Maine Governor: "I think we ought to bring back the guillotine" for drug dealers - Polidicks

This fat blood thirsty politician is a horrible human being. I vote we reclassify him as a pile of dog shit instead.

For drug dealers? Ehhh. For pedophiles and corrupt politicians, HELL YES!

So he wants to use murder to combat selling g drugs. What a neanderthal mind.

[QUOTE=cody8295;49627212]For drug dealers? Ehhh. For pedophiles and corrupt politicians, HELL YES![/QUOTE] What would happen when all the politicians are gone then?

[QUOTE=gastyne;49627275]What would happen when all the politicians are gone then?[/QUOTE] Then it will be the way democracy should be. With the least willing participant in charge

[video]https://youtu.be/qDO6HV6xTmI[/video]

[QUOTE=The Aussie;49617502]"Smack them on the bum." That's a bit dishonest to phrase it like that, don't you think? [url=http://davidhousefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/fay_caningex_01.jpg]A "smack" on the bum.[/url] I said i'd frame it in a way that you'd like. Doesn't mean i support it. The "possibly alone" qualifier was due to some prisoners needing to be exasperated from the main prison population. I'm of the opinion that solitary confinement is psychologically damaging to some degree.[/QUOTE] I'd say solitary is a lot more damaging than just "to some degree", at least for extended periods of time anyways. I think it's a much bigger issue in our prisons than anyone lets on, but then again what isn't. The entire system is severely fractured, top to bottom.

[QUOTE=Kljunas;49618529]There are some people that are just too dangerous to ever be released though.[/QUOTE] Yeah, and they should be removed from society and put into living accomodations away from the rest of society, like sweden does NO crime is worthy of rotting in a 4 by 6 concrete pit for the rest of your life. It's inexcusable.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;49619506]Holy fug, people really want to see a return in the more down to earth methods of killing people. Fuck subtelty, lets just go off with their heads or fill their chest full of lead! Next thing you know will be hearing people talking about how we need to bring back the gladiatorial arenas. Which in all honesty, would be pretty awesome.[/QUOTE] This is not a necessarily serious post but just a thought. What if prisons did have Gladiatorial Arenas that were optional. If you don't join, you do your time as usual. If you do join you risk your life, but if you win you get a more comfortable living space in prison. No reduced sentence, but you get nice food and such. That way we can deal with the prison costs by getting rid of some inmates wiling to risk their lives.

[QUOTE=phygon;49641888]Yeah, and they should be removed from society and put into living accomodations away from the rest of society, like sweden does NO crime is worthy of rotting in a 4 by 6 concrete pit for the rest of your life. It's inexcusable.[/QUOTE] I think it's wrong to say they are removed from society. When you're in prison, you're still very much a part of the society, or so I like to fucking see it. I think inmates must/should work and try to contribute to society like everybody else, lifetime inmates too. And for good work, you should get some benefits. In fact, I was in a job interview at a prison. 254 inmates at that morning (nothing like the average U.S. prison), consisting of drug criminals, aggravated assaults, and lifetime inmates even. They do have a high school in there, plenty of job opportunities for them also it seemed, but I couldn't really get a better feel of the day-to-day life in there. So, when you have any number of people and You have to come up with a place to lock them up in, you should also squeeze some [I]use[/I] out of them by putting them to work, but also treating them good for that. Although it's never probably a good idea to let any guard or the strict security down, because the inmates are there for a reason like illegal drugs. And the cost of allowing all these opportunities and shit for them is probably going to pay itself off easy, which I doubt is even that big of a cost in the first place. Everyone benefits.

While we're at it lets make criminals fight in gladiatorial rings with traps and lions.

[QUOTE=cody8295;49627212]For drug dealers? Ehhh. For pedophiles and corrupt politicians, HELL YES![/QUOTE] You know what's sad? The Supreme Court ruled the death penalty to be unconstitutional in a case involving a guy who raped a 8 year old so brutally that point her intestines were literally protruding into her vagina, yet in the same ruling it left open the death penalty for drug dealers.

[QUOTE=omarfr;49642162]This is not a necessarily serious post but just a thought. What if prisons did have Gladiatorial Arenas that were optional. If you don't join, you do your time as usual. If you do join you risk your life, but if you win you get a more comfortable living space in prison. No reduced sentence, but you get nice food and such. That way we can deal with the prison costs by getting rid of some inmates wiling to risk their lives.[/QUOTE] I'm sure that violates about 12 different human rights conventions.

I honestly don't understand how someone can advocate for murder as a form of punishment.

[QUOTE=gastyne;49643061]I honestly don't understand how someone can advocate for murder as a form of punishment.[/QUOTE] I don't exactly advocate for it, but ultimately it's a punishment like any other, no?

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;49643172]I don't exactly advocate for it, but ultimately it's a punishment like any other, no?[/QUOTE] Of course it isn't. It is completely irreversible and some people turn out to be innocent. I don't feel like people should pay taxes to have innocent people murdered by the government.

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;49642186]I think it's wrong to say they are removed from society. When you're in prison, you're still very much a part of the society, or so I like to fucking see it. I think inmates must/should work and try to contribute to society like everybody else, lifetime inmates too. And for good work, you should get some benefits. In fact, I was in a job interview at a prison. 254 inmates at that morning (nothing like the average U.S. prison), consisting of drug criminals, aggravated assaults, and lifetime inmates even. They do have a high school in there, plenty of job opportunities for them also it seemed, but I couldn't really get a better feel of the day-to-day life in there. So, when you have any number of people and You have to come up with a place to lock them up in, you should also squeeze some [I]use[/I] out of them by putting them to work, but also treating them good for that. Although it's never probably a good idea to let any guard or the strict security down, because the inmates are there for a reason like illegal drugs. And the cost of allowing all these opportunities and shit for them is probably going to pay itself off easy, which I doubt is even that big of a cost in the first place. Everyone benefits.[/QUOTE] Well, see, I don't think that people should even be in prison for drugs in the first place. I don't see why you fucking your life up is the government's problem when they don't really care if you fuck up in most other ways in regards to yourself. It's a citizen's choice what he or she does to his or her own body. I just feel like forcing those in prison to labour especially for nonviolent crimes is absolutely fucked. [editline]1st February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Bat-shit;49643172]I don't exactly advocate for it, but ultimately it's a punishment like any other, no?[/QUOTE] Absolutely not. The death penalty is barbaric as FUCK no matter how you look at it. Even not including how OFTEN criminals on death row are found to be innocent (some not until [I]after[/I] their deaths, which in itself makes it inexcusable), the idea that a country can commit the ultimate crime unto you, death, is crazy.

[QUOTE=gastyne;49643061]I honestly don't understand how someone can advocate for murder as a form of punishment.[/QUOTE] I think it should exist for massive crimes, like ruling a drug ring thats killed thousands, committing genocide, etc. Not small individual crimes that can easily be doctored.

[QUOTE=phygon;49648069]Absolutely not. The death penalty is barbaric as FUCK no matter how you look at it. Even not including how OFTEN criminals on death row are found to be innocent (some not until [I]after[/I] their deaths, which in itself makes it inexcusable), the idea that a country can commit the ultimate crime unto you, death, is crazy.[/QUOTE] Personally, I think equating murder with the death penalty is about as amoral as you can be. It would be like arguing that making a criminal pay a fee was equivalent to stealing from them. There are good arguments against the death penalty, but calling it murder isn't one of them.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49648113] There are good arguments against the death penalty, but calling it murder isn't one of them.[/QUOTE] It can be murder.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49648117]It can be murder.[/QUOTE] And fines can be stealing. The point is that it's not inherently equivalent to murder.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49648113]Personally, I think equating murder with the death penalty is about as amoral as you can be. It would be like arguing that making a criminal pay a fee was equivalent to stealing from them. There are good arguments against the death penalty, but calling it murder isn't one of them.[/QUOTE] A semantic difference doesn't really matter. It may not be literally murder, but at what point is a government allowed to KILL one of its citizens? To take their life from them, even when they are already no longer harming society? It's incredibly barbaric imho and exactly equatable to murder. Especially when sometimes people are found to be innocent after the government had them killed.

[QUOTE=phygon;49648131]A semantic difference doesn't really matter. It may not be literally murder, but at what point is a government allowed to KILL one of its citizens? To take their life from them, even when they are already no longer harming society? It's incredibly barbaric imho and exactly equatable to murder. Especially when sometimes people are found to be innocent after the government had them killed.[/QUOTE] It's anything but a semantic difference. The death penalty establishes that there are some crimes so evil that one deserves to lose their life for it. There's no way to prove what crime might necessitate it because it's purely a moral argument, but to claim that no differences exists seems like a tossing of all moral thought out the window. The argument about innocent people possibly being killed is a totally different argument. It's based on the imperfection of the justice system, not the inherent moral status of the death penalty.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49648158]It's anything but a semantic difference. The death penalty establishes that there are some crimes so evil that one deserves to lose their life for it. There's no way to prove what crime might necessitate it because it's purely a moral argument, but to claim that no differences exists seems like a tossing of all moral thought out the window. The argument about innocent people possibly being killed is a totally different argument. It's based on the imperfection of the justice system, not the inherent moral status of the death penalty.[/QUOTE] It's absolutely just a semantic difference, if a government kills one of its citizens then it's fundamentally failed to protect its citizens natural rights.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49648158]It's anything but a semantic difference. The death penalty establishes that there are some crimes so evil that one deserves to lose their life for it. There's no way to prove what crime might necessitate it because it's purely a moral argument, but to claim that no differences exists seems like a tossing of all moral thought out the window. The argument about innocent people possibly being killed is a totally different argument. It's based on the imperfection of the justice system, not the inherent moral status of the death penalty.[/QUOTE] Imperfections in the system matter though. In the US the justice system is not blind, its heavily political, expensive and makes mistakes.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49648277]Imperfections in the system matter though. In the US the justice system is not blind, its heavily political, expensive and makes mistakes.[/QUOTE] I'm not disagreeing with that. There's a legitimate argument to be had over whether the system is good enough to have the death penalty. I'm disputing the claim that the death penalty, inherently, has the same moral value as murder. [QUOTE]It's absolutely just a semantic difference, if a government kills one of its citizens then it's fundamentally failed to protect its citizens natural rights.[/QUOTE] Criminals lose their fundamental rights all the time. Basically every form of justice would be infringing on the person's rights if it was done by a non-governmental body. For example, one of the rights in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human rights states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state." ([url]http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/[/url] , article 13) Prison seems to take away that right.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49648398] Criminals lose their fundamental rights all the time. Basically every form of justice would be infringing on the person's rights if it was done by a non-governmental body. For example, one of the rights in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human rights states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state." ([url]http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/[/url] , article 13) Prison seems to take away that right.[/QUOTE] Criminals lose their rights in the interest of protecting other citizen's natural rights. The thing is, once a criminal is put away in jail, they no longer threaten those rights. Killing them is barbaric for this reason. It's not murder if a cop justifyably kills a suspect in immediate threat of killing other citizens, but if said cop were to execute a suspect after subdual then that would be murder.

[QUOTE=phygon;49648574]Criminals lose their rights in the interest of protecting other citizen's natural rights. The thing is, once a criminal is put away in jail, they no longer threaten those rights. Killing them is barbaric for this reason. It's not murder if a cop justifyably kills a suspect in immediate threat of killing other citizens, but if said cop were to execute a suspect after subdual then that would be murder.[/QUOTE] You're just moving the goalposts. You said that it was wrong because the government failed to protect their rights. Now you've changed it to it being fine to take away people's rights under some circumstances. Even with that said, you're still not right. How about putting people in prison for not paying taxes? Or how about for not appearing in court? Or how about for not paying a fine? Or how about for any other number of things that don't have anything to do with other people's rights?

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49648100]I think it should exist for massive crimes, like ruling a drug ring thats killed thousands, committing genocide, etc. Not small individual crimes that can easily be doctored.[/QUOTE] So you think 4 % error (innocent people) getting killed is an acceptable fact? Do you think it's ok if a civilian kills innocent people? Of course you don't, so how can you defend it when the government does it?

[QUOTE=sgman91;49648597]You're just moving the goalposts. You said that it was wrong because the government failed to protect their rights. Now you've changed it to it being fine to take away people's rights under some circumstances. Even with that said, you're still not right. How about putting people in prison for not paying taxes? Or how about for not appearing in court? Or how about for not paying a fine? Or how about for any other number of things that don't have anything to do with other people's rights?[/QUOTE] I'm not moving any goalposts. The goal of a government is to protect its citizens natural rights. If a citizen is actively infringing on other citizen's natural rights, then it is the government's duty to stop that. Once they are in prison, they are no longer infringing on those rights, and killing them is murder. [quote]How about putting people in prison for not paying taxes?[/quote] The government has to have money to protect the rights of its citizens, so by not paying taxes it could be argued that you're damaging the institution that protects those rights. I don't think it's necessarily right to jail people for that, but it's only a temporary punishment that's reversible. [quote]how about for not appearing in court?[/quote] If you don't appear in court then you might not be able to be removed from society for other's safety if you are infringing on their natural rights [quote]Or how about for not paying a fine?[/quote] see my taxes response [quote]Or how about for any other number of things that don't have anything to do with other people's rights? [/quote] Almost every single law has at least a tangential connection to protecting natural rights and laws that have zero connection to that should be immediately abolished