One third support 'some torture'

[Speelgoedmannetje]

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).

[Wilse]

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?

[iamaboringperson]

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!

[nadoom]

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!

[mr_a500]

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.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

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)

[mr_a500]

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

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?

[Agafaster]

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:

[Karlos]

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...

[Agafaster]

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'.

[Agafaster]

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?

[Cyberus]

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

[mr_a500]

...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)

[Wilse]

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

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?

[Wilse]

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: