Death penalty is damn right

[Flip McWho]

I don't believe in state vengence. If I need revenege, I should be the one to take it, not the state. As far as the state is concerned, merely locking a person up until they are no longer a danger to society is sufficient.

Neither, but if the state were to do it, you could avoid all the little unpleasantries like a long stay in jail yourself. But I don't think the DP should be applied as a vengence tool, nor a deterrant, because as many say it doesn't work like that.

But more exactly:

merely locking a person up until they are no longer a danger to society is sufficient

Aye, but in some cases, the amount of time that can be considered sufficient is for their entire lives. So whats the point in keeping them alive? That costs pointlessly.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Aye, but in some cases, the amount of time that can be considered sufficient is for their entire lives. So whats the point in keeping them alive? That costs pointlessly.

If punishment is the issue, being imprisoned for life is certainly a terrible punishment, depending on the type of prison. Heck, for the ancients banishment was one of the worse punishments- life in prison in a form of banishment.

If rehabilitation is an issue, lifetime in prison to think about our errors might allow you to see where you went wrong.

And if cost is the issue, we can always use them for slave labor if we really cared to.

[SlowwHand]

WOW! I can't believe you said that.

[Flip McWho]

GePap,

Aye life time imprisonment is better for punishment than DP.

Rehab ain't really an issue. I mean who really cares if the prisoner rehabilitates or not if they're stuck in their for life.

And yeah, slave labour would be a good idea. Getting them to pay their keep. (you could even keep this ethical. Make it that they work like normal, at no lower than the minimum wage, how much it costs to keep them in prison is deducted out of their wages each week, and the leftover can be saved for when they get out (if there is any leftover))

[SlowwHand]

Now more citizens out of work. Illegals and now lifers. Great.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by GePap
Punishment is a statement of fear. You fear that the actions you dislike will continue, so you try to impose sanctions to scare people from the action.

More faddish psychobabble. Punishment is what it is. While it is possible for the punished to learn from punishment, or for fear of punishment to deter, that is not the purpose of punishment of criminals.

The harsher the punishment the weaker or morew unstable the system inherently. Stronger systems don't need as much punishment, because they can survive without it.

Nice house of cards—three unsupported assertions. Let's examine the first one; the other two will fall without it.

We can see a simple progrssion, as States have become stronger, punishments have declined overall. NO one gets hanged in public anymore for theft. The DP has shrunk to eithe rnothingness in many places, to being handed out rarely even in the US.

It has nothing to do with "stronger" systems or states. How do you even define that? Stronger in what way?

I don;t fear killer having life in prison. And I don;t havce the mania that you do of thinking I know what "justice" is.

I agree, you don't know what "justice" is.

So, not being manic and not being fearful, I don;t support the DP.

And there are your errors. You are lying if you claim you aren't just as "manic" about your opposition to DP as you posit of me. You wouldn't be here otherwise.

Second, you are fearful. You fear doing something you consider "wrong," namely exceeding your perceived mandate of justice. Which must be quite a cognitive dissonance for you, since you outwardly claim to have no sure standard of justice. I believe the psychobabble for this situation is called "neurosis."

Third, you assume that I fear something I don't. When did I say I fear a killer having life in prison? Yet another faulty assumption about my position. No, there are some killers for whom the DP is not just, or even life sentence.

If I fear, I "fear" that a surely convicted and unreformed killer will be released under your misguided idea that "we don't need punishment." And kills again. As happened in my example.

This is far more common than execution of a wrongly convicted person. It happens thousands of times more frequently.

Furthermore, you suffer the delusion that your fear of exercising punishment does not make you responsible for the multitude of crimes committed because of failure of justice due to your ideology.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Straybow

And there are your errors. You are lying if you claim you aren't just as "manic" about your opposition to DP as you posit of me. You wouldn't be here otherwise.

We all come here to the OT because we love one another.

[Flip McWho]

Now more citizens out of work.

Aye I realise that problem, which is why making them work doesn't work too well. So lets just kill them.

GePap,

We can see a simple progrssion, as States have become stronger, punishments have declined overall. NO one gets hanged in public anymore for theft. The DP has shrunk to eithe rnothingness in many places, to being handed out rarely even in the US.

Bull****. Thats a very onesided look. As states have got more democratic punishments have declined overall would be more accurate. What more powerful of a state is one which has everything controlled by a central figure? The punishments in these states are usually quite severe.

[Edit: Yeah, this is based on fear]

In democracies people have a say in the punishments being handed down. To a degree these are judged by what we would prefer to happen to us in case of doing these crimes ourselves. Also a degree of what we think the person who does the crime should have to do in payment goes into it. It is the fear that the DP may happen to you if you are caught in a situation where it applies that compels you to be anti-DP. As well as the general moral belief that the DP is wrong.

Most [smart] DP advocates only advocate the DP for crimes in which the criminal is definitely (some will go with sufficiently, but this is dangerous ground) guilty of a murder (I'd go with pre-meditated murder mainly for DP) and with no chance of rehabilitation (this is optional really, but then yes this does slide into the whole eye for an eye thing).

The real question is, do we trust our judicial systems to correctly assign the DP?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Flip McWho


GePap,


Bull****. Thats a very onesided look. As states have got more democratic punishments have declined overall would be more accurate. What more powerful of a state is one which has everything controlled by a central figure? The punishments in these states are usually quite severe.

[Edit: Yeah, this is based on fear]

Your edit says it all. The state might be outweardly powerful, but inherently unstable inside. The rulers fear that without the whip, they will be thrown out.

Its simpler to see in what is punished. IN politically repressive systems, many crimes don;t have serious punishment, but then activities that in open societies are not even seen as crimes carry high penalties.

In democracies people have a say in the punishments being handed down. To a degree these are judged by what we would prefer to happen to us in case of doing these crimes ourselves. Also a degree of what we think the person who does the crime should have to do in payment goes into it. It is the fear that the DP may happen to you if you are caught in a situation where it applies that compels you to be anti-DP. As well as the general moral belief that the DP is wrong.

And what creates this general belief, hmmm? When did people in this country all of s sudden decide to phase out public executions, or the DP for say horse theft out in the west? After all, those punishments were around for centureis before- you say people lessened the DP because they did not want to suffer from it, but if that is so, why didn;t they do it as soon as they could, ie. at the point when they could elect their leaders?

Most [smart] DP advocates only advocate the DP for crimes in which the criminal is definitely (some will go with sufficiently, but this is dangerous ground) guilty of a murder (I'd go with pre-meditated murder mainly for DP) and with no chance of rehabilitation (this is optional really, but then yes this does slide into the whole eye for an eye thing).

So in essence, you advocate for the DP, but fr an insignificant number of crimes, meaning the cost savings to society is miniscule at best.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Straybow
More faddish psychobabble. Punishment is what it is. While it is possible for the punished to learn from punishment, or for fear of punishment to deter, that is not the purpose of punishment of criminals.

So you think there is no rationale for punishment? I did not know you were so anti-rational. Makes sense though.

It has nothing to do with "stronger" systems or states. How do you even define that? Stronger in what way?

Greater internal stability, meaning that the rulers are secure in the continuation of the status quo. Simple enough.

Second, you are fearful. You fear doing something you consider "wrong," namely exceeding your perceived mandate of justice. Which must be quite a cognitive dissonance for you, since you outwardly claim to have no sure standard of justice. I believe the psychobabble for this situation is called "neurosis."

There is no sure standard of justice as there is no such thing as absolute justice. That does not mean I have none. It can see again why you can;t grasp this simple distinction.

As for not suporting the DP, its not out of "fear" od doing wrong. Its out of a desire for consistency and stability. So, the impulse is not fear related, but desire related.

Third, you assume that I fear something I don't. When did I say I fear a killer having life in prison? Yet another faulty assumption about my position. No, there are some killers for whom the DP is not just, or even life sentence.

If I fear, I "fear" that a surely convicted and unreformed killer will be released under your misguided idea that "we don't need punishment." And kills again. As happened in my example.

So you do fear. The question is, so what if an unreformed individual is let out. One, it is a logical falicy to state that if somoene is unreformed that they will invartiably succeed in committing murder again. 2, I don;t care if they commit murder again. If they do, they will go to prison again. Simple.

This is far more common than execution of a wrongly convicted person. It happens thousands of times more frequently.

Lets hears it for unbacked assertions!

Furthermore, you suffer the delusion that your fear of exercising punishment does not make you responsible for the multitude of crimes committed because of failure of justice due to your ideology.

Something is a crime based on the law of the land. Change laws, change crimes, change the meaning of justice. Hence, justice is ever changing. Even a moral dinasour like yourself would blanche as stonning an adultress, yet this is exactly what your creator deity tells you to do. Imagine how much criminality you have hjelped spawn...shame on you, you criminal lover.

[SlowwHand]

Bottom-line is if you don't want it as an option, vote against it in your state. That's your right.
Don't expect some to do away with it, though.

[Flip McWho]

Your edit says it all. The state might be outweardly powerful, but inherently unstable inside. The rulers fear that without the whip, they will be thrown out.

Its simpler to see in what is punished. IN politically repressive systems, many crimes don;t have serious punishment, but then activities that in open societies are not even seen as crimes carry high penalties.

So why didn't you say that as states got more democratic then that is what influenced the change? Your use of the word power confused me. And I don't see how a state being internally stable has to do with the DP or not.

What consists as crimes alter over time. Same with the punishments handed out.

And what creates this general belief, hmmm? When did people in this country all of s sudden decide to phase out public executions, or the DP for say horse theft out in the west? After all, those punishments were around for centureis before- you say people lessened the DP because they did not want to suffer from it, but if that is so, why didn;t they do it as soon as they could, ie. at the point when they could elect their leaders?

Umm the general belief comes from changes over time. Same as the general belief now that war is bad. Wasn't always the case. General beliefs of society change over time. Beliefs people hold changes over time.

Umm it didn't happen straight away because the majority of people didn't think the DP was that bad straight away. Fast forward so many years and you get an increasing trend. Over time things change. Laws change and punishments change.

So in essence, you advocate for the DP, but fr an insignificant number of crimes, meaning the cost savings to society is miniscule at best.

Well I ain't advocating the death penalty just cause I like seeing people die now am I. Cost-saving is cost saving, and nobodies given me a reason yet for keeping people alive who fit the bill.

[Traianvs]

In democracies people have a say in the punishments being handed down. To a degree these are judged by what we would prefer to happen to us in case of doing these crimes ourselves. Also a degree of what we think the person who does the crime should have to do in payment goes into it. It is the fear that the DP may happen to you if you are caught in a situation where it applies that compels you to be anti-DP. As well as the general moral belief that the DP is wrong.

Hey I don't believe DP could ever be applied to me so there's no reason for me to fear it and for that to be anti-DP. Only shady underworld people will oppose it considering they have a fair chance of killing someone in the future

[Urban Ranger]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Flip McWho
A mandate from the people that hasn't been revoked yet. Admittedly it isn't put forward as a referendum, but the political support is still there for it to exist.{/quote]

Do you agree that the majority could dictate whether an individual could live or not?

Originally posted by Flip McWho
This isn't just any citizens life its taking away. Its taking away somebodies life who decided that somebody elses life was to be taken away, for their personal reasons.

Yet the state has no reason to do such a thing except for vengeance, and I reject that vengeance itself is a sufficient basis for corrective justice. The society is supposedly enlightened, thus, running off hormone induced emotions doesn't cut it.

Originally posted by Flip McWho
At least the state does it so society does not have to continuously keep someone who has no chance of being put back into society.

Since I don't see a society has the right to take the life of any individual person, life imprisonment is the only possible recourse under these circumstances.

Expediency shouldn't be a factor here.

[DaShi]

So UR, do you get this worked up over the death sentences routinely laid on in China?

If so, then what can you, as a citizen, do about it?