Justice: which of the punishments should be allowed in your opinon?

[Az]

[QUOTE]
Azazel, Israel is the only state in the world where such tortues are (officially) legal anyways.
[QUOTE]

define torture.
I actually think that the security forces' approach is not the best, but It's rather hard to interrogate captives when they blow up on you.

[Gangerolf]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
Would you say the same about someone who abducts other people,
tortures them slowly to death (for example by cutting their limbs off one after the other) and who after he is caught (which doesn´t happen until after 10 years and after he has killed 10 people this way) doesn´t think he has been done something wrong but rather says he was just curious about how people die?

he should definately be sent to the crazy house, yes. what would you do, hang him?

Anyway, if I'd for some reason be expelled from Lithuania Saudi Arabia would be on my top choices where to go to live... Think about it: rich enough, good justice system, good infrastructure, streets more or less safe, not many drunk people, almost no drug addicts, almost no HIV, good justice system, good government (almost exacly matching my political views), low unemplyment, etc. What more would you want?

I don't think it's a very fun place though

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Gangerolf

he should definately be sent to the crazy house, yes. what would you do, hang him?

Nope,
but I would like to see him locked away forever and not just for 25 years (regardless of wether it is in a lunatic asylum or in a prison).

[David Floyd]

Sonic,

I'm afraid you are very wrong on drugs.

Your mistake is this - you are not separating the act of ingesting a drug and a criminal act. The act of ingesting cocaine, for example, cannot possibly be criminal in that it hurts no one except yourself (and surely you won't support laws against self-inflicting harm, right?).

Now, the crime comes in when you do something while you are high. That crime should certainly be punished. If you kill someone while high on crack, certainly, you should be prosecuted for murder. But if someone is sitting in their house smoking crack, and being in no way violent, should we punish these people as well?

Of course not. That's preposterous. Punishing someone for the act of doing drugs is basically punishing them for a crime you assume they are going to commit later, possibly as a result of drugs, possibly not. That's the exact same thing as looking at crime statistics, and concluding that because black people commit a higher percentage of violent crime, the solution to preventing violent crime is to arrest all black people.

But that's ridiculous. The fact that someone is black doesn't automatically translate into that person being a criminal, and the fact that someone uses drugs doesn't automatically mean they are going to commit a crime.

But you probably won't like that example. Let's look at cars. Statistics show that in the US, thousands of people die each year in automobile accidents as a result of alcohol. Does that mean we should ban alcohol?

Of course it doesn't, and taking that position would be silly. Someone who has a beer with dinner, or gets plastered at a party, has nothing to do with drunk driving - unless of course they choose to drive drunk. But that proves my point - the act of drinking isn't the problem. The act of drunk driving is the problem. Therefore, we shouldn't punish people who are not committing a crime, we should punish those who are.

And in any case, I find it curious that you support a ban on drugs, but not a ban on alcohol. That's extremely inconsistent.

[David Floyd]

Gonna answer me, Sonic?