|
Please attempt to distinguish between extremists and non extremists to avoid starting the inevitable waste of time that is "can Islam be judged by its believers?" - KwarK |
On May 25 2013 02:51 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 02:47 Shiori wrote:On May 25 2013 02:45 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 02:33 NoxiousNoodles wrote:On May 25 2013 02:21 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 02:15 NoxiousNoodles wrote:On May 25 2013 02:08 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 02:00 Zdrastochye wrote:On May 25 2013 01:49 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 01:46 ianjamesbarnett wrote:
[quote]
Actually, those petty thefts would still happen. Though their rate would be diminished it raises a fair point, one that would be foolish to dismiss as you have.
I don't think they would, actually, so I'm not foolishly dismissing anything. It's absurd to even try to claim that you would steal a packet of crisps from the shop for a joke if you knew the sentence was death. I've stolen loads of sweets and stuff from shops because I was a kid and I knew if I got caught nothing would happen, I suspect his 15 year old mind vibrated to a similar symphony. So, just because you've fully piqued my interest, do you believe that every crime should be punishable by death with no trial, or just this case? All your potato crisps and clothes stealing stories have confused me. No, it really depends. Take speeding in a car for example. That's something people can accidentally do and if people were so afraid of being put to death for going 1k/mph over the speed limit there'd probably be more car accidents with everyone staring at their speedometer lol. Now take rape. There's "omg I was drunk at a party and making out with this drunk guy in bed then I passed out and I woke up and he was having sex with me" and there's "I was walking home from work when this man came out of nowhere, held a knife to my throat, forced me into a dark corner and proceeded to rape me. For awkward situations like the first example, maybe she's making the whole thing up, maybe she consented to sex then passed out because she was so drunk and can't remember it anymore, maybe maybe maybe.... I'm leaving important details out but I think you can see what I'm saying, I doubt this person would be found guilty of rape by a jury. The second example though? Yeah sure if he's proven guilty, caught on camera, his DNA inside her vagina etc etc Yes the penalty should be death. 1 less problem in the world. (also like to point out that rapists know a lot of rape crimes go unreported, a lot of them don't get caught, and even if they do the sentence is simply a few years in jail, if they know they will be executed if found guilty then this type of attack would decrease) On May 25 2013 02:02 KillerSOS wrote:On May 25 2013 01:47 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 01:43 NoxiousNoodles wrote:
[quote]
Therefore you should surely understand that you cannot say there should be no trial to establish guilt because someone says they are guilty? The fact that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty is the very basis of the criminal law; getting rid of it and allowing governments discretion to imprison people without trial leads to injustice and tyranny. I understand that very well. I could "say" that you are "guilty" of genocide but that wouldn't make it true. Nobody is "saying" these men are guilty, they chopped a man up in public, filmed it and confessed to the act. There's a rather large and important distinction between these two scenarios, surely you understand that? Injustice and tyranny lol ? What part of sending these men straight to jail/the afterlife is tyrannical to you? Here's the justice your precious system delivers for you: http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scotland/triple-axe-murderer-thomas-mcculloch-released-1-2921895 You can't make laws on a case by case basis. They must play to the complete fairness of the entire populous . To do otherwise is an abuse of power. He's not saying you should release people who will kill again from prison, they were proven guilty in a fair trial and deserve their fate. Yeah I see why the trial for show is important now. Their fate is to be released back into society as that story shows... I fear with you at the helm of a country the population may drastically decrease. To punish many crimes such as stealing would be totally disproportionate to the crime they have committed. Furthermore, people can change and whilst stealing, raping and even murdering are terrible acts to perform, it does not preclude them from changing their ways and being a positive influence on society once they have finished their incarceration. The population wouldn't drastically decrease, you need to give a little more credit to your fellow man and his ability to learn. Have you ever jumped off a cliff? Neither have I. Have you ever jumped off a wall? Me too. You see, standing on the edge of the cliff we both weighed our options and their relative consequences, and we both arrived at the same conclusion: I'm not going to jump off because I will probably die and I don't want to die. Standing on the edge of the wall.... we weighed the risks and decided from past experience that we were capable of jumping from that height safely, and lived to tell the tale. This is how the human mind works. I don't care if the punishment is disproportionate, are you saying serial rapists should only be serially raped and not put to death? Of course not, they deserve to die. The punishment doesn't need to fit the crime. Crime is not acceptable. Zero tolerance wherever possible imo. I'm not interested in people changing their ways and being a positive influence on society after being proven guilty of committing a crime against another person with full knowledge and intent, there are plenty people who do not commit such acts and these law abiding individuals deserve not to be tainted by criminal scum being given a second chance they don't deserve. Again, I have committed many criminal acts in my life and fall into the category of "criminal scum" for the purposes of this argument. I would however never have committed any of these acts if the punishment was appropriately severe, and if it was I think we'd live in a much safer and happier world. So say where someone is alleged to have stolen a bar of chocolate from a shop. You would put him to death? Imagine if you do (or any other criminal), what if mistakes were made and he is actually innocent, which has happened. You can release an innocent person from prison, you cannot resurrect an innocent person put to death. You wouldn't put someone to death over wild allegations. If he was proven to have stolen the chocolate bar and he wasn't a kleptomaniac or having a psychotic episode or whatever then yes I would put him to death. The point is it would never happen because who would risk death for a chocolate bar? Crime rates would be so ridiculously low that the number of people wrongfully convicted of crime would be even more so, people die all the time I'm not really worried about 1 in 1,000,000 people being sentenced to death for no reason if the country as a whole is infinitely safer... which would probably result in many many more lives being saved anyway aside from all the other benefits of an almost crime free society. Except the populace would revolt because the government is a bunch of murderers which kills people for stealing fucking chocolate bars. lol who the fuck would be stealing chocolate bars if the penalty was death? get a grip seriously
It doesn't matter. Who the fuck would want to support a government which thinks killing people is an acceptable response to petty theft? That's grossly immoral in the minds of virtually everyone, evidenced by the near-universal disdain for your proposal.
Like this literally would make the government worse than the actual criminals.
|
Not to mention the police. I am pretty sure that this would lead to policeman just "overlooking" crimes, because honestly, who wants to be responsible for sending a 15 year old to death because he stole a chocolate bar? But of course, that would be a crime once again, so the policemen need to send that guy to death or they themselves would be killed. And his partner has to snitch on him, because otherwise that would once again be a crime, and he would get killed. Would probably need to make reporting crimes a legal responsibility too. And then you could reward those guys who report the subversive activities of their neighbours.
If you still do not see how that is a bad system, i really can not help you.
|
I'm sorry to scare you my little children. Good night.
Punishing criminals for committing crimes with extreme severity makes you worse than the criminals themselves.
That's where I give up.
You are trying to take a change and apply it to the present world, when the present world wouldn't exist without the change. It's a completely flawed thought exercise using these ridiculous hypothetical situations to try to make a point.
Can't you just say something without becoming so ridiculous?
I'm really disappointed by the selective reading habits and people just posting shit without even trying to think about what's being said =/ waste of time tbh
+ Show Spoiler +I am pretty sure that this would lead to policeman just "overlooking" crimes, because honestly, who wants to be responsible for sending a 15 year old to death because he stole a chocolate bar? But of course, that would be a crime once again, so the policemen need to send that guy to death or they themselves would be killed. And his partner has to snitch on him, because otherwise that would once again be a crime, and he would get killed. Would probably need to make reporting crimes a legal responsibility too. And then you could reward those guys who report the subversive activities of their neighbours.
^my head almost exploded reading that wtf seriously
|
On May 25 2013 02:55 Reason wrote:
I'm sorry to scare you my little children. Good night.
You're promoting a fascist judicial system. I don't think anyone in our respective countries has been scared of that since the mid 40's, it's just weird to see it being promoted by anybody. Our judicial system, in America, pisses people off enough as it is, and carries a lot of weird incentives to create problems for people, like quotas for example, or our private-enterprise prisons. It is a corrupt system, thoroughly, that promotes crime as much as it deters it. We lock up more people than any country in the planet, and I don't see why "just executing" those people would make for a more peaceful and agreeable society.
It is not fun going to jail or paying exorbitant court fines as it is. The problem is that punishment itself isn't an effective deterrence to crime, as any criminology major would tell you. Introducing cavalier death penalties in the mix would be a great way to break the camel's back and start a full blown divide between the government and the people.
|
On May 25 2013 02:55 Reason wrote:
I'm sorry to scare you my little children. Good night.
Punishing criminals for committing crimes with extreme severity makes you worse than the criminals themselves.
That's where I give up.
It absolutely does.
|
On May 25 2013 02:52 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 02:51 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 02:47 Shiori wrote:On May 25 2013 02:45 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 02:33 NoxiousNoodles wrote:On May 25 2013 02:21 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 02:15 NoxiousNoodles wrote:On May 25 2013 02:08 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 02:00 Zdrastochye wrote:On May 25 2013 01:49 Reason wrote:
[quote]
I don't think they would, actually, so I'm not foolishly dismissing anything.
It's absurd to even try to claim that you would steal a packet of crisps from the shop for a joke if you knew the sentence was death. I've stolen loads of sweets and stuff from shops because I was a kid and I knew if I got caught nothing would happen, I suspect his 15 year old mind vibrated to a similar symphony. So, just because you've fully piqued my interest, do you believe that every crime should be punishable by death with no trial, or just this case? All your potato crisps and clothes stealing stories have confused me. No, it really depends. Take speeding in a car for example. That's something people can accidentally do and if people were so afraid of being put to death for going 1k/mph over the speed limit there'd probably be more car accidents with everyone staring at their speedometer lol. Now take rape. There's "omg I was drunk at a party and making out with this drunk guy in bed then I passed out and I woke up and he was having sex with me" and there's "I was walking home from work when this man came out of nowhere, held a knife to my throat, forced me into a dark corner and proceeded to rape me. For awkward situations like the first example, maybe she's making the whole thing up, maybe she consented to sex then passed out because she was so drunk and can't remember it anymore, maybe maybe maybe.... I'm leaving important details out but I think you can see what I'm saying, I doubt this person would be found guilty of rape by a jury. The second example though? Yeah sure if he's proven guilty, caught on camera, his DNA inside her vagina etc etc Yes the penalty should be death. 1 less problem in the world. (also like to point out that rapists know a lot of rape crimes go unreported, a lot of them don't get caught, and even if they do the sentence is simply a few years in jail, if they know they will be executed if found guilty then this type of attack would decrease) On May 25 2013 02:02 KillerSOS wrote:On May 25 2013 01:47 Reason wrote:[quote] I understand that very well. I could "say" that you are "guilty" of genocide but that wouldn't make it true. Nobody is "saying" these men are guilty, they chopped a man up in public, filmed it and confessed to the act. There's a rather large and important distinction between these two scenarios, surely you understand that? Injustice and tyranny lol ? What part of sending these men straight to jail/the afterlife is tyrannical to you? Here's the justice your precious system delivers for you: http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scotland/triple-axe-murderer-thomas-mcculloch-released-1-2921895 You can't make laws on a case by case basis. They must play to the complete fairness of the entire populous . To do otherwise is an abuse of power. He's not saying you should release people who will kill again from prison, they were proven guilty in a fair trial and deserve their fate. Yeah I see why the trial for show is important now. Their fate is to be released back into society as that story shows... I fear with you at the helm of a country the population may drastically decrease. To punish many crimes such as stealing would be totally disproportionate to the crime they have committed. Furthermore, people can change and whilst stealing, raping and even murdering are terrible acts to perform, it does not preclude them from changing their ways and being a positive influence on society once they have finished their incarceration. The population wouldn't drastically decrease, you need to give a little more credit to your fellow man and his ability to learn. Have you ever jumped off a cliff? Neither have I. Have you ever jumped off a wall? Me too. You see, standing on the edge of the cliff we both weighed our options and their relative consequences, and we both arrived at the same conclusion: I'm not going to jump off because I will probably die and I don't want to die. Standing on the edge of the wall.... we weighed the risks and decided from past experience that we were capable of jumping from that height safely, and lived to tell the tale. This is how the human mind works. I don't care if the punishment is disproportionate, are you saying serial rapists should only be serially raped and not put to death? Of course not, they deserve to die. The punishment doesn't need to fit the crime. Crime is not acceptable. Zero tolerance wherever possible imo. I'm not interested in people changing their ways and being a positive influence on society after being proven guilty of committing a crime against another person with full knowledge and intent, there are plenty people who do not commit such acts and these law abiding individuals deserve not to be tainted by criminal scum being given a second chance they don't deserve. Again, I have committed many criminal acts in my life and fall into the category of "criminal scum" for the purposes of this argument. I would however never have committed any of these acts if the punishment was appropriately severe, and if it was I think we'd live in a much safer and happier world. So say where someone is alleged to have stolen a bar of chocolate from a shop. You would put him to death? Imagine if you do (or any other criminal), what if mistakes were made and he is actually innocent, which has happened. You can release an innocent person from prison, you cannot resurrect an innocent person put to death. You wouldn't put someone to death over wild allegations. If he was proven to have stolen the chocolate bar and he wasn't a kleptomaniac or having a psychotic episode or whatever then yes I would put him to death. The point is it would never happen because who would risk death for a chocolate bar? Crime rates would be so ridiculously low that the number of people wrongfully convicted of crime would be even more so, people die all the time I'm not really worried about 1 in 1,000,000 people being sentenced to death for no reason if the country as a whole is infinitely safer... which would probably result in many many more lives being saved anyway aside from all the other benefits of an almost crime free society. Except the populace would revolt because the government is a bunch of murderers which kills people for stealing fucking chocolate bars. lol who the fuck would be stealing chocolate bars if the penalty was death? get a grip seriously It doesn't matter. Who the fuck would want to support a government which thinks killing people is an acceptable response to petty theft? That's grossly immoral in the minds of virtually everyone, evidenced by the near-universal disdain for your proposal. Like this literally would make the government worse than the actual criminals.
Exactly. One of the indicators of a truly civilised country is the lack of a death penalty. Society has moved beyond the barbaric attitude of 'An eye for an eye'.
|
On May 25 2013 02:55 Reason wrote:I'm sorry to scare you my little children. Good night. Punishing criminals for committing crimes with extreme severity makes you worse than the criminals themselves. That's where I give up. You are trying to take a change and apply it to the present world, when the present world wouldn't exist without the change. It's a completely flawed thought exercise using these ridiculous hypothetical situations to try to make a point. Can't you just say something without becoming so ridiculous? I'm really disappointed by the selective reading habits and people just posting shit without even trying to think about what's being said =/ waste of time tbh + Show Spoiler +I am pretty sure that this would lead to policeman just "overlooking" crimes, because honestly, who wants to be responsible for sending a 15 year old to death because he stole a chocolate bar? But of course, that would be a crime once again, so the policemen need to send that guy to death or they themselves would be killed. And his partner has to snitch on him, because otherwise that would once again be a crime, and he would get killed. Would probably need to make reporting crimes a legal responsibility too. And then you could reward those guys who report the subversive activities of their neighbours. ^my head almost exploded reading that wtf seriously
No need to be smug and condescending. Noone is scared by your freethinking intellectual ideas that we sheeple just can't understand. People are confused as to why you would think that a system that punishes stealing a bar of chocolate with death would be in any way reasonable.
If anything, your weird idea that that would somehow make crime nonexistant shows an incredibly naive world view. After all, if that were the case, there would be no murders pretty much anywhere, as there is a death penalty on it in some countries, like the US, and long prison sentences which by your own judgement are "worse then death". No rational actor would choose to murder someone under those circumstances, unless they expect not to be caught. Still it happens.
There is a reason why our society has evolved from such practices towards a more human civilised society. For some reason you don't think this is good, and prefer a system that is even more cruel then anything used in medieval times. You don't even want to cut of a thieves hand, you want his head.
|
On May 25 2013 03:39 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 02:55 Reason wrote:I'm sorry to scare you my little children. Good night. Punishing criminals for committing crimes with extreme severity makes you worse than the criminals themselves. That's where I give up. You are trying to take a change and apply it to the present world, when the present world wouldn't exist without the change. It's a completely flawed thought exercise using these ridiculous hypothetical situations to try to make a point. Can't you just say something without becoming so ridiculous? I'm really disappointed by the selective reading habits and people just posting shit without even trying to think about what's being said =/ waste of time tbh + Show Spoiler +I am pretty sure that this would lead to policeman just "overlooking" crimes, because honestly, who wants to be responsible for sending a 15 year old to death because he stole a chocolate bar? But of course, that would be a crime once again, so the policemen need to send that guy to death or they themselves would be killed. And his partner has to snitch on him, because otherwise that would once again be a crime, and he would get killed. Would probably need to make reporting crimes a legal responsibility too. And then you could reward those guys who report the subversive activities of their neighbours. ^my head almost exploded reading that wtf seriously No need to be smug and condescending. Noone is scared by your freethinking intellectual ideas that we sheeple just can't understand. People are confused as to why you would think that a system that punishes stealing a bar of chocolate with death would be in any way reasonable. If anything, your weird idea that that would somehow make crime nonexistant shows an incredibly naive world view. After all, if that were the case, there would be no murders pretty much anywhere, as there is a death penalty on it in some countries, like the US, and long prison sentences which by your own judgement are "worse then death". No rational actor would choose to murder someone under those circumstances, unless they expect not to be caught. Still it happens. There is a reason why our society has evolved from such practices towards a more human civilised society. For some reason you don't think this is good, and prefer a system that is even more cruel then anything used in medieval times. You don't even want to cut of a thieves hand, you want his head.
It seems pertinent to point out that even in ancient societies, where there punishment for stealing was to have your hands cut off, as an example, there were still thieves. Nobody commits a crime and says to themselves "oh, I'll only have to serve a lifetime in prison if I do this." People either don't care about getting caught (ideological crimes, generally) or aim not to get caught (most criminals).
|
On May 25 2013 03:11 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 02:55 Reason wrote:
I'm sorry to scare you my little children. Good night.
Punishing criminals for committing crimes with extreme severity makes you worse than the criminals themselves.
That's where I give up.
It absolutely does.
You're absolutely right. Barbaric punishments are the result of barbarism or despotism. Only part of the world has escaped from those and for only a couple hundred years now. We aren't so far removed that we can afford to slide back even if we tell ourselves barbaric punishments are only for those who 'really deserve it' or something.
|
On May 25 2013 03:39 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 02:55 Reason wrote:I'm sorry to scare you my little children. Good night. Punishing criminals for committing crimes with extreme severity makes you worse than the criminals themselves. That's where I give up. You are trying to take a change and apply it to the present world, when the present world wouldn't exist without the change. It's a completely flawed thought exercise using these ridiculous hypothetical situations to try to make a point. Can't you just say something without becoming so ridiculous? I'm really disappointed by the selective reading habits and people just posting shit without even trying to think about what's being said =/ waste of time tbh + Show Spoiler +I am pretty sure that this would lead to policeman just "overlooking" crimes, because honestly, who wants to be responsible for sending a 15 year old to death because he stole a chocolate bar? But of course, that would be a crime once again, so the policemen need to send that guy to death or they themselves would be killed. And his partner has to snitch on him, because otherwise that would once again be a crime, and he would get killed. Would probably need to make reporting crimes a legal responsibility too. And then you could reward those guys who report the subversive activities of their neighbours. ^my head almost exploded reading that wtf seriously No need to be smug and condescending. Noone is scared by your freethinking intellectual ideas that we sheeple just can't understand. People are confused as to why you would think that a system that punishes stealing a bar of chocolate with death would be in any way reasonable. If anything, your weird idea that that would somehow make crime nonexistant shows an incredibly naive world view. After all, if that were the case, there would be no murders pretty much anywhere, as there is a death penalty on it in some countries, like the US, and long prison sentences which by your own judgement are "worse then death". No rational actor would choose to murder someone under those circumstances, unless they expect not to be caught. Still it happens. There is a reason why our society has evolved from such practices towards a more human civilised society. For some reason you don't think this is good, and prefer a system that is even more cruel then anything used in medieval times. You don't even want to cut of a thieves hand, you want his head. Deterrence is actually related to the certitude of punishment and not the severity of it. Back in the day for example [im talking the 1700's], people would have all their bones broken and pressed their broken limbs into a wheel. They'd get beheaded, hanged, torn in half-- all sorts of brutal punishments, for literally anything. But there was endless loopholes and so crime was fairly rampant. The only way 'reasons' idea could even begin to work is if we removed the entire jury system and let judges set down punishments by fiat, because theres no way in hell even a backwards society would consistently find anyone guilty in such a climate.
|
Something strange is going on.
The BBC has just carried an interview with a friend of Michael Adebolajo, one of the terrorists, who alleges that last year, Adebolajo was arrested in Kenya, brutalised, sexually assaulted, and then pressured into becoming an informant for MI5, the British domestic spying organization. According to the friend, Adebolajo became radicalised after this event, and thought he was being followed and harassed ever since then. MI5 already admitted to being aware of the two perpetrators before the attack - could this attack have been some sort of blowback from a botched anti-terrorist operation?
Of course, this might also be a sophisticated psychological warfare operation by terrorist sympathisers to attack the reputation of the intelligence services, but it would be unprecedented, to my knowledge - and there are certainly enough real victims of torture or kidnapping by the CIA and their pals out there that fabricating stories would be both unnecessary and counterproductive.
This is all curious enough, but it gets weirder. As this friend was leaving the pre-recorded BBC interview, the Metropolitan police turned up at the BBC TV studio and arrested him, supposedly for terrorist-related matters that were "not directly connected" with the murder of this soldier. That rings alarm bells for me.
If this friend was under surveillance, why did the police wait until after he'd spoken to the media before arresting him? Surely they could have picked him long up before he wandered into the nearest TV station - it's not as if they'd have been staking out BBC TV centre on the offchance that this particular guy wanders in out of the blue.
There is an alternative hypothesis - that the police or intelligence services are either routinely spying on the BBC, either through technical means (tapped phones/internet, etc), or through insiders working for them who tipped them off about this guy showing up to spill the beans on MI5. It's certainly not unheard of for journalists to be used as informants and disinformants for the UK secret services. Before he was outed as a double agent, Kim Philby was working for MI6 while a foreign correspondent for the Observer, and Sunday Telegraph journalist Con Coughlin once attempted to defend himself in a libel trial by testifying that he was merely passing on lies fed to him by the intelligence services - how this guy kept his job, I don't know.
Note that the fact someone has been arrested under terror legislation doesn't make him or her a terrorist, either - the conviction rate for terrorist crimes for people arrested under these laws is something like 10-15% or so, and the majority of arrestees are released without charge (rather than being prosecuted, or deported, say). That suggests that these laws might often be being used as for fishing expeditions for evidence, or perhaps informants (or maybe even as a tool of harassment). The fact that this friend was once involved with a banned Islamist group would let the police arrest him any time they felt like.
Original story is here or here.
tldr; One of the terrorists is alleged to have been tortured by the British intelligence services, who were trying to recruit him. The guy making the allegation is immediately arrested by the UK police for nonspecific terrorist offences that on past form, may very well turn out to be nothing at all.
|
On May 25 2013 12:25 Aim Here wrote:
Something strange is going on.
The BBC has just carried an interview with a friend of Michael Adebolajo, one of the terrorists, who alleges that last year, Adebolajo was arrested in Kenya, brutalised, sexually assaulted, and then pressured into becoming an informant for MI5, the British domestic spying organization. According to the friend, Adebolajo became radicalised after this event, and thought he was being followed and harassed ever since then. MI5 already admitted to being aware of the two perpetrators before the attack - could this attack have been some sort of blowback from a botched anti-terrorist operation?
Adebolajo has been preaching radical islam for several years, so he was not radicalized last year.
|
On May 25 2013 02:52 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 02:51 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 02:47 Shiori wrote:On May 25 2013 02:45 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 02:33 NoxiousNoodles wrote:On May 25 2013 02:21 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 02:15 NoxiousNoodles wrote:On May 25 2013 02:08 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 02:00 Zdrastochye wrote:On May 25 2013 01:49 Reason wrote:
[quote]
I don't think they would, actually, so I'm not foolishly dismissing anything.
It's absurd to even try to claim that you would steal a packet of crisps from the shop for a joke if you knew the sentence was death. I've stolen loads of sweets and stuff from shops because I was a kid and I knew if I got caught nothing would happen, I suspect his 15 year old mind vibrated to a similar symphony. So, just because you've fully piqued my interest, do you believe that every crime should be punishable by death with no trial, or just this case? All your potato crisps and clothes stealing stories have confused me. No, it really depends. Take speeding in a car for example. That's something people can accidentally do and if people were so afraid of being put to death for going 1k/mph over the speed limit there'd probably be more car accidents with everyone staring at their speedometer lol. Now take rape. There's "omg I was drunk at a party and making out with this drunk guy in bed then I passed out and I woke up and he was having sex with me" and there's "I was walking home from work when this man came out of nowhere, held a knife to my throat, forced me into a dark corner and proceeded to rape me. For awkward situations like the first example, maybe she's making the whole thing up, maybe she consented to sex then passed out because she was so drunk and can't remember it anymore, maybe maybe maybe.... I'm leaving important details out but I think you can see what I'm saying, I doubt this person would be found guilty of rape by a jury. The second example though? Yeah sure if he's proven guilty, caught on camera, his DNA inside her vagina etc etc Yes the penalty should be death. 1 less problem in the world. (also like to point out that rapists know a lot of rape crimes go unreported, a lot of them don't get caught, and even if they do the sentence is simply a few years in jail, if they know they will be executed if found guilty then this type of attack would decrease) On May 25 2013 02:02 KillerSOS wrote:On May 25 2013 01:47 Reason wrote:[quote] I understand that very well. I could "say" that you are "guilty" of genocide but that wouldn't make it true. Nobody is "saying" these men are guilty, they chopped a man up in public, filmed it and confessed to the act. There's a rather large and important distinction between these two scenarios, surely you understand that? Injustice and tyranny lol ? What part of sending these men straight to jail/the afterlife is tyrannical to you? Here's the justice your precious system delivers for you: http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scotland/triple-axe-murderer-thomas-mcculloch-released-1-2921895 You can't make laws on a case by case basis. They must play to the complete fairness of the entire populous . To do otherwise is an abuse of power. He's not saying you should release people who will kill again from prison, they were proven guilty in a fair trial and deserve their fate. Yeah I see why the trial for show is important now. Their fate is to be released back into society as that story shows... I fear with you at the helm of a country the population may drastically decrease. To punish many crimes such as stealing would be totally disproportionate to the crime they have committed. Furthermore, people can change and whilst stealing, raping and even murdering are terrible acts to perform, it does not preclude them from changing their ways and being a positive influence on society once they have finished their incarceration. The population wouldn't drastically decrease, you need to give a little more credit to your fellow man and his ability to learn. Have you ever jumped off a cliff? Neither have I. Have you ever jumped off a wall? Me too. You see, standing on the edge of the cliff we both weighed our options and their relative consequences, and we both arrived at the same conclusion: I'm not going to jump off because I will probably die and I don't want to die. Standing on the edge of the wall.... we weighed the risks and decided from past experience that we were capable of jumping from that height safely, and lived to tell the tale. This is how the human mind works. I don't care if the punishment is disproportionate, are you saying serial rapists should only be serially raped and not put to death? Of course not, they deserve to die. The punishment doesn't need to fit the crime. Crime is not acceptable. Zero tolerance wherever possible imo. I'm not interested in people changing their ways and being a positive influence on society after being proven guilty of committing a crime against another person with full knowledge and intent, there are plenty people who do not commit such acts and these law abiding individuals deserve not to be tainted by criminal scum being given a second chance they don't deserve. Again, I have committed many criminal acts in my life and fall into the category of "criminal scum" for the purposes of this argument. I would however never have committed any of these acts if the punishment was appropriately severe, and if it was I think we'd live in a much safer and happier world. So say where someone is alleged to have stolen a bar of chocolate from a shop. You would put him to death? Imagine if you do (or any other criminal), what if mistakes were made and he is actually innocent, which has happened. You can release an innocent person from prison, you cannot resurrect an innocent person put to death. You wouldn't put someone to death over wild allegations. If he was proven to have stolen the chocolate bar and he wasn't a kleptomaniac or having a psychotic episode or whatever then yes I would put him to death. The point is it would never happen because who would risk death for a chocolate bar? Crime rates would be so ridiculously low that the number of people wrongfully convicted of crime would be even more so, people die all the time I'm not really worried about 1 in 1,000,000 people being sentenced to death for no reason if the country as a whole is infinitely safer... which would probably result in many many more lives being saved anyway aside from all the other benefits of an almost crime free society. Except the populace would revolt because the government is a bunch of murderers which kills people for stealing fucking chocolate bars. lol who the fuck would be stealing chocolate bars if the penalty was death? get a grip seriously It doesn't matter. Who the fuck would want to support a government which thinks killing people is an acceptable response to petty theft? That's grossly immoral in the minds of virtually everyone, evidenced by the near-universal disdain for your proposal. Like this literally would make the government worse than the actual criminals.
I had to go back a few pages to find what was said about petty theft because my mind was blown that somebody actually had to tell someone else why the death penalty for petty theft is absurd. Seriously? How can anyone rationally have that opinion? How much do we value human life? Less than reducing instances of petty theft?
|
On May 25 2013 03:31 NoxiousNoodles wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 02:52 Shiori wrote:On May 25 2013 02:51 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 02:47 Shiori wrote:On May 25 2013 02:45 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 02:33 NoxiousNoodles wrote:On May 25 2013 02:21 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 02:15 NoxiousNoodles wrote:On May 25 2013 02:08 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 02:00 Zdrastochye wrote:
[quote]
So, just because you've fully piqued my interest, do you believe that every crime should be punishable by death with no trial, or just this case? All your potato crisps and clothes stealing stories have confused me.
No, it really depends. Take speeding in a car for example. That's something people can accidentally do and if people were so afraid of being put to death for going 1k/mph over the speed limit there'd probably be more car accidents with everyone staring at their speedometer lol. Now take rape. There's "omg I was drunk at a party and making out with this drunk guy in bed then I passed out and I woke up and he was having sex with me" and there's "I was walking home from work when this man came out of nowhere, held a knife to my throat, forced me into a dark corner and proceeded to rape me. For awkward situations like the first example, maybe she's making the whole thing up, maybe she consented to sex then passed out because she was so drunk and can't remember it anymore, maybe maybe maybe.... I'm leaving important details out but I think you can see what I'm saying, I doubt this person would be found guilty of rape by a jury. The second example though? Yeah sure if he's proven guilty, caught on camera, his DNA inside her vagina etc etc Yes the penalty should be death. 1 less problem in the world. (also like to point out that rapists know a lot of rape crimes go unreported, a lot of them don't get caught, and even if they do the sentence is simply a few years in jail, if they know they will be executed if found guilty then this type of attack would decrease) On May 25 2013 02:02 KillerSOS wrote:
[quote]
You can't make laws on a case by case basis. They must play to the complete fairness of the entire populous . To do otherwise is an abuse of power.
He's not saying you should release people who will kill again from prison, they were proven guilty in a fair trial and deserve their fate. Yeah I see why the trial for show is important now. Their fate is to be released back into society as that story shows... I fear with you at the helm of a country the population may drastically decrease. To punish many crimes such as stealing would be totally disproportionate to the crime they have committed. Furthermore, people can change and whilst stealing, raping and even murdering are terrible acts to perform, it does not preclude them from changing their ways and being a positive influence on society once they have finished their incarceration. The population wouldn't drastically decrease, you need to give a little more credit to your fellow man and his ability to learn. Have you ever jumped off a cliff? Neither have I. Have you ever jumped off a wall? Me too. You see, standing on the edge of the cliff we both weighed our options and their relative consequences, and we both arrived at the same conclusion: I'm not going to jump off because I will probably die and I don't want to die. Standing on the edge of the wall.... we weighed the risks and decided from past experience that we were capable of jumping from that height safely, and lived to tell the tale. This is how the human mind works. I don't care if the punishment is disproportionate, are you saying serial rapists should only be serially raped and not put to death? Of course not, they deserve to die. The punishment doesn't need to fit the crime. Crime is not acceptable. Zero tolerance wherever possible imo. I'm not interested in people changing their ways and being a positive influence on society after being proven guilty of committing a crime against another person with full knowledge and intent, there are plenty people who do not commit such acts and these law abiding individuals deserve not to be tainted by criminal scum being given a second chance they don't deserve. Again, I have committed many criminal acts in my life and fall into the category of "criminal scum" for the purposes of this argument. I would however never have committed any of these acts if the punishment was appropriately severe, and if it was I think we'd live in a much safer and happier world. So say where someone is alleged to have stolen a bar of chocolate from a shop. You would put him to death? Imagine if you do (or any other criminal), what if mistakes were made and he is actually innocent, which has happened. You can release an innocent person from prison, you cannot resurrect an innocent person put to death. You wouldn't put someone to death over wild allegations. If he was proven to have stolen the chocolate bar and he wasn't a kleptomaniac or having a psychotic episode or whatever then yes I would put him to death. The point is it would never happen because who would risk death for a chocolate bar? Crime rates would be so ridiculously low that the number of people wrongfully convicted of crime would be even more so, people die all the time I'm not really worried about 1 in 1,000,000 people being sentenced to death for no reason if the country as a whole is infinitely safer... which would probably result in many many more lives being saved anyway aside from all the other benefits of an almost crime free society. Except the populace would revolt because the government is a bunch of murderers which kills people for stealing fucking chocolate bars. lol who the fuck would be stealing chocolate bars if the penalty was death? get a grip seriously It doesn't matter. Who the fuck would want to support a government which thinks killing people is an acceptable response to petty theft? That's grossly immoral in the minds of virtually everyone, evidenced by the near-universal disdain for your proposal. Like this literally would make the government worse than the actual criminals. Exactly. One of the indicators of a truly civilised country is the lack of a death penalty. Society has moved beyond the barbaric attitude of 'An eye for an eye'.
I still can't get my head around this. Every time I revisit the phrase on TL and and IRL etc, I can't see what precisely is wrong with taking an eye for an eye. It is the very embodiment of justice. It only goes wrong when people take more for an eye, and then the original wrongdoers believe the justice exerted was disproportionate, so retaliate and so on. If everyone did actually take an eye for an eye, there probably wouldn't be any trouble. It gets complicated when the crime committed is less simple than murder, for example rape or blackmail...in which case a certain amount of prison time serves as the only reasonable proxy.
The people who cared about this beheaded guy have been wronged. The mother and father have seen their baby boy who they raised and loved murdered brutally...with no evidential uncertainty as to who actually did the act. I'm not saying they do, but if the parents DID want the murderers to be executed, I (currently) believe they should have the right to pursue that eventuality through the legal system. The only exceptions I see as valid to the death penalty are evidential uncertainty and cost (and they are very big - unless the murderers are caught standing around the body clearly indicating ownership of the actions, carrying meat cleavers with their hands bloodied). The egregiousness of the method of killing, the lack of retaliatory motivation in the perpetrators and the utter disrespect for the man's dignity should also feature as factors when deciding to allow the wronged people to pursue that penalty.
[NB: I am not talking about petty theft, what the fuck is that about lol]
|
On May 25 2013 13:53 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 12:25 Aim Here wrote:
Something strange is going on.
The BBC has just carried an interview with a friend of Michael Adebolajo, one of the terrorists, who alleges that last year, Adebolajo was arrested in Kenya, brutalised, sexually assaulted, and then pressured into becoming an informant for MI5, the British domestic spying organization. According to the friend, Adebolajo became radicalised after this event, and thought he was being followed and harassed ever since then. MI5 already admitted to being aware of the two perpetrators before the attack - could this attack have been some sort of blowback from a botched anti-terrorist operation?
Adebolajo has been preaching radical islam for several years, so he was not radicalized last year.
From what I read he was detained in Kenya because he wanted to go on jihad holidays in somalia.
|
On May 25 2013 18:54 sc4k wrote:
I still can't get my head around this. Every time I revisit the phrase on TL and and IRL etc, I can't see what precisely is wrong with taking an eye for an eye. It is the very embodiment of justice. It only goes wrong when people take more for an eye, and then the original wrongdoers believe the justice exerted was disproportionate, so retaliate and so on. If everyone did actually take an eye for an eye, there probably wouldn't be any trouble. It gets complicated when the crime committed is less simple than murder, for example rape or blackmail...in which case a certain amount of prison time serves as the only reasonable proxy. [...]
I don't know if any society ever tried and managed to set up an eye-for-an-eye system where retaliation is perfectly symmetrical to the harm done by the crime. There was this story from Iran with the impressive court sentence that a victim is allowed to blind the man that burned off her face with acid. That society is closer to an eye-for-an-eye system you could say, but it still has more of those cruel crimes.
The curious part about this is that there's kind of proof that harsher punishment does not make society better. It just isn't true in practice. Is there any logical explanation for this? In practice it works out better without revenge and victims feeling they got perfect justice. There's less crime and people are less cruel so you can't help admitting a system that tries to accomplish rehabilitation is the most reasonable.
|
On May 25 2013 12:25 Aim Here wrote:Original story is here or here. tldr; One of the terrorists is alleged to have been tortured by the British intelligence services, who were trying to recruit him. The guy making the allegation is immediately arrested by the UK police for nonspecific terrorist offences that on past form, may very well turn out to be nothing at all.
You've got it wrong mate. One of the terrorists is alleged to have been tortured by the Kenyan police. He was then alleged to have been subsequently interviewed by MI5 in the UK and then asked to work for MI5. There is no allegation that British Intelligence services tortured anyone in this interview. Please don't disseminate false information.
Also not sure why you state Abu Nusaybah subsequent arrest may turn out to be nothing at all. That is just speculation on your part. Why not stick to the facts of the case, instead of spinning it? Makes you sound like you have an agenda rather than simply reporting this story.
|
On May 25 2013 03:31 NoxiousNoodles wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 02:52 Shiori wrote:On May 25 2013 02:51 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 02:47 Shiori wrote:On May 25 2013 02:45 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 02:33 NoxiousNoodles wrote:On May 25 2013 02:21 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 02:15 NoxiousNoodles wrote:On May 25 2013 02:08 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 02:00 Zdrastochye wrote:
[quote]
So, just because you've fully piqued my interest, do you believe that every crime should be punishable by death with no trial, or just this case? All your potato crisps and clothes stealing stories have confused me.
No, it really depends. Take speeding in a car for example. That's something people can accidentally do and if people were so afraid of being put to death for going 1k/mph over the speed limit there'd probably be more car accidents with everyone staring at their speedometer lol. Now take rape. There's "omg I was drunk at a party and making out with this drunk guy in bed then I passed out and I woke up and he was having sex with me" and there's "I was walking home from work when this man came out of nowhere, held a knife to my throat, forced me into a dark corner and proceeded to rape me. For awkward situations like the first example, maybe she's making the whole thing up, maybe she consented to sex then passed out because she was so drunk and can't remember it anymore, maybe maybe maybe.... I'm leaving important details out but I think you can see what I'm saying, I doubt this person would be found guilty of rape by a jury. The second example though? Yeah sure if he's proven guilty, caught on camera, his DNA inside her vagina etc etc Yes the penalty should be death. 1 less problem in the world. (also like to point out that rapists know a lot of rape crimes go unreported, a lot of them don't get caught, and even if they do the sentence is simply a few years in jail, if they know they will be executed if found guilty then this type of attack would decrease) On May 25 2013 02:02 KillerSOS wrote:
[quote]
You can't make laws on a case by case basis. They must play to the complete fairness of the entire populous . To do otherwise is an abuse of power.
He's not saying you should release people who will kill again from prison, they were proven guilty in a fair trial and deserve their fate. Yeah I see why the trial for show is important now. Their fate is to be released back into society as that story shows... I fear with you at the helm of a country the population may drastically decrease. To punish many crimes such as stealing would be totally disproportionate to the crime they have committed. Furthermore, people can change and whilst stealing, raping and even murdering are terrible acts to perform, it does not preclude them from changing their ways and being a positive influence on society once they have finished their incarceration. The population wouldn't drastically decrease, you need to give a little more credit to your fellow man and his ability to learn. Have you ever jumped off a cliff? Neither have I. Have you ever jumped off a wall? Me too. You see, standing on the edge of the cliff we both weighed our options and their relative consequences, and we both arrived at the same conclusion: I'm not going to jump off because I will probably die and I don't want to die. Standing on the edge of the wall.... we weighed the risks and decided from past experience that we were capable of jumping from that height safely, and lived to tell the tale. This is how the human mind works. I don't care if the punishment is disproportionate, are you saying serial rapists should only be serially raped and not put to death? Of course not, they deserve to die. The punishment doesn't need to fit the crime. Crime is not acceptable. Zero tolerance wherever possible imo. I'm not interested in people changing their ways and being a positive influence on society after being proven guilty of committing a crime against another person with full knowledge and intent, there are plenty people who do not commit such acts and these law abiding individuals deserve not to be tainted by criminal scum being given a second chance they don't deserve. Again, I have committed many criminal acts in my life and fall into the category of "criminal scum" for the purposes of this argument. I would however never have committed any of these acts if the punishment was appropriately severe, and if it was I think we'd live in a much safer and happier world. So say where someone is alleged to have stolen a bar of chocolate from a shop. You would put him to death? Imagine if you do (or any other criminal), what if mistakes were made and he is actually innocent, which has happened. You can release an innocent person from prison, you cannot resurrect an innocent person put to death. You wouldn't put someone to death over wild allegations. If he was proven to have stolen the chocolate bar and he wasn't a kleptomaniac or having a psychotic episode or whatever then yes I would put him to death. The point is it would never happen because who would risk death for a chocolate bar? Crime rates would be so ridiculously low that the number of people wrongfully convicted of crime would be even more so, people die all the time I'm not really worried about 1 in 1,000,000 people being sentenced to death for no reason if the country as a whole is infinitely safer... which would probably result in many many more lives being saved anyway aside from all the other benefits of an almost crime free society. Except the populace would revolt because the government is a bunch of murderers which kills people for stealing fucking chocolate bars. lol who the fuck would be stealing chocolate bars if the penalty was death? get a grip seriously It doesn't matter. Who the fuck would want to support a government which thinks killing people is an acceptable response to petty theft? That's grossly immoral in the minds of virtually everyone, evidenced by the near-universal disdain for your proposal. Like this literally would make the government worse than the actual criminals. Exactly. One of the indicators of a truly civilised country is the lack of a death penalty. Society has moved beyond the barbaric attitude of 'An eye for an eye'.
Next time the Germans or Russians get all country-grabby I guess we'll let you deal with it entirely on your own, wouldn't want to infect you with our barbarism.
|
On May 25 2013 23:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 03:31 NoxiousNoodles wrote:On May 25 2013 02:52 Shiori wrote:On May 25 2013 02:51 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 02:47 Shiori wrote:On May 25 2013 02:45 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 02:33 NoxiousNoodles wrote:On May 25 2013 02:21 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 02:15 NoxiousNoodles wrote:On May 25 2013 02:08 Reason wrote:
[quote]
No, it really depends.
Take speeding in a car for example. That's something people can accidentally do and if people were so afraid of being put to death for going 1k/mph over the speed limit there'd probably be more car accidents with everyone staring at their speedometer lol.
Now take rape.
There's "omg I was drunk at a party and making out with this drunk guy in bed then I passed out and I woke up and he was having sex with me"
and there's
"I was walking home from work when this man came out of nowhere, held a knife to my throat, forced me into a dark corner and proceeded to rape me.
For awkward situations like the first example, maybe she's making the whole thing up, maybe she consented to sex then passed out because she was so drunk and can't remember it anymore, maybe maybe maybe....
I'm leaving important details out but I think you can see what I'm saying, I doubt this person would be found guilty of rape by a jury.
The second example though? Yeah sure if he's proven guilty, caught on camera, his DNA inside her vagina etc etc
Yes the penalty should be death. 1 less problem in the world. (also like to point out that rapists know a lot of rape crimes go unreported, a lot of them don't get caught, and even if they do the sentence is simply a few years in jail, if they know they will be executed if found guilty then this type of attack would decrease)
[quote]
Yeah I see why the trial for show is important now.
Their fate is to be released back into society as that story shows... I fear with you at the helm of a country the population may drastically decrease. To punish many crimes such as stealing would be totally disproportionate to the crime they have committed. Furthermore, people can change and whilst stealing, raping and even murdering are terrible acts to perform, it does not preclude them from changing their ways and being a positive influence on society once they have finished their incarceration. The population wouldn't drastically decrease, you need to give a little more credit to your fellow man and his ability to learn. Have you ever jumped off a cliff? Neither have I. Have you ever jumped off a wall? Me too. You see, standing on the edge of the cliff we both weighed our options and their relative consequences, and we both arrived at the same conclusion: I'm not going to jump off because I will probably die and I don't want to die. Standing on the edge of the wall.... we weighed the risks and decided from past experience that we were capable of jumping from that height safely, and lived to tell the tale. This is how the human mind works. I don't care if the punishment is disproportionate, are you saying serial rapists should only be serially raped and not put to death? Of course not, they deserve to die. The punishment doesn't need to fit the crime. Crime is not acceptable. Zero tolerance wherever possible imo. I'm not interested in people changing their ways and being a positive influence on society after being proven guilty of committing a crime against another person with full knowledge and intent, there are plenty people who do not commit such acts and these law abiding individuals deserve not to be tainted by criminal scum being given a second chance they don't deserve. Again, I have committed many criminal acts in my life and fall into the category of "criminal scum" for the purposes of this argument. I would however never have committed any of these acts if the punishment was appropriately severe, and if it was I think we'd live in a much safer and happier world. So say where someone is alleged to have stolen a bar of chocolate from a shop. You would put him to death? Imagine if you do (or any other criminal), what if mistakes were made and he is actually innocent, which has happened. You can release an innocent person from prison, you cannot resurrect an innocent person put to death. You wouldn't put someone to death over wild allegations. If he was proven to have stolen the chocolate bar and he wasn't a kleptomaniac or having a psychotic episode or whatever then yes I would put him to death. The point is it would never happen because who would risk death for a chocolate bar? Crime rates would be so ridiculously low that the number of people wrongfully convicted of crime would be even more so, people die all the time I'm not really worried about 1 in 1,000,000 people being sentenced to death for no reason if the country as a whole is infinitely safer... which would probably result in many many more lives being saved anyway aside from all the other benefits of an almost crime free society. Except the populace would revolt because the government is a bunch of murderers which kills people for stealing fucking chocolate bars. lol who the fuck would be stealing chocolate bars if the penalty was death? get a grip seriously It doesn't matter. Who the fuck would want to support a government which thinks killing people is an acceptable response to petty theft? That's grossly immoral in the minds of virtually everyone, evidenced by the near-universal disdain for your proposal. Like this literally would make the government worse than the actual criminals. Exactly. One of the indicators of a truly civilised country is the lack of a death penalty. Society has moved beyond the barbaric attitude of 'An eye for an eye'. Next time the Germans or Russians get all country-grabby I guess we'll let you deal with it entirely on your own, wouldn't want to infect you with our barbarism.
Just because the US has been on the right side of international wars doesn't mean that their domestic policies are perfect by any means.
|
On May 25 2013 23:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 03:31 NoxiousNoodles wrote:On May 25 2013 02:52 Shiori wrote:On May 25 2013 02:51 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 02:47 Shiori wrote:On May 25 2013 02:45 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 02:33 NoxiousNoodles wrote:On May 25 2013 02:21 Reason wrote:On May 25 2013 02:15 NoxiousNoodles wrote:On May 25 2013 02:08 Reason wrote:
[quote]
No, it really depends.
Take speeding in a car for example. That's something people can accidentally do and if people were so afraid of being put to death for going 1k/mph over the speed limit there'd probably be more car accidents with everyone staring at their speedometer lol.
Now take rape.
There's "omg I was drunk at a party and making out with this drunk guy in bed then I passed out and I woke up and he was having sex with me"
and there's
"I was walking home from work when this man came out of nowhere, held a knife to my throat, forced me into a dark corner and proceeded to rape me.
For awkward situations like the first example, maybe she's making the whole thing up, maybe she consented to sex then passed out because she was so drunk and can't remember it anymore, maybe maybe maybe....
I'm leaving important details out but I think you can see what I'm saying, I doubt this person would be found guilty of rape by a jury.
The second example though? Yeah sure if he's proven guilty, caught on camera, his DNA inside her vagina etc etc
Yes the penalty should be death. 1 less problem in the world. (also like to point out that rapists know a lot of rape crimes go unreported, a lot of them don't get caught, and even if they do the sentence is simply a few years in jail, if they know they will be executed if found guilty then this type of attack would decrease)
[quote]
Yeah I see why the trial for show is important now.
Their fate is to be released back into society as that story shows... I fear with you at the helm of a country the population may drastically decrease. To punish many crimes such as stealing would be totally disproportionate to the crime they have committed. Furthermore, people can change and whilst stealing, raping and even murdering are terrible acts to perform, it does not preclude them from changing their ways and being a positive influence on society once they have finished their incarceration. The population wouldn't drastically decrease, you need to give a little more credit to your fellow man and his ability to learn. Have you ever jumped off a cliff? Neither have I. Have you ever jumped off a wall? Me too. You see, standing on the edge of the cliff we both weighed our options and their relative consequences, and we both arrived at the same conclusion: I'm not going to jump off because I will probably die and I don't want to die. Standing on the edge of the wall.... we weighed the risks and decided from past experience that we were capable of jumping from that height safely, and lived to tell the tale. This is how the human mind works. I don't care if the punishment is disproportionate, are you saying serial rapists should only be serially raped and not put to death? Of course not, they deserve to die. The punishment doesn't need to fit the crime. Crime is not acceptable. Zero tolerance wherever possible imo. I'm not interested in people changing their ways and being a positive influence on society after being proven guilty of committing a crime against another person with full knowledge and intent, there are plenty people who do not commit such acts and these law abiding individuals deserve not to be tainted by criminal scum being given a second chance they don't deserve. Again, I have committed many criminal acts in my life and fall into the category of "criminal scum" for the purposes of this argument. I would however never have committed any of these acts if the punishment was appropriately severe, and if it was I think we'd live in a much safer and happier world. So say where someone is alleged to have stolen a bar of chocolate from a shop. You would put him to death? Imagine if you do (or any other criminal), what if mistakes were made and he is actually innocent, which has happened. You can release an innocent person from prison, you cannot resurrect an innocent person put to death. You wouldn't put someone to death over wild allegations. If he was proven to have stolen the chocolate bar and he wasn't a kleptomaniac or having a psychotic episode or whatever then yes I would put him to death. The point is it would never happen because who would risk death for a chocolate bar? Crime rates would be so ridiculously low that the number of people wrongfully convicted of crime would be even more so, people die all the time I'm not really worried about 1 in 1,000,000 people being sentenced to death for no reason if the country as a whole is infinitely safer... which would probably result in many many more lives being saved anyway aside from all the other benefits of an almost crime free society. Except the populace would revolt because the government is a bunch of murderers which kills people for stealing fucking chocolate bars. lol who the fuck would be stealing chocolate bars if the penalty was death? get a grip seriously It doesn't matter. Who the fuck would want to support a government which thinks killing people is an acceptable response to petty theft? That's grossly immoral in the minds of virtually everyone, evidenced by the near-universal disdain for your proposal. Like this literally would make the government worse than the actual criminals. Exactly. One of the indicators of a truly civilised country is the lack of a death penalty. Society has moved beyond the barbaric attitude of 'An eye for an eye'. Next time the Germans or Russians get all country-grabby I guess we'll let you deal with it entirely on your own, wouldn't want to infect you with our barbarism.
So by your logic a war = daily judical system?.. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
