One of the worst crimes I have ever read about it in England were some guy had kidnapped a little girl and abused her sexually for hours then killing her and wrapping her body in barbed wire and disposing it in the trash , most of the worst cases don't make the headlines as they are just to evil.
There is a lot of evil in this world , most of them are in jail living the life of luxury protected from being killed.
Its all Wrong...
Theresa
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
what he's done is terrible & he should die or at least hurt a lot for it, but my question is going off on a tangent, what about a woman who either rapes someone or who does something equally despicable. Where does the line draw? Should her vagina be sown together and her breasts cut off, or how should she be punished for an equally serious act. Thoughts from the resident feminist please ;)
We had this exact same conversation in another thread somewhere along the lines. And yes, I think anyone, of any gender should be equally punished for the crimes they have committed.
However, sewing a womans vagina closed is hardly an equal level of punishment (not harsh enough.) Perhaps paired with lopping off her breasts we could consider it fair.
I think that the punishment should be somewhat related to what you have done. For this guy, he raped, and tried to blind the girl. So my punishment would be to chop off the limb he used to cause harm, and to make him blind.
Meh... maybe I am a bad person, but I think death is too easy for people like this. We need to make examples out of them.
The_G0dfather
No matter what a person has done, I dont think equal measures should be taken against the offender. Yes they deserve it, but it would only set more examples of society gone wrong and would only cause more of these situations in the long run. We dont hav to go back to the Middle Ages because of some individuals.
Justa good,severe legal system, without any torturing.
Nrg2Nfinit
England is filled with pedofiles and arch bishops
RJT
As far as I'm concerned the death penalty costs too much and serves only as punishment for the society within which it is used and the family of those executed.
Maybe saying that I'm "for torture" is a bit of a stretch, but I'm not really against what much of U.S. law calls "cruel and unusual" punishment for offenders whose guilt isn't a matter of debate. This itself causes loads of problems because how often can you be absolutely certain you've got the "right guy" - but the options seem to be either killing the wrong guy or punishing the wrong guy in cruel and unusual ways - and that is really the only pro-death-penalty argument I can even remotely acquiesce to.
Either way, I would generally agree with the assessment of death being "too good" for a fellow like this. Life in "federal, -me-in-the-ass prison", perhaps much of it in solitary, but without being separated from the general prison population completely, seems like it would be the best option. Long stretches of time on your own with little to no food or water that are only interrupted long enough for Nasty Nate to rape him seems a satisfactory punishment to me.
Slylee
quote:
Originally posted by LeopoldStotch
this case was probably used in a previous SVU episode. :)
anyways, imo, i think there should be a "3 strikes and you're out" rule for rapists. 3 strikes, and the wee wee is chopped out.
i've always said that myself. "cruel and unusual punishment". cruel and unusual punishment is the act of rape.
chimera66
someone like that should just die and i don't mean go through the whole death penalty thing. i mean shanked in jail or something within his first week. him and that guy in austria who raped his daughter for 24 years. makes me sick to the stomache thinking that people like that are allowed to live and live on my tax dollars.
Arbiter
quote:
Originally posted by RJT
This itself causes loads of problems because how often can you be absolutely certain you've got the "right guy" - but the options seem to be either killing the wrong guy or punishing the wrong guy in cruel and unusual ways - and that is really the only pro-death-penalty argument I can even remotely acquiesce to.
Surely those are not our only two options. Let me ask you this: suppose that this person who is to be executed or tortured for a crime that they did not commit happens to be the person you love most -- could you still acquiesce then? Is that a price you are prepared to willingly pay? To what end -- the satisfaction of our primitive thirst for revenge?
We like to imagine that we live in a society where criminals are only convicted if their guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but we live in a universe where there is good reason to doubt almost everything. Instead of allowing our emotional reaction to the 'story' of what happened here dictate our response to it, shouldn't we consider what, exactly, would be accomplished by killing or by torturing this individual, even if he is in fact responsible? What message are we really sending by such responses: that you should not commit the deeds described above, or that acting on your desires for petty vengeance may be called 'justice' and thereby associated with some moral good? For how many people do you imagine each of those questions is a matter of some degree of indecision? I think that we would do well to consider that as well. Merely becomes someone might "deserve" a particular fate does not mean that we ought to take measures to ensure that they get it.
lacksesepsotygh
quote:
Originally posted by hooknife
She said she believed it was her TV set or record turntable.
i wonder what she spins
Slylee
quote:
Originally posted by Arbiter
Surely those are not our only two options. Let me ask you this: suppose that this person who is to be executed or tortured for a crime that they did not commit happens to be the person you love most -- could you still acquiesce then? Is that a price you are prepared to willingly pay? To what end -- the satisfaction of our primitive thirst for revenge?
We like to imagine that we live in a society where criminals are only convicted if their guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but we live in a universe where there is good reason to doubt almost everything. Instead of allowing our emotional reaction to the 'story' of what happened here dictate our response to it, shouldn't we consider what, exactly, would be accomplished by killing or by torturing this individual, even if he is in fact responsible? What message are we really sending by such responses: that you should not commit the deeds described above, or that acting on your desires for petty vengeance may be called 'justice' and thereby associated with some moral good? For how many people do you imagine each of those questions is a matter of some degree of indecision? I think that we would do well to consider that as well. Merely becomes someone might "deserve" a particular fate does not mean that we ought to take measures to ensure that they get it.
actually, the way i see it is that it's just a very simple solution to a problem lol the end? and i dont mean the torturing revenge part...but just the death penalty... and of course only if phsyical evidence proves guilt. or even better, a confession to go along with it.
RJT
quote:
Originally posted by Arbiter
Surely those are not our only two options. Let me ask you this: suppose that this person who is to be executed or tortured for a crime that they did not commit happens to be the person you love most -- could you still acquiesce then? Is that a price you are prepared to willingly pay? To what end -- the satisfaction of our primitive thirst for revenge?
But they are our only two options, and I think that pretty well sums up the problem that plagues not just the American justice system, but any justice system in the world - the burden of proof of ones innocence or guilt. Speaking in general terms (and not out of my own opinion), it seems as if someone is guilty of a horrible crime, then to the general public there isn't any punishment good enough for them, yet if they are innocent but treated as though they were guilty, anything that happens to them is "cruel and unusual" or "unwarranted."
And as far as the "loved one" argument goes - to be honest, I can't stand when people bring that up in a discussion like this. In idyllic terms, justice is divorced from personal feelings - and especially when we are talking about how we'd like the justice system to reward criminal behavior, discussing any notion of justice in terms of how we would want our own loved ones treated immediately removes any objective sense of justice one could possibly have. If our entire legal system was based on that, everyone would get a firm slap on the wrist for anything they did, and we'd all go on with our days.
quote:
Originally posted by Arbiter
We like to imagine that we live in a society where criminals are only convicted if their guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but we live in a universe where there is good reason to doubt almost everything. Instead of allowing our emotional reaction to the 'story' of what happened here dictate our response to it, shouldn't we consider what, exactly, would be accomplished by killing or by torturing this individual, even if he is in fact responsible? What message are we really sending by such responses: that you should not commit the deeds described above, or that acting on your desires for petty vengeance may be called 'justice' and thereby associated with some moral good? For how many people do you imagine each of those questions is a matter of some degree of indecision? I think that we would do well to consider that as well. Merely becomes someone might "deserve" a particular fate does not mean that we ought to take measures to ensure that they get it.
I don't imagine anything of the sort.
What you say above effectively makes any sort of punishment "petty" or "revenge" - so I'll ask you, what do you plan doing to the most horrid of criminal offenders? Saying "Don't do it again or I'll slap you"?
:conf:
That tact your taking just seems to be one of "any kind of response to criminal activity amounts to nothing more than revenge", so why even bother with a justice system in general?
You are never, ever going to see a world where we cannot doubt just about everything - but should that really be a reason not to punish criminals we can be relatively certain are guilty?
I just really don't understand either extreme position when it comes to something like this. It either seems like we have to coddle prisoners (which is already the case in the U.S. - prisoners live better than most of the lower class), or kill them - neither of which seems all that effective a deterrent to me.
Akridrot
Didn't we used to torture and do 'an eye for an eye' before? Wasn't crime still an issue regardless of those policies? They did not deter criminals or prevent crimes even though they were unspeakably inhumane. There is no perfect solution, but please stop clamoring for the return of 'equal' punishment. It doesn't prevent like this from happening.
Also, this is kinda related, you might enjoy watching it. It's a talk about how violent (or not violent) we are today, as a whole. If you have the time, look at this (it's a TED talk, so it's worth your time):
We need to start examining the people who end up in the system a little more closely. I now believe that the biggest question isn't if we should put someone in prison, it's if that person should be let out. We need to do it on an individual basis. Some people should not be let out. They should be treated and watched closely by professionals. The law has it all wrong. If the money or effort isn't there, then we need to push for it.
Looking at it from an outside view, this is pretty silly, isn't it? When it comes to a string of so many petty crimes, why do we stop after slapping the blame on some no name criminal and locking him up for a few days? Do we do it to deter him? Deter others? (How, exactly is anyone else being deterred if hardly anyone knows of the guy -- until he does something like this -- and all he gets is a few days? Also, what about when celebrities commit crimes and get off scot free, how does that work for 'deterring' people?)
If you put a no name petty criminal in jail multiple times and he continues to do the same , you need to start examining his life and his mind. You can't just throw him in then throw him back out.
Imagine if some really angry bully (also a poor student) kept punching and throwing things at a classmate. Now, what would you say if all the teacher kept doing was sending the bully to sit in the corner for 1 minute each incident, then letting return right back to his seat (next to the victim)? No matter how many times the bully did it, or how senseless and violent the bully's outbursts were, all the teacher does is make him sit in the corner for 1 minute. Which is nothing for the bully. No escalation is made, and no attempt to understand why this bully is doing what he's doing is made.
Essentially, this is what we're doing. It does not make sense in a classroom context, and it does not make sense in a societal context.
