Capital Punishment

[Taiji]

Ah, I see you answered my request but deleted what you posted previously and I hadn't realised. Perhaps you're now being childish about my not responding, and that explains

I hold no ill will towards anyone wanting to see their loved one's murderer put to death. You on the other hand will judge them for it...

So what you're saying above is that I will punish, not judge, them for actual premeditated murder, not just thinking about it.

Whereas you would let murderers go free as long as it's part of a feud of some kind, because presumably you like these extremely selfish and primitive cycles of violence.

And you're the Christian?

Let me spell it out for you. We are the same as we were thousands of years ago. Physically and mentally the same. We may have better technology, but that is because you cannot get to the number 5 without going through 1-4. Let me spell that out for you. You have to invent the wheel before you invent the car.

Oh, so you were talking about biological matters unrelated to this subject when told that your primitive approach is primitive? Why?

[Imperator Romani]

Leading by example it is. This is your post which "I didn't reply to"

My attitude as you see it does not force assumptions on you.

So let's get personal then, if you're so keen - Who got murdered or raped for you?

Or did you get raped?

At what point after that did you become murderous?

When you killed the man, or someone killed him for you, did it make anything at all better for you?

Or is assumptions and projected-hypothetical-butthurtedness all you've got?

Here is my post that was "the reply to your post that I didn't reply to."

Obviously. In all truth the girl that gave me my first kiss, she was raped by her uncle in a ditch. Now, why did I tell you even though you will not believe me? It's because I don't know you, you don't know her, and that will never change, so there is no reason not to.

At what point did I become murderous? Why, when I knew I could get away with it of course

No, it's pitiful I know. I hold no ill will towards anyone wanting to see their loved one's murderer put to death. You on the other hand will judge them for it...

I'll add some to it however, as you seem to be unhappy about my post, whining that I didn't answer your post but then childishly refusing to point out what I missed.

At what point did I become murderous? I really don't know. I don't see it as murderous anyway, for reasons I've already mentioned.

When I or someone killed a man, did it makes things better for me? Yes, it did make me feel better to know that he was off the streets. Now I feel even better knowing that my money doesn't support his sad life in a jail cell. Is it more cruel to kill someone, or cage them for life? We could argue who is moral and cruel here.



In response to your edit, which are getting old by the way, just take your time to post.

So what you're saying above is that I will punish, not judge, them for actual premeditated murder, not just thinking about it.

Whereas you would let murderers go free as long as it's part of a feud of some kind, because presumably you like these extremely selfish and primitive cycles of violence.

And you're the Christian?

No, that is not what I'm saying. I am saying that you will judge someone as primitive for backing up the death penalty, even when it the murder/rapist of their loved one.

Yes. I hold no ill will towards my country's soldiers. If it weren't for them we'd be someone's slaves. You have to defend yourself, as a individual and as a country this rule holds true. If you don't defend yourself you put yourself at someone else's mercy.

I'm not a Christian for believing in self defense? Whatever floats your boat.

[Taiji]

Aside from our disagreement I am given cause to laugh by the mess we have made for ourselves by virtue of the wonders of edit.

This conversation would have taken 5 mins at most in a pub. Funny how the internet can ruin our ability to communicate...

I just have to slap you back for this one below though, hehe

I'm not a Christian for believing in self defense? Whatever floats you boat.

Who said you were? *SLAP*

You do a lot of that kind of dishonesty, don't you? Ever thought of working in politics?

[Imperator Romani]

Aside from our disagreement I am given cause to laugh by the mess we have made for ourselves by virtue of the wonders of edit.

This conversation would have taken 5 mins at most in a pub. Funny how the internet can ruin our ability to communicate...

Ha true dat, plus beer

Who said you were? *SLAP*

You do a lot of that kind of dishonesty, don't you? Ever thought of working in politics?

This was in response to me saying " I'm not a Christian for believing in self defense?"

This in turn was in response to you saying "Whereas you would let murderers go free as long as it's part of a feud of some kind, because presumably you like these extremely selfish and primitive cycles of violence."

The only case of when I said I'd let a "murderer" go free is in a soldier's defense of one's country. So you either meant war by "feud" or you are mistaken in my views.

[Taiji]

So you don't think it's sanctioning murder to allow people to murder in response to horrific crimes?

I do.

And you were joking when you said that preventing revenge killing by law is preventing self defense?

That must be a misunderstanding.

[Imperator Romani]

Yes, the misunderstanding is that when I was mentioning self defense I was implying soldiers.

And no, I do not think it is sanctioning murder. I think it is a deterrent.

[Gaidin]

Of course I always did love the paradox of state-sanctioned murder. As if it's a point.

Also, the idea of deployed solders being covered by 'self defense' is pretty silly. For them it depends on the rules of engagement and various treaties and protocols in effect.

[Imperator Romani]

Like the Geneva Convention? That's the death of soldiers, just ask Marcus Luttrell. His book points out that this rulebook killed his team and in turn their rescue team.

And how is the idea of soldiers being covered by self defense silly?

[Gaidin]

Like the Geneva Convention? That's the death of soldiers, just ask Marcus Luttrell. His book points out that this rulebook killed his team and in turn their rescue team.

And how is the idea of soldiers being covered by self defense silly?

I'm not sure I can state it any more simply. Their actions are not bound or covered by standard civilian law on deployment. It's why, when the Iraqi government said no immunity from civilian law, we pretty much pulled the hell out of Iraq. Obviously if they're attacked by enemy forces they can fight back under the RoE, but throwing the words 'self-defense' around like its a gold standard for whether they'll be courtmartialed or not is pretty damn silly. I'm not sure what the hell your point of Marcus Luttrel is. I said that they're governed by rules of engagement and treaties that are in effect. I never said those things make their jobs easier in all cases.

[Imperator Romani]

I think we have a misunderstanding. I was calling it self defense for a soldier of one army to kill a soldier of the enemies army. This is common sense though, and there is nothing to debate.

[aqd]

It's not exactly a punishment to kill wild beasts which hurt people. They have no more rights and they're no more human after they violate the rights of others.

It's not a deterent. It does not affect crimes of passion and thise who hold little value on life will not be swayed by threats to their own lives.

Which is why CP should be extened to all types of cases regarding violence, such as rape and beating, and regardess of their age - a lot of murderers would show signs during their childhood. It's not to punish, but to remove all those monsters from our world.

[Taiji]

Which is why CP should be extened to all types of cases regarding violence, such as rape and beating, and regardess of their age - a lot of murderers would show signs during their childhood. It's not to punish, but to remove all those monsters from our world.

Let's say we molest a child, but we expect the death penalty for it, so what do you think happens next? I think we murder the child since it removes a witness and makes no difference to our sentence.

That's one problem with using the harshest sentence for lesser crimes than murder when murder can be quite a convenient measure to take in covering up the crime.

[aqd]

Let's say we molest a child, but we expect the death penalty for it, so what do you think happens next? I think we murder the child since it removes a witness and makes no difference to our sentence.

That's one problem with using the harshest sentence for lesser crimes than murder when murder can be quite a convenient measure to take in covering up the crime.

It's easy. You use a punishment worse than killing for killing. Like slow-slicing or burning them alive.

[Yoda Twin]

It's not exactly a punishment to kill wild beasts which hurt people. They have no more rights and they're no more human after they violate the rights of others.



Which is why CP should be extened to all types of cases regarding violence, such as rape and beating, and regardess of their age - a lot of murderers would show signs during their childhood. It's not to punish, but to remove all those monsters from our world.

I might have to check on this, but I am 99% sure that a man convicted of assault is still a Homo Sapien and does not in fact grow horns and breaths fire.

[Taiji]

It's easy. You use a punishment worse than killing for killing. Like slow-slicing or burning them alive.

You could make them endure months of torture, until they want to die enough to immolate themselves. I think that might work as a deterrent, especially with a big brother style 'house' where a load of torture victims get tortured together on live TV.

And rather than voting them out you could vote to worsen their torture

[Col. Tartleton]

You could make them endure months of torture, until they want to die enough to immolate themselves. I think that might work as a deterrent, especially with a big brother style 'house' where a load of torture victims get tortured together on live TV.

And rather than voting them out you could vote to worsen their torture

At first I thought you meant 1984 then I realized you meant the reality show...

[Taiji]

Also a death penalty doesn't work (as a deterrent) on the suicidal unless you kill them in a really inhumane way.

Hmm shall I pay loads of money to get it done in Switzerland or should I just go out and kill someone and get it done on the state? ... lol

[Vanoi]

I used to support the death penalty, but i do not any longer. It just doesn't work. Its also too expensive and has ended up killing innocent people.

[aqd]

I used to support the death penalty, but i do not any longer. It just doesn't work. Its also too expensive and has ended up killing innocent people.

1.It seems to work here - the crime rates increase just as the punishment are getting softer and softer. We have a lot of crimes today and CP counts are nearly zero every year.

2.How is jailing innocent people any better than killing innocent people??

Humans as a whole or not more sophisticated. Technology is vastly more sophisticated, but the human makeup and mental capacity is the same. We can't fly, we can't breathe underwater, we can't think faster and deeper, etc.

Yes we can if we start applying technology to our own bodies. There will be no more murderers or brain-damaged beasts, and gene modification combined with selective breeds would certainly be able to create new humans with higher intelligence and better emotional control. And flying or breathing underwater would be possible as well.

And then capital punishment or any other of punishment would not be needed anymore.

[Simon Cashmere]

Yes, but the death penalty is part of the justice system. If you execute an innocent man, there is no justice. It is the topic.

So by that rationale, infallible justice system, or no justice system at all. I guess that means no justice system at all.