Jim
New Member
I'll wait a few before I go on. Give you a chance to answer.
The nature of good and evil
- Thread starter Mr.Bill
- Start date
Dark Virtue
New Member
[b said:
[b said:
If we are going to revamp our system of punishment, we also need to revamp our trial system. I'd love to give you some answers on how to reduce the amount of innocent people put in jail, but it's not really my area of expertise. To make any change will require plenty of work and I'm sure numerous studies.
[b said:
Hey, I'm all for beheading too, given the circumstance. There needs to be better punishment for these criminals. How many thieves in the middle east stole more than once? I don't know, but I DO know that not many did it more than twice. And again, I'm not suggesting this form of punishment for someone stealing food to feed their family. But can anyone say Enron?
[b said:
As I have stated over and over, the punishment has to fit the crime. If you're going to lose a hand, well then it better be pretty damn serious. Shoplifting? No, I don't think so. Breaking and Entering a house, beating up an old woman to steal her pension check? Now we're talking. I think along with punishing the criminal, there needs to be some form of dissuasion for other criminals. If a gang sees their friend walking around with no hand, I'd be willing to be they'd think twice before commiting a similar crime.
And I have no clue about making sure only the guilty pay without any innocents being committed. I don't know the justice system that intimately, so I really couldn't guess.
[b said:
Sure...
first–degree murder
: a murder that is committed with premeditation or during the course of a serious felony (as kidnapping) or that otherwise (as because of extreme cruelty) requires the most serious punishment under the law
second–degree murder
: a murder that is committed without premeditation but with some intent (as general or transferred intent) or other circumstances not covered by the first-degree murder statute
third–degree murder
: a murder that is not first- or second-degree murder: as a murder committed in the perpetration of a felony not listed in the first-degree murder statute
involuntary manslaughter
: manslaughter resulting from the failure to perform a legal duty expressly required to safeguard human life, from the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony, or from the commission of a lawful act involving a risk of injury or death that is done in an unlawful, reckless, or grossly negligent manner
misdemeanor–manslaughter
: involuntary manslaughter occurring during the commission of a misdemeanor
voluntary manslaughter
: manslaughter resulting from an intentional act done without malice or premeditation and while in the heat of passion or on sudden provocation
criminal homicide
: homicide committed by a person with a criminal state of mind (as intentionally, with premeditation, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence)
deliberate homicide
: homicide caused purposely and knowingly —used in Montana
excusable homicide
: homicide that is committed by accident or misfortune by a person doing a lawful act by lawful means with usual and ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent and that is excused under the law with no criminal punishment imposed
felonious homicide
: homicide committed without justification
homicide by misadventure
: homicide that occurs as the result of an accident caused by a person doing a lawful act with no unlawful intent
justifiable homicide
: homicide that is committed in self-defense, in defense of another and esp. a member of one's family or sometimes in defense of a residence, in preventing a felony esp. involving great bodily harm, or in performing a legal duty and that is justified under the law with no criminal punishment imposed
negligent homicide
: homicide caused by a person's criminally negligent act
reckless homicide
: homicide caused by a person's reckless acts
ve·hic·u·lar homicide
: homicide committed by the use of a vehicle (as an automobile or boat)
That should help.
[b said:
They took a life to fulfill their crack habit. End of story, get a rope. HOWEVER, now the PC wackos come in talking about how they were under the influence, they didn't know what they were doing, society made them who they are, blah blah blah. Remorse only goes so far and then justice must be done. Hell, I'm all for letting the family of the victim decide what happens.
[b said:
I HATE being labeled. I don't see myself as liberal or conservative...I just AM. And I understand that people like that deserve sympathy. But if they cause someone's death, there needs to be repercussions. They can be sorry all they want, but that won't bring that person back.
[b said:
I've read the Express a time or two online
[b said:
Cruel and Unusual Punishment is what people use to refer to punishments for criminals. The punishment should not "offend" the criminal any more than is necessary. That is why punishments such as electrocution, firing squads, beheadings and hanging are not used anymore (except in very specific circumstances). Now, where were the rights of the VICTIM? Being raped, strangled and murdered doesn't qualify as cruel and unusual? As I said before, once you commit a crime like this you should lose ALL rights as a citizen. (That reminds me, I'd be very interested to know how Romans kept criminals in line...I know they were fond of crucifying people. I wonder what kind of deterrant that was)
[b said:
That's hard to answer. We're not working with specifics here, this is all hypothetical. There are too many things that would have to be taken into consideration to offer up a good answer.
By the way, do you know where Lancashire is? I had a huge, HUGE crush on this girl that lived there
Jim
New Member
[b said:
True, but there will always be cases of incompetent juries/ defense lawyers. In the end, a number of cases, I'm sure, were swung against the defendant due to simple stupidity or incompetent defense. Imagine if you were to be put on death row and you were being defended by a guy who quite simply either doesn't give a toss either way, or is too stupid to put together a coherent argument.
[b said:
A point you might consider is when we stop being just and start being bloodthirsty? I'm not suggesting you are, but a lot of people find beheading quite abhorrent. I'm sure you may have heard of the kidnappings in Iraq? Two Americans were brutally beheaded by Abu Musab al Zarqawi. A third guy, Ken Bigley from UK is still alive and there is a tremndous uproar about it. Some people suggested that if they should be caught, they should be beheaded in the same way, to serve them right for murdering the two American hostages. You might agree, with this, but when does punishment simply become a tactic for satiating public anger?
[b said:
Punishment fit the crime, yes. You have a point about that. I guess I still can ask the question: When does punishment become brutality?
[b said:
Thanks, that clears things up.
[b said:
There was a great deal of anger over this crime. I don't believe they were under the influence of drugs, just simply didn't care about how they got the money as long as they did. People like this deserve severe punishment, yes.
[b said:
I think this comes back to morality again. If a society fails to provide for certain citizens and those citizens become desperate enough to turn to crime to keep themselves alive, does killing them properly serve justice? Perhaps it would, if that person was rich. If someone is poor, though, and were brought up thinking they had to get money in whatever way they could, get in with the gangs for self-protection and to feel some power they normally would never do, then it seems a little pointless killing them off. People who are desperate will take any risk to stay alive.
[b said:
You're right: DOWN WITH LABELS!!
Hmm. I guess the circumstances of the murder would have to be taken into account. I would also reccomend the persons' background be checked too. If they had no history of violence, killing them would be in my opinion more immoral than not. I have nver been addicted, and I hate violence (Perhaps to the point of cowardice) but suppose in one stupid moment of weakness I got addicted and became so desperate for a fix I had to mug someone. Suppose I accidentally killed them. Things like this need to be taken into account too.
[b said:
It isn't fair that convicted criminals spend a good few years in a comforable jail then are killed after soaking up funds? Yes, I can sympathise with that.
I ask you to be careful when suggesting the treatment of prisoners, because thinking of them as undeserving of sympathy or compassion runs the risk of a Chinese-style jail system where prisoners can be neglected or abused. Society must remain above that.
Putting prisoners to useful work could be useful. After all, if they commited a crime, surely they could spend their jail time doing something constructive rather than sitting and soaking up tax? However, once again, be careful about prisoners being used as scientific experiments in place of animals. Once again, this runs the risk of demonizing them as sub-human. Not everyone in prison is there for the same reason. Or are you talking about murderers in particular?
[b said:
Yes, being raped, strangled and murdered is horrific. Men like that deserve a severe punishment. But brutality against these people probably wouldn't do much except offer the family some consolation that the monster had paid a little back. As you said, victims should come first.
As for the Romans, I have no idea. I believe that crucifixion was used for mainly the poor and lowly, but for a range of crimes, not just murder. Have ever seen the number of Roman emperors who were murdered? Practically all of them died at another's hand (Or usually several of them). The murderers tended to be political rivals, people who had reason to kill them or by and large, were members of the social elite. They were rarely caught and fewer still were executed.
[b said:
Sorry, I live in Scotland, I rarely go down south unless to visit relatives.
Good luck finding her again
Dark Virtue
New Member
[b said:
[b said:
Shouldn't public anger be satiated? I don't mean we should bend to every whim of the public, but in cases like you just mentioned, why is it bad to satiate the public? Again, I'm not sure where the line should be drawn. I put myself in the place of the families of victims...I would want justice done. The question I think you're on the verge of is this: When does justice become revenge?
[b said:
My question to you is, why is brutality in punishment wrong? If someone commits a brutal crime, they should have a brutal punishment. Fair is fair.
[b said:
Agreed! But as I said earlier, in our PC climate, that will be very difficult. Too many people are eager to blame society and not put the responsibility on the individual.
[b said:
You're right, this becomes an issue of society and morality. SO...it depends on the society. What if a society condoned vigilantism? Then it would be ok. In OUR societies, that is not acceptable. There is a system set in place to punish our criminals. That is there job. I'm sure you've seen on the news at one time or another a family of a victim that is in court to hear the sentencing of the criminal that killed/injured a family member. One of the victim's family finally gets pushed to the edge and lunges at the criminal, punching/kicking the crap out of him. Who do you feel sorry for? The criminal or the family member?
[b said:Quote[/b] ]You're right: DOWN WITH LABELS!!
Hmm. I guess the circumstances of the murder would have to be taken into account. I would also reccomend the persons' background be checked too. If they had no history of violence, killing them would be in my opinion more immoral than not. I have nver been addicted, and I hate violence (Perhaps to the point of cowardice) but suppose in one stupid moment of weakness I got addicted and became so desperate for a fix I had to mug someone. Suppose I accidentally killed them. Things like this need to be taken into account too.
We could go on and on about this forever. What if the murderer had no prior record, but his first offense involved killing a family of four and two police officers that were trying to apprehend him? Would it still be immoral to sentence him to death?
[b said:
WHOA there. I've already addresses this point. Where was the sympathy and compassion for the victims? I'm not suggesting this system for EVERY criminal, but if they did something to deserve it, then by all means, put them in this "new" kind of jail system. Compassion is a good thing, but it has its place. Let me see if I can make an analogy. You have a young child who fully understands the rules of the household. He disobeys, knowing full well the rules. You hug him and tell him you love him, but he still is going to be punished. He cries and says he's sorry over and over. What do you do? Tell him it's ok and not do it next time, or punish him? If you DON'T punish him then there is no incentive not to disobey the next time. If you DO punish him then he learns a lesson.
[b said:
No, I'm not talking about anything in particular. If a criminal breaks the law for whatever reason, they have trespassed against the citizens in their society. They should, in turn, lose their rights and priveledges of being a citizen. Put them to work at hard labor FOR THE CITIZENS and make them earn their rights back. The testing thing was very hardline, I admit. If we're even going to consider doing that it needs to be for very specific cases, for very offensive cases. Something just short of or equal to the death penalty.
[b said:
Nothing wrong with giving the family some consolation, but there is a bigger picture here: deterrant. Right now, our highest form of punishment offers NO deterrant to criminals. It's time to strike some fear in the hearts of criminals for a change. Let them know that if they trespass on society, they will actually have to pay the piper.
[b said:
This is my new research project
[b said:
"If it's not Scottish it's crap!" I hope you know where that quote comes from or I'll just sound like a dork.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]Good luck finding her again
Well my wife might object
Jim
New Member
[b said:
Yes, but not if the public is baying for blood on a high-profile case where there is inadequate evidence to convict. The judicial system should never be influenced by heated public anger, because that way it is more of a show of 'Look, we're doing something' than an impartial provider of justice and retribution.
Sometimes I put myself in the criminal's place mainly because I seek to understand the mentality of why a person goes through with needless violence. Sometimes, I simply believe that certain individuals show no self-restraint and do deserve to be shown the error of their ways. But yes, If it were me, I would want justice, not a five-year job in a comfy cell with amenities many people outside don't even have.
[b said:
Precisely. Justice should, as you have said, fit the crime. Not the publicity or the anger, but the crime.
[b said:
What I am afraid of is when executions become something we will be watching, or cheering on. You mentioned pay-per-view. To some, it would be an ideal way of sending out a warning message. To me, it would signal our slip back into a society where humanity is pushed aside in favour of blood satisfaction. Remember the Romans and their colliseums? Used as punishment and entertainment.
A brutal crime deserves punishment, but does this mean we allow our countries to permit grotesque executions as punishment? It seems more like venting the collective rage of a wounded society than on dealing justice.
[b said:
I concur.
[b said:
I'm a circumstantial person myself. I have read about criminals who show no remorse or even a glimmer of guilt for their crimes. It wouldn't surprise me if this enraged the victim's family and if they restrained their anger and refused to attack them, they are better people than me.
In most cases, I'd say the family.
[b said:
Once again, I'd say I would look at the circumstances. Much as morality isn't black and white, neither are most crimes. Yes, I would mostly agree, the above case would probably merit death.
Hmm. This COULD go on for a long time.
[b said:
Your point is valid. I don't see a problem with the above.
[b said:
You know what? The "Put them to work at hard labour FOR THE CITIZENS" would probably attract tears of joy over here. A lot of people are fed up with youths going about littering, vandalising, mugging and so on. 'Neds' as they are called are becoming a nuisance mainly because they are spoiled, learn nothing but to be cheeky, disrespectful and verbally abusive to anyone and everyone. Maybe you should e-mail that to Tony Blair?
And I agree for the testing, although I still think that should be voluntary, in exchange for a more lenient sentence. Execution becomes life, a twelve year sentence becomes eleven or something like that.
[b said:
I'm sorry if I have mentioned this before, but studies have shown that even more fearful methods of death aren't that effective against crime. Many murders are spur-of-the-moment and many crimes are those of opportunity rather than pre meditation.
[b said:
Sorry, I don't know where that comes from
Dark Virtue
New Member
[b said:
[b said:
Granted, but like all things, there is a fine line.
[b said:
How do you balance justice with restraint? It's another one of those fine lines.
[b said:
Granted, that is a very real danger.
[b said:
What is just in punishment? Who or what defines what a just punishment is?
[b said:
THESE are the people I have in mind when I think about "special" punishments.
[b said:
LOL I know, shall we steer this back to the origins of morality?
[b said:
Tony Blair already has his hands full with another Texan
I do like the idea of getting these punk kids back into the neighborhoods to clean them up. Personally I have a HUGE taste for grafitti. Art? I think not. If I spray paint your car would you call it art or vandalism. Make them clean up their own messes since their parents couldn't do a good enough job at raising them.
[b said:
I think the testing could be a sentence in and of itself.
[b said:
Good point, so IS there a means of deterring future criminals?
[b said:Quote[/b] ]Sorry, I don't know where that comes from
I was afraid you'd say that. Have a listen!
It's a Saturday Night Live sketch where Mike Myers plays a Scottish shop owner. Please don't ask who Mike Myers or Saturday Night Live is or I will cry
Jim
New Member
I'm thinking we are reaching an impasse here. Generally we both agree on these things:
The punishment must fit the crime; A murderer or rapist must be dealt with severely. No ten-year sentences out in five years jobs.
The victims should come first in all dealings of justice; Too many facets of justice now are concerned with the prisoners' human rights. Harsh as it is, criminals should forfeit at least some of their own rights when they impinge on others.
However, we clearly disagree on:
Priorities of justice; Which is more moral? To me, it is ensuring a justice system which does not allow the innocent to be caught up in an event not of their own doing. Justice is compromised when the law-abiding can fall upon the sword of justice alongside criminals. It is also ensuring that justice, as you said, does not become petty revenge. I also believe that brutal and grotesque punishments should be avoided, lest we fall back into the situation of losing our integrity as people.
To you (correct me if I'm wrong), the priority is ensuring that the criminal is punished according to the severity of their crime; that is if someone murders, they should die. If someone rapes, they should be castrated, steals, amputation of the hand. What is important, in your opinion, is that criminals should be warned their actions will not be tolerated and that citizens should feel that criminals will face tough justice when their rights are breached. If I am correct, it would be more immoral to shirk on justice when a crime has been done.
I'm not entirely sure what else to add, but if you have points you want to add, go ahead.
The punishment must fit the crime; A murderer or rapist must be dealt with severely. No ten-year sentences out in five years jobs.
The victims should come first in all dealings of justice; Too many facets of justice now are concerned with the prisoners' human rights. Harsh as it is, criminals should forfeit at least some of their own rights when they impinge on others.
However, we clearly disagree on:
Priorities of justice; Which is more moral? To me, it is ensuring a justice system which does not allow the innocent to be caught up in an event not of their own doing. Justice is compromised when the law-abiding can fall upon the sword of justice alongside criminals. It is also ensuring that justice, as you said, does not become petty revenge. I also believe that brutal and grotesque punishments should be avoided, lest we fall back into the situation of losing our integrity as people.
To you (correct me if I'm wrong), the priority is ensuring that the criminal is punished according to the severity of their crime; that is if someone murders, they should die. If someone rapes, they should be castrated, steals, amputation of the hand. What is important, in your opinion, is that criminals should be warned their actions will not be tolerated and that citizens should feel that criminals will face tough justice when their rights are breached. If I am correct, it would be more immoral to shirk on justice when a crime has been done.
I'm not entirely sure what else to add, but if you have points you want to add, go ahead.
Dark Virtue
New Member
[b said:
I definately feel that on the scales of morality, justice is coming up short.
As far as strict punishment goes, murder is in a class by itself. There are many different reasons or situations where one person takes another's life. I definately agree that in first degree murder situations, premeditation warrants the criminal's death. I think the victim's family should have a huge say in the punishment of the criminal.
Rape is different, you can't "accidentally" rape someone. Castration is a great punishment here. It pulls the offender out of the gene pool, it is satisfactory punishment, it acts as a huge deterrant. I'm not sure of statistics, but I'd be willing to bet that if a person rapes once, they will do it again. Nip this crime in the bud. This punishment also fits molestation perfectly.
Dark Virtue
New Member
Great, you just ruined my thread badger boy!
Hmm, nevermind, this could be fun...I'll hold my reply until we get a Christian perspective.
Hmm, nevermind, this could be fun...I'll hold my reply until we get a Christian perspective.
Dark Virtue
New Member
LOL, so it was, so it was.
Carry on then.
Carry on then.
Dark Virtue
New Member
PFFT, that's an easy one.
God created everything, thus, God would have had to create Morality.
But God did not say to follow His EXAMPLE, instead, He said to follow His RULES.
God created everything, thus, God would have had to create Morality.
But God did not say to follow His EXAMPLE, instead, He said to follow His RULES.
Dark Virtue
New Member
Same difference.
Follow Christ's example, but don't follow God's example.
Follow Christ's example, but don't follow God's example.
Dark Virtue
New Member
That may be, but we have examples of God's CHARACTER.
It's right there in front of you in the Bible.
It's right there in front of you in the Bible.
Dark Virtue
New Member
I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying.
In the Old Testament, we have many many examples of the Character of God. God made Himself known, He worked in the every day lives of His people. How can you not draw references to Him when He is sitting in front of you? That is what I'm talking about. We can make an inference of God by the words He spoke and the actions He took in the Old Testament. We can then get an insight into this God and extrapolate his nature since He said He was the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
In the Old Testament, we have many many examples of the Character of God. God made Himself known, He worked in the every day lives of His people. How can you not draw references to Him when He is sitting in front of you? That is what I'm talking about. We can make an inference of God by the words He spoke and the actions He took in the Old Testament. We can then get an insight into this God and extrapolate his nature since He said He was the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.