[QUOTE=Mr. America;32762573]The system implementing the rules doesn't matter as this is just a theoretical debate about the ethics of punishment, with no consideration of the governing body or whatever it is that would be enforcing it.
From your standpoint that the person was able to be fully rehabilitated I would think or at least hope that they would have wanted themselves to be fully punished instead of rehabilitated after they are able to fully grasp what they have done with a level and civilized mind. Even still, rehabilitation for a mass murderer is not deserving in my opinion because that person has again revoked any help for what they've done. I don't think it would be morally correct. [/QUOTE]
And now we come back to the old saying "Two wrongs don't make a right".
If we can rehabilitate, why not? What possible benefit would come from killing the murderer? It's not like all those people he'd killed would just up and come back to life when he dies. Would those people killed today want someone's death blamed on their own? Would they feel safe knowing that, because they were there to be killed, another man is going to die?
Someone going on a killing spree is a problem for the killer just as much as the ones who died, so why not make sure at least one person survives sane and well-balanced? The killer's just as much a person as the killed, more so, because he needs help, which the dead can never get.
[editline]13th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32766696]As I stated in the OP, I think Human RIGHTS should be Privileges. As in, changing the name so they can be revoked WITHIN reason.
So, when you're taken into custody for mass murder, you would lose the privilege of not being tortured and other things that human rights laws prohibit.[/QUOTE]
Torture? Really?
Why? How would that help? Even if it was to make the killer see the fault in his own actions, he's going to be dead soon anyway and rehabilitation would have done the same thing [I]and[/I] not horrifically killed him!
On whose authority should we place the right to take away the privilege of life from other human beings?
There's no fucking God Emperor here.
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;32766861]On whose authority should we place the right to take away the privilege of life from other human beings?
There's no fucking God Emperor here.[/QUOTE]
Well, I'd assume there'd be some sort of judge. Like in Judge Dredd.
Funnily enough, that comic was set in a dystopian hell-hole. Do the maths.
They should not be privilege because they are "Rights" no matter what. If they were a privilege this would not be a free country, and corrupt officials can endanger anyone by taking it away.
[QUOTE=Cone;32767143]Well, I'd assume there'd be some sort of judge. Like in Judge Dredd.[/QUOTE]
erm yeah his question was why does this judge have the authority to decide who has the privilege to live and who doesn't
why is this judge God Emperor
Human rights are defined by society and their morals. Violating another person's human rights or breaking the other laws set by society generally leads to expulsion (to a certain degree) from that society in the form of prison sentences. And that makes sense to me. Yeah, for the most atrocious of crimes (again judged by society and it's morals), in an ideal world the offenders would be permanently and completely expelled from society in the form of marooning or something. But we're not it an ideal world, so that's not going to happen.
What the OP says about torture and stuff is pretty stupid in my opinion. Breaking another person's human rights because of their crimes does not gain anything, they should be punished, yes, but not to that extent. Punishment for breaking the rules of society should be punished by taking the person away from society, as they have shown they are not fit to belong there (for the time been).
[QUOTE=lolo;32767151]They should not be privilege because they are "Rights" no matter what. If they were a privilege this would not be a free country, and corrupt officials can endanger anyone by taking it away.[/QUOTE]
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment]*cough[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act]cough*[/url]
Human rights should be a right.
'Nuff said.
the very term "human rights" necessitates that they be irrevocable. that's what the term "human rights" means; a person deserves them solely by virtue of them being human. op's question is intrinsically worthless
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;32767491]the very term "human rights" necessitates that they be irrevocable. that's what the term "human rights" means; a person deserves them solely by virtue of them being human. op's question is intrinsically worthless[/QUOTE]
Exactly. If you wanted them to be rights, you'd have to have less for the standard person if you also wanted less for a killer.
But then people would be equal, and we can't have that!
Emotions have no place in a juicidal system. Any suspect, no matter the crime, should be given a fair trial, a fair sentence and the right to not be interrogated using barbaric methods such as torture. We can't go around breaking suspects' human rights in what is supposed to be a civilized society.
[QUOTE=UnknownDude;32767565]Emotions have no place in a juicidal system. Any suspect, no matter the crime, should be given a fair trial, a fair sentence and the right to not be interrogated using barbaric methods such as torture. We can't go around breaking suspects' human rights in what is supposed to be a civilized society.[/QUOTE]
The laws of society are created by emotions and opinions, so saying emotions and opinions have no part in the justice system isn't really correct. Opinions of a single person do not belong there, but when society as a whole/majority has an opinion, then it should start defining the law by the nature of how society works.
[QUOTE=Cone;32766718]
[b]Torture? Really?
Why? How would that help?[/b] Even if it was to make the killer see the fault in his own actions, he's going to be dead soon anyway and rehabilitation would have done the same thing [I]and[/I] not horrifically killed him![/QUOTE]
Retribution is justice. I want justice for a voice that can't be heard.
I don't care how barbaric it is, it is simply the RIGHT thing to do, to punish those who intentionally put others though an equal or greater amount of suffering.
[editline]13th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;32767491]the very term "human rights" necessitates that they be irrevocable. that's what the term "human rights" means; a person deserves them solely by virtue of them being human. op's question is intrinsically worthless[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32766696]As I stated in the OP, I think Human RIGHTS should be Privileges. As in, changing the name so they can be revoked WITHIN reason.[/QUOTE]
Read the thread before you comment, you moron.
[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32767907]Retribution is justice. I want justice for a voice that can't be heard.
I don't care how barbaric it is, it is simply the RIGHT thing to do, to punish those who intentionally put others though an equal or greater amount of suffering.[/QUOTE]
lol how exactly is inflicting pain on someone justice?
[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32767907]Retribution is justice. I want justice for a voice that can't be heard.[/quote]
actually retribution is not justice
[url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/retribution?db=dictionary]retribution is defined as:[/url]
1. requital according to merits or deserts, especially for evil.
2. something given or inflicted in such requital.
[url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/requital]and requital is defined as:[/url]
3. a retaliation for a wrong, injury, etc.
justice is not about retaliation. justice is about righteousness, reason, morality, and equity
[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32767907]I don't care how barbaric it is, it is simply the RIGHT thing to do, to punish those who intentionally put others though an equal or greater amount of suffering.[/quote]
why is it the "right" thing to do? who are you to decide that? what -gives- you the authority to decide that?
[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32767907]Read the thread before you comment, you moron.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32767907]I wanted to take it over here to start a non-hostile discussion[/quote]
lol
[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32767907]Retribution is justice. I want justice for a voice that can't be heard.
I don't care how barbaric it is, it is simply the RIGHT thing to do, to punish those who intentionally put others though an equal or greater amount of suffering.[/QUOTE]
So now your argument amounts to "I'm just right". Because putting someone through the same ordeal (arguably worse since mass-killing would, by definition, take place in a short time-span, whereas torture is intentionally drawn out) helps, makes sense, and actually does something.
Actually, no it doesn't, it makes you just as bad, if not worse than he is, it doesn't help anyone at all, he's going to be killed (by you) anyway, and all it does is drag it out and cause more pain to a single individual only different to you in that he needs help due to a wound the same as any other.
[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32767907]Read the thread before you comment, you moron.[/QUOTE]
Hahahahahahahaha
NO
[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32767907]Retribution is justice. I want justice for a voice that can't be heard.[/QUOTE]
I don't care how barbaric it is, it is simply the RIGHT thing to do, to punish those who intentionally put others though an equal or greater amount of suffering.
If you think that putting any human being through any amount of suffering is the right thing to do, then you need to really think about what's right before post again.
You realize that many people who are accused of flagrant crimes (such as serial murder, rape, and torture of another human being) are [I]deeply[/I] psychologically disturbed, don't you? It's beyond no control of their own. It'd be like me wanting to hack off your willy for getting an erection from an arousing image.
Even in the cases where they lack mental disorder, you would be doing no good to society by torturing them for their crimes.
By putting them in jail or a mental institution, you make it so they are not a danger to society, but are still allowed to live and retain their rights as they should.
Consider this: Exactly what does torture [B][I]contribute[/I][/B] to society? Sure, it feeds the ravenous, blood-thirsty media and the people who pay attention to it, but it doesn't do [B][I]anything positive[/I][/B] except put a human being through pain and anguish.
Say that someone accidentally pushes you in a crowded hallway. Does that mean you should shove them onto the floor because of it?
Say that you drink and drive. Does that mean I should burn your mouth shut, then saw off your hands and feet so you can't drink or drive again?
[QUOTE=joes33431;32768338]Say that someone [b]accidentally[/b] pushes you in a crowded hallway. Does that mean you should shove them onto the floor because of it?
Say that you drink and drive. Does that mean I should burn your mouth shut, then saw off your hands and feet so you can't drink or drive again?[/QUOTE]
This is my point. This whole debate is supposed to be in terms of one circumstance which I clearly laid out in the first post.
A terrorist who bombs somewhere with the [b]intent[/b] of killing 50 innocent people.
It doesn't contribute anything to society, but it's the right thing to avenge the people that were senselessly slaughtered. They should be made to suffer as their victims did, because that is only fair.
But what happens? People that commit such atrocious acts are sent to prison for the rest of their lives where they are provided food and beds, with roofs over their heads. You're putting a terrorist in a better position than a homeless man who more than likely hasn't caused any reasonable amount of suffering in his existence.
And drinking and driving doesn't apply to this discussion. It's a rather petty crime, and even if they did manage to kill a person due to it, they more than likely never would have been trying to in that circumstance.
[QUOTE=Kalibos;32768216]
lol[/QUOTE]
A non-hostile discussion in the sense that someone isn't bashed for their opinions. If one person is more ethically centered than someone else like myself, I'm not going to call them a pansy as I probably would outside of this thread.
He simply didn't read the thread, and his post contributed absolutely nothing to the discussion because that argument was already addressed.
[QUOTE=Hans-Gunther 3.;32764654]That's not punishment, that's euthanasia.
It's the easiest way out and that's not the point.
I understood under that example that you can kill all you like and "just" have to die yourself in the end.[/QUOTE]
Are you advocating torture as opposed to a simple execution in order for there to be a fitting punishment? If so, then that's completely fine so long as the end result is still death. I was just providing another method of execution since some people here were complaining about the inaccuracies of lethal injections and what not.
[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32768649]This is my point. This whole debate is supposed to be in terms of one circumstance which I clearly laid out in the first post.
A terrorist who bombs somewhere with the [b]intent[/b] of killing 50 innocent people.
It doesn't contribute anything to society, but it's the right thing to avenge the people that were senselessly slaughtered. They should be made to suffer as their victims did, because that is only fair.
But what happens? People that commit such atrocious acts are sent to prison for the rest of their lives where they are provided food and beds, with roofs over their heads. You're putting a terrorist in a better position than a homeless man who more than likely hasn't caused any reasonable amount of suffering in his existence.
And drinking and driving doesn't apply to this discussion. It's a rather petty crime, and even if they did manage to kill a person due to it, they more than likely never would have been trying to in that circumstance.[/QUOTE]
Why
Why would you want to do that though
It doesn't even help
Like, at all
I completely agree with OP's thoughts. If someone takes away an innocent life and gets jailed for it, who's to say they're not going to do it again when they get out? It would also serve as an example to scare criminals out of whatever they're going to do.
The only thing I disagree with is giving the position of deciding whether they live or die to another person. No human could ever do this without going power-mad. An advanced computer would do a far better job at making such a decision.
[QUOTE=Cone;32766718]And now we come back to the old saying "Two wrongs don't make a right".
If we can rehabilitate, why not? What possible benefit would come from killing the murderer? It's not like all those people he'd killed would just up and come back to life when he dies. Would those people killed today want someone's death blamed on their own? Would they feel safe knowing that, because they were there to be killed, another man is going to die?
Someone going on a killing spree is a problem for the killer just as much as the ones who died, so why not make sure at least one person survives sane and well-balanced? The killer's just as much a person as the killed, more so, because he needs help, which the dead can never get.
[/QUOTE]
Your argument assumes that you think the execution is another wrong. If you think it is a right then you aren't getting two wrongs, instead you are having a right balancing a wrong. They don't deserve to rehabilitated, and as stated if they could and were they would likely prefer to have been killed as they would be massively burdened with guilt that they could not reconcile with. I think a lot of the people that were murdered would be glad to know that the guy who killed them was executed. You don't think that you would be glad to know that the man who tortured/killed you or a loved one was put to death? Or do you really not have any empathy for the victims? I understand your love for life but it goes too far to extend it to those who destroy life for personal pleasure.
[QUOTE=Cone;32768757]Why
Why would you want to do that though
It doesn't even help
Like, at all[/QUOTE]
Do people that senselessly kill lots of innocent people help?
Like, at all?
No, they don't. These people deserve to suffer just as much as their victims did, because if you can disregard the value of another human beings life than you are clearly not worthy of it yourself.
Not to mention that in my scenario in OP, torturing the terrorist could get vital information out of him(although unlikely), like if there was going to be another attack.
[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32768649]
He simply didn't read the thread, and his post contributed absolutely nothing to the discussion because that argument was already addressed.[/QUOTE]
oh okay mr. president!!
I didn't realize that people weren't allowed to speak their mind if you haven't given them the OK to do so my bad!!!
You people don't understand the arguments here. We're not talking about necessarily how execution helps society (in terms of benefiting it other than removing the threat). We're talking about the proper and right way to respond to murderers.
Also, if you think a psychological disorder is an excuse why don't you remember that when your daughter is murdered and tortured then see if you are going to sit there and think oh well he's just a little whacky it's alright he deserves to be treated humanely. No, you will think he is deranged put him down. If he can't help it then don't let him fall subject to it again and harm some other dead person. Also, remember that when someone is murdered its not just that person affected. Imagine your parents or brother or wife being taken from you, yeah they are gone forever but your life is forever changed and I would tend to assume that the majority of people would find some solace in the fact that the perpetrator suffered equally.
Justice is something meant to bring about equal actions to perpetrators and make people pay for what they have done. Putting someone to death and torturing them for an atrocious crime is exactly that. However, there is now some sense that because we have new technologies we are suddenly more ethically advanced, which we're not, and therefore we are somehow above killing. Yes, we should not kill as much as possible but when someone who does not want to be a part of a civilized society they do not deserve to be treated in a civil manner and should be treated with EQUAL regard to life as they have previously shown.
[QUOTE=Kalibos;32768979]oh okay mr. president!!
I didn't realize that people weren't allowed to speak their mind if you haven't given them the OK to do so my bad!!![/QUOTE]
Stop being a child.
It's like if you're shopping at a store, and you ask for something and they say that they're out of stock, and then you go and ask for it again 3 seconds later.
[editline]13th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32769044]You people don't understand the arguments here. We're not talking about necessarily how execution helps society (in terms of benefiting it other than removing the threat). We're talking about the proper and right way to respond to murderers.
Also, if you think a psychological disorder is an excuse why don't you remember that when your daughter is murdered and tortured then see if you are going to sit there and think oh well he's just a little whacky it's alright he deserves to be treated humanely. No, you will think he is deranged put him down. If he can't help it then don't let him fall subject to it again and harm some other dead person. Also, remember that when someone is murdered its not just that person affected. Imagine your parents or brother or wife being taken from you, yeah they are gone forever but your life is forever changed and I would tend to assume that the majority of people would find some solace in the fact that the perpetrator suffered equally.
Justice is something meant to bring about equal actions to perpetrators and make people pay for what they have done. Putting someone to death and torturing them for an atrocious crime is exactly that. However, there is now some sense that because we have new technologies we are suddenly more ethically advanced, which we're not, and therefore we are somehow above killing. Yes, we should not kill as much as possible but when someone who does not want to be a part of a civilized society [b]they do not deserve to be treated in a civil manner and should be treated with EQUAL regard to life as they have previously shown.[/b][/QUOTE]
Very nicely stated. Especially the bolded part, this is exactly what I'm arguing for.
[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32768876]Do people that senselessly kill lots of innocent people help?
Like, at all?[/QUOTE]
the value of a human life isn't weighted on how much they contribute to society. we don't execute unemployed people either
[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32768876]No, they don't. These people deserve to suffer just as much as their victims did, because if you can disregard the value of another human beings life than you are clearly not worthy of it yourself.[/QUOTE]
then put them in prison for the rest of their lives. torturing them doesn't accomplish anything.
[editline]13th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr. America;32768746]Are you advocating torture as opposed to a simple execution in order for there to be a fitting punishment? If so, then that's completely fine[/QUOTE]
no it's not.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;32769103]the value of a human life isn't weighted on how much they contribute to society. we don't execute unemployed people either
then put them in prison for the rest of their lives. torturing them doesn't accomplish anything.[/QUOTE]
Oh, so they get to continue living, while the 50 innocent people that they executed don't?
What about the families that he tore apart? You think they're going to get much relief from the fact that this guy is nice and cozy in a prison cell for the rest of his life?
And how much they contribute to society? What? A bomber isn't contributing ANYTHING to society, he's hurting it.
[QUOTE=BestBuyInBRICK;32769062]
Very nicely stated. Especially the bolded part, this is exactly what I'm arguing for.[/QUOTE]
no they shouldn't because torturing them accomplishes nothing. the threat they pose to society should be removed by putting them in prison, but that is all.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;32769138]no they shouldn't because torturing them accomplishes nothing. the threat they pose to society should be removed by putting them in prison, but that is all.[/QUOTE]
Okay. I hope you're happy that YOUR hard earned money and tax dollars are going towards keeping awful inhumane people alive who have murdered innocent people and torn apart families and ruined lives.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
