Jim
New Member
I'll wait a few before I go on. Give you a chance to answer.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
[b said:Quote[/b] (Jim @ Oct. 01 2004,4:47)]
[b said:Quote[/b] ]Yes, but it begs the question: is that criminal really the right guy? As Thaddius mentioned, when do innocent deaths stop being an exception and start being too many?
[b said:Quote[/b] ]**Sigh** I agree. Sometimes, political correctness is bothersome and wholly misguided. But a thief getting their hand chopped off? That seems a little extreme. Isn't that the kind of punishments they have in the middle east, alongside beheading?
[b said:Quote[/b] ]Yes, you say a person steals to feed their family. But once again, what if that person is WRONGLY accused? The possibilities is amputation for a crime that was necessary to keep your family alive, or even for something you didn't actually do. What about shoplifting? I know a few guys who were wrongly accused of shoplifting. What kind of situation of stealing did you have in mind?
[b said:Quote[/b] ]Could you tell me about the 1st, 2nd degree etc? I don't know the difference except that first is more severe than second and so on.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]Mugging and onld lady to feed a crack habit... It depends on the circumstances. I read once about these two teenagers about nineteen. A guy and a girl who was pregnant with the guys child,. They were both crack addicts and they murdered an innocent guy walking home with his pay-packet from his part time job at a mechanics. They didn't even care what they did, as long as they got the guy's £30. Then they went off, bought crack and smooched. I seriously thought they should have hung.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]You may already be thinking "This guy is a liberal". Well, to put it bluntly, if anything covers me better it is that. Some crack addicts are simply confused kids press-ganged into trying the stuff to impress or to fit in. They end up hooked, sell their stuff and end up stealing to feed it. I can't say how I'd react since I've never had a craving for anything like that. But someone like that deserves at least some sympathy.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]Once again, I sympathise. If you had the opportunity to read the Daily Express as I do, you would get to know that people in the UK are fed up with lenient punishments. But I digress, currently I haven't seen much proof for executions cutting outside crime rates, besides stopping the offenders re-offending. I believe this is still an area where anti-capital punishment lobbyists press home with.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]I'm sorry, could you clarify your point?
[b said:Quote[/b] ]I agree on only some crimes. Rape, especially child rape and paedohillia, sadistic murder and unprovoked murder, the list goes on. I'm interested to know where you would draw the line?
[b said:Quote[/b] ]If we are going to revamp our system of punishment, we also need to revamp our trial system. I'd love to give you some answers on how to reduce the amount of innocent people put in jail, but it's not really my area of expertise. To make any change will require plenty of work and I'm sure numerous studies.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]Hey, I'm all for beheading too, given the circumstance. There needs to be better punishment for these criminals. How many thieves in the middle east stole more than once? I don't know, but I DO know that not many did it more than twice. And again, I'm not suggesting this form of punishment for someone stealing food to feed their family. But can anyone say Enron?
[b said:Quote[/b] ]As I have stated over and over, the punishment has to fit the crime. If you're going to lose a hand, well then it better be pretty damn serious. Shoplifting? No, I don't think so. Breaking and Entering a house, beating up an old woman to steal her pension check? Now we're talking. I think along with punishing the criminal, there needs to be some form of dissuasion for other criminals. If a gang sees their friend walking around with no hand, I'd be willing to be they'd think twice before commiting a similar crime.
And I have no clue about making sure only the guilty pay without any innocents being committed. I don't know the justice system that intimately, so I really couldn't guess.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]Could you tell me about the 1st, 2nd degree etc? I don't know the difference except that first is more severe than second and so on.
Sure...
[b said:Quote[/b] ]They took a life to fulfill their crack habit. End of story, get a rope. HOWEVER, now the PC wackos come in talking about how they were under the influence, they didn't know what they were doing, society made them who they are, blah blah blah. Remorse only goes so far and then justice must be done. Hell, I'm all for letting the family of the victim decide what happens.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]they didn't know what they were doing, society made them who they are, blah blah blah.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]I HATE being labeled. I don't see myself as liberal or conservative...I just AM. And I understand that people like that deserve sympathy. But if they cause someone's death, there needs to be repercussions. They can be sorry all they want, but that won't bring that person back.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]I've read the Express a time or two online I think there have been plenty of studies to show that capital punishment does NOT deter crime. The judicial system is partly to blame. Ok, so you kill someone, now what? Well you get to sit on death row for 10-15 years enjoying cable tv, nutritional meals a roof over your head and then at the end you get a shot and go to sleep. How harsh is that? I'd be all in favor of redoing our prisons, yank out tv's and air conditioning, make chain gangs popular again and start smashing rocks. Or why not make them useful and use them as scientific experiments. Forget the bunnies and monkeys, use career criminals to test makeup on!
[b said:Quote[/b] ]Cruel and Unusual Punishment is what people use to refer to punishments for criminals. The punishment should not "offend" the criminal any more than is necessary. That is why punishments such as electrocution, firing squads, beheadings and hanging are not used anymore (except in very specific circumstances). Now, where were the rights of the VICTIM? Being raped, strangled and murdered doesn't qualify as cruel and unusual? As I said before, once you commit a crime like this you should lose ALL rights as a citizen. (That reminds me, I'd be very interested to know how Romans kept criminals in line...I know they were fond of crucifying people. I wonder what kind of deterrant that was)
[b said:Quote[/b] ]By the way, do you know where Lancashire is? I had a huge, HUGE crush on this girl that lived there
[b said:Quote[/b] (Jim @ Oct. 02 2004,6:38)]
[b said:Quote[/b] ]A point you might consider is when we stop being just and start being bloodthirsty? I'm not suggesting you are, but a lot of people find beheading quite abhorrent. I'm sure you may have heard of the kidnappings in Iraq? Two Americans were brutally beheaded by Abu Musab al Zarqawi. A third guy, Ken Bigley from UK is still alive and there is a tremndous uproar about it. Some people suggested that if they should be caught, they should be beheaded in the same way, to serve them right for murdering the two American hostages. You might agree, with this, but when does punishment simply become a tactic for satiating public anger?
[b said:Quote[/b] ]Punishment fit the crime, yes. You have a point about that. I guess I still can ask the question: When does punishment become brutality?
[b said:Quote[/b] ]There was a great deal of anger over this crime. I don't believe they were under the influence of drugs, just simply didn't care about how they got the money as long as they did. People like this deserve severe punishment, yes.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]I think this comes back to morality again. If a society fails to provide for certain citizens and those citizens become desperate enough to turn to crime to keep themselves alive, does killing them properly serve justice? Perhaps it would, if that person was rich. If someone is poor, though, and were brought up thinking they had to get money in whatever way they could, get in with the gangs for self-protection and to feel some power they normally would never do, then it seems a little pointless killing them off. People who are desperate will take any risk to stay alive.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]You're right: DOWN WITH LABELS!!
Hmm. I guess the circumstances of the murder would have to be taken into account. I would also reccomend the persons' background be checked too. If they had no history of violence, killing them would be in my opinion more immoral than not. I have nver been addicted, and I hate violence (Perhaps to the point of cowardice) but suppose in one stupid moment of weakness I got addicted and became so desperate for a fix I had to mug someone. Suppose I accidentally killed them. Things like this need to be taken into account too.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]It isn't fair that convicted criminals spend a good few years in a comforable jail then are killed after soaking up funds? Yes, I can sympathise with that.
I ask you to be careful when suggesting the treatment of prisoners, because thinking of them as undeserving of sympathy or compassion runs the risk of a Chinese-style jail system where prisoners can be neglected or abused. Society must remain above that.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]Putting prisoners to useful work could be useful. After all, if they commited a crime, surely they could spend their jail time doing something constructive rather than sitting and soaking up tax? However, once again, be careful about prisoners being used as scientific experiments in place of animals. Once again, this runs the risk of demonizing them as sub-human. Not everyone in prison is there for the same reason. Or are you talking about murderers in particular?
[b said:Quote[/b] ]Yes, being raped, strangled and murdered is horrific. Men like that deserve a severe punishment. But brutality against these people probably wouldn't do much except offer the family some consolation that the monster had paid a little back. As you said, victims should come first.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]As for the Romans, I have no idea. I believe that crucifixion was used for mainly the poor and lowly, but for a range of crimes, not just murder. Have ever seen the number of Roman emperors who were murdered? Practically all of them died at another's hand (Or usually several of them). The murderers tended to be political rivals, people who had reason to kill them or by and large, were members of the social elite. They were rarely caught and fewer still were executed.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]Sorry, I live in Scotland, I rarely go down south unless to visit relatives.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]Good luck finding her again
[b said:Quote[/b] ]Shouldn't public anger be satiated? I don't mean we should bend to every whim of the public, but in cases like you just mentioned, why is it bad to satiate the public? Again, I'm not sure where the line should be drawn. I put myself in the place of the families of victims...I would want justice done. The question I think you're on the verge of is this: When does justice become revenge?
[b said:Quote[/b] ]The question I think you're on the verge of is this: When does justice become revenge?
[b said:Quote[/b] ]My question to you is, why is brutality in punishment wrong? If someone commits a brutal crime, they should have a brutal punishment. Fair is fair.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]Agreed! But as I said earlier, in our PC climate, that will be very difficult. Too many people are eager to blame society and not put the responsibility on the individual.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]You're right, this becomes an issue of society and morality. SO...it depends on the society. What if a society condoned vigilantism? Then it would be ok. In OUR societies, that is not acceptable. There is a system set in place to punish our criminals. That is there job. I'm sure you've seen on the news at one time or another a family of a victim that is in court to hear the sentencing of the criminal that killed/injured a family member. One of the victim's family finally gets pushed to the edge and lunges at the criminal, punching/kicking the crap out of him. Who do you feel sorry for? The criminal or the family member?
[b said:Quote[/b] ]We could go on and on about this forever. What if the murderer had no prior record, but his first offense involved killing a family of four and two police officers that were trying to apprehend him? Would it still be immoral to sentence him to death?
[b said:Quote[/b] ]WHOA there. I've already addresses this point. Where was the sympathy and compassion for the victims? I'm not suggesting this system for EVERY criminal, but if they did something to deserve it, then by all means, put them in this "new" kind of jail system. Compassion is a good thing, but it has its place. Let me see if I can make an analogy. You have a young child who fully understands the rules of the household. He disobeys, knowing full well the rules. You hug him and tell him you love him, but he still is going to be punished. He cries and says he's sorry over and over. What do you do? Tell him it's ok and not do it next time, or punish him? If you DON'T punish him then there is no incentive not to disobey the next time. If you DO punish him then he learns a lesson.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]No, I'm not talking about anything in particular. If a criminal breaks the law for whatever reason, they have trespassed against the citizens in their society. They should, in turn, lose their rights and priveledges of being a citizen. Put them to work at hard labor FOR THE CITIZENS and make them earn their rights back. The testing thing was very hardline, I admit. If we're even going to consider doing that it needs to be for very specific cases, for very offensive cases. Something just short of or equal to the death penalty.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]Nothing wrong with giving the family some consolation, but there is a bigger picture here: deterrant. Right now, our highest form of punishment offers NO deterrant to criminals. It's time to strike some fear in the hearts of criminals for a change. Let them know that if they trespass on society, they will actually have to pay the piper.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]"If it's not Scottish it's crap!" I hope you know where that quote comes from or I'll just sound like a dork
[b said:Quote[/b] (Jim @ Oct. 02 2004,11:54)]
[b said:Quote[/b] ]Yes, but not if the public is baying for blood on a high-profile case where there is inadequate evidence to convict. The judicial system should never be influenced by heated public anger, because that way it is more of a show of 'Look, we're doing something' than an impartial provider of justice and retribution.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]Sometimes I put myself in the criminal's place mainly because I seek to understand the mentality of why a person goes through with needless violence. Sometimes, I simply believe that certain individuals show no self-restraint and do deserve to be shown the error of their ways. But yes, If it were me, I would want justice, not a five-year job in a comfy cell with amenities many people outside don't even have.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]What I am afraid of is when executions become something we will be watching, or cheering on. You mentioned pay-per-view. To some, it would be an ideal way of sending out a warning message. To me, it would signal our slip back into a society where humanity is pushed aside in favour of blood satisfaction. Remember the Romans and their colliseums? Used as punishment and entertainment.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]A brutal crime deserves punishment, but does this mean we allow our countries to permit grotesque executions as punishment? It seems more like venting the collective rage of a wounded society than on dealing justice.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]I'm a circumstantial person myself. I have read about criminals who show no remorse or even a glimmer of guilt for their crimes. It wouldn't surprise me if this enraged the victim's family and if they restrained their anger and refused to attack them, they are better people than me.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]Once again, I'd say I would look at the circumstances. Much as morality isn't black and white, neither are most crimes. Yes, I would mostly agree, the above case would probably merit death.
Hmm. This COULD go on for a long time.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]You know what? The "Put them to work at hard labour FOR THE CITIZENS" would probably attract tears of joy over here. A lot of people are fed up with youths going about littering, vandalising, mugging and so on. 'Neds' as they are called are becoming a nuisance mainly because they are spoiled, learn nothing but to be cheeky, disrespectful and verbally abusive to anyone and everyone. Maybe you should e-mail that to Tony Blair?
[b said:Quote[/b] ]And I agree for the testing, although I still think that should be voluntary, in exchange for a more lenient sentence. Execution becomes life, a twelve year sentence becomes eleven or something like that.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]I'm sorry if I have mentioned this before, but studies have shown that even more fearful methods of death aren't that effective against crime. Many murders are spur-of-the-moment and many crimes are those of opportunity rather than pre meditation.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]Sorry, I don't know where that comes from
[b said:Quote[/b] ]To you (correct me if I'm wrong), the priority is ensuring that the criminal is punished according to the severity of their crime; that is if someone murders, they should die. If someone rapes, they should be castrated, steals, amputation of the hand. What is important, in your opinion, is that criminals should be warned their actions will not be tolerated and that citizens should feel that criminals will face tough justice when their rights are breached. If I am correct, it would be more immoral to shirk on justice when a crime has been done.
Hey, this was MY thread actually..till you went all DV crazy on it. : )[b said:Quote[/b] (Dark Virtue @ Oct. 04 2004,4:45)]Great, you just ruined my thread badger boy!
Hmm, nevermind, this could be fun...I'll hold my reply until we get a Christian perspective.
Bumpage.[b said:Quote[/b] (Mr.Bill @ Oct. 04 2004,4:31)]I'd like to discuss the concept of morallity originating from god. Could one of you please give some reasons why you believe this? Thanky much.