Originally posted by Wanderer259
To my understanding, it supposedly works like this: justice = equity under the law. If you kill, the only 'equal' punishment is to be killed. A sort of "eye for an eye" mentality.
That's the principle of civil law.
Originally posted by leonidas
in the grand scheme of morality, is it that much less immoral to with-hold someone's freedom for their entire life (while having good people PAY for that removal of freedoms) than it is to put them to death? are we not simply turning them into zoo animals and locking them up in conditions that only propagate negative behavior?
Of course it's less immoral. No morals are lacking in imprisoning a person to prevent harm to the greater public. That's a simple equation of harm against harm.
Killing doesn't really slip into that equation comfortably. We can't just say 'might as well kill them then'.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
That's the principle of civil law.Of course it's less immoral. No morals are lacking in imprisoning a person to prevent harm to the greater public. That's a simple equation of harm against harm.
Killing doesn't really slip into that equation comfortably. We can't just say 'might as well kill them then'.
I didn't state the quote you're referring to in the second paragraph. 😄
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Seeing as dear ol' Dagon was unable to even attempt to answer any of the questions
I would have, if you didn't jump in with all this shit about the hypocrisy of the right, and then shit when I gave you an earful about the left and THEIR little divorces from reality as well. Again. Right off the bat everything I said was nonsense, and you started it by throwing me the ball. Hopefully the is time It'll be better. I for one am over it and ready to move on.
What questions? The man murdered 4 people and laughed about it,and glorified killing white people (not to mention anyone who stood in his way regardless of color.) Yeah, OK. Killing in return might not be the answer, (to YOU) and it won't stop crime, but that's one less we have to worry about. And if he gets free and does it again, then people will scream "why did he get released"? Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
If people are talking about a civil society following the archaic code of ethics that states 'An eye for an eye', then who will equate the killing of Tookie by the US government?
This is the eternal problem of the 'eye for an eye' mentality; the killing continues because another death is another miscarriage of justice that somone will attempt to equate.
i think it is more a lack of a good, successful alternative. those against cp rarely have suggestions to offer to FIX the problem, or address the problems at hand.
i'm not necessarily FOR cp, i'm more against the alternatives and am fully aware of the flaws of cp. seriously though, what are viable alternatives?
Originally posted by leonidas
i think it is more a lack of a good, successful alternative. those against cp rarely have suggestions to offer to FIX the problem, or address the problems at hand.i'm not necessarily FOR cp, i'm more against the alternatives and am fully aware of the flaws of cp. seriously though, what are viable alternatives?
Not killing people?
What is needed? A monumental shift in society's ideology that presently conditions people to think that money, money, money is the answer to all of life's woes. Then, once that misconception is corrected, the task of bringing true equality should begin and the education of our children to let them understand that race really shouldn't be an issue as the color of the blood we live with and shed is the same.
Now, I'm going to float away on these clouds here...
Originally posted by leonidas
i think it is more a lack of a good, successful alternative. those against cp rarely have suggestions to offer to FIX the problem, or address the problems at hand.i'm not necessarily FOR cp, i'm more against the alternatives and am fully aware of the flaws of cp. seriously though, what are viable alternatives?
What is CP?
Originally posted by Dagons Blade
Killing in return might not be the answer, (to YOU) and it won't stop crime, but that's one less we have to worry about. And if he gets free and does it again, then people will scream "why did he get released"? Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
Quite confused by this.
What I'm getting from this, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that there is no point keeping him alive?
This is what I meant in the other thread. Most people who are pro-death penalty are of such a stance because of vengeance, not justice.
Nobody spoke about freeing the man, just not killing him. If you acknowledge it's not the answer and not going to solve anything, what is the point?
-AC
quote: (post)
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
What does it say about a society when a person can reform, show evidence of that reform, show contrition for his deeds (in regards to his life as a crip), yet ultimately be dealt exactly the same punishment as the one he committed? How can a human being be judged in absolutes that refuse to recognise the rehabilitation of man, regardless of what he has done? He was convicted of the crimes he was tried for, so I'm not debating that, but this behavior by the US government is despicable, barbaric and hyprocritical in light of the preaching that comes from the fundamental Right.
There's been talk here about the message it would give if he was pardoned...well, what about the message that screams "You shouldn't kill people, so to show you this is a bad thing to do, we'll kill you!".
OK, I'll TRY to answer for you, and whether or not it's good enough for you, whatever. You have your opinion, I have mine. I don't need your personal seal of approval for my opinions.
Proof of Rehabilitation. WHAT rehabilitation? He never apologized for killing those people, laughed and bragged about his one victim's cries as they died, and refuses to admit this day that he was wrong, seeing it as his duty to the Crips. Sounds reformed to me...
Now, if you're talking about an individual basis, I will agree with you. Not EVERY inmate is incorrigible. And TRUE rehabilitation should be rewarded properly. But proof has to be given. Truths need to be satisfied. You just don't "let" someone go because your heart or mind tells you it's the right thing to do..you need proof. Good intentions are not enough. Neither are a few kids books on gang violence..
You have to realize there is NO reform for some of these guys:
Some of these guys are hardcore badasses who would think nothingof killing another inmate, or killing a guard or officer. And some continue to kill despite lockup because they have nothing to lose.
Are we supposed to guys like this continue killing on the inside as well? But I suppose it's OK if he kills other inmates because then regardless of right or left views on the issue, everyone's happy because they're offing each other and doing the world a favor, right?
How do you feel about inmates who continue to be a problem?
Once the judicial system of the world has detained, incarcerated and subdued these criminals, job is done. Whatever happens on the inside is not the responsibility of anyone else. Not saying it's right, but in that case it's the inmates that are killing. Not the government who condemn them for such actions.
The judicial system killing as a reply to killing is hypocritical. The idea of jail is to protect innocent people.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Quite confused by this.What I'm getting from this, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that there is no point keeping him alive?
This is what I meant in the other thread. Most people who are pro-death penalty are of such a stance because of vengeance, not justice.
Nobody spoke about freeing the man, just not killing him. If you acknowledge it's not the answer and not going to solve anything, what is the point?
-AC
What I meant, is that if he stays alive, and gets released,
and continues to kill after he's released, then the first people who will be screaming "we should have never freed him" will be the ones who wanted us to free him in the first place because they bought his reform stories.
They yell "free the man" and then yell " I knew it we shoulda' never done it" when and if the person kills again on the outside.
Now in jail, yeah you can keep him, and what if he kills in jail? And if they continue to kill and present a threat to the guards and the general populace..you have to realize not every criminal is capable of reform.
The ones inside the jail, guard and inmate alike, are people too. They have a right to safety as well. And when you get these hardcore badasses who think a life is nothing, you're putting others in danger as well.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Once the judicial system of the world has detained, incarcerated and subdued these criminals, job is done. Whatever happens on the inside is not the responsibility of anyone else. Not saying it's right, but in that case it's the inmates that are killing. Not the government who condemn them for such actions.The judicial system killing as a reply to killing is hypocritical. The idea of jail is to protect innocent people.
-AC
Yeah and the guards and the inmates have a right to be safe as well. How would you feel if you had a loved one or relative who was a jail guard, (say, your father for example) and you found out that he was killed by an inmate? Would it then be your case that 'whatever happens on the inside happens' or would you feel something had to be done?
Regardless of your accusations of "speaking for you" in an earlier thread, I don't think that there aren't too many people who would feel opposite the way you do if a loved one was taken away from them by someone else who was assumed to no longer be a threat to society.
I think the people who were against his execution kinda shot themselves in the foot. Their whole "He's innocent, he didn't do it he didn't kill anyone" act was glaringly hollow. He was in the bloods, or crips, or whatever, he was the LEADER, and in 20+ years of counter trials and investigation there was never any counter evidence to the evidence that allowed him to be found guilty in the first place. Also the whole pulitzer prize thing was really stupid.
Whether or not he deserved to die is up for grabs, different opinions, yaddah yaddah. However, they took the wrong road in going against it by trying to paint him as some kind of saint. It was foolish on their part and backfired.