British national executed in China - Page 8

On January 01 2010 11:07 TwoToneTerran wrote:
Execution over drugs is quite possibly the biggest over reactive punishment I've ever heard of. Fuck off China.

On January 01 2010 11:17 TwoToneTerran wrote:
The Death Penalty in the USA does almost nothing for deterrence. Death Penalty states average a much higher crime rate than non death penalty states.

It's revenge/fury acted upon and disguised with catchalls like "deter" and "punish." The deterrence and punishment do not exist. It's just an angry society wanting to kill people they don't like.

On January 01 2010 11:17 TwoToneTerran wrote:
The Death Penalty in the USA does almost nothing for deterrence. Death Penalty states average a much higher crime rate than non death penalty states.

It's revenge/fury acted upon and disguised with catchalls like "deter" and "punish." The deterrence and punishment do not exist. It's just an angry society wanting to kill people they don't like.

On January 01 2010 11:34 yhnmk wrote:
And whats wrong that? Absolutely nothing!

On January 01 2010 11:35 TwoToneTerran wrote:


If there's nothing wrong with mob mentality decreeing consequences then there is absolutely no reason to have any judicial process.

On January 01 2010 11:29 TwoToneTerran wrote:
One less jaywalker off the face of the planet.

There's no line to draw with killing. You don't do it, there's no reason to do it.

this isn't my benefit. I've never touched an illegal drug and hopefully never will. This is appealing to the sense of reason in folks to understand that capital punishment has no effect over imprisonment other than killing them.

It MAY cut costs in China because they're much quicker to execute than America (The cost is negligible here because it's a long drawn out complicated process), but government equating human life to their changepurse is literally precedent for genocide.

On January 01 2010 11:38 BalliSLife wrote:



I meant the benefit of the smuggler who would probably receive a nice chunk of money after he's successful. Now you have hundreds of people addicted to the drug with their lives completely ruined and eventually left to die because a. it either costs too much to get treatment or b. nobody gives a shit. it's so obvious that it's the right thing to do when you look at it from cost/benefit analysis

On January 01 2010 11:39 TwoToneTerran wrote:
This specific instance of law is a direct product of mob mentality, though. It's rash, angry, and brutal, and in no way syncs up with Law as a whole, which prides itself on being cold, calculated and fair.

If every consequence of law was a direct coorelation to mob opinion then, sure, the prisons would be a lot less crowded, but then we'd just be in the Witch Trial eras again.

On January 01 2010 11:41 yhnmk wrote:
lol, you can want revenge and expect extremely harsh punishments but still do it in a calculated and fair manner. For example: The American death penalty. :O

it completely syncs up with law. Law aint just about rehabilitation or prevention, it is also about punishment. Its been like that for centuries across the globe. And many philosophers justified the death penalty on the basis of revenge alone.

On January 01 2010 11:45 TwoToneTerran wrote:


It's not punishment. Punishment is meant to teach a lesson. Imprisoning a thief for ten years is punishment because he can learn from the consequence of his action. There's no learning from being killed.


Also, don't get me started on the American Death Penalty. If you want a less 'impassioned' reason against the death penalty, there should be no death penalty because there's no infallible court system to prove 100% innocence and guilt. No matter how hard you try, you will end up killing innocent people just like how we have imprisoned innocent people. State sanctioned murder is no less abhorrent then personally committed murder. By its own logic, all supporters should be put to death for being absolutely involved in cold blooded murder once an innocent man has been falsely found guilty.

But that's no the case. Why? Because it's the antithesis of law. there's no system for fallibility in the death penalty short of not killing the convict off the bat so he may later be absolved.

It's dumb, senseless, and does nothing that imprisonment wouldn't besides sate subconscious bloodlust.

On January 01 2010 11:57 FieryBalrog wrote:
Rabid Chinese Nationalism on TL is a funny thing.

You'd never catch anything like this for the US or a European country on here, where people defend idiotic laws and ugly totalitarian govt. For example, the drug laws in America are supposed to be too harsh... lol.

Strange phenomenon.

On January 01 2010 11:57 FieryBalrog wrote:
Rabid Chinese Nationalism on TL is a funny thing.

You'd never catch anything like this for the US or a European country on here, where people defend idiotic laws and ugly totalitarian govt. For example, the drug laws in America are supposed to be too harsh... lol.

Strange phenomenon.

On January 01 2010 11:17 TwoToneTerran wrote:
The Death Penalty in the USA does almost nothing for deterrence. Death Penalty states average a much higher crime rate than non death penalty states.

It's revenge/fury acted upon and disguised with catchalls like "deter" and "punish." The deterrence and punishment do not exist. It's just an angry society wanting to kill people they don't like.

On January 01 2010 11:56 yhnmk wrote:

1) Punishment is meant to bring about suffering, and through that suffering, convince the person not to do it again. In acts so heinous where we can not risk the possibility- or the character flaws of the person make teaching a lesson impossible [sociopaths], death is a wonderful alternative that alleviates a burden on society.

2) I don't care if theres a degree of error. The death of a few innocents is acceptable if we put down numerous mass murderers, or alternatively, those that may be repeat offenders in murder, rape, etc.

2 b) State sanctioned murder is not murder. You mean state sanctioned killing. And yes, state sanctioned killing is vastly less abhorrent to the alternative. It is not anarchistic, for one. It is directed in a very precise manner, as precise as is humanely possible, at someone who hurts society as a whole through their actions.

Obviously by its own logic, state sanctioned murder doesn't call for executing people who are completely within the bounds of law and do nothing overtly negative to society. Thats just ridiculous and an absolutely terrible argument. And above all, it is the enforcement of law, which is a reflection of the morality and opinions of a society, and therefore in its own end, is a justification.

3) Its not dumb, its a calculated, complex process, with hundreds of years of philosophy and evolution behind it. And it removes the possibility of repeat offenders. Do you know how many murderer's, rapists, etc, get out of prison and commit the same act? A fuckin lot. Especially in states or countries [hi Canada] that ascribe to the idea that law exists to rehabilitate the criminal. In areas with a more lax justice system, a murderer can be let out in five years or less.

On January 01 2010 11:56 yhnmk wrote:
Ugh I hate debating on tl, I dont know how to splice the quote system like I would on either sites, so ill just number my points.

1) Punishment is meant to bring about suffering, and through that suffering, convince the person not to do it again. In acts so heinous where we can not risk the possibility- or the character flaws of the person make teaching a lesson impossible [sociopaths], death is a wonderful alternative that alleviates a burden on society.

2) I don't care if theres a degree of error. The death of a few innocents is acceptable if we put down numerous mass murderers, or alternatively, those that may be repeat offenders in murder, rape, etc.
2 b) State sanctioned murder is not murder. You mean state sanctioned killing. And yes, state sanctioned killing is vastly less abhorrent to the alternative. It is not anarchistic, for one. It is directed in a very precise manner, as precise as is humanely possible, at someone who hurts society as a whole through their actions. Obviously by its own logic, state sanctioned murder doesn't call for executing people who are completely within the bounds of law and do nothing overtly negative to society. Thats just ridiculous and an absolutely terrible argument. And above all, it is the enforcement of law, which is a reflection of the morality and opinions of a society, and therefore in its own end, is a justification.

3) Its not dumb, its a calculated, complex process, with hundreds of years of philosophy and evolution behind it. And it removes the possibility of repeat offenders. Do you know how many murderer's, rapists, etc, get out of prison and commit the same act? A fuckin lot. Especially in states or countries [hi Canada] that ascribe to the idea that law exists to rehabilitate the criminal. In areas with a more lax justice system, a murderer can be let out in five years or less.

On January 01 2010 11:56 yhnmk wrote:
Ugh I hate debating on tl, I dont know how to splice the quote system like I would on either sites, so ill just number my points.

1) Punishment is meant to bring about suffering, and through that suffering, convince the person not to do it again. In acts so heinous where we can not risk the possibility- or the character flaws of the person make teaching a lesson impossible [sociopaths], death is a wonderful alternative that alleviates a burden on society.

2) I don't care if theres a degree of error. The death of a few innocents is acceptable if we put down numerous mass murderers, or alternatively, those that may be repeat offenders in murder, rape, etc.
2 b) State sanctioned murder is not murder. You mean state sanctioned killing. And yes, state sanctioned killing is vastly less abhorrent to the alternative. It is not anarchistic, for one. It is directed in a very precise manner, as precise as is humanely possible, at someone who hurts society as a whole through their actions. Obviously by its own logic, state sanctioned murder doesn't call for executing people who are completely within the bounds of law and do nothing overtly negative to society. Thats just ridiculous and an absolutely terrible argument. And above all, it is the enforcement of law, which is a reflection of the morality and opinions of a society, and therefore in its own end, is a justification.

3) Its not dumb, its a calculated, complex process, with hundreds of years of philosophy and evolution behind it. And it removes the possibility of repeat offenders. Do you know how many murderer's, rapists, etc, get out of prison and commit the same act? A fuckin lot. Especially in states or countries [hi Canada] that ascribe to the idea that law exists to rehabilitate the criminal. In areas with a more lax justice system, a murderer can be let out in five years or less.