Vague case warrens The death penalty

[Zetatrain]

double post

 

[Zetatrain]

You sir, and people who think as you do, need to be deported.
I don't want to even live in the same country as people that think the same way as you.
The fact that you vote disturbs me.
America has only one way to go and that is forward. If you cannot also move in this direction, and wish to believe and say things like that, then you should get out of the way.
You wouldn't be talking so tough if you had to see death up close.

How is it not moving forward to want criminals to be punished?

Society exists as a social contract. Those that violate the contract must be punished or society becomes meaningless.

You can wax philosophic about mercy and redemption and all that, but there's one basic fact that that doesn't take into account. Some people are simply beyond redemption. They do terrible things and they aren't even apologetic for it. Allowing these people any leeway does a terrible disservice to their victims, society and the perpetrators themselves. They made the choice to act as they did, they must be punished for it.

So tell me, after a victim is released from your hypothetical gulag, how do you expect them to function in normal society again, after they spent the last n years unlearning all social skills and picking up a burning hatred for your injustice system? Punish them again because you made it impossible for them to adapt back to regular life? And again?

By victim do you mean an innocent man sent to jail or a man that was actually guilty of a crime committed.

 

[Asehujiko]

So tell me, after a victim is released from your hypothetical gulag, how do you expect them to function in normal society again, after they spent the last n years unlearning all social skills and picking up a burning hatred for your injustice system? Punish them again because you made it impossible for them to adapt back to regular life? And again?

Why would I want them to operate in normal society?

So your plan is to lock up everybody forever once they do something wrong?

 

[Agayek]

So your plan is to lock up everybody forever once they do something wrong?

Once someone violates the social contract, they should be punished in a manner befitting their crimes. If said crime is bad enough to warrant jail time, their continued wellbeing, state of mind, dignity, or even existence are irrelevant. They made a choice to attack, rob or otherwise harm another individual. By doing so, they forfeit whatever rights they may have had.

They will have to prove they are worthy of such rights before they are granted them again. If they are released and commit another crime of sufficient magnitude, then they clearly have not proven themselves worthy of said rights.

My plan is not to lock up everyone forever. My plan is to punish those that violate the social contract, nothing more. Such actions cannot go unpunished. It's not about revenge, justice or whatever other bullshit you want to pretend jail and the like are about. It's about enforcing the consequences of peoples decisions. They made a choice, they must accept the fallout, regardless of how severe it may be.

 

[Astoria]

This is wrong. They have no hard evidence at all, only witnesses which are hardly reliable. You should only be put to death if it is proven without any doubt whatsoever that you are guilty.

 

[Asehujiko]

So your plan is to lock up everybody forever once they do something wrong?

Once someone violates the social contract, they should be punished in a manner befitting their crimes. If said crime is bad enough to warrant jail time, their continued wellbeing, state of mind, dignity, or even existence are irrelevant. They made a choice to attack, rob or otherwise harm another individual. By doing so, they forfeit whatever rights they may have had.

They will have to prove they are worthy of such rights before they are granted them again. If they are released and commit another crime of sufficient magnitude, then they clearly have not proven themselves worthy of said rights.

My plan is not to lock up everyone forever. My plan is to punish those that violate the social contract, nothing more. Such actions cannot go unpunished. It's not about revenge, justice or whatever other bullshit you want to pretend jail and the like are about. It's about enforcing the consequences of peoples decisions. They made a choice, they must accept the fallout, regardless of how severe it may be.

Good job completely ignoring my point and posting another rant about the same fallacy.

 

[TheKruzdawg]

The only time I'm for the death penalty is in extreme cases that some people have listed, such as war crimes or in cases of a serial killer situation. People such as that don't really have a place in society and depending on what crime they committed, I wouldn't like the idea of just keeping them alive indefinitely.

OT: In this case, I don't think this man should get the death penalty. Not only does the evidence seem flimsy at best, but I'm pretty sure that other people whom have shot officers or servicemen haven't been given the death penalty. Not that I'm condoning that action at all, but if it doesn't happen elsewhere... Consistency, people.

 

[Agayek]

Good job completely ignoring my point and posting another rant about the same fallacy.

I did address your point, but I guess I need to explicitly spell it out.

Someone commits a crime, they should be punished in a manner befitting the crime. If, after they are released, they commit another crime, they should be punished again, as many times as are necessary. If they can't figure out that some actions are unacceptable, they should be removed from society at large for however long it takes to sink in.

It is not the responsibility of the state to rehabilitate criminals. It is the responsibility of the criminals to rehabilitate themselves. If they cannot do so, they are not worthy of existing in society.

Everyone should be held accountable for their actions and decisions. Nothing more, and nothing less. The criminals made a decision to violate the law. The onus is entirely on them to become productive, or at the very least non-detrimental, members of society. If they can't hack it, they don't deserve to come out of prison.

 

[Vicarious Reality]

Maybe kill a police in the USA - get executed

Murder 69 people, injure 66 more, bomb a government building to kill 8 and injure 26 in Norway - probably get locked in a cell for 30 years with most of normal home entertainment

 

[Kevak]

Congrats! The US justice system is now worse then NGermany's! Thats really hard to do! Whoever was in charge of this should be ashamed of themself!

 

[Asehujiko]

Good job completely ignoring my point and posting another rant about the same fallacy.

I did address your point, but I guess I need to explicitly spell it out.

Someone commits a crime, they should be punished in a manner befitting the crime. If, after they are released, they commit another crime, they should be punished again, as many times as are necessary. If they can't figure out that some actions are unacceptable, they should be removed from society at large for however long it takes to sink in.

It is not the responsibility of the state to rehabilitate criminals. It is the responsibility of the criminals to rehabilitate themselves. If they cannot do so, they are not worthy of existing in society.

Everyone should be held accountable for their actions and decisions. Nothing more, and nothing less. The criminals made a decision to violate the law. The onus is entirely on them to become productive, or at the very least non-detrimental, members of society. If they can't hack it, they don't deserve to come out of prison.

See previous post. Still missing the point. That's not how human psychology works and your proposes system is terrible.

 

[Agayek]

See previous post. Still missing the point. That's not how human psychology works and your proposes system is terrible.

I don't care how human psychology works. If someone commits a crime, they must be punished for it. It should be a punishment fitting of the crime.

If that means they never learn their lesson, then they never get to be free. It's as simple as that.

 

[Psub Xero]

I am for the idea of the death penalty in that I think that there are some monsters in this world that need to be slain. However I don't think that any government on Earth is currently capable of carrying out the practice of the death penalty. I have heard of a lot of stories in which loose witness testimony was the only thing convicting a person. Not only has witness testimony been scientifically proven time and time again to be total shit but in a lot of those cases the person was CLEARED of the crime by DNA evidence after they died. There is actually an organization dedicated to exonerating the innocent with DNA evidence.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

 

[Asehujiko]

See previous post. Still missing the point. That's not how human psychology works and your proposes system is terrible.

I don't care how human psychology works. If someone commits a crime, they must be punished for it. It should be a punishment fitting of the crime.

If that means they never learn their lesson, then they never get to be free. It's as simple as that.

Thanks. By admitting that you don't care about the premier factor defining how morality works, we can finally conclude this discussion with the end result being that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Get back to me when your whole idea of "justice" isn't a logical fallacy based on false assumptions anymore.

 

[Agayek]

Thanks. By admitting that you don't care about the premier factor defining how morality works, we can finally conclude this discussion with the end result being that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Get back to me when your whole idea of "justice" isn't a logical fallacy based on false assumptions anymore.

Psychology has nothing to do with morality. Psychology is the study of the function of the human mind. Morality is one of the basic principles of human interaction. Psychology plays a part in acting moral yes, but it does not define it.

We're approaching the concept of criminal justice from two distinct perspectives. Clearly, you believe justice should be about redemption and rehabilitation. I, on the other hand, think it should be about punishment. It's a fundamental difference of opinion. There is no fallacy to be found, in either stance.

I do find it curious though that you never support your argument with anything more sophisticated than "no, you're wrong".