Originally posted by Robtard
Problem with murders though, how do rehabilitate the ones that cannot be rehabilitated? Because locking someone up behind bars for life as a viable option as you mentioned before would not be rehabilitation, it would be more akin to "revenge" as you state the death penalty is.
i address that point in my last post to SS.
Originally posted by Robtard
I agree, but as it stands the death penalty is only an option with murder cases, that is where the line is drawn. People do not get sentenced to death for rape or burglary. Their are some extreme cases like treason being punishable by death, but that hasn't happened in how long?
some are trying to make child rape a capital crime. most people: GOOD!!!!
but then again such a reaction is based in passion as a sadistic need for violence and revenge. and is this justice since nobody was killed? so we already see the hints of society sliding down the slope
Originally posted by Robtard
Because you'd be against someone else being put to death if they killed someone that didn't affect you personally but for it if that same person had affected your life. That would be hypocrisy.
but you missed my point. if my rationale was tainted with passion and thirst for vengeance, in an impartial system of law my demands would (should) not be considered. its not hypocricy. i say in sound mind that i would not want to live under such a system of law, which is why we have impartial judges and juries, as opposed to rape victims as a jury for a rape case and bias kangaroo courts of this nature.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Oh how we all do so love your numerous pointless anecdotes.No comment on who was complicit in Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons in the 80s I take it.
Indeed. One of the things that struck me during the whole WMD's fiasco was that when they showed the pictures from the '80's, the barrels of chemicals in Iraq always had warnings written in english.
Originally posted by PVS
i address that point in my last post to SS.some are trying to make child rape a capital crime. most people: GOOD!!!!
but then again such a reaction is based in passion as a sadistic need for violence and revenge. and is this justice since nobody was killed? so we already see the hints of society sliding down the slopebut you missed my point. if my rationale was tainted with passion and thirst for vengeance, in an impartial system of law my demands would (should) not be considered. its not hypocricy. i say in sound mind that i would not want to live under such a system of law, which is why we have impartial judges and juries, as opposed to rape victims as a jury for a rape case and bias kangaroo courts of this nature.
I'm not a religious salvation/redemption type. If a person is beyond rehabilitation, why cling to false hope?
Though I do find child molesters to be lowest form of scum, I would not vote to make that a capital crime. Death should be reserved for murderers and yes that does sound like the Biblical 'eye for an eye', but I am not religiously motivated. I also do not find the need for revenge to be sadistic, if you're wronged you want revenge, it's only human.
I see you're point, but we do have impartial judges and jurors are screened for that very purpose, a rape victim acting as a juror in a rape trial would not equate to a fair trial. But for my own personal reasons, I feel I would be a hypocrite if I where against the death penalty knowing I would want the murderer of my loved ones put to death.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Oh how we all do so love your numerous pointless anecdotes.No comment on who was complicit in Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons in the 80s I take it.
There is no clear link that the U.S. under "The Gipper" supplied Saddam with chem/bio weapons in the Iran/Iraq conflict. On paper, the U.S. supplied Saddam with military intel and some conventional weapons.
Though I have little doubt that the Reagan admin brokered the deal that supplied Saddam with such weapons, I cannot prove it.
Originally posted by Robtard
I'm not a religious salvation/redemption type. If a person is beyond rehabilitation, why cling to false hope?
you dont have to be religious to believe the possibility of personal salvation. why is it a false hope? just because you said so?
Originally posted by Robtard
Though I do find child molesters to be lowest form of scum, I would not vote to make that a capital crime. Death should be reserved for murderers and yes that does sound like the Biblical 'eye for an eye', but I am not religiously motivated. I also do not find the need for revenge to be sadistic, if you're wronged you want revenge, it's only human.
im not trying to paint this as a religious issue, but rather was making a comment toward SS that religious people above all should be able to grasp what im saying.
anyway, its human to be sadistic and crave vengeance. just because something occurs in our nature does not make it justifiable and worthy of being written into law/enforced.
Originally posted by Robtard
I see you're point, but we do have impartial judges and jurors are screened for that very purpose, a rape victim acting as a juror in a rape trial would not equate to a fair trial. But for my own personal reasons, I feel I would be a hypocrite if I where against the death penalty knowing I would want the murderer of my loved ones put to death.
again, i feel that if i was in that situation, my own human irrationality would taint my objectivity and cause me to desire the irrational. our system of law is based a desire to transcend our primal nature and judge our peers objectively and with the intent of promoting social harmony, rather than punishing an individual. that is not hypocritical. that is simply an acnowledgement of my, your, our faults as a flawed and irrational human who (in this hypothetically situation) cannot be trusted to decide what justice is.
think about what is best for society and not what is best for your own satisfaction, and that is the difference between true justice and this abomination/revenge that is many people's attitudes as to what law should be.
Originally posted by Robtard
There is no clear link that the U.S. under "The Gipper" supplied Saddam with chem/bio weapons in the Iran/Iraq conflict. On paper, the U.S. supplied Saddam with military intel and some conventional weapons.Though I have little doubt that the Reagan admin brokered the deal that supplied Saddam with such weapons, I cannot prove it.
Besides my comment was not merely about supply; but about complicity in the numerous deaths under Saddam Hussein and the astounding ability of the Reagan and subsequent Administrations to overlook Iraqi violations when it suited.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
"A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printerBesides my comment was not merely about supply; but about complicity in the numerous deaths under Saddam Hussein and the astounding ability of the Reagan and subsequent Administrations to overlook Iraqi violations when it suited.
They gave them ANTHRAX !!!
Whoa...and i thought MY countries government was retarded....jeez.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
"A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printerBesides my comment was not merely about supply; but about complicity in the numerous deaths under Saddam Hussein and the astounding ability of the Reagan and subsequent Administrations to overlook Iraqi violations when it suited.
Interesting, I'll check it out further when I have time. Thanks for the link.
there is no certainty at all, so there is no point in pondering it. if, for the sake of argument that person exists, does it make sense to alter the entire principle/ideal/theory just for the sake of punishing that individual for being beyond any redemption? or would it make more sense to allow the attempt to continue? if the system fails an individual it does not mean it has failed as a system or should be done away with.
Originally posted by PVS
there is no certainty at all, so there is no point in pondering it. if, for the sake of argument that person exists, does it make sense to alter the entire principle/ideal/theory just for the sake of punishing that individual for being beyond any redemption? or would it make more sense to allow the attempt to continue? if the system fails an individual it does not mean it has failed as a system or should be done away with.
Technically you're right, but in certain cases, like Gacy, 'we' can pretty much be certain he is beyond rehabilitation. Would you trust a guy who had tortured, raped and murdered 33 young men/boys and who had every intention of continuing to do so if he hadn't been caught go free and live a life that contributed to society after 10, 20 or 30+ years in jail? Point being, some people are incapable of living in society.
Originally posted by Robtard
Technically you're right, but in certain cases, like Gacy, 'we' can pretty much be certain he is beyond rehabilitation. Would you trust a guy who had tortured, raped and murdered 33 young men/boys and who had every intention of continuing to do so if he hadn't been caught go free and live a life that contributed to society after 10, 20 or 30+ years in jail? Point being, some people are incapable of living in society.
you wouldnt have to trust him since he would (ideally) never be set free if he was unable to rehabilitate. ill ask again: how does the exception render the entire theory worthless?
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Curious then, what do you say is to be done to a person who cannot be re-habilitated?There are many that cannot.
Any sentence then, wether death or life in prison, is a punishment and not a rehabilitation.
I believe that you are misunderstanding our prison system, and that it is most certainly based on punishment for some people, in some cases.
Also, this has what to do with Saddam Hussein?
Punishment...rehabilitation....BULLSHIT....all we really want is to make sure that society is safe.
Originally posted by PVS
you wouldnt have to trust him since he would (ideally) never be set free if he was unable to rehabilitate. ill ask again: how does the exception render the entire theory worthless?
The theory that locking the person up for life instead of execution is a valid and better alternative? It doesn't, I agree that you have a point... But I cannot say the death penalty should be outlawed outright knowing that I would want a murderer put to death if his crimes affected me personally or especially if his crimes affected me personally I should really say.
Originally posted by xmarksthespotThats an eye-opener. Thanks for posting
"A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printerBesides my comment was not merely about supply; but about complicity in the numerous deaths under Saddam Hussein and the astounding ability of the Reagan and subsequent Administrations to overlook Iraqi violations when it suited.
Originally posted by Robtard
The theory that locking the person up for life instead of execution is a valid and better alternative? It doesn't, I agree that you have a point... But I cannot say the death penalty should be outlawed outright knowing that I would want a murderer put to death if his crimes affected me personally or especially if his crimes affected me personally I should really say.
So, you are saying there are reasons why you want someone else kolled? And you will even use your vote to make sure that people are killed? Hmm, I don't see how you are better than those people that are supposed to be executed, can you tell me again?
Originally posted by Robtard
The theory that locking the person up for life instead of execution is a valid and better alternative?
the theory is not based on the exception and it is not based in the
thought that its better to rot in jail than to be killed.
it only centers around an alternative to barbaric killing and torture.
even when the prisoner can never be reintroduced into society every
effort is made to keep with the process of rehabilitation, thus the
intention is never to simply have someone locked up like an animal.
so there will be the exception: those who reject their own
rehabilitation and show no intent whatsoever to change...so...
scrap the system? because, yes, to kill is to go against everything
the system was intended for. it was intended to help usher in a new
and enlightened age where the law and those who are supposed to
be rightous do not emulate their worst criminals by maliciously
torturing and killing for selfish and sadistic gratification.
Originally posted by Robtard
It doesn't, I agree that you have a point... But I cannot say the death penalty should be outlawed outright knowing that I would want a murderer put to death if his crimes affected me personally or especially if his crimes affected me personally I should really say.
so you feel the death penalty should stand because of your own
need for revenge and killing in the name of satisfaction. i see no
difference between the mentallity of a predator and yours. not to
try to dress you down, as we are all humans and all animals,
but that justifies precisely dick
Originally posted by PVS
the theory is not based on the exception and it is not based in the
thought that its better to rot in jail than to be killed.it only centers around an alternative to barbaric killing and torture.
even when the prisoner can never be reintroduced into society every
effort is made to keep with the process of rehabilitation, thus the
intention is never to simply have someone locked up like an animal.so there will be the exception: those who reject their own
rehabilitation and show no intent whatsoever to change...so...
scrap the system? because, yes, to kill is to go against everything
the system was intended for. it was intended to help usher in a new
and enlightened age where the law and those who are supposed to
be rightous do not emulate their worst criminals by maliciously
torturing and killing for selfish and sadistic gratification.so you feel the death penalty should stand because of your own
need for revenge and killing in the name of satisfaction. i see no
difference between the mentallity of a predator and yours. not to
try to dress you down, as we are all humans and all animals,
but that justifies precisely dick
In theory your ideas sound "enlightened", but there are always exceptions to the rule. What about the murderers who are supposedly rehabilitated and released only to commit another murder? What then, stick them back in for further rehabilitation or classify them as un-rehabitable and throw away the key?
Well yes, that would be one reason as I have mentioned. If someone maliciously killed a loved one I would want that person dead, I would feel like a jackass denying others of what I would want myself. How can you not see a difference though? You do not have to agree with my reasoning but saying my need for "satisfaction" is no different than someone who kills for pleasure or personal gain is absurd.