PDA

View Full Version : "The death penalty has no place in the 21st century"



Loki
10-25-2014, 09:19 PM
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, speaking in July, said the death penalty has no place in the 21st century and urged all countries to work toward its abolition.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/25/world/meast/iranian-woman-execution/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

I agree with him. What are your views?

Dictator
10-25-2014, 09:21 PM
I don't see why we should keep the worst of them alive, yet they say that death penalty is too expensive. All it takes is a knife or something. Guillotines are very old-school and the hipster movement would support its reintroduction into prisons, hanging is also a good choice.

blogen
10-25-2014, 09:27 PM
The death penalty is the only real punishment. A society does not need lawbreakers and this is the best solution for them. And the opportunity of the mistake is not counter-argument, since adult men and women with full responsibility formed the society and not childs. They live with their mistakes, but they cannot be avoided the responsibility of the decision. The responsibility is their duty, since they had political rights and they not silent servants.

Hadouken
10-25-2014, 09:29 PM
disagree strongly (didnt read the text about the iranian woman ...I just mean that I see the death penalty as appropriate when it comes to some crimes)

Jackson
10-25-2014, 09:30 PM
Unless you are massacring people by the thousands and lots are innocent then i don't see the issue. Or unless the death penalty is for silly things like theft.

Oneeye
10-25-2014, 09:31 PM
I say, "Hang them high."

Unome
10-25-2014, 09:34 PM
Only the illuminati should reserve judgment over matters of life & death

Aviator
10-25-2014, 09:36 PM
Disagree. If anything, it has a bigger place in the 21st century.

Ars Moriendi
10-25-2014, 09:40 PM
Indifferent mostly, but disagree with him.

Unome
10-25-2014, 09:45 PM
Does death penalty apply to unborn (abortion)?

Loki
10-25-2014, 10:29 PM
Jeez, we have a heap of cruel/inhumane members here it seems. The death penalty is barbaric. It is not civilized. It's state murder.

Dictator
10-25-2014, 10:31 PM
Jeez, we have a heap of cruel/inhumane members here it seems. The death penalty is barbaric. It is not civilized. It's state murder.

And?

Vasconcelos
10-25-2014, 10:32 PM
I'm generally against the death penalty. Some of the more hideous crimes, however, make me think it's sometimes justifiable.

Ianus
10-25-2014, 10:33 PM
Agree, it's not a deterrent and seems more a vengeance.

Andrei the 2nd
10-25-2014, 10:35 PM
I don't see why we should keep the worst of them alive, yet they say that death penalty is too expensive. All it takes is a knife or something. Guillotines are very old-school and the hipster movement would support its reintroduction into prisons, hanging is also a good choice.

Not bad.

Loki
10-25-2014, 10:37 PM
And?

Whatever floats your boat.

Dictator
10-25-2014, 10:39 PM
Whatever floats your boat.

What do you prefer? A life imprisonment? Well, if death sentence is murder, then a life imprisonment is torture.

Leo Iscariot
10-25-2014, 10:39 PM
I'm generally against the death penalty. Some of the more hideous crimes, however, make me think it's sometimes justifiable.

This.

Hadouken
10-25-2014, 10:49 PM
Jeez, we have a heap of cruel/inhumane members here it seems. The death penalty is barbaric. It is not civilized. It's state murder.

cruel/imhumane are the rapists , murderers etc. (especially when children and women are the victims) and I dont see any reason to sympathize with them or have mercy

they are just garbage and ballast and I dont see any reason putting them in jail and keeping them alive by giving them food and other resources that humans need and even bother dealing with them instead of just throwing them in the shredder because thats what they deserve

Loki
10-25-2014, 10:51 PM
What do you prefer? A life imprisonment? Well, if death sentence is murder, then a life imprisonment is torture.

You can't honestly call yourself civilized or humane or advanced if you support state murder. But if you're okay with that, it's your problem I guess. People like you should have no place in modern politics though, imo. No power.

Dictator
10-25-2014, 10:52 PM
You can't honestly call yourself civilized or humane or advanced if you support state murder. But if you're okay with that, it's your problem I guess. People like you should have no place in modern politics though, imo. No power.

Murder > Torture

And I will be a politician one day. Wait for it.

Loki
10-25-2014, 10:53 PM
cruel/imhumane are the rapists , murderers etc. (especially when children and women are the victims) and I dont see any reason to sympathize with them or have mercy

they are just garbage and ballast and I dont see any reason putting them in jail and keeping them alive by giving them food and other resources that humans need and even bother dealing with them instead of just throwing them in the shredder because thats what they deserve

Of course your first point is correct, but two wrongs don't make a right. The old Jewish "an eye for an eye" philosophy is not something that sits well with me. It's decadent and barbaric.

Loki
10-25-2014, 10:54 PM
Murder > Torture


Imprisonment is not torture. Nobody in their right mind would believe that.



And I will be a politician one day. Wait for it.

Good luck. You'd do well in some despotic African countries with your views.

Gustave H
10-25-2014, 10:55 PM
I disagree. The death penalty must be given to more and more criminals. However, I disagree with the execution of that Iranian woman.

Dombra
10-25-2014, 10:56 PM
I am against death penalty 99 of 100 times if you ask me as some really deserve it. The Iranian woman does not.

Gustave H
10-25-2014, 10:57 PM
Of course your first point is correct, but two wrongs don't make a right. The old Jewish "an eye for an eye" philosophy is not something that sits well with me. It's decadent and barbaric.

I must say, I like the old eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth philosophy. It's a good one.

Hadouken
10-25-2014, 10:58 PM
Of course your first point is correct, but two wrongs don't make a right. The old Jewish "an eye for an eye" philosophy is not something that sits well with me. It's decadent and barbaric.

it does make sense

I mean who are you (or people who think like you) to have the right to deny mr. and mrs. whatever getting their revenge for the loss of their child who got raped and killed by a scumbag ?

imagine somebody kills your child ...wouldnt you want the asshole to be beaten to death ? would I have the right to take it away from you only to feel "civilized" ?

Loki
10-25-2014, 11:02 PM
I must say, I like the old eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth philosophy. It's a good one.

Yeah I know you'd like it :)

Loki
10-25-2014, 11:03 PM
it does make sense

I mean who are you (or people who think like you) to have the right to deny mr. and mrs. whatever getting their revenge for the loss of their child who got raped and killed by a scumbag ?

imagine somebody kills your child ...wouldnt you want the asshole to be beaten to death ? would I have the right to take it away from you only to feel "civilized" ?

Revenge and justice are two different concepts.

Hadouken
10-25-2014, 11:05 PM
Revenge and justice are two different concepts.

not really ...why ? because it is not you who loses a person you love in the example I gave so it is not you who decides what is justice for those people who are the victims

Loki
10-25-2014, 11:09 PM
not really ...why ? because it is not you who loses a person you love in the example I gave so it is not you who decides what is justice for those people who are the victims

Of course it is different. Victims of crimes should not be given the right to decide their antagonist's fate. We have courts and legal professionals for that.

oh-nahhh
10-25-2014, 11:10 PM
I am against the death penalty only because of the fact that innocent people can get executed due to the poor legal system.

NSXD60
10-25-2014, 11:13 PM
Well, I'm for it, and think that it should be finalized two years from sentence. If you can't prove your innocence in two, then you're doubtless guilty. Also, the jury system in the states says that all jurors must agree on a verdict, which I disagree with, because there is always someone or ones who are against the death penalty, no matter what they say in their interviews, so I would propose that guilt or innocence be decided by a two thirds majority rather than a unanimous decision.

Oneeye
10-25-2014, 11:15 PM
Revenge and justice are two different concepts.

Retribution is very ingrained in us Americans. It was only a century ago since we were hanging horse thieves. I can't speak for the European members here that are taking the pro capital punishment side.




http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Horse_thief_hanging.png/1024px-Horse_thief_hanging.png

Hadouken
10-25-2014, 11:21 PM
Of course it is different. Victims of crimes should not be given the right to decide their antagonist's fate. We have courts and legal professionals for that.

:picard1:

they are the ones with the loss so why do some other people they dont even know have the right to decide whats going to happen to the bastard ?

thats like me saying to you "hey Loki I know that thief broke into your house and took all your stuff and sold it but I dont think it is right of you to demand your stuff back because the guy spent all that money already and it would be inhumane to force him to get the money together ....my friend said it would be better if we put the guy a few days in jail thats a better way to achieve justice and I agree so we will take action ....you can be happy now"

who says that the courts and legals professionals are "right" and define justice the right way anyway ? they are just humans too and not god or something

nothing more than empowering and enslaving people

same reason why guns are banned too for example

btw. dont get me wrong I am not saying we should live in anarchy or something but there must be another solution where the death penalty is applied for some crimes ....thats my opinion at least and I respect yours

so lets agree to disagree I guess

Borna
10-25-2014, 11:22 PM
Pedophilia has no place in any part of history, yet its still here. That is why Death Penatly needs to be as well.

Alenka
10-25-2014, 11:26 PM
I'm against the death penalty, but not because "it has no place in the 21st century". I think it's a hypocritical, illogical punishment. "You killed someone. Killing is wrong, Therefore we are going to kill you." :confused:

Han Cholo
10-25-2014, 11:28 PM
Forced labor is better than death penalty. Use it as a carrier machine until collapse.

Aviator
10-25-2014, 11:34 PM
Jeez, we have a heap of cruel/inhumane members here it seems. The death penalty is barbaric. It is not civilized. It's state murder.

Do you have a better method of permanently and immediately ending the existence of undesirable individuals?

Tooting Carmen
10-25-2014, 11:35 PM
Personally I agree with him, as the death penalty turns the State into a killer, but ultimately it ought to be up to the democratic will of each nation to decide whether or not to keep it.

Desaix DeBurgh
10-25-2014, 11:49 PM
I agree but only if in the near future there will be a new drug that will make 8 years feel like a thousand years so a life sentence in prison will feel like forever. That is far worse than killing someone humanely. Also, prisoners should be slaves of corporations working for free or for pennies I think something like that is already happening in the USA so it is economical. However, these corporations should pay be room and board for the prisoners rather than the tax payers :



Future Drugs Will Allow Prisoners To Serve A ‘1,000-Year Sentence In 8 Hours’

By JacobSloan on March 27, 2014 in News

How will the worst villains of the future be made to atone for their crimes? Aeon Magazine speaks to University of Oxford professor Rebecca Roache, who hauntingly forecasts that punishment will someday revolve around the dilation of time:

As biotech companies pour billions into life extension technologies, some have suggested that our cruelest criminals could be kept alive indefinitely, to serve sentences spanning millennia. But private prison firms could one day develop drugs that make time pass more slowly, so that an inmate’s 10-year sentence feels like an eternity. One way or another, humans could soon be in a position to create an artificial hell.

Take someone convicted of a heinous crime. There are a number of psychoactive drugs that distort people’s sense of time, so you could imagine developing a pill or a liquid that made someone feel like they were serving a 1,000-year sentence.

- See more at: http://disinfo.com/2014/03/future-drugs-will-make-prisoners-serve-1000-year-sentence-8-hours/#sthash.EAoi5yrv.dpuf

Apis
10-26-2014, 12:09 AM
Is there a difference between a death sentence and life without parole?

Dictator
10-26-2014, 12:12 AM
Is there a difference between a death sentence and life without parole?

Yes. Life sentence is psychological torture and death sentence is murder. :rolleyes:

LightHouse89
10-26-2014, 12:17 AM
Liberalism at work again :rolleyes: do not punish anyone! modern morals make me laugh.

LightHouse89
10-26-2014, 12:19 AM
Retribution is very ingrained in us Americans. It was only a century ago since we were hanging horse thieves. I can't speak for the European members here that are taking the pro capital punishment side.




http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Horse_thief_hanging.png/1024px-Horse_thief_hanging.png

I miss the old jim crow days of lynching undesirables....we need to go back to that. things are getting out of hand here.

Apis
10-26-2014, 12:47 AM
Yes. Life sentence is psychological torture and death sentence is murder. :rolleyes:

My post was intended to poke fun at those who say capital punishment is inhumane. The former is also significantly more expensive than a bullet.

Loki
10-26-2014, 12:50 AM
My post was intended to poke fun at those who say capital punishment is inhumane. The former is also significantly more expensive than a bullet.

It is inhumane. But I don't think you'd understand it.

Apis
10-26-2014, 12:55 AM
It is inhumane. But I don't think you'd understand it.

Personally, I'd prefer a swift death as opposed to being locked in a cage for the rest of my life. The decision should not even be predicated on principle; a life sentence denotes crime(s) so severe that rehabilitation isn't even an option. I don't see anything hypocritical about executing a murderer, but it all depends on how you discern 'murder' and 'killing'.

Melina
10-26-2014, 01:21 AM
I agree with the death penalty. I have seen the most heinous crimes being committed and see people walk out from those crimes in less than a decade while their victims and their families will never get a chance to have a normal life. Here most jail are packed do to the fact that that those that have committed minor crimes and those who made mayor crimes are crammed up together. So the solution was death penalty or freedom for the perpetrators. It is as though most criminals here get a slap in the wrist that is why they keep committing the murders.

Hannah Graham case is a good example. Not only do I think death penalty should be legal but I think they should put it live on T.V so it could serve as a caution to anyone who tries to pull the same stunt.

Methmatician
10-26-2014, 01:37 AM
I'm against capital punishment. Mostly because there are too many people who have died who turned out to be innocent, and it's possible to rehabilitate most criminals.

Jackson
10-26-2014, 01:52 AM
You can't honestly call yourself civilized or humane or advanced if you support state murder. But if you're okay with that, it's your problem I guess. People like you should have no place in modern politics though, imo. No power.

And yet you display the Hammer and Sickle in your avatar. Which one will do the killing today?

You cannot support communism and lecture others on the evils of state murder, that is laughable.

LightHouse89
10-26-2014, 01:54 AM
I'm against capital punishment. Mostly because there are too many people who have died who turned out to be innocent, and it's possible to rehabilitate most criminals.

:picard1:

Aviator
10-26-2014, 02:17 AM
I agree but only if in the near future there will be a new drug that will make 8 years feel like a thousand years so a life sentence in prison will feel like forever. That is far worse than killing someone humanely. Also, prisoners should be slaves of corporations working for free or for pennies I think something like that is already happening in the USA so it is economical. However, these corporations should pay be room and board for the prisoners rather than the tax payers :



- See more at: http://disinfo.com/2014/03/future-drugs-will-make-prisoners-serve-1000-year-sentence-8-hours/#sthash.EAoi5yrv.dpuf

That's not only stupid, but evil and sadistic. Just use a firing squad.

Stanley
10-26-2014, 02:39 AM
I'm against the death penalty, but not because "it has no place in the 21st century". I think it's a hypocritical, illogical punishment. "You killed someone. Killing is wrong, Therefore we are going to kill you." :confused:

It's not illogical—your statement is. You're equating the murder of an innocent life with dispassionately ending the life of a person who's shown no appreciation for the dignity of the lives of others.

By your logic, it would be hypocritical to punish a person with a prison sentence for imprisoning someone in their basement.

rhiannon
10-26-2014, 02:53 AM
Pro Death Penalty for heinous crimes. No appeals, either. Get it done when the person is found guilty....but they need irrefutable proof that the person in question in fact, IS guilty.

Only caveat that gives me any trepidation about this stance is the prospect of executing an innocent.

Alenka
10-26-2014, 03:29 AM
It's not illogical—your statement is. You're equating the murder of an innocent life with dispassionately ending the life of a person who's shown no appreciation for the dignity of the lives of others.
No, my statement is perfectly logical. If a society is based on the premise that "killing is wrong" then killing is wrong, it's as simple as that. Your point is moot. How do you know the killed person had an innocent life? Who says so? What is "an innocent life" in the first place? What is its definition? Who gets to define it? What if they wronged me somehow? Then they sure aren't "innocent" to me. Does that give me the right to take their life? Why not? If the state deems itself able to decide whose life is innocent enough to live, then what kind of an example is that to the people? Why would an individual not deem themselves able of doing the same?


By your logic, it would be hypocritical to punish a person with a prison sentence for imprisoning someone in their basement.
Different, becaue I believe society has the right to segregate those who violate the law, but it does not have a right to retribution. Imprisoning of a kidnapper is taking away their right of free movement for a certain amount of time as a form of punishment by way of segregation. It would be the same for theft or prostitution or whatever. It's not a case of blind retribution like "let's imprison him because he imprisoned someone". Just like you don't punish a thief by stealing from them, and just like you don't punish a prostitute by prostututing yourelf to them. Why would killing be an exception? You make no sense.

Aviator
10-26-2014, 03:38 AM
No, my statement is perfectly logical. If a society is based on the premise that "killing is wrong" then killing is wrong, it's as simple as that.
Our societies are based on the premise that murder is wrong, not killing. The difference is astronomical.

Alenka
10-26-2014, 03:45 AM
Our societies are based on the premise that murder is wrong, not killing. The difference is astronomical.
Murder is the unjust taking of life. But the thing is that I don't consider anyone just for taking a life, including the state. Therefore death penalty is murder in my view.

Illancha
10-26-2014, 03:48 AM
There's no need to give the state more power.

Punishing crimes is an area the victim party should have complete authority over. If they wish to punish, it is their right to do so and you can't fault them for it. Needless to say, forgiveness is even nobler.

Oneeye
10-26-2014, 03:56 AM
There's no need to give the state more power.

Punishing crimes is an area the victim party should have complete authority over. If they wish to punish, it is their right to do so and you can't fault them for it. Needless to say, forgiveness is even nobler.

As noble as the idea is, the victim party isn't the most objective of executioners. Having a third party, to handle the issue, makes sense. Ideally as a mediator, but the victim party would still probably push for something more sadistic than the state would dole out.

The fact is that vigilantism is illegal for a reason.

Stanley
10-26-2014, 04:15 AM
No, my statement is perfectly logical. If a society is based on the premise that "killing is wrong" then killing is wrong, it's as simple as that. Your point is moot. How do you know the killed person had an innocent life? Who says so? What is "an innocent life" in the first place? What is its definition? Who gets to define it? What if they wronged me somehow? Then they sure aren't "innocent" to me. Does that give me the right to take their life? Why not? If the state deems itself able to decide whose life is innocent enough to live, then what kind of an example is that to the people? Why would an individual not deem themselves able of doing the same?

Except not all killings are the same, and that's my point. But if my point is moot, and society is based on the premise that killing is always wrong, then why do you care about the answers to your questions, like what defines an innocent life, anyway? I mean, if killing is universally wrong, the answers are of no consequence—it's wrong no matter what, right?

I'm not going to give them an answer though, since it should be obvious that the kinds of murder most people tend to deem punishable by death are the unambiguous and exceptionally heinous cases where asking those kinds of questions would be pointless, and the state's role a mere formality. Think Bundy, not Zimmerman.



Different, becaue I believe society has the right to segregate those who violate the law, but it does not have a right to retribution. Imprisoning of a kidnapper is taking away their right of free movement for a certain amount of time as a form of punishment by way of segregation. It would be the same for theft or prostitution or whatever. It's not a case of blind retribution like "let's imprison him because he imprisoned someone". Just like you don't punish a thief by stealing from them, and just like you don't punish a prostitute by prostututing yourelf to them. Why would killing be an exception? You make no sense.

I never implied imprisonment in that instance would be intended as an eye for an eye type punishment, only that someone could make the argument that it's hypocritical on the same grounds that you use to argue capital punishment is hypocritical.

Aviator
10-26-2014, 04:36 AM
Murder is the unjust taking of life. But the thing is that I don't consider anyone just for taking a life, including the state. Therefore death penalty is murder in my view.

No, by definition, murder is an unlawful killing. If a killing is deemed lawful, it is not murder.

mur·der
ˈmərdər/
noun
1.
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Unome
10-26-2014, 04:48 AM
I would advocate death penalty for some crimes; but the idea of condemning an innocent and falsely accused person to death is just too unjust to consider.

The problem is errors of moral judgment.

Alenka
10-26-2014, 04:49 AM
No, by definition, murder is an unlawful killing. If a killing is deemed lawful, it is not murder.

In that case there certainly isn't an always an "astronomical difference" between murder and killing in terms of how appalling it is, not in my view anyways. Just because taking a life is lawful doesn't make it less horrible, even though countries like the USA and Iran may want to have you convinced differently.
http://www.blacktalkradionetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Iran-Executions.jpg

Aviator
10-26-2014, 04:53 AM
In that case there certainly isn't an always an "astronomical difference" between murder and killing in terms of how appalling it is, not in my view anyways. Just because taking a life is lawful doesn't make it less horrible, even though countries like the USA and Iran may want to have you convinced differently.


Legal killings and illegal murders are astronomically different in my view.

But I'll play along. What alternative method to capital punishment do you have to permanently and immediately end the existence of undesirable individuals?

Alenka
10-26-2014, 04:58 AM
What alternative method to capital punishment do you have to permanently and immediately end the existence of undesirable individuals?
For extreme cases life inprisonment. Other than that the aim would be rehabilitation.

Aviator
10-26-2014, 05:00 AM
For extreme cases life inprisonment. Other than that the aim would be rehabilitation.

Neither of those get rid of the individuals. They are still around and using up resources in each of the given scenarios.

Ctwentysevenj
10-26-2014, 05:01 AM
Maybe for the worst criminals

rhiannon
10-26-2014, 05:25 AM
cruel/imhumane are the rapists , murderers etc. (especially when children and women are the victims) and I dont see any reason to sympathize with them or have mercy

they are just garbage and ballast and I dont see any reason putting them in jail and keeping them alive by giving them food and other resources that humans need and even bother dealing with them instead of just throwing them in the shredder because thats what they deserve

Not to mention life imprisonment guarantees these POS's to three hots and a cot...along with free medical care for the rest of their lives!

I'd rather see that money spent toward the victims of these vermin.

rhiannon
10-26-2014, 05:31 AM
Of course it is different. Victims of crimes should not be given the right to decide their antagonist's fate. We have courts and legal professionals for that.
I believe the victims should be given the greatest weight when it comes to deciding the fate of their perps. Some victims' families wouldn't opt for death, while others would.

If anyone has earned that right, it is the victim or their families.....for they paid for that right with their own very flesh and blood. :tsk:

Alenka
10-26-2014, 06:14 AM
Neither of those get rid of the individuals. They are still around and using up resources in each of the given scenarios.
I don't believe in "getting rid" of people. And are you sure inmates are a burden to your state in the first place? USA seems to be keen on giving such long prison sentences even for petty non-violent crimes. Way more inmates are inprisoned for this than for violent crimes, so preventing petty crime and not giving extreme sentences for it seems key to saving taxpayers money. I see no point in warehousing petty criminals for decades.

"As of last year, according to a report released today by the American Civil Liberties Union, more than 3,200 people were serving life in prison without parole for nonviolent crimes. A close examination of these cases by the ACLU reveals just how petty some of these offenses are. People got life for, among other things…

Possessing a crack pipe
Possessing a bottle cap containing a trace amount of heroin (too minute to be weighed)
Having traces of cocaine in clothes pockets that were invisible to the naked eye but detected in lab tests
Having a single crack rock at home
Possessing 32 grams of marijuana (worth about $380 in California) with intent to distribute
Passing out several grams of LSD at a Grateful Dead show
Acting as a go-between in the sale of $10 worth of marijuana to an undercover cop
Selling a single crack rock
Verbally negotiating another man's sale of two small pieces of fake crack to an undercover cop
Having a stash of over-the-counter decongestant pills that could be used to make methamphetamine
Attempting to cash a stolen check
Possessing stolen scrap metal (the offender was a junk dealer)—10 valves and one elbow pipe
Possessing stolen wrenches
Siphoning gasoline from a truck
Stealing tools from a shed and a welding machine from a front yard
Shoplifting three belts from a department store
Shoplifting several digital cameras
Shoplifting two jerseys from an athletic store
Taking a television, circular saw, and power converter from a vacant house
Breaking into a closed liquor store in the middle of the night
Making a drunken threat to a police officer while handcuffed in the back of a patrol car
Being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm
Taking an abusive stepfather's gun from their shared home
...
"

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/23-petty-crimes-prison-life-without-parole

Aviator
10-26-2014, 06:38 AM
I don't believe in "getting rid" of people. And are you sure inmates are a burden to your state in the first place? USA seems to be keen on giving such long prison sentences even for petty non-violent crimes. Way more inmates are inprisoned for this than for violent crimes, so preventing petty crime and not giving extreme sentences for it seems key to saving taxpayers money. I see no point in warehousing petty criminals for decades.


What exactly is your point? You think these crimes should have been dismissed?

Desaix DeBurgh
10-26-2014, 06:49 AM
I don't believe in "getting rid" of people. And are you sure inmates are a burden to your state in the first place? USA seems to be keen on giving such long prison sentences even for petty non-violent crimes. Way more inmates are inprisoned for this than for violent crimes, so preventing petty crime and not giving extreme sentences for it seems key to saving taxpayers money. I see no point in warehousing petty criminals for decades.

...As of last year, according to a report released today by the American Civil Liberties Union, more than 3,200 people were serving life in prison without parole for nonviolent crimes. A close examination of these cases by the ACLU reveals just how petty some of these offenses are. People got life for, among other things…




You must suck at math because that comes out to be a little more than about 0.0001% population of the United States which means it is statistically negligible or pretty much not important.

Alenka
10-26-2014, 06:53 AM
What exactly is your point? You think these crimes should have been dismissed?
I'm not saying petty criminals should be dismissed, just that it doesn't make sense to warehouse them forever by giving out extreme sentences. Especially if being "still around and using up resources" is as much of a hassle as you make it sound.

Aviator
10-26-2014, 06:54 AM
I'm not saying petty criminals should be dismissed, just that it doesn't make sense to warehouse them forever by giving out extreme sentences. Especially if being "still around and using up resources" is as much of a hassle as you make it sound.

What should we do with them instead?

Prince Of Macrobia
10-26-2014, 07:02 AM
Live sentence will be better instead of death penalty so that next generation will learn from it.

Alenka
10-26-2014, 07:15 AM
You must suck at math because that comes out to be a little more than about 0.0001% population of the United States which means it is statistically negligible or pretty much not important.
I wasn't talking just about life sentences, but rather the lengthy prison sentences generally:
"A major contributor to the high incarceration rates is the length of the prison sentences in the United States. One of the criticisms of the United States system is that it has much longer sentences than any other part of the world. The typical mandatory sentence for a first-time drug offense in federal court is five or ten years, compared to other developed countries around the world where a first time offense would warrant at most 6 months in jail.[54] Mandatory sentencing prohibits judges from using their discretion and forces them to place longer sentences on nonviolent offenses than they normally would do.
Even though there are other countries that commit more inmates to prison annually, the fact that the United States keeps their prisoners longer causes the total rate to become higher. To give an example, the average burglary sentence in the United States is 16 months, compared to 5 months in Canada and 7 months in England.[21]
Looking at reasons for imprisonment will further clarify why the incarceration rate and length of sentences are so high. The practice of imposing longer prison sentences on repeat offenders is common in many countries but the three-strikes laws in the U.S. with mandatory 25 year imprisonment — implemented in many states in the 1990s — is extreme compared to countries in Europe."

Alenka
10-26-2014, 07:16 AM
What should we do with them instead?
Rehabilitation.

Aviator
10-26-2014, 07:19 AM
Rehabilitation.

Ah. See, what many Europeans don't understand about us, is that we don't have the luxury of living in a monolithic White country. Of course, some European countries are heading down our path, and it's already beginning to bite them in the ass.

Rehabilitation doesn't work on the majority of our criminal population.

Alenka
10-26-2014, 07:23 AM
Ah. See, what many Europeans don't understand about us, is that we don't have the luxury of living in a monolithic White country. Of course, some European countries are heading down our path, and it's already beginning to bite them in the ass.

Rehabilitation doesn't work on the majority of our criminal population.
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/002/135/sw50sw8sw578.gif
xD

Aviator
10-26-2014, 07:28 AM
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/002/135/sw50sw8sw578.gif
xD

Hahah :)

It's true though, I was just kind of slow walking here. The people locked up for the petty crimes you listed are typically Black and sometimes Hispanic. Rehabilitation doesn't work here, they'll still commit crimes the moment they're released.

But if you don't believe in getting rid of undesirables (entire ethnic groups in this case), you don't believe in capital punishment, and you think unsuccessful attempts at rehabilitation are better than long sentences, what is left to turn to?

Methmatician
10-26-2014, 07:28 AM
Rehabilitation doesn't work on the majority of our criminal population.
Because your prison system sucks.

Aviator
10-26-2014, 07:29 AM
Because your prison system sucks.

No, it's because our criminals "suck." You can rehabilitate an average Norwegian robber, you can't rehabilitate an average African American one.

Methmatician
10-26-2014, 07:49 AM
No, it's because our criminals "suck."
No they don't. (http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/rehab.aspx)

You can rehabilitate an average Norwegian robber, you can't rehabilitate an average African American one.
Because they come from two different countries, cultures, and systems. It is possible to rehabilitate most criminals it's just that in the US the government has your attitude of 'kill first, judge later'. Racism has a bit to do with it as well. When you believe every African-American to be a criminal forever then the chances for them to rehabilitate become fewer since they will be treated as criminals regardless of their actions.

Aviator
10-26-2014, 07:58 AM
No they don't.

Yes they do, and your study doesn't show that they don't.


Because they come from two different countries, cultures, systems, and most importantly, genetic backgrounds (fixed). It is possible to rehabilitate most criminals it's just that in the US the government has your attitude of 'kill first, judge later'. Racism has a bit to do with it as well. When you believe every African-American to be a criminal forever then the chances for them to rehabilitate become fewer since they will be treated as criminals regardless of their actions.

Only for some, not for everyone. I don't know I continue to banter with you when you don't accept racial differences. Do you believe Chihuahuas and Great Danes to be the same as well?

And what's next? Are you going to become a proponent of creationism?

To be quite frank, I'm glad the pendulum is swinging to the right, and if international economies collapse soon, it will create enough momentum for us to silence your blind egalitarianism forever.

Loki
10-26-2014, 08:05 AM
I don't know I continue to banter with you when you don't accept racial differences.

Of course differences may exist, but these are often exaggerated at the cost of the other group. Such a belief is usually very biased.

Hadouken
10-26-2014, 08:08 AM
Rehabilitation.

lol at rehabilitation of sadistic murderers , rapists , child molesters etc. :picard2:

"hey I killed 2 children and their parents but I am rehabilated now so let me be a part of your society"

just play pinata with their bodies and throw them in the ocean seriously ....or are we so keen to defend the most disgusting and evil motherfuckers of the planet ? it is people who think like you that give them a somewhat more comfortable mind not worrying much about the outcome especially since many prisons are not even all that bad ...or let me rather say it is not nearly as bad as what the victims go through (look at Norway ...wtf ? http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-A9kqv-o0BpI/UBFG0uF3ynI/AAAAAAAARaQ/jW53tVBMyRA/s1600/Norwegian+prison+1.jpg )

also killing is not always wrong either ....when someone breaks into your house and you shoot him then thats allright , if somebody attacks you and you defend yourself by knocking him out and he falls on the ground with his head and dies then thats allright , if a scumbag kills a family member of another person and then gets cut in pieces for it by the father then it is justified

there is a thing called "being the aggressor "

Aviator
10-26-2014, 08:10 AM
Of course differences may exist, but these are often exaggerated at the cost of the other group. Such a belief is usually very biased.

I disagree, I think the differences are downplayed (unless you're referring to people calling other races different species, which is idiotic for obvious reasons.)

Loki
10-26-2014, 08:13 AM
I disagree, I think the differences are downplayed (unless you're referring to people calling other races different species, which is idiotic for obvious reasons.)

I think it is an innately stupid thing to put any human group in a box and say "this is all they will ever achieve". Humans didn't evolve from lower primates for nothing; human populations are constantly changing, also through interaction.

Aviator
10-26-2014, 08:17 AM
I think it is an innately stupid thing to put any human group in a box and say "this is all they will ever achieve". Humans didn't evolve from lower primates for nothing; human populations are constantly changing, also through interaction.

So which is better: Wait for a few thousand years for everyone else to catch up, or to move on ahead and leave them behind?

We're also assuming that any group today is going to be evolving in a "positive" manner, with all of the technological crutches we have.

Methmatician
10-26-2014, 08:27 AM
Yes they do, and your study doesn't show that they don't.
http://www.academia.edu/4172140/Punishment_Versus_Rehabilitation

I don't know I continue to banter with you when you don't accept racial differences. Do you believe Chihuahuas and Great Danes to be the same as well?
There is no genetic component to crime. And dog breeds are not analogous to humans races since one is natural the other is man-made. I don't know if I can take anyone who believes in pseudo-science seriously.

And what's next? Are you going to become a proponent of creationism?
Care to explain what creationism has to do with the rehabilitation of criminals? Are you suggesting that rehabilitation means converting criminals and turning them into devout believers? Because that's not what I mean. I'm talking about secular rehabilitation.

To be quite frank, I'm glad the pendulum is swinging to the right, and if international economies collapse soon, it will create enough momentum for us to silence your blind egalitarianism forever.
Don't like dissenting opinions? Go to North Korea. I think they'll agree with your beliefs on crime and punishment :laugh:

Aviator
10-26-2014, 08:32 AM
http://www.academia.edu/4172140/Punishment_Versus_Rehabilitation

Again, how does this show that the US doesn't have a worse criminal population than most European countries?


There is no genetic component to crime. And dog breeds are not analogous to humans races since one is natural the other is man-made. I don't know if I can take anyone who believes in pseudo-science seriously.

Care to explain what creationism has to do with the rehabilitation of criminals? Are you suggesting that rehabilitation means converting criminals and turning them into devout believers? Because that's not what I mean. I'm talking about secular rehabilitation.

No, I'm suggesting you deny basic tenants of evolution. Don't acknowledge differences in race? Then why acknowledge anything that has to do with adaptation?


Don't like dissenting opinions? Go to North Korea. I think they'll agree with your beliefs on crime and punishment :laugh:

You'll find that they won't, actually. North Koreans say that we should get rid of all non-Europeans and then adopt a soft hearted approach to the minimal amount of crime that will be left?

alfieb
10-26-2014, 08:42 AM
Capital punishment is archaic.

The American way of punishing criminals is too harsh, the European way is too lenient.

Loki
10-26-2014, 08:44 AM
So which is better: Wait for a few thousand years for everyone else to catch up, or to move on ahead and leave them behind?


Well now you're talking about something different: politics.

Methmatician
10-26-2014, 09:10 AM
Again, how does this show that the US doesn't have a worse criminal population than most European countries?
Re-offender rates:
Denmark and Sweden: 24% to 31%
Norway: 20%
Finland: Over a half of all the released returned to prison during five years after release. The majority of those for the first time in prison did not return in prison. 80-90 percent of the young offenders returned to prison at least once.
Ireland: 50%
Italy: 68%
USA: 67.8% of the 404,638 state prisoners released in 2005 in 30 states were arrested within 3 years of release, and 76.6% were arrested within 5 years of release.

Not all European countries put a strong emphasis on rehabilitation. Scandinavian countries, however, do. But rehabilitation is suppose to go hand in hand with punishment.

No, I'm suggesting you deny basic tenants of evolution. Don't acknowledge differences in race? Then why acknowledge anything that has to do with adaptation?
What you're talking about has nothing to do with evolution. I'll repeat. There is nothing in African-American genes that would suggest that they are incapable of rehabilitation or that they are more likely to commit crimes than other groups in the US.

You'll find that they won't, actually. North Koreans say that we should get rid of all non-Europeans and then adopt a soft hearted approach to the minimal amount of crime that will be left?
Capital punishment is common in North Korea.

Methmatician
10-26-2014, 09:11 AM
Capital punishment is archaic.

The American way of punishing criminals is too harsh, the European way is too lenient.
There is no "European" way unless you're referring to Scandinavia.

Alenka
10-26-2014, 09:12 AM
lol at rehabilitation of sadistic murderers , rapists , child molesters etc. :picard2:
I didn't say rehabilitation for all cases...

For extreme cases life inprisonment. Other than that the aim would be rehabilitation.


it is people who think like you that give them a somewhat more comfortable mind not worrying much about the outcome especially since many prisons are not even all that bad (look at Norway ...wtf ? http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-A9kqv-o0BpI/UBFG0uF3ynI/AAAAAAAARaQ/jW53tVBMyRA/s1600/Norwegian+prison+1.jpg )
Statistics show an interesting pattern:
"And yet, an extensive new study undertaken by researchers across all the Nordic countries reveals that, while the reoffending average across Europe is about 70-75 per cent; in Denmark, Sweden and Finland, the average is 30 per cent. In Norway it is 20 per cent. Thus Bastoy (the most comfy of prisons), at just 16 per cent, has the lowest reoffending rate in Europe."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1384308/Norways-controversial-cushy-prison-experiment--catch-UK.html#ixzz3HElr9OSt

Aviator
10-26-2014, 09:15 AM
Re-offender rates:
Denmark and Sweden: 24% to 31%
Norway: 20%
Finland: Over a half of all the released returned to prison during five years after release. The majority of those for the first time in prison did not return in prison. 80-90 percent of the young offenders returned to prison at least once.
Ireland: 50%
Italy: 68%
USA: 67.8% of the 404,638 state prisoners released in 2005 in 30 states were arrested within 3 years of release, and 76.6% were arrested within 5 years of release.

Not all European countries put a strong emphasis on rehabilitation. Scandinavian countries, however, do. But rehabilitation is suppose to go hand in hand with punishment.

It works well with Scandinavians? Shocker. This helps me.

It would also be interesting to see a breakdown of these statistics by demographic.


What you're talking about has nothing to do with evolution. I'll repeat. There is nothing in African-American genes that would suggest that they are incapable of rehabilitation or that they are more likely to commit crimes than other groups in the US.

You don't believe that low intellect combined with a propensity towards individual aggressiveness contributes to a groups crime rate, as well as their inability to learn? Interesting.


Capital punishment is common in North Korea.

Your point? They treat their own people cruelly, I'm aware. Seems like a silly thing do, a self inflicting wound of sorts.

Hadouken
10-26-2014, 09:26 AM
Statistics show an interesting pattern:
"And yet, an extensive new study undertaken by researchers across all the Nordic countries reveals that, while the reoffending average across Europe is about 70-75 per cent; in Denmark, Sweden and Finland, the average is 30 per cent. In Norway it is 20 per cent. Thus Bastoy (the mpst comfy of prisons), at just 16 per cent, has the lowest reoffending rate in Europe."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1384308/Norways-controversial-cushy-prison-experiment--catch-UK.html#ixzz3HElr9OSt

there are criminals that can and should be worked on to be rehabilated ...like thieves (cleptomaniacs) for example , drug dealers/abusers etc. ...they all can be worked on ....some people also commiting certain crimes because they dont see any other way out of their lives and need help although deep inside they are good people

but when somebody commits the crimes I mentioned in my earlier posts then he just deserves to be put down (preferably by the hand of the victims or their family)...I cant even believe that any sane person with a sense for logic and sense of fairness will argue about this :confused:

I dont want any scumbags who raped children and women to be worked on other than with a knife ! ...people are legally torturing animals by bullfighting and many slaughterhouses treat animals like shit yet people have no problem in watching it or eating the meat nonetheless but when it comes to fucking subhumans who destroy families and just cause harm all the liberals are holding each others hand to "protect" them and show the world how "developed and civilized" they are and everybody who doesnt agree with it is just barbaric and inhumane :rolleyes:

fuck this world seriously

Methmatician
10-26-2014, 09:29 AM
It works well with Scandinavians? Shocker. This helps me.
It's not that shocking. I've been trying to tell you rehabilitation works.

It would also be interesting to see a breakdown of these statistics by demographic.
http://www3.unil.ch/wpmu/space/publications/recidivism-studies/

You don't believe that low intellect combined with a propensity towards individual aggressiveness contributes to a groups crime rate, as well as their inability to learn? Interesting.
lol more pseudo-science.

Your point? They treat their own people cruelly, I'm aware. Seems like a silly thing do, a self inflicting wound of sorts.
You're both pro-capital punishment and don'y like dissenting opinions.

alfieb
10-26-2014, 09:32 AM
There is no "European" way unless you're referring to Scandinavia.

I'm referring to people being given 20 year prison sentences for murder or rape and walking out after 10. I've heard of such things happening throughout the continent, and prison conditions aren't nearly as harsh as they should be. You shouldn't be having a good time there. It's a place where you put the worst elements of your society.

Aviator
10-26-2014, 09:40 AM
It's not that shocking. I've been trying to tell you rehabilitation works.

Yes, for Scandinavians, not for Blacks and Latinos (and maybe not for you Balkans).


lol more pseudo-science.

Have you not been keeping up with the field of genetics whatsoever? I've also posted several studies regarding the IQ of non-Whites who were raised in White families from birth. You can also read about the dozens of reports talking about how much money and time we have spent trying to get certain ethnic groups to do well in school and stay out of trouble, all with no avail. Calling something pseudo science does not automatically discredit it. That's why I asked if you are proponent of creationism, because that's what you sound like. "You mean to tell me that that thar monkey thing done made man? Wel thats sum weir made up science heathenism talk. Pseudo science!"


You're both pro-capital punishment and don'y like dissenting opinions.

A healthy amount of dissenting opinion is good in all areas except for those that deal with keeping European lands free of outsiders. Without any dissenting opinion on other topics, stagnation eventually occurs. And being pro-capital punishment does not even remotely equate to being pro-North Korean style capital punishment.

Methmatician
10-26-2014, 09:41 AM
I'm referring to people being given 20 year prison sentences for murder or rape and walking out after 10. I've heard of such things happening throughout the continent, and prison conditions aren't nearly as harsh as they should be. You shouldn't be having a good time there. It's a place where you put the worst elements of your society.
Yes, they shouldn't be having a 'good' time but if the only reason they're there is to just wait out their sentence in terrible conditions then it is highly unlikely to deter them from crime. That's why the US needs to go back to emphasising rehabilitation.

Aviator
10-26-2014, 09:46 AM
Yes, they shouldn't be having a 'good' time but if the only reason they're there is to just wait out their sentence in terrible conditions then it is highly unlikely to deter them from crime. That's why the US needs to go back to emphasising eugenics.

Agreed. Our old sterilization programs could really go a long way today.

alfieb
10-26-2014, 09:50 AM
Yes, they shouldn't be having a 'good' time but if the only reason they're there is to just wait out their sentence in terrible conditions then it is highly unlikely to deter them from crime. That's why the US needs to go back to emphasising rehabilitation.

Rehabilitation isn't going to work for rapists and pedophiles, and there is no rehabilitating a cannibal, or someone who knowingly infects people with a disease. These elements go to prison solely for punishment.

Germaniac
10-26-2014, 09:51 AM
There are more important things to spend taxpayer's money in than feeding and clothing lawbreakers for the entire course of their lives. It's not that I'm saying to execute all prisoners, but some major criminals such as killers, pædophiles, rapists, major drug dealers, traitors, so on and so forth, need to be permanently removed from society at a low cost, so I'm strongly in favour of the death penalty. That said, it also serves as an example and it gives at least a small sense of retribution to the victim/victim's family. As for rehabilitation, it is secondary. First and most important element of prison/penalty is punishment. Plus, as Alfieb stated, one can't rehabilitate a pædophile, a rapist, a cannibal, some kinds of murderers and some other types of criminals.

Methmatician
10-26-2014, 09:51 AM
Yes, for Scandinavians, not for Blacks and Latinos (and maybe not for you Balkans).
I'm not going to argue pseudo-science with you. If your belief that rehabilitation is useless in the US because of African-Americans and Latinos then you're a moron who can't get over the fact that there is no proven genetic component to crime.

Have you not been keeping up with the field of genetics whatsoever? I've also posted several studies regarding the IQ of non-Whites who were raised in White families from birth. You can also read about the dozens of reports talking about how much money and time we have spent trying to get certain ethnic groups to do well in school and stay out of trouble, all with no avail.
None of which justify your racism and the belief that capital punishment is needed for them because they can't be rehabilitated. Show me a study that says blacks and latinos are genetically predisposed to commit crimes more than whites.

A healthy amount of dissenting opinion is good in all areas except for those that deal with keeping European lands free of outsiders. Without any dissenting opinion on other topics, stagnation eventually occurs.
"Free speech only when I like it".

And being pro-capital punishment does not even remotely equate to being pro-North Korean style capital punishment.
Their 'style' is no different to anyone else's. They shoot, hang, etc.

Methmatician
10-26-2014, 09:55 AM
Rehabilitation isn't going to work for rapists and pedophiles, and there is no rehabilitating a cannibal, or someone who knowingly infects people with a disease. These elements go to prison solely for punishment.
Why is that? Recidivism among paedophiles is 10-50% and that includes any crime, not just crimes relating to paedophilia. You say rapists and paedophiles can't be rehabilitated based on what?

alfieb
10-26-2014, 10:00 AM
Why is that? Recidivism among paedophiles is 10-50% and that includes any crime, not just crimes relating to paedophilia. You say rapists and paedophiles can't be rehabilitated based on what?

http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/etzioni/B388.html

Genuine pedophiles can't be helped. The ones who are less likely to commit crime are people convicted of sex "crimes" like statutory rape, which is a nonsensical concept. If an 18 year-old and a 16 year-old have sex in some jurisdictions, that is a crime, or in some countries the age of consent is higher for homosexuals than for heterosexuals. Again, there is a difference between rape and what the government defines as rape, likewise there is a difference between a pedophile and someone convicted of having sex with an underage person who was old enough to make their own decisions and was in a committed relationship with the "rapist".

So yes, you will find some studies that show a lower recidivism rate... but among say, 40 year-old men who rape 8 year-old girls, there is no cure for that kind of sickness other than a bullet.

Germaniac
10-26-2014, 10:07 AM
Why is that? Recidivism among paedophiles is 10-50% and that includes any crime, not just crimes relating to paedophilia. You say rapists and paedophiles can't be rehabilitated based on what?

If you ever reproduce, I'll be waiting for you to argue in favour of pædophiles being rehabilitated if one of them rapes one of your kids...

Methmatician
10-26-2014, 10:08 AM
http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/etzioni/B388.html

Genuine pedophiles can't be helped. The ones who are less likely to commit crime are people convicted of sex "crimes" like statutory rape, which is a nonsensical concept. If an 18 year-old and a 16 year-old have sex in some jurisdictions, that is a crime, or in some countries the age of consent is higher for homosexuals than for heterosexuals. Again, there is a difference between rape and what the government defines as rape, likewise there is a difference between a pedophile and someone convicted of having sex with an underage person who was old enough to make their own decisions and was in a committed relationship with the "rapist".

So yes, you will find some studies that show a lower recidivism rate... but among say, 40 year-old men who rape 8 year-old girls, there is no cure for that kind of sickness other than a bullet.
There is no cure for paedophilia but paedophilia doesn't mean you are going to commit crimes. Most people are sexually attracted to something and have the urge to have sex with it but that doesn't mean we go around raping people because we can't control ourselves. Having a mental illness doesn't warrant capital punishment or imprisonment. Lets not revert to the days where people with mental illnesses were treated as dangers to society.

Methmatician
10-26-2014, 10:09 AM
If you ever reproduce, I'll be waiting for you to argue in favour of pædophiles being rehabilitated if one of them rapes one of your kids...
k bud :bored:

alfieb
10-26-2014, 10:10 AM
Lets not revert to the days where people with mental illnesses were treated as dangers to society.
Depends on the mental illness. The vast majority of mass murderers/serial killers are mentally ill. Better to take care of them before they take care of us.

Methmatician
10-26-2014, 10:14 AM
Depends on the mental illness. The vast majority of mass murderers/serial killers are mentally ill. Better to take care of them before they take care of us.
Learn about mental illness first. (http://depts.washington.edu/mhreport/facts_violence.php)

alfieb
10-26-2014, 10:19 AM
Learn about mental illness first. (http://depts.washington.edu/mhreport/facts_violence.php)

I already know plenty. Like I said, it depends on the illness.

Methmatician
10-26-2014, 10:22 AM
I already know plenty. Like I said, it depends on the illness.
And what mental illness would that be? People suffering from psychotic symptoms are no more or less likely to be violent then others. But I should mention that when backed in a corner psychotics might feel like their life is threatened and act aggressively in that situation.

alfieb
10-26-2014, 10:33 AM
And what mental illness would that be? People suffering from psychotic symptoms are no more or less likely to be violent then others. But I should mention that when backed in a corner psychotics might feel like their life is threatened and act aggressively in that situation.
Psychotics, schizophrenics, manic-depressives, disassociative identity disorder, bipolar disorder, etc. If they don't take their medication, they may be a threat to themselves and others, and even on their medication there is no guarantee.

Methmatician
10-26-2014, 10:37 AM
Psychotics, schizophrenics, manic-depressives, disassociative identity disorder, bipolar disorder, etc. If they don't take their medication, they may be a threat to themselves and others, and even on their medication there is no guarantee.
A threat to themselves, not others. There are millions of people in the US with those mental illnesses yet the majority of them are not committing crimes even though many of them often stop taking medication at some point. These people mostly become reclusive and not a danger to others.

alfieb
10-26-2014, 10:42 AM
A threat to themselves, not others. There are millions of people in the US with those mental illnesses yet the majority of them are not committing crimes even though many of them often stop taking medication at some point. These people mostly become reclusive and not a danger to others.
I don't genuinely think that mentally ill people should be killed. I am not a eugenics proponent. As I said, I am against capital punishment.

But people who are seriously mentally ill should be institutionalized if they do not take their medication, and they should have restrictions on what they are allowed to access. Too many people place the blame on guns when a mentally ill person kills 30 people, but I blame whoever let that person get into the position. Most of them shouldn't have been in public to begin with.

Loki
10-26-2014, 10:46 AM
Poll added (yes I know we have an old thread on the subject, but we have many new members).

Methmatician
10-26-2014, 10:48 AM
But people who are seriously mentally ill should be institutionalized if they do not take their medication, and they should have restrictions on what they are allowed to access. Too many people place the blame on guns when a mentally ill person kills 30 people, but I blame whoever let that person get into the position. Most of them shouldn't have been in public to begin with.
They are if they have family to put them in there. But the homeless mentally ill are only institutionalised when they have committed a violent crime. Now since most don't commit violent crimes they just end up living on the street suffering from irregular periods of psychosis. I sometimes see them on the street but they don't bother anyone, they just pace up and down talking to themselves or asking for money.

Aviator
10-26-2014, 04:57 PM
I'm not going to argue pseudo-science with you. If your belief that rehabilitation is useless in the US because of African-Americans and Latinos then you're a moron who can't get over the fact that there is no proven genetic component to crime.

None of which justify your racism and the belief that capital punishment is needed for them because they can't be rehabilitated. Show me a study that says blacks and latinos are genetically predisposed to commit crimes more than whites.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/arts/genetics-and-crime-at-institute-of-justice-conference.html?pagewanted=all
Here, even the politically correct New York Times is having to face the fact that DNA is the root of everything. You're smart? Thank your genetics. You're able to motivate yourself to work harder than others? Thank your genetics. You're naturally more aggressive, impulsive, and don't have any self control? Thank your genetics. Of course, the New York Times isn't going to be able to get away with talking about the correlations between races and "crime DNA," but we're slowly moving away from age of political correctness hampering objective research.

Before I write anything about this, do you feel the need to go over the correlation of low IQ and crime, as well as the correlation of IQ and race?

My home town is one of the top 10 wealthiest in the United States, and even our Black citizens are well off, go to the same schools as us, and have access to all of the same resources as us. Yet, they still commit the vast majority of our county crime, bring down our high school scores, and are generally disruptive in the classroom and neighborhoods.

Do you know why different races are different? Well, if you didn't know, humanity hasn't always had access to World of Warcraft and high speed transportation. Up until very recently, different groups of people lived in different areas of the world, and were much more at the mercy of the elements of nature. This caused different groups to adapt to the environments they were in, leading to different groups having different bone structures, skin tones, and generally different psychologies and mental capacities. This is happened through a process known as natural selection. We briefly talked about the artificial selection in dogs earlier, and natural selection is a similar process, except for that it happens over a longer period, typically doesn't restrict the gene pool to an unhealthy level, and is much more thorough in creating real and widespread difference within a species.



"Free speech only when we (fixed) like it".

Not, I, individuals don't matter nearly as much as the group. What I think is irrelevant when compared to what we think.


Their 'style' is no different to anyone else's. They shoot, hang, etc.

Oh, right, putting people into concentration camps without sufficient evidence is totally the same as using a firing squad after someone has been proven guilty beyond all possible doubt.

Linebacker
10-26-2014, 05:00 PM
"X has no place in the 21st century" is my line.

Lawsuit.

Itarildë
10-26-2014, 05:01 PM
Absolutely 100% no. Too many innocent people have been wrongly executed.

LightHouse89
10-26-2014, 07:51 PM
Absolutely 100% no. Too many innocent people have been wrongly executed.

WASPs have become too liberal for their own damn good. Especially where I live.

I fully support it due the fact that is a deterrent to crime.

rhiannon
10-26-2014, 09:48 PM
I'm against capital punishment. Mostly because there are too many people who have died who turned out to be innocent,
Yes, this is probably true....especially for those convicted before the days of DNA testing. It is my only concern regarding the death penalty to this day.


and it's possible to rehabilitate most criminals.
They lost the right to be given a chance for rehab the day they decided to end their victims' lives....despite their victim's screams for mercy. These people should no longer be given recognition as human beings with rights to ANYthing.

askra
10-26-2014, 11:14 PM
The death penalty is an abomination, i'm wondering how is it possible that USA is the only western country which still adpots it? All the other countries where it's active are dictatorships, islamic nations, third world countries and anyway countries culturally very different from Europe like Japan or Taiwan (that are probably the only other developed democracies in which penalty death is active).

LightHouse89
10-26-2014, 11:19 PM
The death penalty is an abomination, i'm wondering how is it possible that USA is the only western country which still adpots it? All the other countries where it's active are dictatorships, islamic nations, third world countries and anyway countries culturally very different from Europe like Japan or Taiwan (that are probably the only other developed democracies in which penalty death is active).

Because it works here....in states without the death penalty murder rates are higher as are violent crimes. My state has the highest gun violence yet the most strict gun laws in the entire country. Liberal logic usually always fails at a given point.

Aviator
10-26-2014, 11:38 PM
The death penalty is an abomination, i'm wondering how is it possible that USA is the only western country which still adpots it? All the other countries where it's active are dictatorships, islamic nations, third world countries and anyway countries culturally very different from Europe like Japan or Taiwan (that are probably the only other developed democracies in which penalty death is active).

Our population just isn't comparable to those of European countries, unfortunately.

rhiannon
10-26-2014, 11:42 PM
Our population just isn't comparable to those of European countries, unfortunately.
I don't care if I'm American or European....for my views on capital punishment remain the same regardless of whether the criminal looks similar to me or not. I am assuming the ethnic homogeneity found in Europe is what your post is referring to?

Aviator
10-26-2014, 11:47 PM
I don't care if I'm American or European....for my views on capital punishment remain the same regardless of whether the criminal looks similar to me or not. I am assuming the ethnic homogeneity found in Europe is what your post is referring to?

Only in part. That's certainly the largest contributing factor, but what I'm saying is that it's hard for them to understand exactly what our criminals are like when they only have their criminals to compare to. What works with their calm, generally well behaved, and intelligent populations isn't necessarily going to work here.

Bell Beaker
10-26-2014, 11:50 PM
Having your own opinion even if is different from the majority has no place in the 21st century

rhiannon
10-26-2014, 11:59 PM
Only in part. That's certainly the largest contributing factor, but what I'm saying is that it's hard for them to understand exactly what our criminals are like when they only have their criminals to compare to. What works with their calm, generally well behaved, and intelligent populations isn't necessarily going to work here.

I wouldn't venture to say their criminals are any less heinous than ours, though. Breivik comes to mind. He was a real POS who should have gotten the death penalty.

askra
10-27-2014, 12:01 AM
Because it works here....in states without the death penalty murder rates are higher as are violent crimes. My state has the highest gun violence yet the most strict gun laws in the entire country. Liberal logic usually always fails at a given point.

The matter is the morality of the penalty death, that is a legalized murder by the State, not if it works or not. However some recent studies claim that the 4.1% of defendants sentenced to die since 1973 were/are innocents (some of them were executed).

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/28/death-penalty-study-4-percent-defendants-innocent


Our population just isn't comparable to those of European countries, unfortunately.

Many european nations have a higher percentage of peoples of non european descent today (due to recent immigration) than several states in the USA.

Aviator
10-27-2014, 12:03 AM
I wouldn't venture to say their criminals are any less heinous than ours, though. Breivik comes to mind. He was a real POS who should have gotten the death penalty.

For sure. But then think of how much more common Breiviks are here.

Still, I'm referring more to our common criminals and crimes vs theirs. Not so much huge anomalies of spree killers or terrorist attacks.

With all of this said, some cities in Europe are beginning to experience what we've been dealing with for decades, thanks to mass immigration from third world nations.

Aviator
10-27-2014, 12:05 AM
Many european nations have a higher percentage of non european peoples today (due to recent immigration) than several states in the USA.

Yes, I just addressed that. And the States in the US with few non-Euros, such as the Upper Midwest, tend to be much more free of crime, and the police and judges are much more relaxed.

Methmatician
10-27-2014, 01:18 AM
They lost the right to be given a chance for rehab the day they decided to end their victims' lives....despite their victim's screams for mercy. These people should no longer be given recognition as human beings with rights to ANYthing.
Not everyone convicted of murder in the US is a comic-book style villain. Some people greatly regret killing another human being, others are not remorseful. Those that are can be rehabilitated.

Gauthier
10-27-2014, 03:21 AM
The worst criminals deserve to die for sure. The rest can be forced to do community service for the rest of their miserable life.

Methmatician
10-27-2014, 03:42 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/arts/genetics-and-crime-at-institute-of-justice-conference.html?pagewanted=all
Here, even the politically correct New York Times is having to face the fact that DNA is the root of everything.
Read the article:

"He and others take pains to emphasize, however, that genes are ruled by the environment, which can either mute or aggravate violent impulses. Many people with the same genetic tendency for aggressiveness will never throw a punch, while others without it could be career criminals."

"Everyone in the field agrees there is no “crime gene.” What most researchers are looking for are inherited traits that are linked to aggression and antisocial behaviors, which may in turn lead to violent crime. Don’t expect anyone to discover how someone’s DNA might identify the next Bernard L. Madoff."

No study has yet to prove that certain 'races' are more violent and likely to commit violent crimes.

Before I write anything about this, do you feel the need to go over the correlation of low IQ and crime, as well as the correlation of IQ and race?
No because IQ is an obsolete measure of intelligence catered for a certain group.

My home town is one of the top 10 wealthiest in the United States, and even our Black citizens are well off, go to the same schools as us, and have access to all of the same resources as us. Yet, they still commit the vast majority of our county crime, bring down our high school scores, and are generally disruptive in the classroom and neighborhoods.
Wow, your anecdote totally destroys my argument :rolleyes2:

Do you know why different races are different? Well, if you didn't know, humanity hasn't always had access to World of Warcraft and high speed transportation. Up until very recently, different groups of people lived in different areas of the world, and were much more at the mercy of the elements of nature. This caused different groups to adapt to the environments they were in, leading to different groups having different bone structures, skin tones, and generally different psychologies and mental capacities. This is happened through a process known as natural selection. We briefly talked about the artificial selection in dogs earlier, and natural selection is a similar process, except for that it happens over a longer period, typically doesn't restrict the gene pool to an unhealthy level, and is much more thorough in creating real and widespread difference within a species.
I think you're confusing 'natural selection' with 'evolution'. Lighter skin is newer than dark skin, but it isn't 'better', it's just the result of a change in diet and environment. But there is no point arguing about the differences in races like 'white', 'black', 'asian' because they're not real (at least biologically speaking). There are no 'white genes' or 'black genes' that would tell us if white people or black people are more likely to commit crimes. What they're talking about in the NYT article is about individual people having such tendencies but having those tendencies means they might never act on them, likewise people without those tendencies might commit violent crimes.

Not, I, individuals don't matter nearly as much as the group. What I think is irrelevant when compared to what we think.
"A healthy amount" really means anything I allow based on my own personal beliefs. Not allowing discussion on European immigration is an unreasonable denial free speech. So I'll repeat "Free speech only when I like it".

Oh, right, putting people into concentration camps without sufficient evidence is totally the same as using a firing squad after someone has been proven guilty beyond all possible doubt.
You're forgetting those found 'guilty beyond reasonable doubt' who turned out to be innocent.

Aviator
10-27-2014, 04:12 AM
Read the article:

"He and others take pains to emphasize, however, that genes are ruled by the environment, which can either mute or aggravate violent impulses. Many people with the same genetic tendency for aggressiveness will never throw a punch, while others without it could be career criminals."

"Everyone in the field agrees there is no “crime gene.” What most researchers are looking for are inherited traits that are linked to aggression and antisocial behaviors, which may in turn lead to violent crime. Don’t expect anyone to discover how someone’s DNA might identify the next Bernard L. Madoff."

It's the New York Times, an extremely left wing newspaper that has to be extremely politically correct. No journalist is going to through their careers away by being politically incorrect while writing for such a major media outlet.


No study has yet to prove that certain 'races' are more violent and likely to commit violent crimes.

This is blatantly false.


No because IQ is an obsolete measure of intelligence catered for a certain group.

I imagine you say this because yours is particularly low. Even mainstream scientist agree that it is a valid method of determining one's mental capacity.


Wow, your anecdote totally destroys my argument :rolleyes2:

It's not meant to destroy your, "argument." I would post actual data from my county, but I don't trust people like you on the internet. Anecdotes aren't supposed to be taken as evidence, they're just used as side notes,. You should know this.


I think you're confusing 'natural selection' with 'evolution'. Lighter skin is newer than dark skin, but it isn't 'better', it's just the result of a change in diet and environment. But there is no point arguing about the differences in races like 'white', 'black', 'asian' because they're not real (at least biologically speaking). There are no 'white genes' or 'black genes' that would tell us if white people or black people are more likely to commit crimes. What they're talking about in the NYT article is about individual people having such tendencies but having those tendencies means they might never act on them, likewise people without those tendencies might commit violent crimes.

Obviously. Where have I said that Northern Europeans are superior due to their skin color? Skin color is merely the most noticeable physical difference that indicates the presence of other differences. Correlation not causation.

Ironically (except not), the individuals with those genes, who are more likely to be violent and commit crimes, tend to be of color. Similar to how they find the "warrior gene" in so many gang members. (http://www.fsu.edu/news/2009/06/05/warrior.gene/) You must not have much exposure to other races.


"A healthy amount" really means anything I allow based on my own personal beliefs. Not allowing discussion on European immigration is an unreasonable denial free speech. So I'll repeat "Free speech only when I like it".

You're forgetting those found 'guilty beyond reasonable doubt' who turned out to be innocent.

No, when we like it. And those who turned out to be innocent were convicted decades ago when it was much easier to convict people, and when we didn't have genetic testing to completely remove doubt. Thankfully, most, if not all, of those who were executed were of color, so the final outcome was positive in any case.

Progressives can't keep defending lesser groups forever. No matter how much time, money, and resources we focus on trying to uplift them, it will continue to fail to yield positive results.

Aviator
10-27-2014, 04:18 AM
Then again, you basically lost all credibility by claiming that races don't even exist.

You're trolling us, and I fell for the bait. Well done sir.

♥ Lily ♥
10-29-2014, 09:47 AM
When I read about a woman in the US put a baby in a microwave and cooked the baby to death.... when I read about that Lost Prophets lead singer in Wales drugging and raping 11 month old babies and forcing animals to have sex with babies..... when I read about a man from Mexico eating the eyes of his 4 year old son and blinding him.... when I read about Myra Hindley and Ian Brady in England who chopped-up children and laughed and video-taped it all whilst they murdered those children whilst they were screaming and crying... I feel that the only justice is the death penalty.

Why keep these poisonous seeds alive in nature and living on 3 meals a day at the expense of the tax-payers? Mad dogs are destroyed for far less in life.

The death penalty will help to deter criminals and crimes from happening.

I think true justice is for the monsters to be executed in the exact same way in which they killed their helpless victims. Lethal injection is far too lenient for monsters who tortured and took away another humans life, and destroyed the lives of the victims relatives too, so what right should these monsters who do these crimes have to live themselves?

We don't need vermin like this being kept alive at the expense of tax-payers. The money should be used to help the victims instead.

I think humans should be excused if they kill in self-defence if they're attacked though.... I believe it's a basic human right to be allowed to defend your life against an attacker.

If there is substantial proof to show that a person is guilty of committing very sick crimes, then I think the death penalty is true justice.

wvwvw
10-29-2014, 10:32 AM
I am against the death because it doesn't deter crime, and also because it sends the wrong message to society.