|
| Thread: How stupid is the media?..... really?? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
SirDunco
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
posted September 20, 2005 08:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Yeah, and do you know why not? It's for the same reason why we won't let the parents of murdered people sit on the jury of that murderer's trial.
Quote:
and maybe they should have that right. Itll be the only sense of satisfaction that that family will be entitled too! No sentence (with parole or rehab program) will make them feel that justice was served. And wouldnt you be more hesitant to commit a crime if you knew that the persons you trespass against will be your jury in court??.
Quote:
Ah, I see. So basically, you're in favour of killing these people, because that'd be more convenient for your personal economic situation? Tell me you don't mean this?
Freakin right I mean it! I dont know what kind of criminals that YOU guys have that makes you all sympathetic to their rights, needs and feelings, but Im very honest when I say that as a law abiding, tax paying citizen and soon to be father and husband, Id have no remorse in sentencing someone who is guilty (and re-offended) of a serious crime. (Im not talking about petty crime here either)
Until our system is set up where those who are doing the time are actually paying for it, I dont feel its fair that society should pay for anything that supports someone who chose not to be a productive part of that society.
Quote:
Hell yeah, if we're gonna do something, let's not just do it halfway! The people can't see how awful the criminal's death is when it happens behind closed doors!
Then open those doors so that everyone (potential criminals and societys members)
can see the reality of the crime and the punishment.
Quote:
Btw, I've forgotten an important argumant against capital punishment: Research has "proved" that 7% (or something like that) of the executed "criminals" were in fact innocent. If the justice systems were infallible, I'd have less beef with it. I'd still be opposed to it, but I'd be less opposed.
I would however only authorize the death penalty for a case that is undeniably solved and the TRUE offender identified.
Actualy I cannot belive some of the things that I am reading here.
I'm with Terje on this one.
Crime is nothing but a side product of our society. A part of our society and purely it's blame.
The sociological study that he presented is a perfect example of this.
But we are not talking just about normal crime, robberies, assaults that is. For them jail, in it's todays form is not the best solution. A long-term a community service would be much more efficietn. Of course I don't mean a forced labour camp the style of a Gulag here.
But the fact that someone would be in favour of the capital punishment just for his or hers financial reasons dissgusts me. I personaly find it appaling.
The death penalty is a barbaric and NON-effective punishment. Just look at the US of A, where the death penalty is allowed in many states and guess what... the crime rate is sure as heck no going down. In fact it is on the rise. The use of the death penalty as a scarecrow does not work.
And as for pedofiles and such like people.
Pedofelia is a mental defunction. A sexual deviance. One that should and can be treated in mental institutions and by profesionals. Sending these people into prison solves nothing, but only makes them more agresive and makes their defuction stronger...
And seriously would you allow the victims relatives in the jury? Are you crazy? You might as well give them a gun to shoot them. the point of a free trial and justice falls down here.
Sure there is no compensation for the loss of someone close, killing someone else is not. It only gives the impression that violince, evil doings and killing is the right thing to do.
____________
|
|
Russ
Promising
Supreme Hero
blah, blah, blah
|
|
posted September 20, 2005 09:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And as for pedofiles and such like people.
Pedofelia is a mental defunction. A sexual deviance. One that should and can be treated in mental institutions and by profesionals. Sending these people into prison solves nothing, but only makes them more agresive and makes their defuction stronger...
The ones who quietly whack off to the child porn could be treated. Once you hurt a child - you've crossed the line. Now it is a violent crime and should be treated as such.
Now - making dangerous criminals pay for themselves reminds me of Romans and their slaves again  I think I like their penal system  Bring out the whips and chains!!! And what's wrong with gulags? If you've killed, raped or seriously injured someone, why not force you to mine some uranium? Its not like you've asked your victims before committing a crime.
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted September 20, 2005 09:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Now - making dangerous criminals pay for themselves reminds me of Romans and their slaves again I think I like their penal system Bring out the whips and chains!!! And what's wrong with gulags? If you've killed, raped or seriously injured someone, why not force you to mine some uranium? Its not like you've asked your victims before committing a crime.
Wow.
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Jebus
Promising
Supreme Hero
TheJester akaJeebs akaJebfoo
|
|
posted September 20, 2005 09:44 PM |
|
Edited By: Jebus on 20 Sep 2005
|
(Is it a coincidence that the only one I agree with is the "other" Canadian here??)
and I guess my exagerations and sarcasm has failed me... 
Quote:
Crime is nothing but a side product of our society. A part of our society and purely it's blame.
The sociological study that he presented is a perfect example of this.
well if that's the case why do we have anyone in jail at ALL?? why don't we just send one "law abiding" citizen to jail for every criminal if it's OUR (as members of society) fault to begin with??
Quote:
But the fact that someone would be in favour of the capital punishment just for his or hers financial reasons dissgusts me. I personaly find it appaling.
I think you missed many of the points I was trying to make here...
But if you're going to call it appaling I'd like you to explain to me how it's fair (or hell my, or any other person's responsibility) to have to support them??
Take someone who has a few kids and is a single mom, Im sure she could find better things to do with that money then pay for 3 square meals a day for a repeat "serious crime" offender
Quote:
Just look at the US of A,
Sorry I try not to...
Quote:
And as for pedofiles and such like people.
Pedofelia is a mental defunction. A sexual deviance. One that should and can be treated in mental institutions and by profesionals. Sending these people into prison solves nothing, but only makes them more agresive and makes their defuction stronger...
ok great... you and terje can treat'em! (just don't let them out... and if you do, would you be ready to accept them into your house after??
Quote:
And seriously would you allow the victims relatives in the jury? Are you crazy? You might as well give them a gun to shoot them.
Hey that's a GREAT idea!!! (now as long as the family of the offender gets the bill for the bullet!!)
Quote:
Sure there is no compensation for the loss of someone close, killing someone else is not. It only gives the impression that violince, evil doings and killing is the right thing to do.
In the end it's all about perception...
where you're from, what you see, and how your system works will have a deep impact on what your views are.
Personally I have very traditional ethics and values, but you can bet your life that if my little girl or boy gets molested raped or worse, it'll cost society one more life before im through.
____________
"You went over my helmet??"
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted September 20, 2005 10:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Personally I have very traditional ethics and values, but you can bet your life that if my little girl or boy gets molested raped or worse, it'll cost society one more life before im through.
Not to mention that someone else then would have to spend their precious money on taxes to keep you fed and clothed and housed...
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Russ
Promising
Supreme Hero
blah, blah, blah
|
|
posted September 20, 2005 10:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Not to mention that someone else then would have to spend their precious money on taxes to keep you fed and clothed and housed...
Ya, but even if the prisons would get replaced with gulags it would still be worth it. People like you are the reason we let criminals out just so they commit more crimes. You will push your "humanity" until it hits you in the head. Who cares about others being hurt by criminals? I am here in my own lil world being humane, nice and forgiving. After all - none of them hurt me or my family to make me realize how wrong I was. Right? How about you go and explain your point of view to the parents of a girl who was raped and killed? Or to the wife and kids of a man who got shot for nothing by some mugger on the street?
There - did I deserve another "wow"?
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted September 20, 2005 10:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Not to mention that someone else then would have to spend their precious money on taxes to keep you fed and clothed and housed...
Ya, but even if the prisons would get replaced with gulags it would still be worth it. People like you are the reason we let criminals out just so they commit more crimes. You will push your "humanity" until it hits you in the head. Who cares about others being hurt by criminals? I am here in my own lil world being humane, nice and forgiving. After all - none of them hurt me or my family to make me realize how wrong I was. Right? How about you go and explain your point of view to the parents of a girl who was raped and killed? Or to the wife and kids of a man who got shot for nothing by some mugger on the street?
There - did I deserve another "wow"?
The reason I don't have much concerns about the victims and their family, is that we, in most modern societies, have something called a public system of justice. The government, with their territorial monopoly on violence, will see to that the criminal is punished. The criminals, however, who by the way are completely defenseless once they're locked up (I'm talking about in relation to random/unfair treatment), have no such formal, public institutions to defend them. And even if they're criminals, who have broken society's norms, they're still human beings who deserve to be treated as such.
To me, this is a simple matter of seing more than one narrow side of the situation. You focus entirely on the victims, whereas I see the criminal as a victim too - a victim of structural mechanisms of oppression and conservation of the status quo.
And yes, I will treat other human beings like human beings, and not like some objects, even if that means that I have to take into consideration the emotions and situation of people I otherwise never would have liked being associated with.
By the way, are you being serious about this "Gulag" stuff of yours? Because, you know, a Gulag is somewhere where people are sent not necessarily because they have done anything wrong, but because they have done something that the people in power doesn't approve of, even if it's a breach with the principles of the liberal law-governed state (not that Russia ever was one). Principles, I might add, that are one of the most important things that separate "us" from feudal societies, or things worse.
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Jebus
Promising
Supreme Hero
TheJester akaJeebs akaJebfoo
|
|
posted September 20, 2005 11:21 PM |
|
|
well it's my turn to give you a "wow"...
and it's :"wow, I sure would like you as my lawyer after I killoff whoever it was that hurt my family or friend."
why does someone who has taken away the "right" of someone else (which potentially that's what a criminal is doing to another) have any rights of his own??
,... and from what I've heard, in the example of lets says a rapist, it's society's fault that he's like that?? poor baby is sick so let's give him some medecine?? Society is not to blame for half the things that you guys have listed.
and guess what? that kid that was rapped (raped?) and or killed HAD the right to live safely and in a secure environment, to grow and have a life of his own...
... explain it to that kid why it's "society's" fault that his uncle or father, or some repeat offender was alloud to get his hands on him..... why that guy wasn't locked up and we didn't throw away the key... why society "gave him a second chance" ???
when you can look that kid in the eye and say those words, then i guess you can tell us you were ther bigger man... I just pray that it wasn't YOUR kid.
____________
"You went over my helmet??"
|
|
Russ
Promising
Supreme Hero
blah, blah, blah
|
|
posted September 20, 2005 11:33 PM |
|
Edited By: Russ on 20 Sep 2005
|
Quote:
And even if they're criminals, who have broken society's norms, they're still human beings who deserve to be treated as such.
Broken society's norms? That's how we call murders and rapes now? At least you didn't call them "lil pranksters". And that's exactly what I was talking about in my above post. Human beings who deserve to be treated as such? LOL!
Quote:
whereas I see the criminal as a victim too - a victim of structural mechanisms of oppression and conservation of the status quo.
Haha! Man, we really need to set you up with some of those "victims of structural mechanisms".
Quote:
By the way, are you being serious about this "Gulag" stuff of yours? Because, you know, a Gulag is somewhere where people are sent not necessarily because they have done anything wrong, but because they have done something that the people in power doesn't approve of, even if it's a breach with the principles of the liberal law-governed state (not that Russia ever was one).
You really should start reading the posts before making assumptions. What part of "making dangerous criminals pay for themselves" is confusing?
And you don't exactly understand what GULAG is either. GULAG is an abbreviation that means something like "The main forced labour camp buerau". The name itself has nothing to do with political prisoners, government oppression, etc. All it is is a government structure penalizing criminals (or in USSR's case both criminals and political prizoners) by forcing them to work (often in dangerous jobs that noone else is willing to do). Sending the worst criminals there would not only prevent us from paying for them, but it will also act as a further crime deterrent. Because in some western prisons those criminals live in nice warm cells with books, tv, computer, good food, etc. What's so scary about it? Now - compare that to working in a uranium mine somewhere up north in a place filled with mosquitoes that can bite through clothes - and you'll make a criminal think twice before stabbing someone.
|
|
Jebus
Promising
Supreme Hero
TheJester akaJeebs akaJebfoo
|
|
posted September 20, 2005 11:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The reason I don't have much concerns about the victims and their family, is that we, in most modern societies, have something called a public system of justice. The government, with their territorial monopoly on violence, will see to that the criminal is punished. The criminals, however, who by the way are completely defenseless once they're locked up (I'm talking about in relation to random/unfair treatment), have no such formal, public institutions to defend them. And even if they're criminals, who have broken society's norms, they're still human beings who deserve to be treated as such.
To me, this is a simple matter of seing more than one narrow side of the situation. You focus entirely on the victims, whereas I see the criminal as a victim too - a victim of structural mechanisms of oppression and conservation of the status quo.
sorry but I re-read this and had to respond....
clearly you guys are in a much more "modern society"
because if that thingy you call a public system of justice actually worked, the rest of us wouldn't be sitting arguing on what to do with repeat offenders...
if that system worked, people would be deterred from crime, and the sick COULD be rehabilitated and if not, they WOULD be locked up forever.... but if we're here sitting and fighting about society's responsibility and blah blah blah and social jargon, it's because somewhere that system DOES NOT WORK!!
oh and short of sounding REALLY sarcastic...
he's defenseless?? BOO ****ING HOO!
so was the kid, the little girl, the senior, the raped, the killed.....
(that was probably the most encouraging thing you've said up until now...)
With that last point in mind, i'd lock up the killers with their own king... the rapist too!
(that way they'd either learn to appreciate the severity of their crime, or they'd get killed off!!)
Actually I'd send in the child molesters in there all alone with the murderers and see what happens.
Im all for accepting responsibility for my own actions,
Ill be damned if me and the rest of society is blamed for the people who trespass on the week or innocent.
____________
"You went over my helmet??"
|
|
SirDunco
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 21, 2005 04:27 PM |
|
|
You guys are missing a serious point.
Let's skip the pedofiles, because these are mentaly ill people whos suffer from an illnes which makes them act as they do. Their behaviour is at time almost uncontrorable. These people belong in an institution, once it has over come them. The fact is that we can keep them at bay if our society wasn't so tabooed as it is. So conservative in it's core... but skip them they are a special chapter.
You see the Judicial system as a pinacle of liberty and free trial and rightoeus punnishment. The modern system both roman and Anglo-Saxon one.
Let me shock you here...It isn't.
Especialy the Anglo-saxon one. Eventhought it is less vaulnerable to corrupetion it chrashes on people once agian.
There are countless cases of innocent people sent to jail or even worse, to the chair just on the way it works. Also there are many people who haven't set foot in jail thanks to it.
The bloody fact that the trial is decidd by a jury of people who know nothing of law what-so-ever and are easily seduced by the acting layer speaks for itself.
As an example I will give you the case of Mumia Abu Jamal. A leftist, african-american journalist who after being assaulted by policement during a raly(if i'm not misstaken) killed one of the in self defense.
Thanks to raical prejudice and the hate of the people in the jury towards leftist and so called "police killers" he was senteced to the death penalty. Many other court hearings have been held after the verdict to overrule it...the result I'm not sure of it.
Now do you call this justice? Did this man just because the judge and the jury were swaided by hate and the layers deserved to get the capital punishment?
There are many similair cases in which the victims have even been proved not guilty but the verdict was not overruled? Is this what you want? Constant paranoia? To lock yourself into world of your own safety.
If that's what you want go to the supermarket and get yourself one of those rifles so you can kill anyone, who reaches into his pocekt for change or a gun, just beacuse you are scared.
And don't deny it. Thanks to the modern economicaly "Liberal" Society in the most advanced parts of the world there still are poor societies and ghetoes where young people have very little choice, other then to join a gang and(or) strat their criminal carrier. Just look around you.
If you belive that the poverty of the people aroudn you doesn't concern you get your head checked.
Crime such as thefts and burglaries, even homocide is most of the time, caused by the financial state of the ones who commit it.
Don't condem it. The whole society is rotten with people who don't care for others at their very top. Please tell me that you DON'T want to belong there.
____________
|
|
Jebus
Promising
Supreme Hero
TheJester akaJeebs akaJebfoo
|
|
posted September 21, 2005 04:51 PM |
|
|
SD,
Im not even sure who your reply is directed to...
my earlier posts on social services, justice and our community and government is hardly what I would consider "liberal".
Quote:
Crime such as thefts and burglaries, even homocide is most of the time, caused by the financial state of the ones who commit it.
... I'd like you to use that argument when you explain to our community and the family of the 18 year old found in a swamp (to the point where they could ONLY identify her by her dental records) that her death was one due financial reasons or ANYTHING even SLIGHTLY justifiable.
(good luck with that)
J
____________
"You went over my helmet??"
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted September 21, 2005 09:43 PM |
|
|
Jebus,
Quote:
well it's my turn to give you a "wow"...
Hey, tat's good.
Quote:
and it's :"wow, I sure would like you as my lawyer after I killoff whoever it was that hurt my family or friend."
Thankfully, I'm not a lawyer, so I don't have to deal with vigilante scum.
(Although I, so as not to destroy the relative cohesiveness of my arguments, of course understands the vigilante too.)
Quote:
why does someone who has taken away the "right" of someone else (which potentially that's what a criminal is doing to another) have any rights of his own??
Because, dear Jebus, by extending rights to the criminal we
a) try to teach by example,
b) try to show that we're better than him/her ( )
and c) if we too take away te rights of the criminal, then we are no better (of course, some of the criminal's rights have to be taken away, but there's degrees).
(Lol, I think I may have used the same reason thrice here, but it is different shades of it, so I'll let it stand as it is.)
Quote:
,... and from what I've heard, in the example of lets says a rapist, it's society's fault that he's like that?? poor baby is sick so let's give him some medecine?? Society is not to blame for half the things that you guys have listed.
So, basically, what you're saying that rapists and other criminals do what they do because it's in their genes? Because if it's not "society's fault" (I never used that ridiculous and inprecise phrase), then it has to be the genes. Through socialization, every "ability" or "function" of a human being is imprinted on people, through their interaction with their surroundings, i.e. society. (Basically, the only insticts humans are born with, is a sucking instinct, and possibly some gender role instincs - although the latter one is disputed.)
So, the rapist, or the pedophile. (In my last post, I was referring more to crime against property - I forgot what thread this was, for a moment. I'll try to ammend that here.)
Like I and SirDunco has repeated over and over, pedophilia, and some cases of rape, is usually provoced forth by some kind of mental instability, or, if you will, a disease. A guy might have traumas from when he was raped or abused by his father, or he might have traumas from being severely picked at in e.g. school - incidents that have seriously impeded this person's ability to have normal relationships with their surroundings.
So, since they e.g. can have difficulties with normal sexual relationships, something goes *click* in their heads, and they molest children, or rape young women in parks and dump them in swamps. (I presume you understand that these are just basic examples - I'm no criminal-psychologist. My knowledge on these things are rather basic.)
This is what I in cases like this meant with " structural mechanisms of oppression and conservation of the status quo" - the system somehow "failed" to pick up any cries for help the rapist/child molester might have made - either as a child being abused him/herself, or when he/she realized his/her unnatural urges, and tried to hide them.
Quote:
and guess what? that kid that was rapped (raped?) and or killed HAD the right to live safely and in a secure environment, to grow and have a life of his own...
I'm not disputing that.
Quote:
... explain it to that kid why it's "society's" fault that his uncle or father, or some repeat offender was alloud to get his hands on him.....
It could be that somewhere up in the system, if the kid actaully dared to defy society's taboos, some adult failed to do their duty. There could be many reasons for this. There's no way in hell to reply to this on a general basis.
Quote:
why that guy wasn't locked up and we didn't throw away the key... why society "gave him a second chance" ???
Ok, I aswered to that last quote as if it was incest, or something along those lines - i.e. abuse by an adult person in the child's close circle of interaction. And I think I've already given my reasons for my opinions about this.
Quote:
when you can look that kid in the eye and say those words, then i guess you can tell us you were ther bigger man... I just pray that it wasn't YOUR kid.
"The Bigger Man"???? What the hell are you talking about??? (I could point out that this goes both ways...)
Sure, I could say that to the child - after all, it's rational. Although I of course would consider the situation - how much time had pssed since the act of abuse, the state of mind the kid was in. Things like that.
Quote:
clearly you guys are in a much more "modern society"
because if that thingy you call a public system of justice actually worked, the rest of us wouldn't be sitting arguing on what to do with repeat offenders...
if that system worked, people would be deterred from crime, and the sick COULD be rehabilitated and if not, they WOULD be locked up forever.... but if we're here sitting and fighting about society's responsibility and blah blah blah and social jargon, it's because somewhere that system DOES NOT WORK!!
Perhaps the reason why it doesn't work, is that people such as you and Russ are sitting around, shouting for easier and cheaper solutions?
Russ,
Quote:
Broken society's norms? That's how we call murders and rapes now? At least you didn't call them "lil pranksters". And that's exactly what I was talking about in my above post. Human beings who deserve to be treated as such? LOL!
Instead of typing "commited acts of murder, burglary, rape, theivery, hit and run, violence", I simply typed "broken society's norms". It means the same thing.
And if they're not human beings - what are they?
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Jebus
Promising
Supreme Hero
TheJester akaJeebs akaJebfoo
|
|
posted September 22, 2005 02:41 PM |
|
Edited By: Jebus on 22 Sep 2005
|
Terje,
there are many arguments that seem to be going round in circles so I won't go point by point like we have been...
I think it's safe to say that our views on social responsibility and "human rights" differ greatly... I don't think you'll ever convince me of some of the things we've argued up until now, like I'll most likely not convince you of my views.
I think one thing that we may find common ground on is that clearly our present systems of justice lack on all aspects of the playing field. It's just not adequate no matter what stand point we assume.
I hope we can agree that these people need to be isolated from the general population, until they can be re-integrated (if that's even possible in some cases) after fool proof rehap programs.
I think the basis of how we discipline children can be applied to criminals... the more severe the offense, the more severe the punishment... but if you break a rule (or law) we take your rights away until you prove that you can have your rights back. In cases for serious crime, clearly the level of "rights" we remove should be VERY extreme... allowing you to slowly regain some of your "freedoms" over time and rehab.
There are many factors that we neglected to discuss in our different "methods of justice". I honestly beleive that sometimes crimes are committed and with time, the offender can show signs of remorse, regret, guilt and sorrow. These are the people that can be "rehabilitated" or helped. There are many cases that some show no signs or regret, and I stick to my guns that I would not hesitate to "put them down" like I would a vicious animal. For, in those cases, I beleive that they deserve no better. I may be lowering myself to that level, but when a dog bites a child, regardless if it's social environment drove him to it, I would not allow that dog to strike again.
J
(ps. you smell funny )
____________
"You went over my helmet??"
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted September 22, 2005 04:05 PM |
|
|
I watched this very interesting topic from the beginning without posting a word, just to see where in what direction it will go. But i canīt hold back anymore and have to post some experiences of my own...
Quote:
Because, dear Jebus, by extending rights to the criminal we
a) try to teach by example,
b) try to show that we're better than him/her ()
and c) if we too take away te rights of the criminal, then we are no better (of course, some of the criminal's rights have to be taken away, but there's degrees).
This sounds like quoted from a lawyer book, and iīm pretty sure u have never been involved in any criminal case like mentioned in this thread.
You mix up 2 different things here Terje. First part is the teaching part, second is the punishment. We sure "teach by example" in the first part, but we sure donīt have to "teach" anybody in punishment. And we are better than him, coz we would only act by rules, made before someone breaks them, so he knows what will happen when he does. If someone "steals" the life of another person and then he/she gets punished (and in which way doesnīt matter at all) by the law, we still are better than him/her, coz we acted after the given rule was broken, so we had a reason to punish!
If someone breaks a law, we always take away rights of him. Sometimes small ones (the right to keep his money...), sometimes bigger ones (the right of freedom), sometimes the biggest (the right to life).
So if your argument would have any value, we should either never take away any rights, or we always take away specific rights. The second way is the way the world works mostly, but normaly it works by taking the "commensurability" into account. What commensurability means in every possible case has to be judged by the judicative part of a government. Why is it ok to "punish" a burgler by paying money when he has stolen money, but itīs not ok to "punish" a murderer, who has stolen a life, by paying with his life? This treatment wonīt make us the same bad human being like him, but we save the rights of many other human beings (by preventing him from killing again).
And about the pedophile people.....Iīm pretty sure, this "malfunction" canīt be "repaired" with a therapy, where they all disucss and discuss and tell each other how difficult their own childhood was and this is the reason why they have this malfunction and itīs all not their fault..they didnīt knew what the did.....bahhh.
If someone treats a children in any bad way, especially in a sexual way, he is incurable ill! The only way in my eyes is, cut off his "third leg", or cut off a piece of his brain, where the sexual activity is steered from. too often i had to read in the newspaper a headline like: "Former child molester, erroneously set free as being healed, raped and killed a 9 year old girl on her way from school". Iīm really sick of reading such stuff. You canīt cure those insane people.
And there is one word in nearly all breaches of law all over the world, which really makes me crazy when reading: stultify somebody
"Ignorance is no excuse" has always said by all adults when i was young. Also when u are visiting a new country, itīs your business to inform yourself about the laws. If someone breaks rules, no matter if he knew it or not, he has to pay for it. If a man kills a woman with a knife, he has to go in jail, normaly for at least 15 years (at least this is the law in germany). If he does the same when being totally drunk, he gets 4 years. This is no fiction or a fairy tale, this is my own experience, coz that happened to my mother (as victim) 6 years ago. Thatīs the reason why i stopped drinking any kind of alcohol. So please no1 tell me anything about "fairness of laws" and "treating like a human being". I watched it live in the courthouse, how they "treated" and "valued" the life of my mother. Seems like in our modern community, alcohol can be an excuse for nearly everything.
The newest example we have here in germany is from yesterday. An 18 year old girl was getting judged for killing 2 people and injuring 6 others with her car. She was drunk, had the licence for 2 months, had taken cocaine. She drove way too fast in a small city, lost control in a curve and drove directly into a "beer garden". The car stopped when hitting the wall of the restaurant. Adjudgement: 3 Years in jail, coz she didnīt knew what she was doing coz of alcohol and drugs. Yeah...thatīs how it should work.
But probably u canīt be objective anymore when u get involved in such a case on first hand....
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Jebus
Promising
Supreme Hero
TheJester akaJeebs akaJebfoo
|
|
posted September 22, 2005 04:30 PM |
|
|
ok well I found MY new lawyer...
Other angering headlines are such as :
"burglar sues resident for falling through a sky light during roberry..."
Angel,
I'd be curious to know what your feelings on the justice system on minors.
(a teenager who can't be tried as an adult after killing, raping, beating... their records in Canada are protected and wiped when they become of age)
I am still waiting to see if anyone has a GOOD explanation for why society should have the burden of paying for supporting criminals...(but I guess I'll leave it be)
____________
"You went over my helmet??"
|
|
Korejora
Promising
|
|
posted September 23, 2005 12:32 AM |
|
|
Quote:
So, basically, what you're saying that rapists and other criminals do what they do because it's in their genes? Because if it's not "society's fault" (I never used that ridiculous and inprecise phrase), then it has to be the genes. Through socialization, every "ability" or "function" of a human being is imprinted on people, through their interaction with their surroundings, i.e. society. (Basically, the only insticts humans are born with, is a sucking instinct, and possibly some gender role instincs - although the latter one is disputed.)
It seems perfectly natural to me that some people would be born with more or less development of the lower frontal lobe, based on their genes. Depending on the neural connections in there, someone may or may not be highly prone to anti-social (ie. criminal) behaviour.
____________
That's the best part. 
|
|
arachnid
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 02, 2005 02:56 AM |
|
|
Quote:
It seems perfectly natural to me that some people would be born with more or less development of the lower frontal lobe, based on their genes. Depending on the neural connections in there, someone may or may not be highly prone to anti-social (ie. criminal) behaviour.
This is just wrong, so your saying people with brain defects have a higher chance of being a criminal? It reminds me of the way they thought they could spot a criminal in the victorian age by the way people looked.
The problem that i have with the death penalty is that the system is corrupt and corruptable. Since 1976 there has been 700 excutions in America, 95 of which have been fully exonerated of the crimes they were suppost to of commited. Personally any country that can find michael Jackson innocent i worry for
|
|
Jebus
Promising
Supreme Hero
TheJester akaJeebs akaJebfoo
|
|
posted October 02, 2005 05:21 AM |
|
Edited By: Jebus on 1 Oct 2005
|
Quote:
This is just wrong, so your saying people with brain defects have a higher chance of being a criminal? It reminds me of the way they thought they could spot a criminal in the victorian age by the way people looked.
you're striking me as someone who really has not appreciated the depth of the arguments up until now...
that's not what is beeing said at all.
he's just trying to express that some levels of criminality(is that a word) can be based on defects of the brain and not only the result of our society (which was the argument to start with) which was what some were trying to say.
____________
"You went over my helmet??"
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted October 03, 2005 01:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I watched this very interesting topic from the beginning without posting a word, just to see where in what direction it will go. But i canīt hold back anymore and have to post some experiences of my own...
Quote:
Because, dear Jebus, by extending rights to the criminal we
a) try to teach by example,
b) try to show that we're better than him/her ()
and c) if we too take away te rights of the criminal, then we are no better (of course, some of the criminal's rights have to be taken away, but there's degrees).
This sounds like quoted from a lawyer book, and iīm pretty sure u have never been involved in any criminal case like mentioned in this thread.
Nopes, it's not quotyed from a "lawyer book"; these are my own opinions (if somewhat raw and imperfect in phrasing).
Quote:
You mix up 2 different things here Terje. First part is the teaching part, second is the punishment. We sure "teach by example" in the first part, but we sure donīt have to "teach" anybody in punishment. And we are better than him, coz we would only act by rules, made before someone breaks them, so he knows what will happen when he does. If someone "steals" the life of another person and then he/she gets punished (and in which way doesnīt matter at all) by the law, we still are better than him/her, coz we acted after the given rule was broken, so we had a reason to punish!
We think we have reason to punish, because of the constructed formalizing of human norms that we call "laws". When someone, i.e. a criminal, has different norms, can't it also be said that this person had "reason" to do what he/she did?
I'm not trying to legitimize crime here, I'm just pointing towards the fact that humans percieve reality differently, and that such differences can have serious consequenses, like murder, rape, child molesting.
Sure, "we" all know it's wrong, "we" all would never have done such a thing, "we" all condemn such acts - but "we" all are not "everyone".
Quote:
If someone breaks a law, we always take away rights of him. Sometimes small ones (the right to keep his money...), sometimes bigger ones (the right of freedom), sometimes the biggest (the right to life).
So if your argument would have any value, we should either never take away any rights, or we always take away specific rights.
I don't see how you're able to deduct these dogmas from my argument, since all I was trying to say, is that there's degrees of punishment.
But then again, I'm only a 20 year old guy with hardly any education at all - what do I know?
And since I am so ignorant, I'd ølike for you, old and wise man, to point exactly to how my arguments led you to that conclusion.
And by the way: Which argumant would that be, exactly? I mean, I have been agrumenting for 3 pages here, and you refer to "your argumant"? (From the contxt you used the phrase in, I took it that you meant the argument you quoted. If not, then my reply about "degrees of punishment" is misplaced.)
Quote:
The second way is the way the world works mostly, but normaly it works by taking the "commensurability" into account. What commensurability means in every possible case has to be judged by the judicative part of a government.
Right. The fundament of all modern states - the separation of powers. I don't quite see it's relevancy, though. Could you please point it out to me?
Quote:
Why is it ok to "punish" a burgler by paying money when he has stolen money, but itīs not ok to "punish" a murderer, who has stolen a life, by paying with his life? This treatment wonīt make us the same bad human being like him, but we save the rights of many other human beings (by preventing him from killing again).
Er, because the burglar only stole money, which can be replaced, while the murderer took a life, which can't be replaced?
I thought that was what you all were basing your arguments for death penalties on?
And there are several ways of keeping a murderer from murdering again, which doesn't include taking his/her life.
Quote:
And about the pedophile people.....Iīm pretty sure, this "malfunction" canīt be "repaired" with a therapy, where they all disucss and discuss and tell each other how difficult their own childhood was and this is the reason why they have this malfunction and itīs all not their fault..they didnīt knew what the did.....bahhh.
If someone treats a children in any bad way, especially in a sexual way, he is incurable ill! The only way in my eyes is, cut off his "third leg", or cut off a piece of his brain, where the sexual activity is steered from.
I can see that you're German, since you're idea of justice - cutting off body parts and such - is strikingly similar to the old Germanic practice of the concept.
And how will castrating the child molester do any good? Won't it just alientate him even further from society, and thus truning him into an even greater menace? And what about lobotomation? Turn him/her into a mindless zomibe? Back in the days, they tried this tactic on people with Downs Syndrome, and other "mentally disfunctional" people. Didn't make them much better.
Quote:
too often i had to read in the newspaper a headline like: "Former child molester, erroneously set free as being healed, raped and killed a 9 year old girl on her way from school". Iīm really sick of reading such stuff. You canīt cure those insane people.
Sure, you can't cure them if you just cut of parts of their bodies, or if you treat them like you would any other criminal. They need treatment, and proper "care" - the way I see it, sexual criminals should spend at least 20 years in mental institutions before being let loose in society again, if they've improved.
However, this is an expensive way of punishment, so usually, they're just locked up in a normal prison for 10-15 years, during which time they recieve no special help, and when they're released, they just continue as they left off. (Of course, some child molesters and rapists could be cured from normal prison, but it's my impression that they're the anomalies.)
Quote:
And there is one word in nearly all breaches of law all over the world, which really makes me crazy when reading: stultify somebody
"Ignorance is no excuse" has always said by all adults when i was young. Also when u are visiting a new country, itīs your business to inform yourself about the laws. If someone breaks rules, no matter if he knew it or not, he has to pay for it. If a man kills a woman with a knife, he has to go in jail, normaly for at least 15 years (at least this is the law in germany). If he does the same when being totally drunk, he gets 4 years. This is no fiction or a fairy tale, this is my own experience, coz that happened to my mother (as victim) 6 years ago. Thatīs the reason why i stopped drinking any kind of alcohol. So please no1 tell me anything about "fairness of laws" and "treating like a human being". I watched it live in the courthouse, how they "treated" and "valued" the life of my mother. Seems like in our modern community, alcohol can be an excuse for nearly everything.
I don't normally discuss topics with people in affect, but here I just have to comment on the differences in practicing law between our two countires: In Norway, being drunk or druged up, is no excuse. As a matter of fact, I believe that they get harder penalties for hit-and-runs when drunk driving, than when doing so in sober condition.
If you're trying to construct some kind of connection between giving people other penalties because of mental disabilities, and being slack with people who were drunk when they commited the crime, don't.
The two conditions are, although they have some similarities, completely different. Commiting a crime when under the influences of drugs or alcohol, isn't the same as doing so when "under influence" of mental disabilities, simply because the former is self-afflicted, whereas no one can be accused for inflicting mental disabilities on themselves.
Quote:
The newest example we have here in germany is from yesterday. An 18 year old girl was getting judged for killing 2 people and injuring 6 others with her car. She was drunk, had the licence for 2 months, had taken cocaine. She drove way too fast in a small city, lost control in a curve and drove directly into a "beer garden". The car stopped when hitting the wall of the restaurant. Adjudgement: 3 Years in jail, coz she didnīt knew what she was doing coz of alcohol and drugs. Yeah...thatīs how it should work.
No, that's not how it should work. I agree with you there.
Quote:
But probably u canīt be objective anymore when u get involved in such a case on first hand....
Again, I agree. But as long as one tries, one is welcome to it.
Quote:
It seems perfectly natural to me that some people would be born with more or less development of the lower frontal lobe, based on their genes. Depending on the neural connections in there, someone may or may not be highly prone to anti-social (ie. criminal) behaviour.
Yeah, but that has nothing to do with insticts. Insticts are patterns of behaviour we are born with.
"Being prone to anti-social behaviour" indicates that you're more likely to, through the process of socialization, absorb the anti-social elements around you, rather than the "pro-social" ones.
And although this is a border case, where I can be inclined to agree that genes have an influence, it is none the less the socialization that is the determining factor, since people can have such "more or less development of the lower frontal lobe" and still be brought up to be relativly well-functioning members of society.
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
| |
|
|
