Originally posted by PVS
actually bardock, you are wrong for correcting him.lex has no superpowers, yet would easily escape prison, thus validating bostankass' retort. 😛
True, sorry for correcting you botankus.
Originally posted by Phoenix2001
I was thinking more on the lines of a conquering dictator.
Could you explain that or is it just crazy paranoia again?
Originally posted by PVS
a conquering dictator, once captured, is no longer effective in....dictating.
for example, note saddam hussein's current influence over iraq...or complete and total lack of.
The thought that had come to me was Adolf Hitler gassing millions of jews. I guess if we had captured him before he killed himself he wouldn't have been much of a threat anymore. But... if we put him behind bars, how would we have known that for sure?
Originally posted by Phoenix2001
The thought that had come to me was Adolf Hitler gassing millions of jews. I guess if we had captured him before he killed himself he wouldn't have been much of a threat anymore. But... if we put him behind bars, how would we have known that for sure?
How can we be sure that he isn't a threat anymore when we killed him?
Originally posted by PVS
a conquering dictator, once captured, is no longer effective in....dictating.
for example, note saddam hussein's current influence over iraq...or complete and total lack of.
He no longer has the power to push people around unless they declare him not guilty.... hah like thats gonna happen
Originally posted by Phoenix2001
The thought that had come to me was Adolf Hitler gassing millions of jews. I guess if we had captured him before he killed himself he wouldn't have been much of a threat anymore. But... if we put him behind bars, how would we have known that for sure?
i dont know. maybe in such a rare to nonexistant occurance he/she could be tragically shot while trying to escape, if you catch my drift.
anyway, its a way to far fetched point to even go on about.
i agree. keep in mind that i do not defend a criminals right to live, but rather deny the state's and 'innocent' people's right to kill.
I agree 100% here.
i focus my argument on state mandated killing based on 'pure delight/joy/no reason'. there is no logical reason to kill them.its pure revenge and gratification.
It is. The state kills a criminal who they really know nothing about, simply because under thier moral standards "he/she deserves to die". Do i share the same bias against certain criminals ? Ofcourse I do.
But i am not trying to turn my opinion into a law.
What gives me the right to kill a criminal who is already captive and not an immediate threat to anyone ?
What gives anyone else the right to kill a criminal who is already captive? THE LAW....please.....the LAW is an ever changing FLAWED set of rules that HUMAN BEINGS came up with.
The LAW is something we the people make up. The LAW doesn't mean "RIGHT"...it just means what we agreed with as a community.
when an effective alternative can be used to keep a criminal away from society, and that alternative is avoided to satisfy the barbaric law of "eye for and eye"....well what makes us better? how do we claim the moral high ground? we cant.
PVS is absolutely right.
Do some criminals deserve to die? That's all subjective.
Do we as fellow human beings deserve the right to kill another human being who is captive and not an immediate threat to anyone else ?
Again who can TRULY say we have the right ?
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
[B]i agree. keep in mind that i do not defend a criminals right to live, but rather deny the state's and 'innocent' people's right to kill.I agree 100% here.
i focus my argument on state mandated killing based on 'pure delight/joy/no reason'. there is no logical reason to kill them.its pure revenge and gratification.
It is. The state kills a criminal who they really know nothing about, simply because under thier moral standards "he/she deserves to die". Do i share the same bias against certain criminals ? Ofcourse I do.
But i am not trying to turn my opinion into a law.
What gives me the right to kill a criminal who is already captive and not an immediate threat to anyone ?
What gives anyone else the right to kill a criminal who is already captive? THE LAW....please.....the LAW is an ever changing FLAWED set of rules that HUMAN BEINGS came up with.
The LAW is something we the people make up. The LAW doesn't mean "RIGHT"...it just means what we agreed with as a community.
when an effective alternative can be used to keep a criminal away from society, and that alternative is avoided to satisfy the barbaric law of "eye for and eye"....well what makes us better? how do we claim the moral high ground? we cant.
PVS is absolutely right.
Do some criminals deserve to die? That's all subjective.
Do we as fellow human beings deserve the right to kill another human being who is captive and not an immediate threat to anyone else ?
Again who can TRULY say we have the right ? [/B]
Yes, some criminals deserve death. I don't consider people like Ian Brady as 'human' so yes, I think to put them to death would be perfectly justified.
no, not simple i'm afraid. any sentence carried out by the state is based on law, but does that make it 'justice' automatically? if so, then just about every atrocity commited by every governing power against their people can be written off as "justice". after all, they made the poilicy, and the policy is the law of the land.
what makes this different?
Yes, it is quite simple. The answer to the question that he asked, that I answered, is very simple. The governing state does have the right to decide whether a murderer lives or dies. Whether you like or dislike the choice is irrelevent.
At the time these atrocities were done, it was justice. Of course now, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see many of which were mistakes not considered justice in this day and age, but at the time, yes.
and what of 'punishment'? do you really feel that a system based on punishment rather than rehabilitation is the answer to bringing down the crime rate? yeah, i know...'rehabilitation' is the ideal, but we have not even come close to concieving a system which promotes it. but then again, punishment is also complete horseshit. who on death row is really being 'punished'?
Rehabilitation is a pipe dream. How many people who go to prison and are "rehabilitated" only to get released and commit the same damn crime again? The prison system isn't about decreasing the crime rate, it's about keeping the people who did wrong out of society, and if possible, rehabilitating them so they can't victimize other people. But rehabilitation is far to flimsy to rely on. The only way to test if they're really rehabilitated is to release them and see if they go kill/rape/molest/burglarize someone again. Not at all worth the risk. If punishment is completely horseshit then rehabilitation is utter bullshit.
Originally posted by Britannia
I am very much for the death penalty, it delivers justice effectively, it prevents future re-offending and it deters others to do the same.
Not quite. There is still much crime today.
Again, a relative of the executed criminal can easily be driven to commit another murder out of rage.
Death Penalty is a final solution for stopping an INDIVIDUAL killer, but does not prevent more crime, nor does it bring the victim back.
Originally posted by BackFire
Rehabilitation is a pipe dream. How many people who go to prison and are "rehabilitated" only to get released and commit the same damn crime again? The prison system isn't about decreasing the crime rate, it's about keeping the people who did wrong out of society, and if possible, rehabilitating them so they can't victimize other people. But rehabilitation is far to flimsy to rely on. The only way to test if they're really rehabilitated is to release them and see if they go kill/rape/molest/burglarize someone again. Not at all worth the risk. If punishment is completely horseshit then rehabilitation is utter bullshit.
Punishment....not bullshit.
Life in Prison is another option.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Not quite. There is still much crime today.Again, a relative of the executed criminal can easily be driven to commit another murder out of rage.
Death Penalty is a final solution for stopping an INDIVIDUAL killer, but does not prevent more crime, nor does it bring the victim back.
I believe it does prevent future crime- death is enough of an incentive NOT to murder, don't you think?
I agree, it doesn't bring the individual back- but it gives the family some sense of peace that justice has been delivered.
Originally posted by Britannia
I believe it does prevent future crime- death is enough of an incentive NOT to murder, don't you think?
I agree, it doesn't bring the individual back- but it gives the family some sense of peace that justice has been delivered.
Tell that to the criminals who still commit crimes today.
Tell that to the terrorists who bombed the Twin Towers.
Go back in time and tell Hitler that he was going to eventually die for what he did.
Do you think some criminals GIVVA sh*T ?
And as for family....on News Interviews many family members admitted that seeing the death of the person who killed thier relative did nothing to ease thier pain. Many of them feel the EXACT same way as they did before the criminal was put to death.
It doesn't work for everyone. 😉
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Punishment....not bullshit.Life in Prison is another option.
But you don't get it. It's NOT up to the criminal or those who oppose the death penalty to decide what the punishment will be. It's up to the judges and the jurors and the laws which we all agree to make those decisions. It's how our system works. Don't like it? You have the option to try to change things OR leave the state.