No such thing as evil - top trumped

[Hurlshort]

 

 

I know, but you said "they have it pretty good, except for the bunhole rapes". It's pretty inaccurate to say that. 

 

That's really not what I said at all.  I said they are getting nutritious meals and cable television.  They get to join rodeos and boxing teams.  Basically I'm saying the State and taxpayers foot the bill for a fairly comfortable existence.  What they can't control is the other inmates, particularly given the overcrowding issues.  

 

You do realize that ultimately treating people better in prison means that there is a lower recidivism rate right? I think it's Norway that has their "prison" is actually a little village where all the inmates are monitored, but have their own homes with TV etc. And because they're respected and the prison has enough resources, the offenders don't re-offend.

 

 

That sounds like some sort of fairy tale land.  What is this 'Norway' you speak of?

[Walsingham]

Gentlemen, central to the perspective of the OP was the notion that there are crimes and criminals which go beyond what I would call 'cosy notions' of respect and tolerance.

[Calax]

http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1989083_2137368,00.html

 

Browse the photos of the horrible prisons! OOooooOOOooooOOOoooOO!

 

And ultimately, if you allow certain crimes and (even worse) certain criminals to trigger the revokation of rights and to be considered uniquely evil, then you're just asking for justice not to be applied equally. And even under the assumption that they decided this, is it a case by case basis? or are all crimes that fulfill a certain set of criteria considered "truly terrible"?

 

To give a really..... dark example, imagine two guys are put on trial for the exact same crime, they raped a girl and then killed her. They didn't know or care about their victims age, but one was 20 and one was 17. Does the one who went after the 17 year old automatically get punished worse than the other guy even though both crimes are the exact same barring that detail (including means, motive, and opportunity. It's a thought experiment).

[JadedWolf]

While I agree that what was described in the OP would be as close to evil as I can imagine, I do not think the notion of "evil" has any room within a justice system. A justice system based on the judgement of "Is someone evil or not" conjures up the image of a witch hunt, complete with torches and pitchforks. If someone is plain evil, we don't need a judge or jury. We can just lynch him right here and now, and be done with it.

 

I am also against the death penalty, on principle. Even if someone is 100% guilty. Not because I feel sympathetic to rapists and murderers, but because I think killing someone is morally wrong, even if the person to be killed is a real life Hannibal Lector. (And guess what, I am an atheist! Isn't that funny, atheists can have morals too!)

 

But even if I look at it rationally, I don't see the benefit in the death penalty. Aside from the chance that you're in fact killing an innocent person, it's more expensive than a life sentence, and also less of a punishment. I mean... Most people who are in favour of the death penalty consider it to be the worst punishment the justice system can dish out. But personally I would think that compared to spending your life in jail the death penalty is the easy way out.

 

That being said... All of this relies on a working justice system. If the justice system doesn't work, all bets are off. If someone would harm my loved ones, and the justice system would fail to deal with them, I don't know what I'd do.

[NOK222]

 

(And guess what, I am an atheist! Isn't that funny, atheists can have morals too!)

 

WHATTTTTTTTTT

[Hurlshort]

http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1989083_2137368,00.html

 

Browse the photos of the horrible prisons! OOooooOOOooooOOOoooOO!

 

 

Geez, if I'm going to commit a crime, I need to do it in Norway.  I've stayed at hotels worse than that.

[TrashMan]

Ok, so life in prison...

I love the arguments saying "killing is wrong", followed by "life imprisoment is the wrost punishment we can adiminster".

If that's the case, would it be MORE wrong than killing?

I think we all agree that there are far worse things than death.

 

 

There's a strange sea of conflicting thoughts here regarding the puspose/punction and modus operani of prisons and justice systems - both for and againt punishment and rehabiliation.

 

Life in prison means the person will never be rehabilitated and will never become a productive member of society - because he'll never get out. That's kinda the point of life sentance.

 

 

 

 

[Walsingham]

 

http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1989083_2137368,00.html

 

Browse the photos of the horrible prisons! OOooooOOOooooOOOoooOO!

 

 

Geez, if I'm going to commit a crime, I need to do it in Norway.  I've stayed at hotels worse than that.

 

 

It's a bit of an aside, but organised crime definitely 'shops around' for countries with weak state power and 'good' jails. It's one reason why so many drug smuggling routes go through Holland.

[JadedWolf]

I love the arguments saying "killing is wrong", followed by "life imprisoment is the wrost punishment we can adiminster".

If that's the case, would it be MORE wrong than killing?

 

Killing people is wrong in my mind because it crosses a line that I do not think should be crossed.  Like I said, it is a principle thing.

 

On the other hand, locking someone up is fine with me. Even if the criminal himself might prefer death.

 

I see no contradiction.

[JadedWolf]

 

 

http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1989083_2137368,00.html

 

Browse the photos of the horrible prisons! OOooooOOOooooOOOoooOO!

 

 

Geez, if I'm going to commit a crime, I need to do it in Norway.  I've stayed at hotels worse than that.

 

 

It's a bit of an aside, but organised crime definitely 'shops around' for countries with weak state power and 'good' jails. It's one reason why so many drug smuggling routes go through Holland.

 

 

I think it probably has more to do with the central location of the Netherlands in Europe, the status of Rotterdam as the largest port in Europe, and the difficulty of checking all the cargo that comes into that harbour.

Edited May 15, 2013 by JadedWolf

[TrashMan]

 

I love the arguments saying "killing is wrong", followed by "life imprisoment is the wrost punishment we can adiminster".

If that's the case, would it be MORE wrong than killing?

 

Killing people is wrong in my mind because it crosses a line that I do not think should be crossed.  Like I said, it is a principle thing.

 

On the other hand, locking someone up is fine with me. Even if the criminal himself might prefer death.

 

I see no contradiction.

 

 

 

The contradiction comes in the form of hte question WHY?

 

Why do you lock poeple up in jail? waht is hte purpose of jail and judicial system?

Vengance? Punishmnet?

In that case waht is correct would depend on what you consider a bigger punishment - death or imprisoment.

Rehabiliation? People who are serving life won't rehabilitate.

 

Why do you refrain from death penalty? Mercy? Or a matter of principle?

If it's mercy, then it again depends on what you consider more mercifull - death or life in prison.

If it's a matter of principle then again it's a question of why.

 

Hypotheticly speaking - you see a man butcher children with your own eyes. He is remorsless and thinks nothing of it, in fact he's been doing it for a while and not just children. Looks forward to prison.

His guilt is 100% factual. No possibility of error. You are judge and jury - what do you do?

[JadedWolf]

 

 

I love the arguments saying "killing is wrong", followed by "life imprisoment is the wrost punishment we can adiminster".

If that's the case, would it be MORE wrong than killing?

 

Killing people is wrong in my mind because it crosses a line that I do not think should be crossed.  Like I said, it is a principle thing.

 

On the other hand, locking someone up is fine with me. Even if the criminal himself might prefer death.

 

I see no contradiction.

 

 

 

The contradiction comes in the form of hte question WHY?

 

Why do you lock poeple up in jail? waht is hte purpose of jail and judicial system?

Vengance? Punishmnet?

In that case waht is correct would depend on what you consider a bigger punishment - death or imprisoment.

Rehabiliation? People who are serving life won't rehabilitate.

 

Why do you refrain from death penalty? Mercy? Or a matter of principle?

If it's mercy, then it again depends on what you consider more mercifull - death or life in prison.

If it's a matter of principle then again it's a question of why.

 

Hypotheticly speaking - you see a man butcher children with your own eyes. He is remorsless and thinks nothing of it, in fact he's been doing it for a while and not just children. Looks forward to prison.

His guilt is 100% factual. No possibility of error. You are judge and jury - what do you do?

 

 

Let me try to explain it using other kind of sentence.

 

"No longer used in most Western countries, flogging or whipping is still a common punishment in some parts of the world, particularly in many former British territories and in Islamic countries under shariah law. Medically supervised caning is routinely ordered by the courts as a penalty for some categories of crime in Singapore, Brunei, Malaysia, Tanzania, Zimbabwe and elsewhere."

 

Now, I am against flogging. I think it is barbaric, and has no place in a civilized justice system. However... Given the choice between a flogging and a life sentence, which would you choose? The pain from the flogging will only last a few months, and you might still suffer from the scars afterwards, but you'll still be free. My point with this example is: my opposition to the death penalty does not have to mean that I think that it's a worse penalty than a life sentence, I just don't think it is an appropriate penalty for a civilized society. It is not because I feel merciful towards murderers and child rapists, but because I do not want our collective conscience to be burdened by something which I consider to be immoral.

 

If you still want to ask why... Well, simply because I feel it is morally wrong. I don't have a holy book I can point at where it says it is wrong, I don't have a belief in some higher justice. But that doesn't mean that I don't still have a moral code that guides me, and one of the things I believe is that it is wrong to kill people, no matter what.

 

And if that means nothing to you, may I then ask, how would you feel if I was religious, and felt this way because it said in the bible "Thou shalt not kill". Would you feel more sympathetic?

[TrashMan]

But why is killing immoral and life imprisoment isn't?

Because of sanctity of human life?

 

Life and death in itself - what value do they have? Do not kill?

No, the Bible actually sez "do not murder".

 

Killing itself is actually justified in many cases - even legally.

For example if you ship goes down and you and another man are stuggling in the water and showing eachother for that one life jacket - and he dies because you took it or showed him underwater during the stuggle. This isn't consider murder.

Self defence? Again, not really.

 

Is death really that horrible? Yes we fear it - everyone does - but one has to wonder.

 

 

Ultimatively this comes down to morality, views of life and death and various values -  and that isn't something that one can "prove" or "calcualte", hence why it becomes pointless to even try.

[BruceVC]

 

 

I love the arguments saying "killing is wrong", followed by "life imprisoment is the wrost punishment we can adiminster".

If that's the case, would it be MORE wrong than killing?

 

Killing people is wrong in my mind because it crosses a line that I do not think should be crossed.  Like I said, it is a principle thing.

 

On the other hand, locking someone up is fine with me. Even if the criminal himself might prefer death.

 

I see no contradiction.

 

 

 

The contradiction comes in the form of hte question WHY?

 

Why do you lock poeple up in jail? waht is hte purpose of jail and judicial system?

Vengance? Punishmnet?

In that case waht is correct would depend on what you consider a bigger punishment - death or imprisoment.

Rehabiliation? People who are serving life won't rehabilitate.

 

Why do you refrain from death penalty? Mercy? Or a matter of principle?

If it's mercy, then it again depends on what you consider more mercifull - death or life in prison.

If it's a matter of principle then again it's a question of why.

 

Hypotheticly speaking - you see a man butcher children with your own eyes. He is remorsless and thinks nothing of it, in fact he's been doing it for a while and not just children. Looks forward to prison.

His guilt is 100% factual. No possibility of error. You are judge and jury - what do you do?

 

The man that kills children and thinks nothing of it would end up the rest of his life in a mental Institution, he would clearly be mentally unbalanced and wouldn't go to normal prison or face the death penalty in any Western country.

 

I refrain from the death penalty from a moral perspective because I don't believe you have a right to take someones life under any legal  circumstances. As you mentioned a life behind bars is probably worse than a death sentence so he would  face the relevant justice in my eyes

Edited May 15, 2013 by BruceVC

[JadedWolf]

Thrashman: to answer your second question: what I think jail and the judicial system are for. I don't think they are meant for vengeance, I think they are meant for keeping society safe. They are useful for the period in which the criminal is locked up, as society is protected; the criminal won't be able to harm anyone again. In that respect, a life sentence serves the purpose of protecting society perfectly well. Whether the criminal enjoys his time in jail, from that perspective, is irrelevant - though of course, the criminal should not be too much of a burden on the tax payers.

 

And yes, you are right, and that was what I was trying to say. You can't argue morality.

 

As for your example:

 

"For example if you ship goes down and you and another man are stuggling in the water and showing eachother for that one life jacket - and he dies because you took it or showed him underwater during the stuggle. This isn't consider murder."

 

It is not murder, but if that happened to me, I would feel very, very guilty for the rest of my life.

[Nepenthe]

Er... I accept (previously discussed on this forum) the point that humans are fallible. But in a situation like this where innocence would require some pretty unimaginable accidents...

 

"Honestly, guv'nor. I made that cage and steel coffin in case a child what has been zombified wanders into my basement while I'm using i-tunes."

 

...That I have to suggest it's just good sense.

 

The objection will no doubt be raised that there would be appeals and whatnot to defend the guy, but I think the costs of those should be accounted for separately.

 

I believe the costs  are separate because they should come from an Identifying Retard Liberals - not to be confused with simple liberals - fund. A smartphone app would allow you to identify them at work or social functions and say "Get away from me you freakish child castration defending arsehole," then push them backwards over a sofa.

 

I dunno, 27 years for planning to do something seems plenty to me.

[JadedWolf]

As for what I think should happen to the person in the OP.

 

 

"A Briton faces up to 27 years in a US jail for plotting to kidnap, rape, kill and eat a child, authorities say.

Agents found the basement of Geoffrey Portway's Massachusetts home equipped with a steel cage and a child-sized home-made coffin, in a raid last year.

...

The dungeon was further kitted out with a chair, a television, and what appeared to be cable access to the internet, officers said.

Outside the room detectives found a chest freezer and an upright freezer, along with some disposable scalpels, butchering kits, and castration tools."

 

I think this person is beyond rehabilitation, on the grounds of insanity. He should be put in a mental institution/prison for the mentally insane, for the remainder of his life.

[BruceVC]

As for what I think should happen to the person in the OP.

 

 

"A Briton faces up to 27 years in a US jail for plotting to kidnap, rape, kill and eat a child, authorities say.

Agents found the basement of Geoffrey Portway's Massachusetts home equipped with a steel cage and a child-sized home-made coffin, in a raid last year.

...

The dungeon was further kitted out with a chair, a television, and what appeared to be cable access to the internet, officers said.

Outside the room detectives found a chest freezer and an upright freezer, along with some disposable scalpels, butchering kits, and castration tools."

 

I think this person is beyond rehabilitation, on the grounds of insanity. He should be put in a mental institution/prison for the mentally insane, for the remainder of his life.

 

Yes thats my view. He isn't "evil" but clearly mentally unbalanced

[Gfted1]

It is not murder, but if that happened to me, I would feel very, very guilty for the rest of my life.

You wouldn't feel guilty, you would be dead:

 

...and one of the things I believe is that it is wrong to kill people, no matter what.

[JadedWolf]

 

It is not murder, but if that happened to me, I would feel very, very guilty for the rest of my life.

You wouldn't feel guilty, you would be dead:

 

...and one of the things I believe is that it is wrong to kill people, no matter what.

Er, no. If someone dies because someone else took the last life jacket, that's tragic, but not murder. I can even imagine that people who are drowning would, in their instinct to survive, push away people, or even push them under. That is not the same as actually willfully killing someone. But, like I said, if it happened to me I would feel guilty about it.

 

It really feels to me like you are trying to argue on semantics here. I am pretty sure you know exactly what I meant.

Edited May 15, 2013 by JadedWolf

[Gfted1]

Not semantics, just poking holes in the absurdity of "its wrong to kill people, no matter what". I bet you would also kill if someone was pistol whipping dear old mum, or trying to snatch your kids, or any number of reasons that suddenly become "justifiable instinct" in your head. Its all exactly the same as willfully killing someone.

[HoonDing]

 

Er... I accept (previously discussed on this forum) the point that humans are fallible. But in a situation like this where innocence would require some pretty unimaginable accidents...

 

"Honestly, guv'nor. I made that cage and steel coffin in case a child what has been zombified wanders into my basement while I'm using i-tunes."

 

...That I have to suggest it's just good sense.

 

The objection will no doubt be raised that there would be appeals and whatnot to defend the guy, but I think the costs of those should be accounted for separately.

 

I believe the costs  are separate because they should come from an Identifying Retard Liberals - not to be confused with simple liberals - fund. A smartphone app would allow you to identify them at work or social functions and say "Get away from me you freakish child castration defending arsehole," then push them backwards over a sofa.

 

I dunno, 27 years for planning to do something seems plenty to me.

 

Human flesh is a dish best served cold.

[JadedWolf]

Not semantics, just poking holes in the absurdity of "its wrong to kill people, no matter what". I bet you would also kill if someone was pistol whipping dear old mum, or trying to snatch your kids, or any number of reasons that suddenly become "justifiable instinct" in your head. Its all exactly the same as willfully killing someone.

 

You're not even really engaging in a discussion at this point, you're just ridiculing my point of view. Well, you'll excuse me if I don't really feel like wasting my time talking to you, then.

[Gfted1]

 

Not semantics, just poking holes in the absurdity of "its wrong to kill people, no matter what". I bet you would also kill if someone was pistol whipping dear old mum, or trying to snatch your kids, or any number of reasons that suddenly become "justifiable instinct" in your head. Its all exactly the same as willfully killing someone.

 

You're not even really engaging in a discussion at this point, you're just ridiculing my point of view. Well, you'll excuse me if I don't really feel like wasting my time talking to you, then.

 

Don't you think its more likely that you don't want to face yourself? I mean, Im just some disembodied voice on the interweb trying to understand your point. Just a few posts ago you stated that you believe it is wrong to kill "no matter what". Now we have established that you would in fact kill someone to take their life preserver to save yourself (while feeling terrible about it of course). This can be reasonably extrapolated to; you would kill someone else to save yourself in any situation where your life depended on it. All Im trying to figure out is where your "morals" really kick in.

[Malcador]

I guess that 'killing' vs 'murder' distinction comes into play. The life jacket scenario's a bit different than some psycho trying to kill your or a family member though.