Walsingham

Glad to hear it. I have literally no idea what the feth post-colonial discourse is. Do tell.

213374U, dodging the question by philosphical showboating isn't terribly helpful. We're not philosophers. I think Gorgon makes an excellent point, and explains it very clearly with his condemned man choice scenario. This is the essence of what we are discussing. A point of public policy, not intellectual abstraction. We can waffle on endlessly about whether we're even having this discussion, but where does it get us besides imparting a sensible humility and an insensible load of trivia?

213374U* I admit I was attempting to be preciocious, and it's therefore not surprising if I failed. I was merely trying to say that it is pointless to say that we don't have any right to pass judgement on another person. Surely the 'fairest way to judge someone is by their own system of ethics. And in these cases that would involve large blunt objects being applied to soft areas for the sheer joy of doing so. I accept that you approve of punitive punishment. I accept that - as you say - many people seem to regard death as 'devoutly to be wished'**. Leaving aside my atheist conviction that life is the only really significant thing you can take from someone, I have a problem with punitive justice. Mainly because I don't know how one would construct a tariff. I accept that even if somoene 'only' murdered their wife and isn't likely to kill anyone else it would be quite bold to just let them walk away. But I don't really know how long you should get for that. Honestly I don't. Finally, of course I accept your interesting point about the purpose of the state being to organise expensive things we can't do on our own. I have helped organise some of those functions. But in doing so we must necessarily be careful about what functions we choose to do, and HOW we do them. There's an almost limitless array of things we could do which would improve our lives. Roads, schools, medicine, etc. But I'm saying that protection of the lives of citizens is the most basic aspect of the state.The tribe protects against being clobbered by outsiders, and protects itself from rogue elements that are inside. Again, what are your feelings on the individual cases above? How should they be handled? *I've always been meaning to ask. Could you change your name to something eaiser to type? I suggest 1234567U. Just a thought. ** Check me out. Shakespeare.

OK. A few at once... 213374U, I apologise if I wasn't clear. But I don't know if you're simply objecting to the notion of moral authority. Keeping someone in jail for life could be thought of as good because it's horrendous, or it allows for them being innocent and the case being reversed. But you can't have BOTH those points. Either its as bad as dying, or it is a quiet place where you wait to have your innocence proven. Alanschu, I take your point about recidivism. Clearly many murderers (as John Mortimer observed) are quite calm since they've got rid of the one person who was really annoying them. We are discussing serious violent repeat offenders. Multiple rapists, multiple murderers or attempted murderers. People who we can have little confidence in rehabilitation. Obviously I accept that permanent incarceration would protect society. But I do feel it is fair to point out and consider the immense drain on public funds which incarceration causes. Yet again, I point out that we are discussing extreme cases. I ask where there seems no serious doubt regarding guilt, and where the offender is a permanent threat, what is the purpose of keeping them at 'Her Majesty's Pleasure'?

Right the essay first, find supporting references later. Much easier. I personally don't like cats much. But I agree that keeping them cooped up in a hosue or flat is just plain weird.

I had a friend who had a staffie bull terrier cross. Loyal as your heartbeat. Very gentle to us humans, but a terror to other dogs. Smart little thing too. I have some friends now who have a westie cross poodle. Which sounds awful but he's heaps of fun. First thing I do when I go visit is chase around the house with him, fall over, have mock fights etc. I'd quite like something like that to cheer me up most days. but I can't take on any more responsibilities right now. Maybe when I retire to the country .

I don't have a dog. but if I did I'd like a staffordshire bull terrier crossed with something a bit more gentle. *thinks* I could call it a wusshound.

No, that's the Chinese herb they stick in tea to relieve menstrual cramps. The correct term is 'dangly bits.' Isn't that a pokemon? I'm ordering you right now NOT to tell me what the upgraded version of that pokemon is.

Sorry mate, but good evil as an axis? Take a look around these forums. Tell me where we all lie on that axis, and how come we agree on nothing?

What kind of dog? You can tell a lot about a man from his dog.

Executing people doesn't protect us from those who withdraw from the social contract though. How can you fail to be protected from someone who is dead? I'd say being dead put a spanner in most criminal enterprises. Except possibly necrophilia. GD, I don't know anything directly about US jails. But I sure as hell wouldn't call them soft from everything I've ever heard about them. I'd rather be dead than do a ten year stretch in a US jail. I'm not saying jail doesn't deter normal people from committing crime. But I don't believe it stops career criminals. On the other hand I'm not advocating death for career criminals. I'm talking about sadists and sociopaths. I don't think you fellows understand what you're talking about when I say sadists. have a chat to any cop about the worst cases they've heard of.

Big cans, gentlemen. Sheesh. Where's mkreku when you need him?

The problem is, as croncicler says, that DnD rules make no goddamn realworld sense. They're just a levelling up architecture. As such, I guess they sink or swim based on whether your players enjoy them. I don't. In general I like White Wolf, but in specific fantasy I love warhammer. They restrict your class because society says you can't do otherwise.

The original thread in pen and paper. We were playing the zombie nazi level in Call of Duty and it was pretty hectic, but still relatively quiet. Suddenly all hell breaks loose (no pun intended) and I turn to my right and see three guys standing there, two peering out the window weapons ready. I say "You three watch that window, and I'll go left". I have just enough time to remember I'm the third person on the team when there's a horrifying shriek, and my comrades are shredded.

All very interesting. Glad it's proven so popular as a question.

I'm not a mod any more. But if I were I'd be concerned about an in depth discussion of rape. I'm just saying. We're all annoyed that our hobby is under threat. However, I've seen studies which show that children imitate expressions of violence. That is they don't get more violent but they do change the way they are violent. Krezack probably knows the study, but I can't recall it. There certainly seems to be a rising determination to settle arguments with weapons when before they would have been settled with fists. And I'm talking as someone who carried a knife at school for a while before I realised I might actually have to stab someone (I switched to a length of steel rebar). On the other hand, the most crazy violent place I've spent any length of time was South Africa, and none of the people doing it there could afford shoes, let alone playstations. Personally, on reflection I think a lot of children's mental and criminal issues comes down to a total lack of order or support. I have several friends who are teachers or social workers, and it seems kids these days live in a strange Lord of the Flies (no dig intended) world without adult rules. They entirely 'police' themselves because adults are only allowed to encourage and suggest. This is a good idea in the nursery, but not for hormone crazed teenagers. Particularly for boys. Indeed, in most 'primitive' societies* teenage boys are sequestered away for the duration and closely regimented until they calm down. Obviously such regimentation is delicate and often leads to abuse. But it seems better than the alternative of creating generations of feral kids. *Zulu kraals, Afghan madrassas, English boarding schools.

I have no option but to thank those of you who've said clearly that you prefer to accept innocent victims of criminals before innocent victims of justice. That is a value statement, and not entirely debateable. But it is useful to know. I would suggest, however, that making that statement attacks the absolute foundations of state administered justice. We surrender our ability to protect ourselves to the state as part of the overall social contract. I would argue that it is the most fundamental part of that social contract, because it deals with our physical existence. If the state fails to protect us from those who withdraw from the contract then the contract is void and the state collapses. The case I'm trying to make is that in the incidences above: - For the purposes of this argument, guilt is not in question - We should expect to be protected from these individuals - There is no hope that the individuals will be any less dangerous after incarceration - Given the choice between permanent incarceration and the death penalty the death penalty should be more efficient* and produce a superior net humanitarian benefit - Given the appaling nature of the crimes there is no reason for an emotional merciful reaction Ramza, I hope it is obvious I am emotionally drawn to your statement that we all have the right to live. I trust I generally respect others. But it seems pointless and futile to condemn theslug for exercising choice over who lives and who dies when in these cases it is the criminal who has exercised a similar judgement. They have exerted control over life and death upon weaker people purely because they can. Surely it is the case that either we judge a person by their own moral code, in which case we have a perfect right to kill them because they would do the same; or we kill them because there is such a thing as superior morality in which case we can define it through democratic process. * I don't see any grounds for an appeal in either case, even in the US. Maybe Enoch can give us his opinion.

Loveable ****ney barrow-boy come rich bastard Alan Sugar (Of the UK Apprentice show) has said that he chose his latest apprentice due to his "businessman's instinct". Now, I have a theory on this, having never seen the most recent series. I wonder if you can guess what it is, and to preserve pseudo-scientific integrity, I am going to keep the identity of which woman it is secret.

OK, Gorgon. I accept your point. As I understand it, you are saying that the cases I've shown are the outliers not caught by less than lethal punishment, which do not invalidate the system? In the same way that I'd accept innocents being executed. Fair enough. Solely addressing you, then. Do you _feel_ (no logical case yet) that there might be some standard of assessing the relative merits of the two approaches? I'm thining something like assessing the number of persons executed incorrectly versus the number of recidivist murders.

If the Bangkok cops announced it was suicide then you can be almost certain it wasn't. Who kills themselves in a cupboard, anyway? I'd also like to complain about all the insensitive rubbish being spouted about suicides being cowards. I've had to deal with several suicidal people. They weren't weak, and they weren't cowards. They were in a ****ty place, and it got too much for them. I've rarely heard anything so arrogant or lacking in compassion as to claim the high ground over them. All I can say is that you should count yourselves lucky you've never felt that way. I had people try to kill me, on several occasions, and I appreciate life more richly for it. I'd try and help anyone who felt like killing themselves in the same way I'd help anyone in danger of losing their life. I've made some awesome friends in consequence of that, and I'd encourage anyone else to do the same.

1) I'm getting good at saying this with all the practice. I am making the case that the death penalty isn't always wrong. 2) Saying 'how we treat our prisoners is the mark of our civilisation' is an asinine soundbite. What about how we treat our pensioners, or our children, or our sick, or disabled? 3) How in the name of all that's good and holy is locking a man in a cell where he goes mad with loneliness and despair any better than death? ~~~ But returning to point one, how do either of the two cases above strike you as unjust use of the death penalty? Doubt over guilt (as far as we can tell from the news), or are the crimes not bad enough?

1) I'm getting good at saying this with all the practice. I am making the case that the death penalty isn't always wrong. 2) Saying 'how we treat our prisoners is the mark of our civilisation' is an asinine soundbite. What about how we treat our pensioners, or our children, or our sick, or disabled? 3) How in the name of all that's good and holy is locking a man in a cell where he goes mad with loneliness and despair any better than death? ~~~ But returning to point one, how do either of the two cases above strike you as unjust use of the death penalty? Doubt over guilt (as far as we can tell from the news), or are the crimes not bad enough?

I know. Why is it that the law somehow seems to always wind up protecting bastards, and never supporting people who are having a hard time. For example, in teh UK you can 'squat' in a property and nothing will harm you. But thousands have been evicted during the credit crunch.

1) Frankly I do accept that innocent people will be killed by a policy of the death penalty. However, given that I accept innocent people get killed in military action, doing otherwise would be grossly hypocritical. in turn I would point out that ANY architecture has unintended losses. This is true of medical procedure, as well as military and social procedures. If your intention is to make me feel bad, do YOU feel bad about such people being freed to murder again? Of course you don't, and I'm not certain you should. 2) I think a critical point to establish is whether you would be comfortable with permanent incarceration for certain offenders. Are you?

Actually it was the first thing I did Wals, I looked for the hospital and checked to see if there was a staff directory. That yielded no results, so I tried to type a few other details, and a scammer beware site came up with my same details. Have you mentioned it to the cops? They may be able to do a sting. If not them, then Craiglist may be interested. I gather they're still smarting from closing their adult section. They may be able to use some positive PR by helping to nail the guy.