which is the most civilsed nation on earth?

[livemusic]

I´m not against death penalty because there´s a chance innocent people will be executed. I´m against death penalty because it´s uncivilized to take a life away.

I would be happier to know that my tax money is being used to keep criminals in jail to make a safer society than being used to execute someone.

 

[Swift]

Honestly, I wish we had harsher punishments in the US. Especially for repeat offenders.

 

[skicrush]

Criminals don't give up their rights. It might be written in the law, but who decides whenever someone's rights are violated enough to execute someone? Is the death penalty morally right after someone killed a person? What if they nearly killed a person? Would death penalty be just when someone stole a Mars bar from a store? I guess that woman in Iran who got stoned to death after being convicted because she was raped REALLY deserved it. It was written in the law, she violated the rights of her future husband of being able to marry a virgin. The type of thinking you display with this post really is some type of wild wild west thinking. Yeee haw cowboy, make 'em squeal like a pig.

Yes, I do support the death penalty for steling a mars bar. Mars bars are sacred.

Thank you, smelly, for that fine example of hyperbole. Is this a literary class now? Or are you just drunk and tired?

OK, I am tired of this huge misunderstanding of the American Justice system. Ward Weaver deserves to die--plain and simple. I'm guessing that's what changed a6m5's mind. In most states, the prosecutors would seek the death penalty. There are some states that have prohibited it. A prosecutor can only seek the death penalty under certain circumstances, and crimes of passion do not count. Premeditated, serial type killings count. Kidnappings/rape/abuse killings count. The stealing fo mars bars counts. Revenge/jealousy/rage do not. But in any case, the prosecutor or the judge can decide whether to seek/grant that penalty. In fact, the judge can reduce the sentence the jury hands down if he feels it is inappropriate. And like Duke said, the appeals process is quite a lengthy one. My dad prosecuted a serial killer when I was about 10, and he was given the death penalty. The guy is STILL in the appeals system. That was almost 20 years ago. If there was any evidence that it was the one armed man, it would have come to light by now. Do you people even realize how it works? The prosecutor wouldn't even CHARGE someone with the crime in the first place if there wasn't a huge amount of evidence they were guilty.

 

[James2097]

I meant that nowhere the world was civilized before and during and shortly after WWII. Europe and Asia were a mess, USA as more civilized back then, but blacks were still heavily oppressed. So that doesn't make them very civilized either. Africa probably wasn't any better off than the rest of the world, maybe Australia was civilized, I don't know much of that country.

The Australian government was still taking Aboriginal kids away from their parents to "intergrate" them into white society as second class citizens... to bring them up as 'good christians with white values'... it makes me sick! Now its called the "stolen generation" among Aboriginal people, there are older Aboriginal women (the men mostly haven't lived long enough) who are still just tracking down their real Mum (who is really old or most likely dead now) that they haven't seen since they were 6 years old or whatever...

A great movie about this is called "Rabbit Proof Fence", I strongly urge all to watch, it might be hard to get in the US, but it gives a really realistic overview of what Australia was like at that time, and especially relevant to the "stolen generation".

This sort of inhumanity (as well as current illegal refugee laws (innocent kids & their mothers etc can be kept behind barbed wire INDEFINATELY, before their case is even looked at properly to determine whether they're truly refugees...)) really sickens me about our current government. I voted for the other guys... 👍

You can probably gues I'm not a fan of capital punishment, for all the reasons stated (sporadically earlier in the thread). 👎

 

[Swift]

The Australian government was still taking Aboriginal kids away from their parents to "intergrate" them into white society as second class citizens... to bring them up as 'good christians with white values'... it makes me sick! Now its called the "stolen generation" among Aboriginal people, there are older Aboriginal women (the men mostly haven't lived long enough) who are still just tracking down their real Mum (who is really old or most likely dead now) that they haven't seen since they were 6 years old or whatever...


This sort of inhumanity (as well as current illegal refugee laws (innocent kids & their mothers etc can be kept behind barbed wire INDEFINATELY, before their case is even looked at properly to determine whether they're truly refugees...)) really sickens me about our current government. I voted for the other guys... 👍

Yep, humans have done some pretty sick things to each other in the past and now.

 

[a6m5]

Ward Weaver deserves to die--plain and simple. I'm guessing that's what changed a6m5's mind.

One of my coworkers changed my mind, when we were talking about the child molesters. I told him I was against capital punishment, then he told me that it was the surest way to stop repeat offenders. I don't have any kids, so I never looked at it like that before(he has a daughter), but it made sense to me. On Ward Weaver thing, I didn't think about it, but you're probably right. After that, these pedophiles started to really bug me.

A great movie about this is called "Rabbit Proof Fence", I strongly urge all to watch, it might be hard to get in the US, but it gives a really realistic overview of what Australia was like at that time, and especially relevant to the "stolen generation".

I saw that film when it came out on DVD a while back. Great recommendation, James!

 

[smellysocks12]

Now I have a question for you. Would you want to pay for someone's jail time if they killed someone you were very close to?

Yup, when the costs are paid by society it doesn't cost much at all per person. If my money would guarantee that this person won't ever come out then I'm ok with it. I also don't think the justice system in the Netherlands is very great either, the punishments are too low here. This one guy who murdered a popular politician in clear daylight only got like 18 years for it. People like that should be put in jail for life.

 

[Famine]

One of my coworkers changed my mind, when we were talking about the child molesters. I told him I was against capital punishment, then he told me that it was the surest way to stop repeat offenders.

That works in all cases.

Killed someone? The electric chair prevents reoffending.
Stolen from a church collection plate? The electric chair prevents reoffending.
Jaywalking? The electric chair prevents reoffending.
Parking ticket? The electric chair prevents reoffending.

Where do you draw the line? Crimes of consequence - stealing enough money to bring a company down? Crimes of death - murder? Crimes you find repugnant - child molestation?

 

[Swift]

That works in all cases.

Killed someone? The electric chair prevents reoffending.
Stolen from a church collection plate? The electric chair prevents reoffending.
Jaywalking? The electric chair prevents reoffending.
Parking ticket? The electric chair prevents reoffending.

Where do you draw the line? Crimes of consequence - stealing enough money to bring a company down? Crimes of death - murder? Crimes you find repugnant - child molestation?

Heh, good point.

To be honest, I think all rapists and molesters should be removed of their offending equipment. That pretty much puts a lock on that repeating.

A mamed person is more of a deterent for repeats then a dead person.

 

[skicrush]

I agree with that whole heartedly, Swift. Especially for repeat offenders. That kind of demontrates they can't be trusted with those things. Makes sure they were really guilty (like, 3 times) for 3 separate juries to separately convict on 3 separate offenses.

 

[DemonSeed]

Heh, good point.

To be honest, I think all rapists and molesters should be removed of their offending equipment. That pretty much puts a lock on that repeating.

A mamed person is more of a deterent for repeats then a dead person.

i agree. no need to kill sexual offenders, just castrate them. let them live with it, and it will also make sure there will be no re-offending.

 

[Famine]

Sex offences are 90% mental and 10% genital. Lopping off tackle will have little to no effect.

"Ah, but without testosterone..." they say... Ah, but what about all the female sex offenders we have, who didn't have any in the first place, say I? No amount of surgical alteration is going to reduce their testosterone levels.

In the UK in 2004 we had 18 cases where women were convicted of rape. Love to see you try to castrate them...

 

[Swift]

Sex offences are 90% mental and 10% genital. Lopping off tackle will have little to no effect.

"Ah, but without testosterone..." they say... Ah, but what about all the female sex offenders we have, who didn't have any in the first place, say I? No amount of surgical alteration is going to reduce their testosterone levels.

In the UK in 2004 we had 18 cases where women were convicted of rape. Love to see you try to castrate them...

True enough, but it'll make the guys think twice before doing something stupid now won't it!

 

[smellysocks12]

Send the female sex offenders in my direction... well only the hot ones...

 

[DemonSeed]

and its guys who do more damage and usually are sex offenders. and how is it with hormonal balance if you castrate them? won't they become less agressive? and completely lack sexual urges. it is mental as you said Famine, but the impulse is not i think. The impulse to act is hormonal, the way of acting is psychological, isnt it?

 

[smellysocks12]

Do you know the satisfaction of rape comes from having power over someone? It's not the actual sex that they do it for in most cases.

 

[Famine]

Do you know the satisfaction of rape comes from having power over someone? It's not the actual sex that they do it for in most cases.

Wondering how you know this...

The impulse to act is hormonal

Which completely ignores the possibility - and in fact directly denies the possibility - of female sex offenders. Does that not tell you that the reasoning is wrong?


Out of interest, where do you stand on "removing the offending organs" of thieves, as performed under Shariah law?

 

[DemonSeed]

female sex offenders are rare, and AFAIK, it is not completely understood why do they do it. also, majority of them never use force, instead creating 'romantic' traps for young boys, who generally, do not mind being a subject of sexual advances of an older woman. i dont mean that it is not a problem, but it is a small problem compared to sexual crimes comitted by males.

what i said about punishment for sex offenders, was meant for males, as those are a real problem. so, what do you think, or actually know as a scientist, about the hormones. am i right in saying that castration would eliminate the basic urge, and also, change the personality of the criminal [after some time, because of lack of hormones], thus preventing further offences?

thieves? you mean cutting off hands? well, it is a bit tough justice, i suppose it works well . but i think that other, less invasive methods could be used to punish thieves. most of them [not counting cleptomaniacs] just need to be socially adjusted .

 

[smellysocks12]

Wondering how you know this...

IT WASN'T ME!!!

 

[Duke]

It is true. Very few rapes have much to do with actual sexual gratification. It's about power and control.

 

[Famine]

female sex offenders are rare, and AFAIK, it is not completely understood why do they do it. also, majority of them never use force, instead creating 'romantic' traps for young boys, who generally, do not mind being a subject of sexual advances of an older woman. i dont mean that it is not a problem, but it is a small problem compared to sexual crimes comitted by males.

what i said about punishment for sex offenders, was meant for males, as those are a real problem. so, what do you think, or actually know as a scientist, about the hormones. am i right in saying that castration would eliminate the basic urge, and also, change the personality of the criminal [after some time, because of lack of hormones], thus preventing further offences?

thieves? you mean cutting off hands? well, it is a bit tough justice, i suppose it works well . but i think that other, less invasive methods could be used to punish thieves. most of them [not counting cleptomaniacs] just need to be socially adjusted .

No.

Once the person is sexually mature, the nature of the urges - the mental part - persists, regardless of hormonal influence.

Re: Female sex offenders... See "Hindley, Myra" and "West, Rosemary". While you're at it, check the girl convicted a couple of years ago of rape - she held the victim down while other members of her gang raped her in turn.


So, surgical removal of bodily parts is fine for you if the crime is sexual in nature, but not for stealing? Why not? Removal of a hand would, to steal a phrase from Swift, "make the guys think twice before doing something stupid now won't it". Removal of both hands would preclude reoffending - much more so than lopping an old bloke's tackle off will stop him accessing child porn on the internet. Why don't sexual offenders need "socially adjusting" when thieves do?

It seems to me that this line of thinking is only for revenge purposes, and not for crime prevention (since it doesn't), punishment or rehabilitation purposes. Certainly where you apply it to emotive crimes, or crimes which a physically repellant to you. Besides, where do you draw the line - who gets punished this way and who doesn't? Fundamentally you're ignoring women offenders, which makes it a sexually discriminatory policy at the outset - why do women offenders of the same crime get a different punishment to male offenders? Females get prison time, males get mutilated...

 

[DemonSeed]

hey hey . i said removal was ok because i had an argument for it, as i thought at the time. it was that removing organs will disrupt production of hormones end eliminate the base for sexual urges, so eliminate sexual offences. you say that even after removing the organs, and so, stopping production of some hormones, the person will not change? will not become asexual? lacking agression? if it is so, then obviously idea of removing organs is bad, as it wont change anything.

i skipped woman, 'cos as i said, women sexual offenders are rare comparing to male offenders. and usually are not violent. and most men raped will climax anyway and feel some pleasure, thats just men, no?

removing hand for stealing is harsh but i would have no problem living with this kind of law. i dont steal, if the rule says that they will cut my hand if they catch me stealing, it is fair enough when they do. simple.

 

[smellysocks12]

If you like to live in a country where they chop off your hand for stealing then move to an Arab country. That law has been applied for centuries there.

 

[DemonSeed]

ehem, thats exactly what were talking about. im saying i wouldnt mind. which doesnt at all imply that i want to live in a country with such law, and that i have to move there.

 

[a6m5]

That works in all cases.

Killed someone? The electric chair prevents reoffending.
Stolen from a church collection plate? The electric chair prevents reoffending.
Jaywalking? The electric chair prevents reoffending.
Parking ticket? The electric chair prevents reoffending.

Where do you draw the line? Crimes of consequence - stealing enough money to bring a company down? Crimes of death - murder? Crimes you find repugnant - child molestation?

In general, I'm still against capital punishment. However, I'd support a "chair", if it's going to stop an child molester from reoffending.

TBH, I just think it's the lowest type of crime you could commit, because its' targets are children. They are easy prey, and I can't imagine the horror these little victims go through(and their family!). Do not look for my explanation to make a perfect sense, because it won't. It's just personal. My youngest brother was almost abducted, when he was young. He was just seconds away from his picture ending up on the milk carton. If this biggest piece of trash actually succeeded in kidnapping my brother, I really think I'd be some kind of mental case today.

Again, I'm sorry I'm not making much sense. I JUST HATE CHILD MOLESTERS.

Edit:

ehem, thats exactly what were talking about. im saying i wouldnt mind. which doesnt at all imply that i want to live in a country with such law, and that i have to move there.

I know what you mean. When you get your stuff jacked, just so some kids can go get their fix, it makes me so mad. There you are, working your butt off(assuming you gotta job), just to get ripped off by some lazy punks(censored ).

 

[Duke]

Actually, the best thing you can do to child molesters is put 'em in for a regular sentence with the general prison population. The hard rocks will show 'em what it feels like pretty damn quickly.

 

[a6m5]

Actually, the best thing you can do to child molesters is put 'em in for a regular sentence with the general prison population. The hard rocks will show 'em what it feels like pretty damn quickly.

Yeah, I heard about the treatment rapists and child molesters receive in prison. So, how long were you in there for, Duke?

 

[Swift]

Actually, the best thing you can do to child molesters is put 'em in for a regular sentence with the general prison population. The hard rocks will show 'em what it feels like pretty damn quickly.

There's part of that I agree with. However, I don't think that's even remotely fair enough.

 

[Famine]

In general, I'm still against capital punishment. However, I'd support a "chair", if it's going to stop an child molester from reoffending.

TBH, I just think it's the lowest type of crime you could commit, because its' targets are children. They are easy prey, and I can't imagine the horror these little victims go through(and their family!). Do not look for my explanation to make a perfect sense, because it won't. It's just personal. My youngest brother was almost abducted, when he was young. He was just seconds away from his picture ending up on the milk carton. If this biggest piece of trash actually succeeded in kidnapping my brother, I really think I'd be some kind of mental case today.

Again, I'm sorry I'm not making much sense. I JUST HATE CHILD MOLESTERS.

So, you'd be against like-for-like punishment for murderers, mass-murderers, serial killers, genocides and assassins, but in favour of "The Chair" for child sexual offences?

Where would you draw the line on this? A 35 year old man who rapes a 15 year, 364-day girl gets the chair, but a 35 year old man who has consensual sex with 16 year, 0-day girl is fine? How about a 35 year old man who has consensual sex with a 15 year, 364-day girl (it's STILL rape - even IF she consents to it as she is below the age of consent) - he'd get the chair too. But a 35 year old man who rapes a 16 year, 0-day girl wouldn't as that's no longer a child sexual offence.

So for you it's revenge for crimes you find morally repugnant. What if someone else JUST HATES DRUG DEALERS? Their wares screw up entire families and neighbourhoods. My sister got addicted to heroin and was killed by her pimp*, all because of the stuff these big pieces of trash peddle.

Catch the point? Criminal justice is about punishment and rehabilitation. Some criminals DO need to be removed from society permanently and, in the case of crimes deemed bad enough to warrant "life without parole", the death penalty would be just as, if not more, effective - allowing scope for an adequate appeals procedure and, given current scientific levels, evidence without scope for the possibility of innocence. Criminal justice is NOT about revenge for crimes you don't like. Child sexual abuse is horrible. So are rape and drug dealing. People may find mugging offensive, or shoplifting, or fraud - but it doesn't mean they should demand the chair for the criminals. Well, they CAN. That's their right - but to you, that would be silly. To them, they have personal experience of that crime and JUST HATE CONMEN every bit as much as you HATE CHILD MOLESTORS.

If criminal justice was JUST about stopping the possibility of reoffending in the swiftest manner possible, all criminals would be beheaded - so they don't think about committing a second offence.


*Note: I don't have a sister and never have - it's a reflective example of your personal experience earlier on. Hopefully you can see the parallels. Apologies to anyone who this HAS actually happened to.

 

[a6m5]

Famine: Again, I apologize for my post. It doens't make any sense, I know that. It's based solely on my feelings toward those sexual predators who targets children. I don't want children falling victim to these types of crimes, especially by repeat offenders. You can call me an idiot, tell me I'm wrong. I already know that. It's just my personal stance on this issue.