Deprived- your comments were completely senseless. I'm going to pick them apart one by one here in a logical manner, not one governed by emotion.
With that logic, employees who steal from their bosses should be rewarded! Employees who slack of in the workplace do have their families punished- because they GET FIRED. It's how the world works, Deprived, and I suggest you get used to it. People get fucked over because of other people's screwups, but it's nobody's fault but the one who screwed up. Your (il)logical thought process is what promotes a sense of irresponsibility for one's own actions.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the rate of prisoners who commit crimes AFTER being released from prison (reoffending) is slightly over 70% in the US. In England and Scotland the rate of prisoners who reoffend is about 66.67%. Guantanamo Bay, one of the most "hardcore" prisons the U.S. has ever supported, has a 14% reoffense rate. Those are terrorists out there, reoffending, taking more lives. You can thank Obama for that one. The death penalty, obviously, has a 0% reoffense rate. As if that didn't immediately invalidate your thoughts on deterrence enough, in regards to your second point, and I quote-
Have you seen the film "A Clockwork Orange"? I suggest you look it up-that's basically what you are proposing. Watch that film and tell me that reconditioning to become a functioning member of society isn't a fate worse than death. No, I'm not quoting a Kubrick film as a reliable scientific source, but you get the point. It simply isn't possible to "change them"- as a matter of fact, how do you propose we do? Or did you think that it would just happen magically, overnight?
And as for this response to my Retribution, "an eye for an eye" comment...
A thief left unchecked makes the whole world poor. A rapist left unpunished makes the whole world violated. And a murderer left alone makes the whole world dead. I hope you can see how that argument doesn't work.
And finally, the most senseless comment of all...
You have sympathy for people who have chosen to take another human life, perhaps multiple lives, maybe a child or two- and consider the murderers hopes, dreams and ambitions? Your lack of logic and inability to analyze such things is appalling. I'm glad you're the minority on this thread.
Originally Posted by Deprived
...With that logic, employers should threaten to somehow punish the family members of employees who slack off, in order to motivate them better.
With that logic, employees who steal from their bosses should be rewarded! Employees who slack of in the workplace do have their families punished- because they GET FIRED. It's how the world works, Deprived, and I suggest you get used to it. People get fucked over because of other people's screwups, but it's nobody's fault but the one who screwed up. Your (il)logical thought process is what promotes a sense of irresponsibility for one's own actions.
Originally Posted by Deprived
Done best by rehabilitating the said criminals.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the rate of prisoners who commit crimes AFTER being released from prison (reoffending) is slightly over 70% in the US. In England and Scotland the rate of prisoners who reoffend is about 66.67%. Guantanamo Bay, one of the most "hardcore" prisons the U.S. has ever supported, has a 14% reoffense rate. Those are terrorists out there, reoffending, taking more lives. You can thank Obama for that one. The death penalty, obviously, has a 0% reoffense rate. As if that didn't immediately invalidate your thoughts on deterrence enough, in regards to your second point, and I quote-
Originally Posted by Deprived
By changing them to functioning members of society.
Have you seen the film "A Clockwork Orange"? I suggest you look it up-that's basically what you are proposing. Watch that film and tell me that reconditioning to become a functioning member of society isn't a fate worse than death. No, I'm not quoting a Kubrick film as a reliable scientific source, but you get the point. It simply isn't possible to "change them"- as a matter of fact, how do you propose we do? Or did you think that it would just happen magically, overnight?
And as for this response to my Retribution, "an eye for an eye" comment...
Originally Posted by Deprived
... makes the whole world blind.
A thief left unchecked makes the whole world poor. A rapist left unpunished makes the whole world violated. And a murderer left alone makes the whole world dead. I hope you can see how that argument doesn't work.
And finally, the most senseless comment of all...
Originally Posted by Deprived
But that's a crime, to take away a life, to take away the dreams and hopes of a person.
You have sympathy for people who have chosen to take another human life, perhaps multiple lives, maybe a child or two- and consider the murderers hopes, dreams and ambitions? Your lack of logic and inability to analyze such things is appalling. I'm glad you're the minority on this thread.
Last edited by hydrotoxin; Oct 17, 2009 at 05:56 PM.
[Piratez]
I am neither Oyster nor lsl.
I am neither Oyster nor lsl.
Originally Posted by hydrotoxin
With that logic, employees who steal from their bosses should be rewarded! Employees who slack of in the workplace do have their families punished- because they GET FIRED. It's how the world works, Deprived, and I suggest you get used to it. People get fucked over because of other people's screwups, but it's nobody's fault but the one who screwed up. Your (il)logical thought process is what promotes a sense of irresponsibility for one's own actions.
So if this is how the world works, then how come does every socialist country, which, by the way, is a majority in the first world in terms of population, have a protection against that? Unless people really screw up, they won't be fired.
Originally Posted by hydrotoxin
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the rate of prisoners who commit crimes AFTER being released from prison (reoffending) is slightly over 70% in the US. In England and Scotland the rate of prisoners who reoffend is about 66.67%. Guantanamo Bay, one of the most "hardcore" prisons the U.S. has ever supported, has a 14% reoffense rate. Those are terrorists out there, reoffending, taking more lives. You can thank Obama for that one. The death penalty, obviously, has a 0% reoffense rate. As if that didn't immediately invalidate your thoughts on deterrence enough, in regards to your second point, and I quote-
That study took place well over 30 years ago. I don't know, but it's kind of surprising that such a study took place only for the US and the UK and no other country (well, at least from 10 mins of searching through google, I could be wrong) - perhaps it's better then to restructure the prison's relation with prisoners in such a way so that one could reduce the recidivism rate?
btw, in your 0% reoffense rate from death penalty, I can also argue that if someone lies, and everyone finds out, that preventing them from ever speaking again will stop them from lying ever again. This is true - of course - but isn't that a bit extreme, isn't it immoral to do that?
Originally Posted by hydrotoxin
Have you seen the film "A Clockwork Orange"? I suggest you look it up-that's basically what you are proposing. Watch that film and tell me that reconditioning to become a functioning member of society isn't a fate worse than death. No, I'm not quoting a Kubrick film as a reliable scientific source, but you get the point. It simply isn't possible to "change them"- as a matter of fact, how do you propose we do? Or did you think that it would just happen magically, overnight?
I don't pretend to be a psychologist - and I didn't watch clockwork orange, I was too lazy every time I wanted to. Changing a person is a faith worse than death? For whom? The person himself, other people, or what? If the person himself sees it as a new beginning, it's actually a good thing for him. On the how, I don't know, ask the psychologists, but I'm pretty sure it's possible with a decade or so of rehabilitation to change how a person thinks.
Originally Posted by hydrotoxin
A thief left unchecked makes the whole world poor. A rapist left unpunished makes the whole world violated. And a murderer left alone makes the whole world dead. I hope you can see how that argument doesn't work.
Strawman. I never said leave criminals unchecked - I'm suggesting to 'check' them in a way so that they don't commit more crimes without resorting to immoral actions.
Originally Posted by hydrotoxin
You have sympathy for people who have chosen to take another human life, maybe even more than one, maybe a fucking CHILD for fuck's sake, and consider the murderers hopes, dreams and ambitions? I hate to sound like some overemotional fool, but the only emotion I seem capable of summoning up nowadays is anger at ignorant people like you who take nothing into account but their own twisted thought process. You're fucking pathetic, and your lack of logic and actual situational analysis appall me. I'm glad you're the minority on this thread.
The murderer had reasons for killing someone - he's not some sort of robot who's binary consists of either killing people or not, unless it's the case of an insane person, but he belongs in an asylum - and I'm pretty sure other people had some pretty damn similar reasons to do the same thing. Man is predictable if you've seen him do the same thing over a hundred times. Wouldn't it then make sense to stop crime at the whole source - at the "why" - and thus make society a safer place as a whole? Instead, you choose to kill the person after he's done the crime, and leave the source of crime untouched, and since they're mostly stem from illogical, emotional thoughts, the death penalty will hardly come to mind at all.
btw, no matter how you look at it, you're killing a person with a death penalty.
oh and at the start you said you didn't want to get emotional
@SLAPPED, the point of the graphs was to show how little a death penalty influences crime rate. Maybe I fucked up a couple of graphs, I'm pretty sure I did, but I couldn't find one graph - and I searched for 30 mins - that showed the death penalty did something to lower crime in any significant way.
@footside, alright, you're arguing some people are too dangerous to be left out in the world, but that these are a very small minority in the world, and that they should be kept in check, best by the death penalty, because prisons won't be able to hold them, right? I don't know, but can't we turn to some sort of obscure technology to track the person if they escape or something - and make escape for even the most hardened criminal next to impossible? This would have almost the same effect as a death penalty, no?
tl;dr: deprived is spergin'
People will commit crimes, regardless of the consequences. Nobody goes to a coke deal, gets robbed and shoots their dealer wondering if they'll spend life in prison or get the death penalty. They're wondering how to avoid custody. Therefore the whole "deterrent" argument, to me, is not worth bringing up.
I think this question comes between two valid points, the financial point of cost for lifetime imprisonment of those who would otherwise be dead, and the moral point of whether the killing of any human life is justifiable when alternative measures are available.
Personally, I believe that we should show mercy to the end, even to wicked men, and that we should not kill.
However, keeping in mind the morals of others and the fact that no government should use impractical policies simply to placate our moralities, I hold no ill will against a government which chooses to do this.
I think this question comes between two valid points, the financial point of cost for lifetime imprisonment of those who would otherwise be dead, and the moral point of whether the killing of any human life is justifiable when alternative measures are available.
Personally, I believe that we should show mercy to the end, even to wicked men, and that we should not kill.
However, keeping in mind the morals of others and the fact that no government should use impractical policies simply to placate our moralities, I hold no ill will against a government which chooses to do this.
[Inq]
Need help with anything? Have a question? PM me! I'll try my best to help you.
Originally Posted by Deprived
And how many thousands of great people have died because of the death penalty? How many people have been wrongly accused and put to death, when they could have worked for society?
Ok, firstly: Who are these 'great' people? And secondly, hundreds of thousands of deaths is slightly more than thousands. Not difficult to work that one out.
[19:39] <Birdflu> I'm just sad that I can't give myself one
[19:39] <Birdflu> I'd have a great time
[19:39] <Birdflu> I'd have a great time
Originally Posted by Deprived
So if this is how the world works, then how come does every socialist country, which, by the way, is a majority in the first world in terms of population, have a protection against that? Unless people really screw up, they won't be fired.
You do realise that there are a total of five socialist countries in the world? China, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos and North Korea if you didn't know. Anyway you obviously have never had a job or you would understand that if you steal from your employer you will be fire no matter what kind of industrial relations laws exist.
Originally Posted by Deprived
That study took place well over 30 years ago. I don't know, but it's kind of surprising that such a study took place only for the US and the UK and no other country (well, at least from 10 mins of searching through google, I could be wrong) - perhaps it's better then to restructure the prison's relation with prisoners in such a way so that one could reduce the recidivism rate?
btw, in your 0% reoffense rate from death penalty, I can also argue that if someone lies, and everyone finds out, that preventing them from ever speaking again will stop them from lying ever again. This is true - of course - but isn't that a bit extreme, isn't it immoral to do that?
There is more than a slight difference between stopping people lying and stopping people from killing. And if you want new statistics visit http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink...ocsar_mr_cjb91. It basically says that the rate of re-offence in NSW, Australia is 65% which is lower than in Britain, although it doesn't actually state what the rate in Britain is. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...ds-872411.html and http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...ustice.justice also provide information
Originally Posted by Deprived
I don't pretend to be a psychologist - and I didn't watch clockwork orange, I was too lazy every time I wanted to. Changing a person is a faith worse than death? For whom? The person himself, other people, or what? If the person himself sees it as a new beginning, it's actually a good thing for him. On the how, I don't know, ask the psychologists, but I'm pretty sure it's possible with a decade or so of rehabilitation to change how a person thinks.
So you would rather give each and every murderer a decade of counselling which would cost untold billions of dollars each year than killing them which takes out any chance of re-offence and allows that money to be spent on people who deserve it?
Originally Posted by Deprived
Strawman. I never said leave criminals unchecked - I'm suggesting to 'check' them in a way so that they don't commit more crimes without resorting to immoral actions.
It's called parole and guess what? It doesn't work. If they really want to kill somebody they will do it and no kind of check will stop them unless you watch them 24/7 and monitor their every activity, which once again wastes valuable resources.
Originally Posted by Deprived
The murderer had reasons for killing someone - he's not some sort of robot who's binary consists of either killing people or not, unless it's the case of an insane person, but he belongs in an asylum - and I'm pretty sure other people had some pretty damn similar reasons to do the same thing. Man is predictable if you've seen him do the same thing over a hundred times. Wouldn't it then make sense to stop crime at the whole source - at the "why" - and thus make society a safer place as a whole? Instead, you choose to kill the person after he's done the crime, and leave the source of crime untouched, and since they're mostly stem from illogical, emotional thoughts, the death penalty will hardly come to mind at all.
btw, no matter how you look at it, you're killing a person with a death penalty.
So.. because he had a reason for killing it was okay? And if you really want to stop the cause for extreme violence then you will need to completely destroy the drug trade, stop any and all abuse during childhood, somehow remove genetic markers that make some people more prone to violence, remove and kind of passion from relationships and stop all conflict between members of a family (you are more likely to be killed by someone very close to you than any other group). Good luck doing that by the way.
Originally Posted by Deprived
@SLAPPED, the point of the graphs was to show how little a death penalty influences crime rate. Maybe I fucked up a couple of graphs, I'm pretty sure I did, but I couldn't find one graph - and I searched for 30 mins - that showed the death penalty did something to lower crime in any significant way.
If you can't find any graphs showing that, did you ever stop to think that it was maybe because they either don't exist or are so obscure as to be impossible to find. And you didn't "fuck up" a couple of graphs, you "fucked up" all the graphs. The only one that was relevant was the South Africa one, which was a prediction as opposed to facts.
Originally Posted by Deprived
@footside, alright, you're arguing some people are too dangerous to be left out in the world, but that these are a very small minority in the world, and that they should be kept in check, best by the death penalty, because prisons won't be able to hold them, right? I don't know, but can't we turn to some sort of obscure technology to track the person if they escape or something - and make escape for even the most hardened criminal next to impossible? This would have almost the same effect as a death penalty, no?
So you want to let prisoners out so you can watch them with some "obscure technology" that really won't stop anything as I explained above.
VERY IMPORTANT: THIS ACCOUNT IS NO LONGER IN USE. IF YOU WANT TO CONTACT ME THEN PM ONAMIST.
