Prison justice

[metadigital]

Na

[Rosbjerg]

helping them doesn't necessarily mean letting them back out .. of course realistic minded shrinks would be used, and if they deemed them a danger they would remain in a prison/institution..

 

I guess it's because I work with the so call "low-life" of society .. those "helpless" young kids that no-one wants to acknowledge.. it pains me that most of the time they are actually victims to circumstances themselves and are being punished because they never recieved help to begin with .. a good portion of them could've been "normal" if only their problems were dealt with from the beginning! That's society being irresponible at best..

Edited September 30, 2006 by Rosbjerg

[LoneWolf16]

And what about the killers of 20 year old males?

Small children and the elderly aren't capable of defending themselves. Twenty-year-old males are, but the punishment would still be death for that offense...given that someone was just robbed of their life, the killer's is automatically forfeit.

 

Then again, you can't make it too general....I'd love to have these sorts of things judged on an individual basis. Like if a man killed the guy who raped and murdered his wife the night before, he'd be free to go, with a bit of therapy...the guy who committed the murder, he'd have his head chopped off if he hadn't been killed already.

 

Then again again, I realize that doing these things individually is entirely too complex, and up for an incredible amount of debate...pipe dream.

 

I obey the law while the murderer did not.  That in of itself makes me better than him or her.  I have no problem in executing a murderer and a child rapist, under the law.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just because you obey the law and a murderer did not does not make you morally better than him or her. For all we know, you may have had the desire to kill someone more than once in your life but only refused to do so for fear of the consequences. Then the only difference between you and the murderer would be that he had the balls to actually take a life while you did not. But that would not make you better than him or her.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There's a distinct difference between thinking about killing someone and actually doing it. Mostly the part where you actually do it.

 

Yes, you are morally superior because, frankly, you didn't pull the trigger when faced with the option, regardless of your reasons for not doing so.

[Judge Hades]

Just because you obey the law and a murderer did not does not make you morally better than him or her.  For all we know, you may have had the desire to kill someone more than once in your life but only refused to do so for fear of the consequences.

 

If I wanted to kill someone fear would not hold me back because I really have nothing to fear. I have no heaven to strive for and I have no hell to fear. I should have been dead a half dozen times already. What do I have to fear?

 

Then the only difference between you and the murderer would be that he had the balls to actually take a life while you did not.  But that would not make you better than him or her.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If I had the desire to kill someone I would do it. In a heart beat. It is one of the reasons why I do not let my inhibitions become lax.

 

I have a very strong sense of right and wrong, and removing a murderer from society permanently is not wrong.

Edited September 30, 2006 by Judge Hades

[thepixiesrock]

just to recap, Hades is the authority on right and wrong. If he says something is not wrong, then it must be truth. He is also a total hard ass.

[Judge Hades]

I am authority on what is right and wrong for me and only for me. Just as Dark Moth is the authority on what is right and wrong for him.

[thepixiesrock]

It's always about you, isn't it?

[Pidesco]

I am authority on what is right and wrong for me and only for me.  Just as Dark Moth is the authority on what is right and wrong for him.

 

I don't get it. Are you saying you are amoral, or are you saying everything is futile?

[Judge Hades]

It's always about you, isn't it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I am the only person who has to live with myself.

[metadigital]

... And there was much rejoicing ...

[Judge Hades]

... And there was much rejoicing ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

What is that suppose to mean? After all you, Meta, are the only person you have to live with. Its not like you can live apart from yourself.

 

Edited September 30, 2006 by Judge Hades

[metadigital]

Others may choose to live with others, though ...

[Judge Hades]

Yes, one can choose to as I do but that doesn't change the fact that I am the only person I have to live with such as you are the only person you have to live with. If one cannot stand to live with oneself then one has problems.

[metadigital]

My original comment reflected that we should be thankful for small mercies, like not being forced to live with ... others ...

[Dark Moth]

Just because you obey the law and a murderer did not does not make you morally better than him or her.  For all we know, you may have had the desire to kill someone more than once in your life but only refused to do so for fear of the consequences.

 

If I wanted to kill someone fear would not hold me back because I really have nothing to fear. I have no heaven to strive for and I have no hell to fear. I should have been dead a half dozen times already. What do I have to fear?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Prison, maybe? And the prospect of being fresh meat amongst a bunch of sex-starved inmates?

[Dark Moth]

There's a distinct difference between thinking about killing someone and actually doing it. Mostly the part where you actually do it.

 

Yes, you are morally superior because, frankly, you didn't pull the trigger when faced with the option, regardless of your reasons for not doing so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That depends on the motive behind your actions. You're just looking at the action itself and not the reason. If someone refrains from killing someone else because it's wrong, then that would make him morally superior. However if that person refrains from taking a life only because he's concerned about his own skin, then that really doesn't place him on a higher moral platform. Sure that means there won't be a murder, which is always a better thing. But then again that person couldn't say he was morally superior to a murderer because of his reasons for not killing him.

 

I am authority on what is right and wrong for me and only for me.  Just as Dark Moth is the authority on what is right and wrong for him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, not really, because I have a responsibility to others as well as to myself. I don't know where you get off claiming a person has to only live with himself or herself, since very frequently that isn't the case.

 

I have a very strong sense of right and wrong, and removing a murderer from society permanently is not wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But Hades, earlier you've stated how you strongly believe that there is no right and wrong, just all gray...and this was a concept you'd emphasize with your children if you had any. Change your mind?

Edited September 30, 2006 by Dark Moth

[Dark_Raven]

Na

[213374U]

Lol justice

 

Lol good and evil

 

Death penalty is stupidly flawed as a concept, and is, in fact, an incentive for people not to obey the law. I mean, if there's a (remote) chance that I might be randomly killed by the state, what's the point in being a rightful, law-abiding citizen? After all, there's no guarantee I'm not going to be punished as if I had broken the law, in a very drastic and quite permanent way.

 

Also, death penalty is a waste of valuable resources. Why kill criminals when you can have them build the Four Gorges Dam? Sadly, forced labor is terribly underrated.

 

A human being is only human as far as he is able (and most importantly, willing) to act as such (the problem here lies in defining "human" from a moral standpoint, but that's a different issue). Otherwise, he's no human being, but simply a base animal. Human rights don't generally apply to animals, save in extreme examples of legislative idiocy. The idea that just because one is born a Homo sapiens sapiens one has a number of rights that can't be revoked under any circumstances is almost as ludicrous as it is random.

 

Oh, hey Hades, just give it up man. It was somewhat funny for the first seven thousand posts or so, but not anymore, really.

 

 

While the guy is scum this was uncalled. I chuckle when I find CRIMINALS judging CRIMINALS.

 

These CRIMINALS who perpetrated this CRIME should be FRIED!

 

This guy got convicted, and sentenced. That was/is his punishment.

 

Case closed.

Go Judge Volo! GO!

[Hassat Hunter]

I don't understand how you can look yourselves in the mirror well knowing that you are partly responsible for another mans death..

 

I think that if I made capital crime convictions "populair" again I would at myself as far better than when I fail to do so (which probably happens considering I am just one person and most of the population despises capital crimes; especially the ones in charge)

 

@ 213374U:

Random state killings? Do you Really think that with capital crimes a normal Western Country suddenly turns North-Korean? It will happen when one is proved to be guilty. With DNA you can be quite certain when that is the case; so the amount of random or innocent killings should be not enough to cause massive rioting and law-offending you imply; because the state acts *for random*

[LostStraw]

Also, death penalty is a waste of valuable resources. Why kill criminals when you can have them build the Four Gorges Dam? Sadly, forced labor is terribly underrated.

With forced labor, you're putting law abiding citizens out of work.

 

"Sorry Johny, we're laying you off. See -- we got these convicts here who'll do your job for 3$ an hour."

 

 

Here's a small opinion article on it: http://www.pww.org/article/view/2415/1/122/

But this lone Vermont phenomenon is in direct contrast to the rest of the nation

[213374U]

Eh... okay. I'm fairly sure that after this brief yet intense homoerotic interlude it's a good time to rerail the thread.

 

Random state killings? Do you Really think that with capital crimes a normal Western Country suddenly turns North-Korean? It will happen when one is proved to be guilty. With DNA you can be quite certain when that is the case; so the amount of random or innocent killings should be not enough to cause massive rioting and law-offending you imply; because the state acts *for random*

It is random because I might be put to death without actually being guilty. It doesn't matter if the chaces are one in ten or one in a hundred million. The feeling people get from that is that the system can't be trusted, and that not getting caught at all is much better than being cleared of any alleged offenses. I can tell you I'd be quite pissed if someone close to me was executed "by accident". Quite pissed, as in willing to become militant. You can't have a system that won't make mistakes, and it's pretty dumb to design a system that *will* make mistakes that *can't* be rectified. I have been deeply impressed by your mastery of the obvious, let me tell you; death penalty will certainly not instantly cause mass rioting. Death penalty is, however, pointless and counterproductive from every perspective.

 

 

With forced labor, you're putting law abiding citizens out of work.

 

"Sorry Johny, we're laying you off. See -- we got these convicts here who'll do your job for 3$ an hour."

True. That's probably the biggest problem with forced labour, and it's a point often brought up. That, however, is already happening with the prices of labor in Eastern Europe and Asia. So I'd rather have local inmates do those jobs and save the state some money that can be used to improve social services and public infrastructures, than allow truly free competition and lose to foreign slave labour.

[Hassat Hunter]

Don't agree.

 

1) If you are pissed off if one near you gets executed while being innocent HOW exactly would they go about and make him the suspect? Like I mentioned before; If they only kill people who are proved guilty with DNA the change is so small it is neglectable. Science made it possible again; and we should take advantage from that change.

Would you NOT be pissed if the same innocent friend would be jailed for life without reduction change. Why would that then not be enough to become "militant" but his execution is; even if a prisonvisit may corrupt him for life?

 

2) Why counterproductive? People who value life would think twice before commiting a heavy crime; and public executions are an excelent way to scare off people who think going into the crime-scene...

It worked pretty fine in the past to scare off criminals and/or military leaders; why should *that* be different in the present time?

Edited October 1, 2006 by Hassat Hunter

[Pidesco]

It worked pretty fine in the past to scare off criminals and/or military leaders; why should *that* be different in the present time?

 

 

If it worked so well, why was it that there were so many public executions? The death penalty never stopped anyone from committing murder.

[metadigital]

Eh... okay. I'm fairly sure that after this brief yet intense homoerotic interlude it's a good time to rerail the thread.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, thread pruned of boorish off-topic comments.

 

Please keep the boorish comments on-topic in future.

 

With forced labor, you're putting law abiding citizens out of work.

 

"Sorry Johny, we're laying you off. See -- we got these convicts here who'll do your job for 3$ an hour."

True. That's probably the biggest problem with forced labour, and it's a point often brought up. That, however, is already happening with the prices of labor in Eastern Europe and Asia. So I'd rather have local inmates do those jobs and save the state some money that can be used to improve social services and public infrastructures, than allow truly free competition and lose to foreign slave labour.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's generally the lowest strata of the workplace that may be replaced by forced labour ... application to the lowest common denominator. Though I guess with the increase of white-collar criminality it might be possible to provide forced IT labour (forced more than the current workplace, that is ).

[Judge Hades]

Change your mind?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nope.

 

The world is a sea of grey, but how I interpret it for my own purposes is black and white.

Edited October 1, 2006 by Judge Hades