which is the most civilsed nation on earth?

[Danoff]

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.

How articulate of you. I'm glad to see that you're capable of civil conversation.

Criminals don't give up their rights.

They do in America. Maybe not all of their rights, but at least freedom. In some cases, the death penalty is not unjust, but that's really for a separate thread. Capital punishment is really not very related to the issue at hand here.

If that guy who is starving did all he could and tried everything to get money to buy food, I think it is morally just to rob a rich person of his pocket money (without doing physical damage) to be able to buy food. This is the condition that is applied in many types of social security, which I think is just. That's my opinion. I know I would rob someone if I or a friend would be starving, so would danoff and famine. You guys probably will respond saying that you wouldn't, but it's easy to speak when you're not in that situation.

If it's the situation I described above I would not rob the rich guy. He did nothing wrong, he committed no crime against me. People die, you do what you can but one must accept that death is inevitable - to a certain extent it’s how we meet death that determines whether we are civilized.

The society you describe is one in which human beings allow themselves to be reduced to animals – thieving from each other in a selfish attempt to keep food in their bellies without regard to morality or civility.

Being civilized means being willing to pay the ultimate price for your morals. I am willing to die to avoid stealing from innocents.

 

[livemusic]

Even if that person is Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden?

Any person.

 

[smellysocks12]

Even if that person is Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden?

In a civilized society, yes.

How articulate of you. I'm glad to see that you're capable of civil conversation.

Thanks, even though you were sarcastic.

They do in America. Maybe not all of their rights, but at least freedom. In some cases, the death penalty is not unjust, but that's really for a separate thread. Capital punishment is really not very related to the issue at hand here.

You said it right, in America. Who says that it's right in America? In Iran they might think otherwise in a lot of cases. Murdering an infidel is alright in that country. They also think they are right. Capital punishment is quite a relevant topic here as well, because I believe a civilized society doesn't need this.

If it's the situation I described above I would not rob the rich guy. He did nothing wrong, he committed no crime against me. People die, you do what you can but one must accept that death is inevitable - to a certain extent it’s how we meet death that determines whether we are civilized.

The society you describe is one in which human beings allow themselves to be reduced to animals – thieving from each other in a selfish attempt to keep food in their bellies without regard to morality or civility.

Being civilized means being willing to pay the ultimate price for your morals. I am willing to die to avoid stealing from innocents.

Your morals, indeed. Well if you wouldn't rob that person if you would be dying then that's your choice. I'd decide otherwise. I look at the gain and at the loss, the gain for one is much higher than the loss for the other. Now if you would kill a man to get his money, that would be wrong in my opinion, even if you are starving.



We can talk about it until eternity, but obviously people here have different beliefs and morals. I'm quite happy that the current state of my government matches my morals more than they do yours.


By the way, I despise the socialist party in my country and I vote more right winged if anything. You guys almost make me feel like a socialist communist with my opinion.

 

[Danoff]

Well if you wouldn't rob that person if you would be dying then that's your choice. I'd decide otherwise.

And you would point to your need as a reason to take what you have not earned - which is morally reprehensible. For a government to behave in the manner you describe is prejudiced, immoral, and simply unjust. I claim that it is uncivilized.

You said it right, in America. Who says that it's right in America?

If criminals do not give up their rights in a civilized society when they violate the rights of others - what justice can there be? How can we penalize them?

A fee? Citizens have a right to their belongings (even though you don't think so)
Force Labor? Citizens are free, not slaves.
Jail? Citizens are free.

No, some rights are relinquished when you commit a crime (such as theft), which is why (and how) you are penalized for violating these laws.

I know that this is not true but your last few posts have indicated that you would prefer anarchy to civil society. You believe that people should take what they need and that no one (or government) can pass moral judgement on another person. That is not civil, that's about as down and dirty as society can get - no laws.

 

[livemusic]

So? If you commit a crime such as theft you´re penalized by going to jail. Nothing wrong with that. You proved not to be capable of living on a civil society so you lose that right.

 

[smellysocks12]

And you would point to your need as a reason to take what you have not earned - which is morally reprehensible. For a government to behave in the manner you describe is prejudiced, immoral, and simply unjust. I claim that it is uncivilized.

You have the right to claim that, that's all I can say about this.

If criminals do not give up their rights in a civilized society when they violate the rights of others - what justice can there be? How can we penalize them?

A fee? Citizens have a right to their belongings (even though you don't think so)
Force Labor? Citizens are free, not slaves.
Jail? Citizens are free.

No, some rights are relinquished when you commit a crime (such as theft), which is why (and how) you are penalized for violating these laws.

Criminals don't give up their rights, their rights are taken from them once they are caught. The way you called taxes theft, you could also consider taking someone's rights theft. The law decides which rights are taken and laws are different for every country. In the USA your rights could be taken for smoking weed in your own living room, over here they don't. You didn't violate anyone else's rights by smoking weed in your living room, yet your rights get taken. Does that make you a criminal? According to the American law yes, according to your way of reasoning no, according to my way of reasoning, also no.

I know that this is not true but your last few posts have indicated that you would prefer anarchy to civil society. You believe that people should take what they need and that no one (or government) can pass moral judgement on another person. That is not civil, that's about as down and dirty as society can get - no laws.

I though I was getting the opposite point across. In the past 10 pages I have been explaining that I prefer the government to take a share of everyone's income and utilize it in such a way that everyone benefits from it. Including both the rich and the needy.

 

[Solid Fro]

In a civilized society, yes.

I guess any country who was part of the Allies during WWII is not a civilized country, since they sentenced many members of the Third Reich and Imperial Japan to death for crimes against Humanity.

Even in a world court, the likes of Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein, which both have committed crimes against Humanity, cannot receive the death penalty?

Off the cliff we go...

 

[smellysocks12]

I guess any country who was part of the Allies during WWII is not a civilized country, since they sentenced many members of the Third Reich and Imperial Japan to death for crimes against Humanity.

Even in a world court, the likes of Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein, which both have committed crimes against Humanity, cannot receive the death penalty?

Off the cliff we go...

Yeah, the entire world wasn't civilized during that period of time. Though I probably would have beaten many of those nazi's to death with my bare hands when given the opportunity, it isn't civilized to kill them. I'm not saying that they didn't deserve it, I am just saying that it isn't civilized. I'm probably not the most civilized person in the world either, that's why I would torture a SS general to death personally, knowing that it's wrong.

 

[Danoff]

In the USA your rights could be taken for smoking weed in your own living room, over here they don't. You didn't violate anyone else's rights by smoking weed in your living room, yet your rights get taken. Does that make you a criminal? According to the American law yes, according to your way of reasoning no, according to my way of reasoning, also no.

Very good, you correctly predicted my stance on this issue. I don't believe it is criminal to smoke dope in your living room and I believe it to be wrong for the government to put those people in jail very much like it's wrong for the government to have an unfair tax policy.

 

[smellysocks12]

Very good, you correctly predicted my stance on this issue. I don't believe it is criminal to smoke dope in your living room and I believe it to be wrong for the government to put those people in jail very much like it's wrong for the government to have an unfair tax policy.

Wow, I never believed I'd ever agree on something with you. We have to celebrate that.


Or maybe with a joint?

 

[Solid Fro]

Yeah, the entire world wasn't civilized during that period of time.

What part of the world was civilized? Is that part now civilized or is it the whole world, except America, that is civilized now?

Though I probably would have beaten many of those nazi's to death with my bare hands when given the opportunity,

So, when you do it, it's OK. But, when America does it, it's bad.

it isn't civilized to kill them.

According to your logic, it is right to let Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan to exist, because we would be uncivilized to destroy them.

I'm not saying that they didn't deserve it, I am just saying that it isn't civilized.

Is it civilized to let Hitler to continue killing Jews and anyone else who didn't fit the Aryan master race? Is it civilized to let Osama bin Laden to continue to terrorize the world and fly airliners through buildings? Is it civilized to let Saddam Hussein to continue to kill his own citizens and gain illegal weapons to support terrorism?

 

[livemusic]

Kill them is not the only way to stop them. Jail would do it.

 

[Solid Fro]

If you put those people in jail, then you would have to feed them, clothe them, and keep the facility they're in good condition. No American would pay with their tax money to keep Osama bin Laden alive in a jail cell. No European would pay with their tax money to keep Hitler alive in a jail cell. No Iraqi would pay with their tax money to keep Saddam alive in a jail cell.

OT: The Iraqi government has reinstated the death penalty.

 

[livemusic]

If you put those people in jail, then you would have to feed them, clothe them, and keep the facility they're in good condition. No American would pay with their tax money to keep Osama bin Laden alive in a jail cell. No European would pay with their tax money to keep Hitler alive in a jail cell. No Iraqi would pay with their tax money to keep Saddam alive in a jail cell.

I would. But I´m a South American, so that doesn´t count.

OT: The Iraqi government has reinstated the death penalty.

Oh, shoot. I was going to cite them as the most civilsed nation on earth.

 

[a6m5]

How about forced labor? Bring back the chaingangs! 👍

 

[smellysocks12]

What part of the world was civilized? Is that part now civilized or is it the whole world, except America, that is civilized now?

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.

So, when you do it, it's OK. But, when America does it, it's bad.

I didn't say bad, just not civilized. I never said it would be good either if I killed a nazi war criminal, I just said that I would.

According to your logic, it is right to let Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan to exist, because we would be uncivilized to destroy them.

No, helping to fight them was good. The way it was done wasn't always very civilized though. When I said killing I meant executing them, when those nazi's were sentenced to death the war was over already. In a war causalities are unavoidable, executions can be avoided.

Is it civilized to let Hitler to continue killing Jews and anyone else who didn't fit the Aryan master race? Is it civilized to let Osama bin Laden to continue to terrorize the world and fly airliners through buildings? Is it civilized to let Saddam Hussein to continue to kill his own citizens and gain illegal weapons to support terrorism?

Where did I defend those regimes / individuals? If they are / were barbaric, it still isn't civilized to give them a barbaric treatment. They should be fought and possibly captured alive and given a fair trial / treatment if you want to be civilized. If they get executed I won't care about it personally, but it isn't civilized. Get what I mean?

 

[Solid Fro]

No, helping to fight them was good. The way it was done wasn't always very civilized though. When I said killing I meant executing them, when those nazi's were sentenced to death the war was over already. In a war causalities are unavoidable, executions can be avoided.

Fighting Nazis is good.

Killing them is uncivilized.

Got it.

 

[smellysocks12]

Fighting Nazis is good.

Killing them is uncivilized.

Got it.

Are you selectively blind? You read whatever I say the way you want to read it.



When in war with nazi's it wasn't uncivilized to kill them in battle, I said it is uncivilized to execute nazi's who surrendered and became POW's during the war or after the war is over.

How hard is it to comprehend the difference between the two?? You also need to stop twisting my words and drawing your own conclusions and read it the way I say it.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I said it is uncivilized to execute nazi's who surrendered and became POW's during the war or after the war is over.

Not all Nazis were executed, though. Some Nazi war criminals were spared and worked in the United States (rocketry).

 

[smellysocks12]

Not all Nazis were executed, though. Some Nazi war criminals were spared and worked in the United States (rocketry).

I know, the ones who were executed were the really wrong ones who made the decission to kill thousands and had it coming. Yet however you twist and turn it, whatever monster was on trial or from which viewpoint you look at it, executing people isn't civilized. The question here was whether it's civilized, not whether they deserved it. I doubt anyone here would claim that the executed nazis weren't scum of the earth, but that isn't the point.

 

[VT]

executing people isn't civilized

I am a firm believer in the 'eye for an eye' ethic. If you intentionally kill someone, you should be executed in return. Why should the life of a murderer be spared when he ended that of someone else?

 

[a6m5]

I am a firm believer in the 'eye for an eye' ethic. If you intentionally kill someone, you should be executed in return. Why should the life of a murderer be spared when he ended that of someone else?

I'm against capital punishment in most cases. I do see where you're coming from eye for an eye, but how about bit more complicated cases. How about a kid who murdered a teacher who was sexually molesting him? or husband who kills the robber who raped and killed his wife? You get the idea. What do you think?

P.S. I was totally against capital pushishment, until just recently. Now, I would be in favor of it, if it's going to prevent child molesters from "repeating".

 

[Solid Fro]

When in war with nazi's it wasn't uncivilized to kill them in battle, I said it is uncivilized to execute nazi's who surrendered and became POW's during the war or after the war is over.

If an American soldier kills a terrorists in Iraq, then it's civilized, right? If that same terrorist is captured and brought to a court, it's uncivilized to have the death penalty acted upon him?

 

[smellysocks12]

I am a firm believer in the 'eye for an eye' ethic. If you intentionally kill someone, you should be executed in return. Why should the life of a murderer be spared when he ended that of someone else?

1. They probably prefer death penalty over life in jail.

2. The justice system isn't perfect. Death penalty is irreversible, if they find out that they executed an innocent person after investigating the case again. The innocent person can't be brought back to life again.

3. Because we're supposed to have a different mindstate than that murderer.




Scenario 1: Man finds out that his 10 year old daughter was molested and raped by his neighbor. In a rage of anger he goes next door and shoots the pervert, who dies at the spot. Man gets sentenced to death.

Scenario 2: A woman was killed, the found evidence leads all lead back to one man. The police interrogates the man for 24 hours, after 24 hours of denial he finally admits to doing it. Jury sentences the man to death, which is carried out a couple of days later. A year later the conscience of the real killer started playing up and he breaks down telling his psychiatrist, who reports him to the police. Apparently the man who admitted to it before was already weak minded and easy to manipulate. He admitted to the murder just to stop the interrogation.

Scenario 3: A man took 3 people hostage and killed two of them already. A SWAT team busted in on him, but he managed to shoot himself, trying to commit suicide to prevent getting captured. Instead of dying, he lives and awaits the trail due in a couple of months. He gets sentenced to death.

Scenario 4: A child killer has haunted a city for years, terrifying the parents. After 8 dead children a suspect was arrested. Parents unite and have a serious campaign trying to convince people that the man should get the electric chair. The evidence isn't water proof, but under pressure of the public the judge sentences the man to death. 2 weeks later another child is found dead... murdered with the trademark of the same killer.

I think these 4 possible scenarios all describe why death penalty is wrong to begin with, which makes it barbaric. It's the easy way out, disastrous when applied incorrectly.

 

[smellysocks12]

If an American soldier kills a terrorists in Iraq, then it's civilized, right? If that same terrorist is captured and brought to a court, it's uncivilized to have the death penalty acted upon him?

Exactly what I'm saying. Most terrorists aren't captured with enough crime on their list to get the death penalty though, they do after they blew themselves up but you can't put him in court when you have to collect him in pieces.

 

[VT]

I'm against capital punishment in most cases. I do see where you're coming from eye for an eye, but how about bit more complicated cases. How about a kid who murdered a teacher who was sexually molesting him? or husband who kills the robber who raped and killed his wife? You get the idea. What do you think?

Eye for an eye capital punishment would be a complicated issue. The simplest case being that of someone walking up to someone on the street and killing them, they should get the chair.

Those cases you state would definately range toward the complicated side. In all honesty, I would probably be against capital punishment in those cases because of the circumstances surrounding them. They both should get some sort of jail/juvenile hall time, but not capital punishment because they would be less likely to murder again (in my opinion) than would be the person who just walked up to someone and killed them.

P.S. I was totally against capital pushishment, until just recently. Now, I would be in favor of it, if it's going to prevent child molesters from "repeating".

I agree with you on that. Repeat child molesters and rapists should be executed.

edit:

@Smelly: Nevermind, see below.

 

[VT]

2. The justice system isn't perfect. Death penalty is irreversible, if they find out that they executed an innocent person after investigating the case again. The innocent person can't be brought back to life again.

That is why there would have to be concrete evidence to sentence one to death. Yes, mistakes do occur, but nothing is perfect.

3. Because we're supposed to have a different mindstate than that murderer.

Yes, that is true, but think of it this way? If someone murdered someone close to you, and they only got 5 years in jail and once they were out the murdered someone else, what would you do? Sentence them to another term in jail only to release the murderer back into society after his sentence is complete?

Scenario 1: Man finds out that his 10 year old daughter was molested and raped by his neighbor. In a rage of anger he goes next door and shoots the pervert, who dies at the spot. Man gets sentenced to death.

See quoted text below.

Scenario 2: A woman was killed, the found evidence leads all lead back to one man. The police interrogates the man for 24 hours, after 24 hours of denial he finally admits to doing it. Jury sentences the man to death, which is carried out a couple of days later. A year later the conscience of the real killer started playing up and he breaks down telling his psychiatrist, who reports him to the police. Apparently the man who admitted to it before was already weak minded and easy to manipulate. He admitted to the murder just to stop the interrogation.

Maybe its just me, but why would someone confess to something they didn't do? Yes, it has happened before and is bound to happen again.

Scenario 3: A man took 3 people hostage and killed two of them already. A SWAT team busted in on him, but he managed to shoot himself, trying to commit suicide to prevent getting captured. Instead of dying, he lives and awaits the trail due in a couple of months. He gets sentenced to death.

He killed two innocent people, he should be sentenced to death. So what if he tried to kill himself but failed before he was taken into custody. Why should society have to pay for someone who wanted to kill himself to avoid jail, but failed?

Scenario 4: A child killer has haunted a city for years, terrifying the parents. After 8 dead children a suspect was arrested. Parents unite and have a serious campaign trying to convince people that the man should get the electric chair. The evidence isn't water proof, but under pressure of the public the judge sentences the man to death. 2 weeks later another child is found dead... murdered with the trademark of the same killer.

That doesn't necessarily mean that the wrong man was found guilty. There could have been two people working in unicen or it could have been someone mimicing the previous killer.

I think these 4 possible scenarios all describe why death penalty is wrong to begin with, which makes it barbaric. It's the easy way out, disastrous when applied incorrectly.

Those four issues illustrate why the death penalty is such a complicated issue, not why it is wrong to begin with. Even if someone is sentenced to death there should be a waiting period where the trial is reviewed in an attempt to make sure they the right person. And if they were wrong, reparations should be paid.

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?


Quoted text to be seen:

Those cases you state would definately range toward the complicated side. In all honesty, I would probably be against capital punishment in those cases because of the circumstances surrounding them. They both should get some sort of jail/juvenile hall time, but not capital punishment because they would be less likely to murder again (in my opinion) than would be the person who just walked up to someone and killed them.

 

[a6m5]

Eye for an eye capital punishment would be a complicated issue. The simplest case being that of someone walking up to someone on the street and killing them, they should get the chair.

Those cases you state would definately range toward the complicated side. In all honesty, I would probably be against capital punishment in those cases because of the circumstances surrounding them. They both should get some sort of jail/juvenile hall time, but not capital punishment because they would be less likely to murder again (in my opinion) than would be the person who just walked up to someone and killed them.

I'm guessing a lot of murders are those "complicated" type.

I agree with you on that. Repeat child molesters and rapists should be executed.

I want them excuted not for the punishment, but so they won't(or can't) offend again. Absolutely the worst thing I can find on TV is the news program showing the parents of the abducted kids. I'll stop here, I'm drifting off topic.

 

[Duke]

If that guy who is starving did all he could and tried everything to get money to buy food, I think it is morally just to rob a rich person of his pocket money (without doing physical damage) to be able to buy food.

It is morally unjust to steal for any reason. Period.

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.

I don't even know how to begin replying to this... whatever it is. Skip to the next part.

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.

At the risk of looking like a cheap shot, I have to say: At least danoff is displaying some thinking, of any kind at all.

[edit]

On the subject of capital punishment, do you folks even understand how it works in the US? It's not like any criminal death results in the dealth penalty for the perpetrator.

First off, capital punishment is only possible in First Degree Murder cases, which are premeditated, cold-blood killings. So any crimes of passion, anger, or accident are automatically excluded from even being considered for the death penalty.

Second off, after the trial convicting the perpetrator is over, the jury and judge and prosecution/defense go to an entirely separate, second trial to judge whether the crime deserves the death penalty or not.

Third off, after this second trial, there is an automatic appeal in order to review and confirm that BOTH of the previous trials were fair and conducted properly.

Fourth off, even after the automatic appeal, the perpetrator can still file his own appeal(s) as long as he can convince the court that new information has come to light which might have affected the outcomes of the previous THREE trials and reviews.

So it's not in any way like the judge bangs his gavel and the poor perpetrator is dragged outside and strung up on the nearest tree.

And as far as 'mindset' goes, execution is not the same as murder. "Murder" means killing an innocent victim. "Execution" is something you do to a person who has abdicated his rights by killing an innocent victim first.

 

[DemonSeed]

death penalty is needed. im pro. but the methods used in investigation should be revised.
i do not understand why they don't use so-called 'serum of truth' or even the ecstasy to get the truth out of the person? just by dropping suspect a pill or two, they could get all the truth from him and that would solve the problem with guilty/innocent.