I mean "Killed for being a killer" and "Same for rapists." meaning "Killed for being a rapist."
And, my thinking is, rape of anyone completely wrecks someone. Psychologically, they will never be the same. So, Ksshc, you just messed someone up, so you'll end up even more messed up.
There's a difference between being psychologically wrecked and being dead, though: one you can recover from. Eye for an eye isn't correct in giving a rapist the death penalty because, as you said, you're messing them up more than the victims. If the punishment for rape was being raped, then it would be a bit more understandable and the term 'eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth' would be correct, but killing them?
And, my thinking is, rape of anyone completely wrecks someone. Psychologically, they will never be the same. So, Ksshc, you just messed someone up, so you'll end up even more messed up.
You do realize that holding on to that idea actually prevents rape victims from going on with their lives rather than helping them, right?
If you've been raped and the rest of society consider that one of the worst acts ever, and that you will "never" be the same again and yadayada, how does that help in your rehabilitation and trying to stay positive?
Yes, rape is a disgusting crime and it CAN scar you for life, but cementing such statements over and over and getting all riled up about rapists and scream for their blood doesn't help rape victims.
Rape victims need support, they need to know that people will be there for them and they need time to process the awful event themselves and try to move on with their life. Unhinged moralists like yourself does more harm than good to the rape victims. Stop telling them and everyone else that rape is an irreparable experience, it doesn't help the rape victims moving on in the slightest.
And really what do you care most about? Seeing that rapists get killed for their abominable deeds, or seeing to it that the victims can move on with their life and hopefully become happy and at peace again?
Because the more you push for the former, the more you will hinder the latter... But you didn't think about that now did you? You were more concerned about your own narcissistic ideals for the world, and your OWN outrage that rapists "don't get what they deserve".
How about giving the victims some consideration instead?
As long as jail is just a warehouse, I am for the death penalty. Only when prisoners work their asses off to repay society will I reluctantly give in to the removal of it.
And when I say "work their asses off" I mean they work 12 hour "hot bunk" shifts and do work that we could not do otherwise. Like how in the Roman Empire they used slave labor to make all the buildings look amazing but we don't do that today because it's too expensive without slavery and now everything looks like shit. Well, put the criminals on it. They will be working to make the world a nicer place and, at the same time, not taking jobs away from the rest of us because that work wouldn't have been done anyway if we had to pay for more than the materials.
But life in prison is alot worse than a quick easy death. Life in prison is being raped and shanked and beaten constantly till you die, that's far worse.
Why do you care that much about punishment. Isn't the point of the practice to prevent him from murdering again? I think that if you are more for him sufering than the safety of others, then you are being selfish and a jerk.
Which is an excellent point as to why we don't let the victims relatives decide the punishment because whatever the criminal did and for whatever reason the relatives will want him tortured and/or dead. Personally i don't care what criminals deserve because it's beside the point. Since the crime has already been committed there's nothing left but trying to do the best of the situation. Such as making sure the criminal don't commit more crimes and make him/her become a productive member of society once more.
But life in prison is alot worse than a quick easy death. Life in prison is being raped and shanked and beaten constantly till you die, that's far worse.
Why do you care that much about punishment. Isn't the point of the practice to prevent him from murdering again? I think that if you are more for him sufering than the safety of others, then you are being selfish and a jerk.
Which is an excellent point as to why we don't let the victims relatives decide the punishment because whatever the criminal did and for whatever reason the relatives will want him tortured and/or dead. Personally i don't care what criminals deserve because it's beside the point. Since the crime has already been committed there's nothing left but trying to do the best of the situation. Such as making sure the criminal don't commit more crimes and make him/her become a productive member of society once more.
Logically, you are 100% correct. But I'm just talking as if this was someone who did that to me directly. As family and friends of victims, people want revenge, not justice.
First of all, vilifying another person (or group), leads to the same idiocy that Hitler caused in Germany at that time to begin with.
No, I wouldn't kill Hitler. In principle.
On practical grounds, I would do whatever it takes to ensure someone like that can't do any further harm.
But to do that, you have to understand how they managed to be able to do harm in the first place.
What you're implying is scape-goating, anyway. Not justice, or even protecting 'society'...
You lash out at another because you feel victimised...
But hurting someone doesn't undo whatever it is they did. - It just causes more pain.
Revenge is not a good basis for a system of justice.
What is this nonsense about "vilifying" "scape-goating(sic)" and "lashing out"? Rambling much?
If you're too wussy to do it, then I and 99% of the rest of the people on this planet would have been more than happy to oblige and you'd be wise not to stand in our way. Winston Churchill had the genius idea of sentencing Hitler to death in the Electric Chair... lend-lease of course.
And lines like "I don't care" as your main response just show how much you have your head stuck in the sand... if not stuck up somewhere else.
and WTF with you calling self defence a "feeble excuse". Self-defence is a god damn human right, you KNOW it and nothing YOU nor anyone else like YOU can do to change that!
...wouldn't kill Hitler... pah... you hear the craziest things sometimes.
Do you understand the difference between pragmatism and morality? Because you act like a total idiot.
Blaming everything that happened in WW2 on Hitler alone is making one person responsible for the actions of millions.
Which is idiotic.
He may well have been a lunatic, and had he not done it himself, it may well have been safer to kill him, but that's beside the point.
Just because it's the easier option, doesn't mean it's the right one.
Not to mention that you gloss over the very real, and very important historical issues that led a whole country to commit gross atrocities in favour of arguing about their figure-head...
Yeah. Perceptive aren't we?
And really...
What is with this Self-Defense BS? Self-Defense is a human right?
First of all, there's no such thing as a human 'right' to begin with.
Where do these 'rights' of yours come from to begin with?
But then, I suppose the fact that you're justifying something on the basis of the 'kill or be killed' concept says more than enough.
People should certainly be allowed to defend themselves from violence. And using violence to do so is often effective. That doesn't make it right, it just makes it tolerable.
I really have little patience with people that espouse thoughtless violence though.
How does that have any bearing on executions though? What purpose does executing someone serve? None that are worthwhile, or even all that practical. But then, who cares about practicality when we can simply be brutal right?
At this point, I wonder why we even make a distinction between criminals and the general public anymore, considering how many people find this line of reasoning perfectly justified...
Hmm... How do we deal with violent people...
Oh, I know!
Let's be even more violent in response...
You may not stand "thoughtless violence" well I say that your 'dogmatic pacifism' is just as bad if not WORSE. If the politicians of Britain and France in the 1930's had not been so over-run with pacifists then they could have stood up to Hitler and Nazis before they unleashed their inevitable and crushing assault, pre emptive assertive force would most likely have prevented or drastically reduced the scope of conflict in WWII, such as if France had not fallen and the British run out of Continental Europe.
There is no debate on this, Self-defence is a human right. End. Of. Story.
Rights are innate, like right to freedom of expression, freedom of movement. It is not natural for humans to be born into cages like farm animals, we are individuals who have and innate instinct and of course logical imperative of self preservation that every free and lawful citizen should have the right and not suffer indignation from people like YOU!
I've had just about enough of your straw man arguments as you drone on and on for several paragraphs criticising me for saying Hitler was 100% responsible when I NEVER CLAIMED THAT. Anybody with a shred of common sense and with a shadow of knowledge of WWII know the extent of Hitler's guilt, so surely he deserves the most severe punishment, capital punishment.
And punishment is of absolute relevance to self defence as you made the quite frankly utterly ridiculous argument that there is no excuse for killing and cited self defence as an inflammatory example. You think you can get away with such a flagrant attack on the liberties that every free human being obviously deserves?
The worst part is all of this is you find it reprehensible that good innocent people should use violence to defend their life (is suppose it would be "right" just to curl into a ball and die?) yet you champion to spare the lives of the most despicable criminals in human history because of your dogmatic ideology.
If you think jail is just about "containment" or separating criminals from society so they can't victimise others again, you are dead wrong. A judicial sentence has ALWAYS been a PUNISHMENT and remains so. Do you have zero concept of JUSTICE? Do you see the law courts as just a means of enacting your crazy social treatments?
While we are at it, what about the commandants of the Nazi death camps, the once who skinned the bodies of gypsies and made lampshades and furniture from the skin? Are you saying the commandant ultimately responsible should be spared the death penalty?
You can give your own personal biased opinion on that but that is nothing but your own dogmatic ideology speaking, you can't make a single sane or convincing argument against the fact that there are some people in this world that are so evil and have committed such horrible crimes the only logical punishment is capital punishment.
I've been holding off even bothering to read your post, because I knew it would be idiotic, and probably show no semblance of even understanding the points I'm getting at.
I have only myself to blame, since I've been rambling incoherently, looking back at my earlier posts..
Justice being about punishment may be true. But it's also a pathetic example of what's wrong with humans.
Punishment is expensive, reflects badly on the people doing it, and ultimately, is mostly done for the wrong reasons.
It's sole practical worth is as a deterrent, because the punishment itself has no meaningful impact on dealing with what the person did.
But hey. People are more interested in finding someone to blame than actually solving problems. I get that.
It's also what pisses me off so much. But... What are you gonna do?
The death penalty isn't even the worst punishment, since we at least know that particular person can't do anything else to anyone.
No, the prison system causes bigger problems, by being an institution that through it's very structure can easily turn a petty criminal into a much worse one.
But... Different issue, so i'll ignore that.
Now...
Rights... Rights...
I think we've hit the big time here. Let me see if you can understand this one:
Yep. That's the problem right there.
The only rights that are 'innate', are the ones that you cannot take from someone.
Guess what that reduces to?
Any takers?
No?
... The right to die.
That is literally the only right that cannot be taken from you.
Since anyone can strip you of any other right you care to mention, they cannot actually be rights in a strict sense.
But, since the more general usage covers a lot of 'rights' that are NOT in fact 'innate', as you like to put it, but rather, granted to us by other people, we need to actually apply some effort to guard them.
Now, let me ask you this: Is it right, to pick and choose which rights we uphold, and which we do not?
Everyone has the right to life.
You are arguing that one right takes precedence over another. That you can use a person's past actions to justify removing their rights from them.
And the other issue, with this whole meaningless side-track owing to the WWII, is again one of rights.
If you use a label such as 'evil', or 'wrong' or whatever, and apply it to another person, then decide that because they are 'evil', you can now deny them all their most fundamental rights, then you've just become the very thing you were trying to destroy.
But, clearly you can't see that. Clearly you can't see the connection between how you treat someone you think of as 'evil', and how such incredible attrocities such as those in Germany were possible to begin with.
You think that genocide just done on a whim or something?
Your attitude has the same basic principles behind it, wether you choose to acknowledge it or not. The difference is merely one of degrees.
You are all too willing to deny someone their 'rights', while arguing that doing so is somehow more justified than whatever this person did to begin with...
That is why I cannot blindly support it, and why I draw a distinction between a pragmatic solution that is probably immoral, but ultimately necessary,
and simply saying 'yep' that's fine.
Why exactly do you think this was my first response?
"Would you kill hitler?"
"I don't care."
If it had been a purely moral response it would have been 'no'. But you say something like that in response to a thread about the death penalty, and you have to expect an attempt to put the two in context.
If you already have someone like that in a position where you can execute them, then you've already solved the problem.
Wether or not you actually execute them at that point becomes immaterial, because it makes no difference to what has already happened. Therefore: "I don't care."
Seriously, I'd tell you to get your head out of your ass and pay proper attention, but I blame myself for being incoherent. I'm not that unfair.
As it stands though, I'm ashamed to share the same country as you.
But then, I could say the same about 90% of the people on this planet, so, what's one more?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
