# What to do with prisoners on death row...



## Lunar (Apr 14, 2011)

Bring back the gladiatorial games!

Think about it: prisoners would agree because it means a chance at survival, and people would love it!  We're not that different from 2,000+ years ago; we still love bloodshed.  Plus the "gladiators" would wear actual armor and fight with weapons according to their type.

Who's with me?

The Colosseum still stands, so Rome has not fallen.  Why should we let it now?


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 14, 2011)

This is a moronic idea.


----------



## EdieFantabulous (Apr 14, 2011)

Well it's not like killing them is a much better idea.

Edie: At least this way it would be entertaining.


----------



## Azure (Apr 14, 2011)

I agree. HBO presents Death Arena 14.


----------



## Icky (Apr 14, 2011)

They already made that movie, OP.


----------



## Xegras (Apr 14, 2011)

I'm sure some point in the future this might happen.

That or we can use them as stunt doubles in movies. No need to pay and no need to check if all the ropes are secure.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 14, 2011)

hooray for socially acceptable sadism.


----------



## Thatch (Apr 14, 2011)

Icky said:


> They already made that movie, OP.


 
There was also that one with Schwarzenegger.



Skift said:


> hooray for socially acceptable sadism.


 
Bread and games.


----------



## Dreaming (Apr 14, 2011)

How do we deal with Murderers? Have them kill eachother!


----------



## Carnie (Apr 14, 2011)

Inb4 Death Ra-



Icky said:


> They already made that movie, OP.



Ah.
Well, there was Gamer too.


----------



## Unsilenced (Apr 14, 2011)

As a movie idea it's been done 9001 times. 

And I don't like the idea of releasing the murderers that prove themselves to be the best at killing. 

Just doesn't seem right.


----------



## Riley (Apr 14, 2011)

_"In 2291, in an attempt to control violence among deep-space miners, the New Earth Government legalized no-holds-barred fighting. Liandri Mining Corporation working with the NEG established a series of leagues and bloody public exhibitions. The fight's popularity grew with their brutality. Soon, Liandri discovered that the public matches were their most profitable enterprise. The professional league was formed. A cabal of the most violent and skilled warriors in known space, selected to fight in a Grand Tournament. Now it is 2341, fifty years have passed since the founding of Deathmatch. Profits from the tournament number in the hundreds of billions. You have been selected to fight in the Professional League by the Liandri Rules Board. Your strength and brutality are legendary. The time has come to prove you are the best. To crush your enemies. To win the tournament."

_Do that.


----------



## EdieFantabulous (Apr 14, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> As a movie idea it's been done 9001 times.
> 
> And I don't like the idea of releasing the murderers that prove themselves to be the best at killing.
> 
> Just doesn't seem right.


 Send them to an island somewhere, wait I think this was done before...


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 14, 2011)

EdieFantabulous said:


> *Well it's not like killing them is a much better idea.*
> 
> Edie: At least this way it would be entertaining.


 
Execution is a perfectly good way to eliminate violent, murderous scumbags from the gene pool.  Gladitorial games?  No.  Capitol punishment is not a spectator sport.  Eliminate "Death Row", and start regular exectutions until the old "Death Row" is empty?  Yes.  This way, we'd open up some prison space, and save some resources.


----------



## EdieFantabulous (Apr 14, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Execution is a perfectly good way to eliminate violent, murderous scumbags from the gene pool.  Gladitorial games?  No.  Capitol punishment is not a spectator sport.  Eliminate "Death Row", and start regular exectutions until the old "Death Row" is empty?  Yes.  This way, we'd open up some prison space, and save some resources.


 
So you get other murderous scumbags that work for the government to do it. Yeah!


----------



## Commiecomrade (Apr 14, 2011)

How about we put the regular prisoners to work for the community? We have the world's biggest free labor group and we're not going to flaunt it?

Death row inmates deserve life in prison, not the quick way out, in my opinion.


----------



## EdieFantabulous (Apr 14, 2011)

Commiecomrade said:


> How about we put the regular prisoners to work for the community? We have the world's biggest free labor group and we're not going to flaunt it?
> 
> Death row inmates deserve life in prison, not the quick way out, in my opinion.


 
Canada works 25 years to rehabilitate them into society.
We even provide education so they can function in society.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Apr 14, 2011)

Commiecomrade said:


> How about we put the regular prisoners to work for the community? We have the world's biggest free labor group and we're not going to flaunt it?
> 
> Death row inmates deserve life in prison, not the quick way out, in my opinion.


 
It depresses overall wages and takes jobs away from an already large, unemployed pool.

On the topic of death row, I wouldn't be so pensive about capital punishment if it didn't seem like there were so many innocent men being thrown into the system. So why they would be forced into a profit based kill sport is even less conscionable.


----------



## Azure (Apr 14, 2011)

Dude, where did you get Hussein Texas Ranger?


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Apr 14, 2011)

Azure said:


> Dude, where did you get Hussein Texas Ranger?


 
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61h8uDcjiBL._SL500_AA280_.jpg

Less camel jockey, more river skipper.


----------



## Unsilenced (Apr 14, 2011)

ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> It depresses overall wages and takes jobs away from an already large, unemployed pool.


 
>>Intentionally keep people out of the workforce
>>To reduce unemployment


----------



## Catilda Lily (Apr 14, 2011)

I would almost agree with this.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Apr 14, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> >>Intentionally keep people out of the workforce
> >>To reduce unemployment


 
I could be convinced otherwise when prisoners are paid wages equal to their free counterparts is standard : http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8289. Prisoners in privately run prisons can be paid as low 17 per hour for doing the same work a free person might earn minimum wage for. Simply because a person is convicted of committing a crime, doesn't mean they should be forced to work like and paid like a slave.


----------



## Unsilenced (Apr 14, 2011)

ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> I could be convinced otherwise when prisoners are paid wages equal to their free counterparts is standard : http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8289. Prisoners in privately run prisons can be paid as low 17 per hour for doing the same work a free person might earn minimum wage for. Simply because a person is convicted of committing a crime, doesn't mean they should be forced to work like and paid like a slave.


 
Would it be better to pay them minimum wage and make them pay for their food and cell maintenance?


----------



## Volkodav (Apr 14, 2011)

I'm not with you :\
Why would you take pleasure in watching people kill eachother? You're no better then dogfighters imo

I say just give them the needle or w.e they do


----------



## Lobar (Apr 14, 2011)

sure, why not

as long as we've agreed that inmates are subhumans and that vengence is synonymous with justice, we may as well generate some ad time for designer underwear and beer

no but really this is a terrible idea and you should feel bad for buying in to this mentality



Commiecomrade said:


> How about we put the regular prisoners to work for the community? We have the world's biggest free labor group and we're not going to flaunt it?


 
This is already done, though Shanwang is right about its negative effects.  And with more black men in prison today than were enslaved at the time of the Civil War, slavery is arguably alive and well in 21st century America.



Unsilenced said:


> >>Intentionally keep people out of the workforce
> >>To reduce unemployment


 
Inmates aren't counted in unemployment statistics, so...yes?


----------



## Volkodav (Apr 14, 2011)

I think that we should all let the death prisoners go and they can work on a farm with cats
where cats roam free and every day, they go out with handfulls of cat food and sprinkle it in the grass and then call the cats with a dinner bell


----------



## Xegras (Apr 14, 2011)

Send all inmates to a small Island. 

Like Australia!


----------



## Lobar (Apr 15, 2011)

Xegras said:


> Send all inmates to a small Island.
> 
> Like Australia!


 
but the point of the justice system is to _de_-incentivize crime


----------



## JadeFire (Apr 15, 2011)

Different idea: Food prices are a little high. There's a lot of meat in a bulked-up 220 pound convict. Hint hint. :V


----------



## EdieFantabulous (Apr 15, 2011)

Xegras said:


> Send all inmates to a small Island.
> 
> Like Australia!


 
I already said this I do believe, jeez. >:C


----------



## Xegras (Apr 15, 2011)

Lobar said:


> but the point of the justice system is to _de_-incentivize crime


 
Fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine how 'bout New Zealand?



JadeFire said:


> Different idea: Food prices are a little high. There's a lot of meat in a bulked-up 220 pound convict. Hint hint. :V


 
Little Soylent Green never hurt anybody.


----------



## EdieFantabulous (Apr 15, 2011)

Xegras said:


> Fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine how 'bout New Zealand?


 
Let's make an island in the bermuta triangle, or something similar.


----------



## Lunar (Apr 15, 2011)

Clayton said:


> I'm not with you :\
> Why would you take pleasure in watching people kill eachother? You're no better then dogfighters imo
> 
> I say just give them the needle or w.e they do


 Dogfighting is different.  The dog didn't kill someone, the dog didn't stand trial, the dog wasn't convicted.  Frankly, that's quite offensive that you could compare the two like that.  I despise dogfighting as much as you do, maybe more.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 15, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> Dogfighting is different.  The dog didn't kill someone, the dog didn't stand trial, the dog wasn't convicted.  Frankly, that's quite offensive that you could compare the two like that.  I despise dogfighting as much as you do, maybe more.


 
Frankly it's offensive that you think it's funny or entertaining when people are killed, regardless of what they've done.


----------



## Lunar (Apr 15, 2011)

Skift said:


> Frankly it's offensive that you think it's funny or entertaining when people are killed, regardless of what they've done.


 Didn't seem to be a problem for them.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 15, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> Didn't seem to be a problem for them.


 
So it's okay to stoop to their level? 

Just shut up. You're no better than them.


----------



## Bambi (Apr 15, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> Bring back the gladiatorial games!
> 
> Think about it: prisoners would agree because it means a chance at survival, and people would love it!  We're not that different from 2,000+ years ago; we still love bloodshed.  Plus the "gladiators" would wear actual armor and fight with weapons according to their type.
> 
> ...


@OP: Please watch this episode of Outer Limits. All of the ethical and moral dilemmas present within that kind of a system are presented here (plus it's a full episode; go nuts!)


----------



## Volkodav (Apr 15, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> Dogfighting is different.  The dog didn't kill someone, the dog didn't stand trial, the dog wasn't convicted.  Frankly, that's quite offensive that you could compare the two like that.  I despise dogfighting as much as you do, maybe more.


 You're not understanding why I'm comparing the two though.
Dogmen take some sort of pleasure watching dogs rip eachother apart for them. It's like some sort of control issue or something.



lunar_helix said:


> Didn't seem to be a problem for them.


 Serial killers kill people because of obvious mental issues. Read up on some and you'll understand.
Whether they kill for fun, pleasure or [using Dahmer as an example] abandonment issues, it's all based on mental issues.


----------



## EdieFantabulous (Apr 15, 2011)

Clayton said:


> it's all based on mental issues.


 
This is not true...
there is some evidence that suggests that there is a biological basis for that behaviour as well.
It depends a lot on the up bringing and social encounters as well. Environmental/Social, Biological, and Psychological all come into play.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Apr 15, 2011)

You're aware that anytime you execute someone, especially if they're innocent (and you're delusional if you think this hasn't happened even in the US), you're essentially putting them in place of Jesus or at the very least committing what amounts to the same kind of human sacrifice as the various "savage" peoples we were once obsessed with making "civilized" or, failing that, exterminating, right? Just thought I'd throw that out there. Also, if our own civilization/species were ever under attack from some alien race or something similarly catastrophic and actually had us on the ropes, I wonder how many of you would still be keen on responding to the taking of lives with _taking more lives_. To quote Dawn of the Dead, "When the dead walk, we must stop the killing, or we lose the war"...


----------



## Bobskunk (Apr 15, 2011)

this is pretty fucking terrible, not going to lie

our "justice" system is fucked up enough without turning it into brutal, sadistic entertainment on top of it all


----------



## Volkodav (Apr 15, 2011)

EdieFantabulous said:


> This is not true...
> there is some evidence that suggests that there is a biological basis for that behaviour as well.
> It depends a lot on the up bringing and social encounters as well. Environmental/Social, Biological, and Psychological all come into play.


 So say someone grows up around beating women
Therefore, they see nothing wrong with beating women adn beat women themselves later on in life
You're telling me there isn't any mental issues involved there?
Hhahahahaah


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 15, 2011)

EdieFantabulous said:


> Canada works 25 years to rehabilitate them into society.
> We even provide education *so they can function in society*.


 
Yep, let 'em loose, so they can take up their old profession again.


----------



## EdieFantabulous (Apr 15, 2011)

Clayton said:


> So say someone grows up around beating women
> Therefore, they see nothing wrong with beating women adn beat women themselves later on in life
> You're telling me there isn't any mental issues involved there?
> Hhahahahaah


 
-sigh- Sir, I said Environmental/Social that is what you are talking about.
It's different from the Psychological/Mental area.
Jeez, get your things straight. If you paid attention to my post I addressed all of the areas.


----------



## EdieFantabulous (Apr 15, 2011)

Killing one person does not make you a professional at doing so.
Having spent 25 years of your life in prison, will you do it again?


----------



## Volkodav (Apr 15, 2011)

EdieFantabulous said:


> -sigh- Sir, I said Environmental/Social that is what you are talking about.
> It's different from the Psychological/Mental area.
> Jeez, get your things straight. If you paid attention to my post I addressed all of the areas.


 
_"It depends a lot on the up bringing "_


----------



## Bobskunk (Apr 15, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Yep, let 'em loose, so they can take up their old profession again.


 
American system is based on punishment, revenge, and a misguided belief in deterrence.

Other prisons (outside of hellholes like Dubai, for example) attempt to rehabilitate.  By no measure does the American system even attempt this- it just makes criminals worse as people via institutionalized rape and gangs, and better at being criminals.

A reduced recidivism rate means reduced profits, after all.


----------



## Fay V (Apr 15, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> Dogfighting is different.  The dog didn't kill someone, the dog didn't stand trial, the dog wasn't convicted.  Frankly, that's quite offensive that you could compare the two like that.  I despise dogfighting as much as you do, maybe more.


 What exactly do you know about murders? do you think it's all cold calculated dexter-like action?  What about the guy that honestly had no idea he was doing something wrong? To flip the analogy, if I dog is aggressive and bites it needs to be put down with our laws, does that mean that we ought to put it in a dog fighting ring? 
There are some sick bastards out there, but finding pleasure in the suffering of other living creatures is a serious problem. 

Just a note the romans considered the slaves in the arena to be animals. the idea was to pit animals against one another. There's a reason why greek slaves never went to the arena.


----------



## EdieFantabulous (Apr 15, 2011)

Clayton said:


> _"It depends a lot on the up bringing "_


 
Evironmental/Social settings, Examples: Parents, Culture, Family, Friends. Example two: Child sees father abuse mother, a social event triggering the behaviour to beat women when they are older.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 15, 2011)

EdieFantabulous said:


> Killing one person does not make you a professional at doing so.
> Having spent 25 years of your life in prison, *will you do it again?*



http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/repeat_murder.htm

http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/49514/ocm00104570.pdf?sequence=1

http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2010/02/the-sinister-secret-of-abolitionists---part-1.html




Bobskunk said:


> American system is based on punishment, revenge, and a misguided belief in deterrence.
> 
> *Other prisons (outside of hellholes like Dubai, for example) attempt to rehabilitate.*  By no measure does the American system even attempt this- it just makes criminals worse as people via institutionalized rape and gangs, and better at being criminals.
> 
> A reduced recidivism rate means reduced profits, after all.


 
Indeed.  But even rehabilitation can fail.  And that is where the Death Penalty can be useful.


----------



## EdieFantabulous (Apr 15, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/repeat_murder.htm
> 
> http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/49514/ocm00104570.pdf?sequence=1
> 
> ...


 
Those are reports on the states no? The states focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation.
Where Canada focuses on Rehabilitating the criminals, and only when they are seen fit to be released are they.
If they seem like a threat they don't let them go, they are not like just throwing them into society.
They have evaluations, and the like.


----------



## Volkodav (Apr 15, 2011)

EdieFantabulous said:


> Evironmental/Social settings, Examples: Parents, Culture, Family, Friends. Example two: Child sees father abuse mother, a social event triggering the behaviour to beat women when they are older.


 "So say someone grows up around beating women
Therefore, they see nothing wrong with beating women adn beat women themselves later on in life
You're telling me there isn't any mental issues involved there?
Hhahahahaah "

Hurp durp
Are you drunk?


----------



## Icky (Apr 15, 2011)

EdieFantabulous said:


> Evironmental/Social settings, Examples: Parents, Culture, Family, Friends. Example two: Child sees father abuse mother, a social event triggering the behaviour to beat women when they are older.


 
Yeah, I'm pretty sure watching your fucking mother get beaten doesn't cause you to go be abusive to women later in life.


----------



## EdieFantabulous (Apr 15, 2011)

Clayton said:


> "So say someone grows up around beating women
> Therefore, they see nothing wrong with beating women adn beat women themselves later on in life
> You're telling me there isn't any mental issues involved there?
> Hhahahahaah "
> ...


 
No I was using your example to say it's not the Mental factor there.
It's the Social factor. Mental factor would be like a predisposition to beating women,
or a temperment that would cause them to do so.
So shut your face, I'm saying the mental issue you are talking about is wrong.


----------



## EdieFantabulous (Apr 15, 2011)

Icky said:


> Yeah, I'm pretty sure watching your fucking mother get beaten doesn't cause you to go be abusive to women later in life.


 
It can, because some children may not see anything wrong with it.
It depends on the child.


----------



## Riley (Apr 15, 2011)

Didn't you see the part where "Profits from the Tournament number in the *hundreds of billions.*"  Economy, meet solution.

And also I just want to see the Ripper built in real life.  _It shoots exploding circular saw blades!_


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 15, 2011)

Riley said:


> Didn't you see the part where "Profits from the Tournament number in the *hundreds of billions.*"  Economy, meet solution.
> 
> And also I just want to see the Ripper built in real life.  _*It shoots exploding circular saw blades!*_


 
What?  Shooting sawblades through the air isn't enough?  They've got to explode?


----------



## Riley (Apr 15, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> What?  Shooting sawblades through the air isn't enough?  They've got to explode?


 
That, or bounce off walls for 10 seconds and run a high risk of decapitating yourself.


----------



## Bobskunk (Apr 15, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Indeed.  But even rehabilitation can fail.  And that is where the Death Penalty can be useful.


 
Too bad we don't even try, instead our prisons are a for-profit meatgrinder system.

In the case of the death penalty, lock people up for life.  If they are truly a danger, that keeps them out of society just the same, without the finality of punishment that cannot be reversed.  If you execute somebody who is later to be found innocent, you can't bring them back from the dead.

A lot of states seem to have problems with that, notably Texas- and many seem to just want to put people on death row because it satisfies the blood lust of the population, as well as making the DAs look good.  "Oh, a brutal murder case?  Good news, someone was found and convicted, I win!  What, evidence has come to light that this crime was committed by somebody else?  I don't want to hear it, too much effort, plus that would mean the record would be amended so that I did not in fact win that case!"  This is made even worse by decades of awful legal precedent, most recently Scalia's ruling that defendants are not entitled to evidence that proves their innocence and that it is a waste of time- his position is that anybody who gets charged for a crime should just plead guilty to save everyone time and money.

This attitude, and the pervasiveness of plea bargains, compounded by unaffordable bail for even minor crimes resulting in months of detention (also coercion to get a person to stupidly plead guilty to "make it easier on themself") means we have a court system that is only interested in throwing away the first person they can find and get enough to stick to.  As it stands, if it wasn't so sloppy or careless or punitive, then maybe you'd have some argument for the death penalty.  However, because it is so irreversible, as well as carried out by a flawed, almost vindictive justice system, and because life imprisonment without possibility of parole serves the same "removal" goal with the cost savings associated with fewer appeals...  The death penalty, especially as practiced in the United States, serves mostly to stoke the boner people have to see "an eye for an eye" enacted on other people- some even advocate it for petty, non-violent crimes.

That "an eye for an eye" boner is one boner that is not mine to ask about, but you sure seem to be pitching a tent in your pants over it.


----------



## Ibuuyk (Apr 15, 2011)

Too bad there's an idiotic concept called ethics to make fun stuff "unthinkable".


----------



## Lobar (Apr 15, 2011)

Ibuuyk said:


> Too bad there's an idiotic concept called ethics to make fun stuff "unthinkable".


 
It's what keeps people from smacking you for saying things that dumb.


----------



## Volkodav (Apr 15, 2011)

EdieFantabulous said:


> No I was using your example to say it's not the Mental factor there.
> It's the Social factor. Mental factor would be like a predisposition to beating women,
> or a temperment that would cause them to do so.
> So shut your face, I'm saying the mental issue you are talking about is wrong.


 How is that not a mental factor? It's the lack of remorse from the abuser.


EdieFantabulous said:


> It can, because some children may not see anything wrong with it.
> It depends on the child.


 "Might not see anything wrong with it" as in.. might not see anything wrong with causing their wife/gf/whatever physical pain.
Yeah, not some sort of mental issue like lack of remorse, pity, regret, etc. Yep. Sounds like a mentally sound individual.


----------



## EdieFantabulous (Apr 15, 2011)

Clayton said:


> How is that not a mental factor? It's the lack of remorse from the abuser.
> 
> "Might not see anything wrong with it" as in.. might not see anything wrong with causing their wife/gf/whatever physical pain.
> Yeah, not some sort of mental issue like lack of remorse, pity, regret, etc. Yep. Sounds like a mentally sound individual.


 
Ugh, why don't you understand that it is a behaviour that is learned through their environment and social settings.
They seen it happening, they don't have the conventional moral understanding, and they have not developed enough to even get that at a young age.
They may eventually learn it is wrong, but some may not, because of never being explained, or being exposed to it, and being taught that.
Now say they got some sort of pleasure from doing it, then it may be a mental issue.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Apr 15, 2011)

I love how it's always the Christians and Libertarians that are some of the most hardcore enthusiasts for the death penalty and the penal system in general. It just goes to show how much projection is inherent in any belief system or ideology. Christians hate sin, especially torture and murder, because the image burned into their brain from childhood of "the perfect being" is a naked, bloodied and battered body writhing in agony. And they're taught they should emulate and promote this, so it makes perfect sense they want to promote torture and death. Libertarians understand very intimately how much of human civilization is essentially based on the ownership of other people, and they hate it because they believe they're enslaved (and they'd be mostly right), but they don't really want to create a society based on liberty as much as to reverse roles and become the slave owners they already are at heart. And they wonder why they're so fringe, why the rest of the world can't simply see the genius in their grand vision. We do, but we also see that madness is the heavier side of the coin with your ilk. The genius of the system already in place is just _a little_ wiser, and that's its genius. The only reason, I believe, we haven't already collectively flipped our shit and the bargaining table is because we haven't completely kicked your asses out of the room yet. And until we have removed all possibility, however remote, that the likes of you could play out your societal rape and torture fantasy once the current regime is disposed of, they actually seem like the lesser evil.


----------



## Volkodav (Apr 15, 2011)

EdieFantabulous said:


> Ugh, why don't you understand that it is a behaviour that is learned through their environment and social settings.
> They seen it happening, they don't have the conventional moral understanding, and they have not developed enough to even get that at a young age.
> They may eventually learn it is wrong, but some may not, because of never being explained, or being exposed to it, and being taught that.
> Now say they got some sort of pleasure from doing it, then it may be a mental issue.


 I still believe it's a mental issue for someone to have no remorse to beating women. Learned or not, they should still have some sort of feelings when beating another human being.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Apr 15, 2011)

I vote to abolish the death penalty. 

I prefer life sentences with soul-crushing labour. It would send a greater message than the death penalty.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Apr 15, 2011)

JesusFish said:


> I vote to abolish the death penalty.
> 
> I prefer life sentences with soul-crushing labour. It would send a greater message than the death penalty.


 I vote to abolish the death penalty.

I prefer rehabilitation with a chance of release in the event that there was a mistake made during sentencing. It would send a greater message than hypocritically taking a potentially innocent life.


----------



## Thatch (Apr 15, 2011)

JesusFish said:


> I vote to abolish the death penalty.
> 
> I prefer life sentences with soul-crushing labour. It would send a greater message than the death penalty.


 
The only problem is what labour the could do that would be both useful and not giving them too dangerous tools, like explosives.


----------



## Ibuuyk (Apr 15, 2011)

Lobar said:


> It's what keeps people from smacking you for saying things that dumb.


 
Ethics, my dear, is what encourages the weak to disrespect the strong without fear of retaliation.


----------



## Tewin Follow (Apr 15, 2011)

Oh man, in that Death Race movie, the reward for the winning _convicted murderer _is their freedom. Their freedom they had to murder a lot of other prisoners for.

JUST KSJDFKDSLF,,AAAGRRR



Thatch said:


> The only problem is what labour the could do that  would be both useful and not giving them too dangerous tools, like  explosives.


 
Hello, I play Fallout, too. :3c


----------



## Thatch (Apr 15, 2011)

Harebelle said:


> Oh man, in that Death Race movie, the reward for the winning _convicted murderer _is their freedom. Their freedom they had to murder a lot of other prisoners for.
> 
> JUST KSJDFKDSLF,,AAAGRRR




It's called "public service" :V

Like when they get you to clean the streets of trash, only less literal :V



Harebelle said:


> Hello, I play Fallout, too. :3c


 
Hahaha, oh man, this honestly didn't occur to me, but an example is an example x3

But I gave this matter thought before the game, because of miner strikes here an all.


----------



## Fay V (Apr 15, 2011)

Ibuuyk said:


> Ethics, my dear, is what encourages the weak to disrespect the strong without fear of retaliation.


 Someone's been having fun with Nietzsche...

It's also what keeps scientists from completely fucking people up with their experiments. Or at least they have to try very hard not to.


----------



## Icky (Apr 15, 2011)

Harebelle said:


> Oh man, in that Death Race movie, the reward for the winning _convicted murderer _is their freedom. Their freedom they had to murder a lot of other prisoners for.
> 
> JUST KSJDFKDSLF,,AAAGRRR


 
Well, they did rig the whole race so they could kill a prisoner before he won his last race at any moment.


----------



## Tewin Follow (Apr 15, 2011)

Icky said:


> Well, they did rig the whole race so they could kill a prisoner before he won his last race at any moment.


 
Why were you paying attention.



Fay V said:


> It's  also what keeps scientists from completely fucking people up with their  experiments. Or at least they have to try very hard not to.


 
Most scientists are trying to benefit mankind, not hurt people. :c


----------



## Icky (Apr 15, 2011)

Harebelle said:


> Why were you paying attention.


 
I caught a glimpse of plot in between the explosions and gore.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Apr 15, 2011)

Harebelle said:


> Most scientists are trying to benefit mankind, not hurt people. :c


 Unit 371, love.  Unit 731. And Mengele. And others. 

That is why I gives thanks for living in a relatively ethical society erryday.


----------



## Heimdal (Apr 15, 2011)

Ibuuyk said:


> Ethics, my dear, is what encourages the weak to disrespect the strong without fear of retaliation.


 
Huh?

So doesn't that make the weak into the strong and the strong into the weak? In which case it's still the strong who have the power.


----------



## Thatch (Apr 15, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> Huh?
> 
> So doesn't that make the weak into the strong and the strong into the weak? In which case it's still the strong who have the power.


 
Not to mention that "strong" is rather vague. So who's disrespecting who, actually?

But then again, it's Ibyuuk, so it can't be expected to have any actual substance :V


----------



## Falux (Apr 15, 2011)

> What to do with prisoners on death row...



Kill them?


----------



## 8-bit (Apr 15, 2011)

Has anyone mentioned Soylent Green yet?


----------



## Tycho (Apr 15, 2011)

Death penalty is a solution that would only be just with a perfect justice system.  Such a thing does not exist.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Apr 15, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Someone's been having fun with Nietzsche...


 
Fuck, beat me too it. I don't think that actually has anything to do with Nietzche but it does kinda sound like the kind of bullshit someone would pull out of their ass trying to sound like that's their worldview (or that they actually have a coherent worldview). "Y'know, I read this book once, I think about this one part every day. Some bullshit about the will to power and how that's the only purpose every living creature has. Yeah, I don't know what the fuck it meant either, but statistically you're not likely to play a game unless it doesn't feel dumbed down but also isn't actually intellectually challenging, so here's a gun and go blow some shit up!"


----------



## Tewin Follow (Apr 15, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Death penalty is a solution that would only be just with a perfect justice system.  Such a thing does not exist.


 
This implies that the death penatly is justified in certain situations. I think some would argue that execution isn't ever part of a pefect system.


----------



## Thatch (Apr 15, 2011)

Harebelle said:


> This implies that the death penatly is justified in certain situations. I think some would argue that execution isn't ever part of a pefect system.


 
A perfect system would work with perfect people, perfect people would perfectly obey perfect law, and thus a perfect system would be useless.

As for death penalty, the convicts sit on Death Row for decades sometimes, it's not like they're taken to the back of the court and shot in the head once the case is closed.


----------



## Tewin Follow (Apr 15, 2011)

Thatch said:


> A perfect system would work with perfect people, perfect people would perfectly obey perfect law, and thus a perfect system would be useless.
> 
> As for death penalty, the convicts sit on Death Row for decades sometimes, it's not like they're taken to the back of the court and shot in the head once the case is closed.


 
Yeah, I'm not getting into this, I was just saying that it's not universally accepted as a good thing if free from abuse/failure.


----------



## Thatch (Apr 15, 2011)

Harebelle said:


> Yeah, I'm not getting into this, I was just saying that it's not universally accepted as a good thing if free from abuse/failure.


 
It was a comment to Tycho, since he brought up that it's "irreversable" punishment before, it just only now jumped into my mind. Sorry.


----------



## Volkodav (Apr 15, 2011)

Prisoners on death row should be allowed to open up a cat grooming salon and give cats fancy hairstyles
It will be called ~Clayton's Cat Boutique~ and here are a few of our samples.
~Rainbow Brite~ http://i54.tinypic.com/sdd7ol.jpg
~Carrot~ http://i54.tinypic.com/sfclq8.jpg
~Sunset Maiden~ http://i53.tinypic.com/25h1ukx.jpg
~Electric Blue~ http://i54.tinypic.com/w6wexk.png
~Strawberry Shortcake~ http://i53.tinypic.com/wqrjgn.jpg
~The Elvis~ http://i52.tinypic.com/2qk5ocp.jpg
and we also do birthdays - http://i55.tinypic.com/2ilfrmf.jpg

We hope that you and your death row prisoners will come by soon!


----------



## EdieFantabulous (Apr 15, 2011)

Clayton said:


> I still believe it's a mental issue for someone to have no remorse to beating women. Learned or not, they should still have some sort of feelings when beating another human being.


 
See having no remorse is a mental issue, but the initial cause was a social factor.
The "Psychopathic Gene" was triggered by said learned behaviour.
Which is the biological, psychological, and environmental relationship.


----------



## Maisuki (Apr 15, 2011)

Take the starcraft approach and use them as cannon-fodder in the military, in my opinion.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 15, 2011)

Riley said:


> That, or bounce off walls for 10 seconds and run a high risk of decapitating yourself.


 
I'd rather use a sword.




Bobskunk said:


> Too bad we don't even try, instead our prisons are a for-profit meatgrinder system.
> 
> In the case of the death penalty, lock people up for life.  If they are truly a danger, that keeps them out of society just the same, without the finality of punishment that cannot be reversed.  If you execute somebody who is later to be found innocent, you can't bring them back from the dead.
> 
> ...


 
Oh, yes... I hate plea bargains.  And don't forget, lawyers are all about profit, too.  And everyone ends up boned.




Wolf-Bone said:


> *I love how it's always the Christians and Libertarians that are some of the most hardcore enthusiasts for the death penalty and the penal system in general.* It just goes to show how much projection is inherent in any belief system or ideology. Christians hate sin, especially torture and murder, because the image burned into their brain from childhood of "the perfect being" is a naked, bloodied and battered body writhing in agony. And they're taught they should emulate and promote this, so it makes perfect sense they want to promote torture and death. Libertarians understand very intimately how much of human civilization is essentially based on the ownership of other people, and they hate it because they believe they're enslaved (and they'd be mostly right), but they don't really want to create a society based on liberty as much as to reverse roles and become the slave owners they already are at heart. And they wonder why they're so fringe, why the rest of the world can't simply see the genius in their grand vision. We do, but we also see that madness is the heavier side of the coin with your ilk. The genius of the system already in place is just _a little_ wiser, and that's its genius. The only reason, I believe, we haven't already collectively flipped our shit and the bargaining table is because we haven't completely kicked your asses out of the room yet. And until we have removed all possibility, however remote, that the likes of you could play out your societal rape and torture fantasy once the current regime is disposed of, they actually seem like the lesser evil.


 
Always?  It would help to have some documentation to back up that assertion.




Ad Hoc said:


> I vote to abolish the death penalty.
> 
> I prefer rehabilitation with a chance of release *in the event that there was a mistake made during sentencing*. It would send a greater message than hypocritically taking a potentially innocent life.


 
You mean, if there was a mistake made in the arrest...

As for the death penalty, it should only be used in cases were there is no doubt over the accused person's guilt.  You know, the perp caught in the act?  If they are just a "suspect", then a life sentence would be fine.  Of course, the way the justice system is supposed to work, if there is any doubt over the accused person's guilt, then they need to be released.




8-bit said:


> Has anyone mentioned Soylent Green yet?


 
Yes.




Tycho said:


> Death penalty is a solution that would only be just with a perfect justice system.  *Such a thing does not exist.*


 
And not just in America, but Everywhere in the World.




Harebelle said:


> This implies that the death penatly is justified in certain situations. *I think some would argue that execution isn't ever part of a pefect system.*


 
In a perfect world, there would be no crime, anyway.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Apr 15, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> Always? It would help to have some documentation to back up that assertion.



Fuck off. I'm not linkraping the forums like you. It's not at all a profound revelation that Libertarians, those lovers of life and liberty are often utterly selfish and hypocritical in just who they deem worthy of either. I shouldn't even have to explain the part about Christians, or at least American Christians. Mormons and Catholics especially have some well-known, extremely fucked up doctrines about "blood atonement" and the state being the "arbiters of life and death", and Catholics and Protestants alike have an illustrious history of using/twisting their religion to justify expressions of the most banal kind of sadism that even the Romans before them might've cringed at.


----------



## Riley (Apr 15, 2011)

Man, you guys are taking this seriously.  Just at least _consider_ my idea.

I mean, would a prisoner start a riot if a guy somewhere in the lunchroom looked like this?  I know I wouldn't.


----------



## Lunar (Apr 15, 2011)

Here's a question for everyone: why is it okay for there to be violent movies and video games?  Surely a lot of what we see there happens in real life.



Clayton said:


> I still believe it's a mental issue for someone  to have no remorse to beating women. Learned or not, they should still  have some sort of feelings when beating another human being.



It's a learned behavior.  It's part of the reason why the Nazis didn't feel remorse when they were tried after WWII.


----------



## Lobar (Apr 15, 2011)

Thatch said:


> A perfect system would work with perfect people, perfect people would perfectly obey perfect law, and thus a perfect system would be useless.
> 
> As for death penalty, the convicts sit on Death Row for decades sometimes, it's not like they're taken to the back of the court and shot in the head once the case is closed.


 
They do have extreme difficulty in ever getting a proper rehearing though, even if they know new exculpatory evidence exists.  Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached, you know. :V


----------



## Bambi (Apr 15, 2011)

Ibuuyk said:


> Ayn Rands dusty old snatch.


That's nice, dear.

You ever play a game called BioShock? I'd recommend it.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 15, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> *Fuck off. I'm not linkraping the forums like you.* It's not at all a profound revelation that Libertarians, those lovers of life and liberty are often utterly selfish and hypocritical in just who they deem worthy of either. I shouldn't even have to explain the part about Christians, or at least American Christians. Mormons and Catholics especially have some well-known, extremely fucked up doctrines about "blood atonement" and the state being the "arbiters of life and death", and Catholics and Protestants alike have an illustrious history of using/twisting their religion to justify expressions of the most banal kind of sadism that even the Romans before them might've cringed at.


 
Then don't expect me to bow to your expertise in the matter, because it smacks of religious/political prejudice to rant in such a fashion.  After all, "always" would imply all Christians and all Libertarians are "always" in favor of the death penalty.  And "always" for the reasons you stated.  Strong word, WB.  But then, you do tend to have strong views, so it's understandable.  I also think you're overthinking the whole issue.

But then, the death penalty is a very controversial, contentious issue.  Fraught with very strong views, on both sides.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 15, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> Here's a question for everyone: why is it okay for there to be violent movies and video games?  Surely a lot of what we see there happens in real life.


 
Dohoho, how cute, you think video games are real life c:


----------



## Ad Hoc (Apr 15, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> Here's a question for everyone: why is it okay for there to be violent movies and video games?  Surely a lot of what we see there happens in real life.


 I believe I have identified the problem. You think that real death in real life is like the fictional deaths on a screen.


EDIT: Wow, Skift hivemind. Post times, check'em.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 15, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> I believe I have identified the problem. You think that real death in real life is like the fictional deaths on a screen.
> 
> 
> EDIT: Wow, Skift hivemind. Post times, check'em.


 
Dang x3

But yeah, OP is dumb, moving right along.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Apr 15, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Then don't expect me to bow to your expertise in the matter, because it smacks of religious/political prejudice to rant in such a fashion.  After all, "always" would imply all Christians and all Libertarians are "always" in favor of the death penalty.  And "always" for the reasons you stated.  Strong word, WB.  But then, you do tend to have strong views, so it's understandable.  I also think you're overthinking the whole issue.
> 
> But then, the death penalty is a very controversial, contentious issue.  Fraught with very strong views, on both sides.


 
Whatever. Don't you have a pic of a flayed alive ancient Jew to fap to? Oh wait Sunday's not for another two days, my bad.


----------



## Azure (Apr 15, 2011)

dwammm


----------



## Bobskunk (Apr 15, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Oh, yes... I hate plea bargains.  And don't forget, lawyers are all about profit, too.  And everyone ends up boned.
> 
> You mean, if there was a mistake made in the arrest...
> 
> As for the death penalty, it should only be used in cases were there is no doubt over the accused person's guilt.  You know, the perp caught in the act?  If they are just a "suspect", then a life sentence would be fine.  Of course, the way the justice system is supposed to work, if there is any doubt over the accused person's guilt, then they need to be released.



Never mind your skipping over the rest of what I said (for once, it wasn't a point by point dissertation!,) that's again one of the huge strikes against the death penalty.

Also, don't confuse "no factual doubt" with "no perceived doubt."  The courts had no doubts about Cameron Todd Willingham due to a number of faulty reasons, and he was "caught in the act" (which he did not commit.)  Because the justice system does not work as it is supposed to work, I simply cannot support the use of capital punishment.

Again, doubt doesn't matter to the courts, as practiced.  If you want to talk about ideal systems (insofar as state/government directed killing can be considered ideal, an ironic position taken by many "small government" supporters) then that's one thing- communism and laissez faire capitalism also sound great as a theory or ideal, but in practice there are many realities which cause their outcomes to be harsh and crushing, mostly stemming to human imperfection.  Those imperfections require reversibility, of which the death penalty has none.

I'd also rather have a system that recognizes and guards against human infallibility, rather than one that assumes the people in charge know what they're doing- especially when it's over a matter as serious as ending a life.

EDIT: Oh yeah, that "Not only in America, but all around the world" comment cracks me up.  "Sure, it's terrible here, but it's not great anywhere else!"  Therefore, we shouldn't even bother to improve things?  That the status quo, as bad as it is, should be left alone?  "Because that's just the way it is?"  There's something hilarious about American Exceptionalism meeting American Defeatism in a great steaming mass of doublethink.  "We have the best healthcare in the world!"  "Yes, but many people cannot afford it, it's getting more expensive, other countries have better outcomes by doing it cheaper and covering more people.."  "What?  You're crazy, we can't do that, we're America!"


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 15, 2011)

Did Roose Hurro always start these discussions that could be solved with simple semantic clarificantions?


----------



## Lobar (Apr 15, 2011)

AristÃ³crates Carranza said:


> Did Roose Hurro always start these discussions that could be solved with simple semantic clarificantions?


 
Yes.  Longer than I've been here, and I have an '07 regdate.  There's a reason he is the sole member of my ignore list.


----------



## Lunar (Apr 15, 2011)

Skift said:


> Dang x3
> 
> But yeah, OP is dumb, moving right along.


 
This was intended to be a discussion, not a name-calling thread.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Apr 15, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> This was intended to be a discussion, not a name-calling thread.


 
FAF is a name-calling forum.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 15, 2011)

It is a discussion. About how stupid OP is. c:

Also what Commie said.


----------



## Lunar (Apr 15, 2011)

Commiecomrade said:


> FAF is a name-calling forum.


 
Most of the threads I've seen up until now have been simply discussions, disagreements here and there, but come on.  People could at least come up with a better adjective for me.  :V



Skift said:


> It is a discussion. About how stupid OP is. c:
> 
> Also what Commie said.



There's a difference between someone being stupid and someone having different views than you.  Grow up or get off the thread.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 15, 2011)

Was there even anything to discuss that would not be redundant on how everybody thought it was a dumb proposition :v?

Edit: OP, what about "The eternally wrong one" :V?


----------



## Lunar (Apr 15, 2011)

AristÃ³crates Carranza said:


> Was there even anything to discuss that would not be redundant on how everybody thought it was a dumb proposition :v?
> 
> Edit: OP, what about "The eternally wrong one" :V?



Extrapolate?


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 16, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> There's a difference between someone being stupid and someone having different views than you.  Grow up or get off the thread.


 
I'm sorry, forums don't work that way.

But if you like, you can request that a moderator lock your dumb thread.


----------



## Lunar (Apr 16, 2011)

Skift said:


> I'm sorry, forums don't work that way.
> 
> But if you like, you can request that a moderator lock your dumb thread.


 You know, you don't have to be on here at all.  Honestly, some people really have nothing better to do...


----------



## EdieFantabulous (Apr 16, 2011)

It's completely true.


----------



## Lunar (Apr 16, 2011)

EdieFantabulous said:


> It's completely true.


 
Which part?  :V


----------



## EdieFantabulous (Apr 16, 2011)

The part about nothing better to do. :3


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 16, 2011)

oh, i left once. then i came back.

I needed to vent my rage somehow. :3


----------



## Lunar (Apr 16, 2011)

EdieFantabulous said:


> The part about nothing better to do. :3


 I figured right after I posted and saw the This.  ^^;  silly me~



Skift said:


> oh, i left once. then i came back.
> 
> I needed to vent my rage somehow. :3


Go to a gym, then.  Beat up a nerd for lunch money.  Arguing over something that would never happen anyway is pointless.


----------



## Lobar (Apr 16, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> Grow up


 
said the one who needs real-life bloodsport for entertainment


----------



## EdieFantabulous (Apr 16, 2011)

Lobar said:


> said the one who needs real-life bloodsport for entertainment


 
She didn't say she needed it. :3


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 16, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> Go to a gym, then.  Beat up a nerd for lunch money.  Arguing over something that would never happen anyway is pointless.


 
Why don't you? You're the sadist here, after all. I'm sure you think I'm a terrible person who does nothing but bully on internet forums, but you know that's a ridiculous and frankly stupid assumption. 

Go ahead and tell this to people in real life, then tell them to go away if they don't agree. It doesn't work that way.

Sure, I _could_ go outside, but so could you. So it doesn't quite fit. If you want to make a point, make it instead of flailing around like an idiot because people don't agree with you. If you knew your idea was controversial, don't be fucking surprised when there's controversy.


----------



## Lunar (Apr 16, 2011)

EdieFantabulous said:


> She didn't say she needed it. :3


 Thank you, Edie.



Skift said:


> Why don't you? You're the sadist here, after all.  I'm sure you think I'm a terrible person who does nothing but bully on  internet forums, but you know that's a ridiculous and frankly stupid  assumption.
> 
> Go ahead and tell this to people in real life, then tell them to go away if they don't agree. It doesn't work that way.
> 
> Sure,  I _could_ go outside, but so could you. So it doesn't quite fit.  If you want to make a point, make it instead of flailing around like an  idiot because people don't agree with you. If you knew your idea was  controversial, don't be fucking surprised when there's  controversy.


 But I already go running every day.  D:  And no money for a gym membership, so I lift weights and work out at home.

I like it when people don't agree, and support their arguments with valid information.  What ticks me off is when you do it rudely like you are now.



Lobar said:


> True, that was a generous assumption on my part.   After all, merely _wanting_ unnecessary bloodshed and suffering  just for a little sadistic pleasure is arguably far worse.


It's not just me.  There are others who agree it would be beneficial.  Charging people who want to see this stuff to actually get to see it would mean big bank for the government, and easing the economy little by little.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 16, 2011)

lunar_helix: sadly, this forum is not famous for being civil.

Edie: defending a person here?! Fantastic! Now I have got more reasons to consider you awesome aside from your signature.


----------



## Lobar (Apr 16, 2011)

EdieFantabulous said:


> She didn't say she needed it. :3


 
True, that was a generous assumption on my part.  After all, merely _wanting_ unnecessary bloodshed and suffering just for a little sadistic pleasure is arguably far worse.


----------



## Lunar (Apr 16, 2011)

AristÃ³crates Carranza said:


> lunar_helix: sadly, this forum is not famous for being civil.
> 
> Edie: defending a person here?! Fantastic! Now I have got more reasons to consider you awesome aside from your signature.



I noticed.  And yes, Edie, very awesome of you.


----------



## EdieFantabulous (Apr 16, 2011)

Lobar said:


> True, that was a generous assumption on my part.  After all, merely _wanting_ unnecessary bloodshed and suffering just for a little sadistic pleasure is arguably far worse.


 
Eh, depends on how you view it, personally I think it would be a lot like football, or Mixed Martial arts.
There is also a lot of bloodsport all across the globe, it's just Western Society now frowns on it.


----------



## Lobar (Apr 16, 2011)

EdieFantabulous said:


> Eh, depends on how you view it, personally I think it would be a lot like football, or Mixed Martial arts.
> There is also a lot of bloodsport all across the globe, it's just Western Society now frowns on it.


 
Football and MMA are both consentual, seek to avoid permanent injury, and are rarely fatal.  A poor comparison.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 16, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> I like it when people don't agree, and support their arguments with valid information.  What ticks me off is when you do it rudely like you are now.


 
Alright, I know this is backtracking a bit, but bear with me.

It struck a nerve. So I apologize if I'm being a bit blunt, but honestly, if you post something like this, expect backlash. On another note, these forums, nor this thread, technically belong to you, so telling someone to get out of your thread is laughable. So I mocked that. 

I honestly don't think badly of you as a person, I just find your opinion on this particular matter crass and ridiculous. 

Also, I'd suggest taking a step back if you were considering my comments rude. If you were to post this in say, R&R, you'd get torn to bits. I feel it necessary to inform you that if you're going to post, think about it, think about the consequences of such, and then post. Anyone can shit out a terrible idea, just ask Lucas Arts. But when you expect everyone to politely discuss it (on the internet, especially), you're just asking for trouble.

Anyways, if you wish to reply to me on this, PM me please. I'm done publicly dicking around.




Lobar said:


> Football and MMA are both consentual, seek to avoid permanent injury, and are rarely fatal.  A poor comparison.


 
Indeed. Fatal injuries rarely occur in organized sports. 

I find it kind of silly to compare people dying to a sport or game.


----------



## Lunar (Apr 16, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Football and MMA are both consentual, seek to avoid permanent injury, and are rarely fatal.  A poor comparison.


 Gladiatorial combat would be consensual, too.  Like I said in my first post, it offers prisoners an opportunity to survive.  Who wouldn't jump at that chance?


----------



## EdieFantabulous (Apr 16, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Football and MMA are both consentual, seek to avoid permanent injury, and are rarely fatal.  A poor comparison.


 I don't think so. Anyways my point being that people still like bloodsports pretty much anywhere.


lunar_helix said:


> Gladiatorial combat would be consensual, too.  Like I said in my first post, it offers prisoners an opportunity to survive.  Who wouldn't jump at that chance?


 
That's a slippery slope, with the choice of death by government, or the choice of death by fellow jail/prison mates.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 16, 2011)

EdieFantabulous said:


> I don't think so. Anyways my point being that people still like bloodsports pretty much anywhere.


 
Er, are you just gonna say "I don't think so" without actually looking anything up? @.@

And it's not really a bloodsport. The instant blood drops on the mat (unless it's a nosebleed), the match is over. It's not about watching people die, it's watching carefully matched competitors go a few rounds, maybe get knocked out, and showing of their various styles of self-defense. If you add death, it becomes a bloodsport.

Something tells me you've never seen a proper martial arts competition that wasn't in a movie.


----------



## Lunar (Apr 16, 2011)

EdieFantabulous said:


> That's a slippery slope, with the choice of death by government, or the choice of death by fellow jail/prison mates.


 You've at least still got a fighting chance, though.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 16, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> You've at least still got a fighting chance, though.


 
That's true, however, winning in a match and then being set free seems kinda....counter-productive, ya know? Like, would you really want to release someone who just murdered another prisoner back into society?


----------



## Lunar (Apr 16, 2011)

Skift said:


> That's true, however, winning in a match and then being set free seems kinda....counter-productive, ya know? Like, would you really want to release someone who just murdered another prisoner back into society?


It would maybe be a little bit more macabre than that.  Like a tournament; I know that sounds bad, but, y'know.  
Part of me wants to introduce this proposal to a group of 40-year-old, Catholic soccer moms.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 16, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> It would maybe be a little bit more macabre than that.  Like a tournament; I know that sounds bad, but, y'know.
> Part of me wants to introduce this proposal to a group of 40-year-old, Catholic soccer moms.


 
So no one really wins? Also, what about the families of those on death row? Is there a waiver involved in this idea, or is it just "Have at you!"

Tbh, sometimes people sit for years on death row, so going straight back to prison wouldn't have much of an affect either. 

I'm trying to figure out if this has a point other than "watch people die". It really doesn't provide any sort of economic help (even if you had to pay to watch, it's still just that on top of the taxes that already take care of prisoners). These people aren't always useless or demonic. If anything, staring at four walls for years on end is enough punishment. 

It comes off as not caring about people's lives, or the lives of their family. Revenge never actually solves anything, after all.


----------



## Lunar (Apr 16, 2011)

Skift said:


> So no one really wins? Also, what about the families of those on death row? Is there a waiver involved in this idea, or is it just "Have at you!"
> 
> Tbh, sometimes people sit for years on death row, so going straight back to prison wouldn't have much of an affect either.
> 
> ...


 
I see what you're saying.  Most of this idea was drawing from the fact that people like violence and this would be a way of getting rid of prisoners while satisfying those with a Roman mindset.  Killing two birds with one stone kinda thing.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 16, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> I see what you're saying.  Most of this idea was drawing from the fact that people like violence and this would be a way of getting rid of prisoners while satisfying those with a Roman mindset.  Killing two birds with one stone kinda thing.


 
Most of the Roman mindset has been quelled with things that aren't real. The people who willingly indulge in that sort of mindset (like watching a lot of real life gory stuff) scare me. Video games, art, movies, and that sort of thing should be enough, imo.


----------



## Azure (Apr 16, 2011)

just threadshittin


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 16, 2011)

hi azure how are you today


----------



## Azure (Apr 16, 2011)

Skift said:


> hi azure how are you today


fucking glorious, how bout you?


----------



## Lunar (Apr 16, 2011)

Skift said:


> Most of the Roman mindset has been quelled with things that aren't real. The people who willingly indulge in that sort of mindset (like watching a lot of real life gory stuff) scare me. Video games, art, movies, and that sort of thing should be enough, imo.


 And yet, people don't understand that there is indeed a difference.  I made the comparison, yes, and I know I'm contradicting myself now, but I think I'm sane enough not to go run over hookers and steal their money because a video game told me it was okay.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 16, 2011)

Azure said:


> fucking glorious, how bout you?


 amazingly amazing


lunar_helix said:


> And yet, people don't understand that there is indeed a difference.  I made the comparison, yes, and I know I'm contradicting myself now, but I think I'm sane enough not to go run over hookers and steal their money because a video game told me it was okay.


 But would you laugh at someone else doing it irl?

That's the point I'm trying to make, I suppose. No one would openly admit to wanting to watch people die irl unless they're really messed up.


----------



## EdieFantabulous (Apr 16, 2011)

Skift said:


> Er, are you just gonna say "I don't think so" without actually looking anything up? @.@
> 
> And it's not really a bloodsport. The instant blood drops on the mat (unless it's a nosebleed), the match is over. It's not about watching people die, it's watching carefully matched competitors go a few rounds, maybe get knocked out, and showing of their various styles of self-defense. If you add death, it becomes a bloodsport.
> 
> Something tells me you've never seen a proper martial arts competition that wasn't in a movie.


 
Bloodsport to me would be involving violence and blood, like fisticuffs. 
MMA they get nose bleeds, cut eyebrows, split cheeks, split lips, knocked out teeth, cut heads.
These also happen in boxing, hockey, football, rugbee (sp.). And all that jazz. 
Bloodsport is just any sport that involves violence by the way.


----------



## Lunar (Apr 16, 2011)

Skift said:


> But would you laugh at someone else doing it irl?
> 
> That's the point I'm trying to make, I suppose. No one would openly admit to wanting to watch people die irl unless they're really messed up.


I guess not.  But hey, I want to earn a bachelors degree in embalming and cremation practices.  :V  I'm already messed up.


----------



## Azure (Apr 16, 2011)

brb, gonna beat up a nerd for lunch money because I can't healthily displace my aggression into something productive.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 16, 2011)

EdieFantabulous said:


> Bloodsport to me would be involving violence and blood, like fisticuffs.
> MMA they get nose bleeds, cut eyebrows, split cheeks, split lips, knocked out teeth, cut heads.
> These also happen in boxing, hockey, football, rugbee (sp.). And all that jazz.
> Bloodsport is just any sport that involves violence by the way.


 
Actually I went ahead and looked it up, and according to this, it can refer to animal killing or anything involving physical exhaustion in general. I guess we were both wrong.




Azure said:


> brb, gonna beat up a nerd for lunch money because I can't healthily displace my aggression into something productive.


 
you're so terrible azure :c

@Lunar: Really? I want to be a taxidermist myself. I dislike pointless real life gore, still.


----------



## CAThulu (Apr 16, 2011)

Two words that would make death row inmates useful in solving world hunger:

Soylent.  Green.


----------



## Azure (Apr 16, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> Two words that would make death row inmates useful in solving world hunger:
> 
> Soylent. Green.


It is every citizens duty to go into the tanks.

/Alpha Centauri


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 16, 2011)

Soylent Green has been mentioned several times, CAThulu.


----------



## Lunar (Apr 16, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> Two words that would make death row inmates useful in solving world hunger:
> 
> Soylent.  Green.



Oh my.  :O


----------



## CAThulu (Apr 16, 2011)

Meh, it's 2 am, I can't sleep, and my brain's too fried to read through 6 pages of threads.  Consider this just one more to add to the pile.

Has anyone mentioned organ harvesting yet?


----------



## Azure (Apr 16, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> Meh, it's 2 am, I can't sleep, and my brain's too fried to read through 6 pages of threads. Consider this just one more to add to the pile.
> 
> Has anyone mentioned organ harvesting yet?


I harvested some organs earlier. Bacon type organs.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 16, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> Meh, it's 2 am, I can't sleep, and my brain's too fried to read through 6 pages of threads.  Consider this just one more to add to the pile.
> 
> Has anyone mentioned organ harvesting yet?


 
I'm pretty sure inmates can already volunteer to do that, don't quote me on that though




Azure said:


> I harvested some organs earlier. Bacon type organs.


 
sounds delicious.


----------



## EdieFantabulous (Apr 16, 2011)

Skift said:


> Actually I went ahead and looked it up, and according to this, it can refer to animal killing or anything involving physical exhaustion in general. I guess we were both wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Apparently it is any sport involving bloodshed. So I was more right than you. :V
Tee hee, not I am kidding, just being a persnickety bitch as bloodshot would say. :3


----------



## ceacar99 (Apr 16, 2011)

one notes that the modern prison system is a structure that grew out of an idea to reform those who have done wrong and re enter them into society. the idea is that punishment was part of the process, and the other part was to get the criminal to accept that he has done wrong. our modern prison system does the first part very well, but the second part we have consistently failed to accomplish, most who leave prison feel that they were the ones wronged and not the other way around.

truth be told if we could do both then there would be no need for death row. "deterance" in terms of severity of punishment doesnt work, you must make people accept right and law deep in their hearts to keep order. in other words you simply must convince the population as a whole that some things are unacceptable. this is a hard task for the united states considering one of our national pass times is violent "vengeance".


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 16, 2011)

EdieFantabulous said:


> Apparently it is any sport involving bloodshed. So I was more right than you. :V
> Tee hee, not I am kidding, just being a persnickety bitch as bloodshot would say. :3


links?

also doesn't really matter either way, death is still an undesirable effect.


----------



## Lunar (Apr 16, 2011)

ceacar99 said:


> one notes that the modern prison system is a structure that grew out of an idea to reform those who have done wrong and re enter them into society. the idea is that punishment was part of the process, and the other part was to get the criminal to accept that he has done wrong. our modern prison system does the first part very well, but the second part we have consistently failed to accomplish, most who leave prison feel that they were the ones wronged and not the other way around.
> 
> truth be told if we could do both then there would be no need for death row. "deterance" in terms of severity of punishment doesnt work, you must make people accept right and law deep in their hearts to keep order. in other words you simply must convince the population as a whole that some things are unacceptable. this is a hard task for the united states considering one of our national pass times is violent "vengeance".


Our Colonel was talking about something similar in ROTC one day.  People don't want to accept responsibility for themselves; always looking to blame someone else.  It makes me sick.


----------



## EdieFantabulous (Apr 16, 2011)

Skift said:


> links?
> 
> also doesn't really matter either way, death is still an undesirable effect.


 
The page you linked the first definition.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 16, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Whatever. Don't you have a pic of a flayed alive ancient Jew to fap to? Oh wait *Sunday's not for another two days*, my bad.


 
First, the Sabbath is on Saturday, not Sunday.  And second, way to go on the comeback!




Azure said:


> dwammm


 
I think you just invented a new word.  Quick, we must inform Merriam-Webster!




Bobskunk said:


> *Never mind your skipping over the rest of what I said* (for once, it wasn't a point by point dissertation!,) that's again one of the huge strikes against the death penalty.



Okay.  Thanks.




Bobskunk said:


> Also, don't confuse "no factual doubt" with "no perceived doubt."  The courts had no doubts about Cameron Todd Willingham due to a number of faulty reasons, and he was "caught in the act" (which he did not commit.)  *Because the justice system does not work as it is supposed to work, I simply cannot support the use of capital punishment.*



Thats a fair reason for opposing capital punishment... but really, if the system is broke, not supporting capitol punishment isn't gonna fix it.




Bobskunk said:


> Again, doubt doesn't matter to the courts, as practiced.  *If you want to talk about ideal systems (insofar as state/government directed killing can be considered ideal, an ironic position taken by many "small government" supporters) then that's one thing*- communism and laissez faire capitalism also sound great as a theory or ideal, but in practice there are many realities which cause their outcomes to be harsh and crushing, mostly stemming to human imperfection.  Those imperfections require reversibility, of which the death penalty has none.



Usually, when discussion politics, it's a good idea to have a grasp on the ideals, so you have a much clearer picture of the actual reality... which, as you've noted, stinks.




Bobskunk said:


> I'd also rather have a system that recognizes and guards against human infallibility, *rather than one that assumes the people in charge know what they're doing*- especially when it's over a matter as serious as ending a life.



Because we all know the people in charge have no idea what they're doing.  We hope.  Because, if not, then what they do would have to be done deliberately, not through pure incompetence.




Bobskunk said:


> EDIT: *Oh yeah, that "Not only in America, but all around the world" comment cracks me up.*  "Sure, it's terrible here, but it's not great anywhere else!"  Therefore, we shouldn't even bother to improve things?  That the status quo, as bad as it is, should be left alone?  "Because that's just the way it is?"  There's something hilarious about American Exceptionalism meeting American Defeatism in a great steaming mass of doublethink.  "We have the best healthcare in the world!"  "Yes, but many people cannot afford it, it's getting more expensive, other countries have better outcomes by doing it cheaper and covering more people.."  "What?  You're crazy, we can't do that, we're America!"


 
Glad you found it amusing.  Now, stop pointing fingers at America, as if we have the only system in the world that stinks.  And hey!  I'm all for improvement.  However, eliminating capitol punishment won't do anything to improve the system, since it is not the root of the problem.  However, I can understand wanting to put a rain-check on it, till the roots are dug up and the "justice bush" replanted.




AristÃ³crates Carranza said:


> Did Roose Hurro always start these discussions that could be solved with simple semantic clarificantions?


 
Ah, so you've noticed the importance of semantics?  Good.  When it comes to making laws, I've always found it funny how they always start with determining what "language" to use, even though they are supposedly using "English".




Lobar said:


> Yes.  Longer than I've been here, and I have an '07 regdate.  *There's a reason he is the sole member of my ignore list.*


 
Don't forget, you took me off your ignore list, however briefly.  And yes, the reaon being, you're a poor sport.




lunar_helix said:


> This was intended to be a discussion, not a name-calling thread.


 
Hey, it happens here.




lunar_helix said:


> Most of the threads I've seen up until now have been simply discussions, disagreements here and there, but come on.  *People could at least come up with a better adjective for me.*  :V



Well, you see, this discussion has dipped not only into politics, but into religion.  A double whammy, on top of the fact this is FAF.




lunar_helix said:


> There's a difference between someone being stupid and someone having different views than you.  *Grow up or get off the thread.*


 
Unfortunately, there are a choice few here who do think you're stupid, if you have different views than they do.  Lobar happens to be one of them.  Not the worst one, but he's on the list.




EdieFantabulous said:


> *That's a slippery slope*, with the choice of death by government, or the choice of death by fellow jail/prison mates.


 
Yes, a very slippery slope.




lunar_helix said:


> Part of me wants to introduce this proposal to a group of 40-year-old, Catholic soccer moms.


 
Ouch.




lunar_helix said:


> I guess not.  But hey, *I want to earn a bachelors degree in embalming and cremation practices*.  :V  I'm already messed up.


 
That's an honorable profession, so long as you're not a necrophiliac.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 16, 2011)

EdieFantabulous said:


> The page you linked the first definition.


 
ohderp.

Edit: Roose, it's cool. Lunar and I talked it out.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 16, 2011)

Skift said:


> ohderp.
> 
> Edit: Roose, it's cool. *Lunar and I talked it out.*


 
Yep, I saw that... by the way, you're not on the list, so you can breathe easy.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 16, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Yep, I saw that... by the way, you're not on the list, so you can breathe easy.


 
Um, thanks, I suppose. c:


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Apr 16, 2011)

Commiecomrade said:


> FAF is a name-calling forum.



Now that we've established it...



Roose Hurro said:


> First, the Sabbath is on Saturday, not Sunday. And second, way to go on the comeback!


 
... faggot!


----------



## ceacar99 (Apr 16, 2011)

> Our Colonel was talking about something similar in ROTC one day. People don't want to accept responsibility for themselves; always looking to blame someone else. It makes me sick.



its only natural for them to take the easiest course in life. because of this most people have to be forced into confronting themselves before they even know anything about themself and their faults. since most people have not had to confront themselves, and really have no reason to THINK about the world they FEEL about the world. so in the end they blame someone else for everything. it simply feels better to blame someone else, and thats what mostly the poor souls in question are operating on.

 anyway crime punishment and all that is linked to the concept of authority. remember, authority only exists when one wishes to submit to it. you can always order someone around, but if they refuse to obey you cannot make them do anything. you can kill them, but in the end that doesnt get them to comply with your wishes, laws or social order. they simply are no longer around to do what you wanted.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 16, 2011)

Skift said:


> Um, thanks, I suppose. c:


 
You're welcome.




Wolf-Bone said:


> Now that we've established it...
> 
> *... faggot!*


 
Don't you wish...   :V

Hmmm... I'd recommend decafe next time, WB.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Apr 16, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Don't you wish...   :V



Uh, I think my girlfriend might have something to say about that. Never mind the fact that you're like twice my age.



			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> Hmmm... I'd recommend decafe next time, WB.


 
I'm on the opposite of caffeine right now.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 16, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Uh, *I think my girlfriend might have something to say about that*. Never mind the fact that you're like twice my age.



I would hope so.





Wolf-Bone said:


> I'm on the opposite of caffeine right now.


 
So, that means I can put you down for a pound of "Ed's Bodacious Blend"...?


----------



## Bobskunk (Apr 16, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Thats a fair reason for opposing capital punishment... but really, if the system is broke, not supporting capitol punishment isn't gonna fix it.



Right, but that also makes supporting capital punishment while the system is so broken unthinkable.



> Usually, when discussion politics, it's a good idea to have a grasp on the ideals, so you have a much clearer picture of the actual reality... which, as you've noted, stinks.



So, unless the conditions improve, there should be a moratorium on capital punishment, as many states have already undertaken.  You said this below, I understand, but I had to break this up a bit more.  Not to "Mess with Texas," but that is a state that has many executions, with many that end up cleared thanks to groups like Project Innocence.  Unfortunately, innocence or the validation of guilt is lost in a mix of bureaucracy and, as stated before, a culture that revels in revenge.

You should see some of the hate these groups get, for "trying to get criminals out of prison."  It doesn't matter that they don't get out of prison unless they are cleared of wrongdoing, they think a person must have done something to deserve prison.  Otherwise, their conception of a just world falls apart, and they realize that bad things can happen to them, too, through no fault of their own.  That's something a lot of people don't want to face, so they trust in a harsh court system and tell themselves that only the guilty are convicted, in face of all the evidence and statistics.  And that's only the reported/pursued cases.

That's not even going into all of the many felonies that have been inflated, with maximum sentencing for punishment and "toughness on crime" that has lead to this country locking up more people per capita than any other country in the world.



> Because we all know the people in charge have no idea what they're doing.  We hope.  Because, if not, then what they do would have to be done deliberately, not through pure incompetence.



It's less a matter of incompetence and more a matter of lack of ethics.  The only thing that matters is your record of convictions.  That number is agnostic of true innocence or guilt.  Some DAs would and have lock up someone they know to be innocent, because they can only gain.  It means another conviction for their record, and absolutely no consequences for malicious prosecution.  This was affirmed in a recent Supreme Court ruling.  People have even less recourse in case of wrongful conviction.

The attitude is appalling, since attempts to defend one's innocence are met with scorn.  At this point in this nation's history, you are presumed guilty until declared guilty.



> Glad you found it amusing.  Now, stop pointing fingers at America, as if we have the only system in the world that stinks.  And hey!  I'm all for improvement.  However, eliminating capitol punishment won't do anything to improve the system, since it is not the root of the problem.  However, I can understand wanting to put a rain-check on it, till the roots are dug up and the "justice bush" replanted.



I'm getting kinda tired about how every discussion about the United States' shortcomings has to be prefaced by a genuflection and a declaration that all other countries are also bad and worse.  :v

This discussion is about the American justice system.  I live in America, and America's system of justice affects me most.  I also have high standards for what this country should do and how it should act, if the Greatest Country in the History of the Entire Planet is fucking up somehow, I'd expect better of it.  If Dubai fucks up, I pretty much expect it- it's one of my most hated countries in the world.

Can you say Dubai is worse?  Sure, and it is.  America is not Dubai, and that attitude strikes me just like the justifications for torture.  "The _terrorists_ use torture all the time!  It's unfair to say we shouldn't torture them back!"  

I'm also not going to Dubai, because it's a fucked up backwards place raised up by petrodollars and a representation of the absolute worst capitalism has to offer.  It is a hopeless mess of a place built by slavery and catering to parasite scum.  I do not feel that way about this country, even though American Exceptionalists seem to love comparing this country to every other country, including the worst of the worst, as a means of excusing failure.

We've gone from the moon landing in 1969 to being completely unwilling and unable to even consider the possibility that we can improve our justice system.  Or health insurance system.  Or infrastructure/transportation system.  This country does not invest in this country, which is fundamentally made up of its people.  Instead, it is a big giveaway to private businesses and those that own them.  Then everyone wonders why China's doing so well and "Main Street" isn't after all the jobs have been moved over there to be done by kids for 15 cents a day.

There is inertia against improvement because the people in charge of it think it's fine, a lot of citizens who have an opinion on the matter think it's fine (that is, until they have to deal with the Kafka-esque nightmare,) and most other people don't care.  There is a problem, but the problem is either denied or not recognized.

There is bad logic at play: If America is the Greatest Country in the World, then it does not have any problems.  America is the Greatest Country in the World, therefore it does not have problems.  If a person claims America has problems, then America is not the Greatest Country in the World.  America is the Greatest Country in the World, therefore that person is a Commie Mutant Traitor.

That stands in the way of what did/does/could make America the Greatest Country in the World: recognizing and solving failures.  Anyone who tries is accused of hating/pointing fingers at the United States.  It's ridiculous and irrelevant.

EDIT: tl;dr i got carried away and most of this is redundant anyway, also boners
DOUBLEEDIT: fuck the prisons


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 16, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Right, but that also makes supporting capital punishment while the system is so broken unthinkable.



Perhaps, but people are thinking it, and have since... well, since the beginning of recorded history, actually.




Bobskunk said:


> *So, unless the conditions improve, there should be a moratorium on capital punishment, as many states have already undertaken.*  You said this below, I understand, but I had to break this up a bit more.  Not to "Mess with Texas," but that is a state that has many executions, with many that end up cleared thanks to groups like Project Innocence.  Unfortunately, innocence or the validation of guilt is lost in a mix of bureaucracy and, as stated before, a culture that revels in revenge.
> 
> You should see some of the hate these groups get, for "trying to get criminals out of prison."  It doesn't matter that they don't get out of prison unless they are cleared of wrongdoing, they think a person must have done something to deserve prison.  Otherwise, their conception of a just world falls apart, and they realize that bad things can happen to them, too, through no fault of their own.  That's something a lot of people don't want to face, so they trust in a harsh court system and tell themselves that only the guilty are convicted, in face of all the evidence and statistics.  And that's only the reported/pursued cases.
> 
> That's not even going into all of the many felonies that have been inflated, with maximum sentencing for punishment and "toughness on crime" that has lead to this country locking up more people per capita than any other country in the world.



That is definitely a valid argument, but it does bring up the question of when, exactly, those "conditions" have improved _enough_.  And yes, I've seen the hate groups and the bureaucracy.  I've also seen good prison programs reform criminals... wish I could remember where I read the info on it, it was very impressive.  I need to go to bed soon, so I may see about looking it up tomorrow.  Hopefully I can find it.  Somewhere in all this mess, there have been examples of balance, of that "perfection" we should strive for, even if we can never fully reach it.




Bobskunk said:


> *It's less a matter of incompetence and more a matter of lack of ethics.*  The only thing that matters is your record of convictions.  That number is agnostic of true innocence or guilt.  Some DAs would and have lock up someone they know to be innocent, because they can only gain.  It means another conviction for their record, and absolutely no consequences for malicious prosecution.  This was affirmed in a recent Supreme Court ruling.  People have even less recourse in case of wrongful conviction.
> 
> The attitude is appalling, since attempts to defend one's innocence are met with scorn.  At this point in this nation's history, you are presumed guilty until declared guilty.



Hmmm... that is a better way to say it.  But I think "lack of ethics" would be included in the "done deliberately" section.  Again, as you have noted.  What is that line?  "Kill all the lawyers"...?   >.<




Bobskunk said:


> *I'm getting kinda tired about how every discussion about the United States' shortcomings has to be prefaced by a genuflection and a declaration that all other countries are also bad and worse.*  :v
> 
> This discussion is about the American justice system.  I live in America, and America's system of justice affects me most.  I also have high standards for what this country should do and how it should act, if the Greatest Country in the History of the Entire Planet is fucking up somehow, I'd expect better of it.  If Dubai fucks up, I pretty much expect it- it's one of my most hated countries in the world.
> 
> ...


 
But it's true, isn't it?

And it isn't "genuflection", it's "fairness".  One country may have a "better" justice system than another, but no system is perfectly innocent of mistakes and out and out wrongdoing, so it is not proper to be pointing a finger at America's faults without also pointing fingers at the faults in others.  Better yet, get out of the habit of pointing fingers.  It's annoying.  As well as ridiculous and irrelevant.

Not to mention, I've been around long enough to see the changes, to go from a childhood in which leaving your house unlocked didn't automatically result in all your stuff being gone.  A time when neighbors looked after neighbors, milk was delivered to your door, and things were a lot less messy.  I was there watching in 1969, when men landed on the moon, so I know how far we've fallen.  I'd hope America has the legs to stand up again, but, the more time passes, the less likely that seems.  Like you said, "inertia"... the mass seems too great, the people too...

... well, after reading all that, however carried away and/or redundant, I don't think even a boner can help.  It's so sad.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Apr 16, 2011)

1) Any person whose rationalization for the death penalty ultimately boils down to "no system is perfect or ever could be" not only just passively supports it out of apathy, with getting their vengeful rocks off just being a plus, they're equally apathetic about those human lives they claim to value so much as a tenet of their faith or ideology. Watch them sing a different tune when it's their own ass on the line, or someone they care about. The fact of the matter is, most people are incapable of giving a damn about anyone they've never met, and the system _depends on that_.

2) How the fuck does capital punishment bring us closer to a world/time when we were putting people on the moon, milk came in bottles, Danny Bonaduce was an inoffensive and mildly funny child actor/musician instead of a meth addict breaking into your house to support his habit, what the fuck?! ITT Roose supports it out of pure *nostalgia*. Give me a fucking break!

3) White Power!


----------



## Mayfurr (Apr 16, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> I'm getting kinda tired about how every discussion about the United States' shortcomings has to be prefaced by a genuflection and a declaration that all other countries are also bad and worse.  :v
> 
> This discussion is about the American justice system.  I live in America, and America's system of justice affects me most.  I also have high standards for what this country should do and how it should act, if the Greatest Country in the History of the Entire Planet is fucking up somehow, I'd expect better of it.  If Dubai fucks up, I pretty much expect it- it's one of my most hated countries in the world.
> [...]
> ...



This. Very much this.

And the point about how some people hold that "_every discussion about the United States' shortcomings has to be prefaced by a genuflection and a declaration that all other countries are also bad and worse_" implies that the concept of "American greatness" is like some kind of religious cult that everyone - American or not - has to bow down and venerate before any rational discussion takes place. Essentially what these people are saying is that the rest of the word's problems have to be solved before one can even _think_ of criticising the "glorious USA"...

This is sloppy, lazy, arrogant, stupid, and ultimately counter-productive thinking.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Apr 16, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> This. Very much this.
> 
> And the point about how some people hold that "_every discussion about the United States' shortcomings has to be prefaced by a genuflection and a declaration that all other countries are also bad and worse_" implies that the concept of "American greatness" is like some kind of religious cult that everyone - American or not - has to bow down and venerate before any rational discussion takes place. Essentially what these people are saying is that the rest of the word's problems have to be solved before one can even _think_ of criticising the "glorious USA"...
> 
> This is sloppy, lazy, arrogant, stupid, and ultimately counter-productive thinking.


 
The conspiracy theorist in me wants to believe that, and not Christianity, or even its uniquely American variants like Mormonism, are the de facto state religion, and that it's that way by design (yes, I'm saying that's what the founding fathers intended and planned for). Remember the 80's, when televangelism was about glittery sets and guys in suits absent any religious insignia preaching the gospel of "greed is good", but using scripture to justify it? I only vaguely remember it myself because I was like _five_, but life in general, not just religion, is about making a fucking choice at some point. That could be between good and evil, or staying neutral until you think you know what good and evil is, between being a greedy, selfish asshole or being charitable, or being selfish enough to get by but charitable enough to not to feel guilty for accepting some charity when it's offered/needed. But the point is, making a choice and having a point are the same fucking thing, and the only choice the majority of death-penalty supporters seem to make is to side with a regime that declares itself the arbiters of life and death because they feel it's in their best interests, without taking a stand and making the point to back it up that the state has that authority over them, their loved ones, the disadvantaged, the coerced, and even the innocent. They want to have it both ways, siding with the bad guys for the potential benefits or self-esteem boost (because that kind of raw power is _sexy_ to them) without accepting the reality that pretty much makes them the same thing they hate.

Every fucking Christian _in the world_, if they really are a Christian as opposed to someone like myself who believes in "God" and Jesus but is mostly on the fence, believes that at some point in the future, basically what's going to happen is Jesus and God are going to put their foot down, stop turning the other cheek, and literally raise hell at those kinds of hypocrites. They love their theories about what "signs" that we're on the eve of that time have reared their ugly head, but they also acknowledge that at the end of the day, it could be _any_ day that turns out to be Judgment Day. They obviously don't think that applies to them, so why don't they just stop fucking calling themselves Christians and say they're American Exceptionalist Market Fundamentalist Social Darwinists, and God damn it their ideology is just as valid as any other? It'd be a hell of a lot more honest, and it's one of the things that makes most of the so-called "Satanists" and "Atheists" a hell of a lot _less_ evil.

That being said, no, the "Libertarians" who quite happily would admit they are just that and take it as a badge of honor are _not_ any less evil. They, more than just about anyone raise "personal responsibility" and "freedom of choice" to near-religious levels of exaltation, and the vast majority of them, by their own belief systems are massive failures, either to be good examples of what they are/want to be or to see that maybe they'd benefit from going back to the drawing board with their worldview or the life they live it according to.


----------



## Azure (Apr 16, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> 3) White Power!


 WOOGIE BOOGIE NIGGER! WOOGIE BOOGIE!


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 16, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> 1) Any person whose rationalization for the death penalty ultimately boils down to "no system is perfect or ever could be" not only just passively supports it out of apathy, with getting their vengeful rocks off just being a plus, *they're equally apathetic about those human lives they claim to value so much as a tenet of their faith or ideology*. Watch them sing a different tune when it's their own ass on the line, or someone they care about. The fact of the matter is, most people are incapable of giving a damn about anyone they've never met, and the system _depends on that_.



I started digging for that information I mentioned, and found it:

http://www.going-straight.com/default.aspx

I also found this:

http://www.freedommag.org/english/vol29i1/page30.htm ... yeah, I know, "Published by the Church of Scientology International"... but it was interesting.  And here's a pdf from the same organization:  http://www.criminon.org/studies/white_paper.pdf

And this:

http://ezinearticles.com/?Criminal-...Life-For-Inmates-And-Their-Families&id=455250




Wolf-Bone said:


> 2) How the fuck does capital punishment bring us closer to a world/time when we were putting people on the moon, milk came in bottles, Danny Bonaduce was an inoffensive and mildly funny child actor/musician instead of a meth addict breaking into your house to support his habit, what the fuck?! ITT Roose supports it out of pure *nostalgia*. Give me a fucking break!



I started digging again, and found this:

http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/rehab.html



> On January 18, 1989, the abandonment of rehabilitation in corrections was confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Mistretta v. United States, the Court upheld federal "sentencing guidelines" which remove rehabilitation from serious consideration when sentencing offenders. Defendants will henceforth be sentenced strictly for the crime, with no recognition given to such factors as amenability to treatment, personal and family history, previous efforts to rehabilitate oneself, or possible alternatives to prison. The Court outlined the history of the debate: "Rehabilitation as a sound penological theory came to be questioned and, in any event, was regarded by some as an unattainable goal for most cases." The Court cited a Senate Report which "referred to the 'outmoded rehabilitation model' for federal criminal sentencing, and recognized that the efforts of the criminal justice system to achieve rehabilitation of offenders had failed."



You also misunderstood, WB.  What I said had nothing to do with capital punishment bringing us closer, but with the fact our justice system, as noted above, has deteriorated over time, the above actually giving a date to the final deterioration of rehabilitation.




Wolf-Bone said:


> 3) White Power!


 
Energizer Power!




Mayfurr said:


> This. Very much this.
> 
> And the point about how some people hold that "_every discussion about the United States' shortcomings has to be prefaced by a genuflection and a declaration that all other countries are also bad and worse_" implies that the concept of "American greatness" is like some kind of religious cult that everyone - American or not - has to bow down and venerate before any rational discussion takes place. Essentially what these people are saying is that the rest of the word's problems have to be solved before one can even _think_ of criticising the "glorious USA"...
> 
> *This is sloppy, lazy, arrogant, stupid, and ultimately counter-productive thinking.*


 
How so, when it is a fact America is not the only nation with problems in its justice system?  From what I see, it isn't "genuflection", it's being honest.  And I've noted those who point fingers do so from an attitude of superiority, which I believe is a lot mor sloppy, lazy, arrogant, stupid, and ultimately counter-productive thinking than those who insist fingers should not be pointed in the first place.




Wolf-Bone said:


> The conspiracy theorist in me wants to believe that, and not Christianity, or even its uniquely American variants like Mormonism, are the de facto state religion, and that it's that way by design (yes, I'm saying that's what the founding fathers intended and planned for). Remember the 80's, when televangelism was about glittery sets and guys in suits absent any religious insignia preaching the gospel of "greed is good", but using scripture to justify it? I only vaguely remember it myself because I was like _five_, but life in general, not just religion, is about making a fucking choice at some point. That could be between good and evil, or staying neutral until you think you know what good and evil is, between being a greedy, selfish asshole or being charitable, or being selfish enough to get by but charitable enough to not to feel guilty for accepting some charity when it's offered/needed. But the point is, making a choice and having a point are the same fucking thing, and the only choice the majority of death-penalty supporters seem to make is to side with a regime that declares itself the arbiters of life and death because they feel it's in their best interests, without taking a stand and making the point to back it up that the state has that authority over them, their loved ones, the disadvantaged, the coerced, and even the innocent. They want to have it both ways, siding with the bad guys for the potential benefits or self-esteem boost (because that kind of raw power is _sexy_ to them) without accepting the reality that pretty much makes them the same thing they hate.
> 
> Every fucking Christian _in the world_, if they really are a Christian as opposed to someone like myself who believes in "God" and Jesus but is mostly on the fence, believes that at some point in the future, basically what's going to happen is Jesus and God are going to put their foot down, stop turning the other cheek, and literally raise hell at those kinds of hypocrites. They love their theories about what "signs" that we're on the eve of that time have reared their ugly head, but they also acknowledge that at the end of the day, it could be _any_ day that turns out to be Judgment Day. They obviously don't think that applies to them, so why don't they just stop fucking calling themselves Christians and say they're American Exceptionalist Market Fundamentalist Social Darwinists, and God damn it their ideology is just as valid as any other? It'd be a hell of a lot more honest, and it's one of the things that makes most of the so-called "Satanists" and "Atheists" a hell of a lot _less_ evil.
> 
> That being said, no, the "Libertarians" who quite happily would admit they are just that and take it as a badge of honor are _not_ any less evil. They, more than just about anyone raise "personal responsibility" and "freedom of choice" to near-religious levels of exaltation, and the vast majority of them, by their own belief systems are massive failures, either to be good examples of what they are/want to be or to see that maybe they'd benefit from going back to the drawing board with their worldview or the life they live it according to.


 
I haven't had anything to eat yet today, so I'll be brief.  I do understand where you are coming from, WB, but you need to learn to stop pointing fingers.  Not to mention, you make some very sweeping generalizations against groups.  As well as some specific nit picks based on your own, unique viewpoint.  However, breakfast calls!

Oh, by the way, where do I send that pound of "Ed's Bodacious Blend"...?


----------



## Bobskunk (Apr 16, 2011)

whoa dude
as soon as you see "a subsidiary of the church of scientology international" in a given document that you found while searching for evidence to support your conclusion, you forget it and find something else
that's like saying "hmmm, on the one hand this article i found supports my point pretty well, but on the other hand it's from stormfront.org...  i'm going to use it anyway!"


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Apr 16, 2011)

Azure said:
			
		

> WOOGIE BOOGIE NIGGER! WOOGIE BOOGIE!



I think I know what's missing from Far Cry 2 now. Niggas with Attitude grass skirts and spears.



			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> so I'll be brief



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH



			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> breakfast calls!



No breakfast is complete without a nice, tall, cold glass of shut the fuck up. Good thing for me I usually skip breakfast.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Apr 16, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> whoa dude
> as soon as you see "a subsidiary of the church of scientology international" in a given document that you found while searching for evidence to support your conclusion, you forget it and find something else
> that's like saying "hmmm, on the one hand this article i found supports my point pretty well, but on the other hand it's from stormfront.org...  i'm going to use it anyway!"



He has actually used links from there, as well as other creationist sites, just FYI.


----------



## Wreth (Apr 16, 2011)

How about murderer testing instead animal testing for medical research? :V


----------



## Zyden (Apr 16, 2011)

Can't get over why USA still has a death penalty.


----------



## Icky (Apr 16, 2011)

Zyden said:


> [superior eurofaggotry]


 
Well, what would you suggest then? Wasting resources to keep prisoners in jail for 25+ years?


----------



## Zyden (Apr 16, 2011)

Icky said:


> [xenophobic pro-death fapping]


 It's not a proven deterrent to murder, and inmates can wait years to decades before they're executed, time largely spent wasting more money on appeals to overturn the death penalty. Put them to work and get some value back on your tax dollars.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Apr 16, 2011)

Wreth said:


> How about murderer testing instead animal testing for medical research? :V


 Math doesn't work out. There are only about 3000-4000 people on death row at any given time, but the animal testing industry goes though millions of test animals in a given year. In addition, most of the people on death row are too old and/or have health problems that eliminate them from being good candidates for testing. 

That's ignoring the ethical concerns.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 16, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> whoa dude
> as soon as you see "a subsidiary of the church of scientology international" in a given document that you found while searching for evidence to support your conclusion, you forget it *and find something else*
> that's like saying "hmmm, on the one hand this article i found supports my point pretty well, but on the other hand it's from stormfront.org...  i'm going to use it anyway!"


 
I did... the link I gave before that one.  As I said, I found that "scientology" link interesting.




Wolf-Bone said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
> ...



Glad you found that so amusing.  I'll remember it in future.




Wolf-Bone said:


> No breakfast is complete without a nice, tall, *cold glass* of shut the fuck up. Good thing for me I usually skip breakfast.


 
Not cold, hot.  And coffee, not STFU.  And you do realize breakfast is the most important meal of the day?  If you're gonna skip anything, skip lunch.  Or rope.  Whichever you prefer.




Mojotech said:


> He has actually used links from there, as well as other creationist sites, just FYI.


 
Uh huh.  Sure, sure Mojo... you go on believing that, just don't drool in your oatmeal.




Wreth said:


> How about murderer testing instead animal testing for medical research? :V


 
No.




Icky said:


> Well, what would you suggest then? *Wasting resources to keep prisoners in jail for 25+ years?*


 
That's always the answer, isn't it?  Funny thing, when you consider "death row" inmates can spend that much, or more, waiting to actually die.  A double whammy of waste, if you will.


----------



## Mayfurr (Apr 17, 2011)

Zyden said:


> It's not a proven deterrent to murder, and inmates can wait years to decades before they're executed, *time largely spent wasting more money on appeals to overturn the death penalty*.


 


Roose Hurro said:


> Funny thing, when you consider "death row" inmates can spend that much, or more, waiting to actually die.  *A double whammy of waste, if you will.*


 
Exactly - it's actually _cheaper_ to simply lock someone up for a 25+year sentence as opposed to giving them the death penalty, simply because of the amount of rigour that has to be gone through to take someone's life, plus the inevitable series of appeals...
... unless of course the US adopts the Singapore-style capital punishment method of "one Supreme Court appeal, one Presidential appeal, execution on Friday morning." 

Somehow, given that Singapore has been described as "Disneyland with the Death Penalty" I can't see the US adopting this process in a hurry - not just for the degradation in international reputation, but for all the suddenly unemployed death row defence lawyers...


----------



## Mayfurr (Apr 17, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> How so, when it is a fact America is not the only nation with problems in its justice system?  From what I see, it isn't "genuflection", it's being honest.



There's a difference between making that observation yourself, and demanding that others make that observation before they're even able to comment. Especially when, as Bobskunk pointed out, the subject is the US justice system.


----------



## ceacar99 (Apr 17, 2011)

Zyden said:


> It's not a proven deterrent to murder, and inmates can wait years to decades before they're executed, time largely spent wasting more money on appeals to overturn the death penalty. Put them to work and get some value back on your tax dollars.


 
impossible with the public sentiment. people feel the old system of using prisoners for public works projects is wrong, mostly because that system actually is pretty downright cruel. it isnt working hard thats cruel, its simply the way that the system has employed the workers in the chain gangs. the guards dont really care how tired or broken down a prisoner is, they'll beat them to keep them moving. with the way public sentiment is now its likely that such a system would be ruled "constitutionally illegal" if we tried to adopt it again. keep in mind, no cruel or unusual punishments, which is why we try to design a means of a physically painless death. 

you have to keep in mind folks, the united states was one of the first nations to begin using a prison REFORM system, that is a system where criminals are put in a prison to serve a punishment and go through a process that attempts to reform said criminal. however, for much of our history it was just a reality that in many regions of our nation it was just more practical to kill a criminal over severe crimes. not enough people to provide taxes for a massive prison and so on. now its in our culture to seek vengeance. 

the family of a murder victim in the united states DO NOT WANT to hear that the murderer will go on living, as a general rule all they can think of is payback. murder the murderer. the united states is a democracy and the will of the people is law. untill you somehow manage to convince people not to seek vengeance in my nation then we will continue to have the death penalty. our practice of the death penalty is not a decision based on logic, its one based on emotional reaction.


----------



## Mayfurr (Apr 17, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> Math doesn't work out. There are only about 3000-4000 people on death row at any given time, but the animal testing industry goes though millions of test animals in a given year. In addition, most of the people on death row are too old and/or have health problems that eliminate them from being good candidates for testing.
> 
> That's ignoring the ethical concerns.


 
And the ethical concerns are pretty horrifying - for starters, the very high risk that the number of executions will eventually be dictated by the demand for death-related X (e.g. donor organs, medical testing) and the increase in the number of "capital crimes" to keep up with demand. Do people _really_ want to have a situation where _all_ crimes are punishable by death and involuntary organ-donation, for example?


----------



## Bobskunk (Apr 17, 2011)

Prison work is loved by corporations because it allows cheap labor and depresses wages in general.

It's not good for us, and it doesn't "give back" to taxpayers.  Taxpayers pay private companies who make profits from prisons, and make profits from prison labor.  The money is all sucked away and doesn't go toward cost of incarceration at all: it's a present to the rich that erodes what everyone else makes, so drop that line of thinking.

Wages and employment in this country are fucked enough by the distorted mechanisms of "free trade" without using prisoners as chattel.  Then again, maybe that's why so many laws are written that mandate locking you up in prison when broken.


----------



## Billythe44th (Apr 17, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Every fucking Christian _in the world_, if they really are a Christian as opposed to someone like myself who believes in "God" and Jesus but is mostly on the fence, believes that at some point in the future, basically what's going to happen is Jesus and God are going to put their foot down, stop turning the other cheek, and literally raise hell at those kinds of hypocrites. They love their theories about what "signs" that we're on the eve of that time have reared their ugly head, but they also acknowledge that at the end of the day, it could be _any_ day that turns out to be Judgment Day. They obviously don't think that applies to them, so why don't they just stop fucking calling themselves Christians and say they're American Exceptionalist Market Fundamentalist Social Darwinists, and God damn it their ideology is just as valid as any other? It'd be a hell of a lot more honest, and it's one of the things that makes most of the so-called "Satanists" and "Atheists" a hell of a lot _less_ evil.


 
Wolf Bone, I don't want to antagonize you. My conscious mind is aware that you are probably a regular person, like me or Azure or Thatch or any one of us. I'm aware that you eat and sleep and breathe like us, that you laugh and joke and dream. If we were communicating face-to-face rather than in sterile white webpages, we would have less of a problem.

But when you shout out a bunch of indignation-charged sweeping generalizations at a particular group, I'm sorry to say, my unconscious mind tries to make a quick profile of you. Even if I try not to, I start to boil my mental image of you down to a few descriptive words- sweeping generalizations. They are not very nice words, Wolf Bone.

I'm in the dark about the human condition just as much as the next person, but from my own experience, people tend to seek out a "they" to antagonize. A lot of people don't notice because they have chosen targets that their culture generally says it's okay to hate.

One good example is how furries are treated elsewhere on the internet.

Remember, before you rain your wrath upon some group without considering that the worst of their kind are also the loudest, consider that we are antagonized ourselves. Don't call a man a bible-thumper unless you are fine with being told to Yiff In Hell.

...

Oh right, the OP. I don't know what to do with death row prisoners, but it ain't that. Also, the idea of a cow with a gun is hilarious.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 17, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> Exactly - it's actually _cheaper_ to simply lock someone up for a 25+year sentence as opposed to giving them the death penalty, simply because of the amount of rigour that has to be gone through to take someone's life, plus the inevitable series of appeals...
> ... unless of course the US adopts the Singapore-style capital punishment method of "one Supreme Court appeal, one Presidential appeal, execution on Friday morning."
> 
> Somehow, given that Singapore has been described as "Disneyland with the Death Penalty" I can't see the US adopting this process in a hurry - not just for the degradation in international reputation, but for all the suddenly unemployed death row defence lawyers...


 
Heh... very educational links.  I already knew Singapore was very commercial/consumeristic, but reading all the details... and having never heard the expression "Disneyland with the Death Penalty", I have to thank you for the information.  Seems like it might be an interesting place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.  And not just because of their "rigid/draconian" justice system.  Funny thing, but I've actually had that "style" of capitol punishment in my head as an "ideal" for the Death Penalty.  Given I enjoy thinking up/looking towards ideals, whether positive or negative, so I have something to compare the "actual" system to.




Mayfurr said:


> There's a difference between making that observation yourself, and demanding that others make that observation before they're even able to comment. Especially when, as Bobskunk pointed out, *the subject is the US justice system*.


 
I get your point, but it's more a perceived attitude of finger pointing, a "Spidey sense" that, subject of discussion or not, America is being singled out as "unique".  You know, given what else I've read in posts on this same forum.  So pardon me for having my doubts.




Mayfurr said:


> And the ethical concerns are pretty horrifying - for starters, the very high risk that the number of executions will eventually be dictated by the demand for death-related X (e.g. donor organs, medical testing) and the increase in the number of "capital crimes" to keep up with demand. *Do people really want to have a situation where all crimes are punishable by death and involuntary organ-donation, for example?*


 
No way in hell.  Though I believe a criminal up for execution should have the right to voluntarily donate their organs for urgent transplantation needs, before their organs are rendered unusable.  But even that would have the possibility of abuse, I'd suppose.


----------



## Heimdal (Apr 17, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> I get your point, but it's more a perceived attitude of finger pointing, a "Spidey sense" that, subject of discussion or not, America is being singled out as "unique".



It's called "criticism". Because recognizing a problem is the first step towards fixing it, this is a vital part of progress. To deflect blame back onto the critic says nothing about the critic, and only promotes inaction. Just because you don't want to hear what they have to say, does that mean they are wrong? In this case, it certainly doesn't. I'm sorry, but all this anti-"pointing fingers" talk just sounds like whining, and it doesn't change the reality of the situation at all. (Even though _we_ can't do anything about the justice system, that doesn't make the excuses for it any better.)

"Pointing fingers" is just a misleading and negative way to say "voicing a judgment". People who cannot handle this are only showing their own insecurities in the process. Deflecting criticism is also an incredibly immature and childish method to handle problems, by going _"nuh-uh! You first!"_ instead of acknowledging it responsibly. Yes, there are dumber students, but you still have to do your homework too.

The Death Sentence is an abomination of "justice". These are people, right? So why is killing them not worthy of a death sentence itself? Because the law says it's okay now? No, murder is never okay. Revenge murder is morally bankrupt, and _at least_ as bad as what that criminal would have done to get there.

If I was in a scenario where someone murdered my family and got caught, I'd be for the death penalty. The key thing is that I would not be rational in this situation. In this scenario, my life would be messed up and I would have psychological problems. Why would it make any sense to listen to me? It wouldn't, and I like to think 'justice' doesn't involve satisfying a revenge-crazed person.


----------



## Carnie (Apr 17, 2011)

Weapons testing :V


----------



## Grendel (Apr 17, 2011)

OP, that would be taking pleasure in the suffering and death of others. When death is used as a punishment, it is not a pleasure or an enjoyment. The death of a human being is not for entertainment. In any civilized society that respects the life and dignity of a individual there is no question as to using them like objects for amusement. Justice should be dealt, and if that means death, then so be it, but death is never something that we should take pleasure, delight, or enjoyment from.


----------



## Lunar (Apr 17, 2011)

Grendel said:


> OP, that would be taking pleasure in the suffering and death of others. When death is used as a punishment, it is not a pleasure or an enjoyment. The death of a human being is not for entertainment. In any civilized society that respects the life and dignity of a individual there is no question as to using them like objects for amusement. Justice should be dealt, and if that means death, then so be it, but death is never something that we should take pleasure, delight, or enjoyment from.


You don't consider Rome a civilized society?


----------



## ceacar99 (Apr 17, 2011)

> The Death Sentence is an abomination of "justice". These are people, right? So why is killing them not worthy of a death sentence itself? Because the law says it's okay now? No, murder is never okay. Revenge murder is morally bankrupt, and at least as bad as what that criminal would have done to get there.
> 
> If I was in a scenario where someone murdered my family and got caught, I'd be for the death penalty. The key thing is that I would not be rational in this situation. In this scenario, my life would be messed up and I would have psychological problems. Why would it make any sense to listen to me? It wouldn't, and I like to think 'justice' doesn't involve satisfying a revenge-crazed person.



let me play the devils side here. what would you have us do with those who simply cannot be reformed? when you look at it with PURE logic, a man who absolutely refuses to reform really is absolutely worthless to our society. professional beggars can and do contribute more than a man who refuses to "play nice" with others. so from a logical stand point and no other, what purpose is there in keeping him around? it was his decision not to play nice from the very beginning, it was his decision not to admit his faults, so why should we feed him and clothe him and expend resources for his care? EVERYONE else has to work for a living, but that man doenst have to because he's evil? doesnt make logical sense, its a massive drain on the system, admitted at the moment the appeals system for death row drains just about as much if not more, thats something that could be more readily fixed than finding a logical solution to what to do with someone who refuses to be part of society.

admitted our death penalty policy IS based on emotion and not logic, but from a pure logical standpoint it makes sense if we tweak our system to lean in that direction instead of sitting on the fence like it is.

interesting note about the concept of government murder. the reality is that the initial foundation for ANY government's authority is the government's monopoly on the force of violence. by using the fear of death the government achieves the first tier of control. further levels of control and stability are reached by managing the opinions of society, in doing so you control people by the rest of their emotions. however, the threat of death is always part of the method of control, even if that threat is downplayed as the form of government becomes more advanced.


----------



## Enver (Apr 17, 2011)

Riley said:


> _&quot;In 2291, in an attempt to control violence among deep-space miners, the New Earth Government legalized no-holds-barred fighting. Liandri Mining Corporation working with the NEG established a series of leagues and bloody public exhibitions. The fight's popularity grew with their brutality. Soon, Liandri discovered that the public matches were their most profitable enterprise. The professional league was formed. A cabal of the most violent and skilled warriors in known space, selected to fight in a Grand Tournament. Now it is 2341, fifty years have passed since the founding of Deathmatch. Profits from the tournament number in the hundreds of billions. You have been selected to fight in the Professional League by the Liandri Rules Board. Your strength and brutality are legendary. The time has come to prove you are the best. To crush your enemies. To win the tournament.&quot;
> 
> _Do that.


That was the first thing that came to my mind too.
You know what they say: Great minds think alike.

 Unreal Tournament is still my favorite FPS ever.


----------



## Heimdal (Apr 17, 2011)

ceacar99 said:


> let me play the devils side here. what would you have us do with those who simply cannot be reformed? when you look at it with PURE logic, a man who absolutely refuses to reform really is absolutely worthless to our society. professional beggars can and do contribute more than a man who refuses to "play nice" with others. so from a logical stand point and no other, what purpose is there in keeping him around? it was his decision not to play nice from the very beginning, it was his decision not to admit his faults, so why should we feed him and clothe him and expend resources for his care? EVERYONE else has to work for a living, but that man doenst have to because he's evil? doesnt make logical sense, its a massive drain on the system, *admitted at the moment the appeals system for death row drains just about as much if not more,* thats something that could be more readily fixed than finding a logical solution to what to do with someone who refuses to be part of society.



I find that you answer your own question adequately enough for this moment in time.

Additionally, and probably more importantly, we have no accurate way of knowing whether someone can be reformed or not. If psychology or brain-scan technology is ever good enough to determine, with 100% accuracy, if a criminal can be reformed or not, we will also be able to figure out how it's best done. (I think that all have potential to be reformed, but nobody really knows at this point.) This is a question we are not yet suited to answer. Right now, advocating killing based around pure guess that they can't be reformed? Not rational.

Your logic is fine for a simple perspective, but this is not a simple situation. I don't know what should be done exactly, but resorting to absolute solutions is pretty terrible. The death penalty is 'just' people betting other people's lives on themselves being correct. That they are occasionally wrong is a MASSIVE problem with it.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 17, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> It's called "criticism". Because recognizing a problem is the first step towards fixing it, this is a vital part of progress. To deflect blame back onto the critic says nothing about the critic, and only promotes inaction. *Just because you don't want to hear what they have to say, does that mean they are wrong?* In this case, it certainly doesn't. I'm sorry, but all this anti-"pointing fingers" talk just sounds like whining, and it doesn't change the reality of the situation at all. (Even though _we_ can't do anything about the justice system, that doesn't make the excuses for it any better.)



From this question, I can see you've misunderstood.  I can hear what they say just fine.  What I hear is "opinions"... not right, not wrong.  What I hear is others claiming their country/nation is "better" than America, rather than just different.  That is the distinction between a valid criticism and finger-pointing.  Yes, I've heard people here provide valid criticisms, but I have also heard people here point their fingers with superior airs.  An "I'm better than you" attitude.  And it isn't that we can't do anything, it's as others here have mentioned... we won't.  After all, America put a man on the moon, fixing our justice system should be a piece of cake.




Heimdal said:


> "Pointing fingers" is just a misleading and negative way to say "voicing a judgment". People who cannot handle this are only showing their own insecurities in the process. Deflecting criticism is also an incredibly immature and childish method to handle problems, by going _"nuh-uh! You first!"_ *instead of acknowledging it responsibly*. Yes, there are dumber students, but you still have to do your homework too.



So, it's "responsible" to judge when all you should be doing is criticizing what you don't like, with valid reasons given.  As an example:




Heimdal said:


> The Death Sentence is an abomination of "justice". These are people, right? So why is killing them not worthy of a death sentence itself? Because the law says it's okay now? No, murder is never okay. Revenge murder is morally bankrupt, and _at least_ as bad as what that criminal would have done to get there.



This is a valid criticism.  You've given your opinion and valid reasons for it.  I may not agree with your opinion, but since you didn't judge America as "evil" for having the death penalty, but made your feelings ABOUT THE DEATH PENALTY, ITSELF, in your post... well, you criticised without pointing any fingers.  Understand now?  No country/nation was mentioned in your post.  No country/nation was singled out.  America's death row may have been the subject of this thread, but _responsible_ criticism would have focused on the death penalty issue, not on America's use of it to the exclusion of the rest of the world.




Heimdal said:


> If I was in a scenario where someone murdered my family and got caught, I'd be for the death penalty. The key thing is that I would not be rational in this situation. In this scenario, my life would be messed up and I would have psychological problems. Why would it make any sense to listen to me? It wouldn't, *and I like to think 'justice' doesn't involve satisfying a revenge-crazed person*.


 
Now this is a valid conclusion to your argument against the death penalty, again with no finger having to be pointed at anyone.




EggCarton said:


> Weapons testing :V


 
No.




Grendel said:


> OP, that would be taking pleasure in the suffering and death of others. When death is used as a punishment, it is not a pleasure or an enjoyment. The death of a human being is not for entertainment. In any civilized society that respects the life and dignity of a individual there is no question as to using them like objects for amusement. *Justice should be dealt, and if that means death, then so be it, but death is never something that we should take pleasure, delight, or enjoyment from.*


 
And Mayfurr brough up Singapore, where executions are carried out by hanging.  In America, we at least give the condemned a painless death by means of lethal injection.  We even stopped all executions when one of the two lethal injection drugs became unavailable, until we could find a proper replacement.




lunar_helix said:


> You don't consider Rome a civilized society?


 
Not in its later years.


----------



## Lunar (Apr 17, 2011)

Even if they can't be publicly executed, which doesn't look possible, murderers should be terminated.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Apr 17, 2011)

lunar_helix said:


> You don't consider Rome a civilized society?


 Rome enslaved people by the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions. They fed people to lions just for having a different religion. Near the fall of western Rome, it was a overindulgent culture that wallowed in brothels and blood sports--such as the gladiator arena. Some scholars think that it was that very same form of hedonism that contributed to the disintegration of western Rome. They were far ahead of their time in some areas, but far behind in others--"Romans did it" is a tenuous justification.


----------



## Bobskunk (Apr 17, 2011)

I'm noticing another trend.

"The death penalty is awesome!  Kill them so we don't have to pay to give them a place to sleep and food to eat!"
"But it costs even more and takes a long time to actually go ahead with it because of appeals"
"Well, then maybe we should reform or remove the appeals process so it doesn't take so much time and money, we could get so much more efficient at killing people!"

Never mind the innocent people that end up on death row anyway, or some of the more egregious ones like Cameron Todd Willingham's innocence being ignored as a waste of time because Rick Perry has a boner for murder, anyway...  That's just a sick attitude.


----------



## ceacar99 (Apr 17, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> I find that you answer your own question adequately enough for this moment in time.
> 
> Additionally, and probably more importantly, we have no accurate way of knowing whether someone can be reformed or not. If psychology or brain-scan technology is ever good enough to determine, with 100% accuracy, if a criminal can be reformed or not, we will also be able to figure out how it's best done. (I think that all have potential to be reformed, but nobody really knows at this point.) This is a question we are not yet suited to answer. Right now, advocating killing based around pure guess that they can't be reformed? Not rational.
> 
> Your logic is fine for a simple perspective, but this is not a simple situation. I don't know what should be done exactly, but resorting to absolute solutions is pretty terrible. The death penalty is 'just' people betting other people's lives on themselves being correct. That they are occasionally wrong is a MASSIVE problem with it.


 
might i point out you didnt read the rest of the context of the highlighted sentence. what i stated amounts to "the current prohibitive cost of the death penalty can be more readily solved than figuring out how to keep someone around whom does not want to be part of society". you essentially tore the beginning out of the statement and refused to see the rest. 

anyway, i was more or less playing that side to see if you were just climbing on the anti american brigade, if you opposed the death penalty just out of sentiment or if you just had an actual reason for it. so far it looks like you oppose the death penalty simply because thats what those around you say you should feel that way. truth is there is a very practical reason NOT to have the death penalty, one bound in logic too. i was curious if you were going to see it.

remember how i mentioned something attributing to more advanced forms of government use emotions other than fear to control people and enforce order? eliminating the death penalty is one of those "other emotions" things. 

 by eliminating the death penalty we can set a societal standard that will help convince people that violence is wrong in their hearts and in the end a columbine school shooting sort of event will be much less likely. fewer would be murderers and other major offenders would be able to justify their actions. in the end violence really does create more violence. its about emotionally controlling people, the more messages from authority we send that violence and murder is wrong, the less prone the population will be towards it.


----------



## Heimdal (Apr 17, 2011)

ceacar99 said:


> might i point out you didnt read the rest of the  context of the highlighted sentence. what i stated amounts to "the  current prohibitive cost of the death penalty can be more readily solved  than figuring out how to keep someone around whom does not want to be  part of society". you essentially tore the beginning out of the  statement and refused to see the rest.



I knowingly disregarded it because it has no relevance to my stance,  it's only applicable where there is a death sentence. I totally disagree  with a death sentence for other reasons, so lowering it's cost isn't  scoring it any points. I was already thinking what Bobskunk said, but I  didn't think it needed to be said:



			
				Bobskunk said:
			
		

> "Well, then maybe we should reform or remove the appeals process so it  doesn't take so much time and money, we could get so much more efficient  at killing people!"
> 
> Never mind the innocent people that end up on death row anyway, or some  of the more egregious ones like Cameron Todd Willingham's innocence  being ignored as a waste of time because Rick Perry has a boner for  murder, anyway...  That's just a sick attitude.





			
				ceacar99 said:
			
		

> anyway,  i was more or less playing that side to see if you were just climbing  on the anti american brigade, if you opposed the death penalty just out  of sentiment or if you just had an actual reason for it. so far it looks  like you oppose the death penalty simply because thats what those  around you say you should feel that way. truth is there is a very  practical reason NOT to have the death penalty, one bound in logic too. i  was curious if you were going to see it.


The problem is what you think you see and what you don't see, and that's  sorta been the problem with your other argument too. I'm starting to  think your logic is a bunch of superficial nonsense.



			
				ceacar99 said:
			
		

> remember  how i mentioned something attributing to more advanced forms of  government use emotions other than fear to control people and enforce  order? eliminating the death penalty is one of those "other emotions"  things.
> 
> by eliminating the death penalty we can set a societal  standard that will help convince people that violence is wrong in their  hearts and in the end a columbine school shooting sort of event will be  much less likely. fewer would be murderers and other major offenders  would be able to justify their actions. in the end violence really does  create more violence. its about emotionally controlling people, the more  messages from authority we send that violence and murder is wrong, the  less prone the population will be towards it.


Yeah. It is.

That sounds like wishful thinking. It's sort of logical, but at a very  superficial and basic level. I'm not gonna lie, I think you need some  sociology classes under your belt for this. Maybe I do to, but I'm not  drawing these kinds of conclusive assumptions. Your reasoning seems  extremely vague. Your 'devil's advocate' argument implied they were  non-reformable and useless to society, but this other angle implies that  they _have to be_ reformable (at least most of them.) If they  weren't reformable (back into society), then their actions give no  regard to society, and they would presumably have done the same crime whether there  was a death penalty or not. This is an important detail,  because it determines whether you know what you're talking about or not.  As I pointed out in my post before, we don't have a 100% way to know  how reformable they are yet. This idea sounds like it came out from the  last thing you smoked, and I don't see any legitimate justifications in it.


----------



## ceacar99 (Apr 18, 2011)

> That sounds like wishful thinking. It's sort of logical, but at a very superficial and basic level. I'm not gonna lie, I think you need some sociology classes under your belt for this. Maybe I do to, but I'm not drawing these kinds of conclusive assumptions. Your reasoning seems extremely vague. Your 'devil's advocate' argument implied they were non-reformable and useless to society, but this other angle implies that they have to be reformable (at least most of them.) If they weren't reformable (back into society), then their actions give no regard to society, and they would presumably have done the same crime whether there was a death penalty or not. This is an important detail, because it determines whether you know what you're talking about or not. As I pointed out in my post before, we don't have a 100% way to know how reformable they are yet. This idea sounds like it came out from the last thing you smoked, and I don't see any legitimate justifications in it.



please read again, in my argument AGAINST the death penalty i never mentioned reforming criminals. really if a criminal can be reformed or not is irreverent to my argument. please think about my argument, dont feel about it.

society messages and violence are intertwined. how much pushing did the nazi government REALLY need to do to cause events like kristallnachtt? the german government simply put out constant messages of jewish hate and the proposal of violence.  this happened in eastern europe as well as events called "pogroms", and every single pogrom has a background of government putting the idea of anti semetic violence in the hands of the people. 

look further, nations like the united states had at certain points a deep hatred for jewish people. however, we have had no cases of "pogroms" against jews because authority was not sending a message of approval. our thing was the "jim crow system".

simple reality, most people dont think about things logically. they feel their way through the world. if you intend to get a large amount of people to behave the way you want you must dominate their emotions, not their minds. if you want violence, you make them FEEL it is right and justifiable, if you do not you make them FEEL there is no reason for it.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Apr 18, 2011)

ceacar99 said:


> by eliminating the death penalty we can set a societal standard that will help convince people that violence is wrong in their hearts and *in the end a columbine school shooting sort of event will be much less likely. fewer would be murderers and other major offenders would be able to justify their actions.* in the end violence really does create more violence. its about emotionally controlling people, the more messages from authority we send that violence and murder is wrong, the less prone the population will be towards it.


 
Woah there, ceacar!  If you're gonna make this claim, you better explain how you came to such a conclusion.  Given human nature, eliminating the death penalty won't make school shooting more unlikely, and certainly wouldn't result in murderers/major offenders being any less likely to justify their actions.  We already went through a period (some time back) where the death penalty was eliminated, and it made no difference to murderers/major offenders.  They still murdered, and still found justification for their actions.  If they even bothered to look.


----------



## Heimdal (Apr 18, 2011)

ceacar99 said:


> please read again, in my argument AGAINST the death penalty i never mentioned reforming criminals. really if a criminal can be reformed or not is irreverent to my argument. please think about my argument, dont feel about it.
> 
> simple reality, most people dont think about things logically. they feel their way through the world. if you intend to get a large amount of people to behave the way you want you must dominate their emotions, not their minds. if you want violence, you make them FEEL it is right and justifiable, if you do not you make them FEEL there is no reason for it.


 
The type of crimes that put people for death sentence (and in prison in general) are anti-social. Crime is a pure example of anti-social behaviour.

Now, controlling society through emotions is hypothetically unrelated to stopping crime, because crime is not social behaviour. It's already unaccepted by the society.

Reforming criminals is very important here. Reforming a criminal, in simple terms, is removing the bulk of that anti-social behaviour so they can return to society. If every prison inmate is capable of being reformed, then it stands to reason that they have some connection to society, and controlling the emotions of the masses might have prevented a measure of their criminal actions to begin with (like you say.) If Death Row inmates are incapable of being reformed, then there's little reason to believe their anti-social behaviour was ever preventable (even if things went about differently, the stats would be the same.) And are you sure your vague solution would remove problems, or would they just come in a new equally problematic form?

tl;dr: Stopping anti-social behaviour by controlling social behaviour does not make logical sense. Anti-social is anti-social.


----------



## Bambi (Apr 18, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> The type of crimes that put people for death  sentence (and in prison in general) are anti-social. Crime is a pure  example of anti-social behaviour.


Among other things, yes.

On the other hand, crime is not so much a pure example of anti-social  behavior, but an example of distress. Whether that distress is social, moral, psychological, or distress as caused by relative ignorance. We could expand upon any number of parameters but just for the sake of keeping things short, crime is evident of someone going through a tough time.





Heimdal said:


> Now, controlling society  through emotions is hypothetically unrelated to stopping crime, because  crime is not social behaviour. It's already unaccepted by the  society.


Certain members of society; there's quite a few people  out there who advocate criminal behavior as socially justifying  behavior. Crime is mostly emotional behavior, I might add.


Heimdal said:


> Reforming  criminals is very important here. Reforming a criminal, in simple  terms, is removing the bulk of that anti-social behaviour so they can  return to society.


Unfortunately for a few of those ideas life isn't so sterile, isn't so perfect as to allow that to occur and perform without flaws. And there's no  perfect system for dealing with inappropriate action. I would much rather have a competent judicial system which was malleable and capable of exercising it's power, than a judicial system which was stuck trying to warehouse everyone it came across that broke the law.


----------



## Heimdal (Apr 18, 2011)

Bambi said:


> On the other hand, crime is not so much a pure  example of anti-social  behavior, but an example of distress. Whether  that distress is social, moral, psychological, or distress as caused by  relative ignorance. We could expand upon any number of parameters but  just for the sake of keeping things short, crime is evident of someone  going through a tough time.Certain members of society; there's quite a  few people  out there who advocate criminal behavior as socially  justifying  behavior. And that in of itself is what flaws this idea that  crime is  already unaccepted by society, as certain groups within our  present society do condone  criminal action so long as it benefits their  ideal. It just depends upon what chunk or partition of society we're  discussing  here, and what they feel is or is not criminal. Hence why I  would argue for keeping certain things on the table.



The point is that the justice system is a function of society to provide  protection  and security for those who are part of it, so when laws are broken it  is in defiance to the set boundaries of the society. Whether those  boundaries need work is another issue, but knowingly breaking them is  still anti-social, generally speaking. That's the extent of my referencing to social/anti-social behaviour.

To put it dumbly: People do stuff that they know is bad. I have no reason to think that finding new ways to tell people what is good will stop people who always had the intent to do bad.
I'm not saying what ceacar99 was saying couldn't work, just that it is purely conceptual.



> Unfortunately for everyone here who thinks  that reformation  works and is a better solution for all of our "criminal problems",   you're wrong. Life isn't sterile, it's not perfect, and there's no   perfect system for dealing with inappropriate action. From that, *we should know now that reformation would only work if everyone were reformable. They're not.*  I would much rather have a competent judicial system which was  malleable, and not stuck trying to warehouse everyone it came  across.


 
But you don't know that. Nobody knows that. All we know so far is that  we don't always know how it's done best, not whether it's possible or  not. That's the problem. There is nothing absolute here. You may wind up  being right, but we should not even give up on criminals unless we  know. I could not stand behind a cynical justice system.
Note: I saw the line that you edited out, which was a fancy way of saying you support a justice system built on revenge. You should have just said that flat out; as ridiculous as I think it is, it's an acceptable opinion.


----------



## Mayfurr (Apr 18, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> We already went through a period (some time back) where the death penalty was eliminated, and it made no difference to murderers/major offenders.  They still murdered, and still found justification for their actions.  If they even bothered to look.


 
And there's also the point that the USA and New Zealand have similar prisoner incarceration rates per capita - but while the US has the death penalty, New Zealand does not. If the death penalty _did_ make any sort of difference, you'd expect the US to have a significantly lower prisoner rate than NZ due to the deterrence factor, but of the two the US rate is actually slightly _higher._

Which proves again that the death penalty does NOT have the deterrence factor claimed for it by pro-death penalty advocates.

On a related note, I've watched an interesting couple of documentaries on British capital punishment before it was abolished, and it would appear that even being the executioner was a pretty rough occupation - some of the official executioners got really fucked-up by the job they were doing. In fact, it would seem that some British executioners became convinced that capital punishment was pointless:



			
				 Albert Pierrepoint said:
			
		

> I have come to the conclusion that executions solve nothing, and *are only an antiquated relic of a primitive desire for revenge which takes the easy way and hands over the responsibility for revenge to other people*...The trouble with the death penalty has always been that nobody wanted it for everybody, but everybody differed about who should get off. (emphasis added)


----------



## Bambi (Apr 18, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> The point is that the justice system is a function of society to provide  protection  and security for those who are part of it, so when laws are broken it  is in defiance to the set boundaries of the society.


Not just society. 





Heimdal said:


> Whether those  boundaries need work is another issue, but knowingly breaking them is  still anti-social, generally speaking. That's the extent of my referencing to social/anti-social behaviour.


Hm, okay.

That's fair.





Heimdal said:


> To put it dumbly: People do stuff that they know is bad. I have no reason to think that finding new ways to tell people what is good will stop people who always had the intent to do bad.


That's kind of a mistake though, isn't it? Not all criminals commit crime because it's counter to society, or the anti-thesis of; rather, a poor person might steal to eat. For them it is ethical to be fed. I don't necessarily agree with the idea that people are 100% driven to commit crimes against society, because they didn't metaphorically stop to read all of the road signs warning against that behavior, or because they simply did not care. Some of them might care, but a few of them might not have a choice based upon what they perceive their circumstances to be. What would you say about that?


Heimdal said:


> I'm not saying what ceacar99 was saying couldn't work, just that it is purely conceptual.


Indeed.

He's got some interesting perspectives though.





Heimdal said:


> But you don't know that.


Ah, logical fallacy.

Just like you don't know if reformation is entirely possible or would work one hundred percent of the time, I also don't know if it is entirely flawed and wouldn't work one hundred percent of the time. The language should change here to reflect what we have presently, and that is that most people who receive treatment don't want to change their behavior, or that at present rehabilitation doesn't work for everyone. For example, some pedophiles are court ordered to receive therapy. And some therapists have made the mistake of releasing these people into the public where they subsequently recommit their crimes. 

How is THAT ethical? Do we blame the therapist, or the system that says once they've reached a visible point, it's okay to reintegrate them?  





Heimdal said:


> How can reformation and rehabilitation address that problem? All we know so far is that  we don't always know how it's done best, not whether it's possible or  not. That's the problem. There is nothing absolute here. You may wind up  being right, but we should not even give up on criminals unless we  know. I could not stand behind a cynical justice system.


It's not cynicism. 

It's truth. Most criminals don't change, and that's because we don't have an effective means of making everyone agree with us. We can only hope that what help we give criminals steers them away from committing acts of self-destruction. We can only hope that the impact of our efforts and our willingness as a community to re-teach them right from wrong and how to become a better adult, winds up becoming a suitable practice for them that they embody. Beyond that, we can't force them to do these things, and most career criminals know that. They know how to flaw our present ethics, and any ethics at all, because changing for them might be unprofitable. 

We can't make them change, but we can provide the facilities where if they'd like to, they can get better. Until that time, a prison sentence is just as therapeutical as a court order for psychological help. And unless you're suggesting a huge overhaul to the mental health community, those are problems you're going to have to deal with. Now, unless you specifically know what you'd like to address in the mental health community, fire away.


Heimdal said:


> Note: I saw the line that you edited out, which was a fancy way of saying you support a justice system built on revenge.


Nice appeal to emotion, but you're incorrect.

Let me provide the appropriate answer and one that's not so charged to fulfill your sense of argumentative validity. I want a justice system for the people and a justice system that works. I want it to be malleable. I want it to be flexible. I want it to be capable of recognizing the value and social impact different crimes cause, and most importantly of all, I want them to have the power to exercise good judgment, instead of ONE judgment: warehouse them until they're fixed. Warehousing has never fixed the warehoused.

And power has a talent for "forgetting" people. Even the victims of crimes.


----------



## Heimdal (Apr 18, 2011)

Bambi said:


> That's fair.That's kind of a mistake though, isn't it? Not all criminals commit crime because it's counter to society, or the anti-thesis of; rather, a poor person might steal to eat. For them it is ethical to be fed. I don't necessarily agree with the idea that people are 100% driven to commit crimes against society, because they didn't metaphorically stop to read all of the road signs warning against that behavior, or because they simply did not care. Some of them might care, but a few of them might not have a choice based upon what they perceive their circumstances to be. What would you say about that?



I didn't mean that they are specifically super villians who do evil for evils sake. I meant that their actions pay no regard to the law. Is doing something through society really going stop the occurrences of people acting outside of it? I don't see any reasoning that the statistics would change.



> Ah, logical fallacy.
> 
> Just like you don't know if reformation is entirely possible or would work one hundred percent of the time, I also don't know if it is entirely flawed and wouldn't work one hundred percent of the time. The language should change here to reflect what we have presently, and that is that most people who receive treatment don't want to change their behavior, or that at present rehabilitation doesn't work for everyone. For example, some pedophiles are court ordered to receive therapy. And some therapists have made the mistake of releasing these people into the public where they subsequently recommit their crimes.



What logical fallacy? I only said that we don't know because we actually don't know, including that I don't know either. It is more ethically rational to err on the side of caution than to kill people because it "might be the correct solution". Until we do know, let's not endorse killing.



> It's truth. Most criminals don't change, and that's because we don't have an effective means of making everyone agree with us. We can only hope that what help we give criminals steers them away from committing acts of self-destruction. We can only hope that the impact of our efforts and our willingness as a community to re-teach them right from wrong and how to become a better adult, winds up becoming a suitable practice for them that they embody. Beyond that, we can't force them to do these things, and most career criminals know that. They know how to flaw our present ethics, and any ethics at all, because changing for them might be unprofitable.



It is no where near perfect, but it has worked on some. That's enough reason to pursue it until we do figure this stuff all out. They are people, not animals.



> Nice appeal to emotion, but you're incorrect.
> 
> Let me provide the appropriate answer and one that's not so charged to fulfill your sense of argumentative validity. I want a justice system for the people and a justice system that works. I want it to be malleable. I want it to be flexible. I want it to be capable of recognizing the value and social impact different crimes cause, and most importantly of all, I want them to have the power to exercise good judgment, instead of ONE judgment: warehouse them until they're fixed. Warehousing has never fixed the warehoused.



No. That's a revenge system no matter how you dress it up. Malleable and flexible for the people who were wronged? This will turn into emotionally charged 'justice' no matter how well-meaning it sounded at the start. People will abuse it for revenge, more than they already do with the systems in place. Rules and emphasis on consistency assist to prevent personal motives and prejudices from running rampant (even though they still do.) I'm not sure how your CalvinBall justice will avoid those traps at all. Minorities would suffer worse with this kind of justice. It has all the same appearance as legitimizing vigilantism, and then some.


----------



## Bambi (Apr 18, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> I didn't mean that they are specifically super villians who do evil for evils sake. I meant that their actions pay no regard to the law. Is doing something through society really going stop the occurrences of people acting outside of it?


It does, but we're not aware of just what's changing the present statistics. Crime is dropping in the United States. It could be the information age, people wanting to be different, or the fact that we're undergoing a period of domestication; but everything is pointing towards a decline in homicide. I disagree with the idea that doing something through society might/might not have the affect we're looking for, because "something" is changing it.





Heimdal said:


> What logical fallacy? I only said that we don't know because we actually don't know, including that I don't know either.


It's a little bit of circular logic; dubiously drawn on my own behalf, but it was present there. My point of invoking a notice of it was that there's two camps here in this debate: One which strictly believes rehabilitation is better than capital punishment, and another which argues capital punishment can answer sometimes what rehabilitation cannot. Thus, upon closer examination, do we see that each believes what it believes, because it knows because it knows.

Sure, there's a few arguers here that are like "hurr death penalty win", but I don't think those people are honestly putting effort towards thinking about these issues. And that was more or less the reason behind my notice. 





Heimdal said:


> It is more ethically rational to err on the side of caution than to kill people because it "might be the correct solution".


You err on the side of caution long enough, and people will call it procrastination. People definitely need to open the debate of "end capital punishment" with a near psychological breakthrough, or notice of another procedure which is more viable and doesn't reinforce the present culture of crime. Otherwise, you're still going to have this co-dependency on a certain element of thought.





Heimdal said:


> It is no where near perfect, but it has worked on some. That's enough reason to pursue it until we do figure this stuff all out. They are people, not animals.


I agree.





Heimdal said:


> No. That's a revenge system no matter how you dress it up. Malleable and flexible for the people who were wronged? This will turn into emotionally charged 'justice' no matter how well-meaning it sounded at the start.


A little unfair.

You want me to want a revenge system, but that's what I don't want. Let me be clear: I am against warehousing people when there's no effort to deal with the social implications of their crimes, or their actions in of themselves. I am also against putting people to death because we, as people, don't have better answers.


----------



## Bobskunk (Apr 18, 2011)

Criminals who commit crimes (hurf durf tautology) don't think about prison or the death penalty, as a deterrent to their actions.

They think, "Man, I'm totally going to get away with this!"


----------



## ceacar99 (Apr 18, 2011)

Heimdal said:
			
		

> To put it dumbly: People do stuff that they know is bad. I have no reason to think that finding new ways to tell people what is good will stop people who always had the intent to do bad.
> I'm not saying what ceacar99 was saying couldn't work, just that it is purely conceptual.



"purely conceptual" is a more than fair assertion to my concepts. further the "put it dumbly" way is a good way to sumerize our standpoints. 

first and foremost violent crime by its nature is the most emotionally attached. its strong feelings and emotions that leads to the actions of personal muder, gang violence, hiring a hitman, or a massacre such as a school shooting. RARELY is violent crime "just business". 

second, because violence is a reaction to adversity in one's environment we can assert that violence IS social behavior. further, my assertion is that while violence may be LEGALLY against what is right the feeling of society may be that its SOCIALLY right, even if the society itself does not realize this on a conscious level. as i said vengeance is a national hobby of the united states of america even though its against the law. 

so conclusion. MOST violence occurs because someone feels its justified, even with the consequences such as loosing their own life. the columbine shooters for example felt their vengeance was justified. by working towards sending broad messages to reverberate in our society we can reform the people's emotional responses to adversity. rather than feeling violence is the proper emotional response they will grow up to feel that forgiveness is the proper response. 

it does not matter if a criminal CAN be reformed or not in my concept because they would all be there as tools to send a message of mercy. if the criminal can or has been reformed is up to parole boards, but by abstaining from killing we abstain from sending a message promoting killing and the concept of vengeance.

side note, when i first looked into this thread i was FOR the death penalty. however as of late i've been asking "what would abraham lincoln do?". after i look at how he ran this country, and literally controlled public opinion rather than create it i've been looking to his ideas and actions for political guidance. using tools like the death penalty to send an emotional message to society to change public opinion is EXACTLY what he would do. personally i'm for the death penalty but looking at the reality of guiding a nation i have to be against it every step of the way.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Apr 18, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Criminals who commit crimes (hurf durf tautology) don't think about prison or the death penalty, as a deterrent to their actions.
> 
> They think, "Man, I'm totally going to get away with this!"


 
Except for gangsters and inside men who actually want to.


----------



## Panthura (Apr 26, 2011)

Or you could solve the problem by *abolishing capital punishment*, like we've done in the UK!


----------



## Lobar (Apr 26, 2011)

Panthura said:


> Or you could solve the problem by *abolishing capital punishment*, like we've done in the UK!


 
way to read the thread there champ


----------



## Panthura (Apr 26, 2011)

Lobar, I once wrote a (very) short story in which there was an anthropomorphic falcon whose surname was Lobar. Now that is just a coincidence isn't it?


----------



## Duality Jack (Apr 26, 2011)

How about winner gets to not die and gets a better cell and good food?


----------

