those of you in other parts of the world may not care...

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by rosenshyne, Dec 13, 2004.

Remove all ads!
Support Terra-Arcanum:

GOG.com

PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!
  1. chuft

    chuft New Member

    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Since life imprisonment is a form of torture that is worse than death in my opinion, I agree the death penalty isn't much of a deterrent.

    But it is a preventative. Someone in prison for life has nothing to lose and is a danger to other inmates as well as guards, since anything he does has no consequences and he knows it. If he is executed, this threat is removed; and since he is a known murderer, this threat is very real.

    Morally of course, the criminal has, by his own act, forfeited his right to his life by the act of taking another's, so it is not the government which is taking his life, it is the criminal himself. The government is simply enforcing the consequences of the criminal's chosen course of action. If the criminal knows he forfeits his life by taking another's, and does it anyway, then it is he who has made the decision to end his own life. What happens once he is caught is not a decision by the government, it is just the continuation of the chain of consequences the criminal set in motion himself.
     
  2. Sleek_Jeek

    Sleek_Jeek New Member

    Messages:
    2,318
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    what the fuck are you talking about? where is this written? and if it is written, why does it matter? It doesnt prevent anything to kill the criminal after the fact. If it prevented anything the murder rate in america would be going down, but guess what? its not. all an execution does is perpetuate, and propogate society's desensitized attitude towards death and violence. Who is punished when there is a wrongful execution? The prosecutor? The judge?
     
  3. Sea Dog

    Sea Dog New Member

    Messages:
    523
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2003
    By killing and being found guilty you forfeit all your 'unalienable' rights given by the American constitution. Sleek you place far too much value on other people's lives, but whatever floats your boat. Instead of asking all those questions about crap being writtnen (which it is in your constitution) ask why someone should value human life as anything to be preserved. Sure if I like 'em it makes logical sense from a selfish point of view but apart from that there's no reason that isn't moral.

    Rosie, accepting a jury's verdict having only media coverage of the case is something one shouldn't often do to my mind. Juries can be quite often wrong, the most important part of a prosecuting/defending is having a good lawyer. That's the crux. The fact that the jury are allowed to be examined means that they have qualities that are found suitable and can be mainipluated by one side. The system heartless and has a margin of error but it is atleast formed enough to present a resolution right or wrong.
     
  4. chuft

    chuft New Member

    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    It is written in the statutes which establish the death penalty of course. Kill someone, and you have lost the right to your own life; your fate is no longer your own to decide. This is a pretty ancient concept and pretty much goes back to the establishment of law itself, whereby the punishment should fit and be proportional to the crime. It is called justice. If the victim has lost his or her life, why should the murderer be entitled to keep his or her life? They have by their action forfeited it. The government didn't make them do this, it was their own choice.

    What if the murderer is 80 years old? I don't think a life sentence is going to be much of a punishment.

    It matters because under the rule of law, we are all subject to the same rules, which are written so that everyone can see what they are.

    Yes it does, as I pointed out. Murders and other crimes inside prisons are obviously prevented.

    Murder rates and crime rates in general are tied to a lot of factors, like the state of the economy and what proportion of the population consists of young males. These demographic and economic trends will always overshadow the effects of punishments for particular crimes.

    In any case I do not think you are really concerned purely with the deterrence and/or preventative effect of punishments, or else you would approve of cutting off the hands of thieves rather than giving them a year or two in prison. Cutting off their hands would certainly be much more of a deterrent as well as an obvious preventative of repeat crimes by that person, but do you support such a punishment? I doubt it. You are taking a political/moral position and then arguing backward using deterrence/prevention to rationalize your position.

    No, it does a lot more than that. It provides a sense of closure for the victim's family and friends and a belief that justice exists, since a world where the victims die and the murderers are allowed to live is one where more rights are being given to the criminal than to the victim. It also reaffirms to the public that there are consequences for their actions - executions are more public than people living in jail, who are quickly forgotten. If you let the murderers live, you are giving murderers the sole right to use violence, while the government/people cannot, which is exactly the opposite of how it should be.

    I am not sure what you mean by a "wrongful execution" - are you talking about honest mistakes, negligence, or outright framing and conspiracy to convict the wrong man? Obviously they are three different cases, with different consequences for whoever is involved in such an incident. I don't see the relevance to this discussion, since this kind of thing could also occur for any crime and any punishment.
     
  5. CharlesBHoff

    CharlesBHoff New Member

    Messages:
    1,328
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2001
    In man is being exonerated of than rape after senting 17 year in prison. The viction make than mistake in id the person in court that not the worst part. It seem like the State of Texas director of Crime Lab order the tech it than test doesnot return than result make one up. Texas is now going to have to review 100,000 's of cases now.

    Than few year back a DA want to comvict than couple of child aduce by order than tech to tamper with evidence. The tech show the animal bite marks to other tech and the Texas Ranger which took picture of then on the child dead body. The tech said no so the DA tamper with the evident himself. During the trail the tech test to the DA ordering evidence tamper with, then the tech show the picture with the animal bite mark from than wolf, than a sign legal doc from other tech and the Texas Ranger. The court room was in a uproar. The judge halt the trail and order the DA stipped of his power temp as than officer of the court pent than offical judgeical investion. The state have to reveiw every case his office handle.
     
  6. Sleek_Jeek

    Sleek_Jeek New Member

    Messages:
    2,318
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    It could indeed occur for any crime, and any punishment, but in our system you either go to jail for x days/weeks/months/years or if you're really bad, you're executed. A wrongful execution is much more dire than a case of wrongful imprisonment.

    Wonderful. We are also one of the only 2 industrialized nations who still use capital punishment as a way of dealing with criminals. In the USA we have the strongest economy in the world, the most billionaires, the most cars, the most televisions, the most television channels, the most internet access, also no other country in the world has as many of its citizens awaiting execution, and the highest murder rate. Whether our economy is "suffering" or thriving, we're still much better off in general than most of the world. In a society where the government can exectue you when it believes it is morally obligated or justified in doing so, is it any surprise that its citizens might feel the same way every once in a while? If mercy and compassion were as present in our society as the iron jawed devotion to "letting justice be served" that you and sea dog seem to glorify, then perhaps the thought of killing a neighboring human being would just seem too perverse to imagine. Naive you say? May be, may be not, may be its not attainable until something changes, but right now the population of our country seems to have reached this equilibrium of disgarding positive, compassionate philosophies in favor of policiing your neighbors sexual activities, and freedom of religion, but wait, you can only be president if you're an anglo saxon protestant from texas(new england). Which may all seem unrelated, but like you said "These demographic and economic trends will always overshadow the effects of punishments for particular crimes."
     
  7. chuft

    chuft New Member

    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Is there supposed to be some new information here? By your line of reasoning we shouldn't imprison anyone either because we might make a mistake and imprison the wrong person once in a while. And don't say imprisonment can be "undone" later if a mistake was made - the gang anal rapes, AIDS and anal herpes resulting therefrom etc. cannot be "undone" by simply letting someone out of jail.

    This kind of argument doesn't convince anyone, for several reasons. First, the word "still" implies some sort of one-way progress over time. That is not the case. Countries (and states) change over time and not always in the same direction. A number of states have flip-flopped several times in the 20th century regarding the death penalty, first eliminating it, then reinstating it.

    Second, as far as "industrialized countries," if you look at Europe and Asia in the 20th century, the picture changes dramatically depending on when you look. In 1938 for example Britain and France were the "only industrialized countries in Europe which still used the democratic system." Everybody else had gone to a fascist or communist or monarchist system, usually (as in Russia, Italy and Germany) from a previous democratic system. Does this mean Britain and France were backward? Or were they the only ones still retaining good sense? I think history supplies the answer. I don't take my moral cues from the Europeans, who tend to be suffering a massive, paralyzing guilt complex over the atrocities committed there in the 1940s and have come to irrationally associate any state execution with fascism. This guilt complex is also paralyzing them with regard to the Islamic immigration issue because they are oversensitive to charges of racism or religious discrimination. I suspect in hindsight their stupidity will be painfully obvious, as Chamberlain's turned out to be with regard to the Nazis.


    This is hollow rhetoric. The U.S. is, in terms of population, the third largest country in the world, second only to India and China, which for historical reasons are far behind all Western countries in almost every area. When you are the largest Western country in the world, naturally you will have more of the things listed above, simply because you have more people and stuff. We are also the third largest in terms of land, beaten only by Canada and Russia, both of which are mostly frozen wasteland, so we have more natural resources too. These things are simply factors of size and geography.

    The second statement is simply wrong. The countries with the highest murder rates are:


    TEN WORST COUNTRIES FOR MURDER, LATE-1990s


    • Columbia
      El Salvador
      Puerto Rico
      Brazil
      Albania
      Venezuela
      Russian Federation
      Ecuador
      Mexico
      Panama

    Regarding the first statement, it may be technically true, but any statistics regarding "citizens awaiting execution" are inherently misleading because other countries might simply shoot offenders on the spot rather than have 15 years of appeals, or they might have corrupt law enforcement and not catch or convict the perpetrators in the first place, or they might not make their statistics publicly available because they are totalitarian regimes.

    This point is totally irrelevant. People's perception of how they are doing is based on what they can see, not what some day laborer in India is making. If you are unemployed or feel you have no economic opportunities relative to others around you, you may become angry and even violent. The fact that you are better off than some poor bastard in Bangladesh doesn't enter into the equation.


    Under this reasoning we would have a rash of kidnappings on our hands since citizens would be inspired by the government's example of imprisoning people. Of course, we aren't suffering from such a rash, because there is no connection between the law enforcement system and what people do in their private lives when they feel wronged.


    Human behavior is complex. Violence is inherent in the human animal and I don't think any society or system will ever get rid of that. The no-death-penalty Europeans of today were responsible for the greatest atrocities in human history a few decades ago.

    The extent of violence will ebb and flow based on cultural trends. It is clear from the statistics that murder rates in the U.S. are dragged down by the South, which has a "culture of honor." If you catch your wife sleeping with another man in the South, violence often results since if you didn't take action, you would be the laughing stock of the community. In Europe, apparently such a situation would not result in violence because personal honor is not highly valued. In neither case does it have anything to do with the death penalty.
     
  8. Sleek_Jeek

    Sleek_Jeek New Member

    Messages:
    2,318
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    No, I'm saying that we shouldn't execute anyone, because we might make a mistake.

    To put it simply, I believe that if we're going to project the image of being the land of the free and the home of the brave, etc etc etc, then we should not have to look to other countries for reasons to say "well we're not as bad as them, so its ok," though I do believe that we should be brave enough to open our hearts and wallets on behalf of the troubled, lost, and unfullfilled souls which we see fit to imprison. I don't necessarily believe "an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind" is tired rhetoric(not that you said it was...), and whether or not the victim's family feels "closure" or not is irrelevant, they will still live with the pain of their loss. How will the "criminal's" family after he is dead? If transposing sorrow is your idea of justice then... congratulations.
     
  9. chuft

    chuft New Member

    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Reasonable people obviously can differ on the moral and justice aspects of capital punishment. But let's smoke one position out right now.

    If, theoretically, a capital punishment system existed which never made a mistake, which is to say, it always erred on the side of the defendant and only executed those who were quite clearly and obviously guilty beyond any doubt whatsoever, for example those who engaged in public killings in front of thousands of witnesses and caught on multiple video and film cameras, would you still oppose such a system?
     
  10. CharlesBHoff

    CharlesBHoff New Member

    Messages:
    1,328
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2001
    The Britich military ask the current PM to not start awar with Germany as the military needed more time to perpare for war.
     
  11. CharlesBHoff

    CharlesBHoff New Member

    Messages:
    1,328
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2001
    Those 10 countries that have a highter murber rate than americia also have a ongoing cival war or gurilr war going on. What is america excuse for it hight murder rate.
     
  12. mathboy

    mathboy New Member

    Messages:
    2,185
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
  13. Sea Dog

    Sea Dog New Member

    Messages:
    523
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2003
    What? Like Mexico? No, Charles they are not all in a state of civil war they are just shitholelatin countries with huge social and economic problems.

    I honestly believe that not too many countries as a whole or educted people outside of America (I do exclude refugees and people from third world countries where anyother country would seem free) believe that America is a land of the free or brave at all. So you're not loosing any image. Besides America has fucked up enough countries on its own. Land of the free relatively because it prevents other countries from their own.

    Bravery has nothing to do with this or charity in general, nothing. I don't think many people are 'afraid' of giving, rather they don't want to because they believe that people in prison generally belong there or they are selfish and would rather not put in the effort/money.


    Please, call me Dawg. Yes if a society like that existed. But it doesn't and in such a fucking huge community and bearing in mind the nature of humans it is unreasonable to expect something like this


    Yes Sleek, there are valid points against capital punishment and more importantly killing general but the human mind does not like the idea of restrictions. That's why we made up words like freedom. You cannot trust everyone to do the 'right' thing and as soon as one person doesn't the whole system breaks down unless the others feel that 'justice' has been served. In this case a majority in certain parts believes that justice entails a death for a death. Percievably capital punishment may be abolished in America but killing will never ever stop uless of course you labotomize everyone and that would be fun but unlikely.

    I'm just saying it exists, I don't glorify shit like you were sugesting (I'm generally quite apathetic about killing) and that killing is natural and it unreasonable to expect it to stop or hold it against someone.
     
  14. Sleek_Jeek

    Sleek_Jeek New Member

    Messages:
    2,318
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    If there was a failsafe system of capital punishment, I would probably still oppose it. I'd rather see hitler rotting in jail as a 90 year old man in a world that despises him, than see him smoking in a chair at 35 full of self righteousness and possibly some idiotic last words.
     
  15. CharlesBHoff

    CharlesBHoff New Member

    Messages:
    1,328
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2001
    Mexicao is going throught than undeclare cival war in some part, the government doesnot want to call if a cival war as it wold devide they army into, one part for government and one part for rebal.
     
  16. Sleek_Jeek

    Sleek_Jeek New Member

    Messages:
    2,318
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Sea dog, what country causes more latin american social and economic problems than any other...?
     
  17. CharlesBHoff

    CharlesBHoff New Member

    Messages:
    1,328
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2001
    USA does.
     
  18. Settler

    Settler New Member

    Messages:
    916
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Good work, Charles. Have a cookie.

    Oh yeah, I can't be bothered arguing this, but just for the record, I'm anti-capital punishment. w00+.
     
  19. Sleek_Jeek

    Sleek_Jeek New Member

    Messages:
    2,318
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    I feel your pain settler. If you read my first post, and compare it to a song called "capital punishment" by a band called, "aus rotten" you'll see that this mini paragraph thingy...
    Is entirely just a bunch of jumbled up direct quotes. I was serious about it, but it was sort of fun/funny to argue that way.
     
  20. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Evidence shows that Laci was strangled. Plus, why the hell would Scott Peterson go fishing on Christmas Eve in a boat that he bought two weeks before Laci was killed that he didn't tell her about? There was no solid evidence but Scott's story doesn't add up at all. Laci's hair was found in Scott's boat, plus the cement blocks. Scott might not be guilty, but I'm pretty damn sure he is, and so are the police. The tricky thing about this case is that there is no solid DNA evidence, excluding Laci's hair found on Scott's boat. Also, when the police came the first time to look around, one of Laci's blouses was neatly folded on the dryer, and the next time they came it was stuffed in the back of the drawer. Not that that proves anything.

    Look around at www.courttv.com, you should be able to find some more evidence there.

    EDIT: Aren't you forgetting that when the police found Scott Peterson, he had dyed his hair blond, and had $15,000 dollars on him in his pick-up truck, allegedly fleeing the country?
     
Our Host!