The Death Penalty

1727375777882

Comments

  • Thirty Bills UnpaidThirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    edited September 2017
    Here's a great example for exercising leniency for child murderers:

    https://www.google.ca/amp/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4270225
    .
    Post edited by Thirty Bills Unpaid on
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 46,828
    PJ_Soul said:
    all fair points, except your first statement. it is my opinion that it is not up to humans to judge the worth of another human. or any other living being, for that matter. 
    I know that's where we disagree, Hugh. I'm cool with you holding the position you do and I also understand very well why you hold it (you've laboured extensively explaining your position over the years in this thread).

    I guess it's safe to say it would take something cataclysmic to have me budge from my stance. I've genuinely come to understand the other side of the equation, I just haven't gotten myself to the point where I can adopt it.

    * I've thought of Callen every now and then and how much he offered to this long discussion. I guess he's gone, but he left pretty abruptly. I didn't mind him.
    I don't really feel like it is true that you understand very well, since you are still talking about people feeling sorry for the criminals, and still appear to be trying to say that your idea of justice and revenge are two different things, which they aren't.
    Ummmm....from what I've read, those against the death penalty believe that the criminals lives have value....right?  And that humans and the system is too flawed to judge them to die?  So if they are put to death, someone that thinks that person had value would then feel sorry for the criminal, wouldn't they?  



    No.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    all fair points, except your first statement. it is my opinion that it is not up to humans to judge the worth of another human. or any other living being, for that matter. 
    I know that's where we disagree, Hugh. I'm cool with you holding the position you do and I also understand very well why you hold it (you've laboured extensively explaining your position over the years in this thread).

    I guess it's safe to say it would take something cataclysmic to have me budge from my stance. I've genuinely come to understand the other side of the equation, I just haven't gotten myself to the point where I can adopt it.

    * I've thought of Callen every now and then and how much he offered to this long discussion. I guess he's gone, but he left pretty abruptly. I didn't mind him.
    I don't really feel like it is true that you understand very well, since you are still talking about people feeling sorry for the criminals, and still appear to be trying to say that your idea of justice and revenge are two different things, which they aren't.
    Ummmm....from what I've read, those against the death penalty believe that the criminals lives have value....right?  And that humans and the system is too flawed to judge them to die?  So if they are put to death, someone that thinks that person had value would then feel sorry for the criminal, wouldn't they?  



    No.
    Kind of.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 5,743
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    all fair points, except your first statement. it is my opinion that it is not up to humans to judge the worth of another human. or any other living being, for that matter. 
    I know that's where we disagree, Hugh. I'm cool with you holding the position you do and I also understand very well why you hold it (you've laboured extensively explaining your position over the years in this thread).

    I guess it's safe to say it would take something cataclysmic to have me budge from my stance. I've genuinely come to understand the other side of the equation, I just haven't gotten myself to the point where I can adopt it.

    * I've thought of Callen every now and then and how much he offered to this long discussion. I guess he's gone, but he left pretty abruptly. I didn't mind him.
    I don't really feel like it is true that you understand very well, since you are still talking about people feeling sorry for the criminals, and still appear to be trying to say that your idea of justice and revenge are two different things, which they aren't.
    Ummmm....from what I've read, those against the death penalty believe that the criminals lives have value....right?  And that humans and the system is too flawed to judge them to die?  So if they are put to death, someone that thinks that person had value would then feel sorry for the criminal, wouldn't they?  



    No.
    Kind of.
    No. I am against the death penalty because it doesn't make sense. If we're looking for justice, murder doesn't beget murder. It's the only crime where we literally seek to punish by inflicting the same act on the offender. Imagine if rapists were sentenced to eternal raping, drug dealers were forced to consume their trade forever. Sounds like Dante's Inferno come to life. Come to think of it, that may actually work...

    Anyway, life in prison with no parole or chance at freedom are more punishment than any state sanctioned death will ever be, but lo and behold, our justice system is flawed and can't even get that part right.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    all fair points, except your first statement. it is my opinion that it is not up to humans to judge the worth of another human. or any other living being, for that matter. 
    I know that's where we disagree, Hugh. I'm cool with you holding the position you do and I also understand very well why you hold it (you've laboured extensively explaining your position over the years in this thread).

    I guess it's safe to say it would take something cataclysmic to have me budge from my stance. I've genuinely come to understand the other side of the equation, I just haven't gotten myself to the point where I can adopt it.

    * I've thought of Callen every now and then and how much he offered to this long discussion. I guess he's gone, but he left pretty abruptly. I didn't mind him.
    I don't really feel like it is true that you understand very well, since you are still talking about people feeling sorry for the criminals, and still appear to be trying to say that your idea of justice and revenge are two different things, which they aren't.
    Ummmm....from what I've read, those against the death penalty believe that the criminals lives have value....right?  And that humans and the system is too flawed to judge them to die?  So if they are put to death, someone that thinks that person had value would then feel sorry for the criminal, wouldn't they?  



    No.
    So based on your 1 word answer:

    1) Does PJ Soul believe the criminals lives have value? NO.
    2) Does PJ Soul believe that humans the the justice system is too flawed to judge someone to die? NO.
    3) Doesn;t matter cause if you are saying NO to 1&2 then #3 wouldn't be asked.


    hippiemom = goodness
  • tbergs said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    all fair points, except your first statement. it is my opinion that it is not up to humans to judge the worth of another human. or any other living being, for that matter. 
    I know that's where we disagree, Hugh. I'm cool with you holding the position you do and I also understand very well why you hold it (you've laboured extensively explaining your position over the years in this thread).

    I guess it's safe to say it would take something cataclysmic to have me budge from my stance. I've genuinely come to understand the other side of the equation, I just haven't gotten myself to the point where I can adopt it.

    * I've thought of Callen every now and then and how much he offered to this long discussion. I guess he's gone, but he left pretty abruptly. I didn't mind him.
    I don't really feel like it is true that you understand very well, since you are still talking about people feeling sorry for the criminals, and still appear to be trying to say that your idea of justice and revenge are two different things, which they aren't.
    Ummmm....from what I've read, those against the death penalty believe that the criminals lives have value....right?  And that humans and the system is too flawed to judge them to die?  So if they are put to death, someone that thinks that person had value would then feel sorry for the criminal, wouldn't they?  



    No.
    Kind of.
    No. I am against the death penalty because it doesn't make sense. If we're looking for justice, murder doesn't beget murder. It's the only crime where we literally seek to punish by inflicting the same act on the offender. Imagine if rapists were sentenced to eternal raping, drug dealers were forced to consume their trade forever. Sounds like Dante's Inferno come to life. Come to think of it, that may actually work...

    Anyway, life in prison with no parole or chance at freedom are more punishment than any state sanctioned death will ever be, but lo and behold, our justice system is flawed and can't even get that part right.
    It makes perfect sense to some. Let the punishment equal the crime. Sentencing a child murderer to death isn't murdering them... it's punishing them- a consequence of their voluntary actions.

    Imagine if we left each other alone? And were not forced to deal with the hands we are dealt?

    We imprison kidnappers. Your other point is weak.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 18,021
    tbergs said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    all fair points, except your first statement. it is my opinion that it is not up to humans to judge the worth of another human. or any other living being, for that matter. 
    I know that's where we disagree, Hugh. I'm cool with you holding the position you do and I also understand very well why you hold it (you've laboured extensively explaining your position over the years in this thread).

    I guess it's safe to say it would take something cataclysmic to have me budge from my stance. I've genuinely come to understand the other side of the equation, I just haven't gotten myself to the point where I can adopt it.

    * I've thought of Callen every now and then and how much he offered to this long discussion. I guess he's gone, but he left pretty abruptly. I didn't mind him.
    I don't really feel like it is true that you understand very well, since you are still talking about people feeling sorry for the criminals, and still appear to be trying to say that your idea of justice and revenge are two different things, which they aren't.
    Ummmm....from what I've read, those against the death penalty believe that the criminals lives have value....right?  And that humans and the system is too flawed to judge them to die?  So if they are put to death, someone that thinks that person had value would then feel sorry for the criminal, wouldn't they?  



    No.
    Kind of.
    No. I am against the death penalty because it doesn't make sense. If we're looking for justice, murder doesn't beget murder. It's the only crime where we literally seek to punish by inflicting the same act on the offender. Imagine if rapists were sentenced to eternal raping, drug dealers were forced to consume their trade forever. Sounds like Dante's Inferno come to life. Come to think of it, that may actually work...

    Anyway, life in prison with no parole or chance at freedom are more punishment than any state sanctioned death will ever be, but lo and behold, our justice system is flawed and can't even get that part right.
    It makes perfect sense to some. Let the punishment equal the crime. Sentencing a child murderer to death isn't murdering them... it's punishing them- a consequence of their voluntary actions.

    Imagine if we left each other alone? And were not forced to deal with the hands we are dealt?

    We imprison kidnappers. Your other point is weak.
    yes, we do, but we imprison all law-breakers who are sentenced to prison. his other point is an excellent one, and one that is often dismissed by the "let the punishment fit the crime" crowd. should a child who steals from a market have their hand chopped off? cuz that punishment "fits the crime", and it would almost certainly deter a repeat offense. 
  • tbergs said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    all fair points, except your first statement. it is my opinion that it is not up to humans to judge the worth of another human. or any other living being, for that matter. 
    I know that's where we disagree, Hugh. I'm cool with you holding the position you do and I also understand very well why you hold it (you've laboured extensively explaining your position over the years in this thread).

    I guess it's safe to say it would take something cataclysmic to have me budge from my stance. I've genuinely come to understand the other side of the equation, I just haven't gotten myself to the point where I can adopt it.

    * I've thought of Callen every now and then and how much he offered to this long discussion. I guess he's gone, but he left pretty abruptly. I didn't mind him.
    I don't really feel like it is true that you understand very well, since you are still talking about people feeling sorry for the criminals, and still appear to be trying to say that your idea of justice and revenge are two different things, which they aren't.
    Ummmm....from what I've read, those against the death penalty believe that the criminals lives have value....right?  And that humans and the system is too flawed to judge them to die?  So if they are put to death, someone that thinks that person had value would then feel sorry for the criminal, wouldn't they?  



    No.
    Kind of.
    No. I am against the death penalty because it doesn't make sense. If we're looking for justice, murder doesn't beget murder. It's the only crime where we literally seek to punish by inflicting the same act on the offender. Imagine if rapists were sentenced to eternal raping, drug dealers were forced to consume their trade forever. Sounds like Dante's Inferno come to life. Come to think of it, that may actually work...

    Anyway, life in prison with no parole or chance at freedom are more punishment than any state sanctioned death will ever be, but lo and behold, our justice system is flawed and can't even get that part right.
    It makes perfect sense to some. Let the punishment equal the crime. Sentencing a child murderer to death isn't murdering them... it's punishing them- a consequence of their voluntary actions.

    Imagine if we left each other alone? And were not forced to deal with the hands we are dealt?

    We imprison kidnappers. Your other point is weak.
    yes, we do, but we imprison all law-breakers who are sentenced to prison. his other point is an excellent one, and one that is often dismissed by the "let the punishment fit the crime" crowd. should a child who steals from a market have their hand chopped off? cuz that punishment "fits the crime", and it would almost certainly deter a repeat offense. 
    You think cutting a hand off for stealing an apple is appropriate?

    I don't. An apple is replaceable and hardly life altering.

    Now... raping, torturing and mutilating a child on the other hand is a completely different crime. If you think life in prison with a few comforts is suitable fair enough... but I don't.

    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 46,828
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    all fair points, except your first statement. it is my opinion that it is not up to humans to judge the worth of another human. or any other living being, for that matter. 
    I know that's where we disagree, Hugh. I'm cool with you holding the position you do and I also understand very well why you hold it (you've laboured extensively explaining your position over the years in this thread).

    I guess it's safe to say it would take something cataclysmic to have me budge from my stance. I've genuinely come to understand the other side of the equation, I just haven't gotten myself to the point where I can adopt it.

    * I've thought of Callen every now and then and how much he offered to this long discussion. I guess he's gone, but he left pretty abruptly. I didn't mind him.
    I don't really feel like it is true that you understand very well, since you are still talking about people feeling sorry for the criminals, and still appear to be trying to say that your idea of justice and revenge are two different things, which they aren't.
    Ummmm....from what I've read, those against the death penalty believe that the criminals lives have value....right?  And that humans and the system is too flawed to judge them to die?  So if they are put to death, someone that thinks that person had value would then feel sorry for the criminal, wouldn't they?  



    No.
    Kind of.
    Not at all.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    all fair points, except your first statement. it is my opinion that it is not up to humans to judge the worth of another human. or any other living being, for that matter. 
    I know that's where we disagree, Hugh. I'm cool with you holding the position you do and I also understand very well why you hold it (you've laboured extensively explaining your position over the years in this thread).

    I guess it's safe to say it would take something cataclysmic to have me budge from my stance. I've genuinely come to understand the other side of the equation, I just haven't gotten myself to the point where I can adopt it.

    * I've thought of Callen every now and then and how much he offered to this long discussion. I guess he's gone, but he left pretty abruptly. I didn't mind him.
    I don't really feel like it is true that you understand very well, since you are still talking about people feeling sorry for the criminals, and still appear to be trying to say that your idea of justice and revenge are two different things, which they aren't.
    Ummmm....from what I've read, those against the death penalty believe that the criminals lives have value....right?  And that humans and the system is too flawed to judge them to die?  So if they are put to death, someone that thinks that person had value would then feel sorry for the criminal, wouldn't they?  



    No.
    Kind of.
    Not at all.
    This appears to be a very effective way to communicate on a messageboard.

    "No"
    "Kind of"
    "Not at all"
    "Pretty much"

    hippiemom = goodness
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 46,828
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    all fair points, except your first statement. it is my opinion that it is not up to humans to judge the worth of another human. or any other living being, for that matter. 
    I know that's where we disagree, Hugh. I'm cool with you holding the position you do and I also understand very well why you hold it (you've laboured extensively explaining your position over the years in this thread).

    I guess it's safe to say it would take something cataclysmic to have me budge from my stance. I've genuinely come to understand the other side of the equation, I just haven't gotten myself to the point where I can adopt it.

    * I've thought of Callen every now and then and how much he offered to this long discussion. I guess he's gone, but he left pretty abruptly. I didn't mind him.
    I don't really feel like it is true that you understand very well, since you are still talking about people feeling sorry for the criminals, and still appear to be trying to say that your idea of justice and revenge are two different things, which they aren't.
    Ummmm....from what I've read, those against the death penalty believe that the criminals lives have value....right?  And that humans and the system is too flawed to judge them to die?  So if they are put to death, someone that thinks that person had value would then feel sorry for the criminal, wouldn't they?  



    No.
    Kind of.
    Not at all.
    This appears to be a very effective way to communicate on a messageboard.

    "No"
    "Kind of"
    "Not at all"
    "Pretty much"

    I have already said everything that can be said in this thread to counter your statement. It would be a waste of my time to repeat it. If you care, just read the whole thread (again?).
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 18,021
    tbergs said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    all fair points, except your first statement. it is my opinion that it is not up to humans to judge the worth of another human. or any other living being, for that matter. 
    I know that's where we disagree, Hugh. I'm cool with you holding the position you do and I also understand very well why you hold it (you've laboured extensively explaining your position over the years in this thread).

    I guess it's safe to say it would take something cataclysmic to have me budge from my stance. I've genuinely come to understand the other side of the equation, I just haven't gotten myself to the point where I can adopt it.

    * I've thought of Callen every now and then and how much he offered to this long discussion. I guess he's gone, but he left pretty abruptly. I didn't mind him.
    I don't really feel like it is true that you understand very well, since you are still talking about people feeling sorry for the criminals, and still appear to be trying to say that your idea of justice and revenge are two different things, which they aren't.
    Ummmm....from what I've read, those against the death penalty believe that the criminals lives have value....right?  And that humans and the system is too flawed to judge them to die?  So if they are put to death, someone that thinks that person had value would then feel sorry for the criminal, wouldn't they?  



    No.
    Kind of.
    No. I am against the death penalty because it doesn't make sense. If we're looking for justice, murder doesn't beget murder. It's the only crime where we literally seek to punish by inflicting the same act on the offender. Imagine if rapists were sentenced to eternal raping, drug dealers were forced to consume their trade forever. Sounds like Dante's Inferno come to life. Come to think of it, that may actually work...

    Anyway, life in prison with no parole or chance at freedom are more punishment than any state sanctioned death will ever be, but lo and behold, our justice system is flawed and can't even get that part right.
    It makes perfect sense to some. Let the punishment equal the crime. Sentencing a child murderer to death isn't murdering them... it's punishing them- a consequence of their voluntary actions.

    Imagine if we left each other alone? And were not forced to deal with the hands we are dealt?

    We imprison kidnappers. Your other point is weak.
    yes, we do, but we imprison all law-breakers who are sentenced to prison. his other point is an excellent one, and one that is often dismissed by the "let the punishment fit the crime" crowd. should a child who steals from a market have their hand chopped off? cuz that punishment "fits the crime", and it would almost certainly deter a repeat offense. 
    You think cutting a hand off for stealing an apple is appropriate?

    I don't. An apple is replaceable and hardly life altering.

    Now... raping, torturing and mutilating a child on the other hand is a completely different crime. If you think life in prison with a few comforts is suitable fair enough... but I don't.

    No, I don't. But other countries who enact capital punishment do. 

    so basically, here is where the "punishment fits the crime" argument falls apart and reveals itself for what it really is: vengeance. 
  • tbergs said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    all fair points, except your first statement. it is my opinion that it is not up to humans to judge the worth of another human. or any other living being, for that matter. 
    I know that's where we disagree, Hugh. I'm cool with you holding the position you do and I also understand very well why you hold it (you've laboured extensively explaining your position over the years in this thread).

    I guess it's safe to say it would take something cataclysmic to have me budge from my stance. I've genuinely come to understand the other side of the equation, I just haven't gotten myself to the point where I can adopt it.

    * I've thought of Callen every now and then and how much he offered to this long discussion. I guess he's gone, but he left pretty abruptly. I didn't mind him.
    I don't really feel like it is true that you understand very well, since you are still talking about people feeling sorry for the criminals, and still appear to be trying to say that your idea of justice and revenge are two different things, which they aren't.
    Ummmm....from what I've read, those against the death penalty believe that the criminals lives have value....right?  And that humans and the system is too flawed to judge them to die?  So if they are put to death, someone that thinks that person had value would then feel sorry for the criminal, wouldn't they?  



    No.
    Kind of.
    No. I am against the death penalty because it doesn't make sense. If we're looking for justice, murder doesn't beget murder. It's the only crime where we literally seek to punish by inflicting the same act on the offender. Imagine if rapists were sentenced to eternal raping, drug dealers were forced to consume their trade forever. Sounds like Dante's Inferno come to life. Come to think of it, that may actually work...

    Anyway, life in prison with no parole or chance at freedom are more punishment than any state sanctioned death will ever be, but lo and behold, our justice system is flawed and can't even get that part right.
    It makes perfect sense to some. Let the punishment equal the crime. Sentencing a child murderer to death isn't murdering them... it's punishing them- a consequence of their voluntary actions.

    Imagine if we left each other alone? And were not forced to deal with the hands we are dealt?

    We imprison kidnappers. Your other point is weak.
    yes, we do, but we imprison all law-breakers who are sentenced to prison. his other point is an excellent one, and one that is often dismissed by the "let the punishment fit the crime" crowd. should a child who steals from a market have their hand chopped off? cuz that punishment "fits the crime", and it would almost certainly deter a repeat offense. 
    You think cutting a hand off for stealing an apple is appropriate?

    I don't. An apple is replaceable and hardly life altering.

    Now... raping, torturing and mutilating a child on the other hand is a completely different crime. If you think life in prison with a few comforts is suitable fair enough... but I don't.

    No, I don't. But other countries who enact capital punishment do. 

    so basically, here is where the "punishment fits the crime" argument falls apart and reveals itself for what it really is: vengeance. 
    Victims typically call it justice, but if you want to call it vengeance fair enough.

    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 5,743
    Speaking of punishment fitting the crime, should the juveniles who started the fire due to reckless behavior out west be lit on fire? They've caused more damage and destruction than several murders and rapists combined, not including the long term health conditions from all the smoke.

    Another reason why the death penalty is a backwards justice process.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • tbergs said:
    Speaking of punishment fitting the crime, should the juveniles who started the fire due to reckless behavior out west be lit on fire? They've caused more damage and destruction than several murders and rapists combined, not including the long term health conditions from all the smoke.

    Another reason why the death penalty is a backwards justice process.
    Juvenile argument and one I'm not going to entertain for very long.

    Premeditated murder- with sadistic qualities sprinkled in- is a lot different than morons acting moronically.

    Those kids need an intervention, but they are a far cry from, oh, say Steven Smith raping and murdering an infant who was put to death in Ohio.

    Poor Steve, eh? The backwards justice system was so cruel to him. 
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 18,021
    tbergs said:
    Speaking of punishment fitting the crime, should the juveniles who started the fire due to reckless behavior out west be lit on fire? They've caused more damage and destruction than several murders and rapists combined, not including the long term health conditions from all the smoke.

    Another reason why the death penalty is a backwards justice process.
    Juvenile argument and one I'm not going to entertain for very long.

    Premeditated murder- with sadistic qualities sprinkled in- is a lot different than morons acting moronically.

    Those kids need an intervention, but they are a far cry from, oh, say Steven Smith raping and murdering an infant who was put to death in Ohio.

    Poor Steve, eh? The backwards justice system was so cruel to him. 
    seriously, does "punishment fitting the crime" only apply to rapists and murderers? or if someone burns down someone's house, and it's ruled arson, should that person's house be burned down?
  • tbergs said:
    Speaking of punishment fitting the crime, should the juveniles who started the fire due to reckless behavior out west be lit on fire? They've caused more damage and destruction than several murders and rapists combined, not including the long term health conditions from all the smoke.

    Another reason why the death penalty is a backwards justice process.
    Juvenile argument and one I'm not going to entertain for very long.

    Premeditated murder- with sadistic qualities sprinkled in- is a lot different than morons acting moronically.

    Those kids need an intervention, but they are a far cry from, oh, say Steven Smith raping and murdering an infant who was put to death in Ohio.

    Poor Steve, eh? The backwards justice system was so cruel to him. 
    seriously, does "punishment fitting the crime" only apply to rapists and murderers? or if someone burns down someone's house, and it's ruled arson, should that person's house be burned down?
    I see no need to punish the house. Don't get silly.

    I feel people who rape and murder infants, like the aforementioned Steve Smith, demand a stiffer sentence than a dope dealer or car thief. In my mind, it most accurately demonstrates the grievous nature of their offences. You obviously feel there is no need to differentiate and that jail is most suitable for both.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 18,021
    tbergs said:
    Speaking of punishment fitting the crime, should the juveniles who started the fire due to reckless behavior out west be lit on fire? They've caused more damage and destruction than several murders and rapists combined, not including the long term health conditions from all the smoke.

    Another reason why the death penalty is a backwards justice process.
    Juvenile argument and one I'm not going to entertain for very long.

    Premeditated murder- with sadistic qualities sprinkled in- is a lot different than morons acting moronically.

    Those kids need an intervention, but they are a far cry from, oh, say Steven Smith raping and murdering an infant who was put to death in Ohio.

    Poor Steve, eh? The backwards justice system was so cruel to him. 
    seriously, does "punishment fitting the crime" only apply to rapists and murderers? or if someone burns down someone's house, and it's ruled arson, should that person's house be burned down?
    I see no need to punish the house. Don't get silly.

    I feel people who rape and murder infants, like the aforementioned Steve Smith, demand a stiffer sentence than a dope dealer or car thief. In my mind, it most accurately demonstrates the grievous nature of their offences. You obviously feel there is no need to differentiate and that jail is most suitable for both.
    still won't answer a legitimate question that obviously pokes holes in your stance. ok.

    LOL, well, generally people who commit a more serious offense get a more serious sentence; much longer periods of time, more restrictions with regards to visitation/amenities/freedom, not to mention the dregs of society they get to bunk and shower with. 
  • tbergs said:
    Speaking of punishment fitting the crime, should the juveniles who started the fire due to reckless behavior out west be lit on fire? They've caused more damage and destruction than several murders and rapists combined, not including the long term health conditions from all the smoke.

    Another reason why the death penalty is a backwards justice process.
    Juvenile argument and one I'm not going to entertain for very long.

    Premeditated murder- with sadistic qualities sprinkled in- is a lot different than morons acting moronically.

    Those kids need an intervention, but they are a far cry from, oh, say Steven Smith raping and murdering an infant who was put to death in Ohio.

    Poor Steve, eh? The backwards justice system was so cruel to him. 
    seriously, does "punishment fitting the crime" only apply to rapists and murderers? or if someone burns down someone's house, and it's ruled arson, should that person's house be burned down?
    I see no need to punish the house. Don't get silly.

    I feel people who rape and murder infants, like the aforementioned Steve Smith, demand a stiffer sentence than a dope dealer or car thief. In my mind, it most accurately demonstrates the grievous nature of their offences. You obviously feel there is no need to differentiate and that jail is most suitable for both.
    still won't answer a legitimate question that obviously pokes holes in your stance. ok.

    LOL, well, generally people who commit a more serious offense get a more serious sentence; much longer periods of time, more restrictions with regards to visitation/amenities/freedom, not to mention the dregs of society they get to bunk and shower with. 
    Your question was not legitimate- it was stupid. And I did answer it. Are you having troubles this morning.

    To your other point though and to demonstrate how confused you are at the very moment... you said this: "generally people who commit a more serious offense get a more serious sentence."

    Hmmm. Sounds like a punishment fitting the crime. Except such a punishment doesn't really fit the crime. Jail is very suitable for run of the mill criminals, but... even though you have made a point to distinguish the varying sentences depending on the severity of the offences... it's still the same.

    Deal dope? Jail. Rape and murder an infant? Jail. Except not as nice a cell. Yah. I'm not there with you.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 9,879
    tbergs said:
    Speaking of punishment fitting the crime, should the juveniles who started the fire due to reckless behavior out west be lit on fire? They've caused more damage and destruction than several murders and rapists combined, not including the long term health conditions from all the smoke.

    Another reason why the death penalty is a backwards justice process.
    Juvenile argument and one I'm not going to entertain for very long.

    Premeditated murder- with sadistic qualities sprinkled in- is a lot different than morons acting moronically.

    Those kids need an intervention, but they are a far cry from, oh, say Steven Smith raping and murdering an infant who was put to death in Ohio.

    Poor Steve, eh? The backwards justice system was so cruel to him. 
    seriously, does "punishment fitting the crime" only apply to rapists and murderers? or if someone burns down someone's house, and it's ruled arson, should that person's house be burned down?
    I see no need to punish the house. Don't get silly.

    I feel people who rape and murder infants, like the aforementioned Steve Smith, demand a stiffer sentence than a dope dealer or car thief. In my mind, it most accurately demonstrates the grievous nature of their offences. You obviously feel there is no need to differentiate and that jail is most suitable for both.
    still won't answer a legitimate question that obviously pokes holes in your stance. ok.

    LOL, well, generally people who commit a more serious offense get a more serious sentence; much longer periods of time, more restrictions with regards to visitation/amenities/freedom, not to mention the dregs of society they get to bunk and shower with. 
    Your question was not legitimate- it was stupid. And I did answer it. Are you having troubles this morning.

    To your other point though and to demonstrate how confused you are at the very moment... you said this: "generally people who commit a more serious offense get a more serious sentence."

    Hmmm. Sounds like a punishment fitting the crime. Except such a punishment doesn't really fit the crime. Jail is very suitable for run of the mill criminals, but... even though you have made a point to distinguish the varying sentences depending on the severity of the offences... it's still the same.

    Deal dope? Jail. Rape and murder an infant? Jail. Except not as nice a cell. Yah. I'm not there with you.

    Your argument has such internal inconsistency that all you can do when people point this out is to call their points juvenile or stupid.

    Either "an eye for an eye" is logical and fitting, or it isn't. Your point appears to be that "an eye for an eye" makes perfect sense for rapists and murderers, but for any other crime it's patently foolish. And therein lies the inconsistency that others are pointing out, and which makes it clear that your argument relies on emotion, not reason.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 18,021
    tbergs said:
    Speaking of punishment fitting the crime, should the juveniles who started the fire due to reckless behavior out west be lit on fire? They've caused more damage and destruction than several murders and rapists combined, not including the long term health conditions from all the smoke.

    Another reason why the death penalty is a backwards justice process.
    Juvenile argument and one I'm not going to entertain for very long.

    Premeditated murder- with sadistic qualities sprinkled in- is a lot different than morons acting moronically.

    Those kids need an intervention, but they are a far cry from, oh, say Steven Smith raping and murdering an infant who was put to death in Ohio.

    Poor Steve, eh? The backwards justice system was so cruel to him. 
    seriously, does "punishment fitting the crime" only apply to rapists and murderers? or if someone burns down someone's house, and it's ruled arson, should that person's house be burned down?
    I see no need to punish the house. Don't get silly.

    I feel people who rape and murder infants, like the aforementioned Steve Smith, demand a stiffer sentence than a dope dealer or car thief. In my mind, it most accurately demonstrates the grievous nature of their offences. You obviously feel there is no need to differentiate and that jail is most suitable for both.
    still won't answer a legitimate question that obviously pokes holes in your stance. ok.

    LOL, well, generally people who commit a more serious offense get a more serious sentence; much longer periods of time, more restrictions with regards to visitation/amenities/freedom, not to mention the dregs of society they get to bunk and shower with. 
    Your question was not legitimate- it was stupid. And I did answer it. Are you having troubles this morning.

    To your other point though and to demonstrate how confused you are at the very moment... you said this: "generally people who commit a more serious offense get a more serious sentence."

    Hmmm. Sounds like a punishment fitting the crime. Except such a punishment doesn't really fit the crime. Jail is very suitable for run of the mill criminals, but... even though you have made a point to distinguish the varying sentences depending on the severity of the offences... it's still the same.

    Deal dope? Jail. Rape and murder an infant? Jail. Except not as nice a cell. Yah. I'm not there with you.
    stupid?

    stay classy.

    as often stated,  you obviously can't defend your stance, so you result to petty insults. 

    2 years in jail and 25 years is the same to you. LOL. ok then. 
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 9,879
    Quick poll - how many on here have ever been in a maximum security prison?

    I have. Not as an inmate, luckily. I periodically work in the prison system.

    For those of you who think it is a cakewalk, you have no idea.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 18,021
    Quick poll - how many on here have ever been in a maximum security prison?

    I have. Not as an inmate, luckily. I periodically work in the prison system.

    For those of you who think it is a cakewalk, you have no idea.
    but don't they get lobster and xbox, often? surely they must have a nicer mattress to sleep on than I do! 

    I have two lawyer friends who said that were utterly shocked and appalled at the conditions that inmates live in. what they described to me was nothing short of a living hell. 
  • Quick poll - how many on here have ever been in a maximum security prison?

    I have. Not as an inmate, luckily. I periodically work in the prison system.

    For those of you who think it is a cakewalk, you have no idea.
    Have you ever been to a crime scene where they scoop up the remains of dead victims?

    I bet that wouldn't be fantastic either.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • Thirty Bills UnpaidThirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    edited September 2017
    tbergs said:
    Speaking of punishment fitting the crime, should the juveniles who started the fire due to reckless behavior out west be lit on fire? They've caused more damage and destruction than several murders and rapists combined, not including the long term health conditions from all the smoke.

    Another reason why the death penalty is a backwards justice process.
    Juvenile argument and one I'm not going to entertain for very long.

    Premeditated murder- with sadistic qualities sprinkled in- is a lot different than morons acting moronically.

    Those kids need an intervention, but they are a far cry from, oh, say Steven Smith raping and murdering an infant who was put to death in Ohio.

    Poor Steve, eh? The backwards justice system was so cruel to him. 
    seriously, does "punishment fitting the crime" only apply to rapists and murderers? or if someone burns down someone's house, and it's ruled arson, should that person's house be burned down?
    I see no need to punish the house. Don't get silly.

    I feel people who rape and murder infants, like the aforementioned Steve Smith, demand a stiffer sentence than a dope dealer or car thief. In my mind, it most accurately demonstrates the grievous nature of their offences. You obviously feel there is no need to differentiate and that jail is most suitable for both.
    still won't answer a legitimate question that obviously pokes holes in your stance. ok.

    LOL, well, generally people who commit a more serious offense get a more serious sentence; much longer periods of time, more restrictions with regards to visitation/amenities/freedom, not to mention the dregs of society they get to bunk and shower with. 
    Your question was not legitimate- it was stupid. And I did answer it. Are you having troubles this morning.

    To your other point though and to demonstrate how confused you are at the very moment... you said this: "generally people who commit a more serious offense get a more serious sentence."

    Hmmm. Sounds like a punishment fitting the crime. Except such a punishment doesn't really fit the crime. Jail is very suitable for run of the mill criminals, but... even though you have made a point to distinguish the varying sentences depending on the severity of the offences... it's still the same.

    Deal dope? Jail. Rape and murder an infant? Jail. Except not as nice a cell. Yah. I'm not there with you.
    stupid?

    stay classy.

    as often stated,  you obviously can't defend your stance, so you result to petty insults. 

    2 years in jail and 25 years is the same to you. LOL. ok then. 
    Stay classy, eh?

    I'm assuming mocking (LOL definitively bolded for
    greater impact... and twice now) with laughter and provoking (ignoring a response to belittle begging for one) fits 'staying classy'?

    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • tbergs said:
    Speaking of punishment fitting the crime, should the juveniles who started the fire due to reckless behavior out west be lit on fire? They've caused more damage and destruction than several murders and rapists combined, not including the long term health conditions from all the smoke.

    Another reason why the death penalty is a backwards justice process.
    Juvenile argument and one I'm not going to entertain for very long.

    Premeditated murder- with sadistic qualities sprinkled in- is a lot different than morons acting moronically.

    Those kids need an intervention, but they are a far cry from, oh, say Steven Smith raping and murdering an infant who was put to death in Ohio.

    Poor Steve, eh? The backwards justice system was so cruel to him. 
    seriously, does "punishment fitting the crime" only apply to rapists and murderers? or if someone burns down someone's house, and it's ruled arson, should that person's house be burned down?
    I see no need to punish the house. Don't get silly.

    I feel people who rape and murder infants, like the aforementioned Steve Smith, demand a stiffer sentence than a dope dealer or car thief. In my mind, it most accurately demonstrates the grievous nature of their offences. You obviously feel there is no need to differentiate and that jail is most suitable for both.
    still won't answer a legitimate question that obviously pokes holes in your stance. ok.

    LOL, well, generally people who commit a more serious offense get a more serious sentence; much longer periods of time, more restrictions with regards to visitation/amenities/freedom, not to mention the dregs of society they get to bunk and shower with. 
    Your question was not legitimate- it was stupid. And I did answer it. Are you having troubles this morning.

    To your other point though and to demonstrate how confused you are at the very moment... you said this: "generally people who commit a more serious offense get a more serious sentence."

    Hmmm. Sounds like a punishment fitting the crime. Except such a punishment doesn't really fit the crime. Jail is very suitable for run of the mill criminals, but... even though you have made a point to distinguish the varying sentences depending on the severity of the offences... it's still the same.

    Deal dope? Jail. Rape and murder an infant? Jail. Except not as nice a cell. Yah. I'm not there with you.

    Your argument has such internal inconsistency that all you can do when people point this out is to call their points juvenile or stupid.

    Either "an eye for an eye" is logical and fitting, or it isn't. Your point appears to be that "an eye for an eye" makes perfect sense for rapists and murderers, but for any other crime it's patently foolish. And therein lies the inconsistency that others are pointing out, and which makes it clear that your argument relies on emotion, not reason.
    Not all crimes are the same, nor carry the same impact.

    You can try and compare embezzlement to murder if you wish, but they are not even close.

    The argument I am resistant to is trying to insist that if a sentence of death can be issued for a murderer... then all other crimes should reflect a sentence that reflects the nature of their offence. Why? And we can work from the other side too:

    Burglary= jail.
    Mass Murder= jail.

    How does the above reflect reason? Do you want me to post some examples where burglars and murderers have shared the same sentence?
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 9,879
    Quick poll - how many on here have ever been in a maximum security prison?

    I have. Not as an inmate, luckily. I periodically work in the prison system.

    For those of you who think it is a cakewalk, you have no idea.
    Have you ever been to a crime scene where they scoop up the remains of dead victims?

    I bet that wouldn't be fantastic either.
    Yup, and no it's not. 

    Totally irrelevant to the question, though. Another appeal to emotion over reason. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 18,021
    tbergs said:
    Speaking of punishment fitting the crime, should the juveniles who started the fire due to reckless behavior out west be lit on fire? They've caused more damage and destruction than several murders and rapists combined, not including the long term health conditions from all the smoke.

    Another reason why the death penalty is a backwards justice process.
    Juvenile argument and one I'm not going to entertain for very long.

    Premeditated murder- with sadistic qualities sprinkled in- is a lot different than morons acting moronically.

    Those kids need an intervention, but they are a far cry from, oh, say Steven Smith raping and murdering an infant who was put to death in Ohio.

    Poor Steve, eh? The backwards justice system was so cruel to him. 
    seriously, does "punishment fitting the crime" only apply to rapists and murderers? or if someone burns down someone's house, and it's ruled arson, should that person's house be burned down?
    I see no need to punish the house. Don't get silly.

    I feel people who rape and murder infants, like the aforementioned Steve Smith, demand a stiffer sentence than a dope dealer or car thief. In my mind, it most accurately demonstrates the grievous nature of their offences. You obviously feel there is no need to differentiate and that jail is most suitable for both.
    still won't answer a legitimate question that obviously pokes holes in your stance. ok.

    LOL, well, generally people who commit a more serious offense get a more serious sentence; much longer periods of time, more restrictions with regards to visitation/amenities/freedom, not to mention the dregs of society they get to bunk and shower with. 
    Your question was not legitimate- it was stupid. And I did answer it. Are you having troubles this morning.

    To your other point though and to demonstrate how confused you are at the very moment... you said this: "generally people who commit a more serious offense get a more serious sentence."

    Hmmm. Sounds like a punishment fitting the crime. Except such a punishment doesn't really fit the crime. Jail is very suitable for run of the mill criminals, but... even though you have made a point to distinguish the varying sentences depending on the severity of the offences... it's still the same.

    Deal dope? Jail. Rape and murder an infant? Jail. Except not as nice a cell. Yah. I'm not there with you.

    Your argument has such internal inconsistency that all you can do when people point this out is to call their points juvenile or stupid.

    Either "an eye for an eye" is logical and fitting, or it isn't. Your point appears to be that "an eye for an eye" makes perfect sense for rapists and murderers, but for any other crime it's patently foolish. And therein lies the inconsistency that others are pointing out, and which makes it clear that your argument relies on emotion, not reason.
    Not all crimes are the same, nor carry the same impact.

    You can try and compare embezzlement to murder if you wish, but they are not even close.

    The argument I am resistant to is trying to insist that if a sentence of death can be issued for a murderer... then all other crimes should reflect a sentence that reflects the nature of their offence. Why? And we can work from the other side too:

    Burglary= jail.
    Mass Murder= jail.

    How does the above reflect reason? Do you want me to post some examples where burglars and murderers have shared the same sentence?
    it doesn't, because the example itself isn't reasonable.  you are missing a pretty significant part of the equation: the length of the sentence. the equivalent of this would be if a doctor told you all cancers are equal.  

    doc: you have cancer.
    you: what type? is it treatable?
    doc: it's cancer. next! 

    look, it's pretty obvious that you seem to believe you are morally superior because of the following pro-DP formula:

    level of outrage = level of morality

    what you don't see/believe is that I, and I'm sure many other anti-DPers, can be, and have been, just as, or more, outraged than you on any given subject. BUT, we recognize that the justice system is bigger than our collective outrage. it's about checks and balances, making sure we do the least amount we have to do to protect society, not the most. if we did the most, we'd kill everyone convicted of any crime. 

    murder and rape aren't fair. nothing will balance those offences out. but killing people isn't the answer to it. 

    commence cherry picking a sentence and over-dramatizing/mocking it. 
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 5,743
    tbergs said:
    Speaking of punishment fitting the crime, should the juveniles who started the fire due to reckless behavior out west be lit on fire? They've caused more damage and destruction than several murders and rapists combined, not including the long term health conditions from all the smoke.

    Another reason why the death penalty is a backwards justice process.
    Juvenile argument and one I'm not going to entertain for very long.

    Premeditated murder- with sadistic qualities sprinkled in- is a lot different than morons acting moronically.

    Those kids need an intervention, but they are a far cry from, oh, say Steven Smith raping and murdering an infant who was put to death in Ohio.

    Poor Steve, eh? The backwards justice system was so cruel to him. 
    seriously, does "punishment fitting the crime" only apply to rapists and murderers? or if someone burns down someone's house, and it's ruled arson, should that person's house be burned down?
    I see no need to punish the house. Don't get silly.

    I feel people who rape and murder infants, like the aforementioned Steve Smith, demand a stiffer sentence than a dope dealer or car thief. In my mind, it most accurately demonstrates the grievous nature of their offences. You obviously feel there is no need to differentiate and that jail is most suitable for both.
    still won't answer a legitimate question that obviously pokes holes in your stance. ok.

    LOL, well, generally people who commit a more serious offense get a more serious sentence; much longer periods of time, more restrictions with regards to visitation/amenities/freedom, not to mention the dregs of society they get to bunk and shower with. 
    Your question was not legitimate- it was stupid. And I did answer it. Are you having troubles this morning.

    To your other point though and to demonstrate how confused you are at the very moment... you said this: "generally people who commit a more serious offense get a more serious sentence."

    Hmmm. Sounds like a punishment fitting the crime. Except such a punishment doesn't really fit the crime. Jail is very suitable for run of the mill criminals, but... even though you have made a point to distinguish the varying sentences depending on the severity of the offences... it's still the same.

    Deal dope? Jail. Rape and murder an infant? Jail. Except not as nice a cell. Yah. I'm not there with you.

    Your argument has such internal inconsistency that all you can do when people point this out is to call their points juvenile or stupid.

    Either "an eye for an eye" is logical and fitting, or it isn't. Your point appears to be that "an eye for an eye" makes perfect sense for rapists and murderers, but for any other crime it's patently foolish. And therein lies the inconsistency that others are pointing out, and which makes it clear that your argument relies on emotion, not reason.
    Not all crimes are the same, nor carry the same impact.

    You can try and compare embezzlement to murder if you wish, but they are not even close.

    The argument I am resistant to is trying to insist that if a sentence of death can be issued for a murderer... then all other crimes should reflect a sentence that reflects the nature of their offence. Why? And we can work from the other side too:

    Burglary= jail.
    Mass Murder= jail.

    How does the above reflect reason? Do you want me to post some examples where burglars and murderers have shared the same sentence?
    I get what you're saying but you're making vague comparisons of jail being the punishment in all cases. Here's the equivalent:

    Speeding 5 mph over the limit = Ticket
    Speeding 30 mph over the limit = Ticket

    Same punishment, right? Type of punishment, yes, ticket. Level of punishment, no. At that higher speed it could turn in to a reckless or careless charge on top of an increased fine, jail time, probation and other sanctions.

    When it comes to crime, we established a tiered charge and sentencing structure based on the severity of the offense, unless it's murder and then we say, fuck it, kill them. Why the exception? Besides the fact that most are open to viewing. That's really twisted and only further shows it's for vengeance.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • I agree that the viewing component of the punishment is (to use the term already used) twisted.

    Alrhough... I'll never judge victims for their willingness to participate. If it was one of my children... I'm not sure how I'd be with regards to viewing the event as much as I'd be okay with justice/vengeance/whatever you want to call it for my slain child.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
Sign In or Register to comment.