Originally posted by zeeblebotNot in te UK where the judges regularly show Toniblair and his 'Ministers', that you cannot sign up to loony-left legislation such as the 'Human Rights' charter and then pretend to get tough by deporting immigrant criminals.
a judiciary is a subset of a government.
But then, Blair's wife is making a fortune out of successfully defending such deportees by appealing to that very legislation. Don't blame the judges.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzNo, I'm not up for killing home invaders, unless of course they are threatening you or anyone else on your property. I am in favour of taking reasonable measures to deter property invaders, killing them is only reasonable if they are placing you in danger. Executing someone for murder is also perfectly reasonable, I have yet to hear a reasonable argument to the contrary.
Weren't you all up for killing home invaders too? Man, you'd have yourself killed for murdering the guy that breaks into your house - too cool!
Seriously though, are you suggesting the detah penalty only for murder? What about manslaughter? How about people convicted of death by dangerous driving?
[Edit] Yeah, just murder. Manslaughter is poorly defined these days, if you are fighting with someone and kill them, although you were only intending to, say hospitalise them, is, in my view, deliberate killing as it is done out of malice.
Originally posted by Nargagunathe point was that people that wouldn't stomach having strangers making decisions about any aspect of their lives, suddenly think the government should decide what happens with murderers.
Not in te UK where the judges regularly show Toniblair and his 'Ministers', that you cannot sign up to loony-left legislation such as the 'Human Rights' charter and then pretend to get tough by deporting immigrant criminals.
But then, Blair's wife is making a fortune out of successfully defending such deportees by appealing to that very legislation. Don't blame the judges.
(maybe "government"/"judiciary" has a different connotation over there.)
the Arab world seems an improvement, apparently in some areas judges leave the sentence to the discretion of the victim's family.
Originally posted by zeeblebotYeah, that might work out OK in some cases, but in other it would not. Sounds fairly similar to the ancient Greek system whereby the condemned was allowed to suggest their own punishment.
the Arab world seems an improvement, apparently in some areas judges leave the sentence to the discretion of the victim's family.
Ya know what, just screw it, execute all murderers AND habitual repeat offenders, they're a lost cause. That's what every nation on earth did up until 200 years ago, when we became too civilized to axe all the jerkwads that did nothing but hurt other people. The concept of putting them in cages to punish them is a new idea. Before 1800 or so, they'd get flogged, beaten, branded, or hung if they did something really atrocious.
Rehabilitation does not work because we don't know how to do it, if we could, we would.
Originally posted by scottishinnzIf I let a convict live in a cage in my home, could I torture him for my amusement?
yes, I'd also need a bloddy big cage to keep them in until they were suitably rehabilitated. having someone else in my house always bugs me anyway, so i think they;d get on my nerves a bit.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSorry, no. You gotta treat them properly. Most people who actually perpetrate these crimes are, how shall we say, mentally deficient. Not something I'd have someone killed for, although Zeeb seems to think it's sufficient reason.
If I let a convict live in a cage in my home, could I torture him for my amusement?
Originally posted by General PutzerWell that takes us back a couple thousand years, that was the usual punishment in ancient rome and other places, they didn't have the idea of confinement except for temporary holding cells for prisoners to be ex'd or political detainees, held for ransom.
Ya know what, just screw it, execute all murderers AND habitual repeat offenders, they're a lost cause. That's what every nation on earth did up until 200 years ago, when we became too civilized to axe all the jerkwads that did nothing but hurt other people. The concept of putting them in cages to punish them is a new idea. Before 1800 or so, they'd ...[text shortened]...
Rehabilitation does not work because we don't know how to do it, if we could, we would.
Originally posted by princeoforangeHere's my attempts at some arguments against the death penalty:
No, I'm not up for killing home invaders, unless of course they are threatening you or anyone else on your property. I am in favour of taking reasonable measures to deter property invaders, killing them is only reasonable if they are placing you in danger. Executing someone for murder is also perfectly reasonable, I have yet to hear a reasonable arg ...[text shortened]... nding to, say hospitalise them, is, in my view, deliberate killing as it is done out of malice.
1. The risk of killing an innocent person.
2. Revenge is an emotional response that should be avoided placing into an advanced civilisation's punishment repertoire - we should work towards complete respect for human life: including those who have not shown the same.
3. The arbitrary nature of the decision - depending on the ability of defendents to afford quality counsel, the race of the defendent, where the defendent lives or committed the crime, etc.
4. The evidence suggests that the death penalty is no more of a deterence than life in prison.
Originally posted by sonhouseyes, the Romans were a lot more advanced than us, in many ways.
Well that takes us back a couple thousand years, that was the usual punishment in ancient rome and other places, they didn't have the idea of confinement except for temporary holding cells for prisoners to be ex'd or political detainees, held for ransom.
(not on topic, but might be interesting to compare Thucydides' account of the Athenian prisoners imprisoned in the Syracusan quarry with the historical-fiction account of the Union prisoners in "Andersonville".)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thucydides
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/7142
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloponnesian_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_expedition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andersonville_%28novel%29
Originally posted by zeeblebotOh Lord, save us from the google regurgitators!
yes, the Romans were a lot more advanced than us, in many ways.
(not on topic, but might be interesting to compare Thucydides' account of the Athenian prisoners imprisoned in the Syracusan quarry with the historical-fiction account of the Union prisoners in "Andersonville".)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thucydides
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/7142 ...[text shortened]... ipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_expedition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andersonville_%28novel%29