No, not at all -- I have never understood how life imprisonment could be considered humane -- especially as it's carried out in the country. Gangs, homosexual gang rape, extreme violence, being deprived of family, etc., is not humane. We are effectively destroying people at a thousand times the pace capital punishment would. The American penal system is a horrifingly cheap, feel-good way for the populace at large to throw away people like they were garbage --- and then forget about them.
Fine them, kill them, or let them go.
I regards to your comment I would say if people no to what extent there life could become in these prisons, would it not be safe to say that it is not our responsibility to protect murders and rapist from others like themselves.
We in effect are telling them that if you cannot live as a good citizen then we will put you with other un-lawful citizens. This is the type of world you want then this the type of world you will get.
I have never had any sympathy for these type people in our society, and on top of that they brought this upon themselves. We are not destroying anyone what so ever he or she are destroying them selves.
And yes they are garbage. I have never understood the defense people give to these monsters. They would, if given the chance, hurt you in someway or another. If they are put into a prison with people who have done the same thing as them well boo hoo if they get hurt. They had to hurt someone to get there in the first place.
So I say protect the innocent from these types of sub-lass human beings. Put them death or lock them up and throw away the key makes no difference to me at all. Just keep these monsters away from wife and children period.
There is a gun lashed to the table in front of you pointed at the bad guy's head. The guy has his gun to your family. If you shoot him, he dies, and your family lives. If you don't shoot him, he kills your family. (Of course, it could be argued that he might not shoot, but for argument's sake, let's assume he will.) Is it right to kill him?
This would not be revenge (pre-venge?), nor would it be what we normally consider justice, but would it be just?
According to the law, at least the french one (and I guess all the laws) it's legitimate defense.
BTW what you say is totally hypothetical, but it's not pre revenge. The goal here is not to retaliate in advance but to save your family.
If a man came into your house and executed your family infront of your eyes, would you want revenge?
Not really something that I would condsider since I would execute him first.
In principle, killing this guy isn't that big of deal since the human race survival is not currently threatened by underpopulation, so having one less person isn't going to matter in the big scheme of things.
According to the law, at least the french one (and I guess all the laws) it's legitimate defense.
BTW what you say is totally hypothetical, but it's not pre revenge. The goal here is not to retaliate in advance but to save your family.
I asked it this way because there are many people who say that killing is wrong, in any form, but given this circumstance they often change their position. Actually, the question was one we discussed in an ethics class in college (it was a Quaker college and Quakers are against killing).
To those of you going on about the threat of punishment helping to reduce crime, that is a whole new discussion that is very interesting unto itself. Does, for example the death penalty, actually deter people from committing crimes? I would say usually not (did the threat of being grounded prevent you from doing things your parents didn't want you to do? or sometimes did it actually increase the thrill?). Crime will never be eliminated, but could be greatly reduced through proper social building and education. Exactly how this woud be implented is for open discussion which would likely be rather heated.
To those of you going on about the threat of punishment helping to reduce crime, that is a whole new discussion that is very interesting unto itself. Does, for example the death penalty, actually deter people from committing crimes?
Well, I am not one that believes that penalties for crimes deter (in most cases) anyone from committing a crime. But there are legitimate questions about what (if any) just punishments (let's call them "actions") are allowed by a society?
If someone does some thing (whatever...steal...rape...murder...lie) that society has deemed to be wrong...what are the responses that society (collectively, through its organized governmental structures) has at its disposal? Fine? Imprisonment? Execution? Others?
One point: If we could get past the concept of Punishment as deterrence, and move on to terms like Redemption -- I think it would shed some light on this. I believe that when you unjustly punish people you've undone whatever good was intended.
If we were in the business of allowing lawbreakers a true way of redeeming themselves, it might be the "deterrent" that we're looking for.
One point: If we could get past the concept of Punishment as deterrence, and move on to terms like Redemption -- I think it would shed some light on this. I believe that when you unjustly punish people you've undone whatever good was intended.
If we were in the business of allowing lawbreakers a true way of redeeming themselves, it might be the "deterrent" that we're looking for.
That is a wack attempt to extend your christian logic. Redemption doesn't make everything a person has done a-ok, contrary to your best Christian beliefs.
I have set here and read comments from both sides and both sides make valid points.
I see it as this a law breaker has no real fear of the law period. The deterrent is extended time in a place where life is as miserable as possible so as not to make it a place you would want to go.
The US has no place like that. Prisons are in some ways better than the life they are leaving behind. The amenities and perks in prison are to some people worth the punishment. Based on the amount of prisoners in the penal system at any given time the prisoners on death row are negligible. Now the ones that are there are there sometimes for years or even decades due to the appeals process, which are the rights that are given the prisoners.
There is one big problem in this society, which is why questions like this are posed.
One being lawful citizens are not given the right to legitimately protect them selves. You can not do what ever it takes to protect your self and your family but rather run and hide and wait for the authorities, which is great in theory but not in real life. You would hope that this person would be taken away so you?re safe (that is the theory). Real life is the authorities take this person away and it released within a month. Then seeks you or your family out for revenge either by themselves or help from one of their friends, buddies, or fellow members, because you have disrespected them. Now where is the protection of the law-biding citizen? They can?t protect them selves with out being put into incarceration themselves, and as much as the cops would like to help they can?t.
Redemption has to be a personal process, and it cannot be forced upon someone. Giving some one all the advantages they would not have otherwise had prior to entering the penal system is not redemption or rehabilitation, it is an escape to a better life as backwards as it may seem. We have taught or children over the last few decades that the way you are, is not your fault. This in some cases is true but that should never be any kind of excuse to commit such heinous crimes against their fellow man. In this country there is opportunity after opportunity to better your life with out resulting to kind of acts of violence.
What good is revenge, since life is so short anyway?
I have a friend who made the point once: "Everyone has a terminal disease; it's called life." Taking revenge will more than likely take a bunch of time and make little overall difference to you or to the community. Getting over the problem and using your energy to accomplish nobler pursuits has the exact opposite affect.
There is one big problem in this society, which is why questions like this are posed.
One being lawful citizens are not given the right to legitimately protect them selves. You can not do what ever it takes to protect your self and your family but rather run and hide and wait for the authorities, which is great in theory but not in real life.
This is not the case in Florida. It's legal to cause pretty much any level of harm to anyone violating your private property. Of course, given the degenerated (or, perhaps, dgnr8ed ) state of the civil legal system these days, you're best off to shoot-to-kill, since a dead man can't sue.
Take the scenario broader--how likely is it that the killer will be caught and punished? Is the state doing it's job? As enraged as I would be, I would be willing to let the State do it's job and administer justice IF it was operating as such. If there was little or no criminal justice system, then refraining my hand, as one might say, would be more difficult.
A quote, to exemplify my point:
Montague: Not Romeo, Prince, he was Mercutio's friend,
Wait, wait, you mean my whole family is dead? No more soccer practices, no more sleeping with the same women for the rest of my life, no more throwing money out the window for an amusement park, no more bad cooking, no more nagging about the mess in theb athroom, no more walking the dog at 2 am. I'd probably thank the guy then shoot him in the head because their can be no witnesses, "but your honor the husband thank me", better off dead. Then I'd write a book of my horrid experiences, sell my script to the "Life Time" channel, appear on Oprah ect. Marry an 18 year old, move to Fiji, Turtle Island to be precise, where I'd bask naked in the white sands with my blond hair perfect titty teenager.
I'm just kidding of course ...... I think 18 is to young and immature maybe around 19.
The type forgiveness many of you talk about isn't in my realm of understanding. Of course I'd kill him. After torture. There would be plenty of that. And I wouldn't bat an eye or lose any sleep over it... and? (since my answer is so unchallenging.. I really wonder why we even need the thread. The answer seems so obvious and requires so little thought.. Morality never even enters the equation.
I'd Shoot the MFer in the Knees and Elbows with a shotgun, cut out his tongue with a dull razor blade, and use an electric sander to pulverize his ears into bloody goo... Right before I cut off his genitals and shoved them him his mouth. Then I would get some Salt and pour that into all the wounds.
30 Minutes later after he had been moaning in pain and begging that I just kill him already I would let 3 vicious pit-bulls eat him alive.
After that the only regret I would have is that I didn't make it longer and more painful for him.
I'd Shoot the MFer in the Knees and Elbows with a shotgun, cut out his tongue with a dull razor blade, and use an electric sander to pulverize his ears into bloody goo... Right before I cut off his genitals and shoved them him his mouth. Then I would get some Salt and pour that into all the wounds.
30 Minutes later after he had been moaning in pain and begging that I just kill him already I would let 3 vicious pit-bulls eat him alive.
After that the only regret I would have is that I didn't make it longer and more painful for him.
So is someone executing your whole family in front of you. If someone does that, then whatever form of the death penalty is far too good for what they really deserve.
Eye for an Eye, Tooth for a Tooth. If they take multiple lives in painful and horrible manners, then they deserve their punishment to be worse.
Comments
Originally posted by dmz
No, not at all -- I have never understood how life imprisonment could be considered humane -- especially as it's carried out in the country. Gangs, homosexual gang rape, extreme violence, being deprived of family, etc., is not humane. We are effectively destroying people at a thousand times the pace capital punishment would. The American penal system is a horrifingly cheap, feel-good way for the populace at large to throw away people like they were garbage --- and then forget about them.
Fine them, kill them, or let them go.
I regards to your comment I would say if people no to what extent there life could become in these prisons, would it not be safe to say that it is not our responsibility to protect murders and rapist from others like themselves.
We in effect are telling them that if you cannot live as a good citizen then we will put you with other un-lawful citizens. This is the type of world you want then this the type of world you will get.
I have never had any sympathy for these type people in our society, and on top of that they brought this upon themselves. We are not destroying anyone what so ever he or she are destroying them selves.
And yes they are garbage. I have never understood the defense people give to these monsters. They would, if given the chance, hurt you in someway or another. If they are put into a prison with people who have done the same thing as them well boo hoo if they get hurt. They had to hurt someone to get there in the first place.
So I say protect the innocent from these types of sub-lass human beings. Put them death or lock them up and throw away the key makes no difference to me at all. Just keep these monsters away from wife and children period.
Originally posted by Bergermeister
Very interesting thread.
What if we twist the quuestion a little:
There is a gun lashed to the table in front of you pointed at the bad guy's head. The guy has his gun to your family. If you shoot him, he dies, and your family lives. If you don't shoot him, he kills your family. (Of course, it could be argued that he might not shoot, but for argument's sake, let's assume he will.) Is it right to kill him?
This would not be revenge (pre-venge?), nor would it be what we normally consider justice, but would it be just?
According to the law, at least the french one (and I guess all the laws) it's legitimate defense.
BTW what you say is totally hypothetical, but it's not pre revenge. The goal here is not to retaliate in advance but to save your family.
Originally posted by Cato988
If a man came into your house and executed your family infront of your eyes, would you want revenge?
Not really something that I would condsider since I would execute him first.
In principle, killing this guy isn't that big of deal since the human race survival is not currently threatened by underpopulation, so having one less person isn't going to matter in the big scheme of things.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
According to the law, at least the french one (and I guess all the laws) it's legitimate defense.
BTW what you say is totally hypothetical, but it's not pre revenge. The goal here is not to retaliate in advance but to save your family.
I asked it this way because there are many people who say that killing is wrong, in any form, but given this circumstance they often change their position. Actually, the question was one we discussed in an ethics class in college (it was a Quaker college and Quakers are against killing).
To those of you going on about the threat of punishment helping to reduce crime, that is a whole new discussion that is very interesting unto itself. Does, for example the death penalty, actually deter people from committing crimes? I would say usually not (did the threat of being grounded prevent you from doing things your parents didn't want you to do? or sometimes did it actually increase the thrill?). Crime will never be eliminated, but could be greatly reduced through proper social building and education. Exactly how this woud be implented is for open discussion which would likely be rather heated.
Originally posted by Bergermeister
To those of you going on about the threat of punishment helping to reduce crime, that is a whole new discussion that is very interesting unto itself. Does, for example the death penalty, actually deter people from committing crimes?
Well, I am not one that believes that penalties for crimes deter (in most cases) anyone from committing a crime. But there are legitimate questions about what (if any) just punishments (let's call them "actions") are allowed by a society?
If someone does some thing (whatever...steal...rape...murder...lie) that society has deemed to be wrong...what are the responses that society (collectively, through its organized governmental structures) has at its disposal? Fine? Imprisonment? Execution? Others?
If we were in the business of allowing lawbreakers a true way of redeeming themselves, it might be the "deterrent" that we're looking for.
Originally posted by dmz
One point: If we could get past the concept of Punishment as deterrence, and move on to terms like Redemption -- I think it would shed some light on this. I believe that when you unjustly punish people you've undone whatever good was intended.
If we were in the business of allowing lawbreakers a true way of redeeming themselves, it might be the "deterrent" that we're looking for.
That is a wack attempt to extend your christian logic. Redemption doesn't make everything a person has done a-ok, contrary to your best Christian beliefs.
I see it as this a law breaker has no real fear of the law period. The deterrent is extended time in a place where life is as miserable as possible so as not to make it a place you would want to go.
The US has no place like that. Prisons are in some ways better than the life they are leaving behind. The amenities and perks in prison are to some people worth the punishment. Based on the amount of prisoners in the penal system at any given time the prisoners on death row are negligible. Now the ones that are there are there sometimes for years or even decades due to the appeals process, which are the rights that are given the prisoners.
There is one big problem in this society, which is why questions like this are posed.
One being lawful citizens are not given the right to legitimately protect them selves. You can not do what ever it takes to protect your self and your family but rather run and hide and wait for the authorities, which is great in theory but not in real life. You would hope that this person would be taken away so you?re safe (that is the theory). Real life is the authorities take this person away and it released within a month. Then seeks you or your family out for revenge either by themselves or help from one of their friends, buddies, or fellow members, because you have disrespected them. Now where is the protection of the law-biding citizen? They can?t protect them selves with out being put into incarceration themselves, and as much as the cops would like to help they can?t.
Redemption has to be a personal process, and it cannot be forced upon someone. Giving some one all the advantages they would not have otherwise had prior to entering the penal system is not redemption or rehabilitation, it is an escape to a better life as backwards as it may seem. We have taught or children over the last few decades that the way you are, is not your fault. This in some cases is true but that should never be any kind of excuse to commit such heinous crimes against their fellow man. In this country there is opportunity after opportunity to better your life with out resulting to kind of acts of violence.
I have a friend who made the point once: "Everyone has a terminal disease; it's called life." Taking revenge will more than likely take a bunch of time and make little overall difference to you or to the community. Getting over the problem and using your energy to accomplish nobler pursuits has the exact opposite affect.
Originally posted by DGNR8
There is one big problem in this society, which is why questions like this are posed.
One being lawful citizens are not given the right to legitimately protect them selves. You can not do what ever it takes to protect your self and your family but rather run and hide and wait for the authorities, which is great in theory but not in real life.
This is not the case in Florida. It's legal to cause pretty much any level of harm to anyone violating your private property. Of course, given the degenerated (or, perhaps, dgnr8ed
A quote, to exemplify my point:
Montague: Not Romeo, Prince, he was Mercutio's friend,
His fault concludes but that the law should end,
The life of Tybalt.
Prince: And for that offence
Immediately we do exile him hence:
Romeo and Juliet, Act III, Scene I
I'm just kidding of course ...... I think 18 is to young and immature maybe around 19.
I would have no problem doing it, and I would feel better afterwards.
30 Minutes later after he had been moaning in pain and begging that I just kill him already I would let 3 vicious pit-bulls eat him alive.
After that the only regret I would have is that I didn't make it longer and more painful for him.
Originally posted by JohnnySmith
I'd Shoot the MFer in the Knees and Elbows with a shotgun, cut out his tongue with a dull razor blade, and use an electric sander to pulverize his ears into bloody goo... Right before I cut off his genitals and shoved them him his mouth. Then I would get some Salt and pour that into all the wounds.
30 Minutes later after he had been moaning in pain and begging that I just kill him already I would let 3 vicious pit-bulls eat him alive.
After that the only regret I would have is that I didn't make it longer and more painful for him.
How utterly delightful.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
How utterly delightful.
So is someone executing your whole family in front of you. If someone does that, then whatever form of the death penalty is far too good for what they really deserve.
Eye for an Eye, Tooth for a Tooth. If they take multiple lives in painful and horrible manners, then they deserve their punishment to be worse.
Sorry, But that's just the way I see it.