Options

Capital Punishment thread

1679111218

Posts

  • Options
    DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I am not for capital punishment, but the brutal treatment of women at the hands of a rapist boils my blood to the point that I want to strangle them myself. Of course, this is what the judicial system is there for, to hopefully eliminate emotion from the law, so there is no vigilante justice.

    However, while we shouldn't execute rapists, how about a two-strike (one-strike is too much, especially if someone is falsely convicted) law for rapists that results in having their balls cut off.

    Personally, I think it's more than justified. Additionally, try to find anybody willing to stand up for the rapist in this case.

    Sorry, I know it's a tangent, so, um, capital punishment bad because there is always the chance of innocent people getting offed. Additionally, capital cases always cost the government more in appeals and court processes, while life sentences end up costing less, or so I hear. Gotta take a test, no time for source.

    DoctorArch on
    Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
  • Options
    Mithrandir86Mithrandir86 Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Archgarth wrote: »
    I am not for capital punishment, but the brutal treatment of women at the hands of a rapist boils my blood to the point that I want to strangle them myself. Of course, this is what the judicial system is there for, to hopefully eliminate emotion from the law, so there is no vigilante justice.

    I actually support vigilante justice. It should still be illegal, but I wouldn't mind if someone was killing drug dealers and rapists.

    Mithrandir86 on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Archgarth wrote: »
    I am not for capital punishment, but the brutal treatment of women at the hands of a rapist boils my blood to the point that I want to strangle them myself. Of course, this is what the judicial system is there for, to hopefully eliminate emotion from the law, so there is no vigilante justice.

    I actually support vigilante justice. It should still be illegal, but I wouldn't mind if someone was killing drug dealers and rapists.

    So do these vigilantes have access to DNA evidence and what not, or should they execute "rapists" on mere accusations?

    And yeah, if there's one idea I like more that state-sanctioned capital punishment, it's putting it in the hands of random citizens with no due process and no oversight. Great fucking idea.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    Mithrandir86Mithrandir86 Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Archgarth wrote: »
    I am not for capital punishment, but the brutal treatment of women at the hands of a rapist boils my blood to the point that I want to strangle them myself. Of course, this is what the judicial system is there for, to hopefully eliminate emotion from the law, so there is no vigilante justice.

    I actually support vigilante justice. It should still be illegal, but I wouldn't mind if someone was killing drug dealers and rapists.

    So do these vigilantes have access to DNA evidence and what not, or should they execute "rapists" on mere accusations?

    And yeah, if there's one idea I like more that state-sanctioned capital punishment, it's putting it in the hands of random citizens with no due process and no oversight. Great fucking idea.

    I think that it should be illegal. I'm not for legally sanctioned vigilantes roaming the streets.

    But you know, something a la Death Wish or the Punisher wouldn't be so bad.

    Mithrandir86 on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Archgarth wrote: »
    I am not for capital punishment, but the brutal treatment of women at the hands of a rapist boils my blood to the point that I want to strangle them myself. Of course, this is what the judicial system is there for, to hopefully eliminate emotion from the law, so there is no vigilante justice.

    I actually support vigilante justice. It should still be illegal, but I wouldn't mind if someone was killing drug dealers and rapists.

    So do these vigilantes have access to DNA evidence and what not, or should they execute "rapists" on mere accusations?

    And yeah, if there's one idea I like more that state-sanctioned capital punishment, it's putting it in the hands of random citizens with no due process and no oversight. Great fucking idea.

    I think that it should be illegal. I'm not for legally sanctioned vigilantes roaming the streets.

    But you know, something a la Death Wish or the Punisher wouldn't be so bad.

    I know that you don't think it should be legal. But you still support it. Obviously, I don't. Because something a la Death Wish or the Punisher only works out in comic books and movies.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    Mithrandir86Mithrandir86 Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Archgarth wrote: »
    I am not for capital punishment, but the brutal treatment of women at the hands of a rapist boils my blood to the point that I want to strangle them myself. Of course, this is what the judicial system is there for, to hopefully eliminate emotion from the law, so there is no vigilante justice.

    I actually support vigilante justice. It should still be illegal, but I wouldn't mind if someone was killing drug dealers and rapists.

    So do these vigilantes have access to DNA evidence and what not, or should they execute "rapists" on mere accusations?

    And yeah, if there's one idea I like more that state-sanctioned capital punishment, it's putting it in the hands of random citizens with no due process and no oversight. Great fucking idea.

    I think that it should be illegal. I'm not for legally sanctioned vigilantes roaming the streets.

    But you know, something a la Death Wish or the Punisher wouldn't be so bad.

    I know that you don't think it should be legal. But you still support it. Obviously, I don't. Because something a la Death Wish or the Punisher only works out in comic books and movies.

    OK. What I really want to do is live in a comic book.

    Or Star Wars. I think Star Wars would be better.

    Mithrandir86 on
  • Options
    whuppinswhuppins Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Hi D&D; just popping in real quick.

    Has it been brought up that capital punishment is not a deterrent to violent crime?

    Because

    you know

    it isn't

    whuppins on
  • Options
    Pants ManPants Man Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    whuppins wrote: »
    Hi D&D; just popping in real quick.

    Has it been brought up that capital punishment is not a deterrent to violent crime?

    Because

    you know

    it isn't



    i think that's why they call it capital punishment, not capital deterrent

    i mean, sometimes people argue that capital punshment is a deterrent, but that's not why it's used

    Pants Man on
    "okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    whuppins wrote: »
    Hi D&D; just popping in real quick.

    Has it been brought up that capital punishment is not a deterrent to violent crime?

    Because

    you know

    it isn't
    Yeah, we've been over that. There is no evidence to support the notion that capital punishment is an effective deterrent against crime.

    Of course if we applied it to a wider breadth of crime, that might change (though I doubt it would).

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Yeah, we've been over that. There is no evidence to support the notion that capital punishment is an effective deterrent against crime.

    Of course if we applied it to a wider breadth of crime, that might change (though I doubt it would).

    Generally the only way capital punishment would be a deterrent to crime is if it's applied to classes of crime where it's grossly inappropriate. I'm sure the death penalty would work great for deterring, say, jaywalking. Or maybe even drunk driving. But generally as you move up the crime ladder to things like rape and murder you're talking about crimes where either people can't control themselves (and will thus commit them anyway) or where they don't believe they'll get caught (and thus won't be deterred by the punishment). Or both.

    Unlike, say, jaywalking...where people might not believe they'll likely get caught, but they also know that if they do get caught the current penalty is not so severe as to be life-altering and are willing to accept it.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Roaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited August 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    And no, I wasn't claiming that the average time served was only 6 months. But it is far from unheard of for rapists (and other sex offenders) to spend less than 18 months in prison. Especially if you don't count time spent in pre-release.

    What sort of "rape" are these released sex offenders doing? Because there's a difference between "beat the fuck out of a woman and ass-fucked her with a tennis racket" rape and "got drunk and didn't stop when the girlfriend said 'no' mid-coitus" rape. They're both wrong, but our justice system is designed to recognize the difference and adjust the sentence accordingly.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    And no, I wasn't claiming that the average time served was only 6 months. But it is far from unheard of for rapists (and other sex offenders) to spend less than 18 months in prison. Especially if you don't count time spent in pre-release.

    What sort of "rape" are these released sex offenders doing? Because there's a difference between "beat the fuck out of a woman and ass-fucked her with a tennis racket" rape and "got drunk and didn't stop when the girlfriend said 'no' mid-coitus" rape. They're both wrong, but our justice system is designed to recognize the difference and adjust the sentence accordingly.

    For most, of course, it would be the latter. However, for some it's just general forcible rape (no tennis rackets involved) where the rapist plead out (and the prosecution had a weak case).

    Also, you get the rare instance where the case is pretty much a slam dunk, such as the recent case where a rapist convicted 10 (or more?) years later was released (or perhaps is getting released, I forget) after only six months.

    I only caught a snippet on the news, just stuck in my mind because I had seen a special on the case. He basically wrote a letter apologizing to the victim, IIRC because he had gone through AA or some such as was in the "making amends" stage. She, of course, proceeded to get him to write exactly what he did and then pressed charges...he and others had gang-raped her during a party in college like a decade before. Anyway, long story short, he made statements against the others involved (though none were ever charged) and plead out so apparently he's now getting out after serving only six months in prison. Good times.

    But basically between plea bargaining, good behavior time, and prerelease some rapists (even forcible ones) end up with some pretty short sentences. It's not common necessarily, but like I said it's just far from unheard of.

    Though of course some of this is related to the nature of rape, and the nature of the evidence often involved...it's not exactly an easy crime to prosecute.

    EDIT: I think many are also of the "I wasn't drunk, but she was, and she said 'no' mid-coitus but I said 'fuck it'" variety...which to me is little different than the forcible variety.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Yeah, we've been over that. There is no evidence to support the notion that capital punishment is an effective deterrent against crime.

    Of course if we applied it to a wider breadth of crime, that might change (though I doubt it would).

    Generally the only way capital punishment would be a deterrent to crime is if it's applied to classes of crime where it's grossly inappropriate. I'm sure the death penalty would work great for deterring, say, jaywalking. Or maybe even drunk driving. But generally as you move up the crime ladder to things like rape and murder you're talking about crimes where either people can't control themselves (and will thus commit them anyway) or where they don't believe they'll get caught (and thus won't be deterred by the punishment). Or both.
    You're forgetting about the ones that just don't care. Hard to prevent those kind of crimes if the criminal doesn't give a shit what you'll do to them once they're caught.

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Archgarth wrote: »
    I am not for capital punishment, but the brutal treatment of women at the hands of a rapist boils my blood to the point that I want to strangle them myself. Of course, this is what the judicial system is there for, to hopefully eliminate emotion from the law, so there is no vigilante justice.
    I wanted to lime this because it's a brilliant example of why the justice system exists and needs exist as it does (in concept, not necessarily implementation).

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Thinatos wrote: »
    1) The reason their recidivism rate is so low is that 99.8% of their arrests result in convictions. You convict that many innocent people, fuck yeah your recidivism rate is gonna be low. Your recidivism rate is gonna be rock bottom, because you've practically got cops acting as judge, jury, and executioner.

    2) You change the prison culture, and you'll see vast improvements in the gang problems. As it stands now, prisons are just large groups of criminals gathered together.

    now, i get it. the problem here is you have no idea what you're talking about.

    1) japanese conviction rates are incredibly high because they only devote a small amount of resources to prosecution of crime. as such, their prosecutors only really attempt to prosecute "slam dunk" cases. iirc, although japan is about half the population of the u.s., they prosecute about 1/100th of the cases we do. this is not as bad as it sounds because there is simply less crime here. but again, it has nothing to do with cops being judge, jury and executioner.

    now stop talking out of your ass.

    2) you're still ignoring the problem. what do we do about the aryan brotherhood who are in supermax prisons, left in solitary for 23 hours a day, have no "prison culture" to begin with, and yet continue to organize and carry out murders? address the issue at hand please.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    2) you're still ignoring the problem. what do we do about the aryan brotherhood who are in supermax prisons, left in solitary for 23 hours a day, have no "prison culture" to begin with, and yet continue to organize and carry out murders? address the issue at hand please.

    ...what?


    Cite something here.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Zsetrek wrote: »
    Hahaha. Keth, if you think that Japan's criminal system is anything other than a joke, you've been living there far too long.

    EDIT: And, "people are committing crimes in prison" is a shitty argument for killing them because it's your mismanagement that is enabling them to commit crimes. You're killing them for a fuck-up on your part.

    care to elaborate or is this another "let's just say meaningless things" type deals?

    living here and having studied japan's criminal law system is the reason why i think japan's penal system is better than ours.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    EDIT: I think many are also of the "I wasn't drunk, but she was, and she said 'no' mid-coitus but I said 'fuck it'" variety...which to me is little different than the forcible variety.

    Erm. What? How? At some point in both acts the offender makes the decision that their pleasure (sexual and otherwise) is more important than the other person's wishes. They're the same damn crime.

    Oh, whatever. Not the topic. That's still a retarded thing to say, though.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Walrus wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    i think it just comes down to what cost we are willing to pay for retribution.

    punishing criminals is a worthy enough goal for me that if we sometimes sacrifice innocents, it's nevertheless worth it.

    Why is punishing criminals so important and worthy? What difference does it make to you?

    a world where bad people are punished and good people are rewarded makes a huge difference to me, and frankly to every one else on the planet. the degree of reward and punishment may be in question, but the idea of people getting what they deserve is one that we try to implement on every level of society.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    as such, their prosecutors only really attempt to prosecute "slam dunk" cases
    That is a huge problem because it end with the crimes that are hard to prove like rape getting mostly ignores.

    I think this article basically sums up what is wrong with the Japanese justice system.
    http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8680941

    Couscous on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    i think it just comes down to what cost we are willing to pay for retribution.

    punishing criminals is a worthy enough goal for me that if we sometimes sacrifice innocents, it's nevertheless worth it.

    on the other hand, for example, attempting to secure oil resources through a preemptive war with iraq is not worth the lives of the families and soldiers being sacrificed even now.

    im willing to sacrifice for principles. not so much when it comes to just wanting other people's stuff.

    Hey, wow, another horrible comparison. All of us (Iraq veteran here) volunteered to join the military. I'd agree that the lives lost there aren't worth it, but sacrificing soldiers who've volunteered to put their lives at risk is entirely different than sacrificing the life of some poor innocent fool who found himself on the wrong side of the justice system.

    Good god, you're like the king of fucktarded arguments.

    Which isn't surprising, since all these arguments are basically just rationalizations for your wanting to see bad things happen to bad people. Remember?

    hey asshole, get over yourself. the iraqi families didnt volunteer. im not only concerned about american lives.
    supporting the death penalty has never been about deterrence or incarceration for me. it's about retribution. evil motherfuckers should pay. that's all.

    Yeah. And you're the one talking about keeping emotion out of the argument. Right.

    there is nothing emotional about evil motherfuckers should pay (although the language might sound forceful). the concept of justice is hardly one based on emotion. if anything it's based on balance and rationality - we should do everything in our power to give people what they deserve. sometimes that means promotions, cakes and happiness, sometimes that means fines, imprisonment and death.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    there is nothing emotional about evil motherfuckers should pay
    What logical reason is there for wanting that?

    Couscous on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    i think it just comes down to what cost we are willing to pay for retribution.

    punishing criminals is a worthy enough goal for me that if we sometimes sacrifice innocents, it's nevertheless worth it.

    on the other hand, for example, attempting to secure oil resources through a preemptive war with iraq is not worth the lives of the families and soldiers being sacrificed even now.

    im willing to sacrifice for principles. not so much when it comes to just wanting other people's stuff.

    What good does retribution do? What use does it have?

    So far as I can tell, the only use it has is to deter future criminals, with the exception of the context of imprisonment or capital punishment, where it's also used to remove convicted criminals from society at large.

    Making "the goal" out to be punishing criminals seems to miss the point. Punishing criminals is a component of something that's much larger. To be willing to sacrifice innocent people for something that's only a component of something that is designed to protect innocent people seems to be rather removed from reason.

    should people only be rewarded as an incentive for good behavior (by such person and others) in the future?

    alternatively, should people be rewarded for bad behavior if it will not cause future instances of bad behavior?

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    alternatively, should people be rewarded for bad behavior if it will not cause future instances of bad behavior?
    Give an example of bad behavior that won't cause future instances of bad behavior?

    Couscous on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    2) you're still ignoring the problem. what do we do about the aryan brotherhood who are in supermax prisons, left in solitary for 23 hours a day, have no "prison culture" to begin with, and yet continue to organize and carry out murders? address the issue at hand please.

    ...what?


    Cite something here.

    read the thread.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    EDIT: I think many are also of the "I wasn't drunk, but she was, and she said 'no' mid-coitus but I said 'fuck it'" variety...which to me is little different than the forcible variety.

    Erm. What? How? At some point in both acts the offender makes the decision that their pleasure (sexual and otherwise) is more important than the other person's wishes. They're the same damn crime.

    Oh, whatever. Not the topic. That's still a retarded thing to say, though.

    Huh?

    I did say "little" different...and actually to me there's fundamentally no difference anyway, and they should be prosecuted no differently. Unless you're talking about the instances where the rapist is drunk as well, at which point I think that impaired faculties do affect the nature of their action...less of a "decision" really. Still detestable, but marginally less so.

    Anyway yeah, I'll save it for the next rape thread. I just wanted to make sure you at least didn't have the wrong idea of what I was saying.
    there is nothing emotional about evil motherfuckers should pay (although the language might sound forceful). the concept of justice is hardly one based on emotion. if anything it's based on balance and rationality - we should do everything in our power to give people what they deserve. sometimes that means promotions, cakes and happiness, sometimes that means fines, imprisonment and death.

    The concept of bad people "deserving" death is emotional. Logically our only concern should be preventing them from murdering again, no more no less. Killing them will not bring back their victims, nor will it fill the hole in the lives of the victims' friends and families. It will just make you, and them, "feel" better.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    alternatively, should people be rewarded for bad behavior if it will not cause future instances of bad behavior?
    Give an example of bad behavior that won't cause future instances of bad behavior?

    that's easy.

    girl is gang raped by three guys. a year later, she tracks each of them down and kills them.

    unless you think she will be gang raped again, she simply doesnt need to be deterred from murder ever again.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    there is nothing emotional about evil motherfuckers should pay
    What logical reason is there for wanting that?

    the logic that specific conduct should incur specific consequences.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    alternatively, should people be rewarded for bad behavior if it will not cause future instances of bad behavior?
    Give an example of bad behavior that won't cause future instances of bad behavior?

    that's easy.

    girl is gang raped by three guys. a year later, she tracks each of them down and kills them.

    unless you think she will be gang raped again, she simply doesnt need to be deterred from murder ever again.

    Not prosecuting her would mean that others might consider it OK to kill people who wrong them. There is also the chance that her bad behavior will cause future bad behavior when the family of those killed decided to kill her for killing them. Vengeance killings are bad for obvious reasons.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    The concept of bad people "deserving" death is emotional. Logically our only concern should be preventing them from murdering again, no more no less. Killing them will not bring back their victims, nor will it fill the hole in the lives of the victims' friends and families. It will just make you, and them, "feel" better.

    please see my response to titmouse above.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    ServoServo Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    alternatively, should people be rewarded for bad behavior if it will not cause future instances of bad behavior?
    Give an example of bad behavior that won't cause future instances of bad behavior?

    that's easy.

    girl is gang raped by three guys. a year later, she tracks each of them down and kills them.

    unless you think she will be gang raped again, she simply doesnt need to be deterred from murder ever again.
    nope. since your example is entirely hypothetical, i'm just going to say that she ends up killing men for sport, having acquired a taste for blood.

    prove me wrong!

    Servo on
    newsigs.jpg
  • Options
    ServoServo Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    there is nothing emotional about evil motherfuckers should pay
    What logical reason is there for wanting that?

    the logic that specific conduct should incur specific consequences.

    like prison time?

    Servo on
    newsigs.jpg
  • Options
    PicardathonPicardathon Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I'm against capital punishment, because for some reason it costs more then just keeping them in prison for life. Why is that?
    Also, we should just feed them too much and have them die of obesity related things.

    Picardathon on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    alternatively, should people be rewarded for bad behavior if it will not cause future instances of bad behavior?
    Give an example of bad behavior that won't cause future instances of bad behavior?

    that's easy.

    girl is gang raped by three guys. a year later, she tracks each of them down and kills them.

    unless you think she will be gang raped again, she simply doesnt need to be deterred from murder ever again.

    Not prosecuting her would mean that others might consider it OK to kill people who wrong them. There is also the chance that her bad behavior will cause future bad behavior when the family of those killed decided to kill her for killing them. Vengeance killings are bad for obvious reasons.

    you're assuming that other people know or care about her circumstances.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    there is nothing emotional about evil motherfuckers should pay
    What logical reason is there for wanting that?

    the logic that specific conduct should incur specific consequences.

    I don't see how what something should be is logical.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    ServoServo Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    alternatively, should people be rewarded for bad behavior if it will not cause future instances of bad behavior?
    Give an example of bad behavior that won't cause future instances of bad behavior?

    that's easy.

    girl is gang raped by three guys. a year later, she tracks each of them down and kills them.

    unless you think she will be gang raped again, she simply doesnt need to be deterred from murder ever again.

    Not prosecuting her would mean that others might consider it OK to kill people who wrong them. There is also the chance that her bad behavior will cause future bad behavior when the family of those killed decided to kill her for killing them. Vengeance killings are bad for obvious reasons.

    you're assuming that other people know or care about her circumstances.

    i guess the assumption that someone somewhere would care about a gang-raping is pretty ridiculous, now that you mention it

    Servo on
    newsigs.jpg
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    alternatively, should people be rewarded for bad behavior if it will not cause future instances of bad behavior?
    Give an example of bad behavior that won't cause future instances of bad behavior?

    that's easy.

    girl is gang raped by three guys. a year later, she tracks each of them down and kills them.

    unless you think she will be gang raped again, she simply doesnt need to be deterred from murder ever again.

    Not prosecuting her would mean that others might consider it OK to kill people who wrong them. There is also the chance that her bad behavior will cause future bad behavior when the family of those killed decided to kill her for killing them. Vengeance killings are bad for obvious reasons.

    you're assuming that other people know or care about her circumstances.

    I'm not assuming that. I doubt the family of the three guys will be happy about the death of the men and decide not to take vengeance on her if the justice system won't prosecute her. In order to prevent any vengeance killings, the women has to be prosecuted. There are a ton of other ways it could cause future bad behavior. Are you telling me that the media wouldn't report on the killing of the men?

    Couscous on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Servo wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    alternatively, should people be rewarded for bad behavior if it will not cause future instances of bad behavior?
    Give an example of bad behavior that won't cause future instances of bad behavior?

    that's easy.

    girl is gang raped by three guys. a year later, she tracks each of them down and kills them.

    unless you think she will be gang raped again, she simply doesnt need to be deterred from murder ever again.
    nope. since your example is entirely hypothetical, i'm just going to say that she ends up killing men for sport, having acquired a taste for blood.

    prove me wrong!

    you didnt understand titmouse's point did you? when one asks for a hypothetical, they are implying that there is no possible situation in which the proposed situation occurs. ive given a realistic hypothetical and now we debate the principles and the concepts.

    when one asks for a hypo and then one is given, giving another competing hypo is the most useless response.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    ServoServo Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Servo wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    alternatively, should people be rewarded for bad behavior if it will not cause future instances of bad behavior?
    Give an example of bad behavior that won't cause future instances of bad behavior?

    that's easy.

    girl is gang raped by three guys. a year later, she tracks each of them down and kills them.

    unless you think she will be gang raped again, she simply doesnt need to be deterred from murder ever again.
    nope. since your example is entirely hypothetical, i'm just going to say that she ends up killing men for sport, having acquired a taste for blood.

    prove me wrong!

    you didnt understand titmouse's point did you? when one asks for a hypothetical, they are implying that there is no possible situation in which the proposed situation occurs. ive given a realistic hypothetical and now we debate the principles and the concepts.

    when one asks for a hypo and then one is given, giving another competing hypo is the most useless response.

    except that your 'hypo' was pretty fucking useless to begin with, huh?

    Servo on
    newsigs.jpg
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    that's easy.

    girl is gang raped by three guys. a year later, she tracks each of them down and kills them.

    unless you think she will be gang raped again, she simply doesnt need to be deterred from murder ever again.

    If there is one thing criminal psychology has taught us, it is that the more crimes a person commits, the easier and thus more likely it becomes for them to commit further crimes.

    ege02 on
Sign In or Register to comment.