Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/7/07 03:10 PM, Elfer wrote:

What benefit to society is there in locking him up?

That's not the point, and you should know that.

At 4/7/07 03:47 PM, JakeHero wrote: If it were me, I'd still punish him. I believe the penal system is in place for two purposes: to rehibilitate, and to punish criminals for their crimes.

But is retribution alone justification enough for punishment? If so, why?

At 4/7/07 04:12 PM, Elfer wrote:

But is retribution alone justification enough for punishment? If so, why?

To sate our vindictive thirst for vengeance.

At 4/7/07 04:12 PM, Elfer wrote:

But is retribution alone justification enough for punishment? If so, why?

Because you would then get an infinite cycle of people who will do something wrong. They will claim and possibley even prove they will never do it again so they'll get off. Everyone will get 1 ticket of being jail free.

At 4/7/07 04:43 PM, Memorize wrote: Because you would then get an infinite cycle of people who will do something wrong. They will claim and possibley even prove they will never do it again so they'll get off. Everyone will get 1 ticket of being jail free.

This was covered in the third post, but thanks for reading the topic.

At 4/7/07 05:23 PM, Elfer wrote:

This was covered in the third post, but thanks for reading the topic.

Then why did you ask me the question? What? Forget to read?

At 4/7/07 06:24 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/7/07 05:23 PM, Elfer wrote:

This was covered in the third post, but thanks for reading the topic.

Then why did you ask me the question? What? Forget to read?

No, see, you forgot to read. If you went back to look at the post now, you'd realize what I was talking about.

At 4/7/07 06:26 PM, Elfer wrote:

No, see, you forgot to read. If you went back to look at the post now, you'd realize what I was talking about.

And yet you still asked me the question anyway. Why?

At 4/7/07 06:28 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/7/07 06:26 PM, Elfer wrote:

No, see, you forgot to read. If you went back to look at the post now, you'd realize what I was talking about.

And yet you still asked me the question anyway. Why?

You said "Of course he should be locked up, justice justice justice."
I asked "What benefit is there to society if he's locked up?"
Now see, the implicit question there is "If there's no benefit to society, why send him to jail?"
You answered with "To set a precedent," which doesn't make sense if you read the topic.

I'm basically trying to figure out your motivation on why you want to send him to jail on a basic level, i.e. what good you think it will do.

At 4/7/07 04:12 PM, Elfer wrote: But is retribution alone justification enough for punishment? If so, why?

As I said at the end of my post, no good deed goes unpunished. You do the crime, you'll do the time. It's my belief of balancing things out.

At 4/7/07 07:07 PM, JakeHero wrote:

At 4/7/07 04:12 PM, Elfer wrote: But is retribution alone justification enough for punishment? If so, why?

As I said at the end of my post, no good deed goes unpunished. You do the crime, you'll do the time. It's my belief of balancing things out.

Right, but how does it balance anything out if it's just going to harm the guy and keep a productive member of society out of circulation?

At 4/7/07 07:14 PM, Elfer wrote: Right, but how does it balance anything out if it's just going to harm the guy and keep a productive member of society out of circulation?

1 + 1 = 2(three if you're good with algebra). If you murder someone, you can expect you will be killed in return. Just as if you steal, you can expect you will have to reimburst the person you stole from the item's value.

the criminal system is just as much punishment as it is rehabilitation.

for some minor things, I can see the idea of just rehabilitating the person and letting him try again, like, petty theft, or robbery. but murder is far from simple, you just killed a person, that person is no longer alive and cannot contribute to society anymore. He will never walk the earth again. You have wronged his/her entire family and took away someone they love. why should you get to live in, despite the fact that you will never hurt anyone else? Their hurt will never go away, what gives you the right to not suffer?

Revenge isn't even the issue, its the idea of fairness. why would it be fair for you to live, unpunished, when you have delivered an unjust punishment upon someone who did not deserve it? if you accidently killed a person, that is one thing, if the accident could have easily been avoided.

you don't see a small piece of debris on the road, you hit it with your tire, the tire blows and you nail the car next to you, the car hits a pole and the person inside dies. that is an accident that you could not avoid. but to deliberately kill someone, no, your life should be over as well.

or an easily avoided accident, like drunk driving. you get liquored up, you get into your car, something happens and you kill someone. that accident would have been avoided if you had not decided to drive while drunk. through your own selfishness and stupidity someone else has died. why should you go unpunished?

At 4/7/07 07:28 PM, JakeHero wrote:

At 4/7/07 07:14 PM, Elfer wrote: Right, but how does it balance anything out if it's just going to harm the guy and keep a productive member of society out of circulation?

1 + 1 = 2(three if you're good with algebra). If you murder someone, you can expect you will be killed in return. Just as if you steal, you can expect you will have to reimburst the person you stole from the item's value.

Right, 1 + 1 does equal 2, in this case, one person dead plus one person dead equals two people dead.

Our options are 1 person dead or two people dead, and in theory, aren't we supposed to be minimizing the number of deaths of non-harmful members of society?

If you want to talk algebra, let's say (-1) + (-1) < 0, i.e. two wrongs do not make a right, because wrongness is cumulative, not multiplication.

On the other hand, if you can come up with a good metaphor as to why executing this guy is a multiplication situation, I'll be very impressed.

At 4/7/07 07:14 PM, Elfer wrote: Right, but how does it balance anything out if it's just going to harm the guy and keep a productive member of society out of circulation?

At 4/7/07 07:28 PM, JakeHero wrote: 1 + 1 = 2(three if you're good with algebra). If you murder someone, you can expect you will be killed in return. Just as if you steal, you can expect you will have to reimburst the person you stole from the item's value.

What Jake really means is that the murderer has already taken "a productive member of society out of circulation". ie. -1 +1 = 0;

Moreover, the only 100% guarantee that he/she will not offend again is DEATH! There is no surer certainty that they cannot re-offend ever.

Funnily enough, when a murderer is put to death, they release his or her body to "do some good" feeding a family of maggots and a tree planted somewhere nearby. Death is a positive if you're a maggot. For the maggot at least, 1 + 1 = 2;

=)

At 4/7/07 08:04 PM, JudgeDredd wrote: Moreover, the only 100% guarantee that he/she will not offend again is DEATH! There is no surer certainty that they cannot re-offend ever.

Well not just death, I mean, you could tamper with their central nervous system or something.

But that's why I made the situation fake.

Also, death of one person who is not a danger to society and death of another person who is not a danger to society is not 1 + (-1). I guess. Maybe it is! You decide, then tell us about it.

At 4/7/07 07:50 PM, Korriken wrote:

Revenge isn't even the issue.

Wow.. We've all suddenly evolved beyond emotion. Go humanity.

At 4/7/07 07:00 PM, Elfer wrote:

I'm basically trying to figure out your motivation on why you want to send him to jail on a basic level, i.e. what good you think it will do.

And I gave you my answer so what the fuck is your problem?

At 4/7/07 09:01 PM, Der-Ubermensch wrote:

At 4/7/07 07:50 PM, Korriken wrote:

Revenge isn't even the issue.

Wow.. We've all suddenly evolved beyond emotion. Go humanity.

Well, when we're talking criminal justice, the primary tenet shouldn't be "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more!"

It should be more like "Hey man." You know?

At 4/7/07 09:05 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/7/07 07:00 PM, Elfer wrote:

I'm basically trying to figure out your motivation on why you want to send him to jail on a basic level, i.e. what good you think it will do.

And I gave you my answer so what the fuck is your problem?

My problem is that you answer is inconsistent with the situation given. I said that this is the only guy who can ever prove this and it therefore doesn't produce a legal precedent, and your answer to the question was that if we don't punish him it sets a dangerous precedent. Get it?

It's like if I said "Other than bees, name something that stings" and you reply "Bees"
The answer doesn't work with the question.

I know this is hard, because I know you're really bad with reading and understanding what's been written, but think hard. My issue with your answer is that it doesn't make sense given the situation.

At 4/7/07 09:06 PM, Elfer wrote:

It should be more like "Hey man." You know?

Should be.. in the prettiest corners of joy-joy land. I doubt it is, at the core.

At 4/7/07 09:09 PM, Elfer wrote:

My problem is that you answer is inconsistent with the situation given. I said that this is the only guy who can ever prove this and it therefore doesn't produce a legal precedent, and your answer to the question was that if we don't punish him it sets a dangerous precedent. Get it?

I understood it perfectly you little shit. It wouldn't matter if he is the ONLY person who can truely prove he would never do it again. Why? Because if a case like this ever did come by then others would make the same claim regardless and as we can already see by some of the idiot Judges we have, they'll be let off the hook.

People will still think they can get away with anything they do if they plee and mimic this particular case.

My issue with your answer is that it doesn't make sense given the situation.

And you don't understand shit about how humans work.

At 4/7/07 09:19 PM, Memorize wrote: I understood it perfectly you little shit. It wouldn't matter if he is the ONLY person who can truely prove he would never do it again. Why? Because if a case like this ever did come by then others would make the same claim regardless and as we can already see by some of the idiot Judges we have, they'll be let off the hook.

No, look, read the post. He's the only guy who can prove it, get it? Nobody else can prove it, therefore their cases will never be the same, and they can never get away with the same deal.

Even if they make the same claim, they won't be able to prove their claim, and won't be treated the same way. I've gone over this already, and it's established that it won't affect legal precedence in future cases.

What you're trying to do is avoid the point of the topic, i.e. whether or not retribution can justify punishment in and of itself. You are trying to give an answer based on not reading the thread, then you back it up with insults. If you're not going to discuss this in a reasonable manner, just leave the topic.

In my opinion, the justice system gives out sentences to serve two purposes:

1. To ensure that the accused will not commit a crime again. Self explanatory.

2. To ensure that the accused gets what the deserve, and is suitable punished for what they've done. Our system still does, to an extent, utilize the "eye for an eye" rule.

I believe that the attacker should still receive their sentence, solely for the sake of punishment.

At 4/7/07 09:24 PM, Elfer wrote:

No, look, read the post. He's the only guy who can prove it, get it? Nobody else can prove it, therefore their cases will never be the same, and they can never get away with the same deal.

You didn't mention anything about the Judge. And as our nations have already shown, we have a few select very incompetent Judges. In some cases, he does not have to "prove" it if the Judge determines for himself that he has.

If you're not going to discuss this in a reasonable manner, just leave the topic.

Go screw the lollypop guild.

At 4/7/07 01:11 AM, Der-Ubermensch wrote: Punishment as a form of rehabilitation? How about punishment for the sake of punishment? transgression against moral or judicial codes of conduct? Human beings are far too stupid to be granted so much leeway and credit.

The purpose of punishing someone is to stop them from doing whatever they did again. Punishment is simply a way to bring about rehabilitation.

At 4/7/07 09:01 PM, Der-Ubermensch wrote:

Wow.. We've all suddenly evolved beyond emotion. Go humanity.

lawls.

At 4/7/07 11:28 PM, Korriken wrote:

Wow.. We've all suddenly evolved beyond emotion. Go humanity.

lawls.

The law wasn't supposed to have human emotions in it. All they do is get in the way.

At 4/7/07 11:05 PM, Memorize wrote: You didn't mention anything about the Judge. And as our nations have already shown, we have a few select very incompetent Judges. In some cases, he does not have to "prove" it if the Judge determines for himself that he has.

Ok, you're still missing the point. It will have NO EFFECT on future cases. This is GIVEN INFORMATION.

What's so difficult about that? I know it wouldn't work that way in real life, but this isn't real life. One of the impossible parameters is that it doesn't affect future cases in any way.

At 4/7/07 11:19 PM, Sigma-Lambda wrote:

The purpose of punishing someone is to stop them from doing whatever they did again. Punishment is simply a way to bring about rehabilitation.

Kudos for being the optimist here. I honestly wonder though if that's a sound way of dealing with the potentially horrendous nature of certain crimes.