Death Penalty, when?

[Kangy]

Death penalty?

Always! Steal a loaf of bread?

Then it'll be your head, boy!

 

[Danimal]

The death penalty should be reserved for cases where there is absolutely no doubt of guilt, as well as absolutely no chance of rehabilitation.

In other words, extremely rarely.

QFT

I am strongly opposed to the death sentence but of course in situations where there is no doubt of guilt or any chance of rehabilitation then it is needed.

 

[PvtRyan]

OK, here's one: Justice.

I know you're gonna say that's not a rational reason, but I will tell you that it indeed is a rational reason. I will ask you to define what makes an argument "rational", but it will boil down to an argument that makes sense to you, or something that you can agree with.

Here's another one: Why should he stay alive? You might say "because every human has the right to live". I will say "a human who kills innocent people no longer has that right". You might then say "Why is it so?" and I will say "Why is it not so? Why is it that a killer should be given the right to live?", and we will argue forever.

Clearly, when there is no guiding principles, you'll just go with whichever argument that suits you.

No, rationality for the death penalty is having a logical reason to kill a man instead of just putting him in jail.

A logical objective reason.

An absurd hyperbole example would be "the death penalty for murderers gives us cures against cancer and AIDS". That'd be a damn good reason for the death penalty.

But death penalty has no advantage over life in prison.

And if you say "Kill a murderer because he has given up his right to live." then it's just as valid for me to say "Kill and torture a murderer because he has given up his rights.". After all, the torture AND death of a murderer might give an even better sense of justice to the victims.

Where does it end? Who are you to say when the basic right to live is no longer appliant to someone?

Of course you can think of someones life in terms of money. And it's not barbaric and it happens all the time.
"Can we afford a baby?"

That's no comparison. That's a question about a life that does not exist yet.

A better analogy would be "Hey honey, someone offered us 2 million for our baby. Do it?"

And there's assasinations and such.

Which are illegal. I don't see your point.

Barbarians never would have considered such things, they would kill you if you where in their way and had a child for the family line, they wouldn't have thought about money.

"Barbaric doesn't mean what so-called barbarians would do, but what a civilized country should not do.

There is none, but a phycopath is still a danger to everyone he comes into contact with. From the rapist down the corridor to the guard who's just doing his job to the little boy who's on a school trip to the prison, I went on one a few months ago and yes, I did come into contact with in-mates.

It's not a problem in countries without a death sentence.

But going by that argument, might as well kill all violent criminals, whether or not they would have gotten the death penalty. After all, they might, possibly, cause more harm in prison. Better be safe than sorry!

It's akin to saying "Hey, the system is flawed, lets kill the ones who might exploit it.". No, improve the system.

QFT

I am strongly opposed to the death sentence but of course in situations where there is no doubt of guilt or any chance of rehabilitation then it is needed.

I don't get this. Proponents of the death penalty always talk about a 'need'.

Why is it 'needed'? What does it solve that life in prison does not? It offers no advantages over life without parole.

And why is it alright to kill someone who does not have a hope of rehabilitating? I thought this was about 'justice', someone changing his ways so that he won't do it again in the future does not change anything about what he already has done.

 

[Tyguy]

Tyguy's post is only partly supported by me. Put them on an island, yes. But the island would be completely absent of everything human made, they would be given basic tools and fodd rations for a week and let loose on the island. Whatever they are going to do is up to them.

Why even give them rations? Let them get their own and hunt.....but the only animals on the island are criminals, we cant let innocent boars suffer.

I fthey construct a community - all the better for them. If they kill each other - well, better for us.

Your saying that you think they deserve to die, as long as we dont do it?

The criteria would be based on the judge's opinion. If he finds the prisoner guilty and sentence him for 25 years, life or the death penalty, he gets shipped off to the island. Any less, and he's put into heavy works within limits of the country.

Should prisoners not facing the death penalty be with prisoners who are, seeing as there is a good chance they will be killed?

I think we can agree that for the most part, the island idea is better than the prisons. :thumbs:

 

[ríomhaire]

Of course you can think of someone’s life in terms of money. And it's not barbaric and it happens all the time.
"Can we afford a baby?"

That's no comparison. That's a question about a life that does not exist yet.

It's putting a price on life, whether you look at it one way or another we as a society put a price on life the whole time.

A better analogy would be "Hey honey, someone offered us 2 million for our baby. Do it?"

No it wouldn't. That's putting a price on possession of the baby. I'm talking about the life of it.

And there's assasinations and such.

Which are illegal. I don't see your point.

Just saying how people put a price on life, but yes, they are illegal so it was a bit of a bad argument.

Barbarians never would have considered such things, they would kill you if you where in their way and had a child for the family line, they wouldn't have thought about money.

"Barbaric doesn't mean what so-called barbarians would do, but what a civilized country should not do.

Sorry, I just have a crazy habit where I relate the word barbaric with the word barbarian.

There is none, but a psychopath is still a danger to everyone he comes into contact with. From the rapist down the corridor to the guard who's just doing his job to the little boy who's on a school trip to the prison, I went on one a few months ago and yes, I did come into contact with in-mates.

It's not a problem in countries without a death sentence.

No, it's only a problem with countries that put dangerous people within reach of others, pretty much everywhere.

But going by that argument, might as well kill all violent criminals, whether or not they would have gotten the death penalty. After all, they might, possibly, cause more harm in prison. Better be safe than sorry!

It's akin to saying "Hey, the system is flawed, lets kill the ones who might exploit it.". No, improve the system.

I agree, but (most) governments don't seem to give a rat's ass about rehabilitating people. Prisons often make people worse, not better and the only reasons I can think of why you would keep someone in a horrible place (which is the point of prison) for the rest of their life are

• Financial, a life in prison can be cheaper than if they put someone to death which is putting a price on human life
• In case they turned out to be innocent, which I why I said only in the case of multiple homicide where there is no doubt whatsoever. But if the justice system only ever operated when there was no chance of it being wrong, it would not function
• You think it's a worse punishment than death. That is crap. Death is worst possible punishment short of torture, then death.
• It's 'barbaric'

 

[Sulkdodds]

/me interjects without reading rest of thread

Of course, there's substantial evidence that it's a bit useless as a deterrent as well.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

Penn and Teller do a good 'BULLSHIT!' episode on it.

 

[Baal]

I don't believe the death penalty should ever be used after a crime is commited really, because it's not a really good punishment. Jail is much worse imo.

But if the criminal is say, killing people in jail, and can't be controlled....well I just don't know then, maybe death is the way to go.

Of course with the current legal system that is probably impossible, unless you decide to charge someone with jail crimes or something and then sentence him to death based on that.

 

[Darkside55]

Those in favour of the death penalty:
Give me ONE rational reason to kill a man who is no longer a threat to anyone.

To serve as an example.

This is going to be an extremely unpopular opinion, I'll probably be flamed for it, but I believe that MOST criminals warrant the death penalty. Not just murderers, or rapists, drug traffickers, or any other particularly heinous crimes, but I believe that most people who willingly defy the law should be executed. There should be no place for such people in the society of the future.

Now I don't mean every crime. Petty crimes such as theft should not warrant a death penalty. However, should a person continuously break the law after former incarceration and attempted rehabilitation they should be deemed unable to live as a productive member of society and we should execute them on the spot. You know the "three strikes" rule? Third strike should result in death.

Some people might say, "there are few--if any--reasons to take another person's life," or "sentencing someone to death for 'minor offenses' is ridiculous/barbaric," or even "killing people to set an example won't stop crime." The last one of which is particularly true, even I'm aware of that. However the fact is that criminals are useless, unproductive members of society who really have no right to exist. They serve no purpose. They benefit no one, only cause detriment, and they only serve themselves. Killing, raping, stealing, it's all for their own pleasure and gain. Best just to do away with them. We weed out the bad seeds and if nothing else it would at least curtail the impulses of some of those who would want to perpetrate crime. Why should we keep these people alive in prisons that take up more and more space, becoming over-packed, a drain on our resources, when we could simply kill them?

 

[Slacker]

To serve as an example.

This is going to be an extremely unpopular opinion, I'll probably be flamed for it, but I believe that MOST criminals warrant the death penalty. Not just murders, or rapists, drug traffickers, or any other particularly heinous crimes, but I believe that most people who willingly defy the law should be executed. There should be no place for such people in the society of the future.

Now I don't mean every crime. Petty crimes such as theft should not warrant a death penalty. However, should I person continuously break the law after former incarceration and attempted rehabilitation they should be deemed unable to live as a productive member of society and we should execute them on the spot. You know the "three strikes" rule? Third strike should result in death.

Some people might say, "there are few--if any--reasons to take another person's life," or "sentencing someone to death for 'minor offenses' is ridiculous/barbaric," or even "killing people to set an example won't stop crime." The last one of which is particularly true, even I'm aware of that. However the fact is that criminals are useless, unproductive members of society who really have no right to exist. They serve no purpose. They benefit no one, only cause detriment, and they only serve themselves. Killing, raping, stealing, it's all for their own pleasure and gain. Best just to do away with them. We weed out the bad seeds and if nothing else it would at least curtail the impulses of some of those who would want to perpetrate crime. Why should we keep these people alive in prisons that take up more and more space, becoming over-packed, a drain on our resources, when we could simply kill them?

I'm sorry, but that's completely bonkers.

 

[DeusExMachina]

*snip*

Yeah, that's taking it a bit too far.

 

[Darkside55]

I'm sorry, but that's completely bonkers.

Yeah, that's taking it a bit too far.

Why? Do you benefit from criminals? Do you find that the world is a fine place as it is with people breaking the laws because they think they can get away with it, with just a slap on the wrist? A couple years of hard time, time to "find religion" and "meditate on what they've done," going out into the world "remorseful" and "changed?" I did say that those who truly mend their ways should be free to do as they will, having served their time and honestly reforming themselves. Such people have paid their dues, and they're free to go be functioning members of society.

If the released's actions speak the opposite however, if someone repeats a crime (and we're just talking minor felonies here), we really need to look at what we're doing wasting time and money on these people who obviously don't give a damn about changing their ways.

I'd really like to know why you think my idea is so "out there." Is it just because it's too radical or what? And why, anyway? I believe it makes sense, from a lot of different standpoints...societal, economical...it's good sense, y'know. Man makes laws, other men decide to break those laws, we have the right to punish them accordingly. There is never any sense in keeping dead weight around.

This applies to human beings as well.

 

[0mar]

To serve as an example.

This is going to be an extremely unpopular opinion, I'll probably be flamed for it, but I believe that MOST criminals warrant the death penalty. Not just murderers, or rapists, drug traffickers, or any other particularly heinous crimes, but I believe that most people who willingly defy the law should be executed. There should be no place for such people in the society of the future.

Now I don't mean every crime. Petty crimes such as theft should not warrant a death penalty. However, should a person continuously break the law after former incarceration and attempted rehabilitation they should be deemed unable to live as a productive member of society and we should execute them on the spot. You know the "three strikes" rule? Third strike should result in death.

Some people might say, "there are few--if any--reasons to take another person's life," or "sentencing someone to death for 'minor offenses' is ridiculous/barbaric," or even "killing people to set an example won't stop crime." The last one of which is particularly true, even I'm aware of that. However the fact is that criminals are useless, unproductive members of society who really have no right to exist. They serve no purpose. They benefit no one, only cause detriment, and they only serve themselves. Killing, raping, stealing, it's all for their own pleasure and gain. Best just to do away with them. We weed out the bad seeds and if nothing else it would at least curtail the impulses of some of those who would want to perpetrate crime. Why should we keep these people alive in prisons that take up more and more space, becoming over-packed, a drain on our resources, when we could simply kill them?

Sensible. I agree.

Won't ever happen. Criminal rights are the biggest thing nowadays. As if being a criminal afforded you some rights. It's absurd.

Justice is absolutely absurd today. Someone can put you in a wheelchair and only get 6 months with good behavior. Criminals can fleece you for everything you have and get a couple years on a minimum security prison, and be out in less than half. Police can't do much to help you out, because their hands are tied by the law. If it's not a credible threat, which takes them weeks to figure out because they don't have the manpower nor the will to help you out, they won't do anything period. Maybe send a patrol car by your home once a day.

You can't even defend your home anymore, because criminals lives are more important. How absurd is that? Someone can literally walk into your home, take your belongings and there's not a goddamn thing you, personally, can do about it, but call the police, which of course will take 4 days to arrive and the probability of you seeing your shit is virtually non-existant. When you take action for yourself, because you know he's only going to get a couple years, at the most, in jail, you better damn well make sure you can prove it was absolutely necessary. If it's proven that he wasn't threatening you or your family, you go to jail for defending your family and your household. It's absolutely asinine.

The Romans had it right. Send the criminals off to fight in gladitorial games, feed the rest to the lions and when in doubt, execute them.

Vigilante justice is the only justice in modern times. Everytime a convicted rapist or a convicted armed robber or convicted bank robber gets released and shot, the shooter should get a medal. Ten goddamn medals to be honest. He's doing everyone, you, the taxpayers, the community, the police, a goddamn favor. There's an absurd recidivist rate today. Something like 60% of all criminals end up behind bars again. First thing a robbery convict does is case another hit. It's a cold hard fact. No amount of rehabilitation will fix that. One hundred years of prison, rehabilitation and criminal rights have gotten us the same place where we started.

To truly fight crime, you need to kill it where it begins, and it begins at poverty and the lack of choice and progress in communities. Spending just a billion dollars a year to help out underpriviledged communities will do far more to prevent crime than a thousand police officers on the street 24/7. But, ****, why bother when the police and C.O. departments are such huge pork barrels. Sensible ideas in politics are about as viable as a fetus at Planned Parenthood. Greed, pork and favoritism reign supreme in politics. Smart ideas, good ideas, common-sense ideas never get passed. Instead of spending 80 billion dollars a ****ing year on the War on Drugs, we could put that money into education, renovation and jobs and see a far bigger impact on society than locking up every user and pusher from here to Maryland. Police departments know this, they see everyday the drug problem stay the same or worse, despite putting in jail a million ****ing people a year. The narcotics divison at every major police department is among the most corrupt. Planting evidence, disappearing evidence, false admissions, bribery, you name it, the narc divison has it and in spades. Legalize it, regulate it and tax it. When the profit vanishes, there's no point in having gang wars over turf, killing people over an ounce or any number of crimes regarding drugs. But why do that when you can grease your wheels, grease your districts wheels and stay in office because "yer tough on crime" by passing a new, billion dollar ****-up that does nothing on the streets.

QFT

I am strongly opposed to the death sentence but of course in situations where there is no doubt of guilt or any chance of rehabilitation then it is needed.

Why bother with rehabilitation if the person committed a heinous crime? If a person killed a police officer in a robbery and says he's sorry, is that somehow good? It misses the fact that he killed a police officer. If someone kills a family of 4 and says he is truly remorseful and made a mistake, is he somehow less guilty?

AND I HATE IT WHEN CRIMINALS SAY THEY MADE A MISTAKE. Making a mistake is buying whole milk when the wife asks for 2%. Making a mistake is taking a right turn when you should have taken a left turn. Killing a police officer is never a mistake. Killing someone in cold-blood, for profit, how is that a "mistake?" That's a monumental error for which the only penalty should be death, regardless of remorse. Sorry doesn't fix anything, it doesn't help anyone and it's a cheap trick to gain leniency. The same mother****er, on the ride to the prison, is laughing his ass off at the sorry-ass judge, jury and prosector for buying his show-n-tell. It's a cheap ploy to reduce the sentence. These people don't know compassion, don't know empathy, don't know anything but looking out for themselves. They are like little kids, saying the right words so they can get a cookie or two before dinner-time.

 

[15357]

To serve as an example.

This is going to be an extremely unpopular opinion, I'll probably be flamed for it, but I believe that MOST criminals warrant the death penalty. Not just murderers, or rapists, drug traffickers, or any other particularly heinous crimes, but I believe that most people who willingly defy the law should be executed. There should be no place for such people in the society of the future.

Now I don't mean every crime. Petty crimes such as theft should not warrant a death penalty. However, should a person continuously break the law after former incarceration and attempted rehabilitation they should be deemed unable to live as a productive member of society and we should execute them on the spot. You know the "three strikes" rule? Third strike should result in death.

Some people might say, "there are few--if any--reasons to take another person's life," or "sentencing someone to death for 'minor offenses' is ridiculous/barbaric," or even "killing people to set an example won't stop crime." The last one of which is particularly true, even I'm aware of that. However the fact is that criminals are useless, unproductive members of society who really have no right to exist. They serve no purpose. They benefit no one, only cause detriment, and they only serve themselves. Killing, raping, stealing, it's all for their own pleasure and gain. Best just to do away with them. We weed out the bad seeds and if nothing else it would at least curtail the impulses of some of those who would want to perpetrate crime. Why should we keep these people alive in prisons that take up more and more space, becoming over-packed, a drain on our resources, when we could simply kill them?

Thats my idea too, but I don't really disclose it, since people may think you're insane. <3 <3 <3

And I favor military criminal codes a lot more than normal criminal codes.

 

[PvtRyan]

To serve as an example.

This is going to be an extremely unpopular opinion, I'll probably be flamed for it, but I believe that MOST criminals warrant the death penalty. Not just murderers, or rapists, drug traffickers, or any other particularly heinous crimes, but I believe that most people who willingly defy the law should be executed. There should be no place for such people in the society of the future.

Now I don't mean every crime. Petty crimes such as theft should not warrant a death penalty. However, should a person continuously break the law after former incarceration and attempted rehabilitation they should be deemed unable to live as a productive member of society and we should execute them on the spot. You know the "three strikes" rule? Third strike should result in death.

Some people might say, "there are few--if any--reasons to take another person's life," or "sentencing someone to death for 'minor offenses' is ridiculous/barbaric," or even "killing people to set an example won't stop crime." The last one of which is particularly true, even I'm aware of that. However the fact is that criminals are useless, unproductive members of society who really have no right to exist. They serve no purpose. They benefit no one, only cause detriment, and they only serve themselves. Killing, raping, stealing, it's all for their own pleasure and gain. Best just to do away with them. We weed out the bad seeds and if nothing else it would at least curtail the impulses of some of those who would want to perpetrate crime. Why should we keep these people alive in prisons that take up more and more space, becoming over-packed, a drain on our resources, when we could simply kill them?

You're batshit insane. Say hello militaristic-fascist state! That approach solves absolutely nothing. Although after a while you could present some nice numbers "a 1000% decrease of the prison population!", gee, really?

Did it actually solve anything about the reasons why people commit crime, or constantly roll back into it? No.

Although, "killing people who are not productive members of society" would be a nice way to get rid of hippies. So you got a good point there.

And Numbers agrees with you, that should tell you something.

 

[CptStern]

what he said ..except the part about the hippies ..jimi hendrix was a hippie, so was John lennon ..and despite the obvious lack of long hair, so was gandhi

Darkside55 and Numbers sitting in a tree k-i-s-s-i-n-g ....I guess you fascists fanatics have never heard of "wrongful conviction" or rehabiliitation ..why waste money in helping them when you could just give them a date with a needle or even less expensive a pair of concrete shoes? God forbid numbers you ever cross the line into criminality (very likely considering your love of explosives) because you'll be in quite the shock once they strap that hood over your head, cock their guns and ask you if you'd like a last cigarrette

 

[PvtRyan]

I don't like John Lennon. And Hendrix was black, there's no such thing as black hippies. Black people are always cool, hippies on the contrary are not.

 

[CptStern]

you dont like john lennon? why?

and what does colour of skin have to do with being a hippie?

 

[PvtRyan]

You're obviously taking me too seriously...

Are you insane D: ?

But I don't like John Lennon, goddamn hippies always moaning about the world sucking and not structurally do anything to actually improve it, just smoke pot, sing shitty songs and whine. I also just hate all Beatles music.

 

[Warbie]

Or forced Labour camps, for the more persistant offenders.

Agreed, but not just for persistant offenders.

Stick them on some god forsaken shitty island that's freezing cold and pissing down with rain. On arrival they find nothing but the bare essentials and a few logs with which they are forced to build their own accommodation by some mean as hell ex army officers. Each day they have to work to pay their way - hard physical work - and sit various educational classes/workshops.

 

[CptStern]

You're obviously taking me too seriously...

Are you insane D: ?

But I don't like John Lennon, goddamn hippies always moaning about the world sucking and not structurally do anything to actually improve it, just smoke pot, sing shitty songs and whine. I also just hate all Beatles music.

:O



what are you insane? /me puts PvtRyan on same crazy list as Numbers

how can you not like the beatles? seriously? were you dropped as a baby? tourettes? tone deaf?

(I'm kidding ...but man how can you not like the beatles?)

and I could probably successfully argue that John lennon has done more for peace than any world leader of his era ..and he continues to do so despite being dead

 

[PvtRyan]

I loathe the Beatles. Their music and their silly 50's hair. Although some songs are mildly amusing.

But blame it on me not being an old man like you! (disguised stab at Stern)

And Lennon never managed to stop me killing babies, so your argument is void.

 

[CptStern]

I loathe the Beatles. Their music and their silly 50's hair.

ummm 60's ..they were heavily criticized for having long hair

Although some songs are mildly amusing.

yes I feel the same way about Mozart, Beethoven, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, dizzy gelespie, Bach, Chopin and Schubert

But blame it on me not being an old man like you! (disguised stab at Stern)

nah I suspect it's because you have no soul (a figurative one) :E

it doesnt matter the age they transcend time ...just like beethoven or Bach ....you dont like them either do you? PHILISTINE!!!

And Lennon never managed to stop me killing babies, so your argument is void.

no but he sure as hell made it harder for you to get away with it :naughty:

 

[PvtRyan]

ummm 60's ..they were heavily criticized for having long hair

http://external.cache.el-mundo.net/beatles/fotos/portada2.jpg

EMO!

yes I feel the same way about Mozart, Beethoven, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, dizzy gelespie, Bach, Chopin and Schubert

Who?

nah I suspect it's because you have no soul (a figurative one) :E

it doesnt matter the age they transcend time ...just like beethoven or Bach ....you dont like them either do you? PHILISTINE!!!

Who is this 'Bach' you speak of? Is he related to Michael Schumacher? I like F1!

no but he sure as hell made it harder for you to get away with it :naughty:

Nah, that was the legislation that made it illegal to kill babies.

 

[Danimal]

Wow, I like the beatles and i'm younger than the lot of you! Shoudn't the universe implode?

 

[JNightshade]

Heh, I'm not a huge fan of the beatles, but I like some of their stuff. Still, hippies are lame. They smell, and they don't do anything towards what they say. I have no problem with their ideologies, I just wish they'd f*cking TAKE ACTION!


EDIT: Also, Darkside and Numbers are crazy. I firmly believe that there's no need for the death penalty- ever.

 

[CptStern]

http://external.cache.el-mundo.net/beatles/fotos/portada2.jpg

EMO!

that's from 1963 ..and most people had this type of haircut

http://crewcut.com/joc/assets/images/100595_01012000_AAA_Figure69.JPG <- jarhead loser

Who?

:O PHILISTINE!!!

Who is this 'Bach' you speak of? Is he related to Michael Schumacher? I like F1!

:O who's schumacher? the guy who first discovered this? ...surely you dont mean that mental midget car driver?

are we supposed to worship intellectual mediocrity now? I didnt get the memo

Nah, that was the legislation that made it illegal to kill babies.

nope that legislation was always there ..lennon exposed your baby killing ways to the public


oh and hippies do take action ..see the problem is that most of you know the high school guy who dresses like a hippie but is actually just a conformist masquerading as an intellectual ..the truth is that real hippies do get off there collective asses and do something ..in fact if not for the them there'd be no current civil rights movement ..being a hippie is a state of mind, NOT a fashion statement

 

[PvtRyan]

:O PHILISTINE!!!

?

 

[CptStern]

no no not that meaning of philistine ..this meaning

I'm kidding btw ..sorta :E

 

[kirovman]

Death Penalty for all crimes?

I'm sure 95% of you have committed a crime before.

And in the case of Numbers, it's thought-crime! :O

 

[Sebastian]

I say no death penality in any situation. I say they should give a chance at rehabilation; and if that doesn't take, use them in human experimentation or for forced labor. (mind you that these are the extreme cases such as murderes, rapists, pedophiles, ect.) If it is theft, they should make the thief become the butler of whomever he stole from.

 

[Darkside55]

Did it actually solve anything about the reasons why people commit crime, or constantly roll back into it? No.

I guess you fascists fanatics have never heard of "wrongful conviction" or rehabiliitation ..why waste money in helping them when you could just give them a date with a needle or even less expensive a pair of concrete shoes?

It does not solve the reasons, no. However you must understand that for most criminals these criminal thoughts weren't planted in their heads a few days ago, or a few years ago, it started at a very early age. 0mar made an incredible point that I very firmly agree on:

To truly fight crime, you need to kill it where it begins, and it begins at poverty and the lack of choice and progress in communities. Spending just a billion dollars a year to help out underpriviledged communities will do far more to prevent crime than a thousand police officers on the street 24/7.

I mentioned a similar thing in the thread where one of our fellow forumites (can't remember who, sorry) was afraid of becoming a Nazi, and had this view of African Americans as all being gangsters. As I said, the whole reason for that is they grow up indoctrinated by their peers and their environment. It leads them to believe they have no other choice but to deal drugs and steal to make ends meet because they've grown up hearing they cannot make it in society any other way. If you simply show them at an early age that this isn't true, and help reinforce that belief in them throughout life, you'd find that few if any would become criminals as teenagers or adults.

So I would like to tackle the source of criminality. Education, renovation of poor communities, that's something I'm strongly for. Extremely for that sort of thing. However, one must realize that that is not the nature of ALL crime, and even in the case of two people committing the same crime, the reasons could be completely different. Therefore it is impossible to address all the reasons why a person would commit a crime. For some people there may be no early markers that they would even be capable of committing a crime. Ever heard of all the times when someone who was mild-mannered or a friendly, sociable person suddenly went apeshit and started shooting people? Or the loving devoted husband who comes home from work and murders his entire family? What are the reasons behind those? It would take many, many, many years and x-illions of dollars in psychological studies to determine the cause of that. And mind that if we go that route, we will eventually begin to look for these psychological markers in peoples' minds, and we will deem them potential criminals even if they will never go on to commit a crime in their life.

And as I have said twice (thrice now), I am for rehabilitation IF THE PERSON TRULY WISHES TO REFORM THEMSELF. Rehabilitation can work. But it will not work if the person just doesn't give a fvck and goes and repeats his/her crime again. Tell me, what rehabilitation is there for the criminal who got locked up for knocking over a liquor store, gets released, and that very same day goes and ROBS ANOTHER LIQUOR STORE?! No, such people cannot be brought back into the fold of society no matter how much time is spent assessing their behavior and trying to correct it. They have become hardwired to act in this manner and can never fully be trusted.

Now I would like to address one thing that causes relapses in crime and that is the stigma that comes with being a criminal. Anyone who's ever applied for a job knows they ask you whether or not you've been convicted of a felony. I believe this to be a detriment because most places will not hire a former criminal, which obviously would lead to feelings of frustration and helplessness on that person's part, and the feeling that the only way they can survive now is lapsing back into their familiar habit. I think that if you serve your time, there should be a record kept of that for police purposes, but you should not have to divulge that information with anyone else. It's a terrible thing, really. Think of the one-time rapist (and yes, I know, I said rapists should be killed) who now has to live with the fact that everywhere he goes he must file for rape. Even if he is never going to commit a rape again, even if he acted on an impulse and is truly regretful, everyone in that person's neighborhood can find out, "Hey that guy down the street is a rapist." Can you understand what that might do to someone's psyche?

So don't mistake me, here. I would like to address the issues that cause people to break the law. But it is not always feasible, not always sensible, may not always be economical. And in the case of current criminals for some of them, let's face it, there's just no hope. You cannot have these people in society.

Also, Stern, wrongful conviction? Please. How often does that really happen, honestly? You would halt a solution simply because there is the off-chance that someone may be innocent? I suppose you haven't heard the old joke that everybody in prison is innocent. As cold as this is going to sound, you can't make an omlette without cracking a few eggs. On the extremely low probability that a wrongly accussed person is executed, it would be a shame, yes, but what about all the rest of the criminals who DID do something wrong? You'd see so many inmates claiming they'd been framed or that they're the "wrong guy" it wouldn't even be funny. Do you know how much it'd cost to open up all those cases again? Forget about it. No, death is the practical and economical solution, even in the--pardon me for saying so, my friend--absolutely ridiculous scenario of wrongful conviction.

 

[CptStern]

I mentioned a similar thing in the thread where one of our fellow forumites (can't remember who, sorry) was afraid of becoming a Nazi, and had this view of African Americans as all being gangsters. As I said, the whole reason for that is they grow up indoctrinated by their peers and their environment. It leads them to believe they have no other choice but to deal drugs and steal to make ends meet because they've grown up hearing they cannot make it in society any other way. If you simply show them at an early age that this isn't true, and help reinforce that belief in them throughout life, you'd find that few if any would become criminals as teenagers or adults.

so you're saying the black race is bred for crime ..wow that's gotta be the stupidest idea I've heard all day

ah eugenics still rears it's ugly head 141 years after the fact ..it's just as idiotic now than it was back then ..actually moreso now

Also, Stern, wrongful conviction? Please. How often does that really happen, honestly?

183 by the Innocence Project alone


and there's potentially much more than that

of the 150,000 murder cases in Marquis's 15 million [total number of crimes in the US], only 66,000 homicide defendants maintained their innocence through a trial, of which just over 56,000 were convicted

http://blog.justiceflorida.com/wrongful_conviction/

You would halt a solution simply because there is the off-chance that someone may be innocent?

in the off chance that it may save the life of an innocent person, yes by all means

I suppose you haven't heard the old joke that everybody in prison is innocent.

yes yes, but every myth/joke/legend has some grounds in reality

As cold as this is going to sound, you can't make an omlette without cracking a few eggs. On the extremely low probability that a wrongly accussed person is executed, it would be a shame, yes, but what about all the rest of the criminals who DID do something wrong?

what's wrong with life in prison? why must they, and you did say most should be executed?

You'd see so many inmates claiming they'd been framed or that they're the "wrong guy" it wouldn't even be funny.

and? have no faith in your justice system?

Do you know how much it'd cost to open up all those cases again? Forget about it. No, death is the practical and economical solution,

you're either very young/naive or are functionally retarded ..sorry but to condemn someone to death because it's too expensive to reopen their case (they just dont do it arbitrarily, they need grounds to reopen it...this is where the naiviete comes in)

even in the--pardon me for saying so, my friend--absolutely ridiculous scenario of wrongful conviction.

so simple possession of marijuana, a crime punishable up to 25 years in jail merits captial punishment? all manners of crime that usually recieves a life sentence meits capital punishment ..even repeat offenders? (cumulative, ie: 3 strikes law) ..it seems to me that you really havent thought this through ..it's all black and white ..no room for what is in essensce the justicse system as we know it today: checks and balances put into place ensuring that people's rights are not trampled upon. What you're describing fits more in line to what Saddam hussein did or some of the more radical religious run districts that would publically stone someone for even being accused of a crime

I'm surprised in this day and age this sort of ideology still exists ..I can only chaulk it up to obscene ignorance probably passed on by other like minded individuals

 

[Sulkdodds]

so you're saying the black race is bred for crime ..wow that's gotta be the stupidest idea I've heard all day

Actually, he said that many black people are forced onto a certain path by growing up 'in the ghetto', where both popular culture, peer pressure and often the rules of society force them into a certain path.

I would have thought that'd be something you agree with.

I haven't read much of this yet but he seems to be making some very good points, even if I'm not sure about his argument as a whole yet.

Certainly, most of what he says is true - the statistics are something close to 60% of people who are imprisoned re-offend.

He's also right about criminal records. It's rather a large problem. Most people, when they fall into a cycle of crime, do not come out.

 

[CptStern]

Actually, he said that many black people are forced onto a certain path by growing up 'in the ghetto', where both popular culture, peer pressure and often the rules of society force them into a certain path.

no he said all of them:

and had this view of African Americans as all being gangsters. As I said, the whole reason for that is they grow up indoctrinated by their peers and their environment. It leads them to believe they have no other choice but to deal drugs and steal to make ends meet because they've grown up hearing they cannot make it in society any other way.

 

[Sulkdodds]

But he's obviously not claiming that every single African American (which is a silly term as Maddox has pointed out in the past) falls into that...especially since what he's saying is filtered through a friend.

His friend saw all blacks as gangster stereotypes because that's arguably the most prominent image we see; the reason that image is prominent is because a lot are (just like a lot of kids in Britain are chavs) and the reason for that is....

etc etc etc

I really don't think he was claiming all black people are crime.
Inals.
Criminals.

 

[CptStern]

But he's obviously not claiming that every single African American (which is a silly term as Maddox has pointed out in the past) falls into that...especially since what he's saying is filtered through a friend.

ya a friend who thought he was becoming a NAZI

His friend saw all blacks as gangster stereotypes because that's arguably the most prominent image we see; the reason that image is prominent is because a lot are

no that's not true in even the most general of terms ..are you saying the majority of black people regardless of nationality are criminals? come on sulky that's a huge claim that you'd have a hard time supporting ..professional basketball is dominated by black players ..does that mean all blacks play basketball?

(just like a lot of kids in Britain are chavs)

but relative to what? surely the majority of brits arent chavs

I really don't think he was claiming all black people are crime.

no but he's saying they have the propensity to become criminals which is pretty much the same thing

 

[Sulkdodds]

ya a friend who thought he was becoming a NAZI

Unless Darkside actually made a mistake, then his friend was scared of himself becoming a nazi. That's how I read it anyway: "Afraid of becoming a Nazi".

no that's not true in even the most general of terms ..are you saying the majority of black people regardless of nationality are criminals? come on sulky that's a huge claim

Well, maybe it's not true. No, that's not what I'm saying - nobody has to be a criminal to buy into the culture or the image. All I'm saying is that enough people do for it to be quite a prominent image - and to me, the kind of image that, say, 50 cent projects is a prominent one. Wouldn't even 30% of a population adopting a certain manner be "a lot"?

I hope you'd have guessed I'm talking about urban blacks in western nations. "All blacks" is a bit of an erroneous phrase.

His friend (or was it a random forumite) was entirely right to be worried about believing himself to be turning Ayrian (if that is indeed what was going on). Clearly, looking at 'gangster' culture and going "this is black America" is being simple-minded. However, when Darkside said "the whole reason for that", the word "that" meant "this guy's views" - not "black people being 'gangsters'." He was saying that because of the culture in which many young black people grow up in, and because of the number of people who buy into that culture (or appear to buy into that culture), some people start seeing all black people as part of that culture.

Maybe he meant 'gangsters' as in actual criminals, or maybe he meant 'gangsters' in the same sense as a Brit might say 'goths' or 'chavs' - I don't know, because it's not my argument, and I'm merely trying to clarify how it appeared to me.

In short: he was saying that the reason people sometimes stereotype blacks (in their own locality) as 'gangsters' is because so many of them (note: not "most") grow up into that culture. Perhaps he's wrong, perhaps he's right. Perhaps a study is in order.

no but he's saying they have the propensity to become criminals which is pretty much the same thing[/quote[Well, not all of them. And shit, maybe that's true - because it could probably be argued that people who grow up in certain conditions in the UK have a propensity to commit crime. On the other hand maybe he's going way out of proportion with the whole notion of crime being society's fault.

EDIT: How do we define 'a lot'? 'A lot' relative to what?

I'd say 'a lot' is 'enough to be noticeable.

As far as I can see, 'a lot' of young American blacks buy into 'gangster' culture.

As far as I can see (which is a lot further in this case), 'a lot' of young Brits buy into chav culture, which is really often associated with crime, even if it's only petty crime.

That might be stereotyping, and it might even be subconscious irrational HATEHATEHATE, but it's how things appear to me - and we are, correct me if I'm wrong, talking about how things appear here.

 

[CptStern]

Unless Darkside actually made a mistake, then his friend was scared of himself becoming a nazi. That's how I read it anyway: "Afraid of becoming a Nazi".

ya but I read it as he was already there he just needed a push in the opposite direction because deep down he knew it was wrong

Well, maybe it's not true. No, that's not what I'm saying - nobody has to be a criminal to buy into the culture or the image. All I'm saying is that enough people do for it to be quite a prominent image - and to me, the kind of image that, say, 50 cent projects is a prominent one.

ya but so is michael jordan, marvin gaye, rosa parks etc

Wouldn't even 30% of a population adopting a certain manner be "a lot"?

yes but how many of those are into criminality ..if take the video game 50 cent (which sold like hotcakes) ..they're obviously fans ..how many of those were criminals?

I hope you'd have guessed I'm talking about urban blacks in western nations. "All blacks" is a bit of an erroneous phrase.

man I lived in a jamiacan area of toronto for 5 years ..I walked into the jamiacan jerk chicken place on the regular basis and there was no evidence of gangsterism ..oh sure like in any minority area there's signs of criminality, but they're there no matter which neighbourhood ..I mean even this place is full of criminals ..and they have no blacks (condi is not black I dont care what you say)

His friend (or was it a random forumite) was entirely right to be worried about believing himself to be turning Ayrian (if that is indeed what was going on). Clearly, looking at 'gangster' culture and going "this is black America" is being simple-minded. However, when Darkside said "the whole reason for that", the word "that" meant "this guy's views" - not "black people being 'gangsters'." He was saying that because of the culture in which many young black people grow up in, and because of the number of people who buy into that culture (or appear to buy into that culture), some people start seeing all black people as part of that culture.

ya but who's fault is that? surely not the blacks

Maybe he meant 'gangsters' as in actual criminals, or maybe he meant 'gangsters' in the same sense as a Brit might say 'goths' or 'chavs' - I don't know, because it's not my argument, and I'm merely trying to clarify how it appeared to me.

but go into a white low income neighbourhood and you'll see the exact same thing ..it's not exclusive to blacks

In short: he was saying that the reason people sometimes stereotype blacks (in their own locality) as 'gangsters' is because so many of them (note: not "most") grow up into that culture.

he did say all

Well, not all of them. And shit, maybe that's true - because it could probably be argued that people who grow up in certain conditions in the UK have a propensity to commit crime. On the other hand maybe he's going way out of proportion with the whole notion of crime being society's fault.

but that's a given ..if you're left wanting then automatically you have more of a propensity to take what you want ...how much white collar crime happens in rich neighbourhoods? does that mean that many white people are criminals? no it just means that in that area there's white collar crime and some of them are committed by white people

 

[Sulkdodds]

yes but how many of those are into criminality ..if take the video game 50 cent (which sold like hotcakes) ..they're obviously fans ..how many of those were criminals?

man I lived in a jamiacan area of toronto for 5 years ..I walked into the jamiacan jerk chicken place on the regular basis and there was no evidence of gangsterism

Well, maybe you're right and he/me is wrong. Maybe there is no more crime in areas with a lot of black people ('black' areas, if you will, and if such things exist).

ya but who's fault is that? surely not the blacks

Well, actually, surely it partly is the fault of individual black people if they choose to project that impression.

Course, that's not saying much, because it's also the media, society, culture...and, of course, the person who holds the views. Mostly the person who holds the views, one might argue.

but go into a white low income neighbourhood and you'll see the exact same thing ..it's not exclusive to blacks

but that's a given ..if you're left wanting then automatically you have more of a propensity to take what you want ...how much white collar crime happens in rich neighbourhoods? does that mean that many white people are criminals? no it just means that in that area there's white collar crime and some of them are committed by white people

Which was exactly his logic...I mean, nobody said this state of affairs applied only to black people. I don't think anybody said it was exclusive to black people. This random guy, and by extension Darkside, and by extension we, happened to be talking about black people specifically. Why did this other guy not say 'all poor people'? I don't know. Don't ask me. D:

I just really think you're misconstruing this...Darkside was using the example of criminality specifically among young black people (perhaps this is the most striking example of the phenomenon in America?) to illustrate his point about social depravation.

he did say all

Well...no. The other guy said 'all'.

Anyway, I hate 'pulling out' of arguments but this one isn't mine and I can only tell you what I think about what he was trying to say. This whole last howevermany posts are also branching waaay off topic on a very small thing.