http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4754662.stm The pertinent quote being: "Saddam Hussein has ended an 11-day hunger strike for "health reasons", his chief lawyer has said." Now, it may just be me, but what else is a hunger strike for?
I thought the [i:1621d8e7c6]ending [/i:1621d8e7c6]of the hunger strike was for healsth reasons, even though a kind of health risk is part of many hunger strikes. .
they should have let the evil old man die of starvation, that would be nothing compared to the things done to the people killed on his orders! :evil:
I saw a report on the news yesterday about a guy who starved himself to death only days before he was to stand trial for killing his daughter. So I say, why didn't they force feed him, with a tube if they had to? After all, he was in custody & they knew he was starving himself. Plus he had already confessed to the murder, so why let a guilty man off so easily?
I would let him off so easily cos i have to pay to keep him in his nice warm cell, with his tele, hifi and 3 square meals a day! Also when they are gone, thats it, finito, there is no chance of parole or "rehab" no second chances for people like that, its not like the person they killed can come back in 7 or 8 years and continue their lives is it! Sorry but i think death is too good for them, now painful lingering death maybe!
[quote:8a11c7cd7d="misswhiplash"]I would let him off so easily cos i have to pay to keep him in his nice warm cell, with his tele, hifi and 3 square meals a day! [/quote:8a11c7cd7d] Surely prisoners aren't given televisions in their cells?!! That's outrageous; they're here for a crime, not a social visit. A luxury item like a TV is not on, in my book.
I used to deal with prisoners in Rikers Island in New York. They had television in overcrowded common rooms, not in their cells. I think it was used more for crowd control (if you crowd a bunch of people with violent histories together in a room, you've got to provide them with some form of distraction) than to make the prisoners happy.
While of course i recognise that Saddam Hussein has committed appalling, appalling, unimaginable crimes, and is twisted beyond any person you or i would recognise........personally, i would hesitate before i called any person 'evil'. This is not because i think any less of their crimes, or any more of them as people, god no, but purely because i think it somehow dehumanises them, therefore separating them from the rest of us and making what they've done and become, and WHY this has happened somehow not our problem. Or something. I just mean, they ARE human, so whatever they've done, we have the potential for also. Calling them 'evil' gives them a status i don't think they deserve.....like some mythical beast or demon....and doesn't help us prevent such horrors happening again. Just my gut reaction.
I agree with Darth_Bemblebee, I think people like Saddam are allowed to exist because of a failing in society and as long as we keep denying this it will carry on happening time and again.
I also agree with Darth_Bemblebee and Mal - not wanting people to call such dictators/criminals/massmurderers evil, or demons, or whatever is not about being nice to them. Maybe I am not quite aware of the connotations of the word "evil" in your language, and it can be used as a simple moral statement. But declaring them non-human spares us normal human beings from pondering too much time with thinking how a human being could become someone like that, and how any society as a whole could turn into his playground. Not that I say you guys did that, but you can see this way of dealing with history in effect quite a lot. The closest example for us Germans would, of course, be Hitler: by declaring him "a monster", a lot of people made it easier for themselves to put all the blame for him instead asking themselves or their relatives about their own roles in the machinery. Not monsters do evil things, humans do them. By the way, a lot of prisons offer actual guiding tours around here - no joke. I'd like to take a look at one some day; from what I know and have seen so far, being locked up in a tiny cell[i:1f4af1a6d6] is[/i:1f4af1a6d6] punishment, even with three meals a day.
There's a prison in Japan right next to a primary school for young children, you don't see that very often.
[quote:4a54922b32="Maljonic"]There's a prison in Japan right next to a primary school for young children, you don't see that very often.[/quote:4a54922b32] Well, so long as it isn't for sex offenders, and their yard for exericse doesn't look out upon the school, I'd say that's ok. Not ideal, but it could work because they're all [i:4a54922b32]in[/i:4a54922b32]mates, and most prisons are good at keeping their people in!
And a breakout is hardly going to go over and murder some little kids just for fun. Much safer to quietly slip away.... In Massachetts, USA the state penn. is in easy walking distance from a shopping mall.
The term evil should be avoided in the judicial system because it's an emotionally charged word. The guilt or innocence of prisoners should be decided carefully, and with as much reason and logic as possible. It would be easier to simply declare murderers or rapists evil and kill them, but it wouldn't be justice. Justice happens in the light. Saddam Hussein's crimes must be brought to light. No slow fading in a dark cell. No quiet gunshot behind a prison. He must be brought out, where everyone can see him and know his crimes for themselves. This is why Vimes brought Carcer in alive. Why he tries to bring any criminal in alive, at least for a given value of alive (a la the dragon king of arms). He could kill them. It's been seen in multiple books that he's capable of killing. Just ask Wolfgang. But he only does it if there's no other choice, when it's directly in defense of himself or others. He has to bring them in, so there can be justice. The world, sad to say, is not fundamentally just. Injustice happens all the time. That's why people have to work hard for justice. Justice happens because people make it happen. Together. Justice is something that comes from people. It's something that only people can see, just like beauty. A flower isn't beautiful, until someone or something capable of perceiving beauty looks at it. And an act isn't just, until a person judges it so. In the light. Where the people can see.
[quote:cae3a07ef4="TheJackal"]I saw a report on the news yesterday about a guy who starved himself to death only days before he was to stand trial for killing his daughter. So I say, why didn't they force feed him, with a tube if they had to? After all, he was in custody & they knew he was starving himself. Plus he had already confessed to the murder, so why let a guilty man off so easily?[/quote:cae3a07ef4] Apparently they couldn't do anything because he was judged to be of sound mind and therefore aware of the consequences of his actions. So they can force-feed insane people (like Ian Brady, the Moors Murderer) but not sane ones. :? .
[quote:d2d5fd8be2="Sir_Gawain"]But isn't suicide against the law? I don't understand that, myself, but...[/quote:d2d5fd8be2] sure, it's against the law, but only if you succeed, then you get the death penalty or a life sentence if you're lucky... :cooler:
from the BBC news report [quote:ca1952a736]: "A prisoner would be assessed on their mental capacity and if they were deemed to have mental capacity they are entitled to refuse medical interventions." [/quote:ca1952a736] Giving someone food is regarded as medical intervention, so apparently starving yourself to death is not regarded as suicide. :roll:
Well, in many countries attempting suicide is not against the law. I don't see the point of it, anyway. Here, not force feeding sane people has a historical reason. There were loads of people who were jailed for being part of some kind of opposition, and the means of passive resistance were the last resort of those who had no other means left to protest. Force-feeding them was part of breaking their will, demonstrating that the souveranity over their body* wasn't theirs, but the regimes. That still is so on many countries around the globe, and I think thats why amnesty international is against force feeding. Or so I seem to remember.
Evil to me is the nastiest of nasty. Not demonic in any way, Ian brady and Myra Hindley were evil, Jack the Ripper was evil as is Saddam, i'm sorry if people misunderstood me. I was not trying to make them a nasty thing seperate to humans. I don't have alot of faith in humanity as a wise person pointed out to me yesterday, but i do believe we are of one race and if some are worse than terrible, there has to be the equal amount of angels (as i call them) out there, heros for people just like you and me. Thats what makes us different to the animals. We can recognise the wrong doers and punish them for it just as much as we can praise the efforts of the good in this world. I again feel i need to apologise. I know for a fact some prisoners have rights to TV's and stereos in their cells. Most of these are lifers in maximum security prisons. The lesser charged criminals do have to sit together in common rooms and have to interact with others. I actually meant that these people who it is proven beyond all doubt (ie Saddam, Hindley, Hitler etc) should not be allowed to live. They have taken the most precious thing a human can have away from them and they don't deserve to breath for the amount of pain and suffering they caused. If the death penalty was infallable then we would have it now in every country, i understand there were mistakes made and that should not be allowed to happen, but sometimes the facts speak for themselves.
That's where I disagree though, if we keep killing these people we learn nothing from them and never face up to what made them do the things they do. We continually label them as 'evil', dispatch them and wait for the next one to come along, learning nothing in the process. By your reconning Hitler did us a service in the end by killing himself, but to me all he did was rob us of any means to make any sense of what he did other than giving him the usual labels of 'evil' and 'madman'.
[quote:6b82bdf3eb="Maljonic"]That's where I disagree though, if we keep killing these people we learn nothing from them and never face up to what made them do the things they do. We continually label them as 'evil', dispatch them and wait for the next one to come along, learning nothing in the process.[/quote:6b82bdf3eb] I think it's also the fact that as a society we're crossing a threshold if we justify that kind of punishment. Or in any case, we come dangerous close to an "eye for an eye"-mentality. One of the most important things that separate us from them in terms of morality is that we will not cross certain lines. No matter how you dress it up, capital punishment is a form of murder. If we justify murder in special circumstances, we have crossed a line. Also, as a society we have forced someone to kill. That's where it started for these people. Under special circumstances they felt disproportionate measures were justified. In a way, they were using their own form of capital punishment. If we do the same thing, it is only our perception of what those special circumstances are that separates us.
Well, in many countries attempting suicide is not against the law. I don't see the point of it, anyway. [\i] I don't see the point either, but it is illegal where Saddam is being held now. I think. What with all the 'torture is allowed in US bases not on US soil' thing, I don't know what counts and what doesn't... But capital punishment keeps them from ever doing it again. Then we just have to kill their exacutioners for murder, and kill ther executioners for murder....
[quote:34bb52d59a="Cynical_Youth"][quote:34bb52d59a="Maljonic"]That's where I disagree though, if we keep killing these people we learn nothing from them and never face up to what made them do the things they do. We continually label them as 'evil', dispatch them and wait for the next one to come along, learning nothing in the process.[/quote:34bb52d59a] I think it's also the fact that as a society we're crossing a threshold if we justify that kind of punishment. Or in any case, we come dangerous close to an "eye for an eye"-mentality. One of the most important things that separate us from them in terms of morality is that we will not cross certain lines. No matter how you dress it up, capital punishment is a form of murder. If we justify murder in special circumstances, we have crossed a line. Also, as a society we have forced someone to kill. That's where it started for these people. Under special circumstances they felt disproportionate measures were justified. In a way, they were using their own form of capital punishment. If we do the same thing, it is only our perception of what those special circumstances are that separates us.[/quote:34bb52d59a] Yep, I agree with both of you there... Can't really think of anything to add right now...
To use the word "evil" about a human, implies (as far as I can see) that they were born that way. I cannot honestly believe that when little baby Hitler or little baby Saddam was born, he was already past redemption. Certainly, some people have a warped idea of what is acceptable, and some have no idea at all, but we all become who we are by a [i:573154bd86]mixture[/i:573154bd86] of circumstance and personality. For those who believe in souls, I believe that we [i:573154bd86]all[/i:573154bd86] have one, and all have possibilities for good and bad. If you don't believe in souls, surely we are just a mass of chemical and physical reactions, and cannot possibly be inherently evil. Either way, I don't think that any human has the right to decide whether or not another human deserves to die. Believing they have the right to that kind of power is the reason psychopaths take lives. If you want to lock a proven criminal up for life in order to protect the rest of humanity from him, fine, that is just protecting your own. But don't complain if he decides to take his own life - only he and God/fate/his anatomical make-up have that prerogative.
[quote:9b99c930dc="Cynical_Youth"][quote:9b99c930dc="Maljonic"]That's where I disagree though, if we keep killing these people we learn nothing from them and never face up to what made them do the things they do. We continually label them as 'evil', dispatch them and wait for the next one to come along, learning nothing in the process.[/quote:9b99c930dc] I think it's also the fact that as a society we're crossing a threshold if we justify that kind of punishment. Or in any case, we come dangerous close to an "eye for an eye"-mentality. One of the most important things that separate us from them in terms of morality is that we will not cross certain lines. No matter how you dress it up, capital punishment is a form of murder. If we justify murder in special circumstances, we have crossed a line. Also, as a society we have forced someone to kill. That's where it started for these people. Under special circumstances they felt disproportionate measures were justified. In a way, they were using their own form of capital punishment. If we do the same thing, it is only our perception of what those special circumstances are that separates us.[/quote:9b99c930dc] I disagree with that, CY, but I'll start with responding to Mal's post. What do we learn from these people when they are in a prison cell? Once the trial is over, that is. What we learn from them, and of them, does not go beyond the trial, beyond bringing the facts of the case to light and forcing society to face what a member of it had done, in my opinion. Now, to CY. Is capital punishment a form of murder? It is if imprisonment is a form of kidnapping and slavery, and if fines are a form of theft. We, as a society, cannot punish a person for a crime without crossing a moral line. We keep people in cells against their will, and sometimes we take their money, too, or our duly elected representatives do, in any case. In the end, the only thing that seperates the punishment we give to the individual and the individual's own action's is the majority's concent for a certain punishment. The society, as a whole, is more important than the individual. That's why a society has laws, rules and regulations, to protect the whole from the individual who percieves himself to be above it. Another aspect of punishment that people seem to forget these days is the fact that it is supposed to deter crime. The rights of the criminal play more a part in a trial these days than the rights of the victim, be it the present one or any future one. For example, the theoretical punishment for rape in Israel is sixteen years. The actual punishment given, in most cases, is three years, and possibly even on parole. Does that deter a rapist? I doubt it. Nine tenths of fighting crime is preventing its occurance altogether. A punishment that deters the criminal is a part of that. As for forcing someone to kill... I'll give the example of a policeman. Every person is faced with choices in his life, some his own and others thrust unto him by society. The duty of a policeman is to keep the peace. What that means, in the end, is that we, the society, give him, the policeman, a mandate to make certain choices, certain duties and obligations. Such as shooting an armed assailant, so that we won't have to. We don't force a person to commit murder when we execute a person. The person we execute has forced us to kill him. And all of the above had nothing at all to do with whether capital punishment is a reasonable punishment. It may be, it may not be. But whatever it may be, it's not murder. As for my own opinions on capital punishment? I'm uncertain. My own country has the death penalty for crimes against humanity, and the only person to ever be both tried and found guilty of them here was Adolf Eichmann. The only problem I have with the death penalty is finality. You can't give a man years that he lost due to a mistake, but he still has the rest of his life. You can't bring a man back to life, though. I guess that, in my own opinion, the death penalty should only be given in the most extreme of cases, and only when there is truly no margin for error. But as we all know too well, there is no such thing as no margin for error. So do I think that capital punishment should exist? For crimes against humanity, certainly. For anything else? Debatable.
Well I was saying I don't agree with killing people as a punishment. I also do not think that most prison systems work either, if you just lock them away and forget about them it's equally as useless as killing them.
[quote:ecc4c84e6a="Maljonic"]I also do not think that most prison systems work either, if you just lock them away and forget about them it's equally as useless as killing them.[/quote:ecc4c84e6a] On that point, I agree with you. It serves as nothing more than a deterrent, at least in general. There are particular examples of where a stay in prison has helped people become better members of society, but those are the exceptions to the rule. but what I see today is a trend to either give people low sentences in the rather dim hope that they 'learn their lesson' and become better people, without actually making prisons a place where such a thing is possible, or just giving them the highest sentence you can give and ignoring their existance from that point onwards. In truth, it's only the small-time criminals which we can hope to, ah, redeem, for lack of a better word. What more can we give beyond an education? We can't teach morality, and trying won't get us anywhere beyond preaching, either. The very best we can do in that aspect is just give them the facts, and hope that they draw the right conclusions and not the wrong ones again. And a proffession, if possible.
In response to Roman: "Many that live deserve death. And many that die deserve life. Can you give it to them?" -Tolkein (Gandalf) The worst thing about execution is that it is irrevocable. Nothing can be done to change it. I don't believe that human beings have the right to make those decisions- who dies, who lives, who gets born and who doesn't, but I do not entirely condemn the principle of executing murderers, especially those like Saddam, who did so from such a position of power that enabled him to commit more than ordinarily possible. From a standpoint of Machiavellian usefulness, capital punishment is a very good idea- nothing is more of a deterrent than the thought that we will die as a result of commiting certain acts, and therefore capital punishment is good for society. However, it is still killing a human being, without the extenuating circumstances which could make it at least acceptable, if not exactly morally [i:6318d4359f]right[/i:6318d4359f] as a choice. That is, it is understandable (if not in itself a good act) to kill in defense of self or other human beings.* However, if someone has been tried and convicted and therefore can be kept behind lock and key, the danger to society is past and the justification for execution has been eliminated. *I do draw the line at property, it might be very [i:6318d4359f]effective [/i:6318d4359f]against thieves and trespassers if they know the owner will shoot them on site, but it is a dangerous way to live in any society more densely populated than, say, Alaska.
[quote:60e5b168b5="Roman_K"]Now, to CY. Is capital punishment a form of murder? It is if imprisonment is a form of kidnapping and slavery, and if fines are a form of theft. We, as a society, cannot punish a person for a crime without crossing a moral line. We keep people in cells against their will, and sometimes we take their money, too, or our duly elected representatives do, in any case. In the end, the only thing that seperates the punishment we give to the individual and the individual's own action's is the majority's concent for a certain punishment. The society, as a whole, is more important than the individual. That's why a society has laws, rules and regulations, to protect the whole from the individual who percieves himself to be above it.[/quote:60e5b168b5] The only reason why we don't see fines as theft, capital punishment as murder etc. is because we define them as unlawful. As you point out "unlawful" is dictated by the consensus in society. I think we agree on that point. The precise definition of "murder" does not really matter then, unless anyone wants to draw in its emotional connotations. I agree with you that punishment requires crossing a moral line. I think, however, that there is another line involved that leads to capital punishment. Capital punishment twists the perspective. It is no longer punishment as a means to protect society, it is punishment as payback. Where do we go from punishment to revenge? What gives us that right? It is not just the consensus that should separate us, it is also our restraint. Our ability not to let emotion affect our decision-making. [quote:60e5b168b5]Another aspect of punishment that people seem to forget these days is the fact that it is supposed to deter crime. The rights of the criminal play more a part in a trial these days than the rights of the victim, be it the present one or any future one. For example, the theoretical punishment for rape in Israel is sixteen years. The actual punishment given, in most cases, is three years, and possibly even on parole. Does that deter a rapist? I doubt it. Nine tenths of fighting crime is preventing its occurance altogether. A punishment that deters the criminal is a part of that.[/quote:60e5b168b5] Preventing crime is important, but heavy punishment as deterrent isn't the most effective way to do that. The extra years you risk is a line that is a lot easier to cross than the acceptance of risking imprisonment. [i:60e5b168b5]Truly[/i:60e5b168b5] preventing crime is fighting its causes. The death penalty may very well be a deterrent in some cases, but to an almost equal extent it ensures that criminals will go to greater lengths to avoid capture. [quote:60e5b168b5]As for forcing someone to kill... I'll give the example of a policeman. Every person is faced with choices in his life, some his own and others thrust unto him by society. The duty of a policeman is to keep the peace. What that means, in the end, is that we, the society, give him, the policeman, a mandate to make certain choices, certain duties and obligations. Such as shooting an armed assailant, so that we won't have to.[/quote:60e5b168b5] An armed assailant is effectively a "no other choice" situation. That doesn't mean we should encourage it or take the burden we place on the policeman any less seriously. [quote:60e5b168b5]We don't force a person to commit murder when we execute a person. The person we execute has forced us to kill him.[/quote:60e5b168b5] How? We still retain freedom of choice. We still have life imprisonment as an alternative.
[quote:da6d2dddd1="roisindubh211"]However, it is still killing a human being, without the extenuating circumstances which could make it at least acceptable, if not exactly morally [i:da6d2dddd1]right[/i:da6d2dddd1] as a choice. That is, it is understandable (if not in itself a good act) to kill in defense of self or other human beings.* However, if someone has been tried and convicted and therefore can be kept behind lock and key, the danger to society is past and the justification for execution has been eliminated. *I do draw the line at property, it might be very [i:da6d2dddd1]effective [/i:da6d2dddd1]against thieves and trespassers if they know the owner will shoot them on site, but it is a dangerous way to live in any society more densely populated than, say, Alaska.[/quote:da6d2dddd1] As I said, punishment is more than just protecting society from that particular individual. It also refers to protecting society from other individuals who may come along later. It's understandable to kill in defense of other human beings, yes? Which human beings? The one who may die today, or the one who may die tomorrow? Will you kill one murderer today if you were certain that it would prevent ten murderers from murdering tomorrow? A society has to look to the future. It can't stop on the today. It also can't stop on the particular criminal. As for deciding who gets to be born, who has to die… We, the individuals, can't. The society can. It has to. China has to force birth control( though I believe they have gone too far with the forced abortion), because if it doesn't an innumerable number of people will suffer, and probably die. We have to weigh the losses and the gains, to see what gives you more for less. To see what still leaves us a 'human' society, with the good definition of what it means, and also a living and thriving one at the same time. Would you kill one man so that ten would live, or would you leave him the eleven of them to die? Most individuals aren't able to make such choices. Or to live with them afterwards. That's good, in its own way. It leaves us a semblance of innocence, but sometimes… Sometimes such choices are needed. [quote:da6d2dddd1="Cynical_Youth"] The only reason why we don't see fines as theft, capital punishment as murder etc. is because we define them as unlawful. As you point out "unlawful" is dictated by the consensus in society. I think we agree on that point. The precise definition of "murder" does not really matter then, unless anyone wants to draw in its emotional connotations.[/quote:da6d2dddd1] Exactly. And drawing in the emotional connotations is unnecessary, and is in fact a bad thing. It has an adverse affect on the judgment of the matter. Emotions muddle the waters in both morality and justice. [quote:da6d2dddd1="Cynical_Youth"] I agree with you that punishment requires crossing a moral line. I think, however, that there is another line involved that leads to capital punishment. Capital punishment twists the perspective. It is no longer punishment as a means to protect society, it is punishment as payback. Where do we go from punishment to revenge? What gives us that right? It is not just the consensus that should separate us, it is also our restraint. Our ability not to let emotion affect our decision-making.[/quote:da6d2dddd1] Any punishment can be used as a form of payback, from fines to imprisonment to execution. What twists the perspective is emotions. The correct definitions of laws and the sound minds of the judges is all that we can rely on for passing judgment. We must trust whoever it is we put to pass judgment to not let his emotions cloud his mind. We can do no more. The available punishment don't change the emotional state in any way. Perhaps the correct way with capital punishment, if it is left in the law at all, is a term of several years of imprisonment throughout which the case is reevaluated on a regular basis, to see that the capital punishment was indeed justified. [quote:da6d2dddd1="Cynical_Youth"]Preventing crime is important, but heavy punishment as deterrent isn't the most effective way to do that. The extra years you risk is a line that is a lot easier to cross than the acceptance of risking imprisonment. [i:da6d2dddd1]Truly[/i:da6d2dddd1] preventing crime is fighting its causes. The death penalty may very well be a deterrent in some cases, but to an almost equal extent it ensures that criminals will go to greater lengths to avoid capture.[/quote:da6d2dddd1] The correct way to prevent crime is indeed fighting its causes. How do you fight greed in a man who is already wealthy, and murders for the inheritance to have more, though? As for accepting the risk of imprisonment, accepting a six-month sentence is easier by far than accepting a six-year sentence. It's a very big rift we're talking about here. The difference between ten and fifteen, though…? Smaller, yes. The point is to go for reasonable, not too low, and not too high. Go for the max or the min only in special specific cases where it is warranted, and set the max and the min according to the possible existence of said cases. Don't make either a rule, as that won't get you nowhere. That's the true way to go. As for the death penalty, it's a deterrent in more than just 'some' cases. Self-serving bastards care first and foremost about themselves. Their life is everything, so the chance of losing it can very well stop them from going that one extra step between thought and deed. As for the going to greater length to avoid capture, what of it? [quote:da6d2dddd1="Cynical_Youth"]An armed assailant is effectively a "no other choice" situation. That doesn't mean we should encourage it or take the burden we place on the policeman any less seriously. [/quote:da6d2dddd1] True. Nor should we discourage such situations with too much fervor, as that might cause the policeman to not trust his own judgment, thus possibly resulting in a mistake for the wrong direction. Hesitation is just as bad over-anxiety. We must teach policemen to trust in their judgment, but we must also help them form a correct method of judgment. That's all we can do. Do more, do less… The costs outweigh the gains. And we should take the burden we place extremely seriously, yes. People tend to forget this, usually. Mainly because it's the easy way out. [quote:da6d2dddd1="Cynical_Youth"]How? We still retain freedom of choice. We still have life imprisonment as an alternative. [/quote:da6d2dddd1] You missed my point. Ironically enough, a point that you didn't miss earlier. We have freedom of choice. We have chosen, taking in mind the facts of the case, and we have chosen capital punishment. Once we have chosen, it is not 'murder', if only because the society is the one that chose. But we did not want this choice. We did not want to have to take it. We did not want to consider the punishments, the death penalty among them. It may have been our choice to make, but not our will to make it.
CY, I think all your points are very good and well put. People talk a lot about whether or not prisons are harsh enough, and whether current punishments serve as deterrants. The argument I hear a lot is that most convicts re-offend, therefore prison can't be a deterrant. But that is not true. I know this, because I am deterred. I would be simply terrified to knowingly commit an imprisonable offence. It just goes to show that the re-offending criminals are in some way different from me, and the rest of us who so far have been deterred by the current system from committing a crime. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they're different in that "I'm better than them" or "they're from a different class" or anything like that. Just that for some reason they think differently. If the death penalty is a better deterrant than life imprisonment, why are there so many people on death row? This could be blamed on stupidity, but I think that's only part of it! Yes, we need to look at the causes of crime. But Roman, when you mention the rich man with insatiable greed you are already starting too far down the track. You need to go back further than that. To really make a good start on preventing crime I think you need to tackle child abuse, poverty and the treatment of mental illness. [quote:f77e5f2c11="Roman_K"] As for deciding who gets to be born, who has to die… We, the individuals, can't. The society can.[/quote:f77e5f2c11] We, the individuals, [i:f77e5f2c11]are[/i:f77e5f2c11] the society. Differentiating between the two means failing to accept responsibility for our actions or inactions. [quote:f77e5f2c11="Roman_K"] China has to force birth control( though I believe they have gone too far with the forced abortion), because if it doesn't an innumerable number of people will suffer, and probably die.[/quote:f77e5f2c11] I know I'm being picky here and it's not entirely relevant, but it's not really possible to enforce birth control without enforcing abortions. It's bound to result in the majority of women "accidentally" getting pregnant! Unless you sterilise them all, I guess. Now there's another good human rights issue!
[quote:c620a9b4a7="Roman_K"]As I said, punishment is more than just protecting society from that particular individual. It also refers to protecting society from other individuals who may come along later. It's understandable to kill in defense of other human beings, yes? Which human beings? The one who may die today, or the one who may die tomorrow? Will you kill one murderer today if you were certain that it would prevent ten murderers from murdering tomorrow? A society has to look to the future. It can't stop on the today. It also can't stop on the particular criminal.[/quote:c620a9b4a7] [quote:c620a9b4a7="Roman_K"]We have to weigh the losses and the gains, to see what gives you more for less. To see what still leaves us a 'human' society, with the good definition of what it means, and also a living and thriving one at the same time. Would you kill one man so that ten would live, or would you leave him the eleven of them to die? Most individuals aren't able to make such choices. Or to live with them afterwards. That's good, in its own way. It leaves us a semblance of innocence, but sometimes… Sometimes such choices are needed.[/quote:c620a9b4a7] Tough choices need to be made, but we must never embrace them with open arms. If we do not question every choice, examine every other possibility, then we cannot in good conscience make such a choice. Especially when we're dealing with life or death. The corrupt element will always be present in humanity. Eliminating this through execution has no viable future, because it means never stopping. Ultimately, improvement can only be found in healing, in preventing corruption and in investigating the human psyche. [quote:c620a9b4a7="Roman_K"]Exactly. And drawing in the emotional connotations is unnecessary, and is in fact a bad thing. It has an adverse affect on the judgment of the matter. Emotions muddle the waters in both morality and justice.[/quote:c620a9b4a7] I agree with you completely here. [quote:c620a9b4a7="Roman_K"]Any punishment can be used as a form of payback, from fines to imprisonment to execution. What twists the perspective is emotions. The correct definitions of laws and the sound minds of the judges is all that we can rely on for passing judgment. We must trust whoever it is we put to pass judgment to not let his emotions cloud his mind. We can do no more. The available punishment don't change the emotional state in any way.[/quote:c620a9b4a7] Capital punishment isn't an effective penalty. It's never the most appropriate option that violates a minimum of basic human rights given a punishment's requirements. Its implementation in itself stems from an emotional view of morality, because it fails as a punishment outside the revenge criterion. Punishment [i:c620a9b4a7]can[/i:c620a9b4a7] be used as payback, but shouldn't be. I'd like to think that as societies we aim for effectiveness and restraint when we have to violate basic human rights. [quote:c620a9b4a7="Roman_K"]The correct way to prevent crime is indeed fighting its causes. How do you fight greed in a man who is already wealthy, and murders for the inheritance to have more, though?[/quote:c620a9b4a7] I agree with Hermia fully on this, as a society we should aim not to let a child enter a situation where it would be raised and abused to such twisted extremes in the first place. Of course, there will always be people for whom this fails or who cannot be helped. Life imprisonment or institutionalisation is an option there. [quote:c620a9b4a7="Roman_K"]As for accepting the risk of imprisonment, accepting a six-month sentence is easier by far than accepting a six-year sentence. It's a very big rift we're talking about here. The difference between ten and fifteen, though…? Smaller, yes. The point is to go for reasonable, not too low, and not too high. Go for the max or the min only in special specific cases where it is warranted, and set the max and the min according to the possible existence of said cases. Don't make either a rule, as that won't get you nowhere. That's the true way to go. As for the death penalty, it's a deterrent in more than just 'some' cases. Self-serving bastards care first and foremost about themselves. Their life is everything, so the chance of losing it can very well stop them from going that one extra step between thought and deed. As for the going to greater length to avoid capture, what of it?[/quote:c620a9b4a7] I don't think the death penalty forms much of a deterrent relative to life imprisonment. Life in prison, despite possible TV privileges or whatever luxuries bring public outrage, is not living. Overall, most would value their own lives more, but the difference is too small to justify the leap we take in violation of human rights. Going to greater lengths to avoid capture is indicative of what change capital punishment does bring in attitude. Or punishment as deterrence in general, to some extent. At the point where the possibility of punishment is accepted, by committing a crime, is where it affects the criminal most, in pushing him to greater lengths to avoid capture. The existence of severe punishment (I don't think anyone takes anything starting at, say, 5 years lightly) is the deterrent, not the specific length. It's not a scale of deterrence. Pushing it up, to further extents of violation, does not reduce crime. [quote:c620a9b4a7="Roman_K"]True. Nor should we discourage such situations with too much fervor, as that might cause the policeman to not trust his own judgment, thus possibly resulting in a mistake for the wrong direction. Hesitation is just as bad over-anxiety. We must teach policemen to trust in their judgment, but we must also help them form a correct method of judgment. That's all we can do. Do more, do less… The costs outweigh the gains. And we should take the burden we place extremely seriously, yes. People tend to forget this, usually. Mainly because it's the easy way out.[/quote:c620a9b4a7] I agree with you on this. I don't think the self-defence aspect is an issue. [quote:c620a9b4a7="Roman_K"]You missed my point. Ironically enough, a point that you didn't miss earlier. We have freedom of choice. We have chosen, taking in mind the facts of the case, and we have chosen capital punishment. Once we have chosen, it is not 'murder', if only because the society is the one that chose. But we did not want this choice. We did not want to have to take it. We did not want to consider the punishments, the death penalty among them. It may have been our choice to make, but not our will to make it.[/quote:c620a9b4a7] I don't see why it isn't our will to make it. Haven't we taken the right to implement a judicial system? If it is our will to uphold the law, it is our will to see out its consequences. We do not escape responsibility. Where does life imprisonment fail? Where does it leave gaps big enough to justify execution?
[quote:e1ecaa1e5c="Hermia"] Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they're different in that "I'm better than them" or "they're from a different class" or anything like that. Just that for some reason they think differently. If the death penalty is a better deterrant than life imprisonment, why are there so many people on death row? This could be blamed on stupidity, but I think that's only part of it! [/quote:e1ecaa1e5c] My pardons, but it's a bit difficult to find evidence for crimes not commited. As for there being many people on death row, to what do you compare that number? Just comparing said number to the equivalent inmates in those countries that don't have the death penalty isn't a good comparison, either. Deterrent is not the only factor. I agree, though, that there is little evidence to show that the death penalty is a strong enough deterrent to crime to justify it. [quote:e1ecaa1e5c="Hermia"]Yes, we need to look at the causes of crime. But Roman, when you mention the rich man with insatiable greed you are already starting too far down the track. You need to go back further than that. To really make a good start on preventing crime I think you need to tackle child abuse, poverty and the treatment of mental illness. [/quote:e1ecaa1e5c] All this is true. The majority seems to want to brush the problems under the rug instead of handling them, though. It's easier, less costly on the pocket, and you can always say that you're not the one who has the problem. And so society stays as fucked-up as it always was. At least for the time being. Now, as far as I can see for child abuse and poverty, cycles need to be broken. If you can't help the poor family, at least help their children. Make education an easier path. As for child abuse... That's the most difficult cycle to break. Poverty hardly accounts for it. Not sure about mental illness. We've yet to make that giant leap in medical science as we pretend we have. [quote:e1ecaa1e5c="Hermia"]We, the individuals, are the society. Differentiating between the two means failing to accept responsibility for our actions or inactions. [/quote:e1ecaa1e5c] Actually, we, the individuals, decide what society *is*. In fact, *which* individuals decide what society is depends on the form society is in at that present moment... ad infinium back in time. But a democratic society is a bit closer to what you have in mind. When one elects the governing body, one is in fact responsible for anything said body does. Anything. At all. From raising taxes that put more people in the poverty cycle, to war. You elected them. You're to blame. It's up to *you* to make it better. The individuals who act also bear the blame, but you have at least a tiny bit of guilt. Even if you didn't vote for them. Doesn't matter. It's the ability to make a change that does. Once can take this one step forwards, say that in any society the individual must act for the betterment of all, but... Try acting for the betterment of all when there's great big men with guns waiting just for you to act. That's why I don't blame people in the Holocaust who didn't do anything to stop it. That's why I blame only those who joined it. That's why I call those who went against the flow saints. [quote:e1ecaa1e5c]I know I'm being picky here and it's not entirely relevant, but it's not really possible to enforce birth control without enforcing abortions. It's bound to result in the majority of women "accidentally" getting pregnant! Unless you sterilise them all, I guess. Now there's another good human rights issue![/quote:e1ecaa1e5c] Make the best possible education system and explain to the public the problems that result from a population constantly on the rise, don't be stupidly proud of the Regime so that you can't say that it was the mistakes of the past that didn't allow you to see the problems of today. Explain on contraceptives. Make them as cheaply available as possible. Heck, make 'em free. Then fine illegal pregnancies. Jail the parents, maybe. Take their child away and put it up for adoption. As a last resort, sterilise them. After the population has dropped below the Really Red line, stop the sterilisations. Nice? No. Smart? Probably. Effective? One can only hope. [quote:e1ecaa1e5c="Cynical_Youth"]The corrupt element will always be present in humanity. Eliminating this through execution has no viable future, because it means never stopping. Ultimately, improvement can only be found in healing, in preventing corruption and in investigating the human psyche. [/quote:e1ecaa1e5c] Neither is constant imprisonment a viable solution. The correct way would be both trying to stop crime from occuring in the first place, and dealing with the crime that is here. We can't have one without the other. It just won't work. [quote:e1ecaa1e5c="Cynical_Youth"]Capital punishment isn't an effective penalty. It's never the most appropriate option that violates a minimum of basic human rights given a punishment's requirements. Its implementation in itself stems from an emotional view of morality, because it fails as a punishment outside the revenge criterion. Punishment can be used as payback, but shouldn't be. I'd like to think that as societies we aim for effectiveness and restraint when we have to violate basic human rights. [/quote:e1ecaa1e5c] Effectiveness is debatable, and eventually unprovable. I agree in it never being the most appropriate option. I disagree with it stemming from an emotional view of morality, and it succeeding as a punishment outside the revenge criterion(which covers every punishment) is, again, debatable. Saying that it's fact won't make it. If you can prove to me that the death penalty is as you claim it is, then I would accept it. Otherwise, please refrain from stating opinion as fact. As for us aiming for effectiveness and restraint... Yes, I agree on that. It's the only way to go, in my opinion. [quote"Cynical_Youth"]I agree with Hermia fully on this, as a society we should aim not to let a child enter a situation where it would be raised and abused to such twisted extremes in the first place. Of course, there will always be people for whom this fails or who cannot be helped. Life imprisonment or institutionalisation is an option there. [/quote] Do you honestly think that crime can be wrapped up in two magical words called 'poverty' and 'child abuse'? Does teaching a child to always look out for Number One constitute as child abuse? Life ain't all that simple. [quote:e1ecaa1e5c="Cynical_Youth"]The existence of severe punishment (I don't think anyone takes anything starting at, say, 5 years lightly) is the deterrent, not the specific length. It's not a scale of deterrence. Pushing it up, to further extents of violation, does not reduce crime. [/quote:e1ecaa1e5c] It is a scale, actually. There are different definitions of severity in every society. There's one for every individual, too. [quote:e1ecaa1e5c="Cynical_Youth"]Where does life imprisonment fail? Where does it leave gaps big enough to justify execution?[/quote:e1ecaa1e5c] No idea. I believe the gap might exist. Until such an existance is proven, though, I will not support the death penalty for anything other than the most extreme cases. Such as crimes against humanity.
In fact, the perfect solution would be to have a secret department run by a very small guy who thinks he's good-looking and some freak kids in a jakuzzi who can predict future crimes and arrest people before the crime happens. No, in fact, that's a crap idea, forget it...
[quote:0aac6a6992="Roman_K"]Once can take this one step forwards, say that in any society the individual must act for the betterment of all, but... Try acting for the betterment of all when there's great big men with guns waiting just for you to act.[/quote:0aac6a6992] I know we can't all personally decide the laws of the land, but that doesn't mean it's ok to sit back and say "well, I couldn't kill someone even if they are evil, so it's lucky that guy over there who's employed by the prison service did it for me"! You said that society can make decisions which individuals can't. My point is that it is always an individual, or group of individuals, who make the decision. Someone has that responsibility, guns or no guns, and that someone can't hide behind "society". [quote:0aac6a6992="Roman_K"]Cynical_Youth wrote: The corrupt element will always be present in humanity. Eliminating this through execution has no viable future, because it means never stopping. Ultimately, improvement can only be found in healing, in preventing corruption and in investigating the human psyche. Neither is constant imprisonment a viable solution. The correct way would be both trying to stop crime from occuring in the first place, and dealing with the crime that is here. We can't have one without the other. It just won't work. [/quote:0aac6a6992] Wasn't that pretty much what CY said? Imprisonment is a way of protecting today's people from today's criminals. Maybe something can be done to make something of those criminal's lives. Maybe not. But there are other methods of protecting tomorrow's people, and I don't think capital punishment is an effective one. [quote:0aac6a6992="Roman_K"]Do you honestly think that crime can be wrapped up in two magical words called 'poverty' and 'child abuse'? Does teaching a child to always look out for Number One constitute as child abuse? Life ain't all that simple. [/quote:0aac6a6992] Of course not, but it's a very good start. I doubt it's possible to eliminate crime completely, but we can prevent a large proportion of it just by working to give people better lives. [quote:0aac6a6992="Katcal"]In fact, the perfect solution would be to have a secret department run by a very small guy who thinks he's good-looking and some freak kids in a jakuzzi who can predict future crimes and arrest people before the crime happens.[/quote:0aac6a6992] What film is that from? I remember someone telling me that, and I'd convinced myself it was 12 monkeys. Only when I watched 12 monkeys, I assumed I must have gone mad and made it all up!
