Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - Prison systems/Death sentences
| User | Post |
Arwon
Posts: 498/506 |
People *are* aware that crime is on a steady downward trend in most parts of the developed world, right?
Why are people MORE scared and worked up about crime now when there's LESS crime? Why the tone of urgency and hysteria and crisis? What's so wrong with the criminal justice system that people feel it needs to be fundamentally dumped and overhauled?
I submit that this "crime crisis" has been blown all out of proportion by a sensationalist media and a paranoid population. |
Dracoon
Posts: 3658/3727 |
Fences around the area first, then build. |
geeogree
Posts: 423/448 |
the logistical problems involved with having them do stuff like that are huge
you would have to pay enough people to guard the prisoners working.... adding to the costs that you already have...
sure, would make them more useful.... but it would quite possibly increase the number of escapes.... |
ziratha
Posts: 221/231 |
Excellent point, Why should we pay for them, If a person were sufficently poor, they might actually commit a crime to be given these commodities. Wouldn't it be better to make the criminals build houses or appartments for those poor? |
SamuraiX
Posts: 125/140 |
Back on topic, the prison system is really messed up. We make a place for criminals to live, but not our poor...we consider tobbaco and alcohol good, but other drugs bad. People who kill people should be doing something useful, like cleaning out sewers, not basking in a nice cell for a couple years. |
ziratha
Posts: 218/231 |
Sigh... insulting someone is not the best way to prove them wrong. If I have made a logical fallacy, state the fallacy name, the definition, and explain in as much needed detail exactly how my statement is the fallacy you claim. Any other form will be unaccepted. We invite you to try again. Any questions or comments may be dirrected to out mail service in written form in triplicate.
Anyway, I was not suggesting they were so much like my previous statements nor were they the argument you stated. But more as exceptions to your argument, cases in which your arguemtn loses it's strengh. It is generally a reasonable thing to assume that if some statement or arguement causes an absurd case then that arguement or statement is faulty And must be cast away. This is what I meant to demonstrate, that morals, even though they are the basis for contract law, the morals themselves do not nesasarily need to enter the equation. Note the example of the old frail woman.
What is morally right is not always what is legal, so what is legal does not always correspond to what is moral. Therefore an attempt to define or link one with the other may in many cases work it does have exceptions which lead to absurdities which means the arguement is ultimately faulty.
Once again, An insult is itself a logical fallacy:
Attacking the Person:
under the title of changing the subject.
Clearly, "Does straw man need a brain?" Seems like an insult to me... Of course, I could be wildly mistaken as happens to everyone. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 5363/5458 |
Does strawman need a brain? |
ziratha
Posts: 217/231 |
Yes, but consider this.
A frail old woman agrees to pay a man for services she doesn't really need, Maybe the man even sought her out and convinced her she needed them But never actually does anything illegal to convince her of this. He provides said services and asks her to pay up. She cant for whatever reason and he sues her. Who wins?
The average person would say that morally, the old woman is in the right. But legally and generally, she will be made to pay. Why?
Because morality does not enter the equation
Morality may be the basis for it, but that does not mean it enters the equation.
Consider this, You have two sheep, You buy 3 more. How many sheep do you now have?
Well, you have 2+3=5 right? But note, no sheep are in the previous equation. Because, although sheep may be the cause and basis for the equation, the equation itself does not take into account said sheep. It would be the same equation adding bears or cows or people or oranges.
Another example. You take a rubber ball, you throw it at the wall, it bounces, you catch it. Isn't the ball based on and made up of matter and atoms? So then when you talk about the ball hitting the wall and bouncing, you generally do not need to take into account the fact that the ball is made of said atoms or so many atoms, or the type of atoms. All you need to know is certain qualities of the ball itself, Qualities that could theoretically occur with matter of a type other than rubber.
Once again, just because something is the basis or beggining or cause of something else does not mean that cause is always accounted for in interactions with the caused thing. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 5362/5458 |
But contractual law has, historically, been based on the foundational religious laws of the Goths in Germany (wergald) as well as other 'barbarian' tribes around Europe (Norse, Slavs, Magyars, etc.), the Babylonians under Hammurabi, the Jews with Moses and Pagan Greece. Therefore our contractual laws DO have a basis in morality. Even Mediaeval philosophers like my beloved Aquinas wrote on economic issues...from a moralistic stand-point! And Aquinas is the basis for most law in Europe!
Only since liberal (traditionalist liberal) ideals emerge as a strength in the 1700s did they become integrated into our legal system, but our legal system still smacks of ye olde religious laws. |
ziratha
Posts: 216/231 |
Uhm, where exactly did that quote come from, cause i looked in my post, and I dont see it anywhere... Maybe its a misquote?
Perhaps a little more explanation of what it is in particular that you are argueing with would help. |
knuck
Posts: 1682/1818 |
Originally posted by ziratha
Word 'God' written a bunch of times.
tl;dr
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. |
ziratha
Posts: 214/231 |
Ok, I read the first few pages, And am now ready to put in my 702 cents.
For the purposes of the below, the criminal will be a murdering rapist, who is in violation of both contracts detailed below.
Also, this will sould very harsh and unfeeling, its just what I think.
The way I see it, What rights have we to jail anyone? After all, We all have God given rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..." Sure, maybe THey did something against the law, but what right have we to Say what is right and the law? We can't, there is no 100% verifiable right and wrong in our world as it is today. Do they exist? maybe, but we dont know what they are.
Which means that The decision to jail someone cannot be derived from right and wrong. There is another source. We (society) have a CONTRACT with them (individuals). In exchange for protection, basic human rights and such, they in turn agree to Follow our laws, pay taxes, etc.
They are in violation of this contract. Therefore, they are no longer eligable for the argument; "They dont deserve that! They are still citizens!" So this argument CANNOT be considered or used at all.
However, They are still people, and in this country, we have GOD given rights that can NEVER be legally taken away. So the following arguemnt seems valid; "They are people too! They dont deserve that!" And if they are people, then their rights are holy, legally unremovable by their fellow man.
"But ziratha, That would mean we have to free every one in custody in the entire correctional program!!!"
Untrue, See while we have a societal contract there is a second, also important contract. This contract is between me and you, and you and him, and him and the other guy. This contract is the contract of humanity. It applies between aevery perosn in existence and every other person. It goes something like this:
As long as I do not take away your God given rights, You do not take away mine.
Short and sweet? you betcha.
But think, As long as they are in violation of this contract, we have not only the right, but the duty to hold them accountable.
"But ziratha, you just re-invented the wheel, what does that have anything to do with the standards of jail/prison/punishment?"
Ok, breathe deep... In... Out...
If you have followed my post so far you may notice something, These two contracts prevent not only the rights of the victim from being violated, the protect the rights of the criminal. Now consider this, if the criminal violates his end of the bargain, he gives up his right to claim his humanity or his citizenship as a plea for fairness.
The criminal has knowingly and purposely removed himself from both citizenship and humanity itself. A human being does not have the right to rape and kill another human being, so he is no longer classified as human for the sake of this argument. A citizen does not have the right to rape and murder another, so he is no longer a citizen. What we now have is something else, for the sake of arguemtn we will now classify this criminal as dog/non citizen. What do you do when said dog bites/kills someone? you put it down. Simple as that.
This seems REALLY harsh, I know. But we are not people for the sake of justice, we are society, and society has no soul to be damned and no morals to feel guilty.
So as society, We are not in violation with either contract to do what we have done and morals do not enter the equation.
Let me give you a quote,
"Morals only matter between equals in power."
This was said to a sieged state by an invader.
I Would like to give a similar derived quote, based on the above.
"Morals only matter between contractual equals."
The criminal has removed himself from the status of equality, and so morals no longer matter.
"But ziratha!!!!!! This statement means that we can do whatever we want to a criminal and suffer no reasonable recourse!!!!"
NO it does not. You see, there Are more contracts,first there is the contract of master and companion. The contract of master and companion states this; "I as your master (me/you/people) have a duty to you (animal/companion) that so long as you are in my care, I must take care of you and do you no unfair suffering."
Since this crimanl has removed himself from humanity and society he is, for all intents and purposes, our pet. And you cant torture your pet.
There is another reason, remember "Morals only matter between contractual equals" Why should I, an unfeeling soulless society, care that you are wrong/evil? I only care that you are in violation of contract. Therefore I have no reason whatsoever to treat you as an evil thing because as an unfeeling society, I do not know that you are evil. And we have no way of proving that they are, morals are an attribute of the individual and it is not up to the individual to punish.
"But ziratha, what about the death penalty? How can we, a soulless, morally absent society decide to put to death a creature, such as our evil rapist/murderer, Even if we can do it without the dog (as you class him) suffering?"
There are several answers.
Money
Because we can
Justice
Justice is a noble answer, but remember, we are a soulless unfeeling society creature, we do not know or comprehend justice.
Money, Money is a reasonable and fair answer, if you, a person, find a dog on the street, why should you take care of it? because its the right thing? so what? We as a society do not have feelings and are unable to decide adaquatly what is right. So we are incapable of doing the right thing for its own sake. So again, why should something that is incapable of judging right and wrong take care of this dog. And if we find somehow that this dog is in our possession, why should we continue to take care of it? why not put it down?
One word.
Doubt.
While the justice system only requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, The death penalty should require Proof beyond all doubt. Meaning that there should be dna, video, and a busload of nuns who all say that he did it.
If there is any doubt whatsoever, then we risk becoming in violation of the very contracts which I have quoted to support my position. It would not be a mistake, it would not be an accident, it would be murder and we would no longer deserve the status of society.
If the criminal has not actually rendered himself unhuman, then he deserves said protection and we do not have the right to kill a human.
Because we can...
Well, I dunno, this argument is left as an exercise to the reader.
"But ziratha, What about lesser offenses? Should they get the death penatly too?"
The way I see it, these are the following ways things can happen:
type one:
the purp is in violation neither the contract we have as individuals nor the contract between himself and society.
type two:
the purp is in violation of the contract we have as individuals but not between himself and society.
Type three:
The purp is in violation of the contract between him and society But not of the other contract.
Type four:
The purp is in violation of both.
What should the penalties be for these crimes?
Type one, No harm, no foul
type two, I dunno, case by case basis. i got it, defemation of character would fit Probalby a civil suit
Type three, You steal a ton of gold from fort knox. You go to jail for an appropriate amount of time.
type four, Death, life in prison, Exile*. No 'ifs' 'ands' or 'buts'. Murder, assualt with a deadly, attempted murder, armed robbery, rape,etc.
*Exile, this would mean, basically, you are taken to the boarders and released. If you reenter, you are offered no protection whatsoever, and if someone harms you, you will be treated as an animal for all intents and purposes and they will only be punished for cruelty to animals. If you leave, We send your picture and fingerprints/dna to all governments on earth and if they want you, they let you enter, if not, sucks to be you.
so, in summary,
We not only have the right, but the duty to enforce the law.
We are not punishing for the sake of morality, but for the sake of contractual law.
The death sentance needs the requirement of proof beyond all doubt. |
Snika
Posts: 769/916 |
I suppose that the death sentence is hipocritical in the fact that you are doing something they got arrested for. Quite frankly, in this world we sometimes have to be hipocritical. |
Wurl 4.0
Posts: 123/244 |
Originally posted by Zer0wned
Originally posted by Wurl 4.0
If we want to reduce crime, we need to wage an effective war on poverty, promote education (make it acessable) and reduce the social inequalities. For most people, I think enviroment has more to do with crime than the nature of that person. Growing up in a "ghetto" with no opportunities in the least doesn't leave you much of an option. That doesn't mean I'm excusing their actions, but we have to understand what causes them. And one of the root causes is our brutal capitalist system and it's cycle of poverty and inequality.
Who brainwashed you into believing that one? Unrealistic, regurgited, pity-squandering nonsense if you ask me. Poverty in America is becoming more and more of a result of bad choices than a circumstance. That whole "you can take me outta the ghetto, but you can't take the ghetto outta me" type mindset is typical proof that those less fortunate aren't always unfortunate, they're more often just stupid and stubborn. Having spent a good deal of time both in poverty, and with those in poverty, I know what's going on first hand. People need to both swallow their pride and stop blaming everyone else for their problems.
@leg
I know, seriously, I mean, when's the last time you've heard of someone getting beaten to death when it wasn't like a full grown man on a little kid, or 5 on 1? Guns are rarely used fatally from more than like 5 feet, and people are rarely killed without weapons. I find this to be a highly disturbing trend.
I never said poor people were never at fault, but frankly poor people get fucked by the system. |
SamuraiX
Posts: 103/140 |
Originally posted by Zer0wned
Originally posted by Wurl 4.0
If we want to reduce crime, we need to wage an effective war on poverty, promote education (make it acessable) and reduce the social inequalities. For most people, I think enviroment has more to do with crime than the nature of that person. Growing up in a "ghetto" with no opportunities in the least doesn't leave you much of an option. That doesn't mean I'm excusing their actions, but we have to understand what causes them. And one of the root causes is our brutal capitalist system and it's cycle of poverty and inequality.
Who brainwashed you into believing that one? Unrealistic, regurgited, pity-squandering nonsense if you ask me. Poverty in America is becoming more and more of a result of bad choices than a circumstance. That whole "you can take me outta the ghetto, but you can't take the ghetto outta me" type mindset is typical proof that those less fortunate aren't always unfortunate, they're more often just stupid and stubborn. Having spent a good deal of time both in poverty, and with those in poverty, I know what's going on first hand. People need to both swallow their pride and stop blaming everyone else for their problems.
@leg
I know, seriously, I mean, when's the last time you've heard of someone getting beaten to death when it wasn't like a full grown man on a little kid, or 5 on 1? Guns are rarely used fatally from more than like 5 feet, and people are rarely killed without weapons. I find this to be a highly disturbing trend.
Most people are too stupid to make explosives(C-1, ammonium trioxide, etc)thankfully. And those who know...well, they are not murderous. |
Zer0wned
Posts: 174/181 |
Originally posted by Wurl 4.0
If we want to reduce crime, we need to wage an effective war on poverty, promote education (make it acessable) and reduce the social inequalities. For most people, I think enviroment has more to do with crime than the nature of that person. Growing up in a "ghetto" with no opportunities in the least doesn't leave you much of an option. That doesn't mean I'm excusing their actions, but we have to understand what causes them. And one of the root causes is our brutal capitalist system and it's cycle of poverty and inequality.
Who brainwashed you into believing that one? Unrealistic, regurgited, pity-squandering nonsense if you ask me. Poverty in America is becoming more and more of a result of bad choices than a circumstance. That whole "you can take me outta the ghetto, but you can't take the ghetto outta me" type mindset is typical proof that those less fortunate aren't always unfortunate, they're more often just stupid and stubborn. Having spent a good deal of time both in poverty, and with those in poverty, I know what's going on first hand. People need to both swallow their pride and stop blaming everyone else for their problems.
@leg
I know, seriously, I mean, when's the last time you've heard of someone getting beaten to death when it wasn't like a full grown man on a little kid, or 5 on 1? Guns are rarely used fatally from more than like 5 feet, and people are rarely killed without weapons. I find this to be a highly disturbing trend. |
SamuraiX
Posts: 95/140 |
But it is only fun if you use stuff like brown recluse poison , N(l), or C2H5OH. |
Legion
Posts: 5442/5657 |
But they're so much more fun. You have to actually get down to the nitty-gritty to kill someone. Only n00bs have to shoot people from afar.  No one wants to work for anything these days.
|
SamuraiX
Posts: 93/140 |
Originally posted by Legion
"Most people are not smart enough to murder without a gun."
Yeah, one of these days people will figure out how to stab people. Personally, I'm working on it. It's tricky though...
My first mistake was holding the blade and trying to stab this dummy target I set up with the handle. Oh well, trial and error I suppose.
Now with the sarcasm out of the way, gun control wont work. There will STILL be illegal firearms all over the place. Even if they didn't exist, it wouldn't affect the murder rate by any noticable rate.
Hence, why the U.S. has such high murder rates. And legion, why use a knife? Knives are so primitive. |
Legion
Posts: 5441/5657 |
"Most people are not smart enough to murder without a gun."
Yeah, one of these days people will figure out how to stab people. Personally, I'm working on it. It's tricky though...
My first mistake was holding the blade and trying to stab this dummy target I set up with the handle. Oh well, trial and error I suppose.
Now with the sarcasm out of the way, gun control wont work. There will STILL be illegal firearms all over the place. Even if they didn't exist, it wouldn't affect the murder rate by any noticable rate. |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. |
|
