Murders fight Murders, Rapist fight Rapists, etc etc etc. No one crime would be excluded, if it's serious enough to get you in jail for the rest of your life, it'ld be allowed.
Wow, I would pay a lot of money for Fat Corrupt Businessmen fight Fat Corrupt Businessmen.
I just think some people have been playing too many Unreal games (although I can't argue that they aren't fun...)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I think the "Tag you are it!" game is childish, and therefore I refuse to participate. Games I play.
Other people's decks!
(I'm too cheap to actually BUY the cards, so I just playtest for others.)
I always thought that justice is supposed to be fair putting someone to sleep after years of incarceration for murdering someone in cold blood just does not seem fair to me these people have hurt multiple people taken parents away form children or children away from parents that is a lot of pain they have created in this world. Why should they be the only one to not feel pain? what would be wrong about going back to the chair or gas chamber? Or even fighting it out if that was the convicts choice.
@Zith i am sorry to hear about that.
You're missing the point. It's not about what's fair. The world will never be fair anyway. Under an absolutely fair and just ruler, like God, it would be a different story, but we only have our human governments to look to for justice in this world. And I do not trust human beings to be fair, and I do not trust human governments with the power to inflict excessively painful punishment, not matter how much someone might deserve it.
I will say it again: regardless of what someone might deserve, our governments should not have the power to inflict punishments that would be considered excessively painful. That type of power is very dangerous for everyone, and if we were to allow our government that power - if we were to give our government that cookie - it might just start thinking about a glass of milk.
And my belief is that they should not have a painless death they should have to hurt some the chair worked so did the gas chamber I do not believe that is justice to send them a way in a painless way they should not rot in prison for a extended period of time we should fast track their appeals and put them to death as soon as possible.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Scott Adams... Nothing defines humans better than their willingness to do irrational things in the pursuit of phenomenally unlikely payoffs. This is the principle behind lotteries, dating, and religion
Justice the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments.
So if you kill in a way that is painful then it is not justice until you receive the same.
Scott Adams... Nothing defines humans better than their willingness to do irrational things in the pursuit of phenomenally unlikely payoffs. This is the principle behind lotteries, dating, and religion
No, that does not follow. Justice doesn't have to be "that which you do unto others shall be done unto you," only to be punished for your misdeeds and rewarded for your good ones.
You didn't really define it, though. Care to define "just" as used in that definition?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[The Crafters] | [Johnnies United]
My anecdotal evidence disagrees with yours! EXPLAIN THAT!
just= fair: free from favoritism or self-interest or bias or deception
It is not fair for these people to be killed in a way that is divorced from the reason that they are being punished. They are being punished for being violent so there for the death should be as well. Lethal injection has become the most excepted way to perform capital punishment we use this method because it is the most humane but that is in our own self interest we are still taking a mans life so it is only just that we do it in a manner that reflects the crime.
Scott Adams... Nothing defines humans better than their willingness to do irrational things in the pursuit of phenomenally unlikely payoffs. This is the principle behind lotteries, dating, and religion
And I think that's the issue at hand, for I doubt most of us would use "fair" in that definition. It's handled much better by the rest of your definition, though, which does not, as your punctuation implies, equate fairness.
I'm advocating a divorce of crime and punishment only so far as to preserve humane treatment for all. Inhumanity does not justify inhumanity.
As Johnny Spike has said, when a governing body acts as criminals do, there is a great danger. Simply because one person disregards another's rights doesn't mean we should disregard their own, if for no other reason than the disregard for the rights of the people is an easy path to tyranny. But more than that, brutality in the judicial system is shown to lead to brutality in the general populace.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[The Crafters] | [Johnnies United]
My anecdotal evidence disagrees with yours! EXPLAIN THAT!
As Johnny Spike has said, when a governing body acts as criminals do, there is a great danger. Simply because one person disregards another's rights doesn't mean we should disregard their own, if for no other reason than the disregard for the rights of the people is an easy path to tyranny. But more than that, brutality in the judicial system is shown to lead to brutality in the general populace.
The path of tyranny starts by asking everyone to be politically correct so as not to offend others. Because people that are not offended are less likely to get involved and the less people that are involved the more the government can do whatever they want. But it is not tyranny that we need to fear there are enough checks and balances in our government to stifle that what we need to fear is the constant settling for the lowest common denominator every democracy of the past has fallen due to the fact that it rotted from the inside first. So if we are going to have capital punishment let’s do in a way that make sense. Let the punishment fit the crime instead of trying to make people feel that that it is ok because we are doing it as humanely as possible so it can be done. It should be all in or not at all.
Scott Adams... Nothing defines humans better than their willingness to do irrational things in the pursuit of phenomenally unlikely payoffs. This is the principle behind lotteries, dating, and religion
Wait... because we can't be truly humane by removing capital punishment, we should therefore be as inhumane as possible? How does that figure? If you accept that we should be humane in our practices, wouldn't it follow that we should do whatever our actions in as humane a manner as possible?
I'm sorry, but inhumanity to make a statement is the wrong way to go about it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[The Crafters] | [Johnnies United]
My anecdotal evidence disagrees with yours! EXPLAIN THAT!
But the punishment exists because they are not humane. Without the horse why make a cart to be pulled by it. And once again all in or not at all. I never said to remove this as a form of justice just that if we are going to have this form of justice lets call it what it is.
Scott Adams... Nothing defines humans better than their willingness to do irrational things in the pursuit of phenomenally unlikely payoffs. This is the principle behind lotteries, dating, and religion
This will never happen. Ever. The justice system relies on keeping people in order, and wants to prevent further crimes. (as stated earier.) What good are we if we just stoop down to their level? Although it would be interseting..it won't happen.
So what you're saying, Atog, is that either an entity should either be fully humane or fully inhumane, that no middle ground is acceptable?
No simply that if we are going to put them to death do it, don’t hide behind something else do it and that is the end of it. Don’t try to make people think that it is ok because they did not suffer. That is a lie we tell to ourselves. Their death should be painful that is the only hope to use this as a deterrent.
Scott Adams... Nothing defines humans better than their willingness to do irrational things in the pursuit of phenomenally unlikely payoffs. This is the principle behind lotteries, dating, and religion
No simply that if we are going to put them to death do it, don’t hide behind something else do it and that is the end of it. Don’t try to make people think that it is ok because they did not suffer. That is a lie we tell to ourselves. Their death should be painful that is the only hope to use this as a deterrent.
I'm opposed to the death penalty in general, but certainly if you believe it is functionally necessary, then it makes sense to make it as efficient and humane as possible. Your implication that it is the same to kill someone painlessly as it is to torture them to death is simply wrong. We already recognize this distinction in the severity of punishments for murders, we can't suddenly pretend it doesn't matter anymore to suit some twisted purpose.
The assertion that without such inhumane tactics, the death penalty wouldn't be a deterrent at all, but with it it would be, seems completely made up and not based upon any logic or research at all. Perhaps you'd care to elaborate.
But the punishment exists because they are not humane. Without the horse why make a cart to be pulled by it. And once again all in or not at all. I never said to remove this as a form of justice just that if we are going to have this form of justice lets call it what it is.
So we are basically making the state a den of criminals to combat criminals? No, I'm sorry, this does not equate to justice.
You have no valid argument - you have simply stated the obvious: that there are terrible people who do terrible things in this world. Your attempt to make it "hit home" with gory details changes nothing. I never said that these people don't deserve horrible painful deaths. I'm sure we would all love to see them burned at the stake or disemboweled.
My point is only this: that governments should not have the power to carry out such sentences. If we allow the government to do such things, we are headed for bad times. The needle may be insufficient as a punishment, but it is the best we can do.
I disagree. The needle is not all we can do. Painful deaths would be more feared by criminals and would do a lot more to drop the crime rate in this country. Machiavelli said in his book, The Prince, that in order to rule a country one must be more feared than loved. To be feared does not mean the same thing as cruel when dealing with large groups of people. Instead, if we hurt individuals who have commited crimes then people will be less likely to commit crime. In India the crime for rape is to have their ***** cut off. In the last year there was only 4 rape cases. This may have been because the people feared that penalty.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"All people are born equal; it's what they do in life that makes them seperate"
Machiavelli also said that fate is like a woman; you have to beat her and hold her down if you want to have your way with her. Given that Machiavelli was unfamiliar with friendly conversation and candlelit dinners or even wine, I think there's a limit to how much stock we can place in Machiavelli's words.
I can't be bothered to dig up the specific book right now, but some 19th century writer on a similar subject said that certainty of punishment was a much better deterrent than severity of punishment, as every criminal (as every human being) believes him or herself smarter than all the rest. I'm sure he was no where near as famous, but I'm inclined to go with this man's reasoning.
In India, they just recently made it illegal to gang-rape the widow of a recently deceased husband. I'm not sure how much stock you want to put in India's justice system, either.
I can't be bothered to dig up the specific book right now, but some 19th century writer on a similar subject said that certainty of punishment was a much better deterrent than severity of punishment, as every criminal (as every human being) believes him or herself smarter than all the rest. I'm sure he was no where near as famous, but I'm inclined to go with this man's reasoning.
why ant there be certainty of punishment as well as severity? And i would appreciate it if you could sight your sorces. i took the time to sight mine, sight yours
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"All people are born equal; it's what they do in life that makes them seperate"
Because there's no need to pursue an inferior deterrent with serious side effects when there's a more effective one with less of those.
Your citation was ****ing Machiavelli. Any Junior High student with fifteen minutes between classes could cite Machiavelli in some weak point made out of boredom and still have time left over for a game of Solitaire. You will wait for a source until I actually have time to go digging through dust-laden books.
The thing that bothers me most about the death penalty is the possibility of someone innocent getting convicted. I'm pretty sure that life in solitary prison is a good enough deterrent for any crime that can be deterred.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I think the "Tag you are it!" game is childish, and therefore I refuse to participate. Games I play.
Other people's decks!
(I'm too cheap to actually BUY the cards, so I just playtest for others.)
I'm opposed to the death penalty in general, but certainly if you believe it is functionally necessary, then it makes sense to make it as efficient and humane as possible. Your implication that it is the same to kill someone painlessly as it is to torture them to death is simply wrong. We already recognize this distinction in the severity of punishments for murders, we can't suddenly pretend it doesn't matter anymore to suit some twisted purpose.
The assertion that without such inhumane tactics, the death penalty wouldn't be a deterrent at all, but with it it would be, seems completely made up and not based upon any logic or research at all. Perhaps you'd care to elaborate.
The average length of time between conviction and execution in Texas is now more than nine years; it's not uncommon for an inmate to live on the Row for a decade or more. I would not call that efficient. The average cost of keeping a prisoner is around $ 22,000 a year. I never said that they should be torture to death, only that their death should not be painless. The way we are carrying out the death penalty right now is to bring them into a small sterile room stick a needle into there arm open some small curtains so a few people can watch them fall peacefully asleep how is this justice? And is it actually carried out this way for the criminal or is it done this way so that people can say that it was done humanly so it is not a big deal I believe that it is done in this manner so we can tell ourselves this lie. We are taking this mans life! We should not be allowed to lie to ourselves about it the death penalty is for the living not the guy that is dead. If you sanitize how these people are killed the message is lost. Our prison system is supposed to be about reform but the people on death row or that have been sentenced to serve life with out parole can not be reformed. because the decision has been made that there is not and never will be a place for them in society. There for prison is not where they should be.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Scott Adams... Nothing defines humans better than their willingness to do irrational things in the pursuit of phenomenally unlikely payoffs. This is the principle behind lotteries, dating, and religion
How is it justice? The punishment is still given out, justice is served as much as it possibly can be done in the matter. How is it less just than causing than making a person feel pain? A person beaten to death isn't any more dead than a person killed by injection
I disagree that sanitation loses the meaning. The phrase "sentenced to death" carries the same message as "sentenced to death by electrocution;" the headlines are still the same - "Man Sentenced to Death," "Death Penalty Awarded," "___ Prison Executes Murderer." Humane treatment doesn't pull the wool over anyone's eyes, and again, the use of inhumanity is a poor way to make a statement.
The reason it costs so much and takes so much time is because we recognize that death is an absolutely final punishment from which there is no reprieve. The system is very cautious in these cases with good reason.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[The Crafters] | [Johnnies United]
My anecdotal evidence disagrees with yours! EXPLAIN THAT!
I disagree. The needle is not all we can do. Painful deaths would be more feared by criminals and would do a lot more to drop the crime rate in this country. Machiavelli said in his book, The Prince, that in order to rule a country one must be more feared than loved. To be feared does not mean the same thing as cruel when dealing with large groups of people. Instead, if we hurt individuals who have commited crimes then people will be less likely to commit crime. In India the crime for rape is to have their ***** cut off. In the last year there was only 4 rape cases. This may have been because the people feared that penalty.
Any politician would be well-advised to read The Prince, just as any general should probably have a look at The Art of War. There is a place for Machiavellian principles in any government, including ours. Nevertheless, Machiavelli's work represents only one aspect of running a government. It is true that in the interests the stability of the state, people should fear the government to some extent. However, you must also account for the fact that you and I and our brothers and sisters and parents and friends all live under governments. I believe that my government should have the power to put people to death, but I don't want to push this power beyond what is absolutely necessary in the interests of everyone who is innocent.
The average length of time between conviction and execution in Texas is now more than nine years; it's not uncommon for an inmate to live on the Row for a decade or more. I would not call that efficient. The average cost of keeping a prisoner is around $ 22,000 a year. I never said that they should be torture to death, only that their death should not be painless. The way we are carrying out the death penalty right now is to bring them into a small sterile room stick a needle into there arm open some small curtains so a few people can watch them fall peacefully asleep how is this justice? And is it actually carried out this way for the criminal or is it done this way so that people can say that it was done humanly so it is not a big deal I believe that it is done in this manner so we can tell ourselves this lie. We are taking this mans life! We should not be allowed to lie to ourselves about it the death penalty is for the living not the guy that is dead. If you sanitize how these people are killed the message is lost.
Our prison system is supposed to be about reform but the people on death row or that have been sentenced to serve life with out parole can not be reformed. because the decision has been made that there is not and never will be a place for them in society. There for prison is not where they should be.
If you don't think they should be tortured to death, but you also don't think their death should be painless, then what exactly do you think we should do about executions?
Let me bring up another point: despite what many victims' families say about closure, execution in this country is not about revenge. If you really want revenge on a man, you don't kill him, you keep him alive. If you kill him, he's beyond your reach. If you keep him alive, you can do terrible things to him that will break him. Thus, execution by the state serves only the purpose of disposing of irredeemable human beings. This brings up the issue of what right the government has to decide to dispose of people, but I will not discuss that here. Suffice it to say, because we have allowed our government this power, we should limit it as much as possible so as to minimize the risk of the government getting out of hand. Also, because this is disposal, it must be done as efficiently as possible to minimize cost. You don't burn your garbage to "teach it a lesson." You just toss it in a trash bag and leave it on the curb.
[quote=Johnny Spike;/comments/10956742]If you don't think they should be tortured to death, but you also don't think their death should be painless, then what exactly do you think we should do about executions?
We have turned the way we apply the death penalty in to a painless way to kill them behind close doors so that we the people can feel better about doing it. It should hurt and it should be public so that it can be a deferent and it really is not a punishment it is a warning to others. And a sanitized and painless death behind close door does not send that message.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Scott Adams... Nothing defines humans better than their willingness to do irrational things in the pursuit of phenomenally unlikely payoffs. This is the principle behind lotteries, dating, and religion
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I just think some people have been playing too many Unreal games (although I can't argue that they aren't fun...)
I think the "Tag you are it!" game is childish, and therefore I refuse to participate.
Games I play.
(I'm too cheap to actually BUY the cards, so I just playtest for others.)
You're missing the point. It's not about what's fair. The world will never be fair anyway. Under an absolutely fair and just ruler, like God, it would be a different story, but we only have our human governments to look to for justice in this world. And I do not trust human beings to be fair, and I do not trust human governments with the power to inflict excessively painful punishment, not matter how much someone might deserve it.
I will say it again: regardless of what someone might deserve, our governments should not have the power to inflict punishments that would be considered excessively painful. That type of power is very dangerous for everyone, and if we were to allow our government that power - if we were to give our government that cookie - it might just start thinking about a glass of milk.
by all means
Here is my definition of justice
Justice the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments.
So if you kill in a way that is painful then it is not justice until you receive the same.
You didn't really define it, though. Care to define "just" as used in that definition?
It is not fair for these people to be killed in a way that is divorced from the reason that they are being punished. They are being punished for being violent so there for the death should be as well. Lethal injection has become the most excepted way to perform capital punishment we use this method because it is the most humane but that is in our own self interest we are still taking a mans life so it is only just that we do it in a manner that reflects the crime.
I'm advocating a divorce of crime and punishment only so far as to preserve humane treatment for all. Inhumanity does not justify inhumanity.
As Johnny Spike has said, when a governing body acts as criminals do, there is a great danger. Simply because one person disregards another's rights doesn't mean we should disregard their own, if for no other reason than the disregard for the rights of the people is an easy path to tyranny. But more than that, brutality in the judicial system is shown to lead to brutality in the general populace.
The path of tyranny starts by asking everyone to be politically correct so as not to offend others. Because people that are not offended are less likely to get involved and the less people that are involved the more the government can do whatever they want. But it is not tyranny that we need to fear there are enough checks and balances in our government to stifle that what we need to fear is the constant settling for the lowest common denominator every democracy of the past has fallen due to the fact that it rotted from the inside first. So if we are going to have capital punishment let’s do in a way that make sense. Let the punishment fit the crime instead of trying to make people feel that that it is ok because we are doing it as humanely as possible so it can be done. It should be all in or not at all.
I'm sorry, but inhumanity to make a statement is the wrong way to go about it.
Trade thread!
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=556274
or
http://darjarri.com
No simply that if we are going to put them to death do it, don’t hide behind something else do it and that is the end of it. Don’t try to make people think that it is ok because they did not suffer. That is a lie we tell to ourselves. Their death should be painful that is the only hope to use this as a deterrent.
I'm opposed to the death penalty in general, but certainly if you believe it is functionally necessary, then it makes sense to make it as efficient and humane as possible. Your implication that it is the same to kill someone painlessly as it is to torture them to death is simply wrong. We already recognize this distinction in the severity of punishments for murders, we can't suddenly pretend it doesn't matter anymore to suit some twisted purpose.
The assertion that without such inhumane tactics, the death penalty wouldn't be a deterrent at all, but with it it would be, seems completely made up and not based upon any logic or research at all. Perhaps you'd care to elaborate.
So we are basically making the state a den of criminals to combat criminals? No, I'm sorry, this does not equate to justice.
I disagree. The needle is not all we can do. Painful deaths would be more feared by criminals and would do a lot more to drop the crime rate in this country. Machiavelli said in his book, The Prince, that in order to rule a country one must be more feared than loved. To be feared does not mean the same thing as cruel when dealing with large groups of people. Instead, if we hurt individuals who have commited crimes then people will be less likely to commit crime. In India the crime for rape is to have their ***** cut off. In the last year there was only 4 rape cases. This may have been because the people feared that penalty.
I can't be bothered to dig up the specific book right now, but some 19th century writer on a similar subject said that certainty of punishment was a much better deterrent than severity of punishment, as every criminal (as every human being) believes him or herself smarter than all the rest. I'm sure he was no where near as famous, but I'm inclined to go with this man's reasoning.
In India, they just recently made it illegal to gang-rape the widow of a recently deceased husband. I'm not sure how much stock you want to put in India's justice system, either.
why ant there be certainty of punishment as well as severity? And i would appreciate it if you could sight your sorces. i took the time to sight mine, sight yours
Your citation was ****ing Machiavelli. Any Junior High student with fifteen minutes between classes could cite Machiavelli in some weak point made out of boredom and still have time left over for a game of Solitaire. You will wait for a source until I actually have time to go digging through dust-laden books.
I think the "Tag you are it!" game is childish, and therefore I refuse to participate.
Games I play.
(I'm too cheap to actually BUY the cards, so I just playtest for others.)
The average length of time between conviction and execution in Texas is now more than nine years; it's not uncommon for an inmate to live on the Row for a decade or more. I would not call that efficient. The average cost of keeping a prisoner is around $ 22,000 a year. I never said that they should be torture to death, only that their death should not be painless. The way we are carrying out the death penalty right now is to bring them into a small sterile room stick a needle into there arm open some small curtains so a few people can watch them fall peacefully asleep how is this justice? And is it actually carried out this way for the criminal or is it done this way so that people can say that it was done humanly so it is not a big deal I believe that it is done in this manner so we can tell ourselves this lie. We are taking this mans life! We should not be allowed to lie to ourselves about it the death penalty is for the living not the guy that is dead. If you sanitize how these people are killed the message is lost.
Our prison system is supposed to be about reform but the people on death row or that have been sentenced to serve life with out parole can not be reformed. because the decision has been made that there is not and never will be a place for them in society. There for prison is not where they should be.
I disagree that sanitation loses the meaning. The phrase "sentenced to death" carries the same message as "sentenced to death by electrocution;" the headlines are still the same - "Man Sentenced to Death," "Death Penalty Awarded," "___ Prison Executes Murderer." Humane treatment doesn't pull the wool over anyone's eyes, and again, the use of inhumanity is a poor way to make a statement.
The reason it costs so much and takes so much time is because we recognize that death is an absolutely final punishment from which there is no reprieve. The system is very cautious in these cases with good reason.
Any politician would be well-advised to read The Prince, just as any general should probably have a look at The Art of War. There is a place for Machiavellian principles in any government, including ours. Nevertheless, Machiavelli's work represents only one aspect of running a government. It is true that in the interests the stability of the state, people should fear the government to some extent. However, you must also account for the fact that you and I and our brothers and sisters and parents and friends all live under governments. I believe that my government should have the power to put people to death, but I don't want to push this power beyond what is absolutely necessary in the interests of everyone who is innocent.
If you don't think they should be tortured to death, but you also don't think their death should be painless, then what exactly do you think we should do about executions?
Let me bring up another point: despite what many victims' families say about closure, execution in this country is not about revenge. If you really want revenge on a man, you don't kill him, you keep him alive. If you kill him, he's beyond your reach. If you keep him alive, you can do terrible things to him that will break him. Thus, execution by the state serves only the purpose of disposing of irredeemable human beings. This brings up the issue of what right the government has to decide to dispose of people, but I will not discuss that here. Suffice it to say, because we have allowed our government this power, we should limit it as much as possible so as to minimize the risk of the government getting out of hand. Also, because this is disposal, it must be done as efficiently as possible to minimize cost. You don't burn your garbage to "teach it a lesson." You just toss it in a trash bag and leave it on the curb.
We have turned the way we apply the death penalty in to a painless way to kill them behind close doors so that we the people can feel better about doing it. It should hurt and it should be public so that it can be a deferent and it really is not a punishment it is a warning to others. And a sanitized and painless death behind close door does not send that message.