[Uriel]

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If we had fewer people, we wouldn't need to worry about the missing taxpayers; if you don't have as many citizens to support, your expenses should go down.

Can someone with a basic knowledge of Economics respond to this? I am unable to process.

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	...I think that fear is pretty much the only way to make people moral.

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes, it's essentially martial law, but it's a heck of a lot better than letting people enjoy their "freedom" and run amok and mess up everyone else's lives.

You would strip innocent people of their God-given free will with the assumption it's going to make them 'moral'?
How many people do you think would voluntarily live in your society?
How exactly does freedom mess up everyone else's lives?
Would you impose your policy on your loved ones?
Do you think they'd agree with your policy?
What if they don't?

Your perception is the epitome of selfishness in the guise of morality.
May whatever god you believe in have mercy on your soul.

[zibber]

Agreed. Es ist high time for some Säuberung up in this piece.

---------- Post added 10-14-2011 at 05:23 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If we had fewer people, we wouldn't need to worry about the missing taxpayers; if you don't have as many citizens to support, your expenses should go down.

Group discounts.

You can't explain that.

[Nemesis]

Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is why we need a better enforcement system where people blatantly caught violating laws regarding serious or society-threatening offenses and are clearly doing something illegal should be shot on the spot. Is that crack cocaine? Yes? Bang, you're dead. Are you standing over a dead body with a bloody knife? Bang, you're dead. This will deter people from having even the appearance of impropriety. If people want to break the law, let them try, but the second they're caught, they've signed their own death warrants.

wow...

I'm so glad people who endourse this kind of horse-shit generally lack the brain power to ever make it into positions of real power or even be taken seriously. It's hard to read this without interpreting it as some sort of satire or parody.

[mormeguil]

There is also the fact that people are usually moral "on their own" not because of the fear of anything. Humans are geneticly an empathic animal. We are made to live in group and while there is a necessity for a group to exist and for children to be educated in a correct manner. Most people will be good and moral on their own whitout the fear of anything.

[Arkeph]

	Originally Posted by Nemesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	wow... I'm so glad people who endourse this kind of horse-shit generally lack the brain power to ever make it into positions of real power or even be taken seriously. It's hard to read this without interpreting it as some sort of satire or parody.

I don't think believing such theories is evidence of stupidity. It's clearly not an impediment to being in positions of power, at any rate. The DOJ under Obama is coming very close to making similar arguments, albeit only for crimes related to terrorism.

That some people believe these ideas is just an extreme outcome of right-wing authoritarianism. Bob Altemeyer's book
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
sheds light on this bizarre set of tendencies. What exactly causes someone to think this way is always something of a mystery, but it seems to have something to do with one's exposure to people outside a cultural bubble in which authority figures are highly respected.

Crime attracts the RWA mind because it appeals to its dual tendencies to be fearful and self-righteous.

[Thinktress]

	Originally Posted by Uriel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Death for Breaking and Entering and petty theft?

Well, if they break and enter my property and I'm home, they're going to get death rather sooner than later
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


---------- Post added 10-22-2011 at 12:15 PM ----------

In the grand scheme of things though, I'm for the death penalty in cases of murder and for sex offenders.

I don't see the death penalty as a deterrent, but I do think it keeps violent people from getting paroled and I think if we sped up the process and didn't imprison people for things like smoking pot and jaywalking (hey, jaywalkers take their own risks, don't they?) then we could open up more prison space for the people we want to keep behind bars.

Sex offenders cannot be rehabilitated, so yeah... shotgun therapy.

[Comen]

OMG! I have a suggestion for you... why dont we execute elders, disabled and other "useless" people who have a negative balance into public accounts?

Executing criminals because it is cheaper than looking them up is an idea which is not very far from the one of above...

[Thinktress]

	Originally Posted by Comen To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	OMG! I have a suggestion for you... why dont we execute elders, disabled and other "useless" people who have a negative balance into public accounts? Executing criminals because it is cheaper than looking them up is an idea which is not very far from the one of above...

what? murderers and sex offenders. That's as far as I want to extend the death penalty. What's wrong with that?

[Analyze]

No.

[Thinktress]

	Originally Posted by Uriel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	About 10 Million less taxpayers.

Yeah... Because criminals pay so many taxes. And I mean, they're all HUGE landowners. And their work ethic. Well...

[druggie]

Execute all the terrorists, murders, and rapists. Forget appeals. If we don't allow double jeopardy why should criminals be allowed to appeal their sentences? It'll make the process faster, cheaper, and not to mention we'd be rid of the dirt of society sooner. The rest can go into penal labour (hard labour that is) and work off their debt to society. It would eliminate the reoffending hobos who figured that prison was better than living on the street.

[Thinktress]

There has to be some form of appeal because sometimes the justice system gets it wrong. I'm not advocating that we execute the innocent.

[Ghostwheel]

Originally Posted by druggie To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Execute all the terrorists, murders, and rapists. Forget appeals. If we don't allow double jeopardy why should criminals be allowed to appeal their sentences? It'll make the process faster, cheaper, and not to mention we'd be rid of the dirt of society sooner. The rest can go into penal labour (hard labour that is) and work off their debt to society. It would eliminate the reoffending hobos who figured that prison was better than living on the street.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


My name is Joe, and I agree with the above statement.

[druggie]

With all the forensic stuff we have now, it's very hard to be wrong. The high profile screw ups you see nowadays are from the days when we didn't have DNA testing etc. A lot more often than "executing the innocent", we let the guilty walk free. If you want to keep the appeal process, then I would suggest that we bring back double jeopardy. Cause like you said, the justice system may be wrong. Creeps like OJ Simpson can be tried again that way. To cut the cost, if there must be an appeal, limit it to 1 chance and only if new evidence emerge. Our current judicial system is very much a hug a thug system.

[Ghostwheel]

	Originally Posted by druggie To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Our current judicial system is very much a hug a thug system.

Have you ever been inside a state penitentiary?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[druggie]

	Originally Posted by Ghostwheel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Have you ever been inside a state penitentiary? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Have you? I don't mess with the law so why would I have. What I do know is that some sicko pedophiles get sentenced to a month in prison due to time served before trial. Did I mention that sometimes 1 day served before trial is counted as 3 days? Another guy cut off a fellow greyhound passenger's head and ate the victim's eyeballs. Guess what sentence he got handed? Not criminally responsible due to mental illness. This guy had no history of mental illness by the way. What do you tell the family of the victim? Oh, and if the murderer get a bill of health from a psychiatrist, he could be out within a year. So how did i figure out our judicial system is seriously screwed up? I think it's quite obvious.

edited for stupid spelling mistake

[Ghostwheel]

Originally Posted by druggie To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Have you? I don't mess with the law so why would I have. What I do know is that some sicko pedophiles get sentenced to a month in prison due to time served before trial. Did I mention that sometimes 1 day served before trial is counted as 3 days? Another guy cut off a fellow greyhound passenger's head and ate the victim's eyeballs. Guess what sentence he got handed? Not criminally responsible due to mental illness. This guy had no history of mental illness by the way. What do you tell the family of the victim? Oh, and if the murder get a bill of health from a psychiatrist, he could be out within a year. So how did i figure out our judicial system is seriously screwed up? I think it's quite obvious.

There's such machine-gun fire of fallacious argument in your response it's hard to know where to begin unpacking it. You're lucky Iota Null isn't here to read this.

Anyway, the first one that comes to mind is making wide-reaching generalizations from anecdotal evidence.

On another point, how do you know the people in question weren't mentally ill? That somebody has not been previously diagnosed as mentally ill does not logically imply he isn't, in fact, mentally ill, especially given the cost of mental health care and lack of access thereby.

I find it a bad sign that you're studying to be a pharmacist and have such a problem with the concept of mental illness....

Originally Posted by Arkeph To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That some people believe these ideas is just an extreme outcome of right-wing authoritarianism. Bob Altemeyer's book To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. sheds light on this bizarre set of tendencies. What exactly causes someone to think this way is always something of a mystery, but it seems to have something to do with one's exposure to people outside a cultural bubble in which authority figures are highly respected.

Yes, I do believe you and Altemeyer are correct.

[Sumwun]

Retarded concept.

Death as a penalty would cause even the most petty counterfeiters and candy thieves to go on wild car chases and vicious killing sprees to avoid being arrested. Who would surrender to law enforcement if they knew they were going to die, especially for petty crimes?

[druggie]

Originally Posted by Ghostwheel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There's such machine-gun fire of fallacious argument in your response it's hard to know where to begin unpacking it. You're lucky Iota Null isn't here to read this. Anyway, the first one that comes to mind is making wide-reaching generalizations from anecdotal evidence. On another point, how do you know the people in question weren't mentally ill? That somebody has not been previously diagnosed as mentally ill does not logically imply he isn't, in fact, mentally ill, especially given the cost of mental health care and lack of access thereby. I find it a bad sign that you're studying to be a pharmacist and have such a problem with the concept of mental illness....

Time served isn't a generalization. It happens all the time. I would suggest that you look that up before calling it a wide-reaching generalization.
As for the murderer, I find it awfully suspicious that he didn't have a medical history of mental illness if he had been that sick already and that he just conveniently became sick when he murdered someone. Miraculously, his conditions improved immensely shortly after the ruling.
It's also funny that you have a problem with me basing my argument on some previous cases; afterall, sentences are handed down based on precedent ie. rulings on previous cases. Why don't you have a problem with that?
And I suppose you believe that justice for the victim and the safety of the society as a whole is much less important than the well-being of the offenders.
Lastly, drop by my pharmacy in a few short years
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I'll be glad to fill up your prescription real good lol.

[Arkeph]

Originally Posted by druggie To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Have you? I don't mess with the law so why would I have. What I do know is that some sicko pedophiles get sentenced to a month in prison due to time served before trial. Did I mention that sometimes 1 day served before trial is counted as 3 days? Another guy cut off a fellow greyhound passenger's head and ate the victim's eyeballs. Guess what sentence he got handed? Not criminally responsible due to mental illness. This guy had no history of mental illness by the way. What do you tell the family of the victim? Oh, and if the murderer get a bill of health from a psychiatrist, he could be out within a year. So how did i figure out our judicial system is seriously screwed up? I think it's quite obvious.

You might be referring to the Canadian justice system (as Canada is where the beheading occurred), which may be why there's disagreement here about the treatment of criminals. The US is generally far less lenient, you may be comforted to know.

Your defense of
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
's sanity during his episode of cannibalism is terrible, by the way, for numerous reasons.

[Ghostwheel]

	Originally Posted by druggie To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Time served isn't a generalization. It happens all the time. I would suggest that you look that up before calling it a wide-reaching generalization.... It's also funny that you have a problem with me basing my argument on some previous cases; afterall, sentences are handed down based on precedent ie. rulings on previous cases....

Your logical error is in cherry-picking individual outlier cases (assuming you even have the facts correct) and making from these few cases the claim that the entire system needs to be revised in an extreme fashion.

Such assertions as you and the OP present, that is, that the criminal justice system requires draconian changes to preserve social order, merits hard statistical evidence on a variety of fronts, and numerous thoughtful cost-benefit analyses. You've presented nothing of the sort.

[zibber]

	Originally Posted by Thinktress To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well, if they break and enter my property and I'm home, they're going to get death rather sooner than later To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Nice!

And then spend the rest of your life fundamentally scarred after murdering someone.

GRRR! KILL!

USA! USA!

[Kisai]

	Originally Posted by Einarr To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Fear of the consequences are the only thing that enforce laws. If a person does not fear them, they break the law. Death is the only suitable punishment for adults, and even then there are those who do not even fear death.

The Qin Dynasty[1] agrees with you, brother.

[1] Extremely legalistic Chinese empire that the PRC uses as a revered model. Famous for their harsh punishments for trifles. Their philosophy was that harsh punishments made it impossible for people to even think about wrongdoing. Not surprisingly, rebellion broke out all over China under harsh policies, and alas, the Qin were supplanted by the Han.

[Megalomania]

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Nice! And then spend the rest of your life fundamentally scarred after murdering someone. GRRR! KILL! USA! USA!

Who would be "fundamentally scarred" from defending their home?

I don't agree with the death penalty for sex offenders. Chemical castration is always an option.

[druggie]

Originally Posted by Ghostwheel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Your logical error is in cherry-picking individual outlier cases (assuming you even have the facts correct) and making from these few cases the claim that the entire system needs to be revised in an extreme fashion. Such assertions as you and the OP present, that is, that the criminal justice system requires draconian changes to preserve social order, merits hard statistical evidence on a variety of fronts, and numerous thoughtful cost-benefit analyses. You've presented nothing of the sort.

nice of you to go around cherry picking my arguments :P don't have time for this atm, need to pass that pharmacokinetics exam tmr so i can fill your prescriptions in the future.