You can never get even.

[FUNKbrs]

You never can. If someone kicks your ass, and you kick theirs back, or they go to jail for assault YOU STILL GOT YOUR ASS KICKED. There's no going back, no way to make things right again.

My point is this: there's no such thing as justice, or retribution. Revenge is a fancy word for a pissing contest. The truth is that shit happens, and we all need to just get over it. Even really big shit, like 9-11.

This is why I'm for the death penalty. You can't ever punish someone into being a good person. You can only find someone with no chance to ever reform, and stop them from ever hurting anyone else again.

I look forward to the massive amounts of posts disagreeing with this, and I apologize in advance for the EMOness of this post. I'm in a funny mood.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 12/7/04 08:55 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: This is why I'm for the death penalty. You can't ever punish someone into being a good person. You can only find someone with no chance to ever reform, and stop them from ever hurting anyone else again.

You're right. Let's kill all the terrorists.

[SpecialK13]

At 12/7/04 08:55 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

This is why I'm for the death penalty. You can't ever punish someone into being a good person. You can only find someone with no chance to ever reform, and stop them from ever hurting anyone else again.

I agree with you on that, 100%

[BeFell]

It makes sense, punishment serves no real purpose because the deed has already been done but preventing somebody from doing it again is logical.

[FUNKbrs]

In logic class I was given the argument the example of the fallacy of limited options, in the form of "You are either for the death penalty, or you are for allowing criminals to walk the streets". The fallacy is that you only have two options. The truth is that you could just cut the fuckers legs off. Let's see them walk the streets with no fucking legs.

But that's my point here. There's nothing cruel and unusual about cutting a serial rapist's dick off. They do it all the time in the Middle East, albeit before they cut his fucking head off.

Sorry, again, I'm in a fucked up mood. That was a little tangent, but apparently my answer to the argument scarred my Logic teacher for life.

[Thanatopsis]

my only objection to the death penalty is that there is alway thoughs wrongly convicted. Due to this we would kill people who do not diserve the death penalty and generaly its not one or two people a year but a far higher number. If we can get the wrongly convicted down to a nearly none existant level then i would be for it.

[Z17]

Wouldn't throwing them in prison for life prevent them from hurting anyone else again?

~Z~

[BeFell]

At 12/7/04 09:08 PM, Z17 wrote: Wouldn't throwing them in prison for life prevent them from hurting anyone else again?

People are killed in prison all the time.

[AntiangelicAngel]

I read this shit and I laugh. As you put it, if someone kicks your ass and goes to jail, they still kicked your ass. So if they kill your mom, and they get the death penalty, your mom isn't dead anymore? What is the point of the death penalty. I think the issue should have come up during the election. I laughed at the fact that all the 'moral issues' were those that favored the Republicans, but never was the death penalty, almsgiving, or stewardship mentioned. But time for serious numbers: Life without parole costs 900,000 dollars. The death penalty runs 2.5 million.

[FUNKbrs]

At 12/7/04 09:08 PM, Z17 wrote: Wouldn't throwing them in prison for life prevent them from hurting anyone else again?

~Z~

How would that sto them from hurting their fellow prisoners? Just because you're a criminal doesn't mean you deserve to catch a shiv in the back for not giving your asshole up to some AIDS infected lifer, is it?

The point of prison is supposed to be a place where criminals can become non-criminals, not a place where they can learn how to hurt other people better.

Besides, do you really call locking a man in a 10 foot by 4 foot cell for the rest of his life living? Best to kill him, than to let him be a drain on society. Pain can't repay his debt to society, only work can do that. If a man isn't willing or is mentally incapable of repaying that debt, it is only mercy to kill him before his ignorance can hurt society any more.

[FUNKbrs]

At 12/7/04 09:12 PM, AntiangelicAngel wrote: Life without parole costs 900,000 dollars. The death penalty runs 2.5 million.

That's strange. A hemp rope only costs 1.25 USD, and you can reuse it. Or are you talking about our current system of decades of imprisonment, countless appeals, and the desparate violence of a man who only wishes to have it all over with?

Mercy is not allowing a condemned man to suffer his impending doom anymore than he has to.

[Z17]

At 12/7/04 09:13 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: How would that sto them from hurting their fellow prisoners? Just because you're a criminal doesn't mean you deserve to catch a shiv in the back for not giving your asshole up to some AIDS infected lifer, is it?

Prisons have guards. If they "hurt" fellow prisoners, they'll do something about it, obviously.

Besides, do you really call locking a man in a 10 foot by 4 foot cell for the rest of his life living? Best to kill him, than to let him be a drain on society. Pain can't repay his debt to society, only work can do that. If a man isn't willing or is mentally incapable of repaying that debt, it is only mercy to kill him before his ignorance can hurt society any more.

So you're concerned about the living conditions of someone you want to kill? Isn't that a smidge ironic?

~Z~

[zeppelin-man]

remember the ten comandments?
Thou shall not kill?Let them rot in prison. And you have a weird askew way of looking at things (im talking to the person who created this post). And all these people who are augusted by this callous wastrel, i feel compunction for your ways.

[Ravens-Grin]

FUNKBrs, I think the punishment is not only to punish the guilty, but also to deter people from committing a crime. Believe it or not, the thought of possibly going to jail deters people from committing a crime!

[FUNKbrs]

At 12/7/04 09:29 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: FUNKBrs, I think the punishment is not only to punish the guilty, but also to deter people from committing a crime. Believe it or not, the thought of possibly going to jail deters people from committing a crime!

*tokes bowl*

Really? That's funny, I kind of figured people would do whatever they could get away with that they wanted to do.

Sodomy was illegal for a long time, but that never stopped anyone from having ass-sex, did it?

I know plenty of people who have no fear of being housed and fed threed square meals a day in a nice clean cell. That's certainly no punishment for the homeless or the starving. In fact, it's an incentive.

Steal a car: get money for food, and a place to stay.

Get caught stealing a car: get food and a place to stay.

That's not much of a deterrent now, is it?

[Z17]

At 12/7/04 09:39 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Steal a car: get money for food, and a place to stay.

Get caught stealing a car: get food and a place to stay.

That's not much of a deterrent now, is it?

Meh, that does happen occassionaly. But do you really think a homeless person would do something that will get him the death penalty or a life sentence so he can get some food?

~Z~

[bcdemon]

Actually Funk

*smokes bigger bowl than funk owns*

I believe punishments do deter others from committing crimes. If it were as simple as food and a place to stay, then you would see bums lined up at Sears just to shoplift for a warm bed. And to be honest, I heard of a story, 1 story from Edmonton when it was -30 some homeless dood broke into a store in the middle of the night just to get to jail, for the warm bed. Now why doesnt this sort of thing happen all the time? Because, people dont want to go to jail. We put animals in jails, and humans dont want to be thought of in the same light.

*exhales*

[BigDRanch]

At 12/7/04 09:16 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

At 12/7/04 09:12 PM, AntiangelicAngel wrote:

That's strange. A hemp rope only costs 1.25 USD, and you can reuse it.

In idaho hanging is still a legal way of execution. come to think of it so is the firing squad.

[ursamajour]

Crime is caused by stressors. For instance, most (properly socialised) people won't ordinarily steal. However, with the proper stressors applied (all money gone, family to feed, etc) even the most moral person will steal. It's the same with murder. A truly sane person would kill for only one reason: protection, either of himself or another. Every other reason to kill reflects a differing disconnect with sane thought.

The point of a justice system is to correct "anti-social" behaviour so that the offender can return to a productive role in society. Deterrence is irrelevant, because it only works on the properly socialised and only to the extent that enough stress hasn't been applied to overcome the deterrent. With murderers, the focus should be on determining two things: the likelihood of the person re-offending and the likelihood that the mental disconnect that caused the offense can be corrected.

For instance, a guy who snaps after finding his wife with another man and kills them is less likely to re-offend than a guy who gets "an itch" to kill every woman he sees with blonde hair and horn-rimmed glasses. This automatically makes the former a better candidate for eventual release. The former will also likely respond a lot better to treatment to help him deal with the mental issues that led to his crime and which--presumably--would lead him to re-offend. The latter offender has a problem that current psychology doesn't know how to effectively treat.

So, we are left with two options for offender #2. We either leave him locked up for the rest of his life or we execute him. In my opinion, the former is more inhumane than the latter, so we should execute such offenders--in as humane a way as possible--until such time as an effective treatment for their form of insanity is found.

[Ravens-Grin]

usamajour, please repeat after me. WELFARE. Ok, let's say it together now. W-E-L-F-A-R-E.

[ursamajour]

At 12/7/04 10:01 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: usamajour, please repeat after me. WELFARE. Ok, let's say it together now. W-E-L-F-A-R-E.

Don't make me come over there. ;)

But, seriously, it's sometimes a lot harder to get than you'd think. Your point is taken, though. There are sometimes options people don't--or even won't--consider.

[FUNKbrs]

At 12/7/04 10:01 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: usamajour, please repeat after me. WELFARE. Ok, let's say it together now. W-E-L-F-A-R-E.

I fail to see how welfare affects his argument, considering he's describing crime as a form of insanity, which I think is fairly accurate.

The problem with this view is that in order to prevent crime, we have to have some way of checking to see if people have been "properly socialized" BEFORE they commit a crime.

My solution: mandatory brainwashing.....ooops.... I meant public education. Wait, wait.... aren't those the same thing?

Yes, yes they are. And in fact, brainwashing and population homogenization are actually ways of ensuring a classless and prejudiceless society. Sadly, just about everyone is to some extent a criminal, and thus we call this ability to commit and get away with crimes "freedom", and see it as a virtue, as opposed to seeing it for what it truly is.

To some extent this means we all have to agree upon a certain level of corruptness, which by definition puts the shaft to anyone more "sane" that this acceptable level of insanity.

Frankly, we have to keep people from having too much fun, and thinking thoughts outside of what is considered "normal".

My current level of acceptable insanity is any act that has a clear and apparent victim. Needless to say, this is quite a bit laxer than what our Government has decided for us.....

Funny how the Government is supposed to represent the people, but yet it's practical purpose is to in fact tell us what we should represent.........

[Ravens-Grin]

At 12/7/04 10:16 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: I fail to see how welfare affects his argument, considering he's describing crime as a form of insanity, which I think is fairly accurate.

However, with the proper stressors applied (all money gone, family to feed, etc) even the most moral person will steal.

[BigDRanch]

At 12/7/04 10:26 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote:

However, with the proper stressors applied (all money gone, family to feed, etc) even the most moral person will steal.

and just where did you get that from. i think that is a load of crap, there are plenty of people out htere who will not resort to criminal acts. myself included.

[Ravens-Grin]

At 12/7/04 11:16 PM, BigDRanch wrote:

At 12/7/04 10:26 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote:

However, with the proper stressors applied (all money gone, family to feed, etc) even the most moral person will steal.

and just where did you get that from. i think that is a load of crap, there are plenty of people out htere who will not resort to criminal acts. myself included.

BigDRanch, you're new here so I'll cut you some slack. I basically quote to what the person said. Read the entire topic before going to the last comment because half of the time what you are going to argue about is already argued. This time on the other hand, you would've realized I was just quoting someone.

[The-Darklands]

At 12/7/04 08:55 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: This is why I'm for the death penalty. You can't ever punish someone into being a good person. You can only find someone with no chance to ever reform, and stop them from ever hurting anyone else again.

yeah like life in prison as well. Then you arent immorally using retributive justice!

[The-Darklands]

At 12/7/04 11:16 PM, BigDRanch wrote:

and just where did you get that from. i think that is a load of crap, there are plenty of people out htere who will not resort to criminal acts. myself included.

so if you had a wife and kid that were starving you wouldnt steal bread if there was no other option? It just takes the right stressor for the person.

[BigDRanch]

At 12/7/04 11:41 PM, The_Darklands wrote:

so if you had a wife and kid that were starving you wouldnt steal bread if there was no other option? It just takes the right stressor for the person.

No i would not. what good would i be to my family if i was thrown in jail for stealing. there are better ways and people out there who are willing to help.

[The-Darklands]

At 12/7/04 11:50 PM, BigDRanch wrote:
No i would not. what good would i be to my family if i was thrown in jail for stealing. there are better ways and people out there who are willing to help.

you dont seem to comprehend the situation, im talking about having no options to not have them starve but to steal. (this is how some feel, they cant adequately provide without theft or drug dealing, etc.) Im sorry but if you let your family starve id call you immoral :)

[ursamajour]

At 12/7/04 11:50 PM, BigDRanch wrote:

At 12/7/04 11:41 PM, The_Darklands wrote:

so if you had a wife and kid that were starving you wouldnt steal bread if there was no other option? It just takes the right stressor for the person.

No i would not. what good would i be to my family if i was thrown in jail for stealing. there are better ways and people out there who are willing to help.

Well, I'm going to get personal again. I have been in a situation where I was out of money, couldn't get a job, and didn't know what I was going to do. A lot of people don't seem to realise that public assistance takes a lot of time to get, assuming you even qualify. Young, single males tend to have a rough time of it. I got sick; I even got scurvy. I eventually broke down and stole food from a local grocery store. I hated myself for doing it but it kept me alive. Finally I was able to find a sympathetic soul who helped me as much as she could.

BigD, I am glad you have never had to find out where your morals' breaking point was. Hopefully, you never will. But don't try and pretend you have no breaking point. We all do.