return to tranceaddict TranceAddict Forums Archive > Other > Political Discussion / Debate

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 
Are you Focking Kidding Me????!!!!!!! (pg. 2)
View this Thread in Original format
Renegade
quote:
... punishment by death may not result in more deterrence or more effective enforcement. In addition, by in effect making the punishment for child rape and murder equivalent, a State that punishes child rape by death may remove a strong incentive for the rapist not to kill the victim. Assuming the offender behaves in a rational way, as one must to justify the penalty on grounds of deterrence, the penalty in some respects gives less protection, not more, to the victim, who is often the sole witness to the crime.


Makes sense to me. If the primary function of the legal system is to deter and prevent crime (rather than merely facilitiating retribution for crimes already committed) then there is no sense in failing to distinguish between the rape of a child and the rape and murder of a child. One is plainly a worse crime than the other.

Also:

quote:
Originally posted by George Smiley
Besides, the death penalty is wrong full stop for any kind of crime...


Pretty much. Once you have someone in custody, their threat to society is zero. Killing a defenceless individual - no matter how heinous their crimes - places us on the same moral spectrum as the very murderers that we're condemning. I don't oppose the death penalty because I necessarily believe that murderers or rapists "deserve to live" (whatever that means and however such a judgement could possibly be made) but because I believe that we, as a civilisation, should be above that. Brutal retribution solves nothing.
Clovis
quote:
Originally posted by LatinLover
This decision is truly disappointing



As most victories for common sense and good judgment are with you.
Shakka
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade
Pretty much. Once you have someone in custody, their threat to society is zero.


Though their cost and financial burden on society is substantial. Though I guess you'd just assume raise taxes on the evil rich, since it's probably their fault anyway.

quote:
Killing a defenceless individual - no matter how heinous their crimes - places us on the same moral spectrum as the very murderers that we're condemning.


Defenseless? If memory serves, it was the child that was raped who was probably defenseless. Which is more immoral--slapping a child rapist on the wrist and letting him be a long-term financial burden to the innocent, or ridding society of someone who clearly had no respect for the rights of others?

quote:
but because I believe that we, as a civilisation, should be above that. Brutal retribution solves nothing.


Do you believe in God then? If you believe it is God's role to pass judgement it is one thing. However, if you don't believe in God and think that there should be nobody passing judgement on blatantly immoral and unjust acts, what exactly is your proposed solution? Just raise taxes?:conf:

To be sure, I'm not necessarily pro-death penalty for this, however I think I'm clear about whose side I take in this matter. I'm not one to defend heartless criminals.

And yes, I know you never said anything about taxes, but it is implied in the argument of just locking people up forever (or for how long it takes to "rehabilitate" them.)
Clovis
quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
Though their cost and financial burden on society is substantial. Though I guess you'd just assume raise taxes on the evil rich, since it's probably their fault anyway.



You're unfamiliar with the high cost of the death penalty aren't you.

quote:

Defenseless? If memory serves, it was the child that was raped who was probably defenseless. Which is more immoral--slapping a child rapist on the wrist and letting him be a long-term financial burden to the innocent, or ridding society of someone who clearly had no respect for the rights of others?


Isn't it funny how in the absence of capital punishment, life in prison is now a "slap on the wrist". Do you know what happens to child rapists in prison?
Fir3start3r
quote:
Originally posted by Clovis
You're unfamiliar with the high cost of the death penalty aren't you.


Nothing a 10¢ bullet wouldn't solve...

/ sorry....turrets....

quote:

Isn't it funny how in the absence of capital punishment, life in prison is now a "slap on the wrist". Do you know what happens to child rapists in prison?


...and this is somehow supposed to be retribution for the parents of the child who was raped how? :conf:
Clovis
quote:
Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Nothing a 10¢ bullet wouldn't solve...

/ sorry....turrets....



:conf:

quote:

...and this is somehow supposed to be retribution for the parents of the child who was raped how? :conf:


I don't know, why don't you try thinking about it.
Shakka
quote:
Originally posted by Clovis
You're unfamiliar with the high cost of the death penalty aren't you.


The cost is directly related to how long it is dragged out.


quote:
Isn't it funny how in the absence of capital punishment, life in prison is now a "slap on the wrist". Do you know what happens to child rapists in prison?


There you go, defending the perp. Life in prison, minus some manual labor and buttsecks....free rent, meals, healthcare, all on someone else's dime. Aside from being confined with a bunch of peers, things could be a lot worse given what got you there.
Renegade
quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
Though their cost and financial burden on society is substantial. Though I guess you'd just assume raise taxes on the evil rich, since it's probably their fault anyway.


No greater than the endless legal costs associated with prosecuting a death sentence.

quote:
Defenseless? If memory serves, it was the child that was raped who was probably defenseless. Which is more immoral--slapping a child rapist on the wrist and letting him be a long-term financial burden to the innocent, or ridding society of someone who clearly had no respect for the rights of others?


1) By defenceless I mean that they are stripped of any capacity to do harm to anyone for so long as they are in custody. The severity of their past crimes does not change this. This is the reason we do not execute POWs in times of war, so why should we treat common criminals any differently?

2) By putting violent offenders in jail, we are "ridding society of someone who clearly had no respect for the rights of others": that's the fundamental rationale for the existence of prisons. If people don't want to abide by the rules of society then you remove them from society, we're in no disagreement there. The difference, however, is that my solution doesn't necessitate lowering our own moral standards to enact vengeance against those who have lowered theirs.

quote:
Do you believe in God then? If you believe it is God's role to pass judgement it is one thing. However, if you don't believe in God and think that there should be nobody passing judgement on blatantly immoral and unjust acts, what exactly is your proposed solution?


We have the right to pass judgement on those who wrong us (there could be no legal system without it) but I also think that's it's prudent to deny ourselves the position as a society to be able to pass judgement on who among us is "worthy" of life and who among us is not. Considering the stakes involved, how could we possibly decide that we are competent enough to reliably make that distinction? Majority rule? Could you see where that leads us? Could we start executing women who cheat on their husbands if the majority of society demands it? If not, on what possible grounds can the death-penalty be imposed?

Besides, my argument isn't merely about moral aesthetics. Like I said, brutal retribution - even from a purely pragmatic standpoint - achieves nothing.

quote:
Just raise taxes?:conf:


C'mon, I'm a democrat. I don't think there's an issue in the world that can't be solved by increasing taxes. ;)

quote:
To be sure, I'm not necessarily pro-death penalty for this, however I think I'm clear about whose side I take in this matter. I'm not one to defend heartless criminals.


Don't make the mistake of thinking this is about the criminals: this is about us. I'd be lying if I said I cared about the welfare or interests of someone who saw fit to rape and murder a child, but I don't think that absolves us from the duty to comport ourselves with civility and restraint. Ghandi once said that the greatness and moral progress of a society can be measured in terms of the way it treats its animals, and I would argue that the same could be said about how a society treats its criminals.

quote:
And yes, I know you never said anything about taxes, but it is implied in the argument of just locking people up forever (or for how long it takes to "rehabilitate" them.)


Some people are pathologically incapable of rehabilitation and I have no problem with that being reflected in the law. I just don't think that's any justification for the existence of the death penalty.
LatinLover
quote:
Originally posted by Clovis
As most victories for common sense and good judgment are with you.


My conscious tells me its better than yours
Shakka
, I thought I was responding to Josh! One of you needs a new av! I, on the other hand, need glasses.;)

Renegade
quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
, I thought I was responding to Josh! One of you needs a new av! I, on the other hand, need glasses.;)


Haha, yeah it confuses me too actually. But it was mine first dammit. :whip:
Clovis
quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
The cost is directly related to how long it is dragged out.


And?

quote:


There you go, defending the perp. Life in prison, minus some manual labor and buttsecks....free rent, meals, healthcare, all on someone else's dime. Aside from being confined with a bunch of peers, things could be a lot worse given what got you there.


Shows what you know about life in prison. "defending the perp" :stongue: :stongue:


So what about regular rapists? I mean we're only giving them like 25 years, isn't that a slap on the wrist?
CLICK TO RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 
Privacy Statement