Debate Topic: Dealing with Violent Criminals

The place for any religious and/or philosophical discussions, treatise, absolutions, ramblings, etc...

Debate Topic: Dealing with Violent Criminals

Postby Egaladeist » Fri Jan 08, 2010 5:33 am

Well…I advocate killing them all… :D

if someone is so threatening, so vile, so contemptuous, that we feel the need, the very necessity, to remove them from society and place them in a 6×8 cell with others of their kind…cage them away for years…in order to protect society from them…

then we might as well just kill them…and be done with it.

Sure, even in this day of high tech, there may be the odd person who is innocent that gets caught up for one reason or another…but …

the countless future victims of these repeat offenders, who will not be able to repeat offend because they’d be dead, will more than compensate for that…

it’s a question of priorities…

it’s a question of which you value more…

the lives and safety of the few innocent who would inadvertently be killed alongside them..

or the thousands of would-be victims you’ve prevented from becoming victims by putting them to death…

simple…

f someone is so threatening, so vile, so contemptuous, that we feel the need, the very necessity, to remove them from society and place them in a 6×8 cell with others of their kind…cage them away for years…in order to protect society from them…

then we might as well just kill them…and be done with it.

Not just those on death row…all of them.

I do not support the prison system…it should be abolished entirely…tore down…if someone is not a threat to society but is convicted of a crime we should use non-prison alternatives…if someone is a threat to society then we should put them down as if they were a rabid dog.

Crime would drop like a rock…once we start putting a bullet in their heads behind the Courthouse.

Maybe then we could go back to the days when we didn’t have to lock our doors or worry about our children’s safety..,knowing that these threats are being eliminated.
User avatar
Egaladeist
I am the Eg man : Coo Coo Ca Choo
 
Posts: 18852
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 1:02 am
Location: Canada

Re: Debate Topic: Dealing with Violent Criminals

Postby Snozzle » Sat Jan 23, 2010 5:17 pm

Fascinating! Save a lot of money to kill every criminal instead of puting them in prison.

Obviously I'm sure you wrote this tongue in cheek.

We have no right to take another life.

If someone does something horrific lock them up for life. And generally make prisons unpleasant so offenders would never want to return.

Mike
67 Not Out: A blog about coincidences and synchronicity. Do things happen by chance?
User avatar
Snozzle
Wannabee
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 4:52 pm

Re: Debate Topic: Dealing with Violent Criminals

Postby keezel » Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:00 pm

All sarcasm aside, Eg has a point.

Locking them away indefinitely only places a drain on society. From a purely efficiency standpoint (all morality aside), there are only two solutions to this problem.

1) Kill them.
2) Use them.

Option two would involve putting them to work doing productive things. Stuff that needs to be done...stuff that no other human being wants to do. This way they are still contributing to society (but under lock & key).

Our current system already implements this to a limited degree.
Only amateurs attack machines; professionals target people. Bruce Schneier
User avatar
keezel
Jedi Bastard
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:56 am
Location: Atlanta

Re: Debate Topic: Dealing with Violent Criminals

Postby Panama Red » Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:40 pm

I would go with option #2, use them, all sorts of lousy work out there that needs doing, something to consider for option #1, who wants to be the one to pull the switch/trigger/injection, not a job that has a lot of potential candidates lining up for... :cool3:
Image
User avatar
Panama Red
I come Unseen
 
Posts: 5473
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 12:14 am

Re: Debate Topic: Dealing with Violent Criminals

Postby |3lack|ce » Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:14 pm

Ok, so ya say you wanna kill all violent criminals..

Now my morals tell me to agree with you completely, but that still, small voice in the back of my head wants me to ask you, quite loudly, who appointed you the fooking judge?

Devil's advocate time:

Ask anyone who's ever actually been through a criminal court proceeding of even the most minor of offenses, and you'll quickly learn that there is a VAST disparity between what actually occurred and what the court, judge and jury says happened.

That being the case, there's quite a large number of people currently locked in those wonderful 6x8 cells that really don't belong there, but probably will when their time is 'up' since it's quite common knowledge that one doesn't go to prison just to be punished and reformed, prisoners also learn to be better criminals.

In addition I'll add that just last week I read yet another headline about a guy who proved his innocence using DNA evidence - proving to the courts conclusively that he was NOT the killer, and had been wrongfully imprisoned for 24 years.

That being said, the system isn't perfect. Would you be the one willing to throw the switch on a guy who may not truly be guilty?

Now living as I do in the state with the most Capital Punishment executions ever, I'll tell you outright that I fully support capital punishment in its current form - that being, guy gets found guilty, guy sits on death row until umpteen appeals get filed and processed to make bloody sure he's the right guy, guy still has a chance all the way up until they start the lethal chemicals into his veins thanks to governatorial reprieves, guy dies, guy gets buried in the prison graveyard. The time from initial finding of guilt to execution of sentence can take as long as 15-20 years, but usually is completed within 5. All along this happy trail there are checks and rechecks of EVERY aspect of the trial, evidence, and procedures used, all designed to make damned sure he's the right guy. With that procedure, I'd throw the switch. With your suggestion..well... have at it, but keep your fookin idea up in Canada, we believe in (or at least attempt to believe in) 'innocent until proven guilty' down here in the States.


Now for option 2 - put 'em to work. Wow dude. You just reinvented the Jim Crowe south and it's chain gangs all in one fell swoop. Seriously, we still do this in the US prison systems. If we didn't, we couldn't afford them. Most prisons run farms, print license plates, etc to make additional money and use lower risk inmates to work. Some even run automotive shops, and more technical things as well as additional sources of income. To the best of my knowledge, Louisiana still runs chain gangs occasionally, and you can see them out when you're out in the rural roads, slogging along doing yo-yo work trimming back the road, digging ditches, and sometimes even resurfacing roads. If you've ever seen "Cool Hand Luke" it looks much like it did in that film. So why the suggestion? We're already doing option 2.

My suggestion:
No prisons, temporary jails to house inmates no more than 1 week while awaiting trial. Trial takes place without lawyers, a "judge" is grabbed off the street along with 12 random people to be a jury. On being found guilty the prisoner is immediately executed by the judge - if he's sure enough to pronounce a guilty sentence then he's sure enough to pull the switch.

Of course I'm also a firm believer in having a TRI-cameral legislature... House and Senate sit as-is, and the OverHouse sits all day and votes down laws by simple majority. Where the House and Senate are only in session for certain months of the year, the OverHouse sits 24/7 365 and has a minimum quota of laws to strike from the books each day. Less laws = less crimes = less mess for the court system, thereby enabling the 1 week to trial suggestion. It also equals less government since there's less laws to enforce, which results in lower taxes, etc.

Anyways, that's my take.
The one thing a customer service specialist can never teach is 'being nice.'
User avatar
|3lack|ce
Let's play Global Thermonuclear War!
 
Posts: 2134
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 5:50 pm
Location: Podunk Texas

Re: Debate Topic: Dealing with Violent Criminals

Postby keezel » Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:15 pm

who wants to be the one to pull the switch/trigger/injection


Sounds like Eg is up to the task! :D

I don't think option #1 is truly an option (except in the most severe cases / most heinous crimes) for moral reasons and the possibility of rehabilitation. Granted this is not likely in our current "corrections" system, which is unbelievably flawed.

I also think it's interesting that California is releasing so many prisoners. When the money is not there, suddenly it does not seem so important to hold people indefinitely for more minor misdemeanors. How many of us have done something illegal but were lucky enough not to be caught? (Not expecting any real answers on that one!)

Our whole system needs some work and it does not often receive much attention because it's not a high priority among law makers. They'd rather figure out ways to remove limitations on corporate spending on politics to keep their personal cash flow coming in. :P

*edit*
Looks like |ce beat me by a minute!
Only amateurs attack machines; professionals target people. Bruce Schneier
User avatar
keezel
Jedi Bastard
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:56 am
Location: Atlanta

Re: Debate Topic: Dealing with Violent Criminals

Postby Egaladeist » Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:37 pm

Obviously I'm sure you wrote this tongue in cheek.


To an extent yes :mrgreen: but the most logical solution would be to kill them.

All sarcasm aside, Eg has a point.


Logically ( placing all emotional moral objections aside ) the best thing for society would be to kill them. Abolish the prison system ( which is antiquated anyways ) altogether. And find some other method to deal with non-violent criminals ( besides just community service and restitution ).

Now my morals tell me to agree with you completely, but that still, small voice in the back of my head wants me to ask you, quite loudly, who appointed you the fooking judge?


Hummmmmm...going to have to update the FAQ's :rolf6:

Yes, the main argument against putting them down is that some innocents will die too. But logically the benefits of doing it far out-weigh the cost.

1. society would be less financially stressed
2. society would be less socially stressed
3. society would feel more secure

If we have a rabid dog we put it down...if we have a rabid person we lock it in a cage with other rabid people....and then we release them back on society to re-offend.

The large percentage of violent crimes are perpetrated by repeat offenders.

There are a number of innocent people in prison....but most of them were convicted before the new technology...the risk of an innocent person going to prison now is minimal.

No prisons, temporary jails to house inmates no more than 1 week while awaiting trial. Trial takes place without lawyers, a "judge" is grabbed off the street along with 12 random people to be a jury. On being found guilty the prisoner is immediately executed by the judge - if he's sure enough to pronounce a guilty sentence then he's sure enough to pull the switch.


I completely agree that we should abolish the prison system entirely...it's basically the same system we've used for hundreds of years...with a few humanitarian changes.

Sounds like Eg is up to the task!


:jailed: :sniper:

:behead: :hang: :whip:

:mrgreen:

I don't think option #1 is truly an option (except in the most severe cases / most heinous crimes)


I agree, I wasn't referring to a couple drunks going to jail after a bar fight...but specifically convicted rapists, murders, people who have maimed someone, home invasions, etc...
User avatar
Egaladeist
I am the Eg man : Coo Coo Ca Choo
 
Posts: 18852
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 1:02 am
Location: Canada

Re: Debate Topic: Dealing with Violent Criminals

Postby Aspman » Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:40 am

Well we have things like this

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 994458.ece

Munir Hussain, who is chairman of the Asian Business Council and who was praised at his trial by the judge for defending his wife and three children, returned from the local mosque in September 2008 to find intruders in his home. He feared for the lives of his family as their hands were tied behind their backs and they were forced to crawl from room to room.

The businessman escaped and enlisted his brother Tokeer, whom he employs as a technical director at his company Soundsorba, to help him chase the offenders, bringing one of them to the ground.


He was jailed for over 3 years because when they caught the guy they beat the shit out of him with a cricket bat and caused the criminal 'permanent brain damage'. damage which not surprisingly has not stopped the career criminal continuing to burgle and rob.

The brother of Munir Hussain is still in jail serving 2 years.
The robber walked free from his trial.

And more

http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Jai ... 3766628.jp
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/11 ... it-again-/

I think that really if you unlawfully enter another person's home or car then you leave all your rights at the door.
they goy that chased the robber down the street and then battered him. Well yes it possible went too far but he should have gotten a very minor caution for it at best. Is there any worse provocation than threatening to kill the guys kids?
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
- Denis Diderot (1713-1784)
User avatar
Aspman
Frustrated Mad Scientist
 
Posts: 8872
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:07 am
Location: Scotland

Re: Debate Topic: Dealing with Violent Criminals

Postby Egaladeist » Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:23 am

I think that really if you unlawfully enter another person's home or car then you leave all your rights at the door.


That's the way it should be.

I still remember that cab driver in California who pinned a robber with his Taxi...then got sued by the robber ...amazing how freaky the legal system can be.
User avatar
Egaladeist
I am the Eg man : Coo Coo Ca Choo
 
Posts: 18852
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 1:02 am
Location: Canada

Re: Debate Topic: Dealing with Violent Criminals

Postby keezel » Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:40 am

In the states, it's a felony (a national as opposed to a state law) to enter someone's home. It's called "home invasion", and the supreme court has upheld several cases supporting the use of deadly force when someone invades a home. This depends on the situation, but consider these two.

A) A homeless person enters your home in the middle of the night "to get warm". You SHOULD NOT SHOOT THEM IN THE FACE. The court will probably not be very sympathetic to your case.

B) Someone enters your home in the middle of the night to steal your flat screen and Playstation. YOU CAN SHOOT THEIR A$$. You could shoot them in the back as they're walking out and you're still not likely to be penalized.

That's inside the home.

However, if someone is on your property (but not inside your home), you must have "an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death or sexual assault of, or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another individual will occur..." before you are authorized to use deadly force. Basically the same as self defense.
Only amateurs attack machines; professionals target people. Bruce Schneier
User avatar
keezel
Jedi Bastard
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:56 am
Location: Atlanta

Re: Debate Topic: Dealing with Violent Criminals

Postby Aspman » Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:34 am

It's dark 3am, you're a lone female, 2 kids up the stairs, hubby out of town.
You hear a loud noise down the stairs, someone in the building.
Going down the stairs with hubby's weekend Remington shotgun you enter the lounge and see a dark shadow moving around in your house next to a broken window.

As you blow the mofo away should you consider how to prove A or B?

In the UK you'd be arrested and charged with murder because you should have locked yourself in the bathroom and should the intruder decide to break in and rape and/or murder you and your children you would be comforted that your assailant is probably from a low socioeconomic category or possible a refugee from Eastern Europe or Africa only looking for a better life in the UK. As your life is snuffed out you should remember that the hands around your throat are also the hands of a victim of circumstance. You're probably middle class and therefore in the New Labour Socialist utopia that is Britain you should forfeit your life and the live of your family to suppose those less well off than you. Your death will also support more refugees, drug addicts, benefit scroungers, ex-cons etc etc since your life insurance will pay for a house the Government will want 40% of in death duty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_%28farmer%29
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
- Denis Diderot (1713-1784)
User avatar
Aspman
Frustrated Mad Scientist
 
Posts: 8872
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:07 am
Location: Scotland

Re: Debate Topic: Dealing with Violent Criminals

Postby Morganlefay » Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:07 pm

Wow ....talk about injustice... :shock:

I guess they got him on the firearm without a permit

But if I were in his situation.............I would have shot the fookers too.... :angry1:

MLF
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kickboxing.
User avatar
Morganlefay
I've posted HOW many
 
Posts: 3725
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 7:36 am
Location: Avalon Canada

Re: Debate Topic: Dealing with Violent Criminals

Postby |3lack|ce » Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:20 pm

A) A homeless person enters your home in the middle of the night "to get warm". You SHOULD NOT SHOOT THEM IN THE FACE. The court will probably not be very sympathetic to your case.

B) Someone enters your home in the middle of the night to steal your flat screen and Playstation. YOU CAN SHOOT THEIR A$$. You could shoot them in the back as they're walking out and you're still not likely to be penalized.


Sorry to disagree, but I disagree. Here in Texas, at least, a man's home is his castle. You do not need to be in fear for your life or the lives of others within your home to shoot an intruder. BOTH cases, down here, would result in one dead intruder, and one homeowner not even brought up on charges. (However the 'fear for my life or my kid's lives' helps tremendously, it's not required here by law).

In fact, there are precedent cases here where a person can shoot someone intruding on a neighbor's property and get off Scot free as well - although it'd suck if said intruder was a relative to which the neighbor had given permission to enter. This scenario required a lot more discretion and discernment.
The one thing a customer service specialist can never teach is 'being nice.'
User avatar
|3lack|ce
Let's play Global Thermonuclear War!
 
Posts: 2134
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 5:50 pm
Location: Podunk Texas

Re: Debate Topic: Dealing with Violent Criminals

Postby keezel » Fri Jan 29, 2010 8:43 pm

|3lack|ce wrote:
Sorry to disagree, but I disagree. Here in Texas, at least, a man's home is his castle. You do not need to be in fear for your life or the lives of others within your home to shoot an intruder. BOTH cases, down here, would result in one dead intruder, and one homeowner not even brought up on charges. (However the 'fear for my life or my kid's lives' helps tremendously, it's not required here by law).

In fact, there are precedent cases here where a person can shoot someone intruding on a neighbor's property and get off Scot free as well - although it'd suck if said intruder was a relative to which the neighbor had given permission to enter. This scenario required a lot more discretion and discernment.


I have no doubt. Texas has its own way of doing things. If one lives in Texas, he or she should know better than to rob a house.

:hunter:
Only amateurs attack machines; professionals target people. Bruce Schneier
User avatar
keezel
Jedi Bastard
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:56 am
Location: Atlanta

Re: Debate Topic: Dealing with Violent Criminals

Postby Egaladeist » Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:52 am

BOTH cases, down here, would result in one dead intruder, and one homeowner not even brought up on charges.


:hunter:

Say Bubba where'd ta varmit go?

:hunter:

Not sure, but I knows I got him.

:hunter:

Darn mudders-in-law...tricky little buggers they are. Probably wandered off. Where'd ya get er'?

:hunter:

I think I got er' in the butt.

:hunter:

Well then that's it, we'll never get that bullet back.


:mrgreen:
User avatar
Egaladeist
I am the Eg man : Coo Coo Ca Choo
 
Posts: 18852
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 1:02 am
Location: Canada

Next

Return to The Cave

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron