The death penalty is state sanctioned murder and simply revenge. It does nothing to deter people from committing capital crimes.
Simply put... no.
It's a 'punishment' that should be used as a response for the most grievous 'crimes' of murder we are forced to deal with (such as the bastard who raped and killed an 11 month infant discussed a page ago).
Any action taken at all can be considered 'revenge' so again... no. If you are going to call the DP revenge, then you would need to do the same as life in prison. Your preference doesn't establish anything.
And I can agree that it does do very little to deter people from committing crimes, but as has been established already... with its limited application (something like 0.004 percent of all murders receive the DP within DP states)... it has hardly had the chance to definitively prove one way or another its effectiveness as a deterrent.
So you're saying (state sanctioned) murder is a punishment for murder?
I don't call it murder. You do.
purposely ending a life is murder by definition.
a group of crows is defined as such as well
how does that apply to this particular discussion?
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
The death penalty is state sanctioned murder and simply revenge. It does nothing to deter people from committing capital crimes.
Simply put... no.
It's a 'punishment' that should be used as a response for the most grievous 'crimes' of murder we are forced to deal with (such as the bastard who raped and killed an 11 month infant discussed a page ago).
Any action taken at all can be considered 'revenge' so again... no. If you are going to call the DP revenge, then you would need to do the same as life in prison. Your preference doesn't establish anything.
And I can agree that it does do very little to deter people from committing crimes, but as has been established already... with its limited application (something like 0.004 percent of all murders receive the DP within DP states)... it has hardly had the chance to definitively prove one way or another its effectiveness as a deterrent.
So you're saying (state sanctioned) murder is a punishment for murder?
I don't call it murder. You do.
purposely ending a life is murder by definition.
a group of crows is defined as such as well
how does that apply to this particular discussion?
The death penalty is state sanctioned murder and simply revenge. It does nothing to deter people from committing capital crimes.
Simply put... no.
It's a 'punishment' that should be used as a response for the most grievous 'crimes' of murder we are forced to deal with (such as the bastard who raped and killed an 11 month infant discussed a page ago).
Any action taken at all can be considered 'revenge' so again... no. If you are going to call the DP revenge, then you would need to do the same as life in prison. Your preference doesn't establish anything.
And I can agree that it does do very little to deter people from committing crimes, but as has been established already... with its limited application (something like 0.004 percent of all murders receive the DP within DP states)... it has hardly had the chance to definitively prove one way or another its effectiveness as a deterrent.
So you're saying (state sanctioned) murder is a punishment for murder?
I don't call it murder. You do.
purposely ending a life is murder by definition.
a group of crows is defined as such as well
how does that apply to this particular discussion?
How a word in society has different definitions.
Why you needed to answer that question fails me.
If the DP is murder... then it goes without saying that imprisoning people is kidnapping them.
Ridiculous.
* I can accept 'execution' as an appropriate term for the DP though. For example: The serial murderer was executed for raping and murdering 12 children. 'Murdered' just doesn't fit. Sorry. And not even a good try.
The death penalty is state sanctioned murder and simply revenge. It does nothing to deter people from committing capital crimes.
Simply put... no.
It's a 'punishment' that should be used as a response for the most grievous 'crimes' of murder we are forced to deal with (such as the bastard who raped and killed an 11 month infant discussed a page ago).
Any action taken at all can be considered 'revenge' so again... no. If you are going to call the DP revenge, then you would need to do the same as life in prison. Your preference doesn't establish anything.
And I can agree that it does do very little to deter people from committing crimes, but as has been established already... with its limited application (something like 0.004 percent of all murders receive the DP within DP states)... it has hardly had the chance to definitively prove one way or another its effectiveness as a deterrent.
So you're saying (state sanctioned) murder is a punishment for murder?
I don't call it murder. You do.
purposely ending a life is murder by definition.
a group of crows is defined as such as well
how does that apply to this particular discussion?
The death penalty is state sanctioned murder and simply revenge. It does nothing to deter people from committing capital crimes.
Simply put... no.
It's a 'punishment' that should be used as a response for the most grievous 'crimes' of murder we are forced to deal with (such as the bastard who raped and killed an 11 month infant discussed a page ago).
Any action taken at all can be considered 'revenge' so again... no. If you are going to call the DP revenge, then you would need to do the same as life in prison. Your preference doesn't establish anything.
And I can agree that it does do very little to deter people from committing crimes, but as has been established already... with its limited application (something like 0.004 percent of all murders receive the DP within DP states)... it has hardly had the chance to definitively prove one way or another its effectiveness as a deterrent.
So you're saying (state sanctioned) murder is a punishment for murder?
I don't call it murder. You do.
purposely ending a life is murder by definition.
a group of crows is defined as such as well
how does that apply to this particular discussion?
How a word in society has different definitions.
Why you needed to answer that question fails me.
If the DP is murder... then it goes without saying that imprisoning people is kidnapping them.
Ridiculous.
* I can accept 'execution' as an appropriate term for the DP though. For example: The serial murderer was executed for raping and murdering 12 children. 'Murdered' just doesn't fit. Sorry. And not even a good try.
Semantics...its a fine line isn't it?
Post edited by catefrances on
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I never quoted you because for some reason... the quotes appeared like a spectrum in your post.
For me, it's not a fine line. I can see what you mean, but I'm just stuck on the natural and obvious consequences for certain crimes.
I read and watch documentaries and movies with murderers and inevitably feel something for the offender; however, as badly as I might end up feeling for that person... I only need to think of what they have done and those feelings of empathy disappear.
I think it comes down to how one chooses to maintain their focus.
I never quoted you because for some reason... the quotes appeared like a spectrum in your post.
For me, it's not a fine line. I can see what you mean, but I'm just stuck on the natural and obvious consequences for certain crimes.
I read and watch documentaries and movies with murderers and inevitably feel something for the offender; however, as badly as I might end up feeling for that person... I only need to think of what they have done and those feelings of empathy disappear.
I think it comes down to how one chooses to maintain their focus.
Natural consequences? Theyre only 'natural' because our so called civilised society have made it so. Somehow weve made it the norm to accept execution as punishment. I can not be one of those who sees it as such. I thought as a society wedve moved past killing our own for punishment.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I never quoted you because for some reason... the quotes appeared like a spectrum in your post.
For me, it's not a fine line. I can see what you mean, but I'm just stuck on the natural and obvious consequences for certain crimes.
I read and watch documentaries and movies with murderers and inevitably feel something for the offender; however, as badly as I might end up feeling for that person... I only need to think of what they have done and those feelings of empathy disappear.
I think it comes down to how one chooses to maintain their focus.
Natural consequences? Theyre only 'natural' because our so called civilised society have made it so. Somehow weve made it the norm to accept execution as punishment. I can not be one of those who sees it as such. I thought as a society wedve moved past killing our own for punishment.
I never quoted you because for some reason... the quotes appeared like a spectrum in your post.
For me, it's not a fine line. I can see what you mean, but I'm just stuck on the natural and obvious consequences for certain crimes.
I read and watch documentaries and movies with murderers and inevitably feel something for the offender; however, as badly as I might end up feeling for that person... I only need to think of what they have done and those feelings of empathy disappear.
I think it comes down to how one chooses to maintain their focus.
Natural consequences? Theyre only 'natural' because our so called civilised society have made it so. Somehow weve made it the norm to accept execution as punishment. I can not be one of those who sees it as such. I thought as a society wedve moved past killing our own for punishment.
So we would be extremely civilized if we make the killer say sorry?
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. A serial or mass murderer shouldn't be expecting kindness when we catch and confront them, nor should anybody else.
And we are not 'killing our own'... we are punishing someone who has opted to step out of society in as brutal fashion as possible- 'hardly human' despite the definition of the term (semantics works for both sides of this discussion).
I never quoted you because for some reason... the quotes appeared like a spectrum in your post.
For me, it's not a fine line. I can see what you mean, but I'm just stuck on the natural and obvious consequences for certain crimes.
I read and watch documentaries and movies with murderers and inevitably feel something for the offender; however, as badly as I might end up feeling for that person... I only need to think of what they have done and those feelings of empathy disappear.
I think it comes down to how one chooses to maintain their focus.
Natural consequences? Theyre only 'natural' because our so called civilised society have made it so. Somehow weve made it the norm to accept execution as punishment. I can not be one of those who sees it as such. I thought as a society wedve moved past killing our own for punishment.
So we would be extremely civilized if we make the killer say sorry?
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. A serial or mass murderer shouldn't be expecting kindness when we catch and confront them, nor should anybody else.
And we are not 'killing our own'... we are punishing someone who has opted to step out of society in as brutal fashion as possible- 'hardly human' despite the definition of the term (semantics works for both sides of this discussion).
Absolutely not. Simply saying sorry doesn't cut it. Killers should be removed from free society. They should pay for the life theyve take by being incarcerated for the term of their natural life. No chance of parole. And yes we are killing our own unless of course you think that ALL murderers somehow become less human simply because they kill.
who are we executing murderers for anyway? It can't be for the murdered cause theyre dead and can no longer care. So if we execute for no one but ourselves how can we deem ourselves any better than the executed? Do we think we have right on our side? Afterall an eye for an eye turns the whole world blind.
Post edited by catefrances on
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I never quoted you because for some reason... the quotes appeared like a spectrum in your post.
For me, it's not a fine line. I can see what you mean, but I'm just stuck on the natural and obvious consequences for certain crimes.
I read and watch documentaries and movies with murderers and inevitably feel something for the offender; however, as badly as I might end up feeling for that person... I only need to think of what they have done and those feelings of empathy disappear.
I think it comes down to how one chooses to maintain their focus.
Natural consequences? Theyre only 'natural' because our so called civilised society have made it so. Somehow weve made it the norm to accept execution as punishment. I can not be one of those who sees it as such. I thought as a society wedve moved past killing our own for punishment.
So we would be extremely civilized if we make the killer say sorry?
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. A serial or mass murderer shouldn't be expecting kindness when we catch and confront them, nor should anybody else.
And we are not 'killing our own'... we are punishing someone who has opted to step out of society in as brutal fashion as possible- 'hardly human' despite the definition of the term (semantics works for both sides of this discussion).
Nt be for the murdered ause theyre dead and can no longer.
The death penalty is state sanctioned murder and simply revenge. It does nothing to deter people from committing capital crimes.
Simply put... no.
It's a 'punishment' that should be used as a response for the most grievous 'crimes' of murder we are forced to deal with (such as the bastard who raped and killed an 11 month infant discussed a page ago).
Any action taken at all can be considered 'revenge' so again... no. If you are going to call the DP revenge, then you would need to do the same as life in prison. Your preference doesn't establish anything.
And I can agree that it does do very little to deter people from committing crimes, but as has been established already... with its limited application (something like 0.004 percent of all murders receive the DP within DP states)... it has hardly had the chance to definitively prove one way or another its effectiveness as a deterrent.
I don't agree with this. Imprisonment can, and should, be about sequestration from society. I don't think prison should be used for non-violent offenses at all, we should get away from the archaic penal style system.
What constitutes a non-violent offense and what should be the punishment instead? Getting away from the archaic penal style system is great if one can offer a suggestion along with the observation.
A non-violent offense is one that doesn't entail violence. Duh. Theft in it's many forms and drug offenses mostly. A suggestion? That's obvious, instead of putting people away where they only burden society, put them to work to better society.
I never quoted you because for some reason... the quotes appeared like a spectrum in your post.
For me, it's not a fine line. I can see what you mean, but I'm just stuck on the natural and obvious consequences for certain crimes.
I read and watch documentaries and movies with murderers and inevitably feel something for the offender; however, as badly as I might end up feeling for that person... I only need to think of what they have done and those feelings of empathy disappear.
I think it comes down to how one chooses to maintain their focus.
Natural consequences? Theyre only 'natural' because our so called civilised society have made it so. Somehow weve made it the norm to accept execution as punishment. I can not be one of those who sees it as such. I thought as a society wedve moved past killing our own for punishment.
So we would be extremely civilized if we make the killer say sorry?
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. A serial or mass murderer shouldn't be expecting kindness when we catch and confront them, nor should anybody else.
And we are not 'killing our own'... we are punishing someone who has opted to step out of society in as brutal fashion as possible- 'hardly human' despite the definition of the term (semantics works for both sides of this discussion).
Newton's laws of motion aren't remotely applicable to the workings of human ccivilization. You are avoiding the point entirely, it isn't about showing kindness, it is about exercising absolute morality.
It's not a very strong debate tactic to ignore the content and intent of your adversary while making a caricature of them based off your own thoughts. Nobody came close to suggesting murderers should only say sorry or that we should show them kindness.
I never quoted you because for some reason... the quotes appeared like a spectrum in your post.
For me, it's not a fine line. I can see what you mean, but I'm just stuck on the natural and obvious consequences for certain crimes.
I read and watch documentaries and movies with murderers and inevitably feel something for the offender; however, as badly as I might end up feeling for that person... I only need to think of what they have done and those feelings of empathy disappear.
I think it comes down to how one chooses to maintain their focus.
Natural consequences? Theyre only 'natural' because our so called civilised society have made it so. Somehow weve made it the norm to accept execution as punishment. I can not be one of those who sees it as such. I thought as a society wedve moved past killing our own for punishment.
So we would be extremely civilized if we make the killer say sorry?
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. A serial or mass murderer shouldn't be expecting kindness when we catch and confront them, nor should anybody else.
And we are not 'killing our own'... we are punishing someone who has opted to step out of society in as brutal fashion as possible- 'hardly human' despite the definition of the term (semantics works for both sides of this discussion).
Newton's laws of motion aren't remotely applicable to the workings of human ccivilization. You are avoiding the point entirely, it isn't about showing kindness, it is about exercising absolute morality.
It's not a very strong debate tactic to ignore the content and intent of your adversary while making a caricature of them based off your own thoughts. Nobody came close to suggesting murderers should only say sorry or that we should show them kindness.
Someone said the DP was murder. It's not. It's a punishment. They also said civilized societies don't execute child murderers. I asked if we would be extra civilized if we made them say sorry (followed by an explanation of what I meant). The point and question were fair given one has introduced the idea of a heightened civilization based on its response to a crime. Are there limits to our level of advancement? If you are going to say we are advanced for not executing serial murderers... could we be even more advanced and not even imprison people?
And you are remiss to take that question out of context and offer it as evidence towards poor discussion skills, but I'm not surprised. I mean... if you are going to be the DP moderator, then perhaps you should look at Callen's last few passion driven pieces of hyperbole and exaggeration as well and take exception to those? Chadwick gets ripped for offering his based on his position in this discussion. But you wouldn't do that right? Because it fits your belief set right? You had already nodded your head in agreement right? Yah... take exception with my submissions... but nod in agreement for posts that mirror the style you adamantly oppose when they don't work for you.
* I'm okay with submissions such as Callen's for the record. His last two have been from the heart and as much as I feel they don't further the discussion, they are fair given he's reflecting his position (and he's a good guy).
The death penalty is state sanctioned murder and simply revenge. It does nothing to deter people from committing capital crimes.
Simply put... no.
It's a 'punishment' that should be used as a response for the most grievous 'crimes' of murder we are forced to deal with (such as the bastard who raped and killed an 11 month infant discussed a page ago).
Any action taken at all can be considered 'revenge' so again... no. If you are going to call the DP revenge, then you would need to do the same as life in prison. Your preference doesn't establish anything.
And I can agree that it does do very little to deter people from committing crimes, but as has been established already... with its limited application (something like 0.004 percent of all murders receive the DP within DP states)... it has hardly had the chance to definitively prove one way or another its effectiveness as a deterrent.
I don't agree with this. Imprisonment can, and should, be about sequestration from society. I don't think prison should be used for non-violent offenses at all, we should get away from the archaic penal style system.
Never thought of abolishing prison for non violent offenders. Hmmmmmm. Interesting have to chew on that for a while.
The death penalty is state sanctioned murder and simply revenge. It does nothing to deter people from committing capital crimes.
Simply put... no.
It's a 'punishment' that should be used as a response for the most grievous 'crimes' of murder we are forced to deal with (such as the bastard who raped and killed an 11 month infant discussed a page ago).
Any action taken at all can be considered 'revenge' so again... no. If you are going to call the DP revenge, then you would need to do the same as life in prison. Your preference doesn't establish anything.
And I can agree that it does do very little to deter people from committing crimes, but as has been established already... with its limited application (something like 0.004 percent of all murders receive the DP within DP states)... it has hardly had the chance to definitively prove one way or another its effectiveness as a deterrent.
TB it is all about revenge and our thirst for it. Can almost see you salivate at putting that child rapist to death. "Kill that FKER. Shoot him use gas doesn't matter. Grunt grunt!"
TB you know I try to bust your balls so don't take my posts personally. We both love this shit so take it you Revenge Murderer.
The death penalty is state sanctioned murder and simply revenge. It does nothing to deter people from committing capital crimes.
Simply put... no.
It's a 'punishment' that should be used as a response for the most grievous 'crimes' of murder we are forced to deal with (such as the bastard who raped and killed an 11 month infant discussed a page ago).
Any action taken at all can be considered 'revenge' so again... no. If you are going to call the DP revenge, then you would need to do the same as life in prison. Your preference doesn't establish anything.
And I can agree that it does do very little to deter people from committing crimes, but as has been established already... with its limited application (something like 0.004 percent of all murders receive the DP within DP states)... it has hardly had the chance to definitively prove one way or another its effectiveness as a deterrent.
TB it is all about revenge and our thirst for it. Can almost see you salivate at putting that child rapist to death. "Kill that FKER. Shoot him use gas doesn't matter. Grunt grunt!"
TB you know I try to bust your balls so don't take my posts personally. We both love this shit so take it you Revenge Murderer.
I never quoted you because for some reason... the quotes appeared like a spectrum in your post.
For me, it's not a fine line. I can see what you mean, but I'm just stuck on the natural and obvious consequences for certain crimes.
I read and watch documentaries and movies with murderers and inevitably feel something for the offender; however, as badly as I might end up feeling for that person... I only need to think of what they have done and those feelings of empathy disappear.
I think it comes down to how one chooses to maintain their focus.
Natural consequences? Theyre only 'natural' because our so called civilised society have made it so. Somehow weve made it the norm to accept execution as punishment. I can not be one of those who sees it as such. I thought as a society wedve moved past killing our own for punishment.
So we would be extremely civilized if we make the killer say sorry?
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. A serial or mass murderer shouldn't be expecting kindness when we catch and confront them, nor should anybody else.
And we are not 'killing our own'... we are punishing someone who has opted to step out of society in as brutal fashion as possible- 'hardly human' despite the definition of the term (semantics works for both sides of this discussion).
Absolutely not. Simply saying sorry doesn't cut it. Killers should be removed from free society. They should pay for the life theyve take by being incarcerated for the term of their natural life. No chance of parole. And yes we are killing our own unless of course you think that ALL murderers somehow become less human simply because they kill.
who are we executing murderers for anyway? It can't be for the murdered cause theyre dead and can no longer care. So if we execute for no one but ourselves how can we deem ourselves any better than the executed? Do we think we have right on our side? Afterall an eye for an eye turns the whole world blind.
The same argument you make against the DP could be made against life in prison. You have said they "should pay for the life they've taken by being incarcerated for the term of their natural life." This sounds like revenge... and the 'primitive desire for revenge' has been one of the rallying cries against state execution.
I do think sadistic murderers- not all murderers- are subhuman. I've said things like this before, but we think nothing of setting mouse traps and killing mice that sneak around our houses at night doing mice things. Their offence of sneaking around for food is hardly that of raping and murdering a child and their life is just as important to them as ours is to us. Further, I just watched another depressing story detailing the cruelty within a chicken processing plant: yet, we seem to be okay with ordering wings from the local pub overlooking the brutality we inflict on our food animals... but we become indignant at the thought of executing a guy like Clifford Olson.
The death penalty is state sanctioned murder and simply revenge. It does nothing to deter people from committing capital crimes.
Simply put... no.
It's a 'punishment' that should be used as a response for the most grievous 'crimes' of murder we are forced to deal with (such as the bastard who raped and killed an 11 month infant discussed a page ago).
Any action taken at all can be considered 'revenge' so again... no. If you are going to call the DP revenge, then you would need to do the same as life in prison. Your preference doesn't establish anything.
And I can agree that it does do very little to deter people from committing crimes, but as has been established already... with its limited application (something like 0.004 percent of all murders receive the DP within DP states)... it has hardly had the chance to definitively prove one way or another its effectiveness as a deterrent.
So you're saying (state sanctioned) murder is a punishment for murder?
The death penalty is state sanctioned murder and simply revenge. It does nothing to deter people from committing capital crimes.
Simply put... no.
It's a 'punishment' that should be used as a response for the most grievous 'crimes' of murder we are forced to deal with (such as the bastard who raped and killed an 11 month infant discussed a page ago).
Any action taken at all can be considered 'revenge' so again... no. If you are going to call the DP revenge, then you would need to do the same as life in prison. Your preference doesn't establish anything.
And I can agree that it does do very little to deter people from committing crimes, but as has been established already... with its limited application (something like 0.004 percent of all murders receive the DP within DP states)... it has hardly had the chance to definitively prove one way or another its effectiveness as a deterrent.
TB it is all about revenge and our thirst for it. Can almost see you salivate at putting that child rapist to death. "Kill that FKER. Shoot him use gas doesn't matter. Grunt grunt!"
TB you know I try to bust your balls so don't take my posts personally. We both love this shit so take it you Revenge Murderer.
The death penalty is state sanctioned murder and simply revenge. It does nothing to deter people from committing capital crimes.
Simply put... no.
It's a 'punishment' that should be used as a response for the most grievous 'crimes' of murder we are forced to deal with (such as the bastard who raped and killed an 11 month infant discussed a page ago).
Any action taken at all can be considered 'revenge' so again... no. If you are going to call the DP revenge, then you would need to do the same as life in prison. Your preference doesn't establish anything.
And I can agree that it does do very little to deter people from committing crimes, but as has been established already... with its limited application (something like 0.004 percent of all murders receive the DP within DP states)... it has hardly had the chance to definitively prove one way or another its effectiveness as a deterrent.
I don't agree with this. Imprisonment can, and should, be about sequestration from society. I don't think prison should be used for non-violent offenses at all, we should get away from the archaic penal style system.
What constitutes a non-violent offense and what should be the punishment instead? Getting away from the archaic penal style system is great if one can offer a suggestion along with the observation.
A non-violent offense is one that doesn't entail violence. Duh. Theft in it's many forms and drug offenses mostly. A suggestion? That's obvious, instead of putting people away where they only burden society, put them to work to better society.
Don't see the need for you to condescend by stating "Duh".
Non-violent offenses may be committed out of previous violence that led to the crime in the first place. A successful thief robbing a store non-violently for cash inevitably will lead to a more violent crime as soon as said thief is challenged.
Drug offenses mostly? - All illegal drugs at this time are protected by violence (cartels, gangs, etc) and can be pursued with violence at times by if the "fix" can't be had non-violently.
Putting people to work to better society? can you elaborate a little on that, the quality of work from thieves and drug users may be lacking....
The death penalty is state sanctioned murder and simply revenge. It does nothing to deter people from committing capital crimes.
Simply put... no.
It's a 'punishment' that should be used as a response for the most grievous 'crimes' of murder we are forced to deal with (such as the bastard who raped and killed an 11 month infant discussed a page ago).
Any action taken at all can be considered 'revenge' so again... no. If you are going to call the DP revenge, then you would need to do the same as life in prison. Your preference doesn't establish anything.
And I can agree that it does do very little to deter people from committing crimes, but as has been established already... with its limited application (something like 0.004 percent of all murders receive the DP within DP states)... it has hardly had the chance to definitively prove one way or another its effectiveness as a deterrent.
I don't agree with this. Imprisonment can, and should, be about sequestration from society. I don't think prison should be used for non-violent offenses at all, we should get away from the archaic penal style system.
What constitutes a non-violent offense and what should be the punishment instead? Getting away from the archaic penal style system is great if one can offer a suggestion along with the observation.
A non-violent offense is one that doesn't entail violence. Duh. Theft in it's many forms and drug offenses mostly. A suggestion? That's obvious, instead of putting people away where they only burden society, put them to work to better society.
Don't see the need for you to condescend by stating "Duh".
Non-violent offenses may be committed out of previous violence that led to the crime in the first place. A successful thief robbing a store non-violently for cash inevitably will lead to a more violent crime as soon as said thief is challenged.
Drug offenses mostly? - All illegal drugs at this time are protected by violence (cartels, gangs, etc) and can be pursued with violence at times by if the "fix" can't be had non-violently.
Putting people to work to better society? can you elaborate a little on that, the quality of work from thieves and drug users may be lacking....
I don't see the need for you to always be asking questions to which the answers are self-evident and clearly obvious. You had a point to make, and you made it, the question was unnecessary. Make your rebuttal and be done with it. Now to the point you made.
If's and maybes. We don't convict people based on things they might have done if things went differently. That whole baloney about drugs and violence amounts to the same, we don't convict people who haven't done the crime. If drug buyers and sellers are responsible for cartel crime, then gun manufacturers are responsible for gun violence?
There is plenty of skilled and non-skilled work that can be done by thieves and drug users. Use your imagination.
The death penalty is state sanctioned murder and simply revenge. It does nothing to deter people from committing capital crimes.
Simply put... no.
It's a 'punishment' that should be used as a response for the most grievous 'crimes' of murder we are forced to deal with (such as the bastard who raped and killed an 11 month infant discussed a page ago).
Any action taken at all can be considered 'revenge' so again... no. If you are going to call the DP revenge, then you would need to do the same as life in prison. Your preference doesn't establish anything.
And I can agree that it does do very little to deter people from committing crimes, but as has been established already... with its limited application (something like 0.004 percent of all murders receive the DP within DP states)... it has hardly had the chance to definitively prove one way or another its effectiveness as a deterrent.
I don't agree with this. Imprisonment can, and should, be about sequestration from society. I don't think prison should be used for non-violent offenses at all, we should get away from the archaic penal style system.
What constitutes a non-violent offense and what should be the punishment instead? Getting away from the archaic penal style system is great if one can offer a suggestion along with the observation.
A non-violent offense is one that doesn't entail violence. Duh. Theft in it's many forms and drug offenses mostly. A suggestion? That's obvious, instead of putting people away where they only burden society, put them to work to better society.
Don't see the need for you to condescend by stating "Duh".
Non-violent offenses may be committed out of previous violence that led to the crime in the first place. A successful thief robbing a store non-violently for cash inevitably will lead to a more violent crime as soon as said thief is challenged.
Drug offenses mostly? - All illegal drugs at this time are protected by violence (cartels, gangs, etc) and can be pursued with violence at times by if the "fix" can't be had non-violently.
Putting people to work to better society? can you elaborate a little on that, the quality of work from thieves and drug users may be lacking....
I don't see the need for you to always be asking questions to which the answers are self-evident and clearly obvious. You had a point to make, and you made it, the question was unnecessary. Make your rebuttal and be done with it. Now to the point you made.
If's and maybes. We don't convict people based on things they might have done if things went differently. That whole baloney about drugs and violence amounts to the same, we don't convict people who haven't done the crime. If drug buyers and sellers are responsible for cartel crime, then gun manufacturers are responsible for gun violence?
There is plenty of skilled and non-skilled work that can be done by thieves and drug users. Use your imagination.
Some people can tell you the square root of a pickle jar but can't open it. There are no self-evident and clearly obvious answers if even one person is asking questions. For anyone to be told that their inquiry is irrelevant to them is indicative of a one-way conversation. You made your rebuttal and I am not done. Now to the points you made.
There is no baloney when it comes to illegal drugs - it is all stemmed in violence. We don't convict people who haven't done the crime but drug sentences are harsh to deter any further potential violent crimes being committed.
Drug sellers and buyers are not responsible for cartel/gang crime but without buyers of illegal drugs these thugs don't have an existence.
Making people perform labour as punishment is stupid.
The death penalty is state sanctioned murder and simply revenge. It does nothing to deter people from committing capital crimes.
Simply put... no.
It's a 'punishment' that should be used as a response for the most grievous 'crimes' of murder we are forced to deal with (such as the bastard who raped and killed an 11 month infant discussed a page ago).
Any action taken at all can be considered 'revenge' so again... no. If you are going to call the DP revenge, then you would need to do the same as life in prison. Your preference doesn't establish anything.
And I can agree that it does do very little to deter people from committing crimes, but as has been established already... with its limited application (something like 0.004 percent of all murders receive the DP within DP states)... it has hardly had the chance to definitively prove one way or another its effectiveness as a deterrent.
I don't agree with this. Imprisonment can, and should, be about sequestration from society. I don't think prison should be used for non-violent offenses at all, we should get away from the archaic penal style system.
What constitutes a non-violent offense and what should be the punishment instead? Getting away from the archaic penal style system is great if one can offer a suggestion along with the observation.
A non-violent offense is one that doesn't entail violence. Duh. Theft in it's many forms and drug offenses mostly. A suggestion? That's obvious, instead of putting people away where they only burden society, put them to work to better society.
Don't see the need for you to condescend by stating "Duh".
Non-violent offenses may be committed out of previous violence that led to the crime in the first place. A successful thief robbing a store non-violently for cash inevitably will lead to a more violent crime as soon as said thief is challenged.
Drug offenses mostly? - All illegal drugs at this time are protected by violence (cartels, gangs, etc) and can be pursued with violence at times by if the "fix" can't be had non-violently.
Putting people to work to better society? can you elaborate a little on that, the quality of work from thieves and drug users may be lacking....
I don't see the need for you to always be asking questions to which the answers are self-evident and clearly obvious. You had a point to make, and you made it, the question was unnecessary. Make your rebuttal and be done with it. Now to the point you made.
If's and maybes. We don't convict people based on things they might have done if things went differently. That whole baloney about drugs and violence amounts to the same, we don't convict people who haven't done the crime. If drug buyers and sellers are responsible for cartel crime, then gun manufacturers are responsible for gun violence?
There is plenty of skilled and non-skilled work that can be done by thieves and drug users. Use your imagination.
Some people can tell you the square root of a pickle jar but can't open it. There are no self-evident and clearly obvious answers if even one person is asking questions. For anyone to be told that their inquiry is irrelevant to them is indicative of a one-way conversation. You made your rebuttal and I am not done. Now to the points you made.
There is no baloney when it comes to illegal drugs - it is all stemmed in violence. We don't convict people who haven't done the crime but drug sentences are harsh to deter any further potential violent crimes being committed.
Drug sellers and buyers are not responsible for cartel/gang crime but without buyers of illegal drugs these thugs don't have an existence.
Making people perform labour as punishment is stupid.
I agree that that drugs are rooted in violence. You've offered an interesting perspective on the need for heavy drug related sentences as a proactive measure to address the violence throughout the chain from production to distribution.
Legalization would work pretty well addressing this violence and offer a ton of jobs, but this is another debate.
I disagree that making people perform labour as punishment is stupid. I say put them to work, but not unsupervised and still institutionalized depending on the crime and sentence.
The death penalty is state sanctioned murder and simply revenge. It does nothing to deter people from committing capital crimes.
Simply put... no.
It's a 'punishment' that should be used as a response for the most grievous 'crimes' of murder we are forced to deal with (such as the bastard who raped and killed an 11 month infant discussed a page ago).
Any action taken at all can be considered 'revenge' so again... no. If you are going to call the DP revenge, then you would need to do the same as life in prison. Your preference doesn't establish anything.
And I can agree that it does do very little to deter people from committing crimes, but as has been established already... with its limited application (something like 0.004 percent of all murders receive the DP within DP states)... it has hardly had the chance to definitively prove one way or another its effectiveness as a deterrent.
I don't agree with this. Imprisonment can, and should, be about sequestration from society. I don't think prison should be used for non-violent offenses at all, we should get away from the archaic penal style system.
What constitutes a non-violent offense and what should be the punishment instead? Getting away from the archaic penal style system is great if one can offer a suggestion along with the observation.
A non-violent offense is one that doesn't entail violence. Duh. Theft in it's many forms and drug offenses mostly. A suggestion? That's obvious, instead of putting people away where they only burden society, put them to work to better society.
Don't see the need for you to condescend by stating "Duh".
Non-violent offenses may be committed out of previous violence that led to the crime in the first place. A successful thief robbing a store non-violently for cash inevitably will lead to a more violent crime as soon as said thief is challenged.
Drug offenses mostly? - All illegal drugs at this time are protected by violence (cartels, gangs, etc) and can be pursued with violence at times by if the "fix" can't be had non-violently.
Putting people to work to better society? can you elaborate a little on that, the quality of work from thieves and drug users may be lacking....
I don't see the need for you to always be asking questions to which the answers are self-evident and clearly obvious. You had a point to make, and you made it, the question was unnecessary. Make your rebuttal and be done with it. Now to the point you made.
If's and maybes. We don't convict people based on things they might have done if things went differently. That whole baloney about drugs and violence amounts to the same, we don't convict people who haven't done the crime. If drug buyers and sellers are responsible for cartel crime, then gun manufacturers are responsible for gun violence?
There is plenty of skilled and non-skilled work that can be done by thieves and drug users. Use your imagination.
Some people can tell you the square root of a pickle jar but can't open it. There are no self-evident and clearly obvious answers if even one person is asking questions. For anyone to be told that their inquiry is irrelevant to them is indicative of a one-way conversation. You made your rebuttal and I am not done. Now to the points you made.
There is no baloney when it comes to illegal drugs - it is all stemmed in violence. We don't convict people who haven't done the crime but drug sentences are harsh to deter any further potential violent crimes being committed.
Drug sellers and buyers are not responsible for cartel/gang crime but without buyers of illegal drugs these thugs don't have an existence.
Making people perform labour as punishment is stupid.
The death penalty is state sanctioned murder and simply revenge. It does nothing to deter people from committing capital crimes.
Simply put... no.
It's a 'punishment' that should be used as a response for the most grievous 'crimes' of murder we are forced to deal with (such as the bastard who raped and killed an 11 month infant discussed a page ago).
Any action taken at all can be considered 'revenge' so again... no. If you are going to call the DP revenge, then you would need to do the same as life in prison. Your preference doesn't establish anything.
And I can agree that it does do very little to deter people from committing crimes, but as has been established already... with its limited application (something like 0.004 percent of all murders receive the DP within DP states)... it has hardly had the chance to definitively prove one way or another its effectiveness as a deterrent.
I don't agree with this. Imprisonment can, and should, be about sequestration from society. I don't think prison should be used for non-violent offenses at all, we should get away from the archaic penal style system.
What constitutes a non-violent offense and what should be the punishment instead? Getting away from the archaic penal style system is great if one can offer a suggestion along with the observation.
A non-violent offense is one that doesn't entail violence. Duh. Theft in it's many forms and drug offenses mostly. A suggestion? That's obvious, instead of putting people away where they only burden society, put them to work to better society.
Don't see the need for you to condescend by stating "Duh".
Non-violent offenses may be committed out of previous violence that led to the crime in the first place. A successful thief robbing a store non-violently for cash inevitably will lead to a more violent crime as soon as said thief is challenged.
Drug offenses mostly? - All illegal drugs at this time are protected by violence (cartels, gangs, etc) and can be pursued with violence at times by if the "fix" can't be had non-violently.
Putting people to work to better society? can you elaborate a little on that, the quality of work from thieves and drug users may be lacking....
I don't see the need for you to always be asking questions to which the answers are self-evident and clearly obvious. You had a point to make, and you made it, the question was unnecessary. Make your rebuttal and be done with it. Now to the point you made.
If's and maybes. We don't convict people based on things they might have done if things went differently. That whole baloney about drugs and violence amounts to the same, we don't convict people who haven't done the crime. If drug buyers and sellers are responsible for cartel crime, then gun manufacturers are responsible for gun violence?
There is plenty of skilled and non-skilled work that can be done by thieves and drug users. Use your imagination.
Some people can tell you the square root of a pickle jar but can't open it. There are no self-evident and clearly obvious answers if even one person is asking questions. For anyone to be told that their inquiry is irrelevant to them is indicative of a one-way conversation. You made your rebuttal and I am not done. Now to the points you made.
There is no baloney when it comes to illegal drugs - it is all stemmed in violence. We don't convict people who haven't done the crime but drug sentences are harsh to deter any further potential violent crimes being committed.
Drug sellers and buyers are not responsible for cartel/gang crime but without buyers of illegal drugs these thugs don't have an existence.
Making people perform labour as punishment is stupid.
The death penalty is state sanctioned murder and simply revenge. It does nothing to deter people from committing capital crimes.
Simply put... no.
It's a 'punishment' that should be used as a response for the most grievous 'crimes' of murder we are forced to deal with (such as the bastard who raped and killed an 11 month infant discussed a page ago).
Any action taken at all can be considered 'revenge' so again... no. If you are going to call the DP revenge, then you would need to do the same as life in prison. Your preference doesn't establish anything.
And I can agree that it does do very little to deter people from committing crimes, but as has been established already... with its limited application (something like 0.004 percent of all murders receive the DP within DP states)... it has hardly had the chance to definitively prove one way or another its effectiveness as a deterrent.
I don't agree with this. Imprisonment can, and should, be about sequestration from society. I don't think prison should be used for non-violent offenses at all, we should get away from the archaic penal style system.
I think I agree with this in theory, but what is the alternative for non-violent criminals? My mind immediately goes to well-enforced and adequately severe financial penalties - bad enough to s3 re as a strong deterrent at the very least - but then I think probs arise when considering the fallout that could cause for children, spouses, etc.... Would it be considered as reasonable as just removing the person, and his income, from the home and pitting him in prison? Or would families be impacted even worse?
At the very least, I don't feel like non-violent and violent criminals should be jailed together.... I even think thst maybe a separate court altogether would be best for dealing with violent criminals. That would possibly 'unblur' the lines when it comes to appropriate punishments.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Comments
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
If the DP is murder... then it goes without saying that imprisoning people is kidnapping them.
Ridiculous.
* I can accept 'execution' as an appropriate term for the DP though. For example: The serial murderer was executed for raping and murdering 12 children. 'Murdered' just doesn't fit. Sorry. And not even a good try.
Semantics...its a fine line isn't it?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
For me, it's not a fine line. I can see what you mean, but I'm just stuck on the natural and obvious consequences for certain crimes.
I read and watch documentaries and movies with murderers and inevitably feel something for the offender; however, as badly as I might end up feeling for that person... I only need to think of what they have done and those feelings of empathy disappear.
I think it comes down to how one chooses to maintain their focus.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. A serial or mass murderer shouldn't be expecting kindness when we catch and confront them, nor should anybody else.
And we are not 'killing our own'... we are punishing someone who has opted to step out of society in as brutal fashion as possible- 'hardly human' despite the definition of the term (semantics works for both sides of this discussion).
And yes we are killing our own unless of course you think that ALL murderers somehow become less human simply because they kill.
who are we executing murderers for anyway? It can't be for the murdered cause theyre dead and can no longer care. So if we execute for no one but ourselves how can we deem ourselves any better than the executed? Do we think we have right on our side? Afterall an eye for an eye turns the whole world blind.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
A suggestion? That's obvious, instead of putting people away where they only burden society, put them to work to better society.
You are avoiding the point entirely, it isn't about showing kindness, it is about exercising absolute morality.
And you are remiss to take that question out of context and offer it as evidence towards poor discussion skills, but I'm not surprised. I mean... if you are going to be the DP moderator, then perhaps you should look at Callen's last few passion driven pieces of hyperbole and exaggeration as well and take exception to those? Chadwick gets ripped for offering his based on his position in this discussion. But you wouldn't do that right? Because it fits your belief set right? You had already nodded your head in agreement right? Yah... take exception with my submissions... but nod in agreement for posts that mirror the style you adamantly oppose when they don't work for you.
* I'm okay with submissions such as Callen's for the record. His last two have been from the heart and as much as I feel they don't further the discussion, they are fair given he's reflecting his position (and he's a good guy).
TB you know I try to bust your balls so don't take my posts personally. We both love this shit so take it you Revenge Murderer.
Ya softy.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
I do think sadistic murderers- not all murderers- are subhuman. I've said things like this before, but we think nothing of setting mouse traps and killing mice that sneak around our houses at night doing mice things. Their offence of sneaking around for food is hardly that of raping and murdering a child and their life is just as important to them as ours is to us. Further, I just watched another depressing story detailing the cruelty within a chicken processing plant: yet, we seem to be okay with ordering wings from the local pub overlooking the brutality we inflict on our food animals... but we become indignant at the thought of executing a guy like Clifford Olson.
Non-violent offenses may be committed out of previous violence that led to the crime in the first place. A successful thief robbing a store non-violently for cash inevitably will lead to a more violent crime as soon as said thief is challenged.
Drug offenses mostly? - All illegal drugs at this time are protected by violence (cartels, gangs, etc) and can be pursued with violence at times by if the "fix" can't be had non-violently.
Putting people to work to better society? can you elaborate a little on that,
the quality of work from thieves and drug users may be lacking....
Now to the point you made.
If's and maybes. We don't convict people based on things they might have done if things went differently. That whole baloney about drugs and violence amounts to the same, we don't convict people who haven't done the crime. If drug buyers and sellers are responsible for cartel crime, then gun manufacturers are responsible for gun violence?
There is plenty of skilled and non-skilled work that can be done by thieves and drug users. Use your imagination.
There are no self-evident and clearly obvious answers if even one person is asking questions.
For anyone to be told that their inquiry is irrelevant to them is indicative of a one-way conversation.
You made your rebuttal and I am not done.
Now to the points you made.
There is no baloney when it comes to illegal drugs - it is all stemmed in violence.
We don't convict people who haven't done the crime but drug sentences are harsh to deter any further potential violent crimes being committed.
Drug sellers and buyers are not responsible for cartel/gang crime but without buyers of illegal drugs these thugs don't have an existence.
Making people perform labour as punishment is stupid.
Legalization would work pretty well addressing this violence and offer a ton of jobs, but this is another debate.
I disagree that making people perform labour as punishment is stupid. I say put them to work, but not unsupervised and still institutionalized depending on the crime and sentence.
At the very least, I don't feel like non-violent and violent criminals should be jailed together.... I even think thst maybe a separate court altogether would be best for dealing with violent criminals. That would possibly 'unblur' the lines when it comes to appropriate punishments.