[Otal Nimrodi]

Funny old place, Britain.

And I know you are hijacking your own thread

This post has been edited by Otal Nimrodi: 04 July 2005 - 10:22 AM

[Jordan]

So nobody here thinks my idea is good?

[Hari Seldon]

Britain is an odd country... you can be sentenced to life in prision, but only go to prision for like 15 years... so if you will someone that is 30 years old, shouldn't you get two life sentences... since 15 years according to our system is one life?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In Portugal, as I mentioned, the max you can get is 25 years (for killing someone, basically)... but with the sentence reductions, good behavior, blah blah blah, you can get off in 10 years!
I mean, in my perspective, 10 years in a jail would be horrible, but I think that kind of cutting down time is just presposterous! One should remain in jail the time he's sentenced to.
I don't care if he's now oh so very well behaved and a marvelous member of the prison community. He did something (terribly) bad and he should "pay" for it.

I do get the government recurring to these sentence reductions, though. Britain must be like Portugal. Here we have over-loaded jails, AIDS and hepatitis spreading like the plague in there, drugs and alcohol aplenty (drug is supposedly illegal in jails, but then there's seringe exchange programs in there too! ... contradiction anyone?), subpar conditions most of the times... still, that's no excuse.

[J m HofMarN]

Jordan- Hmmm... well I don't have enough people to make me a margarita... Go arrest someone!

Yeah, that's the problem right there. Once a prison industrial complex becomes profitable you start looking for ways to arrest more people COUGHWARONDRUGSCOUGH.

As for capitol punishment, one of the main arguments in its favor is that it is a deterrent. It keeps the U.S. murder rate in the tens of thousands. If it weren't for capital punishment the U.S. would resemble a game of DOOM more than a country. Sure it would, tossers.

Capital punishment is just a leftover from the Roman colliseum, which is why they make such a big deal of it. A condemned man is allowed to fight for his life in court, and then forced to fight again, and then the governor can give him a thumbs up or a tumbs down, and naturally there has to be an audience. And then they release the lion to devour him.

But oh no, capital punishment isn't at all savage. Instead of visibly killing people we now just give them a happy little injection and they go take a happy little nap. That looks so much more civilized than just shooting them. Except that it's still THE SAME SAVAGE FUCKING SPECTACLE OF DEATH, YOU IMAGE CONSCIOUS KILLER VAGINAS!!!!!!

Why is it that a guy who carjacked someone can get the chair, but hardly any politicians or generals ever get put to death even when they admit how many people they've killed? For example, there is no way Saddam will be killed by the Iraqi courts, whether he's guilty or innocent. There is also no chance of Bush being put to death by any court known to man except, in a best case scenario, if a revolution should occur.

[Otal Nimrodi]

But oh no, capital punishment isn't at all savage. Instead of visibly killing people we now just give them a happy little injection and they go take a happy little nap. That looks so much more civilized than just shooting them. Except that it's still THE SAME SAVAGE FUCKING SPECTACLE OF DEATH, YOU IMAGE CONSCIOUS KILLER VAGINAS!!!!!!

I agree with all of that. Except, considering that I read the discworld series, I am obliged to say "Multiple exclamation points, a sure sign of a diseased mind."

[Ham Salad]

Why is it that a guy who carjacked someone can get the chair, but hardly any politicians or generals ever get put to death even when they admit how many people they've killed? For example, there is no way Saddam will be killed by the Iraqi courts, whether he's guilty or innocent. There is also no chance of Bush being put to death by any court known to man except, in a best case scenario, if a revolution should occur.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmmm. Your knowledge base is troubling and your grasp is tenuous. Have you not heard of Nuremburg, or the Hague? If you are talking about American leaders, such as McNamara, it has someting to do with political/social utilitarianism, believing that their goal was a morally righteous one that served the better good of a majority. It all depends on who wins in the end. If Ho Chi Minh had won, rest assured McNamara, Kennedy, Johnson and maybe Nixon would have been executed to your delight. Same true for Sadaam and both Bushes. That would really make you happy. Does it all ultimately depend on "how many people that they killed"? Should Patton have been hanged as well? You also expose yourself as someone who welcomes death as punishment with that last sentence.

A carjacker that kills someone is a socipath who is operating with the intent of fulfilling some form of selfish desire. There is no comparison. In the karmic realm, he most likely will fare better than war generals, so rest easy.

I don't think capital punishment today is some sort of theatre or spectacle as you imply. Would you rather that the trials received no media attention? I think the media attention helps expose the frequency and heinousness of capital punishment, and in the end generates more debate.

[J m HofMarN]

Ham Salad- Oh come on a few dead nazis does not equal justice. Stalin and various U.S. presidents have done just as many horrible things as Hitler and nothing happened to them. There needs to be an international criminal court with the ability to arrest and try anyone from any country, including standing leaders.

Capital punishment, without the spectacle, is useless from the government's utilitarian and machiavellian point of view. The idea of capital punishment is that people see it and are deterred from crime. Typical villain stuff, you know "hahahahaha this man will serve as an example to all others who would oppose me!"

The problem with this is that our car jacker hops into strangers cars and points guns at them for a hobby. To do that, to do things that might very easily get you killed, you have to have a certain outlook. The threat of death isnt going to deter a car jacker, much less someone who is set on murder. However, if you were to apply this to a president, who has everything to lose (unlike our friend the car jacker) than yes, I think the pigs might have thought twice before they ordered Fred Hampton and Mark Clark to be pumped full of buckshot.

[SithAvenger]

They should torture whoever commits a crime. Seriously, criminals are bastards not like the cool ones like Mr. Blonde of Reservoir Dogs or Jules and Vic Vega from Pulp Fiction.

[Patrick Bateman]

I've no problem with death in self defence or even justified (Un sanctioned as this seems to be the best system we've got, or perhaps had until GW fucked it up) war.
The Death Penalty however is revenge at best, simple blood lust at worst. What's wrong with life in jail. Taking away someone's freedom seems pretty harsh to me. Make life mean life and piss them off for years ... This keeps them from reoffending and draws a clear line in societies sand ... killing is bad, you have killed, you are bad, go to your room, forever.

[Ham Salad]

Ham Salad- Oh come on a few dead nazis does not equal justice. Stalin and various U.S. presidents have done just as many horrible things as Hitler and nothing happened to them. There needs to be an international criminal court with the ability to arrest and try anyone from any country, including standing leaders.


The problem with this is that our car jacker hops into strangers cars and points guns at them for a hobby. To do that, to do things that might very easily get you killed, you have to have a certain outlook. The threat of death isnt going to deter a car jacker, much less someone who is set on murder. However, if you were to apply this to a president, who has everything to lose (unlike our friend the car jacker) than yes, I think the pigs might have thought twice before they ordered Fred Hampton and Mark Clark to be pumped full of buckshot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The problem with the International Criminal Court is that it overtakes US sovereignity. The US was founded out of revolution to escape the clutches of European monarchies, bureaucrats, government institutions, and class warfare. US laws and leaders should not be beholden to any International court, especially one stacked with socialist Europeans with a history of infighting and war mongering. They still don't get along, and can't even move forward on the EU. Think about that on your 4th of July.

The power to arrest "anyone from any country"? I'm sorry, but you are a very dim bulb. Fine, who was going to go and arrest Stalin? A bailiff? With what army you bloody fool? Do you think Stalin would have just capitulated and hired a good lawyer? That would have entailed a war against the USSR! Really, please think before you write. Do you think Clinton, the Bushes and any other president is going to allow a bunch of lawyers under the constant sway of historical revisionism have the power to arrest and try them? Not without a fight. How is the ICC going to enforce? Let me guess with the UN and the US military. Comparisons to Hitler? Why would anyone listen to an obvious deranged leftist fanatic such as yourself? Your assertions are appaling for both their lack of intelligence and taste.

You simply hate the US. The problem that you fail to realize is that there is no perfect sytem, and that the imperfection of human nature will always prevent such. The US is not perfect, and neither is any other government, but it's pretty darn good and needs to be kept on track for sure. Why do you hopelessly seek salvation through politics and government stewardship? It's a flawed system and will never, as history constantly reminds us, reach any pinnacle of perfection that everyone will agree on as good. Instead, your frustration with politics leads you to a sort of cynicism where you champion whatever runs counter to the system in place, and only because it is counter and not better.

You just parrot and repeat things you hear, but never contemplate what you say. Listen, you're a young and impressionable guy, take some time and read apart from what the faculty of burned out hippies has included in the sylabus.

So carjacking is a hobby? No, it's a business. A very big business in fact, where most in the end are affiliated with organized crime. Do you ever stop to think about the woman or child or man that was killed during a carjacking before feeling so sorry for the criminal. You are what is wrong with society. Always trying to justify criminal motives at the expense of the victim and the structure of a law and ordered society. I for one, do not feel sorry for a criminal who not only fails to appreciate the life of the person that was taken by him, but also his or her own life. If that's the case death shouldn't be a concern for them. The death penalty is wrong because it is imperfect and has the capacity to end the life of an innocent person. Justice is not soley about deterrence. That's a by-product.

[Mnesymone]

Capital Punishment, as it is practiced in America, is more flawed than the Antarctic Road Council - the fact the Mississipi has legislation intended to speed up the capital punishment process, and the extraordinary amount of failure by the police and prosecutors to produce evidence capable of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty in cases where people have been convicted and executed is terrifying.
The premise behind capital punishment is simple - those who are too dangerous, whether symbolically or personally, or utterly irredeemable by the prison process can, once proven guilty, be put to death to also serve as a deterrent. (In response to Salad's final point - justice is not about deterrence, but capital punishent is)
However, problems arise - the margin of proof of guilt is one, but the main problem is the symbolism. An executed criminal takes on a martyrlike status, encouraging others to reenact their crimes or read great struggle and noble cause in their actions.

Oh - and Salad, with your thing about the US not being beholden to any international body because it would transgress your hard-won sovereignty. Stop living in denial - the United States of America has, throughout its history, explicitly and deliberately subjugated the sovereignty of other nations - everything from the expansion from the Thirteen Colonies to the modern mainland U.S., the campaigns against Spain during the battleship era to assert the US as an imperial power and just recently, the overrunning and occupation of Iraq.
And lay off the Hoffman, he's an odd egg every now and then but personal attacks do not lend credibility to your argument - quite the opposite.

P.S. Capital Punishment, though taken these days to mean punishment by death, actually means punishment by decapitation. Grisly, eh?

[Hari Seldon]

P.S. Capital Punishment, though taken these days to mean punishment by death, actually means punishment by decapitation. Grisly, eh?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But the syringes are so squeaky clean...

Do you still have other means of killing people over there in the US? Like the electric chair or anything else? - not being mean, I just don't know.

[Ham Salad]

Capital Punishment, as it is practiced in America, is more flawed than the Antarctic Road Council - the fact the Mississipi has legislation intended to speed up the capital punishment process, and the extraordinary amount of failure by the police and prosecutors to produce evidence capable of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty in cases where people have been convicted and executed is terrifying.
The premise behind capital punishment is simple - those who are too dangerous, whether symbolically or personally, or utterly irredeemable by the prison process can, once proven guilty, be put to death to also serve as a deterrent. (In response to Salad's final point - justice is not about deterrence, but capital punishent is)
However, problems arise - the margin of proof of guilt is one, but the main problem is the symbolism. An executed criminal takes on a martyrlike status, encouraging others to reenact their crimes or read great struggle and noble cause in their actions.

Oh - and Salad, with your thing about the US not being beholden to any international body because it would transgress your hard-won sovereignty. Stop living in denial - the United States of America has, throughout its history, explicitly and deliberately subjugated the sovereignty of other nations - everything from the expansion from the Thirteen Colonies to the modern mainland U.S., the campaigns against Spain during the battleship era to assert the US as an imperial power and just recently, the overrunning and occupation of Iraq.
And lay off the Hoffman, he's an odd egg every now and then but personal attacks do not lend credibility to your argument - quite the opposite.

P.S. Capital Punishment, though taken these days to mean punishment by death, actually means punishment by decapitation. Grisly, eh?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you think you're clever inserting etymology into this argument well then go look up sophistry. For that's what you are engaged in, the modern meaning and not the original! Ok, the root cap means head in Latin. Yes, language has a history, but what is your point? It's not shocking or grisly, but expected. You are only exploring one reason for capital punishment. The other is justice in regards to the victim and the victim's loved ones. They want a particular form of justice in relation to their loss and are less concerned with deterrence than with the balancing of the scales.

Yes, so many carjackers call upon the memories of their martyred brothers and reenact their crimes to continue the struggle! Because it's noble? No. That's simply not the case.

Also, you are supporting my argument. Why should the US voluntarily give up its hard won and at times foul fought sovereignity to a bunch of has beens who had their time in the sun? Yes, you are right history shows this, and history will one day show the same in regards to America's eventual demise.

I won't "lay off" anyone. You obviously did not read how he set the tone by using vulgar language, and have no ground to stand on. Here's an old one: This argument is between A and B, so C your way out.

[Rhubarb]

Calm down, dude.

[Chyld]

Also, you are supporting my argument. Why should the US voluntarily give up its hard won and at times foul fought sovereignity to a bunch of has beens who had their time in the sun?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why should the rest of the world watch on, as America ramgages unchecked across the world, exerting its pie-eyed brand of "justice" on anyone it chooses, regardless of the consequences? Its not like us folks in Europe haven't had to fight for our freedom too. You remember those World War things? They're just what happened in the last hundred years.

And Mnesymone has a point in there - America's not exactly the bastion of freedom of justice it always makes itself out to be. Did you know that when they (finally) entered WW2, they interred all the Japanese Americans in desert prison camps? I certainly didn't until a year or so ago. And how do you pronounce it? Guatomalo Bay, is it? Whether they're guilty or not, you can't hold people without trial that fucking long.

And JM hating the US? I rather think he just hates the way its run - like a damned business with an army. Isn't patriotism the freedom to love your country, but point out the things you don't like about it?

I've not gone into full rant mode, as I'm lazy and stupid. Don't work me up and make me do research now.