq 'Abd al-Karim Mal Allah, a Saudi Arabian Shi'a Muslim, was executed in 1992. Neither he nor his family knew that he was under sentence of death or for what "crime" he had been convicted. He was apparently charged with smuggling a copy of the Bible into Saudi Arabia. He denied the charge, but was reportedly requested to convert to Wahabism, an interpretation of Islam favoured by the state. When he refused, the judge was reported to have told him: "You abandon your rejectionist belief or I will kill you." On 3 September 1992 he was publicly beheaded in al-Qatif.
If this is in any way representative of your preferred "Shariah", I'm afraid I'd have to ask you to stick it up yer erse, sideways. ;-)
If get on the sleeper to Glasgow tonight, and rape your girlfriend and daughter, then murder them slowly.
Why should I not be put to death?
There are several problems with this but I'll touch on two:
1. Other than some primitive revenge fulfillment, how would that be in any way a better solution for society at large than locking you up until you die?
2. How, if you wish to implement the death penalty, do you ensure that no one is ever wrongly convicted?
-
Cyberus wrote:
Agafaster wrote:
I get on the sleeper to Glasgow tonight, and rape your girlfriend and daughter, then murder them slowly.
Why should I not be put to death?
what if you arent the right person?
espousing the death sentence is one thing, but you have to be really really REALLY sure you actually have the perpetrator, and that the perpetrator really did the things he was accused of.
besides, in the belief systems of those who have no god, or promise of afterlife, sentient life is sacrosanct and precious, and who has the right to take away someone elses life?
I couldn't have said this better myself
Hear hear!
:pint:
-
I get depressed of this thread :-(
-
@Eyso:
Me too.
-
Wilse wrote:
@Eyso:
Me too.
We have too few hug threads lately.
:knuddel:
-
There are several problems with this but I'll touch on two:
1. Other than some primitive revenge fulfillment, how would that be in any way a better solution for society at large than locking you up until you die?
Well, revenge is a motivator enough for many people but I agree it's insufficient and shouldn't ever be used as justification for a particular punishment.
For the most dangerous criminals guilty of the worst classes of crime, removal from society is the best thing. You have two choices for that: death penalty or life imprisonment.
The problem with the latter is that eventually you reach saturation; there simply isn't room to house criminals. Consequently, very few people are imprisoned for "life". You can't rely on imprisonment as a punishment for all serious crimes and if you did, what would you do for all the lesser crimes where imprisonment for a period of time would be the best punishment?
When convicted murderers/paedophiles etc walk free from prison only to commit whatever crime they were imprisoned for again, what are you going to do?
I do think that there are some crimes for which the death penalty ought to be considered as an option, but it would have to rely on the soundest possible conviction.
2. How, if you wish to implement the death penalty, do you ensure that no one is ever wrongly convicted?
You can't. No system of justice is perfect.
However, suppose you implemented true life imprisonment. If you lock up an innocent man for his entire life until he dies, other than the time taken for his death, how is it different?
I don't think telling ourselves "well, at least we never killed the poor bugger" is going to appease our conscience over the fact his life was effectively taken from him.
-
@Karlos:
The problem with the latter is that eventually you reach saturation; there simply isn't room to house criminals. Consequently, very few people are imprisoned for "life". You can't rely on imprisonment as a punishment for all serious crimes and if you did, what would you do for all the lesser crimes where imprisonment for a period of time would be the best punishment?
When convicted murderers/paedophiles etc walk free from prison only to commit whatever crime they were imprisoned for again, what are you going to do?
Well the glib, catch-all answer is: BUILD MORE GAOLS! ;-)
I am, of course, aware that it is not that simple but I hardly think lack of existing prison room is an excuse to murder/execute people.
You could take such thinking to the extreme of it being a solution to the housing problem.
I do think that there are some crimes for which the death penalty ought to be considered as an option, but it would have to rely on the soundest possible conviction.
I used to agree but I've slowly come to believe that no human has the right to take the life of another human.
-
@Wilse
I don't think the lack of prison space is an excuse either. I was just highlighting an obvious problem with the status quo. You'd have to enforce the death penalty for everything up to and including council tax non-payment to free up sufficient prison space to house all the next batch of criminals for which we deem imprisonment punishment enough.
I used to agree but I've slowly come to believe that no human has the right to take the life of another human.
In the perfect world nobody ever would and we'd not even have to have the discussion :-/
-
Karlos wrote:
...
2. How, if you wish to implement the death penalty, do you ensure that no one is ever wrongly convicted?
You can't. No system of justice is perfect.
However, suppose you implemented true life imprisonment. If you lock up an innocent man for his entire life until he dies, other than the time taken for his death, how is it different?
I don't think telling ourselves "well, at least we never killed the poor bugger" is going to appease our conscience over the fact his life was effectively taken from him.
At least if the person incarcerated is found later to be not guilty, he can be released. a posthumous (nearly wrote posthoumus there-an entirely different proposition ;-)) pardon is a pretty small consolation to those left behind, and does no good WHATSOEVER to the wrongly executed person.
-
seconded!
here is a small interlude for uplifting entertainment...
:juggler:
-
@AgaFaster
I agree but, like the extreme corner case of executing a wrongly conviced person in a system endorsing the death penalty, what do yo do in the equivalently extreme case of letting a wrongly convicted person rot in prison until they die in a system which doesn't?
Most people I know that are set against the death penalty are quick to add the proviso that "...but life imprisonment should mean life"
In both cases the person is dead and found innocent afterwards. Granted it's less likely in the life imprisonment case but it can still happen. They don't even have to die of old age. Depression leading to suicide, illness, getting set upon by other inmates, whatever.
What I am trying to say is that not having the death penality doesn't remove the problem of destroying or even ending the life of a wrongly convicted person.
-
@Karlos:
In both cases the person is dead and found innocent afterwards. Granted it's less likely in the life imprisonment case
Yet you still appear to favour the death penalty? Strikes me as a little illogical.
I'm sure we're all agreed that no system is perfect but you seem to be justifying the worst method by merely stating the other isn't a "much" better option. Sort of a "Hey, (s)he'll probably die in gaol anyway, so we might as well hang/behead/gas/electrocute/etc, him/her now."
If there is a false conviction, you say yourself there's more chance of partially rectifying it with the prison sentence.
Surely we should be striving towards the best option available?
Furthermore, a prisoner can still have a life of sorts. They can usually read, excercise, play musical instruments, etc.
In both cases the person is dead and found innocent afterwards.
So, whilst the above statement is true, you can surely agree that there's a bit more to it than that? If I'd been wrongly convicted, I'd far rather a life sentence, where I can hope for justice to eventually prevail, whilst still trying to have some sort of existence, than be murdered by the state, only for them to later say, "Oops!"
-
@Wilse
Yes, it is illogical. However I was actually trying to demonstrate that neither view has it "perfect", hence the paradox.
What I mean is, so many people insist the death penalty is wrong because fundamentally, you might kill an innocent person and that would be a huge miscarriage of justice and something no amount of recompense could ever put right. They also insist that life imprisonment should be the alternative and mean life as in "until death".
In doing so, they overlook that people can still die in prison whilst wrongly convicted and there is no guarentee of any kind that it won't happen (especially if life imprisonment means literal life imprisonment) for the exact same reason the death penalty is not infallable.
I don't see how sitting in a cell for 40 years until death overcomes you simply because you can't prove your innocence to the satisfaction of a group of people, in the final analysis is any more just than being executed for it.
The only solace is that this person has however much time to try and prove their innocence and wait for justice to prevail. But what do you do when it doesn't?
I don't see that true life imprisonment can be the logical alternative to the death penalty if the risk of taking the life of an innocent person is the deciding factor. You'd have to opt for... well, what we have now. Life meaning say 15 years or whatever it is.
And yet, few people seem to think out present system is any good, so what is the ideal?
In the end I'm not saying either life imprisonment or the death penalty are better - each carries the same problem and if "one innocent person killed" (be it executed or dying in a cell) is enough to morally preclude the punishment then you really do have a dilemma.
However, aside from this, my personal opinion are that there are certain crimes that are so extreme that one of these must be applied. The guilty party must never be free to threaten society. This comes back to which of the above courses do you take?
-
In doing so, they overlook that people can still die in prison whilst wrongly convicted
I disagree with your conclusion here. Most people I know who have this view are well aware of this but, far from overlooking it, accept it as the lesser of two evils.
I'd also like to point out here that, whilst I disagree with capital punishment in any circumstance, I don't neccessarily fall into the "life should mean life" category either. Each case should be considered on merit.
so what is the ideal?
There is none.
-
Most people I know who have this view are well aware of this but, far from overlooking it, accept it as the lesser of two evils
I personally find that view a touch hypocritical, really. Either way you have destroyed someones life beyond repair, the only difference is how long you dragged it out for.
Even when some guy is lucky enough to be released, you can't give them back their life if they were incarcerated for decades.
I'd also like to point out here that, whilst I disagree with capital punishment in any circumstance, I don't neccessarily fall into the "life should mean life" category either
A rational view. I absolutely agree that each case should be judged on its own merit. Where we differ is that I also think that life imprisonment and the death penalty should both be available should the case merit it, despite the risk carried. However, they would have to be the last resort in a situation when there is no reasonable doubt, thereby minimising that risk of wrongful life imprisonment or execution as far as is possible.
-
Karlos wrote:
Most people I know who have this view are well aware of this but, far from overlooking it, accept it as the lesser of two evils
I personally find that view a touch hypocritical, really. Either way you have destroyed someones life beyond repair, the only difference is how long you dragged it out for.
Even when some guy is lucky enough to be released, you can't give them back their life if they were incarcerated for decades.
True but a huge pile of cash (the usual outcome) can certainly soften the blow and would, in most cases, be infinitely preferable to death.
This, again, would be the lesser fo two evils.
And I see little, if any hypocrisy in saying so.
If you think there is absolutely no difference between these two situations (and I'd be extremely surprised if you do) there's probably nothing I can say to convince you.
I'd also like to point out here that, whilst I disagree with capital punishment in any circumstance, I don't neccessarily fall into the "life should mean life" category either
A rational view. I absolutely agree that each case should be judged on its own merit. Where we differ is that I also think that life imprisonment and the death penalty should both be available should the case merit it, despite the risk carried. However, they would have to be the last resort in a situation when there is no reasonable doubt, thereby minimising that risk of wrongful life imprisonment or execution as far as is possible.[/quote]
And how do we go about ensuring the risk is minimised.
Look at Texas, where the risk is supposedly minimised. ;-)
-
I guess we have to agree to disagree on the subject. I think that the death penalty should be an option (note not mandatory) for the courts to decide given the nature of any given case. As it is irreversible, extreme care must be exercised in sentencing.
I don't agree that locking someone up for 50 years then giving them any amount of cash afterwards comes close to making up for the fact that it happened to them, so again life imprisonment should be extremely carefully decided upon.
However I don't think that either punishment should be barred on the grounds that one is less evil than the other. Both are equally bad if a wrongfully convicted person dies, be it by execution or just old age in a cell. Any allusion to one being worse than the other is a comforting denial that we allow ourselves to reduce any sense of guilt on the part of society.
-
I guess we have to agree to disagree on the subject.
good idea, I think we've done this to death already. :horse:
drink ? :lotsacoffee:
-
Agafaster wrote:
I guess we have to agree to disagree on the subject.
good idea, I think we've done this to death already. :horse:
Hahaha... fair enough.
drink ? :lotsacoffee: [/quote]
Aye, why not?
:pint:
-
Wasn't it Ghandi that said "An eye for an eye leaves us all blind"?
I think when we deal with peadophiles we need to be careful that we are not creating them in the first place.
As has been discussed on another thread, it has been proven that carcinogenic chemicals leak out of soft drink bottles into our food and washing dettergent and other toxins has profound effects on our hormones.
Fumes pumped out of factories can damage the thyroid glands making us fat, paranoid and psychopathic.
Endless filth on television, promiscuous society, drinking, drugs, bullying and corporate greed can drive people to nervous breakdown and become reclusive - leading to bizarre fetishes.
We also create recluses with the welfare system. People don't need to go to work, have pride in themselves or get out of the house. We are breeding a world where people are pampered like the factory farmed animals that are force fed to order.
Oh, and when asked lately what he most feared, the Dalai Lama said "I fear for the welfare of chickens". Odd you may think, but animal welfare and farming are completely linked. Mad cow disease and bird flu H5N1 are both linked to disgusting, filthy conditions. Sheep dip and growth hormones get into the human food chain and alter our consciousness.
The people that the vigilantes should go for are the dirty farmers, vivisectionists and factory owners.
Maybe the ultimate solution to offenders would be like Demolition Man where the person spends 20 years in jail in just minutes of their natural life. A sort of reconditioning.
-
Wasn't it Ghandi that said "An eye for an eye leaves us all blind"?
The man was unique. Pity, the world needs a lot more people like him.
-
Karlos wrote:
Wasn't it Ghandi that said "An eye for an eye leaves us all blind"?
The man was unique. Pity, the world needs a lot more people like him.
Quoting Prot on an eye for an eye again:
Even your Buddha and your Christ had quite a different vision. But nobody's paid much attention to them, not even your Buddhists and your Christians.
Pity indeed.
Actually, we could do with a few Prots, while we're at it. ;-)
-
just to chime in here but i am against capital punishment reason being you don't know if that person got a fair trial or not.
the lyrics to this song (http://www.lyricsfreak.com/r/reba+mcentire/the+night+the+lights+went+out+in+georgia_20114386.html)describe what i mean.
watch this if you want to see just how screwed up justice can be amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Echoes-Murder-Charles-Robert-Carner/dp/B00005KA74).