View Full Version : Save Tookie!!!!!!!
Major Robert Dump
12-13-2005, 04:42
There are no greater legal minds than hip hop artists and ganster rappers. Their intelectuality is far above that of all others. When they put down the malt liquor and stop rapping about chrome rims and pork rinds to come to the defense of a poor enteprenuer (he started a large social organization in LA, you may have heard of them) then we know its a good cause!!!!
To ignore such an outcry of redemption and clemency from the pillars of society would be unjust!!!
And they do murder Tookie in a little while, I hope those dead asians feel good about themselves for what they brought on this poor man. And 7-11 was to blame for the robbery because they never should have left their door unlocked in a black community, so they were AXING for it.
P.S.--riot, south okc 89th and penn, 3 am we're going to burn some cars and steal some televisions to protest
DemonArchangel
12-13-2005, 04:47
I think Tookie is keeping more people ALIVE than he killed.
Bad decision on California's part.
Kaiser of Arabia
12-13-2005, 04:54
Fry him, then serve him up to his gangmates.
Soulforged
12-13-2005, 05:41
It's a shame, I thought that he was released, maybe I watched the wrong movie.
Poor sense of justice.
Sasaki Kojiro
12-13-2005, 05:57
Stan "Tookie" Williams was a founding member of the LA street gang the Crips back in 1971 at the age of 17. He was convicted in the 1979 shotgun murders of 4 people - 63 year old Tsai-Shen Yang, her husband Yen-Yi Yang, 67, and daughter Ye-Chen Lin, 43, during the robbery of a motel they owned.
He was also convicted of murdering 7-11 store clerl Albert Owens, 19, during a robbery where he apparently mocked the gurgling sounds made by Owens as he lay face down on the ground dying after an execution-style shotgun blast to the back of his head.
Wow, this is a hard one to call :san_rolleyes:
Too bad Tookie didn't play football for USC or have a sister named Janet,
Clearly the man falsified the evidence and pinned this on the poor guy in an effort to undermine his legitimate business enterprises aiding the poor youth of LA.
But without Johnny Cochran he never had a chance.
Since the governor did not reject, you must inject
ichi
Gawain of Orkeny
12-13-2005, 07:08
It's a shame, I thought that he was released, maybe I watched the wrong movie.
A shame? Well no one should be executed. But theres no way this guy should ever be allowed to walk the streets again. Im sure he would be glad just to be allowed to live.
Soulforged
12-13-2005, 07:15
A shame? Well no one should be executed. But theres no way this guy should ever be allowed to walk the streets again. Im sure he would be glad just to be allowed to live.
Let me ask you a question, given that he's still an human being (and he has prooved it, whatever that's): What will you do in his possition? What will you fill? How will you like to be treated? How do you propose to treat people to make society better and no worse? By hitting them with an stick, sending them behind closed doors and saying them their lives are finished?
This is just about curiosity, because it always amuses me that the old vision of vengeance is still among us, rational beings. What purpose do you think you achive by killing or jailing someone for such a long time?
He formed the Crips? Wow, influential man. I wonder if he maintains any sway over the actions of the other Crips.
Good riddance. I am sure the lethal injection made him a better person. So he stopped his criminal career, dump me on an abandonded island and I asure you I will stop smoking.
Adrian II
12-13-2005, 10:00
Amazing - Major Robert manages to dump himself. Poking fun at someone else's death is an ugly thing to do. It is precisely the reason why the Founding Fathers did away with cruel and usual punishments that served for the distraction and amusement of the general public. Tookie used to poke fun at his dying victims, too. Ridiculing his fate from the safety of your home isn't all that different.
Amazing - Major Robert manages to dump himself. Poking fun at someone else's death is an ugly thing to do. It is precisely the reason why the Founding Fathers did away with cruel and usual punishments that served for the distraction and amusement of the general public. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the reason they did away with 'cruel and unusual' punishment was because it was cruel an unusual..... but ya know, I'm probably just grasping at straws here. :wink:
English assassin
12-13-2005, 10:24
On the subject of cruel and unusual punishment, if you are going to have a death penalty why on earth does it take you 24 years to implement it?
I am against the death penalty on principle, fast or slow, but after 24 years can you even say you are executing the same person who laughed at his dying victim?
You'd save yourselves a lot of bother if you had a law that said if the penalty wasn't implimented in, say, 5 years, it was automatically commuted. My two cents.
Adrian II
12-13-2005, 10:27
I'm probably just grasping at straws here. :wink:That's alright. Look into the history of the English Bill of Rights (1689) that they copied it from.
Pretty sure MRD and others aren't making fun of Tookie's death, but are instead pokig at the celebrities who have found it such a worthwhile cause to try to save him from the needle.
There's so many things in the world that are worthy of our attention, this cause celeb falls about halfway down my list.
and TBH, I'm not sure life in prison is better than death. Both are pretty rough, but some things rise to the level of justifying the State in terminating someone's ultimate rights.
ichi:san_smiley:
Ja'chyra
12-13-2005, 11:02
Yet another one who has front up and pay the piper, ain't it a bitch when your life catches up with you.
Samurai Waki
12-13-2005, 11:50
Had he been in texas he would've died 23 years ago.:san_laugh:
Moving on...I think it's clear that redemption is possible. The environment he was raised in led to the rise of that monster, he did terrible things out of desperation, and an attempt to rise above the rest. Killing those people, no matter the circumstance, is unforgiveable.
It is a tragedy, not because he shouldn't have been severly punished, but because he rised to meet his fate, reached out as far as he could, and held onto what he had and gained within himself as long as possible. While some people may mourn his death, or asked that he should be put in prison for the rest of his life. I think he was probably unafraid to die, he knew later on in life, that the consequences of his actions would hound him with guilt and misery until the day he died.If I was in his position, I would be prepared to face my final judgement. And if there is a god, or an afterlife... undoubtedly he will not be damned for eternity. He already made reparations. And I hope that somewhere, he will be at peace with himself for the rest of existance.
doc_bean
12-13-2005, 12:54
On the subject of cruel and unusual punishment, if you are going to have a death penalty why on earth does it take you 24 years to implement it?
I am against the death penalty on principle, fast or slow, but after 24 years can you even say you are executing the same person who laughed at his dying victim?
You'd save yourselves a lot of bother if you had a law that said if the penalty wasn't implimented in, say, 5 years, it was automatically commuted. My two cents.
Seconded :san_smiley:
Strike For The South
12-13-2005, 14:32
Had he been in texas he would've died 23 years ago.:san_laugh:
.
Thats where my sig comes into play
Taffy_is_a_Taff
12-13-2005, 14:39
I love Ron White (but not in a gay way :san_grin: )
Adrian II
12-13-2005, 14:47
Pretty sure MRD and others aren't making fun of Tookie's death, but are instead pokig at the celebrities who have found it such a worthwhile cause to try to save him from the needle.I don't know about his celeb advocates, but I imagine they aren't exactly role models themselves.
However I can understand people saying that Tookie could do more good than bad by repenting, and by making at least something of his life behind bars by helping to save others and sending the proceeds to charities. His death is not going to bring anyone back to life and it sure isn't going to stop hardened criminals from following in his footsteps. His books, on the other hand, talk to kids and their parents (mothers mostly) about ways to handle the temptation of a life of crime.
I admit that somewhere in the back of my brain, part of me wants to know what would have happened had he been pardoned after all. Would he have stopped his charity work immediately, pulled a nose at everybody? Or would he have continued like the Birdman of Alcatraz, becoming a sort of support figure for others who had completely lost control of their lives?
Taffy_is_a_Taff
12-13-2005, 14:54
well, he was caught making escape plans that involved killing law enforcement personnel.
I'm not sure when this happened though. If it was recently then you can be sure this reformed character, don't admit to crimes (multiple witnesses, testimonies from accomplices etc.) stuff was just a ruse to get him out rather than to just avoid the death penalty (he would have had a far better hope of not being executed if he'd admitted his guilt and apologised).
Adrian II
12-13-2005, 15:01
well, he was caught making escape plans that involved killing law enforcement personnel.I read somewhere that he continued giving instructions to his fellow gang members out of prison, at recently as last year, and that he maintains a huge bank account. At least that is what the prison authorities claim. Probably the long nose after all, huh? Well, you can't win em all. Still, it is no cause for celebration. And I grant that some of his defenders are complete idiots, like the Nation of Islam types. But then we already knew that.
Major Robert Dump
12-13-2005, 15:38
No, Adrian was right, I was making fun of his death. I'm a terrible person, maybe I should buy one of his books and read it to redeem myself...didn't work for Tookie's children tho, since they are in prison, too, so um nevermind I'll go read Hustler instead.
Proletariat
12-13-2005, 17:34
Can anyone sticking up for this guy explain how the f you can be redemptive and innocent at the same time?
I dislike the death penalty as much as any civilized human being, but this is the last guy I'd start my anti-capital punishment crusade with.
KafirChobee
12-13-2005, 19:06
Shame they retired the electric chair - Tookie needs to fry. He was and is a bad guy. Pity, he'll just get a lethal injection and fall asleep never to wake up again. Where as his victims were murdered watching their family members slain, screaming for their lives to be spared while Tookie ignored the pleas and gleefully slayed away.
I do oppose the death penalty on many grounds (especially when it is done even after new evidence is available, but ignored or contended to be to "late" or it is found that the prosecution with held evidence, etc), but when someone is proven to be of a total evil nature I find it hard not to want that person perminately removed from society. Tookie is such a person. His new "facade" is all but laughable - and the idea that he has changed? Well, he might first attempt some show of remorse - rather than contend he didn't do it. 70% of the cons in prison contend their innocense; our prosecutors are willing to go to any length for a conviction - but, it is hard to imagine that 70% of our prisoners are innocent (20% maybe :san_rolleyes: ).
Say good-nite, Tookie. May you burn in he77.
Taffy_is_a_Taff
12-13-2005, 19:30
Edit: insensitive to thugs
I dislike the death penalty as much as any civilized human being, but this is the last guy I'd start my anti-capital punishment crusade with.
Couldn't agree more. I don't think the death penalty is an effective use of resources. It costs too much, both in cash and American prestige. But if you're going to have state-sanctioned execution, well, Tookie seems like a prime candidate.
I admit that somewhere in the back of my brain, part of me wants to know what would have happened had he been pardoned after all. Would he have stopped his charity work immediately, pulled a nose at everybody? Or would he have continued like the Birdman of Alcatraz, becoming a sort of support figure for others who had completely lost control of their lives?
I too was wondering that. Maybe a cross between Morgan Freeman in The shawshank Redemption and Samuel L Jackson from Pulp Fiction. Or an HBO cell-com "I used to be a bad-ass gansta" with Chris Rock as his little buddy.
Oh well, the path has been chosen, now we try to fill the void
ichi
Adrian II
12-13-2005, 22:06
I too was wondering that. Maybe a cross between Morgan Freeman in The shawshank Redemption and Samuel L Jackson from Pulp Fiction. Or an HBO cell-com "I used to be a bad-ass gansta" with Chris Rock as his little buddy.
Oh well, the path has been chosen, now we try to fill the void
ichiI know, I know, it's not as if crime fascinates us in any way or form. Why would we care, after all.
AdrianII
A.Saturnus
12-13-2005, 22:20
Well, this sends a clear message to all gangsters: if you´re evil, stay evil, cause you won´t get a second chance anyway.
Sasaki Kojiro
12-13-2005, 22:50
Or perhaps: "Don't kill people because you won't get clemency"
DemonArchangel
12-13-2005, 22:58
Nah. Saturnus is right. :san_tongue:
Oh well, maybe we could have done a mock pardon on him, see what happened, and then, if he thumbed his nose at everyone, pay a guy in there with good food and cigarettes to go and shank his ass.
Goofball
12-14-2005, 00:09
I dislike the death penalty as much as any civilized human being, but this is the last guy I'd start my anti-capital punishment crusade with.
I kind of look at it from the opposite direction. I think if you are going to be against the death penalty, this is exactly the guy you should start with. His crime was brutal and bloody, and he was a very bad guy who should never be let out of prison. He was definitely a very difficult guy to have any compassion for. But you are either opposed to the death penalty or not. So if you back off and don't oppose it with this guy, you have less credibility when opposing it for a lesser case.
It's kind of like saying you're an animal rights activist but you only care about cute, furry, cuddly animals and you let all those ugly fish, rats and lobsters fend for themselves.
At any rate, I wish they hadn't executed the guy. It does nothing but bring out the barbarity and bloodthirstyness in society, as it quite evident from some of the other posts in this thread (and I don't mean yours, Prole).
Strike For The South
12-14-2005, 00:14
At any rate, I wish they hadn't executed the guy. It does nothing but bring out the barbarity and bloodthirstyness in society, as it quite evident from some of the other posts in this thread (and I don't mean yours, Prole).
And everyone thought I was coming around.......Seriously though The man shot and killed in cold blood those people did nothing to him yet they are robbed of life. This man started one of the most vicsous gangs in the USA. This man should have died 2 years after he was convicted
Proletariat
12-14-2005, 00:23
I kind of look at it from the opposite direction. I think if you are going to be against the death penalty, this is exactly the guy you should start with. His crime was brutal and bloody, and he was a very bad guy who should never be let out of prison. He was definitely a very difficult guy to have any compassion for. But you are either opposed to the death penalty or not. So if you back off and don't oppose it with this guy, you have less credibility when opposing it for a lesser case.
This is fairly obvious to anyone with a sense of principle, sure Goofball. I was only trying to say that although I'm very opposed to the death penalty, I sure don't feel sorry for this animal.
Also, what the hell is the point of clemency due to a convict's apology?
'He changed! Grant him clemency! He said sorry and wrote a book! What a sweetie!'
It's as if his sentence to death was conditional on whether or not he was remorseful. Wtf are we punishing him for? The crimes he commited or his disposition?
Kaiser of Arabia
12-14-2005, 00:24
Well, this sends a clear message to all gangsters: if you´re evil, stay evil, cause you won´t get a second chance anyway.
He did stay evil. All criminals like him do. He was nothing but a low down gang-banging SOB who murdered a family for $600. He said he was reformed, but he never even had the decency to admit about his crimes. The only regret about sending him to his death I'd have is not being able to stick the needle in his arm myself.
And even if he didn't do it, which he did, he should be executed merely for founding one of the worst gangs in American history. The man's rotting in Hell for that right now. No amount of childrens books and false apologies can absolve him of his crimes. He never changed.
Proletariat
12-14-2005, 00:30
http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/World/2005/12/13/1351396.html
Oh no, Europe's pissed.
:san_laugh:
Leaders of Austria�s pacifist Green party went as far as to call for Schwarzenegger to be stripped of his Austrian citizenship � a demand that was rejected by Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel.
�Whoever, out of political calculation, allows the death of a person rehabilitated in such an exemplary manner has rejected the basic values of Austrian society,� said Peter Pilz, a Greens leader.
In Graz, Schwarzenegger�s hometown, local Greens said they would file a petition to remove the governor�s name from the southern city�s Arnold Schwarzenegger Stadium. A Christian political group went even further, suggesting it be renamed the �Stanley Tookie Williams Stadium.�
�Mr. Williams had converted and, unlike Mr. Schwarzenegger, opposed every form of violence,� said Richard Schadauer, the chairman of the Association of Christianity and Social Democracy.
Williams was executed Tuesday morning at California�s San Quentin State Prison after Schwarzenegger denied Williams� request for clemency. Schwarzenegger suggested that Williams� supposed change of heart was not genuine because he had not shown any real remorse for killings committed by the Crips.
I hope these Austrian groups realize how little anyone over here cares what they're outraged about.
I hope the Edmonton Sun's readers realize how insignificant their voices are here.
:san_huh:
Kaiser of Arabia
12-14-2005, 00:40
Oh no, a nation with constitutional neutrality is mad, I'm shaking in my snakeskin, dead animal made, leather padded, bone tipped, baby-seal clubbed boots. (Damn greens).
Templar Knight
12-14-2005, 00:42
A Christian political group went even further, suggesting it be renamed the Stanley Tookie Williams Stadium.
bizzare ~:wacko:
Kanamori
12-14-2005, 00:49
Oh no, a nation with constitutional neutrality is mad, I'm shaking in my snakeskin, dead animal made, leather padded, bone tipped, baby-seal clubbed boots.
Ehem, that's us.:san_wink:
Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries, but on the competition of other ideas.
Our Constitution doesn't recognize some absolute "morality."
Sasaki Kojiro
12-14-2005, 00:53
A Christian political group went even further, suggesting it be renamed the Stanley Tookie Williams Stadium.
Instead of giving a free soft drink to the first 10,000 they could give a free, loaded shotgun to the first 10,000 :san_cheesy:
Taffy_is_a_Taff
12-14-2005, 00:54
:san_grin:
Goofball
12-14-2005, 01:19
This is fairly obvious to anyone with a sense of principle, sure Goofball. I was only trying to say that although I'm very opposed to the death penalty, I sure don't feel sorry for this animal.
Okay, my mistake.
Also, what the hell is the point of clemency due to a convict's apology?
'He changed! Grant him clemency! He said sorry and wrote a book! What a sweetie!'
Okay, then I guess I don't really understand the purpose of clemency in these cases, or more accurately, when it would rightly be applied.
The people arguing for clemency were arguing that he was a changed man who could do more good alive than dead. Now, whether you buy that or not in this case is another question altogether. But even if I were in favor of capital punishment, if somebody put before me a compelling case that demonstrated an inmate would actually do some good for the world if left alive, that would be a case where I would think clemency was in order.
Samurai Waki
12-14-2005, 01:39
Oh no, a nation with constitutional neutrality is mad, I'm shaking in my snakeskin, dead animal made, leather padded, bone tipped, baby-seal clubbed boots. (Damn greens).
My Sig says it all:san_grin:
Well, this sends a clear message to all gangsters: if you´re evil, stay evil, cause you won´t get a second chance anyway.Well said.
* Tongue firmly in cheek *
If you do evil acts, you must die for them. God may forgive you, if you repent, but man doesn't need to forgive you. Forgiveness is not something "man" is allowed to have. (As indicated by the level of people who support the death penalty)
We just kill them and let God decide his further fate. i.e. pass the buck up to God.
BTW: I don't believe in God, so I can't pass the buck.
Proletariat
12-14-2005, 04:08
Okay, then I guess I don't really understand the purpose of clemency in these cases, or more accurately, when it would rightly be applied.
I agree with what you're saying, but I guess I just kind of figure if you're gonna have clemency at all, it ought to be used when the evidence isn't irrefutable.
Kind of muddled thinking, but it's hard for me to understand the thinking behind state sanctioned killing, anyway.
:san_lipsrsealed:
Soulforged
12-14-2005, 04:35
Death doesn't server any purpose beyond vengeance. Even if you think it's a way to do things, then rethink it.
In this case poor little Tookie demonstrated that he was at the level of society (:san_rolleyes: ) by redempting, kissing asses and most importantly saving people, or at least trying it, many judges and politicians could learn from him, a pitty that he's no worm food. I don't know what it takes to be a redeemed in the eyes of the "saints", but I hope never to be in the hands of the state.
Just another dead more in the wake to socialization, no? Ironic that, that was exactly what the "devil" wanted.:san_lipsrsealed:
Proletariat
12-14-2005, 04:40
In this case poor little Tookie demonstrated that he was at the level of society (:san_rolleyes: ) by redempting, kissing asses and most importantly saving people, or at least trying it, many judges and politicians could learn from him, a pitty that he's no worm food.
On Sunday, Rebecca Owens - the daughter of one of Williams' victims - spoke out. She requested ABC7 not show her face on camera.
Rebecca Owens, daughter of one of Tookie's victims: "I'll never have the opportunity to say, 'Can I come over for Thanksgiving?' Or, 'I'm cooking, come over and see the kids.'"
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=local&id=3652072
Yeah, poor widdle Tookie.
Mongoose
12-14-2005, 05:01
Soulforged:
Though i'm not going to take a stance on this, i disagree when you say that it serves no purpose. You could argue that Harsher froms of punishments CAN be useful because people are more afraid of the consequences. 20 years in prison(The UK, as far as i know) With parole isn't much of a deterrent compared to the DP or even just life in jail.:san_laugh:
Taffy_is_a_Taff
12-14-2005, 05:04
Edit: wrong thread
Soulforged
12-14-2005, 05:13
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=local&id=3652072
Yeah, poor widdle Tookie.
Yeah poor little Tookie.
Though i'm not going to take a stance on this, i disagree when you say that it serves no purpose. You could argue that Harsher froms of punishments CAN be useful because people are more afraid of the consequences. 20 years in prison(The UK, as far as i know) With parole isn't much of a deterrent compared to the DP or even just life in jail.No it doesn't serves a purpose beyond prison, it's just an agregated of retributional thought.
Mongoose
12-14-2005, 05:30
well, if we can agree that the DP is worse then life in prison, then wouldn't it be a better deterrent? Though some could argue that Life in prison is worse then a quick and painless end...
Prison isn't just for keeping people off the streets; It also works as a deterrent. I'll admit that as far as just keeping them away form doing more harm, the DP isn't very useful. The purpose as i understand is to create a strong incentive to avoid commiting a certain crime.
Kaiser of Arabia
12-14-2005, 05:35
I don't think it's right that my tax dollars go to support a worthless gangbanger like Tookie. I'd rather see more of them gone and him dead.
I don't think it's right that my tax dollars go to support a worthless gangbanger like Tookie. I'd rather see more of them gone and him dead.
Kaiser, this is a fact that may not work with your worldview, but it costs more to execute someone than it does to jail him for life. again.Please process this information before you post on the subject again. (http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html)
Sasaki Kojiro
12-14-2005, 07:25
Presumably he doesn't mind his tax dollars going to execute someone like Tookie, just supporting them.
Just for emphasis, the state of Texas, which has the most underfunded public defenders in the nation, reported the following economic reality:
A 1991 study of the Texas criminal justice system estimated the cost of appealing capital murder at $2,316,655. In contrast, the cost of housing a prisoner in a Texas maximum security prison single cell for 40 years is estimated at $750,000." (Punishment and the Death Penalty, edited by Robert M. Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum 1995 p.109 )
So let's be clear here: Even when you limit appeals, pay peanuts for the defending attourney, and execute people with a minimum of legal protection, it still costs three times as much to kill them as to jail them for life.
I'm not arguing that the death penalty is wrong (although I believe it to be so), but I am saying that it's freaking expensive. And nobody should assert that a felon should be executed to save on tax dollars. Even the most cursory glance at the data will tell you it's a non-starter of an argument.
doc_bean
12-14-2005, 11:20
http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/World/2005/12/13/1351396.html
Oh no, Europe's pissed.
:san_laugh:
What, the US is the only country that can have weirdo's and freaks voice their opinions ?
I don't think the average European cares all that much, most are against the death penalty on principle, but i don't think the average Joe (or Guy or Hans) knows much about Tookie.
Ja'chyra
12-14-2005, 11:30
What, the US is the only country that can have weirdo's and freaks voice their opinions ?
I don't think the average European cares all that much, most are against the death penalty on principle, but i don't think the average Joe (or Guy or Hans) knows much about Tookie.
I suppose I qualify as average, and I couldn't give a monkeys.
"It's inhumane"
inhumane
adj : lacking and reflecting lack of pity or compassion
So? What's your point? Why should we show pity or compassion? Exactly what makes human life so precious, especially one who has shown such blatant disregard for others lives.
Adrian II
12-14-2005, 12:12
http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/World/2005/12/13/1351396.html
Oh no, Europe's pissed.
:san_laugh:
I hope these Austrian groups realize how little anyone over here cares what they're outraged about.Not all Europeans are fooled by this apparent American indifference, my lady.
We know Americans are tremendously concerned with the image they present to the rest of the world, despite all protestations to the contrary. And they are hurt by such Austrian statements, by the papal condemnation and its implicit appeal to the Christian conscience, by the fact that Europeans rank the American justice system somewhere between an Iranian sharia court and a Hollywood celeb party.
Tookie was mentioned on the evening news shows I saw (BBC, German tv, Dutch tv, Belgian tv, French tv5 News) as a brief item. People couldn' t care less what it is all about or who Tookie was. They shrug it off, thinking it is a complete circus anyway. They are glad they do not live under a system that executes innocents, children and mentally retarded people at the whim of a prejudiced jury or a governor who is up for re-election. Such is the image of the American justice system abroad, and crowds cheering or protesting Tookie's execution only reinforce that impression.
Ironside
12-14-2005, 15:43
well, if we can agree that the DP is worse then life in prison, then wouldn't it be a better deterrent? Though some could argue that Life in prison is worse then a quick and painless end...
Prison isn't just for keeping people off the streets; It also works as a deterrent. I'll admit that as far as just keeping them away form doing more harm, the DP isn't very useful. The purpose as i understand is to create a strong incentive to avoid commiting a certain crime.
The only problem with DP as a penalty for severe crimes is that:
A: He doesn't bother (crime of passion or somthing simular to a severe depression)
or B: He isn't planning on getting caught.
Catching the bad guys is a much better deterant than DP for the more severe crimes, as long as the other punishment isn't something to shrug off. DP for shoplifting would probably reduce that amount quite much for example, but who wants to live in a society with those laws?
So? What's your point? Why should we show pity or compassion? Exactly what makes human life so precious, especially one who has shown such blatant disregard for others lives.
Well roughly because then others will value your, your friends and your families lives, by an incentric value shared by every human. Why care about the lives lost by 9/11, tsunamis, hurricanes, the bombings in Madrid and London, etc, etc? I wasn't knowing anyone there.
And on the other issue. You're right, only the magnificent state can be left alive showing such blatant disregard for others lives. Not to mantion that perfect state, that never does mistakes, is driven by people, which means that a person needs to carry out those sentences, thus becoming a person with blatant disregard for others lives (well otherwise he cannot handle his job after a while). :san_grin:
The Death Penalty is not about vengeance, it's about deterrance ( I would call 'tough bluff').
Person X contemplates murder > Thinks of Death Penalty (Immediate death) > Changes mind.
Two lives life saved.
Person X contemplates murder > Thinks of Life in Prison (Natural death) > Kills.
One innocent life quenched, one saved.
How many people in here are afraid of instantaneous death?
How many people in here are afraid of natural death?
I remember in my "Are you afraid of Death?" poll, most of the .ORG members who responded were NOT afraid of natural death. How much fear can you instill in a person with a threat of life in prison? Which is a better deterrant?
The Death Penalty is not about vengeance, it's about deterrance ( I would call 'tough bluff').
Person X contemplates murder > Thinks of Death Penalty (Immediate death) > Changes mind.
Two lives life saved.
Person X contemplates murder > Thinks of Life in Prison (Natural death) > Kills.
One innocent life quenched, one saved.
How many people in here are afraid of instantaneous death?
How many people in here are afraid of natural death?
I remember in my "Are you afraid of Death?" poll, most of the .ORG members who responded were NOT afraid of natural death. How much fear can you instill in a person with a threat of life in prison? Which is a better deterrant?
at least to me imediate executions sounds a hell of a lot better than knowing that I´ll have to spend the rest of my life looking over my shoulder in some prison.
doc_bean
12-14-2005, 17:23
at least to me imediate executions sounds a hell of a lot better than knowing that I´ll have to spend the rest of my life looking over my shoulder in some prison.
+1
See, it's possible to be humane and cruel all at the same time :san_grin:
+1
See, it's possible to be humane and cruel all at the same time :san_grin:
that´s the ultimate beauty of the life prison sentence....
being strapped to a chair and electrocuted?....scary yeah...but how long can it take?...a couple of minutes tops?
being bent over in the shower by a guy named Bubba for the rest of your life......now that´s a deterrent.
at least to me imediate executions sounds a hell of a lot better than knowing that I´ll have to spend the rest of my life looking over my shoulder in some prison. Hence, are you for or against the Death Penalty?
Hence, are you for or against the Death Penalty?
I am against it.
I am against it.Ok.
But if you commited murder, you would rather die by Death Penalty rather than die in prison.
And if another person commited the murder, you would have the person die in Jail instead.
Therefore, you're arguing the Death Penalty is less cruel and less of a deterrant and at the same time, a Life Sentence is more cruel and more of a deterrant?
Lastly, the only reason then you are against the Death Penalty is because it is less of a deterrant (only because I don't believe you're against DP because it is less cruel).
Ok.
But if you commited murder, you would rather die by Death Penalty rather than die in prison.
And if another person commited the murder, you would have the person die in Jail instead.
Therefore, you're arguing the Death Penalty is less cruel and less of a deterrant and at the same time, a Life Sentence is more cruel and more of a deterrant?
Lastly, the only reason then you are against the Death Penalty is because it is less of a deterrant (only because I don't believe you're against DP because it is less cruel).
I am against the death penalty because I believe that the state does not have the moral right to kill a person that is no danger to the rest of society (since they are in prison), the fact that I consider it less cruel than life sentence doesn´t make it right do just kill people, I don´t care what they did.
A second reason is that I do believe that the death sentence is less of a deterrent.
Thirdly the life sentence situation has the distinct advantage of the possibility of it being reversed it new evidence comes to light (like it has in so many cases over the years just for the state to go "ups...we killed an inocent man")
So for certains crimes like murder lock them up and throw away the key I say........If the prisioner decides that he wants to die instead...well...I guess that preparations could be made available for some kind of suicide solution.
Kaiser of Arabia
12-14-2005, 19:41
that´s the ultimate beauty of the life prison sentence....
being strapped to a chair and electrocuted?....scary yeah...but how long can it take?...a couple of minutes tops?
being bent over in the shower by a guy named Bubba for the rest of your life......now that´s a deterrent.
Unless you ARE Bubba.
Also, we should stop using wus methods of execution and bring back drawing and quartering. Now THAT would be a deterrant. :san_laugh:
I am against the death penalty because I believe that the state does not have the moral right to kill a person that is no danger to the rest of society (since they are in prison), the fact that I consider it less cruel than life sentence doesn´t make it right do just kill people, I don´t care what they did. If you believe the state has no right to execute then you won't declare that you would rather die by death penalty than be assaulted in prison.
A second reason is that I do believe that the death sentence is less of a deterrent. I don't understand how can a death sentence be less of a deterrant since it has the element of Fear and subsequent Stress attached to it.
Thirdly the life sentence situation has the distinct advantage of the possibility of it being reversed it new evidence comes to light (like it has in so many cases over the years just for the state to go "ups...we killed an inocent man") Good point, but protecting a potential, innocent-victim outweigh protecting a convicted, but potentially-innocent victimizer.
So for certains crimes like murder lock them up and throw away the key I say........If the prisioner decides that he wants to die instead...well...I guess that preparations could be made available for some kind of suicide solution. If the murderer wanted to die in the first place (suicidal),
a) he/she would have commited suicide after the crime.
b) he/she would not allow himself/herself to be caught alive by the police.
Why is the person still alive when caught? Because that person wanted to live, (even after killing another person senselessly). That's why you use that 'will-to-live' against the person itself to deter the murder from occuring in the first place.
How can it be done? With the threat of the Death Penalty.
Adrian II
12-14-2005, 21:04
being bent over in the shower by a guy named Bubba for the rest of your life......now that´s a deterrent.
Unless you ARE Bubba.Excellent repartee! :bow:
This is so true.
Prison is considerably less of a deterrent for big bastards than it is for small ones.
Also, we should stop using wus methods of execution and bring back drawing and quartering. Now THAT would be a deterrent. :san_laugh:Right... even as a joke this game is getting lame...
Aaaanyway, we're still clear on Tchaikovsky! :san_cheesy:
A.Saturnus
12-14-2005, 23:03
He did stay evil.
Yeah, he wrote a child book. Now that´s evil!
Person X contemplates murder > Thinks of Death Penalty (Immediate death) > Changes mind.
Two lives life saved.
Interesting reasoning. Too bad it´s utterly crushed by the empiry.
Devastatin Dave
12-15-2005, 00:20
I don't believe in the death penalty, and I don't think its the right of the state to kill this man or any other incarserated individual. The death penalty is an innefficient "tool". Life in prison, hard labor is the way to go, regardless of how many childrens books you write, or how many liberals worship your murdering ass. This man never asked for forgiveness for what he did, always claimed his innocence even thought the most liberal of all the supreme courts, the 9th circuit, threw out his appeal. This man was guitly, never showed remorse, and if you look at the pictures of the victims and read the police reports you might see that this man was a POS. Not only that, how many people have been effected by the gang he founded? Everyone seems to have taken stupid pills lately and think this guy is some kind of great man because he wrote some kiddie stories? Pathetic...:san_angry:
Crazed Rabbit
12-15-2005, 01:15
by the papal condemnation
What papal condemnation?
Crazed Rabbit
Proletariat
12-15-2005, 01:23
I read an article yesterday where I believe Pope Benedict decried the death penalty, I'll try and find it again.
Edit: Here is some of it. Guess it was the Vatican. http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=30688
I read an article yesterday where I believe Pope Benedict decried the death penalty, I'll try and find it again.
Edit: Here is some of it. Guess it was the Vatican. http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=30688
"Our society should be a society which promotes life and not death," Not too much to disagree with there. :bow:
Proletariat
12-15-2005, 01:31
Not all Europeans are fooled by this apparent American indifference, my lady.
Fooled? Or arrogant enough to disbelieve?
We know Americans are tremendously concerned with the image they present to the rest of the world, despite all protestations to the contrary. And they are hurt by such Austrian statements, by the papal condemnation and its implicit appeal to the Christian conscience, by the fact that Europeans rank the American justice system somewhere between an Iranian sharia court and a Hollywood celeb party.
That's what John Kerry thought and ran his entire platform on it. Great result.
Tookie was mentioned on the evening news shows I saw (BBC, German tv, Dutch tv, Belgian tv, French tv5 News) as a brief item. People couldn' t care less what it is all about or who Tookie was. They shrug it off, thinking it is a complete circus anyway. They are glad they do not live under a system that executes innocents, children and mentally retarded people at the whim of a prejudiced jury or a governor who is up for re-election. Such is the image of the American justice system abroad, and crowds cheering or protesting Tookie's execution only reinforce that impression.
I'm one of a few that are genuinely interested in the way America is internationally percieved. Part of this is my heritage, and this interest is what brought me back to this board after I figured for a brief time that this wasn't the place for me. If I just wanted to talk politics with a bunch of American liberals and conservatives, I could just stay home.
Whatever concern the American populace has for how it is percieved by the world community, it is far disproportionate to how many opinions are offered to us. Trying to have a stadium named after a convicted murderer and gangland icon isn't exactly going to drive a droves of Americans towards thoughtful introspection on our own policies on crime.
Soulforged
12-15-2005, 04:41
Interesting reasoning. Too bad it´s utterly crushed by the empiry.And it's not a rule just a presumption, Quietus tends to believe that the human acts in the natural way, he forgets perception and interpretation.
So? What's your point? Why should we show pity or compassion? Exactly what makes human life so precious, especially one who has shown such blatant disregard for others lives.Yes that's the question that you should be asking yourself "why". Also ask it again when you're in the "Green Mile". That lack of respect for the human life in itself, not tainted by this world, or by actions, is exactly the problems that lead some people to believe that death penalty has a function at all, and that this function is more precious than the human life.
Think of this the state wants to prevent new murders, ironically it produces them in a ritual.
Now I thought that even the more pro-death penalty here could have a little sense and see that what they want to retribute is not more there. The man had learned his mistakes, has tried that wich the state should have tried and has being in jail for 24 years. From where you look it the man was already a little redempted "doggy", his spirit was as crushed as the value of human life.
I repeat my question then, for the headstrongs: What does anyone has to do to look redeemed before the eyes of the "saints"?
Sasaki Kojiro
12-15-2005, 05:04
.
I repeat my question then, for the headstrongs: What does anyone has to do to look redeemed before the eyes of the "saints"?
More than write a book.
What exactly has tookie done to redeem himself?
Soulforged
12-15-2005, 05:17
More than write a book.
What exactly has tookie done to redeem himself?
That's exactly what I'm asking for, first I want to know what the saints believe is needed to one's redemption. Not knowing the object I cannot possibly argue.
But before you answer me I shall say this. The redemption is not a social phenomenum it's a profound existencialist experience of the individual, you can only know if has redeemed himself by his actions, as he did, from inside a prison there's nothing much you can do besides writing books or studying laws.
Proletariat
12-15-2005, 05:35
But before you answer me I shall say this. The redemption is not a social phenomenum it's a profound existencialist experience of the individual, you can only know if has redeemed himself by his actions, as he did, from inside a prison there's nothing much you can do besides writing books or studying laws.
This consideration is ridiculous in Tookie's case. Redemption isn't possible to be considered in this situation since he claimed to be innocent his entire life. How can you be redeemed when you claim you have never done anything wrong?
If there is a God, which I doubt, I hope Tookie explains to his companions down there what good children's books can do for the soul and for redemption, while his eyes are being melted and his brain is poached, over and over and over.
Devastatin Dave
12-15-2005, 06:00
Redemption is met with the confession of the crime commited. He had a fair trial, appeals, and more assistance in legal matters than most in his circumstances. He was guilty but he never confessed his crime or showed any remorse for what he did. The other thing, which most a neglecting including the main stream media as well as, I'm sure, the European media, is that the was not exactly an angel during his incarceration...
http://boortz.com/nuze/200512/12132005.html
Read "When I'm wrong, I'm wrong" section. But I'm sure most here will disregard this information considering it a slur on such a fine, outstanding, liberal idol like Mr Williams.
Maybe Saddam will present some evidence that he read some bed time stories to some Kurdish children just before he gassed them, then all the left can go try to save his ass as well, as if they aren't trying to save him anyway.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-15-2005, 06:15
This consideration is ridiculous in Tookie's case. Redemption isn't possible to be considered in this situation since he claimed to be innocent his entire life. How can you be redeemed when you claim you have never done anything wrong?
If there is a God, which I doubt, I hope Tookie explains to his companions down there what good children's books can do for the soul and for redemption, while his eyes are being melted and his brain is poached, over and over and over.
Dear lady, do not let yourself be drawn into his hate. Whatever his worth, YOU are worth more than your last paragraph.
He was a demonstrated menace to society. His permanent removal from society was necessary. The conditions of his confinement may well have been too lenient - if reports of running a criminal organization from prison prove true. While the state may have the traditional right to execute, it serves only the purpose of vengeance, and cheapens us all a little thereby.
Please, for your sake, do not revel in his suffering -- however deserved.
Proletariat
12-15-2005, 06:21
Respectfully Seamus, I couldn't care less about his suffering. I was venting because I'm a bit sick of hearing about how he supposedly suffered too much.
PanzerJaeger
12-15-2005, 06:22
I am happy for the families of his victims. They finally received some level of justice.
And for those who say the death penalty is about nothing but vengeance, I say when your family is shotgunned to death simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, vengeance is an acceptable desire.
They should have executed him, and the thousands of other low class, street trash, gutter monkeys that terrorize the urban centers of this nation.
In fact, force sterilization in the ghettos would be a smart preemptive move.. impossible, but still a good idea. :san_wink:
Seamus Fermanagh
12-15-2005, 06:24
And it's not a rule just a presumption, Quietus tends to believe that the human acts in the natural way, he forgets perception and interpretation.
Yes that's the question that you should be asking yourself "why". Also ask it again when you're in the "Green Mile". That lack of respect for the human life in itself, not tainted by this world, or by actions, is exactly the problems that lead some people to believe that death penalty has a function at all, and that this function is more precious than the human life.
Think of this the state wants to prevent new murders, ironically it produces them in a ritual.
Now I thought that even the more pro-death penalty here could have a little sense and see that what they want to retribute is not more there. The man had learned his mistakes, has tried that wich the state should have tried and has being in jail for 24 years. From where you look it the man was already a little redempted "doggy", his spirit was as crushed as the value of human life.
I repeat my question then, for the headstrongs: What does anyone has to do to look redeemed before the eyes of the "saints"?
Soul'
Though I agree with you as to the death penalty, I do not concur with your larger implied context.
Your words seem to suggest that the individual is the center of all, determining what is right and wrong, acting as moved by their own spirit. This anarcho-individualist philosophy you keep propounding is inherently flawed by the very individuals you would have enact it. Our level of imperfection guarantees that we must socialize, and bind ourselves with rules to do so. If each individual were freed from the intellectual shackles of society, religion, pre-existing social convention, Victorian morality, and economic competition the result would NOT be the quasi-zen idyll you imply. Hobbes would rule, not Schweitzer, for as Milton wrote, there are those who would choose to reign in Hell before serving in Heaven.
Proletariat
12-15-2005, 06:28
And for those who say the death penalty is about nothing but vengeance, I say when your family is shotgunned to death simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, vengeance is an acceptable desire.
This I think points out why the death penatly is wrong. When it sates primarily the ones most emotionally charged over and closest to the situation, you can't say that it's justice. That 'eye for an eye' non-sense was laid to rest by Jesus Christ a long time ago.
Anyway, I'm against the death penalty 100% and always will be. I'm only irritated here because of this imbecilic notion that this man has atoned and is simultaneously innocent.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-15-2005, 06:32
Respectfully Seamus, I couldn't care less about his suffering. I was venting because I'm a bit sick of hearing about how he supposedly suffered too much.
Understood. :san_smiley:
I too find it a little hard to work up real sympathy for the man.
PanzerJaeger
12-15-2005, 06:35
How is it just to ignore those closest to the situation?
Their thoughts and emotions should and did not have any affect on his trial, as that would not be just.
Now that it has been established through both a trial and several appeals that he is in fact guilty of his crimes, giving them some sense of justice really has no bearing on whether he recieved a just trial and punishment.
Besides that, the penalty was issued by the state, not the family of the victims.
Interesting reasoning. Too bad it´s utterly crushed by the empiry. As opposed to rewarding a murderer with leniency. You're giving the wrong message to potential murderers.
Your object is to rehabilitate after the fact, but you're not thinking prior to the murder.
And it's not a rule just a presumption, Quietus tends to believe that the human acts in the natural way, he forgets perception and interpretation. What's your alternative deterrant Soulforged?
If TosaInu declares that all 'pointless polls'-starters will be banned (not that I'm against it, just an example), and make good with his word, how many members will keep making 'pointless polls'?
Unless you want to be banned, you won't make a 'pointless poll'. Make the message clear: Premeditated murder = Forfeit your life. That's the object: deterrance.
You rehabilitate a murderer at the cost of the deterrance and more innocent lives. Rehabilitation isn't a deterrance. If not, what is?
You rehabilitate a murderer at the cost of the deterrance and more innocent lives. Rehabilitation isn't a deterrance. If not, what is?
Another canard about capital punishment. The statistics do not back up the deterrence theory. According to the FBI, (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/02prelimannual.pdf) as of 2002 murder rates in the South, where capital punishment is most frequently used, increased by 2.1%. In the Northeast, where capital punishment is most rarely used, murder rates decreased by 5% in the same period. Where's the deterrence factor?
Canada abolished the death penalty in 1976. Statistics Canada reports that the number of homicides in Canada in 2001 (554) was 23% lower than the number of homicides in 1975 (721), the year before the death penalty was abolished. How does that jibe with your deterrence theory?
You want more statistics? I can get 'em. Just whistle and I'll pile them on.
Let's sum this up for a moment, and let's rely on facts, not opinions:
* It costs a minimum of three times as much to execute a criminal as it does to imprison him for life.
* There is no statistical link between the use of the death penalty and a decline in violent crime. None. Nada. Zip.
Here's the opinion part: Criminals are not thinking about long-range consequences. If they were, they would not be criminals. Robbing a bank is a silly way to make money. The average bank heist nets less than $20,000, which is less than you'd make flipping burgers for a year. To say that the threat of a death penalty ten years after the fact makes any sort of impression on a criminal mind is just silly. The sort of death penalty that would work as a deterrence would also be completely unacceptable in a civilized society -- i.e., killing them the same day they're caught.
You can't make a supportable argument for saving money with executions. You also can't make a fact-based argument about deterrence.
That leaves vengeance, and the feelings of the victims. Those are the arguments you can make, and those are the reasons we still have a death penalty.
Another canard about capital punishment. The statistics do not back up the deterrence theory. According to the FBI, (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/02prelimannual.pdf) as of 2002 murder rates in the South, where capital punishment is most frequently used, increased by 2.1%. In the Northeast, where capital punishment is most rarely used, murder rates decreased by 5% in the same period. Where's the deterrence factor?
Canada abolished the death penalty in 1976. Statistics Canada reports that the number of homicides in Canada in 2001 (554) was 23% lower than the number of homicides in 1975 (721), the year before the death penalty was abolished. How does that jibe with your deterrence theory?
You want more statistics? I can get 'em. Just whistle and I'll pile them on.
Let's sum this up for a moment, and let's rely on facts, not opinions:
* It costs a minimum of three times as much to execute a criminal as it does to imprison him for life.
* There is no statistical link between the use of the death penalty and a decline in violent crime. None. Nada. Zip.
Here's the opinion part: Criminals are not thinking about long-range consequences. If they were, they would not be criminals. Robbing a bank is a silly way to make money. The average bank heist nets less than $20,000, which is less than you'd make flipping burgers for a year. To say that the threat of a death penalty ten years after the fact makes any sort of impression on a criminal mind is just silly. The sort of death penalty that would work as a deterrence would also be completely unacceptable in a civilized society -- i.e., killing them the same day they're caught.
First, exactly how many people were eligible for death penalty? Secondly, the Death Penalty currently is slow and toothless. It's almost a Life Sentence.
I agree that Ten Years is moot. A year or two would be sufficient or as legally expedient as possible. Make laws making execution as quick as possible. Then you check your statistics. Over time, Premeditated Murder and Capital Punishment will be synonymous.
You can't make a supportable argument for saving money with executions. You also can't make a fact-based argument about deterrence.
That leaves vengeance, and the feelings of the victims. Those are the arguments you can make, and those are the reasons we still have a death penalty. If you are addressing me, I didn't make that argument.
Major Robert Dump
12-15-2005, 10:52
We should ask his victims what they think about his redemption:
EDIT by Ser Clegane: Sorry this kind of link is not acceptable here :stare:
Oh, wait, they wont answer. They are dead. My bad.
One guy at the prison gate vigil with his child (who was obviously black, as you will see from the subtle wording of his words) said something to the effect of "I brought my son here to show him that no matter how good you are, they will still destroy you (sic)" or something like that.
"they" obviously means the white folk, and "good", well, I don't know what his definition of good is, see above link for reference I guess.
I really wish the people defending this man would start a colony somewhere because I would totally move there and do a bunch of raping and killing and stuff for fun because once I was redeemed I would be good to go. In fact, if I wrote the childrens books BEFORE I committed the crime maybe I would never even have to go to jail.
A.Saturnus
12-15-2005, 18:10
As opposed to rewarding a murderer with leniency. You're giving the wrong message to potential murderers.
Your object is to rehabilitate after the fact, but you're not thinking prior to the murder.
What are you basing your argument on? Philosophy, psychology, sociology? All fields I think I can claim to have more knowledge of than you, but I´m willing to debate. But you simply claim that it is so, even though all facts say the opposite.
Believe it or not, the harshness of punishment has no effect on deterrence, only the chance to be caught.
Adrian II
12-15-2005, 18:49
That's what John Kerry thought and ran his entire platform on it. Great result. [..] Whatever concern the American populace has for how it is percieved by the world community, it is far disproportionate to how many opinions are offered to us.The many opinions gathered and communicated by American media to the American public, that is.
No other country takes so many global opinion polls to know how its image is perceived in the rest of the world. That doesn't mean that it (or its elite) will act solely upon that perception and try to improve its popularity standing at the expense of other (global or internal) issues.
You are probably right in the sense that a majority of Americans is not in the least interested to know how the rest of the world fares. But I believe they are quite interested to know what the rest of the world thinks of them. Countries where the American image appears to be at a low (France, Germany, Venezuela, Iran) usually come in for a sound bashing in the media. Particularly with regard to France, I believe there is love lost between the two of them; hence the acrimony. And if Britain one day declined to cooperate with the U.S. in further military adventures, the loss would be felt even more.
About Kerry you are right, as far as I know people voted for or against him on 'moral issues'. Global perception of the U.S. was clearly not the top election issue. That would be hard to imagine anyway.
Strike For The South
12-15-2005, 21:18
We should ask his victims what they think about his redemption:
EDIT by Ser Clegane: Sorry this kind of link is not acceptable here :stare:
Oh, wait, they wont answer. They are dead. My bad.
One guy at the prison gate vigil with his child (who was obviously black, as you will see from the subtle wording of his words) said something to the effect of "I brought my son here to show him that no matter how good you are, they will still destroy you (sic)" or something like that.
"they" obviously means the white folk, and "good", well, I don't know what his definition of good is, see above link for reference I guess.
I really wish the people defending this man would start a colony somewhere because I would totally move there and do a bunch of raping and killing and stuff for fun because once I was redeemed I would be good to go. In fact, if I wrote the childrens books BEFORE I committed the crime maybe I would never even have to go to jail.
here here:san_cool:
Soulforged
12-16-2005, 04:57
This consideration is ridiculous in Tookie's case. Redemption isn't possible to be considered in this situation since he claimed to be innocent his entire life. How can you be redeemed when you claim you have never done anything wrong?That's because you see redemption in where it cannot be seen. I look for it in actions, not in mere words.
If there is a God, which I doubt, I hope Tookie explains to his companions down there what good children's books can do for the soul and for redemption, while his eyes are being melted and his brain is poached, over and over and over.Well I think this has been corrected later in this thread, in any case is not easy to find an answer to this, hatred will always exist.
Your words seem to suggest that the individual is the center of all, determining what is right and wrong, acting as moved by their own spirit.The individual chooses nothing, it's the work of a civilized society to understand them, to judge them and to improve itself, death will not achieve anything, just another evil.
This anarcho-individualist philosophy you keep propounding is inherently flawed by the very individuals you would have enact it.There's no such thing as anarcho-individualist.
Our level of imperfection guarantees that we must socialize, and bind ourselves with rules to do so.Of course, and I think that general prevention is the key, but no need of capital punishment, maybe not even jail.
If each individual were freed from the intellectual shackles of society, religion, pre-existing social convention, Victorian morality, and economic competition the result would NOT be the quasi-zen idyll you imply.You've all the reason, however that doesn't implies that the individual doesn't suffers those shackles in reality, it's actually because they're not free that I'm saying all this, the proper way to go is always have this in consideration if we wanna improve ourselves and our society.
Hobbes would rule, not Schweitzer, for as Milton wrote, there are those who would choose to reign in Hell before serving in Heaven.Well the vission of Hobbes was flawed if you ask me, when not totally wrong.
What's your alternative deterrant Soulforged?You'll not believe it. And it depends on how you view punishment.
If TosaInu declares that all 'pointless polls'-starters will be banned (not that I'm against it, just an example), and make good with his word, how many members will keep making 'pointless polls'?Few, however that's my point.
Unless you want to be banned, you won't make a 'pointless poll'. Make the message clear: Premeditated murder = Forfeit your life. That's the object: deterrance.Death is no needed. Not all means are justified in justice, it's not like politics because it's a just social order, it should consider the value of human life in abstract, not by actions or by procedence of any kind.
You rehabilitate a murderer at the cost of the deterrance and more innocent lives. Rehabilitation isn't a deterrance. If not, what is?Rehabilitation could be a decent end, the problem is that nobody knows what that's...Again hipotesys, the justice system in favor of human dignity cannot treat him as an animal that will react always in the same way give the same circumstances, that's what you fail to see. Oh and also the murderer is an human being.
Your vission is too empiristic here, sadly the human is not that empiristic.
I'm seeing that many people still aproach the subject from the wrong point of view, the victims. The damage is done. But if that's not enough for you then consider this, crimes will still happen wheter you punish them or not (separating the death penalty wich is beyond all discussion for me), but you can choose what to do with your society, you can turn it in a circled chain of mutual vengeance or choose true justice to improve the quality of life in your neighborg, you can choose to have no compassion or to put yourself in his shoes and look how you'll react in his situation, that's the only way to judge him, not his actions wich is judged by the judge. If not even that convinces you, then well you're beyond my convertion abilities...:shrug:
It's funny to see some posts here trying to state that capital punishment is more than vengeance when earlier they stated some rant from the possition of the dead.
What are you basing your argument on? Philosophy, psychology, sociology? All fields I think I can claim to have more knowledge of than you, but I´m willing to debate. But you simply claim that it is so, even though all facts say the opposite.
It's based on Biology and Fear. If you put a person in front of a five Lions, the person won't hug or kiss the lions. The person will either fight or run because of Fear.
If a suicide bomber can blow himself up because of Fear. A person can be stopped from killing because of Fear. The problem is that Murder isn't associated with Capital punishment. It's not part of the Culture.
Whereas in Muslim culture:
Allah is ____. Answer: Great.
in Christian culture:
Jesus is our ____. Answer: Saviour/Salvation.
In Society:
Murder meant ____. Answer: nothing clear. You have to make murder mean Death Sentence so everytime a person thinks of Murder, they think of Death as well. And Death means Fear.
Believe it or not, the harshness of punishment has no effect on deterrence, only the chance to be caught. The ORG Moderators aren't deterrants? The ORG rules and Mods are deterrants.
Just look at the old ORG threads that popped up. Compare that to the backroom right now.
You'll not believe it. And it depends on how you view punishment. What's your punishment for murder?
Few, however that's my point.Fewer you mean? Would you exchange the lives of innocent saved over the lives of murderers saved?
Death is no needed. Not all means are justified in justice, it's not like politics because it's a just social order, it should consider the value of human life in abstract, not by actions or by procedence of any kind.
Rehabilitation could be a decent end, the problem is that nobody knows what that's...Again hipotesys, the justice system in favor of human dignity cannot treat him as an animal that will react always in the same way give the same circumstances, that's what you fail to see. Oh and also the murderer is an human being.
Your vission is too empiristic here, sadly the human is not that empiristic.
I'm seeing that many people still aproach the subject from the wrong point of view, the victims. The damage is done. But if that's not enough for you then consider this, crimes will still happen wheter you punish them or not (separating the death penalty wich is beyond all discussion for me), but you can choose what to do with your society, you can turn it in a circled chain of mutual vengeance or choose true justice to improve the quality of life in your neighborg, you can choose to have no compassion or to put yourself in his shoes and look how you'll react in his situation, that's the only way to judge him, not his actions wich is judged by the judge. If not even that convinces you, then well you're beyond my convertion abilities...:shrug:
It's funny to see some posts here trying to state that capital punishment is more than vengeance when earlier they stated some rant from the possition of the dead. Ok. Let me ask you a question: How do you deal with Osama Bin-Laden when caught and convicted?
Rehabilitate or Execute?
A.Saturnus
12-16-2005, 21:15
It's based on Biology and Fear. If you put a person in front of a five Lions, the person won't hug or kiss the lions. The person will either fight or run because of Fear.
Ever heard the phrase "tend or befriend"? :san_wink:
The problem isn´t that murder isn´t associated with capital punishment, but that it isn´t associated with punishment at all. What do you think Tookie thought? "Ok, I´ll kill these people for 600$. I´ll probably only go to jail for 15 years." That´s nonsense. He didn´t think at all about what might happen to him. Why? Because he wasn´t thinking rationally. Look, take smoking for example. That´s practically capital punishment. Still, people do it. And it doesn´t help telling them that it kills them. They go knowingly into their death. Not because they want to die, but because they can´t help it. Their behaviour isn´t under their rational control.
No murderer wants to go to jail, and no murderer thinks that doing murder is worth going to jail. Ergo: jail is already enough deterrence. It just doesn´t help because they aren´t contemplating punishment when doing the crime. Harsher punishment won´t change anything about that.
Soulforged
12-17-2005, 01:00
What's your punishment for murder?Currently? No more than 20 years always with parole and without reincidence.
Fewer you mean? Would you exchange the lives of innocent saved over the lives of murderers saved?
No I mean few, as few will be the number of people transpasing Tosa's rule. What is important is this: will the number be fewer if you're menaced with banning for several years or will it be fewer if it's forever?
To me there's no difference in human life, there's no differencial value. However I can answer that question... The answer is, I simply don't know, the penal system is in the same situation, you cannot make hipotesys over people, you just can punish for ACTIONS (separating them logically from the rest -wich means the authors and the victims) not for being what you're. It's true that the deterrance component, talking about special prevention (the one that refers to the subject), has a negative face of retaining the individual so he'll not do things like that again by keeping him jailed, but that could be taked as a necessary consecuence more than an intentional effect of the punishment. As I don't know the doubt is always on the side of both the suspect and the convicted. Until I can see the future I cannot give you any certain answer.
Ok. Let me ask you a question: How do you deal with Osama Bin-Laden when caught and convicted?
Rehabilitate or Execute?Could there be a third option? Like socialize, wich doesn't means rehabilitate necessarily? I would choose this. But first you want to make a trial to poor little Laden don't you? If he's guilty then and only then the actions could be added one upon each other to achieve a punishment of more than 150 years, yes it's possible and logically acceptable, however I'll still not give him more than 20 years with parole and without reincidence.
I told you that you wouldn't believe me.:san_wink:
Edit: Spelling
KafirChobee
12-17-2005, 09:43
Ever heard the phrase "tend or befriend"? :san_wink:
The problem isn´t that murder isn´t associated with capital punishment, but that it isn´t associated with punishment at all. What do you think Tookie thought? "Ok, I´ll kill these people for 600$. I´ll probably only go to jail for 15 years." That´s nonsense. He didn´t think at all about what might happen to him. Why? Because he wasn´t thinking rationally. Look, take smoking for example. That´s practically capital punishment. Still, people do it. And it doesn´t help telling them that it kills them. They go knowingly into their death. Not because they want to die, but because they can´t help it. Their behaviour isn´t under their rational control.
No murderer wants to go to jail, and no murderer thinks that doing murder is worth going to jail. Ergo: jail is already enough deterrence. It just doesn´t help because they aren´t contemplating punishment when doing the crime. Harsher punishment won´t change anything about that.
You are right. You know? 70% of those in prison are black ... 20% hispanic and 10% white - on deathrow it is even more disproportionate (to whites, plus whites are given more leeway - unless they're proven mass murderers; in which case they're allowed to stay around to provide profile information about their counterparts .... could extend their lives by years).
Thing is, with the present course of "America", we are ignoring the future Tookies in favor of cutting the programs that might deter those in his situation where he made his choice to say screw white America. We fail, because it is easier to ignore there is a problem ... versus admitting it and actually doing somethin constructive about it - other than setting up anti-gang teams.
We tend to over simplify things to their ninth degree. Ignore it 'til it becomes a problem. Take what occurred in France last month - ignore an issue long enough? And, it becomes an issue.
America has and will continue to ignore its issues of class, 'til it bites us all in the ass. That's just the way it is.
Added: BTW. I am still glad Tookie is burning in hell.
Soulforged
12-18-2005, 01:52
The better way to "deter" is to attack the source of the problem. Poberty, low health conditions, low education...and similar others are possible sources. If you ask me, if those sources are still active, then the Tookie in your jail is not only your problem and your responsability, but your creation, and as your creation you should take care of him.
Kaiser of Arabia
12-18-2005, 01:57
We know Americans are tremendously concerned with the image they present to the rest of the world, despite all protestations to the contrary. And they are hurt by such Austrian statements, by the papal condemnation and its implicit appeal to the Christian conscience, by the fact that Europeans rank the American justice system somewhere between an Iranian sharia court and a Hollywood celeb party.
Well, in order to have as low crime as it does, Europe had to legalize things that shouldn't be legal!
Kaiser of Arabia
12-18-2005, 01:58
The better way to "deter" is to attack the source of the problem. Poberty, low health conditions, low education...and similar others are possible sources. If you ask me, if those sources are still active, then the Tookie in your jail is not only your problem and your responsability, but your creation, and as your creation you should take care of him.
So, if you piss me off, and I kill you, your muder was your own creation and I shouldn't be punished? Same basic logic.
The underlying causes are: You pissed me off.
Result: I killed you.
Punishment: I get taken care of your family, because you created me.
I like your logic :san_laugh: :san_rolleyes:
Soulforged
12-18-2005, 02:01
So, if you piss me off, and I kill you, your muder was your own creation and I shouldn't be punished? Same basic logic.Piss you off is not the same as not having anything to eat. However it's not a justification, just a tip on political deterrance and on treatment of the inmates and society as a general.
The underlying causes are: You pissed me off.
Result: I killed you.
Punishment: I get taken care of your family, because you created me.Take care means that they should treat you with respect.
I like your logicI don't like yours :san_laugh: .
Piss you off is not the same as not having anything to eat. However it's not a justification, just a tip on political deterrance and on treatment of the inmates and society as a general.
Not having anything to eat is not an excuse to commit murder either.
Take care means that they should treat you with respect.
One is always treated in the manner in which they treat others. If an individual has no respect for society - then society has no respect for that individual. The society does not take care of the individual - only the individual takes care of himself and has an obligation to care for the society in which they live.
I don't like yours :san_laugh: .
You should like his - both of you are displaying the same type of logic.:san_cheesy:
Soulforged
12-18-2005, 03:02
Not having anything to eat is not an excuse to commit murder either.It's a cause evidently. However it's not an excuse.
One is always treated in the manner in which they treat others. If an individual has no respect for society - then society has no respect for that individual. The society does not take care of the individual - only the individual takes care of himself and has an obligation to care for the society in which they live.Well as I said many times I don't eat in your fountain of vengeance Red, is just a difference of opinion. I say if he treats you bad you treat him well, not to show superiority but to improve something, not just mantain the status quo.
You should like his - both of you are displaying the same type of logic.Not at all...he wants to kill the scum bag.:san_cheesy:
The Stranger
12-18-2005, 14:16
SAVE TOOKIE YEAAH>>>>I SAW HIS "movie"
...
il be watching this discussion with a bag of popcorn :D...i already fought this battle :P
It's a cause evidently. However it's not an excuse.
Its not even the cause of the crime - the decision to go steal is the cause of the crime.
Well as I said many times I don't eat in your fountain of vengeance Red, is just a difference of opinion. I say if he treats you bad you treat him well, not to show superiority but to improve something, not just mantain the status quo.
its drink not eat at the fountain :san_cheesy:
What fountain of vengence - I don'k vengence on everyone that crosses my path. Punish those who break the law -ignore all others is my motto. Other then I treat people in the exact same manner in which they treat me. WHich is mostly pleasant and helpful - all others I steer away from once they show their personality. Well except for one or two individuals on this board who its fun to poke at in the same matter in which they treat others.
Not at all...he wants to kill the scum bag.:san_cheesy:
The conclusions are different - the logic is the same. :san_kiss:
Soulforged
12-18-2005, 18:55
Its not even the cause of the crime - the decision to go steal is the cause of the crime.You begin to understand causalism he? Well yes you're right...Though that doesn't sais anything about the individual who actually thinks it's an excuse, and feels moved for that "cause".
its drink not eat at the fountainOh yes my bad...
What fountain of vengence - I don'k vengence on everyone that crosses my path. Punish those who break the law -ignore all others is my motto. Other then I treat people in the exact same manner in which they treat me. That's exactly vengeance. You killed my daughter I kill you.
WHich is mostly pleasant and helpful - all others I steer away from once they show their personality. Well except for one or two individuals on this board who its fun to poke at in the same matter in which they treat others.I don't think it's pleasant, that's because I don't like it. I've rarely treated others the same way they treat me, for good and for bad, but mostly for bad, because I think that there's no progress in that, you're just entering an endless vicious circle.
The conclusions are different - the logic is the same.
Well yes:
My logic: person commits a crime - is judged - he receives respectful treatment, better than in his life.
Capo's logic: person commits a crime (or perhaps no? :san_shocked: ) - is judged (or perhaps no? :san_shocked: ) - he's murdered.
But yours is no different I presume.
You begin to understand causalism he?
Actually I have always understood it - just wanted to point out the fallacy in you using it.
Well yes you're right...Though that doesn't sais anything about the individual who actually thinks it's an excuse, and feels moved for that "cause".
Can't have it both ways.
Oh yes my bad...
No problem.
That's exactly vengeance. You killed my daughter I kill you.
What I stated is not this.
I don't think it's pleasant, that's because I don't like it. I've rarely treated others the same way they treat me, for good and for bad, but mostly for bad, because I think that there's no progress in that, you're just entering an endless vicious circle.
Well with some I rather give them the same treatment that they give others - not very christian of me - but well I dislike bullies in real life and even on the internet.
Well yes:
My logic: person commits a crime - is judged - he receives respectful treatment, better than in his life.
Capo's logic: person commits a crime (or perhaps no? :san_shocked: ) - is judged (or perhaps no? :san_shocked: ) - he's murdered.
But yours is no different I presume.
Mine is person who is suspected of committing the crime is arrested, evidence is gathered before the arrest, a trail in front of a judge and a jury of his peers - based upon the evidence present a verdict is reached. If the individual is found guilty, they receive the punishment proscribed by the law. In case of horrendous acts of murdering innocents (which we have covered before, so I suspect you know my definition of this) then the death penality is a punishment the state can use.
Not as simple as you would like my logic to seem.
Soulforged
12-18-2005, 22:22
Actually I have always understood it - just wanted to point out the fallacy in you using it.Well then forgive me, I took my conclussions out of that drugs discussion.:san_grin:
Can't have it both ways.Yes I can, one is an objective measure other is subjective.
What I stated is not this.Perhaps I misinterpreted this little quote:san_huh: : "Other then I treat people in the exact same manner in which they treat me."
Well with some I rather give them the same treatment that they give others - not very christian of me - but well I dislike bullies in real life and even on the internet.Are you threatening me? :san_angry: :san_grin:
Mine is person who is suspected of committing the crime is arrested, evidence is gathered before the arrest, a trail in front of a judge and a jury of his peers - based upon the evidence present a verdict is reached. If the individual is found guilty, they receive the punishment proscribed by the law. In case of horrendous acts of murdering innocents (which we have covered before, so I suspect you know my definition of this) then the death penality is a punishment the state can use.
Not as simple as you would like my logic to seem.
It's the same logic, you just made it more detailed.
solypsist
12-20-2005, 10:02
http://www.zombietime.com/tookie/
the narrator's comments get a little too smug, but it's still interesting.
Ever heard the phrase "tend or befriend"? :san_wink:
The problem isn´t that murder isn´t associated with capital punishment, but that it isn´t associated with punishment at all. What do you think Tookie thought? "Ok, I´ll kill these people for 600$. I´ll probably only go to jail for 15 years." That´s nonsense. He didn´t think at all about what might happen to him. Why? Because he wasn´t thinking rationally. Look, take smoking for example. That´s practically capital punishment. Still, people do it. And it doesn´t help telling them that it kills them. They go knowingly into their death. Not because they want to die, but because they can´t help it. Their behaviour isn´t under their rational control. Smoking is addictive, but murder is not necessarily addictive (but it's not impossible). That's why Murder must be associated with Capital Punishment. Make it part of the Culture. Most of the people who think of Christmas think of gifts because it is part of the Culture. You have to make Capital Punishment part of the culture.
No murderer wants to go to jail, and no murderer thinks that doing murder is worth going to jail. Ergo: jail is already enough deterrence. It just doesn´t help because they aren´t contemplating punishment when doing the crime. Harsher punishment won´t change anything about that.
First of all, I'm for the death penalty for premeditated murder only. Hence, the crime must be contemplated first. And that contemplation period would make the person think of Capital Punishment.
Secondly, everything in society is an experiment. Democracy, Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, Feudalism, Caste System, Religion, Racism, Sexism, Marriage, Christmas, Napster, .ORG Forum, War, Terrorism, Picnic & Potluck, Advertisements, Free Trade, Parades etc. etc. You name it. All these are experiments.
Why?
Because Humans have no other function but to Survive and Reproduce.
(Unless you wish to embellish. Kindness, Humility and Pacifism are experiments. Your Humanism is your experiment).
WWII was Hitler's experiment
Appeasement was Chamberlain's experiment.
911 was Osama's experiment.
Bush's Afghan and Iraq responses are experiments.
The US is a 230-year old experiment. The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, The three branches, the Separation of powers and the Law are all experiments. The whole idea of nation-states experiment itself will end if it is replaced by a world government.
The UN, EU, NATO, Peace treaties and Capital Punishment are all experiments. You can't simulate them.
You have to implement them to prove their use. The idea that you can't use it because you can't prove it, while you can't prove it until you can use it is a Catch-22.
Currently? No more than 20 years always with parole and without reincidence. So a person can kill for every 20 years?
No I mean few, as few will be the number of people transpasing Tosa's rule. What is important is this: will the number be fewer if you're menaced with banning for several years or will it be fewer if it's forever? Banning would be the death penalty. Warnings would be the prison sentence (limited rights, but you're still alive).
To me there's no difference in human life, there's no differencial value. However I can answer that question... The answer is, I simply don't know, the penal system is in the same situation, you cannot make hipotesys over people, you just can punish for ACTIONS (separating them logically from the rest -wich means the authors and the victims) not for being what you're. It's true that the deterrance component, talking about special prevention (the one that refers to the subject), has a negative face of retaining the individual so he'll not do things like that again by keeping him jailed, but that could be taked as a necessary consecuence more than an intentional effect of the punishment. As I don't know the doubt is always on the side of both the suspect and the convicted. Until I can see the future I cannot give you any certain answer. There's a difference between a murderer and innocent person.
Could there be a third option? Like socialize, wich doesn't means rehabilitate necessarily? I would choose this. But first you want to make a trial to poor little Laden don't you? Yeah, I said if Bin Laden was convicted.
If he's guilty then and only then the actions could be added one upon each other to achieve a punishment of more than 150 years, yes it's possible and logically acceptable, however I'll still not give him more than 20 years with parole and without reincidence.
Free Bin Laden in 20 years and give him the capability to terrorize again? :san_lipsrsealed: That's the perfect sleeper cell for any terrorist!
I told you that you wouldn't believe me.:san_wink: Well, I believe, you believe what you're saying :san_cheesy:
Soulforged
12-22-2005, 05:54
So a person can kill for every 20 years?:san_rolleyes: You asked for it...The person is not an animal, you cannot make hipotesys on what he's gonna do next. Also I said this a million times the court rules on ACTIONS, not in PERSONS.
Banning would be the death penalty. Warnings would be the prison sentence (limited rights, but you're still alive).Not at all, a warning doesn't takes your freedom away for a period of time, banning does. So the analogy must tend that way.
There's a difference between a murderer and innocent person.There's none. And you're talking about culture above...Well if you want to make a culture of hate and separation, this idea of the worth of life will end handicaping the very value of life that you wish to protect.
Free Bin Laden in 20 years and give him the capability to terrorize again? :san_lipsrsealed: That's the perfect sleeper cell for any terrorist!No it isn't. You're again assuming that he'll do it again. Wheter this is real or not doesn't serves a deterrance purpose. Also twenty years are more than enough to loose your spirit or be killed in jail, that's what I think that an alternative has to be found...But of course no one will follow my idea. Treating him better is just an idea, it will not serve in the real world because this people living in the worst conditions will only commit a crime to recieve better treatment. But this better treatment is a responsability of the state towards all of us.
Well, I believe, you believe what you're sayingThis was a question? In any case the answer is yes, if not I'll not write it down. :san_cheesy:
:san_rolleyes: You asked for it...The person is not an animal The person is an animal. All of us are animals.
you cannot make hipotesys on what he's gonna do next. Also I said this a million times the court rules on ACTIONS, not in PERSONS.
But you know what a person is capable of (i.e. killing people). A person who kills a million people with a nuclear bomb is capable of killing another million people again.
Not at all, a warning doesn't takes your freedom away for a period of time, banning does. So the analogy must tend that way. You still breathe, eat, drink, sleep, poop in prison, but you're confined to an area. Warnings take away your freedom to edit, add signature and even the frequency of your posts.
You're dead, you can't do anything else. You're banned you can't do anything either (unless you're ShambleS :san_tongue: ; hey, it's not a perfect analogy).
There's none. And you're talking about culture above...Well if you want to make a culture of hate and separation, this idea of the worth of life will end handicaping the very value of life that you wish to protect. I wish to protect the lives of innocent people first, not the other way around.
No it isn't. You're again assuming that he'll do it again. Wheter this is real or not doesn't serves a deterrance purpose. Also twenty years are more than enough to loose your spirit or be killed in jail, that's what I think that an alternative has to be found...But of course no one will follow my idea. If the person is capable of course the person can do it again. Basically, you're willing to risk the lives of anyone.
Treating him better is just an idea, it will not serve in the real world because this people living in the worst conditions will only commit a crime to recieve better treatment. But this better treatment is a responsability of the state towards all of us. Your idea of prison is not a punishment, but a reward. You're encouraging more crimes. :san_huh:
This was a question? In any case the answer is yes, if not I'll not write it down. :san_cheesy: It's not a question. It means you didn't surprised me. Although, I still don't get your reasoning.
Soulforged
12-24-2005, 02:44
The person is an animal. All of us are animals.Ok Quietus...
But you know what a person is capable of (i.e. killing people). A person who kills a million people with a nuclear bomb is capable of killing another million people again.Of course, but you don't know at the moment of enprisonment, and you judge actions.
You still breathe, eat, drink, sleep, poop in prison, but you're confined to an area. Warnings take away your freedom to edit, add signature and even the frequency of your posts Ok have it your way...Irrelevant subject at the best.
I wish to protect the lives of innocent people first, not the other way around. Of course but what's your problem with a person that has been 20 years in prison then?:san_huh:. You've to be very careful with the concept of innocent though...
If the person is capable of course the person can do it again. Basically, you're willing to risk the lives of anyone.I'm willing to risk my life, other people's lives and specially your life (:san_wink: ) for freedom. If you cage the category of person in an empiristic construction analizing what IT can do or not given a certain cause, then IT'S personality has already been lost, but more important IT'S dignity. The problem with all social sciences is exactly that the person.
Your idea of prison is not a punishment, but a reward. You're encouraging more crimes.I already said that it was flawed didn't I? That's what I would like, but it isn't realistic.
It's not a question. It means you didn't surprised me. Although, I still don't get your reasoning.My reasoning is social reasoning, it has to do with "Breaking the vicious circle".
ICantSpellDawg
12-27-2005, 18:04
let him burn
solypsist
12-27-2005, 23:21
he's already dead.
let him burn
Louis VI the Fat
12-28-2005, 00:46
Let him burn in hell then
Adrian II
12-28-2005, 08:36
Let him burn in hell thenFunny how Christians often enlist the Devil's services.
:winkg:
Ok Quietus... Ok.
Of course, but you don't know at the moment of enprisonment, and you judge actions. The punishment depends on the crime of course. On harsher crimes you do not give second opportunities.
Ok have it your way...Irrelevant subject at the best. Ok.
Of course but what's your problem with a person that has been 20 years in prison then?:san_huh:. Depending on the gravity of the crime, of course. To answer your question: repeat offenders.
You've to be very careful with the concept of innocent though... If you meant two criminals aiming on killing each other you're correct, both aren't exactly innocent. I'm speaking of innocent bystanders and other relatedly innocent ones.
I'm willing to risk my life, other people's lives and specially your life (:san_wink: ) for freedom Especially? (LOL, surely you do not hate me :embarassedg: ). (Also, your concept of Freedom is Anarchy). There's no true Democracy in the world. The United States still bide by representation for example. Because if you give all the power to the masses, you'd get 'mob rule'.
If you cage the category of person in an empiristic construction analizing what IT can do or not given a certain cause, then IT'S personality has already been lost, but more important IT'S dignity. The problem with all social sciences is exactly that the person.
"If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't." If you are so trusting, would you let a recently released, convicted serial-killer and serial-rapist to babysit, your young son/daughter, your young niece/nephew or your young sister/brother?
Think about your answer carefully.
I already said that it was flawed didn't I? That's what I would like, but it isn't realistic. I agree it is unrealistic. Unless you become a dictator, I don't see it being implemented in a modern democratic society.
My reasoning is social reasoning, it has to do with "Breaking the vicious circle". That's a bad analogy:questiong:. Criminals don't kill because there's a death penalty rule.
A 'vicious cycle' would be the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That's the more apt comparison.
Perhaps this thread title should be edited now that it has become vastly obsolete.
Soulforged
12-29-2005, 00:52
Perhaps this thread title should be edited now that it has become vastly obsolete.
The thread should always be named "Kill the ******* bastard Tookie"...For the opinions posted I mean...
The punishment depends on the crime of course. On harsher crimes you do not give second opportunities.Then there's no purpose in your justice beyond vengeance, but of course you'll argue that it has a general preventive effect, wich is true but no more than any punishment, and not all means are justified in justice.
Depending on the gravity of the crime, of course. To answer your question: repeat offenders.Ok. But then you're repeating your previous mistake. The repeated offender is not an object of the present reality.
If you meant two criminals aiming on killing each other you're correct, both aren't exactly innocent. I'm speaking of innocent bystanders and other relatedly innocent ones.So in the case that the two man killing each other are "criminals" you're ok if one kills the other?
They're both humans, and I try not to call them criminals because I don't want men banned by the actions wich might be wrongly motivated.
Especially? (LOL, surely you do not hate me ). It was a joke...I think:winkg: (something to bring down the potencial fire on this discussion)
(Also, your concept of Freedom is Anarchy).You're begining to understand me...Is there other?
There's no true Democracy in the world.Exactly, though this has nothing to do with the discussion.
The United States still bide by representation for example. Because if you give all the power to the masses, you'd get 'mob rule'.Exactly again, thus getting public linchings and persons trying to push their facist views surged from ignorance into the ruling of society. But lets keep this on subject please.
If you are so trusting, would you let a recently released, convicted serial-killer and serial-rapist to babysit, your young son/daughter, your young niece/nephew or your young sister/brother?
Think about your answer carefully.That question is suggestive...But well: The answer is NO, but that doesn't mean that I'll not want him living in my neighborg or that the justice system has to nullify him just for that. The justice rules on actions, I can judge peoples if I want to, after all it's my desicion to allow him as a babysitter.
Criminals don't kill because there's a death penalty rule.No. The state using death means for whatever has other issues. What I meant was using vengeance to punish "criminals", if later there's another vengeance against that? It's possible but not relevant to my point.
The thread should always be named "Kill the ******* bastard Tookie"...For the opinions posted I mean...
Then there's no purpose in your justice beyond vengeance, but of course you'll argue that it has a general preventive effect, wich is true but no more than any punishment, and not all means are justified in justice.
Ok. But then you're repeating your previous mistake. The repeated offender is not an object of the present reality.
So in the case that the two man killing each other are "criminals" you're ok if one kills the other?
They're both humans, and I try not to call them criminals because I don't want men banned by the actions wich might be wrongly motivated.
It was a joke...I think:winkg: (something to bring down the potencial fire on this discussion)You're begining to understand me...Is there other? Exactly, though this has nothing to do with the discussion. Exactly again, thus getting public linchings and persons trying to push their facist views surged from ignorance into the ruling of society. But lets keep this on subject please.
That question is suggestive...But well: The answer is NO, but that doesn't mean that I'll not want him living in my neighborg or that the justice system has to nullify him just for that. The justice rules on actions, I can judge peoples if I want to, after all it's my desicion to allow him as a babysitter.
No. The state using death means for whatever has other issues. What I meant was using vengeance to punish "criminals", if later there's another vengeance against that? It's possible but not relevant to my point.
Dude, let's talk about this later. Gawain's brother was murdered (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=1018841#post1018841). It's a bit insensitive to continue talking about murder.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.