|
|
Post by kitty on Oct 3, 2009 8:19:38 GMT
That thing about attacking the poster not the post applies to you, too, Kit  I asked him for a little respect, that's it. And if I get attacked by a person like that, I will not shut up, I rather stop posting. It's your thing what kind of people you let post here Eli, but don't expect me to take BS from such douchebags. Rather kick me out... |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 3, 2009 8:26:59 GMT
Make sure you haven't eaten, then Google 'Baby P'. Read as much as you can stomach about the case. THEN tell me there are NO circumstances under which the death penalty is fully deserved...
It might be different if 'Life in prison' actually meant what it said on the tin, but mostly now it doesn't, certainly not in Britain.
Added to that, there are some people - a very rare few - who are SO evil they contaminate the rest of the world just by existing. Where you have such people with totally 100% certainty, there is a case to be made.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flix on Oct 3, 2009 8:27:45 GMT
The punishment mentality is supposed to dissuade people from committing the crime in the first place. In the UK the main problem we have with it is that the current government has made so many things illegal recently that it's almost impossible not to break a law. If you can't avoid breaking a law, then why care about it? Since I'm a law student, I'll just say that normally we'd separate punishment from prevention, in theory. Prevention is what you described...stopping them before they happen...they relate to future crimes. I'm fine with this. I'm not ok with this idea that people deserve for us to hurt or kill them - the punishment mentality. At best, it basically amounts to a kind of rightness to killing - a satisfaction that we are setting things back to rights. At worst, it's taking pleasure in killing - "you deserve this, you scum, now DIE!" I go to school with some people who feel that the punishment should mirror the crime exactly. A mom drown her kids in the car, we drown her in a car. A guy rapes and slashes up a baby, we rape and slash him up. It's the same mentality, just pushed to the extreme. Even I support killing off some criminals, it's for OUR benefit, not for their punishment. I instead think of it as "we don't deserve to have to deal with someone like you in the world." @ the rest of normal posters I understand the inital idea why the death penalty is attractive, but with thinking further about it, I don't see the point at all. Firstly, by all the people on the death row, nobody can 100% say if all convicted murders are really guilty and there are cases where it is proven that the person put to death was, indeed, not guilty and that is govermental murder with noone to sue. Even the terribly small chance that someone might NOT be guilty, is enough for my concience to not support the death penalty. But even if the person is clearly guilty - do you really give him punishment by killing him? I think it is much more a punishment to take away someones chances in life by putting him behind bars, preferably in a high security prison in solidary confindment. This is how you break people. And since the death penalty is more or less only for the victims/victims families peace of mind, being sure that the person will die lonely, broken and bathing in his guilt should be cruel enough. I agree that this is worse punishment. And again, I don't want this. Maybe we can say that someone deserves to be lonely, broken and bathing in guilt. But I don't think civilized people should be doing this to each other. It's basically low level torture. The reason that I can be ok with killing and not torture or cruelty is because removing the person from the world benefits us. Imprisonment does not. It drains funds and resources from worthy endeavors. And as to the possibility that some innocents may die, I'm basically ok with this as well. It's partly because I don't believe human life is sacred or holy - it's just life. And second, because the value of completely removing killers and violent rapists, not just from the present but from the future (that is, no passing on of those genes) outweighs the wrong of letting an innocent slip through the cracks. It's not black and white, but that's where I fall, opinion-wise. |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 3, 2009 8:29:48 GMT
That thing about attacking the poster not the post applies to you, too, Kit I asked him for a little respect, that's it. And if I get attacked by a person like that, I will not shut up, I rather stop posting. It's your thing what kind of people you let post here Eli, but don't expect me to take BS from such douchebags. Rather kick me out... Who benefits from the two of you throwing insults at each other, Kit? It's jut a complete waste of time for both of you. I'm not asking you not to respond to any actual points, just to quit the mud slinging. If the two of you just want to call each other names, take it to PMs, please. |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 3, 2009 8:32:41 GMT
Flix - I think deterrent is more important than punishment, honestly. Ideally, the law needs to not just prevent re-offending, but also to discourage criminality in the first place.
Of course, 'discourage' is a fine line to walk...
|
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Oct 3, 2009 10:28:45 GMT
I'm not ok with this idea that people deserve for us to hurt or kill them - the punishment mentality. At best, it basically amounts to a kind of rightness to killing - a satisfaction that we are setting things back to rights. At worst, it's taking pleasure in killing - "you deserve this, you scum, now DIE!" I go to school with some people who feel that the punishment should mirror the crime exactly. A mom drown her kids in the car, we drown her in a car. A guy rapes and slashes up a baby, we rape and slash him up. It's the same mentality, just pushed to the extreme. Even I support killing off some criminals, it's for OUR benefit, not for their punishment. I instead think of it as "we don't deserve to have to deal with someone like you in the world." Yes, that's the point I was trying to bring across. Of course, being a Missionary/Humanitarian worker I am diametrically opposed to murder/killing of any kind (this includes abortion, suicide, euthanasia, etc.), and I believe that in almost all cases it is not our place to take life, as life is sacred (this is what I believe personally, no offense aimed at those of you who believe otherwise). However, in a very few, rare cases, the taking of life could be acceptable, only in the case of it saving more lives. Such as in the case of terrorists/mass murderers like Noordin M. Top: if they hadn't shot him, but somehow captured him and put him behind bars, I reckon that he would've just escaped and gone right back to his mass-murdering ways. I'm in total agreement with this one. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Oct 3, 2009 10:46:00 GMT
Worry not Elliot, I am not harmed by little words.
A Neo-Nazi is also, may I add, a rather psychotic comment for you to make. At no point do I propose racism as a policy for any government anywhere, it happens, but I do not propose such things.
And calling me a "Nazi" just adds flavor given my lovely slavic origins. Yes, most "Neo" Nazi's I find rather ignorant, considering about 30% of them generally aren't of proper "stock" despite being white, according to gentlemen such as Hitler and Himmler. But Kitty, I must digress from this point now and get back on subject.
People like you are a poison in the west, decadent, and entirely living in a fantasy world of "killing is never right!" "Peace through talks!" and other such nonsense and drivel. I find it entertaining fortunately, otherwise I'd be far more cynical.
The simple truth is, people killing one another keeps the population down, and very often there are legitimate grievances between populations, often only mediated by the threat of annihilation by a major power (Russia, America, "Europe", China...), and leave these festering issues unresolved. As honestly "talks" aren't very often going to lead places. The politicians may forget past crimes from time to time, but the people let such wounds fester.
Let them fight it out, let them bleed their blood out. It is the way of the world, it always has been. Conflict is no bad, nor is it good, it is natural, it is conflict. Man has killed Man since the beginning and it will only continue, though sadly at diminished rates. The problem with our society as it is, is we have become too efficient at avoiding death. Now we're nearly 7,000,000,000 people when the planet should really be supporting closer to 2,500,000,000, and thus, prices go out, resources are even more squandered, supplies begin to drain, food shortages, water shortages, power shortages... and it'll only increase exponentially as the population itself does.
There is no magical energy source to save this problem. The truth is, you, I, Elliot, and most of these forums live in a dream world. A world of "retirement", "vacation", and "human rights", as economic equalization continues I find such concepts to be a joke and unrealistic for more and more people in Canada, and not just here. Its because we've stopped fighting for our resources, and now we're 'sharing'.
You go live in Burma, and tell me about 'human rights', when your amongst the local minorities being slaughtered, and tell me you don't think people being boiled alive don't deserve to be revenged. You sit on your moral high horse decreeing killing is wrong, when the murderers of hundreds of thousands, deserve a fair shot at life like everyone else. I'd love to see you maintain such positions were it you in the third world hell hole, or even less savaged regions like Kashmir.
These people live in a feudal world, and that is good. Because if they lived in a modern world, with modern morality, there would be even less resources to be shifted about between parties. The concept of 'killing is wrong', is something I would agree with on a personal level. The concept of 'no one deserves to be killed' however, I think is something I won't agree with.
The world needs more death, and this is one mechanism which thankfully still works. At least a little bit. Once a real resource crisis happens, I wonder how little western nations with no stomach for such things will handle themselves when there is no readily available food or fuel. Then we'll see how far 'we can't kill anyone' goes when its a westerner's survival on the line.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Oct 3, 2009 17:28:39 GMT
Let me just remind that kitty is German, and so am I, and to us Germans Nazism means more than just racism and holocaust.
Unfortunately these other traits attributable to Nazism are found as much, if not more, outside than within Germany (and they weren't exclusive to Germany in those historic times either).
*
I don't think deterrence has ever worked to reduce crime - or I should specify, the hardness of the penalty does not, the probability of getting caught and tried however might be a factor.
Also I find nothing wrong in postulating a high moral and ethical standard. The examples Terrerda cites however in my opinion don't justify leaving them aside but show the hypocrisy in politics - and business!
Letting people starve in Africa could then be considered a natural process which regulates population growth - is that an excuse for exporting our subsidized surplus to them and kill off their local economies in the process?
Ethics are a vision, a theoretical concept, an ideal - but that doesn't make it a wrong one. It may to date be 'impractical' or 'improbable' - but this is so because it goes beyond national boundaries. The problems on the globe can only be resolved globally.
And I believe we will be forced to start to think global in a generation or two.
It's not only resources that are waning, may it be a (for us) simple one as water, in Asia and Africa we will get a problem with living space.
We will have to preserve rain forests for the climate, as much as some of the deserts btw, we will have to stop to build cities on land we should use to produce food, and we will be forced to renounce on certain luxuries like flushing our toilets with potable water (already true in parts of Spain for example).
*
I take offense at the statement of somebody should be put to death in order for his (or her) genes not to reproduce into society - ad 1, by the time the incumbent gets caught and convicted it may be to late; ad 2, this means summarily condemning the children for the sins of their forebears - and I think 'evilness' is not a genetic defect (or if it were, wouldn't it be an illness, which, by our legal standards, would be less punishable?).
The fallacy of our social system(s) which leads to crime lies elsewhere.
Should society be protected from 'evil' criminals? Certainly.
By all means?
The 'eye for an eye' mentality is ancient and deeply imbued in our sub-conscience and human social tradition - but it came from a time when there were no prisons (nomads!).
In those times banning or exiling also was a valid option...
Is locking anyone away more humane than dismembering a thief?
Do I have a better solution? No.
Those who do not adapt to society, do not accept the rules consented within a society, put themselves apart - and put apart they should be.
But then, don't put forward the argument of cost efficiency.
That same argument would then apply to the incurable cancer patient, the hip operation of an aged, the lung transplantation to an elder smoker...
The German Constitution starts with 'The dignity of Man is inviolable' - a good principle - we just should remember that in applying it, we should not only look into a mirror.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Oct 3, 2009 18:30:42 GMT
Yea, the whole "thinking globally" thing, that requires cheap energy and cheap communications to continue. Literally the world must get smaller for a 'global' mindset to truly come about. And as resources diminish, historical trends show a more likely attribute to appear is localization.
|
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Oct 3, 2009 19:22:31 GMT
Terre - I'm happy to continue to 'poison' the west.
I will refrain from posting in any topic here anymore in that you, a happy Nazi, is posting. Go cheer.
@ Eli, I might delete myself soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Oct 3, 2009 19:24:57 GMT
Yet another groundless comment to be made.
Please. If your going to be hopelessly ignorant and kind enough to call me a Nazi, at least classify me properly. Its called "Fascism", there is a difference, do try and learn it, though I doubt you would.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flix on Oct 3, 2009 20:08:59 GMT
I take offense at the statement of somebody should be put to death in order for his (or her) genes not to reproduce into society - ad 1, by the time the incumbent gets caught and convicted it may be to late; ad 2, this means summarily condemning the children for the sins of their forebears - and I think 'evilness' is not a genetic defect (or if it were, wouldn't it be an illness, which, by our legal standards, would be less punishable?). Well, yes, the idea of getting rid of those genes does rest largely upon the assumption that violent and rapist tendencies are hereditary to some extent. It doesn't take into account the fact that many murders are committed by generally 'good' people in extenuating circumstances. It could also be a slippery slope towards eugenics. I'm not talking about evilness, because I don't believe such a thing exists in any tangible form. However, I'd bet aggressive, violent, and anti-social tendencies DO have a strong genetic component in there somewhere. To the extent that that is true, I stand by what I said. I don't quite follow what you mean about condemning the children. I'm not advocating doing anything to them. If they're not yet conceived, it's not like they have any rights...  Should society be protected from 'evil' criminals? Certainly. By all means? The 'eye for an eye' mentality is ancient and deeply imbued in our sub-conscience and human social tradition - but it came from a time when there were no prisons (nomads!). In those times banning or exiling also was a valid option... Is locking anyone away more humane than dismembering a thief? This may not be in response to anything I said, but I'll just say that I'm opposed to eye for an eye mentality. A lot of the basis of what I'm arguing for is not focused on the result to the criminal but on the mindset of those doing the 'punishing.' I'm not comfortable with fostering pleasure or a sense of "this makes things right" when humans need to kill. But then, don't put forward the argument of cost efficiency. That same argument would then apply to the incurable cancer patient, the hip operation of an aged, the lung transplantation to an elder smoker... . It's interesting you should say this, because there I've seen a strong sentiment among the medical community (the front-line nurses and doctors, not theorists) that we expend far too much energy and resources on absolutely hopeless cases. Where we should probably simply help the patient live out their last days as pain-free as possible, we instead go to the most extreme lengths to squeeze out every last second of life from the poor comatose husk in the hospital bed because we are obsessed with this notion that human life is sacred and precious and should be prolonged as long as possible, no matter the quality of that life. Feeding tubes, breathing machines, IV drips and electrically stimulated heartbeats - a parody of life that is only for the benefit of the soon-to-be-bereaved family. BUT, that aside, you did point out a flaw in my arguing for a dispassionate, utilitarian disposal of the "bad seeds" while coupling it with a cost efficiency justification: what's the difference between funding care for prisoners and for patients? The difference between them is of course, that the rapist murderer has less of a right to live than the comatose grandma (because he has violated someone elses's rights, the patient has not). And this goes back to the (probably inescapable) punishment mentality. When I said housing and feeding murderers drains funds from worthy causes, I meant caring for sick, non-criminals is one of those worthy causes. |
|
|
|
Post by Flix on Oct 3, 2009 20:12:31 GMT
Terre - I'm happy to continue to 'poison' the west. I will refrain from posting in any topic here anymore in that you, a happy Nazi, is posting. Go cheer. @ Eli, I might delete myself soon. Aw don't be like that, kitty-kat!  You just gotta let some stuff go... |
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Oct 3, 2009 21:11:45 GMT
I don't quite follow what you mean about condemning the children. I'm not advocating doing anything to them. If they're not yet conceived, it's not like they have any rights...
Yes, but those that are born do have - and they carry the same genes.
With your logic chain, they automatically would be a danger to society.
Note that I rather believe criminal or evil disassociation with society to be a socialization issue than a genetic disposition.
If they were due to genetic or mental sickness, then we would indeed have a eugenics issue - which none proclaimed.
As to the cost issue in the medical field, that goes with the dignity I mentioned, which would in extreme include the dignity of one's own death.
Notwithstanding the complexity of the emotional issue of relatives finding it hard to accept and 'clinging to life' of loved ones - more often than not it is a business model of getting profitable use out of expensive equipment or medication.
But I'd be hard put to draw the line there, as would anybody probably - especially when being involved. Organ donation is a similar issue - when is someone really dead and ready to have usable organs taken (provided there has been prior consent of the individual of course). Speed is essential there, and waiting lists are long - the temptation, or pressure, to expedite is something many fear - and refrains them to document their consent to donate in advance.
*
And Terrerda - not everyone voicing a dissenting opinion is ignorant.
While you are correct in that there is a difference between Nazism and Fascism, in Germany both are used practically synonymously - for obvious reasons. And being called a fascist is hardly more complimentary...
And I'm sure you know that the tone of your posts is provocative.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Oct 3, 2009 21:14:43 GMT
And calling me a Nazi isn't? Please Glance, don't patronize me with such dry remarks. Though for the record, as I come to think of it, though I don't hold Nazi positions as much as Kitty would like, I'd rather support their position than Kitty's.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flix on Oct 3, 2009 21:28:58 GMT
I don't quite follow what you mean about condemning the children. I'm not advocating doing anything to them. If they're not yet conceived, it's not like they have any rights... Yes, but those that are born do have - and they carry the same genes. With your logic chain, they automatically would be a danger to society. Note that I rather believe criminal or evil disassociation with society to be a socialization issue than a genetic disposition. If they were due to genetic or mental sickness, then we would indeed have a eugenics issue - which none proclaimed. Given my knowledge, I'd say you're probably right that the larger factor in criminal actions is social or environmental rather than hereditary. By my logic chain, they're not 'automatically' a danger to society, but given their family history, they are more likely to have such a propensity. It may be a small likelihood, but the whole idea of removing the genes is dwarfed by the immediate concern of removing the criminal anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Oct 3, 2009 21:36:15 GMT
I didn't say it was a good retaliation, but it was a RE-action... Though for the record, as I come to think of it, though I don't hold Nazi positions as much as Kitty would like, I'd rather support their position than Kitty's. On what? on genocide? on dictatorship? on eugenics? on racial domination? or 'just' on nationalism or rationalized selfishness? Actually, I'm not trying to patronize you - I try to moderate you  |
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Oct 3, 2009 21:40:33 GMT
By my logic chain, they're not 'automatically' a danger to society, but given their family history, they are more likely to have such a propensity.
Statistically you're right - but then the solution is in changing the social environment to prevent any child being raised under such circumstances. As I said earlier - the fallacy of the social system!
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 3, 2009 21:53:38 GMT
Criminality is indeed more environmental than genetic. A splintered society fosters greater criminality, a more integrated society has fewer criminals. Because people who feel they have a genuine stake in the swimming pool don't piss in it, to use a rather crude analogy.
The key to me is not the Law (Which is far too often an ass), or punishment (Which is only worthwhile if it deters both the criminal and others from doing the same). The key is Justice. Because that's the whole point of the law in the first place - to replace the right of revenge with a neutral arbiter who will work out what is fair to malefactor and victim alike and hand down a verdict accordingly.
Too often, the servants of the law forget this purpose, which creates discontent and aids the growth of criminality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Oct 4, 2009 10:04:35 GMT
Criminality is indeed more environmental than genetic. A splintered society fosters greater criminality, a more integrated society has fewer criminals. Because people who feel they have a genuine stake in the swimming pool don't piss in it, to use a rather crude analogy. The key to me is not the Law (Which is far too often an ass), or punishment (Which is only worthwhile if it deters both the criminal and others from doing the same). The key is Justice. Because that's the whole point of the law in the first place - to replace the right of revenge with a neutral arbiter who will work out what is fair to malefactor and victim alike and hand down a verdict accordingly. Too often, the servants of the law forget this purpose, which creates discontent and aids the growth of criminality. What's the point of justice? Isn't it just a form of deterrence? To me the key is deterrence and rehabilitation. There has been nothing to show that longer or harder punishments deter more, so the punishments should therefore be kept to a bare minimum of what they have to be. Longer is unecesary. That leaves us with rehabilitiation. Meaning, trying to make the criminal cease to be a criminal. The reason (I feel) these are the keys is because these are the simplest ways to explain what's good about the justice system. Committing crimes hurts society, so we want to reduce crime. It's as simple as that. It's got nothing to do with what pepole does or does not deserve. It's got nothing to do with justice (justice might make a useful tool though). It's got to do with crime prevention. As for the death penalty, I feel it's kind of a knee-jerk reaction to believe that unless we completely ban the death penalty we must apply it to (say) poor pepole who accidentaly shoot the shop keepeer of the supermarket he happens to be mugging. Nobody here has advocated it's use in those circumstances, for the simple reason that everybody here thinks that's unecesarily harsh. Apart from Terrerda', but he's a Nazi.  Anyway, instead consider someone like Lars-Inge Svartenbrandt. He's 64 years old and has spent 40 years in jail. Once he gets out he'll continue his criminal life. Is there any point for society to fund his prison time? Übereil |
|
.com
Anyway, instead consider someone like Lars-Inge Svartenbrandt. He's 64 years old and has spent 40 years in jail. Once he gets out he'll continue his criminal life. Is there any point for society to fund his prison time?