Needs to be harsh but fair to be perceived as just.JohnG@lt wrote:
Punishment must be harsh for it to be punishment at all. Sending a criminal to a prison where he has better amenities on the inside than he had in his old life does nothing to discourage crime.
Yes, precisely.Dilbert_X wrote:
Needs to be harsh but fair to be perceived as just.JohnG@lt wrote:
Punishment must be harsh for it to be punishment at all. Sending a criminal to a prison where he has better amenities on the inside than he had in his old life does nothing to discourage crime.
Forum bug?JohnG@lt wrote:
Punishment must be harsh for it to be punishment at all. Sending a criminal to a prison where he has better amenities on the inside than he had in his old life does nothing to discourage crime.Uzique wrote:
one innocent death is, indeed, too many
i think the death penalty is one of the most offensive over-hangs from the pre-rational era. we simply don't need it.
encouraging a vindictive and vengeful approach to 'justice' is nothing short of hypocritical.
you cannot structure a society with laws and case-examples and instruct: "thou shalt not kill" to then publicly execute all killers.
i know the tax-question is an independent issue but i really think that state-authorized killing is a crime against humanitarianism.
so criticize the prison system or the government that provides so abundantly for the prison-populationJohnG@lt wrote:
Yes, precisely.Dilbert_X wrote:
Needs to be harsh but fair to be perceived as just.JohnG@lt wrote:
Punishment must be harsh for it to be punishment at all. Sending a criminal to a prison where he has better amenities on the inside than he had in his old life does nothing to discourage crime.
Edit - Yeah, weird.Spark wrote:
Forum bug?JohnG@lt wrote:
Punishment must be harsh for it to be punishment at all. Sending a criminal to a prison where he has better amenities on the inside than he had in his old life does nothing to discourage crime.Uzique wrote:
one innocent death is, indeed, too many
i think the death penalty is one of the most offensive over-hangs from the pre-rational era. we simply don't need it.
encouraging a vindictive and vengeful approach to 'justice' is nothing short of hypocritical.
you cannot structure a society with laws and case-examples and instruct: "thou shalt not kill" to then publicly execute all killers.
i know the tax-question is an independent issue but i really think that state-authorized killing is a crime against humanitarianism.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-06-21 06:59:39)
Hardly. The punishment fits the crime. Punishment has to be related to the crime itself if it is to have any meaning.Uzique wrote:
so criticize the prison system or the government that provides so abundantly for the prison-populationJohnG@lt wrote:
Yes, precisely.Dilbert_X wrote:
Needs to be harsh but fair to be perceived as just.
the law and principle of killing somebody as a 'punishment' for murder (or manslaughter, mistakenly) is a bit self-defeating
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-06-21 07:10:34)
Last edited by pace51 (2010-06-21 07:28:38)
I think they do the death penalty to save money on jailing a criminal whose to dangerous. Really, it's just an excuse to save money on criminals.Dilbert_X wrote:
Trouble is most criminals don't really consider the punishment when they are committing a crime, and for many loss of liberty is something they barely notice - they're just swapping one environment for another.
The death penalty doesn't seem to have much impact on the murder rate in the US so I don't see the point of it.
I'd rather see murderers breaking rocks until they die.
That's the entire point. Punishment for crime is supposed to act as a deterrent against future crime. If people do not fear the punishment, they are less likely to take it seriously before committing a crime. If you do not want to live in fear, do not plot a crime. It's rather simple.Uzique wrote:
it doesn't. that's such a vindictive, backwards-ass approach to 'justice'.
if anything the punishers should take some self-righteous superiority and refuse to partake in similar acts of barbarism...
... approaching justice and law-making with the old-hat 'eye-for-an-eye' rubric simply doesn't work. it creates fear in a population, when the long-arm of the state needs respect, if anything, to operate. a country and its people cannot co-exist peacefully on a basis of fear or revenge; it's not conducive to any morally or socially healthy outcomes. you should read some jurisprudence or consider the huge realm of debate that circles around the questions of law and morality. most of them dismissed the backwards-ass neo-puritan "fuck them, they're not one of us!" approach a long time ago.
the punishment has to fit the crime, and taking one's liberty is as bad a punishment as any. simply repeating and mirroring the crimes under the 'acceptable' sponsorship of state officials and 'corrective' measures isn't putting any feet forward.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-06-21 07:56:42)
its more expensive to keep someone on death row than a lifer. and the money isnt part of it. shut uppace51 wrote:
I think they do the death penalty to save money on jailing a criminal whose to dangerous. Really, it's just an excuse to save money on criminals.Dilbert_X wrote:
Trouble is most criminals don't really consider the punishment when they are committing a crime, and for many loss of liberty is something they barely notice - they're just swapping one environment for another.
The death penalty doesn't seem to have much impact on the murder rate in the US so I don't see the point of it.
I'd rather see murderers breaking rocks until they die.
Therefore... What's the point of the death sentence? Other than fear?FatherTed wrote:
its more expensive to keep someone on death row than a lifer. and the money isnt part of it. shut uppace51 wrote:
I think they do the death penalty to save money on jailing a criminal whose to dangerous. Really, it's just an excuse to save money on criminals.Dilbert_X wrote:
Trouble is most criminals don't really consider the punishment when they are committing a crime, and for many loss of liberty is something they barely notice - they're just swapping one environment for another.
The death penalty doesn't seem to have much impact on the murder rate in the US so I don't see the point of it.
I'd rather see murderers breaking rocks until they die.
Justice for the victim.pace51 wrote:
Therefore... What's the point of the death sentence? Other than fear?FatherTed wrote:
its more expensive to keep someone on death row than a lifer. and the money isnt part of it. shut uppace51 wrote:
I think they do the death penalty to save money on jailing a criminal whose to dangerous. Really, it's just an excuse to save money on criminals.
do you read the threads you post in?pace51 wrote:
Therefore... What's the point of the death sentence? Other than fear?FatherTed wrote:
its more expensive to keep someone on death row than a lifer. and the money isnt part of it. shut uppace51 wrote:
I think they do the death penalty to save money on jailing a criminal whose to dangerous. Really, it's just an excuse to save money on criminals.
sorry, but i simply disagree. i do not think that 'fear' should be the glue of a respectful, cooperative and productive society.JohnG@lt wrote:
That's the entire point. Punishment for crime is supposed to act as a deterrent against future crime. If people do not fear the punishment, they are less likely to take it seriously before committing a crime. If you do not want to live in fear, do not plot a crime. It's rather simple.Uzique wrote:
it doesn't. that's such a vindictive, backwards-ass approach to 'justice'.
if anything the punishers should take some self-righteous superiority and refuse to partake in similar acts of barbarism...
... approaching justice and law-making with the old-hat 'eye-for-an-eye' rubric simply doesn't work. it creates fear in a population, when the long-arm of the state needs respect, if anything, to operate. a country and its people cannot co-exist peacefully on a basis of fear or revenge; it's not conducive to any morally or socially healthy outcomes. you should read some jurisprudence or consider the huge realm of debate that circles around the questions of law and morality. most of them dismissed the backwards-ass neo-puritan "fuck them, they're not one of us!" approach a long time ago.
the punishment has to fit the crime, and taking one's liberty is as bad a punishment as any. simply repeating and mirroring the crimes under the 'acceptable' sponsorship of state officials and 'corrective' measures isn't putting any feet forward.
You may feel that it is barbaric, but it is necessary. Since the West has become increasingly secular, we no longer have the fear of Hell that kept prior generations of would-be criminals in check. Fear is the absolute best tool that the justice system possesses as it taps into our primal selves.
I am no lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one. I'm not about to go digging through case examples or search for anecdotal evidence beyond my own rational fear of punishment if I am caught committing a crime.Uzique wrote:
sorry, but i simply disagree. i do not think that 'fear' should be the glue of a respectful, cooperative and productive society.JohnG@lt wrote:
That's the entire point. Punishment for crime is supposed to act as a deterrent against future crime. If people do not fear the punishment, they are less likely to take it seriously before committing a crime. If you do not want to live in fear, do not plot a crime. It's rather simple.Uzique wrote:
it doesn't. that's such a vindictive, backwards-ass approach to 'justice'.
if anything the punishers should take some self-righteous superiority and refuse to partake in similar acts of barbarism...
... approaching justice and law-making with the old-hat 'eye-for-an-eye' rubric simply doesn't work. it creates fear in a population, when the long-arm of the state needs respect, if anything, to operate. a country and its people cannot co-exist peacefully on a basis of fear or revenge; it's not conducive to any morally or socially healthy outcomes. you should read some jurisprudence or consider the huge realm of debate that circles around the questions of law and morality. most of them dismissed the backwards-ass neo-puritan "fuck them, they're not one of us!" approach a long time ago.
the punishment has to fit the crime, and taking one's liberty is as bad a punishment as any. simply repeating and mirroring the crimes under the 'acceptable' sponsorship of state officials and 'corrective' measures isn't putting any feet forward.
You may feel that it is barbaric, but it is necessary. Since the West has become increasingly secular, we no longer have the fear of Hell that kept prior generations of would-be criminals in check. Fear is the absolute best tool that the justice system possesses as it taps into our primal selves.
and after 3 years of extensive case-study and jurisprudential research, i don't think that the idea of 'law as deterrent' works, either.
criminals that are compelled or determined to break a law or commit a criminal act do not 'fear' recrimination.
the death sentence essentially operates as a high-level of officiated retributive soap-opera; it prepares a stage for the victim's family to partake in watching a similarly brutal, inhumane taking of life: sure, they feel better and may have a sense of 'closure'- but there are fundamental philosophical and moralistic arguments against this so-called 'function' of the legislature/legal executive to provide a life-teleological 'closure' to crisis and personal issue/trauma. the law is there to punish and make an example - but when that crosses over into bare-hypocrisy and the punishments serve as pre-emptive measures to instill and spread 'fear', that is when the law has either become bloated, perverted or plain ideologically side-tracked. stick to the essential principles of justice, equality and liberty. leave the neo-puritan demand for the "other's" blood out of it. it is a simple perversion.
i'd be interested to argue this further with you if you could provide some case-examples or anecdotal evidence, or even a principled point founded upon precedence. im a little tired arguing rhetorically over concrete legal matters with someone that only has vague airy notions of 'justice' founded in the epistemological rather than the actual.
Well, I still feel a death sentence is revenge, even if it's to make up for the lives he took. I'm naive, and I still believe in second chances, but you are right. However, I don't think there's anything that can make up for what he did, really. So any form of punishment should do.burnzz wrote:
do you read the threads you post in?pace51 wrote:
Therefore... What's the point of the death sentence? Other than fear?FatherTed wrote:
its more expensive to keep someone on death row than a lifer. and the money isnt part of it. shut up
a man took the lives of two other men. how can he offer restitution to the families of the two men who lost their lives?
The ideal legal system is a cross between Stalin and Gandhi.Uzique wrote:
yes, any form of punishment should do.
lets rob another innocent mother of her child because one has already strayed and injured another.
"an eye for an eye and the whole world..." starts quoting shitty idioms.
That is the dumbest sentence anyone has ever posted in DST.pace51 wrote:
The ideal legal system is a cross between Stalin and Gandhi.Uzique wrote:
yes, any form of punishment should do.
lets rob another innocent mother of her child because one has already strayed and injured another.
"an eye for an eye and the whole world..." starts quoting shitty idioms.
I'm arrogant? Ill stop talkin authoritatively, fine.Uzique wrote:
the ideal domestic environment is a cross between hitler and palin
the fuck are you even talking about pace?
you come across like androoz only instead of being naive and intellectually-regressive, you're all arrogant and authoritative with your nonsense.
