...what?
But WoW isn't even that violent.
Used in the massacre...i can understand WoW being bad for your brain, but CoD?Hallvard wrote:
A couple are yes, for a short while... "in respect"... since apparently cod and wow was "used in Oslo massacre"SEREMAKER wrote:
I just read an article and I just want to know from our fellow Norway brothers.
Are there retailers that are pulling such games as COD and W.O.W. ?
For a short while i could understand tho.
how was it used? did they beat people with the box? stab them with a broken disc?
I disagree. The judicial system should be about 1) deterrence, 2) rehabilitation and 3) safety (keeping dangerous people off the streets)13urnzz wrote:
not rehabilitation? the judicial system should be about fair punishment. what isn't fair about the perpetrator meeting the same fate as his victim?Jaekus wrote:
Yeah. The judicial system should be about punishment, not revenge. Ideally it's meant to be above that.
i'd volunteer to rape a rapist, all in the name of justice, mind you.
I think all judicial systems should be geared towards those three points, and those three points only, rather than an (archaic) idea of eye-for-an-eye or what's considered a 'fair punishment' (which is extremely vague, anyway).
But I think we've been through this before and neither of us budged, soo..
You rate safety last?
That's interesting.
And why do you make a distinction between "eye for an eye" and deterrence?
That's interesting.
And why do you make a distinction between "eye for an eye" and deterrence?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Don't all you lot get all uppity about sharia law, muslims are barbaric etc, yet you're arguing for eye for an eye punishments here?
big difference between executing a mass murderer and stoning your wife for looking at another man.Sturgeon wrote:
Don't all you lot get all uppity about sharia law, muslims are barbaric etc, yet you're arguing for eye for an eye punishments here?
Was getting more into the capital punishment discussion, not sharia law.Sturgeon wrote:
Don't all you lot get all uppity about sharia law, muslims are barbaric etc, yet you're arguing for eye for an eye punishments here?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Nah, they're all equally weighted. (e: well maybe not equally weighted, but they were listed at random in my post)FEOS wrote:
You rate safety last?
That's interesting.
And why do you make a distinction between "eye for an eye" and deterrence?
eye for an eye would remove the chance of rehabilitation, with little gain in deterrence (as seen in homicide levels in US states before/after death penalty, and also similar states with/without death penalty). I believe the loss in rehabilitation is greater than the gain in deterrence. It's about finding a nice compromise between all three mentioned points.
As for this Breivik character, capital punishment wouldn't have stopped him, I'm sure.
Last edited by Jenspm (2011-08-01 04:56:04)
world of WARcraft.... I cringed when I heard it called a "online war game" on the radio here.. the 'expert' they had called in (young guy who apparently game himself) just went "umm.... well...." could pretty much hear his toughts: "should I bother explaining to people who have no idea about anything related to games? nah.."Doctor Strangelove wrote:
But WoW isn't even that violent.
They did conclude that even thou it has been researched thousands of times, games (and other media) can not change a person's fundamental views on human life and killing.
the media.krazed wrote:
how was it used? did they beat people with the box? stab them with a broken disc?
Breivik aparently played WoW quite a lot.... Got into mw2 several months after he started planning. In his diary he said he never was a fan of fps games untill then.
To turn those stats around, non-capital punishment clearly isn't a deterrent, either--or else there would be a marked difference between the two. So if it isn't a deterrent, then it's clearly a punishment...an eye for an eye, if you will (which is all that is really getting at, btw--ensuring punishment for wrongs done).Jenspm wrote:
Nah, they're all equally weighted. (e: well maybe not equally weighted, but they were listed at random in my post)FEOS wrote:
You rate safety last?
That's interesting.
And why do you make a distinction between "eye for an eye" and deterrence?
eye for an eye would remove the chance of rehabilitation, with little gain in deterrence (as seen in homicide levels in US states before/after death penalty, and also similar states with/without death penalty). I believe the loss in rehabilitation is greater than the gain in deterrence. It's about finding a nice compromise between all three mentioned points.
As for this Breivik character, capital punishment wouldn't have stopped him, I'm sure.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
For most rational people deterrence is what matters, and the risk of applying a permanent punishment to someone who may or may not be guilty is not worthwhile.
Fuck Israel
You're forgetting rehabilitation.FEOS wrote:
To turn those stats around, non-capital punishment clearly isn't a deterrent, either--or else there would be a marked difference between the two. So if it isn't a deterrent, then it's clearly a punishment...an eye for an eye, if you will (which is all that is really getting at, btw--ensuring punishment for wrongs done).Jenspm wrote:
Nah, they're all equally weighted. (e: well maybe not equally weighted, but they were listed at random in my post)FEOS wrote:
You rate safety last?
That's interesting.
And why do you make a distinction between "eye for an eye" and deterrence?
eye for an eye would remove the chance of rehabilitation, with little gain in deterrence (as seen in homicide levels in US states before/after death penalty, and also similar states with/without death penalty). I believe the loss in rehabilitation is greater than the gain in deterrence. It's about finding a nice compromise between all three mentioned points.
As for this Breivik character, capital punishment wouldn't have stopped him, I'm sure.
Which is what I mean - if increased punishment doesn't (noticeably) increase deterrence, there is no point in it. At that point it's better to try to rehabilitate the criminal and help him/her back into society, assuming it's considered safe. If you kill him, you lose that opportunity.
Most rational people aren't criminals.Dilbert_X wrote:
For most rational people deterrence is what matters, and the risk of applying a permanent punishment to someone who may or may not be guilty is not worthwhile.
In how many murders do you think the potential prison sentence was a significant factor in the murder?
A significant number of serial killers kill themselves afterwards, how will your increased punishment effect them in any way? As you increase punishments are we not more likely to see people either kill themselves or become involved in increasingly violent confrontations with police as they are fighting for their lives?
I meant for most rational people on the law-abiding side.
I'd rather not have a crime committed against me than have the joyful opportunity to exact vengeance as some people clearly crave.
The justice system does have some deterrent effect.
Its been shown time and again that its not the punishment which deters, its the probability of being caught.
In the case of Breivik that wasn't a factor, nor was being killed. Punishment after the event would not deter the next maniac so just lock him up.
I'd rather not have a crime committed against me than have the joyful opportunity to exact vengeance as some people clearly crave.
The justice system does have some deterrent effect.
How many potential murders did not happen because the potential prison sentence did deter the murder?In how many murders do you think the potential prison sentence was a significant factor in the murder?
Its been shown time and again that its not the punishment which deters, its the probability of being caught.
In the case of Breivik that wasn't a factor, nor was being killed. Punishment after the event would not deter the next maniac so just lock him up.
Fuck Israel
I misunderstood your post, got you confused with Lowing I guess
All of this bullshit about "deterrence" and "rehabilitation", and you never, not once, mention the purpose of any legal system. Justice.
THe victims deserve it, and hand holding and coddling a murderer, a rapist a child molester etc. is not justice for the victims.
How about you start thinking of the victims and their rehab from their ordeal, instead of worrying so much about the guy that caused it.? But this is where you want to make sure there are no other victims through rehab. Well, taking the fucker out and shooting him accomplishes the same thing.
THe victims deserve it, and hand holding and coddling a murderer, a rapist a child molester etc. is not justice for the victims.
How about you start thinking of the victims and their rehab from their ordeal, instead of worrying so much about the guy that caused it.? But this is where you want to make sure there are no other victims through rehab. Well, taking the fucker out and shooting him accomplishes the same thing.
Its not about justice. The biggest purpose is the prevention of crime.
that is something law enforcement does. the prison system takes over AFTER there has been a crime.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Its not about justice. The biggest purpose is the prevention of crime.
You said legal system not prison system. Don't change the words and then claim i'm wrong.lowing wrote:
that is something law enforcement does. the prison system takes over AFTER there has been a crime.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Its not about justice. The biggest purpose is the prevention of crime.
Law enforcement reacts to crime with arrests, investigations, witness protection etc etc Legal system is their to "make people behave" i.e prevention and where appropriate removing people from society for safety and then returning offenders to society with the minimum chance of re offence.
whatever, still you do not address justice for those that were wronged. The point of the whole thing.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
You said legal system not prison system. Don't change the words and then claim i'm wrong.lowing wrote:
that is something law enforcement does. the prison system takes over AFTER there has been a crime.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Its not about justice. The biggest purpose is the prevention of crime.
Law enforcement reacts to crime with arrests, investigations, witness protection etc etc Legal system is their to "make people behave" i.e prevention and where appropriate removing people from society for safety and then returning offenders to society with the minimum chance of re offence.
dont know if this has been discussed, cba reading back 15 pages
http://www.buzzfeed.com/gavon/the-marri … teens-from
http://www.buzzfeed.com/gavon/the-marri … teens-from
they are heroes to be sure, but what the hell does their sexual orientation have to do with any of it?Stimey wrote:
dont know if this has been discussed, cba reading back 15 pages
http://www.buzzfeed.com/gavon/the-marri … teens-from
Never recall reading about straight heroes. "2 straight men saved a woman who was tied to a buzz saw table today".......
o.OStimey wrote:
dont know if this has been discussed, cba reading back 15 pages
http://www.buzzfeed.com/gavon/the-marri … teens-from
bachmann can suck it I guess.