Thief13x on 4/7/2008 at 03:14
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
My view of prison is that it utterly fails in every regard, I don't think there's anything positive produced by the prison system whatsoever, except the period of time that it keeps dangerous elements from society.
That is one of the dumbest thing's I've ever heard. Is that not the purpose of prison? and contrary to your beliefs, people do change over time, thats why not everyone gets a life sentence. My only problem with the system really is that I think it should be more self-supporting.
Apart from that, it's the damn court system that keeps throwing innocents in there, thats what really needs to be addressed first imo.
Stitch on 4/7/2008 at 04:11
Quote Posted by Starrfall
And you haven't said how those other options prevent the defendants from killing again so you're kind of batting zero right now.
I'm not the one mixing my topics here, lady. Bringing up issues in our prison system really only proves our prisons system has issues. Just killing the fuckers is certainly an option, but it isn't one I'd agree with.
Whatever, our country will catch up to civilization eventually, even in cases where OH GOD KIDS WERE RAPED
Scots Taffer on 4/7/2008 at 04:36
Quote Posted by Stitch
Whatever, our country will catch up to civilization eventually, even in cases where OH GOD KIDS WERE RAPED
Just out of interest, buddy, what existing systems of Justice in the international community do you agree with? Because I can't say I agree with many of them, at least Australia is less bleeding-heart fucking pathetic than Britain. Though I can't say America's barbarism is much better or worse than the UK and their fucking ridiculous wishywashyness.
Also, Amen to Tocky.
And did I just get called dumb by Thief13x? (I actually skipped the post originally) Dammmmmn, son. Though I will qualify that what I mean is that the majority of people in jail are not there for their entire lives and hence are there for "rehabilitation" which certainly does not occur easily in a completely crime-saturated environment of punishment, brutality and emotional breakdown.
Tocky on 4/7/2008 at 05:01
If being civilized means we protect the worst at the expense of the weakest and most vulnerable innocents then I see no reason to be civilized. If we can do both then fine. But if not then I have Priorities. We already waste time and effort that could be put on more worthwhile endeavors.
Count me barbarian I guess.
mopgoblin on 4/7/2008 at 05:28
Quote Posted by Starrfall
How is that different from killing someone to keep them from killing again?
Even a life sentence in prison doesn't actually stop anyone from killing again (which is a serious flaw in the "life sentences are just as good" argument, by the way). People are murdered in prison all the time and people are murdered outside of prison at the direction of people inside prison all the time.
Given that, how is a death penalty not attack as defense?
You could well argue that the death penalty is "attack as defence", but that alone is not a justification for killing someone. Use of violence in self-defence (or defence of someone else) can only be valid if you have a reasonable belief that there is no less violent way to protect yourself/others. Since we're specifically talking about the state acting against individuals here, and the (perceived) threat is not immediate, you'd have to have a fair trial and so on, to determine that the person is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Now, I'm not talking about a trial for the the rapes/murders/genocides this person may have committed in the past, because you can't defend against acts that are known to have happened in the past. This is a problem, because the only remaining defence-based ethical justification for the death penalty is to secure a conviction for a future crime; this is clearly impossible in a fair trial, and thus the death penalty cannot be justified by the need to protect people.
PigLick on 4/7/2008 at 05:55
Stitch gettin snarky at Starrfall? WE'RE DOIN IT
Kolya on 4/7/2008 at 07:12
Starrfall, a war is not a trial. Just as abortion isn't a death penalty. Do you really need someone to explain the differences to you?
And in countries with a working prison system people aren't murdered in prison "all the time". Similarly in countries that don't have death penalty, convicts that are deemed dangerous to society aren't just let out to kill again. In fact those are extremely rare cases where something like that happens.
Tocky, if someone is in governmental arrest, he isn't the "strong" one and the ones that walk free and can decide his fate aren't "weak".
And since someone brought up Mengele (Yay. How I've been waiting for the Nazi argument.).... You do realise that Mengele killed thousands or more with the exact same justification that you are using now? He deemed those Jews "subhuman", "animals", "rats", "not part of the human race". So did his government, and so these people were murdered by governmental sanction.
Do you really trust your government so much that you want to put your life into their hands?
SubJeff on 4/7/2008 at 07:29
Quote Posted by Starrfall
How is that different from killing someone to keep them from killing again?
Are you serious? I'm surprised you've rolled this one out as I've always thought you more intelligent than this. Seriously. I don't mean to be insulting Starr, but I'm genuinely amazed. Let me spell it out for you.
1. A person on trail from is not guaranteed to kill again. Yes, they may kill again but only in exceptional circumstances can you quantify the probability of it as high/likely or even say it is inevitable.
2. A country that is at war with you will very highly likely attack again. A war is an ongoing process.
I cannot believe that you tried to equate these two things.
Quote:
I reckon a lot of people who support the death penalty feel that way, not just because they are revenge-minded but because they have no faith in the criminal justice system to ensure those people are put behind bars forever and actually serve out the sentence delivered.
This is a different issue for me. Even with total faith that sentences are long enough and will be served I still think there are certain crimes which should be punished by death.
Scots Taffer on 4/7/2008 at 08:19
That's just sheer bloody mindedness though.
A child rapist is a sick person who shouldn't be allowed on the streets again.
A repeat offender of violent burglaries shouldn't be allowed on the streets again.
A man who cuts off women's heads and eats their brains shouldn't be allowed on the streets again.
As long as they AREN'T ever on the streets again, aren't they effectively dead? Dead to society at least. Forgiving jail breaks, police cock-ups resulting in releases or appeals/good behaviour, they are dead to the world and I think that's the way it should be.
I'm curious if Stitch even reckons people like that should be jailed for life.
