Obesity may save a life!

[Deadly_Nightshade]

i do argee with Sand on this.

 

equal punishment to the crime. And let God deal with the murderers for their redempation.

 

Kill 'em all and let God sort them out? I like that!

 

I like it too.

 

I do not, and I hope both of you are being sarcastic.

[taks]

(off-topic: I find it very funny many "pro-life" activists who side against abortion on the other hand are just fine with death penalties)

i don't think there are many true pro-lifers that see things this way (which is different than the "activists," IMO), but you're confusing moralities here. in one case the subject made a choice, in the other the subject was incapable of making a choice. apples and oranges. right or wrong is not my point, and quite immaterial as well.

 

taks

[Gorgon]

Would it be morally repugnant to get rid of a parasite, no, how about a symbiote. At that stage thats the distinction.

 

Personally I think it probably is questionable to repeatedly find yourself in need of an abortion. I mean, you would think one might be able to learn to properly use birth control after the 10th time. For some people that is apparently not the case.

[Dark_Raven]

I think we're losing sight of the real issue here.

 

 

 

The man's not even fat. Now this is fat!

 

Haha imagine trying to execute him!

After electrocution in the chair the smell of burnt bacon is in the air.

[I want teh kotor 3]

I do not, and I hope both of you are being sarcastic.

 

I wasn't.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Would it be morally repugnant to get rid of a parasite, no, how about a symbiote. At that stage thats the distinction.

 

Incorrect, it fits neither of those categories as it does not harm or aid the host. Instead it is an example of commensalism (I think that's how you spell it ).

 

I do not, and I hope both of you are being sarcastic.

 

I wasn't.

 

[Guest The Architect]

Burn in hell? Don't tell me you actually believe such nonsense exists?

 

No, I don't. I was just using an analogy, although a poor one at that, on reflection. But the point still stands that someone would take a quick and easy death over a long and drawn out one any day. Denying criminals what they want is the best punishment to give them, unless they want prison for life, but who the **** would want that? It'd be a living death.

[Gorgon]

Would it be morally repugnant to get rid of a parasite, no, how about a symbiote. At that stage thats the distinction.

 

Incorrect, it fits neither of those categories as it does not harm or aid the host. Instead it is an example of commensalism (I think that's how you spell it ).

 

I do not, and I hope both of you are being sarcastic.

 

I wasn't.

 

That depends on whether the host considers procreation beneficial or not. the human emphasis on individuality can render us indifferent to the continuation of our genes. In any case it consumes resources much like, say a tape worm. Pretty foul analogy, but I suppose I'm being intentionally provocative.

[Cycloneman]

Um, isn't the fact that he's in prison justice, or do you really mean vengeance? That feeling that the world is a better place because a bad guy is dead?

Okay, what is putting a murderer in prison if not vengeance?

 

no, they do that because it is inhumane, useless model of punishment that has no positive effects at all

That could also be used to describe putting a man who will never commit another crime in jail.

 

Plus, the death penalty has several practical benefits, like dissuading lifer violence and motivating criminals to take plea bargains.

Edited August 7, 2008 by Cycloneman

[Hell Kitty]

Um, isn't the fact that he's in prison justice, or do you really mean vengeance? That feeling that the world is a better place because a bad guy is dead?

Okay, what is putting a murderer in prison if not vengeance?

 

The punishment for breaking the laws of society.

[Gorgon]

Dictatorships employ the death penalty as a deterrent and a control mechanism for their own survival. In democracies, prison is the rational - and the death penalty the emotional choice. It caters to some deep seeded need beyond the principle of justice.

 

Justice is the sense that laws apply equally to everyone. It has nothing to do with the extremity of the punishment once the need deter and ensure the safety of the populace has been satisfied.

 

The US doesn't execute its citizens for any practical reason. However much bravado is behind it, it's something more sinister.

Edited August 7, 2008 by Gorgon

[Xard]

Xard, we are humans. Killing is what we do. Something cannot be "inhumane" when it is core fundamental truth of the human beast. Murder is the act of an unlawful killing of another individual. A person who comments murder has no respect for the laws that bind our society. The laws that keep us from tearing each other's throats out. Those who have absolute no respect of the law to the point that they are capable of murder are irredeemable.

 

Also it is not just money, but the overall use of resources. Those resources that keeps a murderer sustained could be used to maintain the health and well-being of a worthwhile individual. By conserving resources for those who deserve and need them, and denying them to those who are irredeemable is the most effective way to maintain a lawful society. There are "philosophers" and religious mumbo-jumbo that thinks that humans are above this but we aren't. We kill, we sleep, we procreate, and we defecate. Everything else is just details.

 

Humans can and have changed over the time. I'm not denying we have "dark" side in ourselves, but we are moral beings with freedom to choose what we do. Man has potential to be killer, but that doesn't mean he will become one. No one* WANTS to become murderer. Most killers are led to their wrong decision due to circumstances surrounding them. Blacks don't do more crimes and murders because they're blacks, the reasons when watching picture as a whole are sociological.

 

I also find it very questionable how you judge and doom humanity to eternal bloodshed. We've made huge advance from the days of the old and cases like Nazi Germany show we must always fight against our "dark" side and that we're far from victory, but no one can deny progress. Progress on the other hand is 100 % tied to great thinkers and moral authorities that have existed throughout the centuries. I say Jesus was the greatest and most important of them, but he was far from only one. It is no coincidence less civilized, cultured and more ignorant people are more often human rights are tampered with.

 

For example take the defeat of slavery as great example of progress compared to ancient times. Or much improved status of women. Or the fact we nowadays universally abhore killing person even if he wasn't part of our "tribe" or clique. None of these are "natural" fundamental truths about our nature. No, it is showcase of our slow, steady climb of our status and nature. What can change the nature of man so to speak? We both know the answer isn't "nothing". Our cultural and intellectual evolution is comparable to evolution of law. It started from (often religious) taboos, reached the state of Hammurabi's law - that in its day and when dealing with that day's people was only really working form of law code due to various reasons - and then in following milleniums evolved a lot forward.

 

What you and many other people in this thread want is NOT JUSTICE, what you want is revenge, feel of moral righteouness being served and above all regress back 4000 years to Hammurabi's Code. Which is just ridiculous

 

 

* Of course I left neurologically and mentally ill people such as psychopaths out of this. However I should add that with the great upheavals in scientific worldview that started with quantum mechanics and (if looking especially) in todaysurgance of self-directed neuroplasticity I won't rule out possibility of curing even people way beyond scope of medicine. We've just started to understand the power of mental effort and our ability to change ourselves (and it doesn't limit at all to neuroplasticity, for example despite lenghty history of placebo effects and faith healings that materialist prejudice have so long tried to, without success, explain away, the scientific worldview is just now started the sloow change) via consciousness. Change your mind, change your brain so to speak.

 

The great breakthroughs in healing OCD with self-directed neuroplasticity are especially noteworthy, as well is the recently found capability to fix neural pathways via conscious attention, pathways that were thought to be destroyed forever. We've just started to understand the capabilities of neuroplasticity in healing and yet even know there have been great exhilirating achievements. I won't put away possibility that 100 years in future with much more effective and precise methods (and possibly with help of nano-machines) altering brains of such people might actually change their amorality.

 

(Anyway this is off-topic, but I felt that I had to cover the fact I ignored mentally ill people in "no one")

 

 

Murder is the act of an unlawful killing of another individual

 

Murder is nothing but form of homicide which is simply act of killing another person, lawfully or not. The word "murder" came to be used on certan kind of act performed inside society, but nature of act - killing other human - has not changed a bit. Murder is nothing but a label.

 

 

 

Really?

 

If you have tribes who need a single resource to survive, they will fight and kill each other so the stronger tribe can survive.

 

Indeed, in enough hard circumstances people usually regress backwards and fall far closer back to their animalistic instincts. But, I should add it is NOT determined what you said will happen. Sure, it is by far the most likely outcome but that has not been always the case, even in history. And I should add the whole purpose of modern civilization is to make sure such situation will not happen. Purpose is to minimize chance of regress in human societies.

 

To use words of Freudian psychology (which I'm not supporter btw so don't go "lol penises" on me) Id thriumphs over Superego. One of the core aspects of humanity's intellectual evolution is shift from Id driven nature to Ego and Superego driven nature.

 

A person who comments murder has no respect for the laws that bind our society.

 

No one is born "evil". Society's aim (or at least in theory) includes creating JUST system. In just system people have no reason to disrespect laws. When however economic collapse happens and preys upon you and especially on future of your own children, trust to laws (that were insufficient to protect them) dimishes in comparison with possibility of robbing a bank. I'm not saying it justifies the act (which it don't) or that they had no choice in the matter (which they had) but you can't put all blame on individual commiting the crime. We are, after all, shaped by our genes, enviroment and our hopes/beliefs/etc. If our enviroment is harsh and we carry genes making it likely for us to have aggressive behaviour and THEN all our motivation to improve ourselves and be contributing member of society as well as hope for better are snuff out, you're in very grave danger of not giving a **** about the laws.

 

Criminals tend to have tough backgrounds with broken families and the like. You CAN'T blind your eyes from external forces shaping us.

 

The laws that keep us from tearing each other's throats out

 

Sorry, Spinoza oversimplified things. Human nature does not have to be that of beast striving for survival. It CAN - and it isn't entirely unheard of - be that of respecting the life of others and ourselves, wanting to be a "good" person. Buddhists aiming for bettering themselves have no needs of laws to do that. They act as they do because they BELIEVE that is their nature or what is should be.

 

Then again, if one BELIEVES that humans are barely constrained evil beasts and they'd take everything that is important to you if given chance...Well, you'd act like them, defending your turf and important ones with no hesitation to rip those throats of so called threats. Because as human you and they can't be nothing more than that....So you better try to fare as well as possible.

 

Which reminds me so much of the Dogs that it isn't even funny.

 

Gotta stay awake, gotta try and shake off this creeping malaise.

If I don't stand my own ground, how can I find my way out of this

maze?

 

Deaf, dumb, and blind, you just keep on pretending

That everyone's expendable and no-one has a real friend.

And it seems to you the thing to do would be to isolate the winner

And everything's done under the sun,

And you believe at heart, everyone's a killer.

 

The question whether humans are by nature good or evil...

 

Among contemporary psychologists and other such people general answer tends to be "neither, but they have capability of being either or both". (not direct quotation per se)

 

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."

- Herman Goering

 

Those who have absolute no respect of the law to the point that they are capable of murder are irredeemable.

 

That has no basis at all, you're merely commenting from your pov which in this case is anything but rational or beliavable. You have zero proof for that claim. Nada.

 

Besides, ever considered the fact innocents are convicted too?

 

Also it is not just money, but the overall use of resources. Those resources that keeps a murderer sustained could be used to maintain the health and well-being of a worthwhile individual.

 

Sorry, but goverments (especially USA's) have things they waste ****loads more resources on than prisons (in fact the money your goverment spends on rehabilating criminals back to norma society is pitiful). For example as long as the support and large scale deals with arms industry are such huge sinkhole for resources justifying death penalties (which is NOT justifiable by simple lack of money. What, businessman can kill his partner because he needed moar money? Any death penalty = saving funds pragmatic stance is immoral by its very nature) for lack of resources is ridiculous.

 

And what is this "worthwile individual"? You? What about some convict who had change of heart (commonly with finding religion at the same time) and in latter years of life radiated caring, aid and compassion to everyone around him and travelled accross the country to help young people on danger to slip on the "dark" side (e.g drug usage) because of his path and his regret? Are you trying to say because of the mistakes he made in past choices and later regretted heavily he is worthless individual compared to average, law abiding citizen that only sees things related to him, perhaps sparing few bucks from his vast savings once or twice to comfort his conscience?

 

Remember Jesus's story about fariseus and the poor widow?

 

There are "philosophers" and religious mumbo-jumbo that thinks that humans are above this but we aren't.

 

Yes we are. We've already little bit above this, but we have a lot of unfullfilled potential as species. I'm not saying we for sure ever reach "higher" (in philosophical sense, not literally) state of existence for sure but denying the possibilty and dismissing the beauty human lives have bestowed over the years is nothing but narrow minded, heavily attituted venomous cynicism, not objective look on possible futures we humans may choose to walk.

 

And the mere existence of people like Mahadma Gandhi and his ilk of "philosophers" and members of "religious mumbo-jumbo" prove that each of us has potential.

 

We kill, we sleep, we procreate, and we defecate.

 

Yes, we do what all animals do. None of those doom us to petty life full of hate and dog eat dog scenarios, as far as killing is necessary evil only done for getting food. Or saving our life when locked up in room with raving lunatic with axe, though even then fatal damage is not - although justifiable - something that must be dealt.

Everything else is just details.

 

Aahh, but what kind of details they are!

 

edit: corrected few obvious spelling mistakes

Edited August 7, 2008 by Xard

[Xard]

Burn in hell? Don't tell me you actually believe such nonsense exists?

 

I do think that Guard Dog has a good idea. It would be a good compromise for those who want the death penalty and those who don't.

 

Yeah, that is a pretty good idea, except for the Alaskan people who have to leave when they build it.

 

i do argee with Sand on this.

 

equal punishment to the crime. And let God deal with the murderers for their redempation.

 

Kill 'em all and let God sort them out? I like that!

 

I like it too.

 

Yeah, I say we take you with time machine back to Babylon and after month of ragged life and clinging unto your life you steal apple and end up getting caught and losing hand. Proper justice ehh?

 

(off-topic: I find it very funny many "pro-life" activists who side against abortion on the other hand are just fine with death penalties)

i don't think there are many true pro-lifers that see things this way (which is different than the "activists," IMO), but you're confusing moralities here. in one case the subject made a choice, in the other the subject was incapable of making a choice. apples and oranges. right or wrong is not my point, and quite immaterial as well.

 

taks

 

We might debate more on this but suffice to say that notion arose from the quick sarcastic mention in Scott Peck's book "People of the Lie: Psychology of Evil" in portion about moral hypocrisy and such.

 

I'd say that it is still very hypocritical as they oppose murdering a living person, but are ok with murdering a living person in other situation of life.

 

Um, isn't the fact that he's in prison justice, or do you really mean vengeance? That feeling that the world is a better place because a bad guy is dead?

Okay, what is putting a murderer in prison if not vengeance?

 

no, they do that because it is inhumane, useless model of punishment that has no positive effects at all

That could also be used to describe putting a man who will never commit another crime in jail.

 

Plus, the death penalty has several practical benefits, like dissuading lifer violence and motivating criminals to take plea bargains.

 

As Hell Kitty said it is not vengeance, it is the punishment for breaking the laws of society. Justice system is build upon pragmatism. It is not case of "you're evil person so take that!", it is case of "we must must discourage others by giving you this punishment which you deserve, but punishing you isn't the main point." and just as important is the trying to change "criminal back into contributing member of society". He is jail for his own good too.

 

That last part is in theory, american judgement system has some...curious aspects, death penalty being worst of them.

 

As I said before death penalty is utterly ineffective in discouraging crime and in some cases may even have contrary effects. and as for plea bargains, the system largerly used in most of the western world (esp. here in northern countries) of investing a lot resources in changing the criminals nature is ten times more efficient.

Edited August 7, 2008 by Xard

[Cycloneman]

The punishment for breaking the laws of society.

Fine, then so is the death penalty.

 

As Hell Kitty said it is not vengeance, it is the punishment for breaking the laws of society. Justice system is build upon pragmatism. It is not case of "you're evil person so take that!", it is case of "we must must discourage others by giving you this punishment which you deserve, but punishing you isn't the main point." and just as important is the trying to change "criminal back into contributing member of society". He is jail for his own good too.

If the purpose of justice is rehabilitation, why not let someone go if they won't do it again? If the purpose is deterrence, why not put everybody who comes into court on supicion in jail? If there's a fair case against them, why not just automatically send them to jail? It'd deter people better, since they would believe that it's much easier for them to go to jail.

 

Hypothetical situation: after an extensive psychological evaluation, it is determined that a convicted murderer has a negligible chance to kill again (similar to or less than any random Joe on the street). Should we let him go free?

 

As I said before death penalty is utterly ineffective in discouraging crime and in some cases may even have contrary effects.

Really? A person who is in prison for life has nothing left to lose if you abolish the death penalty. What's to keep them from killing a guard or fellow inmate? Edited August 7, 2008 by Cycloneman

[Sand]

Nice counter argument, Xard. I compliment you!

[Hell Kitty]

Fine, then so is the death penalty.

 

If I say the death penalty is vengeance then so is life in prison, if I say life in prison is punishment then so is the death penalty? Are you actually going somewhere with this, or is it just an attempt at playing devil's advocate?

 

Anyway, my objection to the death penalty is due to corruption, error and the fact that legal system is a game where the better players can face lesser punishments regardless of guilt. You can free an innocent person from prison, but you can't bring them back from the dead.

 

A person who is in prison for life has nothing left to lose if you abolish the death penalty. What's to keep them from killing a guard or fellow inmate?

 

Is this a common problem? Do lifers in prison routinely kill guards and other inmates?

[Sand]

Is this a common problem? Do lifers in prison routinely kill guards and other inmates?

 

I don't know how common it is but it has happen in the past.

[Xard]

Thanks Sand. Surprisingly I didn't put that much thought into it before writing, it just flowed out naturally. I guess that was because of certain (american) document about different prison systems across the globe I saw some months ago and the Scott Peck's book which I mentioned. It is worth noting I can be just as bitter and cynical about humans as you - not rare thing to happen - but main difference is I recognize (or then I just believe in it, says the utter cynic) the potential in our species that may or may not be realized. Plus my ire stems from somewhat different source(s).

 

And it's not like I can't see where you're coming from. For example I wouldn't bat a eyelash or feel pity if Fritzl was killed by his inmates in prison. So I could see the thing in the light of poetic justice. BUT it is crucial goverment and society are not given arbitary right to end conscious life (my feelings on abortion and euthanazing are very mixed, though they have nothing to do with religion. )

 

(Hell Kitty, I didn't say that! Edit your quotebox )

 

The punishment for breaking the laws of society.

Fine, then so is the death penalty.

 

As Hell Kitty said it is not vengeance, it is the punishment for breaking the laws of society. Justice system is build upon pragmatism. It is not case of "you're evil person so take that!", it is case of "we must must discourage others by giving you this punishment which you deserve, but punishing you isn't the main point." and just as important is the trying to change "criminal back into contributing member of society". He is jail for his own good too.

If the purpose of justice is rehabilitation, why not let someone go if they won't do it again? If the purpose is deterrence, why not put everybody who comes into court on supicion in jail? If there's a fair case against them, why not just automatically send them to jail? It'd deter people better, since they would believe that it's much easier for them to go to jail.

 

Hypothetical situation: after an extensive psychological evaluation, it is determined that a convicted murderer has a negligible chance to kill again (similar to or less than any random Joe on the street). Should we let him go free?

 

As I said before death penalty is utterly ineffective in discouraging crime and in some cases may even have contrary effects.

Really? A person who is in prison for life has nothing left to lose if you abolish the death penalty. What's to keep them from killing a guard or fellow inmate?

 

If the purpose of justice is rehabilitation, why not let someone go if they won't do it again?

 

No, that is not purpose of justice. Rehabilation is part of A) giving second chance (good and just thing towards the person) B) good pragmatism of society's structure (good and just thing towards community). It does cost money feeding prisoners and this money comes in form of taxes. That is why it is most important to get him/her into status of normal, taxpaying citizen. He doesn't burden society plus it is good for him also. This does not happen in America's model very often. Most of the criminals in your prisons end up there too again and again and again. It takes resources and fills your prisons. For the record do you know America has most prisoners in the world when compared against population? No other country comes close. It is becoming HUGE problem due to your law scenarios. For example in Europe there are many small crimes for which you'd survive with surcharge that would get you in prison in America. Not to mention the off the wall "three ticks" system that has grown in popularity over the years.

 

It is becoming big social problem in States.

 

As for what IS justice?

 

Might as well look for the definition:

 

1. The quality of being just; fairness.

2.

1. The principle of moral rightness; equity.

2. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.

3.

1. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.

2. Law. The administration and procedure of law.

4. Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason: The overcharged customer was angry, and with justice.

5. (Abbr. J.) Law.

1. A judge.

2. A justice of the peace.

 

Now as we know morals are ambiguous things, so basing justice on 2. is hard thing to do. But ultimately it is about being fair. What is not fair is killing individual. Poetic justice is different thing.

 

And when society is considered justice is above all upholding the law. This however does not mean laws are instrictly just aka fair. For example law that doesn't fit under this category is that of death penalty

 

 

But as I already said, point of legal systems is above all pragmatism.

 

As for the latter part "why not let someone go if they won't do it again?"...

 

Simple: it is not justice. The victims (alive or dead, depending on nature of crime) have right to "see" "moral judgement" passed on offender. Plus it undermines and destroys the whole pragmatic undercurrents that are the real reason for society's justice system (instead of using, say, system based on poetic justice that really would easily just lead to never ending cycle of vendettas and such)

 

If crime is not punished it doesn't send the message to other people pondering on if they shall commit a crime or not. However death penalty is immoral and wrong and as it doesn't have any positive effect on crime rates (and indeed, some studies might claim the contrary in certain sociological scenarios) making it useless even from pragmatic pov. Plus if managing to change killer to contributing member of society (not easy task and not even nearly always succesful) the rewards for system from pragmatic pov are greater than those of simply killing him.

 

Plus: as any criminologists woud tell you chance of criminal repeating his crime rises expotentially with each crime he commits. If there's no punishment for it it really wouldn't be matter of chance, it would be simply what'd happen.

 

Besides, rehabilating process and prison cuts convict off his previous form of life and gives opportunity to study etc. he wouldn't otherwise have

 

If the purpose is deterrence, why not put everybody who comes into court on supicion in jail?

 

Tell me this isn't real argument? You're not dumb.

If there's a fair case against them, why not just automatically send them to jail?

 

"Fair case" includes evidence and pleading guilty, at which point suspect is no longer suspect. Duh

 

It'd deter people better, since they would believe that it's much easier for them to go to jail.

 

No, that fails utterly on level of justness/fairness (and people really, really don't like unjust laws you know) AND on pragmatic level too. Can you imagine the expenditure for sending each single suspect for crime to jail?

 

Geez

 

Hypothetical situation: after an extensive psychological evaluation, it is determined that a convicted murderer has a negligible chance to kill again (similar to or less than any random Joe on the street). Should we let him go free?

 

Well don't worry, that isn't the case. And even if the thesis of hypothetical situation was true it wouldn't change anything for reasons I expanded on above

Edited August 7, 2008 by Xard

[I want teh kotor 3]

There os absolutely nothing I can say to that.

[Cycloneman]

I know you typed up that big long post, but beyond pragmatism in justice, it can be boiled down to this:

Now as we know morals are ambiguous things, so basing justice on 2. is hard thing to do. But ultimately it is about being fair. What is not fair is killing individual. Poetic justice is different thing.

 

And when society is considered justice is above all upholding the law. This however does not mean laws are instrictly just aka fair. For example law that doesn't fit under this category is that of death penalty

Pretty arbitrary. I just looked up the definition of "fair" and it doesn't say anything about not killing people. Why is killing people unfair?

Fine, then so is the death penalty.

 

If I say the death penalty is vengeance then so is life in prison, if I say life in prison is punishment then so is the death penalty? Are you actually going somewhere with this, or is it just an attempt at playing devil's advocate?

The two occupy a similar position: punishing people for doing wrong.

 

Anyway, my objection to the death penalty is due to corruption, error and the fact that legal system is a game where the better players can face lesser punishments regardless of guilt. You can free an innocent person from prison, but you can't bring them back from the dead.

This I can get behind. But what about the unfixable problems going to prison pose? You could be killed, it could turn you into a criminal if you weren't already, you could end up killing someone, you could get raped, you could get AIDS and die, et cetera. Edited August 7, 2008 by Cycloneman

[taks]

We might debate more on this but suffice to say that notion arose from the quick sarcastic mention in Scott Peck's book "People of the Lie: Psychology of Evil" in portion about moral hypocrisy and such.

 

I'd say that it is still very hypocritical as they oppose murdering a living person, but are ok with murdering a living person in other situation of life.

i think you missed my point. these are two different moral positions no matter how you want to slice it. you're applying YOUR moral standards to the situation, and judging pro-lifers as hypocritical based on YOUR moral stance (in which you have equated the two things), not theirs. there is no hypocrisy if the pro-lifers simply separate the two things morally, which is their right. just because they have different morals than you does not change this.

 

taks

[DeathScepter]

I do not, and I hope both of you are being sarcastic.

 

I wasn't.

 

 

Me either. Also the killers rarely change and often commit other crimes if let loose. And often Prisons do get very crowded.

 

There are several choices to reduce them, Death Penality, More Prisons, Let the inmates kill each other, or let them loose. I don't have any ill will towards them.

[Hell Kitty]

But what about the unfixable problems going to prison pose? You could be killed, it could turn you into a criminal if you weren't already, you could end up killing someone, you could get raped, you could get AIDS and die, et cetera.

 

The problem with prison is that you are being removed from one society and placed into another that's even worse. I suppose the solution is to change the way the prison system works. Changed how exactly and how feasible that might be I don't know. Especially when public support is behind the current system, ie it's okay to rape certain prisoners etc.

Edited August 8, 2008 by Hell Kitty

[taks]

The problem with prison is that you are being removed from one society and placed into another that's even worse. I suppose the solution is to change the way the prison system works. Changed how exactly and how feasible that might be I don't know. Especially when public support is behind the current system, ie it's okay to rape certain prisoners etc.

well put. i agree, too, that there aren't any easy answers. i certainly don't have any and this question has been asked of many far wiser than me for thousands of years, without a result that is a whole lot different than what we have today.

 

taks