Texas Executes 300th Inmate

[Imran Siddiqui]

Again, you can take the position where you don't assume that retribution is moral, but then you have to justify it. You haven't justified it.

I have constantly. Just because you refuse to read it or process it, doesn't mean it is still there. It is encapsulated in the phrase 'he deserved it'.

If you kill my SO, I think I'd have punished you to the extent of the crime you commited if I killed your SO. It's a form of retribution. You said it yourself that there are cultures that practice this form of retribution.

And in those cultures, that's fine. We don't do things like that here. We tend to punish the one committing the crime. You may have thought you made the punishment fill the crime (and you may have indeed), but the state won't think so.

Which social factors in particular, and how do you know that they have a greater contribution than the severity of the "justice" system?

The American culture. Glorification of violence. Why do I know they have a great contribution than the severity of the justice system, because you have Canada right to north of us. Their justice system is NO MORE draconian than the Northern US states (such as Michigan, North and South Dakota, Washington state), yet they have lower crime rates.

Anyways, in the first place, you asserted that the crime rate would explode if the prisons weren't as draconian. Would you mind justifying that assertion since the burden of proof is yours.

It's kinda common sense. Harsh prison terms and sentancing have effects on deterance. Since it isn't easy to improve on the percentage of criminals caught (which is the best deterance), you must fall back on harsher penalities. If I have a choice of doing something, and I can either go to jail for 10 years or 50, I'd be MUCH less likely to do it if I was going to the joint for 50 years.

I don't say "he deserved it." I don't think anyone "deserves" to have their all freedom taken away from them. I consider such a use of force immoral.

So when you jail someone (for specific deterance, which you say is ok), you don't think he deserves to be jailed? Strange.

[Ramo]

I have constantly. Just because you refuse to read it or process it, doesn't mean it is still there. It is encapsulated in the phrase 'he deserved it'.

That doesn't mean anything. You're saying retribution is moral because retribution is moral. Why does somone who committs a crime deserve retribution?

And in those cultures, that's fine. We don't do things like that here. We tend to punish the one committing the crime. You may have thought you made the punishment fill the crime (and you may have indeed), but the state won't think so.

Whether or not the state thinks so is irrelevent. I'm questioning your views, not the state's. It's a perfectly legitimate form of retribution, IMO.

Why do I know they have a great contribution than the severity of the justice system, because you have Canada right to north of us. Their justice system is NO MORE draconian than the Northern US states (such as Michigan, North and South Dakota, Washington state), yet they have lower crime rates.

Whose side are you trying to argue?

It's kinda common sense. Harsh prison terms and sentancing have effects on deterance. Since it isn't easy to improve on the percentage of criminals caught (which is the best deterance), you must fall back on harsher penalities. If I have a choice of doing something, and I can either go to jail for 10 years or 50, I'd be MUCH less likely to do it if I was going to the joint for 50 years.

I'd have to call bull**** on that. Personally, 10 years or 50 years would make no difference to me. Would you seriously take the risk of spending 10 years in a US prison? There's no way I would.

Besides, given the state they currently are, the longer the prison sentence is, the less competently it rehabilitates a person, so he's that much more likely to committ a crime.

So when you jail someone (for specific deterance, which you say is ok), you don't think he deserves to be jailed? Strange.

That's right.