Good news /bad news

blackpanther

blu3cat wrote:

I disagree with your viewpoint

If a person punishes someone who breaks a law in a way that breaks a law then they are guilty of a crime and therefore deserve punishing themselves because they have broken the law.

it's a circular thing.

By entension, is vigilantism acceptable?

Thats a very basic and circular argument that fails on many levels to address the paradoxial requirements of the real world.

, to have a state that punishes those who threaten that state in a way that is "illeagal" to citizens of that state is not unusual. Infact the worlds biggest democracy does it routinely in some states. The state can quite clearly and simply have laws which govern its behaviour which are at odds or different to those which govern its people.

E.G. the police in some circumstances can legally break the speed limit such as when in persuit of a speeding criminal.

So now you must disagree with your own disagreement......


How old are you btw?

zanes

Better question: What about mis-carriages of justice? And what about forced/forged/false confessions?

rhext

zanes wrote:

Better question: What about mis-carriages of justice? And what about forced/forged/false confessions?

To me that's the only question worth debating. If you hang someone, or torture them, and later find out that they were innocent: well, you can't make amends.

Personally, I wouldn't want to live in a society which used the death penalty at all. But I probably wouldn't get too worked up about it if we could be absolutely certain that the people executed were guilty of the crimes for which they were sentenced But we can't be certain, so then we have to start asking questions like "what's an acceptable number of innocent people executed in order to make sure we kill all the complete b****ds". And I don't think those sort of debates are even worth having!

blackpanther

well miscarriages happen, and forced false etc confessions can be the cause. A stronger management of the investigating authority along with more effective punishment of the individuals involved would help. i.e. individual officers not police authorities being more responsible and accountable for their actions.

The Birmingham 6 is a good example of why that is important. Charges were dropped against the police officers. but were the 6 innocent?
PACE and CPIA were introduced to address these concerns though CPIA is not viewed as a particulalry good tool by many observers.

The other perhaps more worrying side of the coin is that the law ensures many criminals are aquitted where guilt could be proven beyond doubt.

We see this in sporting as well as criminal crime eg Lance Armstrong has non circumstantial evidence against him that he used EPO durting at least one of his TDF wins. The law will not allow the evidence to be used, hes free to cary on cheating other possibly clean athletes.

Frank the tank

A friend of mine believes a good way of restoring law and order and reduce the prison population is this.

Every six months put all the names of the convicted prison population in a hat (regardless of how trivial their crime) draw 10% out and hang the unlucky winners.

Not saying whether I agree with it but, it would certainly make people think before they committed any crime with the potential for a custodial sentence.

Westerberg

Frank the tank wrote:

A friend of mine believes a good way of restoring law and order and reduce the prison population is this.

Every six months put all the names of the convicted prison population in a hat (regardless of how trivial their crime) draw 10% out and hang the unlucky winners.

Not saying whether I agree with it but, it would certainly make people think before they committed any crime with the potential for a custodial sentence.

errr....riiiiight. What planet does your friend come from?

Frank the tank

Westerberg wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

A friend of mine believes a good way of restoring law and order and reduce the prison population is this.

Every six months put all the names of the convicted prison population in a hat (regardless of how trivial their crime) draw 10% out and hang the unlucky winners.

Not saying whether I agree with it but, it would certainly make people think before they committed any crime with the potential for a custodial sentence.

errr....riiiiight. What planet does your friend come from?

I know where he lives and it has more than its fair share of low life and I can understand where his frustration comes from.

Westerberg

Frank the tank wrote:

Westerberg wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

A friend of mine believes a good way of restoring law and order and reduce the prison population is this.

Every six months put all the names of the convicted prison population in a hat (regardless of how trivial their crime) draw 10% out and hang the unlucky winners.

Not saying whether I agree with it but, it would certainly make people think before they committed any crime with the potential for a custodial sentence.

errr....riiiiight. What planet does your friend come from?

I know where he lives and it has more than its fair share of low life and I can understand where his frustration comes from.

ok, so when some 16 year old lad gets hung for shoplifting because of the 'Execution Lottery', he'll be sated I suppose.

Anonymous

Is prison meant to be a punishment or a rehabilitation ? I think both. I am quite happy for certain criminals to be looking over their shoulders, fearful and depressed in prison for their crimes. Any person who abducts, rapes and kills 2 little girls should be kept in prison for the rest of his miserable life.
They should have basic nutrition, bedding and some educational material if the authority deems it so. they should not have television, internet access, games consoles and mobile phones. If they have the means, they may have phone cards for a payphone sent in by relatives/friends.
They should be able to do work, ie manual labour and may have small concessions like a phone card or cigarettes as payment, nothing more.

Other less serious criminals with shorter sentences should have the same, but slowly rehabilitated and eductaed for release.
The death penalty is an option but mis-carriages of justice do happen and I would not like to be on a jury making that decision, a guilty verdict for a long sentence would be trying for most people I think.

I think an optional suicide for certain criminals could be an option in a controlled manner. Give Ian Huntley the choice of misery for the rest of his life or death by his own hand.

blackpanther

Frank the tank wrote:

Westerberg wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

A friend of mine believes a good way of restoring law and order and reduce the prison population is this.

Every six months put all the names of the convicted prison population in a hat (regardless of how trivial their crime) draw 10% out and hang the unlucky winners.

Not saying whether I agree with it but, it would certainly make people think before they committed any crime with the potential for a custodial sentence.

errr....riiiiight. What planet does your friend come from?

I know where he lives and it has more than its fair share of low life and I can understand where his frustration comes from.

Sounds good if restricted to rapists murderers paedophiles etc. theyre expensive to keep as well

Westerberg

dmclite wrote:

I think an optional suicide for certain criminals could be an option in a controlled manner. Give Ian Huntley the choice of misery for the rest of his life or death by his own hand.

that's a really interesting idea - assisted suicide for certain types of criminals. Maybe with the growing likelihood that legal euthanasia for terminally or ill or those in chronic pain becomes more of a reality, this could also come into the picture. Would those that disagree with the death penalty feel differently about people like Huntley being assisted to kill themselves?

zanes

Westerberg wrote:

dmclite wrote:

I think an optional suicide for certain criminals could be an option in a controlled manner. Give Ian Huntley the choice of misery for the rest of his life or death by his own hand.

that's a really interesting idea - assisted suicide for certain types of criminals. Maybe with the growing likelihood that legal euthanasia for terminally or ill or those in chronic pain becomes more of a reality, this could also come into the picture. Would those that disagree with the death penalty feel differently about people like Huntley being assisted to kill themselves.

It gives him an easy way out imho.

blackpanther

zanes wrote:

Westerberg wrote:

dmclite wrote:

I think an optional suicide for certain criminals could be an option in a controlled manner. Give Ian Huntley the choice of misery for the rest of his life or death by his own hand.

that's a really interesting idea - assisted suicide for certain types of criminals. Maybe with the growing likelihood that legal euthanasia for terminally or ill or those in chronic pain becomes more of a reality, this could also come into the picture. Would those that disagree with the death penalty feel differently about people like Huntley being assisted to kill themselves.

It gives him an easy way out imho.

+1 too easy

fast as fupp

Westerberg wrote:

dmclite wrote:

I think an optional suicide for certain criminals could be an option in a controlled manner. Give Ian Huntley the choice of misery for the rest of his life or death by his own hand.

that's a really interesting idea - assisted suicide for certain types of criminals. Maybe with the growing likelihood that legal euthanasia for terminally or ill or those in chronic pain becomes more of a reality, this could also come into the picture. Would those that disagree with the death penalty feel differently about people like Huntley being assisted to kill themselves?

no- he was sentenced to life with a minimum 40 year tariff. thats what he should serve

Frank the tank

Whatever our mixed views and opinions are on here and there have as ever, been some good points made; the reality is the death penalty will never be reinstated in this country while ever we're in the EU (and probably if we weren't).

However, I see no reason why life should not be life and prison be made a totally intollerable place to have to live, a place once visited you would never ever want to return to.

fast as fupp

prison be made a totally intollerable place to have to live, a place once visited you would never ever want to return to.

what about the people who have to work there?

blackpanther

fast as fupp wrote:

prison be made a totally intollerable place to have to live, a place once visited you would never ever want to return to.

what about the people who have to work there?

yes they should be intolerable too

Frank the tank

fast as fupp wrote:

prison be made a totally intollerable place to have to live, a place once visited you would never ever want to return to.

what about the people who have to work there?

I know three prison officers and they all think that prison is soft and due to all the rules and regs and the "rights" of the little darlings the inmates in some respects have an easier ride than the warders.

fast as fupp

i wouldnt have thought being constantly at risk of a bumming or a beating is an 'easy ride
' ! :shock:

blackpanther

fast as fupp wrote:

i wouldnt have thought being constantly at risk of a bumming or a beating is an 'easy ride
' ! :shock:

well its one or the other for some people and if they like 1 they wont need the other

blu3cat

blackpanther wrote:

blu3cat wrote:

I disagree with your viewpoint

If a person punishes someone who breaks a law in a way that breaks a law then they are guilty of a crime and therefore deserve punishing themselves because they have broken the law.

it's a circular thing.

By entension, is vigilantism acceptable?

Thats a very basic and circular argument that fails on many levels to address the paradoxial requirements of the real world.

, to have a state that punishes those who threaten that state in a way that is "illeagal" to citizens of that state is not unusual. Infact the worlds biggest democracy does it routinely in some states. The state can quite clearly and simply have laws which govern its behaviour which are at odds or different to those which govern its people.

E.G. the police in some circumstances can legally break the speed limit such as when in persuit of a speeding criminal.

So now you must disagree with your own disagreement......


How old are you btw?

The paradoxical requirements of the real world are often in place because "we" put them there.

Your example seems to suffer from the same simplification issues that mine does, and is a little simplistic. I whole heartedly agree it's a circular argument, that was the point. I do however stand by my views.

Just because the worlds biggest democracy punishes people in a way that is illegal to the citizens of that state happens doesn't mean that is correct or proper, or in fact supportable. There are several nations in the world that block access to information, and what would be considered other violations of human rights but this is not justification for the actions legitimacy.

The state condones behaviour that could be considered illegal under certain circumstances. It condones the commiting of a crime to prevent a (potential) greater crime. I can see the logic and mitigating factors there (as long as there are robust checks to ensure there is no misuse). How's a "lifer" gonna commit those greater crimes while in prison? If in the US the Death Row inmates spent their entire life inside they would pose the same risk to the outside world as when dead

My age, is to put it politely, my business, plenty old enough to know the shades of grey are there, but will still not use that as an excuse for the introduction of something as "black and white" as the death penatly or other forms of punishments outside the societal norm. I fear that we are both as entrenched as each other in our views and unlikely to agree on this.

Do you believe in vigilantism, or should the punishment be meted out by the state only?

blackpanther

my argument isnt circular, it reflects reality and the differing purposes that rules governing individuals and the state need to have in order to provide protection and opportunity for the individuals in the state.

Heckler1974

blackpanther wrote:

my argument isnt circular, it reflects reality and the differing purposes that rules governing individuals and the state need to have in order to provide protection and opportunity for the individuals in the state.

I agree with your statement above, there will be always be individuals that society needs to be protected from because by their actions they have proved themselves incapable of remaining within the behavioral and moral norms that societies exist by. Where we disagree is that I believe that by breaching those very norms in their incarcaration and punishment you have effectively proved that their behaviour is acceptable if applied to them by the state and the norms that are the baseline of society are just a convenience to be waived and not the root and bedrock by which it exists.

blu3cat

blackpanther wrote:

my argument isnt circular, it reflects reality and the differing purposes that rules governing individuals and the state need to have in order to provide protection and opportunity for the individuals in the state.

I didn't accuse you of having a circular argument, and any inference is not meant. What I did say is that mine was deliberately so.

How does sadistic violence inflicted agaist sadistically violent people protect society as a whole? May give the people baying for blood some temporary reprieve, but still provides no protection.