[onefinger68]

I'm too lazy to respond to the tirades of bullshit, so I'll just reiterate an example.

A guy raped one of my friends. She wont tell me who he is. Lets say she does. I go kill the mother****er. He's dead, he's not raping any more women.

Where's the problem there? Where is hte grey area? Like... what if you had to WITNESS the act. Then what? THen there's no debate on whether or not the guy committed the crime. DEAD.

OJ. DEAD.

I'd definitely go after OJ. Freaking slimy bastard. He needs death.

- Ca$h

[chatwood2]

That story of mine about the guy in federal prison is true, and no it is not legal. My stepmother is working on his case pro-bono. The guy speaks very little english and does not know his rights, which is why he isnt writing letters to very news station telling his story.

I have had a few very small experiences with crime in my life. My dads house was broken into, they took a coin collection worth a few hundred dollars and a cordless phone. It was obviously some kid who wanted some kicks, and no we have no idea who it was. In my mind public humiliation and punishment would stop crimes like this. I have also had my car broken into, and nothing was stolen (i had removed the radio the week before, anticipating this). It still pissed me off though, they caused s few hundred dollars damage to the door they broke as they broke in.

One thing is for sure, the US system of dealing with criminals needs revising. We have criminals on the street who should be in jail and people in jail who are innocent.

The best way to stop a snowball is to stop it when it is small. The same applies to people. If minors are allowed to break the law with little to no consequences they dont learn not to do it. They escalate to bigger crimes with more severely hurt victims. No ones first crime is the Great Train Robbery, the first crime is breaking into an empty house or car and taking a few things that catch one's eye. If we teach these criminals a lesson they wont go on to be the next CNN headline.

Once that snowball is house sized there is no easy way to stop it without destroying it and the surrounding area. I dont know what we can do to keep the really sick people from hurting people. Having citizens take the law into their own hands would lead to much worse things being done. Executing them obviously doesnt work, we have been trying that for a while. I do think that the best way to do things to them in public, so that everyone can see what happens (after a court conviction).

Also, their should be a firm definition of punishment, non of this recommended "25 years to life" crap, the government should setup much firmer guidelines. That way a slick lawyer will not be able to get a convicted murdered on parole after 5 year; premeditated murder should be X years, with no room for negotiation.

I'm rambling. But thats ok, I'm throwing out my ideas and trying to define my stance on crime.

- Chris

[Mskr]

Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>I'm too lazy to respond to the tirades of bullshit, so I'll just reiterate an example.

A guy raped one of my friends. She wont tell me who he is. Lets say she does. I go kill the mother****er. He's dead, he's not raping any more women.

Where's the problem there? Where is hte grey area? Like... what if you had to WITNESS the act. Then what? THen there's no debate on whether or not the guy committed the crime. DEAD.

OJ. DEAD.

I'd definitely go after OJ. Freaking slimy bastard. He needs death.

- Ca$h</STRONG>

Ok. Well, let's extend your little example:

Another friend confides in you that she is in therapy and that they uncovered some memories of her father raping her when she was a child so in a moment of rage, you go and kill that person. How do you know that he raped her? Because you're friends, right? You know her, and she's a GOOD PERSON. Why would she lie about something like that, it's horrible and repugnant and she has no reason to lie about it. Since it's harder to accept that she would be lying about it than that she's telling the truth, you believe her and Justice is Served.

Ca$h, when it comes down to it: Can you take someone else's word as proof that something happened to them? Studies have shown that memory is completely unreliable. People can be convinced that things have happened, especially in altered states of consciousness (like being drunk, drugged out, etc.). I'm not saying that your friend is lying, but are you SO CONVINCED that she is right that the other person should forfeit their life? Remember, there's no going back after the person is dead. Now, think about this: what if the person who she says raped her is one of your friends? Never mind that it's inconcievable that a friend of yours would do that. Are you ABSOLUTELY convinced that that is the case?

You're right: there is no justification for rape. Ever. But I'm sure that all of us would be a lot more comfortable, as a society, if an impartial group of people were assigned to find out the facts of what happened when a crime is alleged to have happened, and to determine if that crime actually occurred. What's that? We already have that? It's called the Justice Department? Oh...

Yes, the justice system is f***ed up. People get off "easy" for crimes they should never commit again. But do I want YOU out there serving up your own brand of justice, or others like you? Hell. No.
[2nd edit: Removed stupid, emotional outburst that had nothing to do with my argument. Sorry to those who read it.]

[edit: Stupid Opera bug!]

[2nd edit]

Actually, Ca$h, let me pose another counterpoint to your argument:

What if your friend said that it was YOU who raped her?

I know that you think that you'd never do anything like that and that she must be kidding or wrong, right? Well what if she told someone else that it was you who raped her? Would you gladly lay down your life, simply because someone accused you of rape? I bet not.

Yeah, yeah, I know that you'd never rape anyone and that nobody would accuse you of that, so you're safe, right? Right?
[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: Mskr ]

[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: Mskr ]

[shmerek]

Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>I'm too lazy to respond to the tirades of bullshit, so I'll just reiterate an example.

A guy raped one of my friends. She wont tell me who he is. Lets say she does. I go kill the mother****er. He's dead, he's not raping any more women.

Where's the problem there? Where is hte grey area? Like... what if you had to WITNESS the act. Then what? THen there's no debate on whether or not the guy committed the crime. DEAD.

OJ. DEAD.

I'd definitely go after OJ. Freaking slimy bastard. He needs death.

- Ca$h</STRONG>

Claiming laziness is a great excuse not too back up your retarded arguments. You spout forth bullcrap and then when you are called on it you say "oh well I am tired of this". Your example isn't fool proof either unless you are one of them fancy "super citizens" you talk about.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by Phanguye:

ps. hey shmerek... there is a difference between stealing because you are hungry and taking hostages while you rob a bank... it is ridiculous to think that all crime stems out of poor conditions, and i was talking at those for a replacement for the death penalty. i mean can you honestly say that if a man kills say 100 people that they shouldnt suffer? (disregarding the whole true punishment comes in the after life theory)[/QB]

I never said that all crime stems from poor conditions but having said that we don't know all the factors that might lead one to robbing a bank and taking hostages. Greed is a pretty good guess but for some it might be the desperation of there life that leads them to it. Also I am not saying that the guilty shouldn't pay for their crimes but that pay back shouldn't come from the gun of some dumbass who thinks he is Judge freaking Dread.

[Phanguye]

yea i was talking about other worse methods instead of the death penalty.... why should we be humane?

[Mskr]

Originally posted by Phanguye:
<STRONG>yea i was talking about other worse methods instead of the death penalty.... why should we be humane?</STRONG>

Flip the question on its head: Why should we be cruel and unusual? What do we gain? Is it really a deterrant to criminals to mutilate other criminals in public?

Ask yourself: Are criminals acting rationally when they commit crimes? Are most criminal actions well reasoned, with all consequences thought out before the course of action is taken? If not, will punishing other perpetrators of similar crimes in cruel and unusual ways deter them? If so, are we morally justified in being cruel?

The problem that I have with this whole thread is that everyone who says that jail time isn't sufficient, is probably talking from a point of view that is ignorant. How many of you have served jail time? Maybe those who say that 20 years or more of jail time isn't sufficient punishment for a crime (whatever that is), should spend 6 months in jail and see just how rosy an experience it is. I have not spent time in jail, nor am I crazy enough to think that I could judge how easy/hard such an experience would be without actually going through it. Maybe it is easy, but I can't see how it would be; I like to control what parts of my life I can, thank you very much.

Anyway, I think most of you have not really thought very much about this subject before, from most of the off-the-cuff responses that I see here. Horrible things happen all the time to people who don't deserve it. Are YOU the person who should decide what happens to the perpetrators of those crimes? Do you really want that responsibility? Fine, then go to law school, become a judge, and hopefully you will get some wisdom, humility and understanding between now and when you're put on the bench.

[Edit: Sorry, silly grammar mistake.]

[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: Mskr ]

[nonhuman]

I think we should bring back Roman-style gladiatorial fights. It could be an option for criminals. They serve their time in jail, perhaps destined for execution, or they can choose to become a gladiator and entertain the rest of us by killing or being killed. I haven't quite figured out if there's a way that they can win their freedom (would we want ex-gladiators walking the street?), but I doubt anyone would ever be allowed to volunteer to do such a thing. Bloody liberals...

[Mskr]

Is it that people (phang, ca$h) bore easily, or that you don't like logical challenges to your beliefs? I notice that when I have legitimate questions, you guys just silently drop it. What gives?

[sek929]

Exerpt from the Simpsons episode, Homer The Vigilante...

Lisa: "If you are the Police then who will Police the Police?"
Homer: "I dunno, Coast Guard?"

Thats where I stand on the subject........

[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: sek929 ]

[onefinger68]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
<STRONG>I think we should bring back Roman-style gladiatorial fights. It could be an option for criminals. They serve their time in jail, perhaps destined for execution, or they can choose to become a gladiator and entertain the rest of us by killing or being killed. I haven't quite figured out if there's a way that they can win their freedom (would we want ex-gladiators walking the street?), but I doubt anyone would ever be allowed to volunteer to do such a thing. Bloody liberals...</STRONG>

Now that woudl be sweet. Especially if they did it ala "UT" style, with the same UT outfits and everything. Screw WWF. I want pay per view rocket launcher death matches.

- Ca$h

[l'ignorante]

Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG> kill the mother****er.


- Ca$h</STRONG>

I think it's time somebody puts a bullet in your empty head before you start doing some real damage. Like I said before, I hope you live up to your words and you'll be dead soon enough, tough guy.

[onefinger68]

Originally posted by l'ignorante:
<STRONG>

I think it's time somebody puts a bullet in your empty head before you start doing some real damage. Like I said before, I hope you live up to your words and you'll be dead soon enough, tough guy.</STRONG>

God damn europeans are always so uppity. If it wasn't for my country you'd be speaking German, prick.

- Ca$h

[climber]

Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>

God damn europeans are always so uppity. If it wasn't for my country you'd be speaking German, prick.

- Ca$h</STRONG>

And if it wansn't for pricks like you?

[M�lum]

Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>

God damn europeans are always so uppity. If it wasn't for my country you'd be speaking German, prick.

- Ca$h</STRONG>

This is a classic frase. The more I read it, the funnier it gets.

Ca$h, you do realize why? don't you? don't you?

No, you probably don't.

[jblakeh1]

Killing people is a GOOD thing to do, as long as the person doing the killing is a GOOD PERSON. I think thats where the complications arise (in her mind). She says "what about the fine line between right and wrong?". I say "just avoid the fine line and kill people who are most definitely evil, that nobody can contest to."

I am against the death penalty for moral reasons... I am in the minority on that one...

But a lot of questionable cases end up with someone on death row. A lot. DNA testing is proving a lot of innocent people have been put in prison... I'm sure there are just as many cases of innocent people being executed.

Sadly, like everything else in America, you get what you pay for when you hire a lawyer. At the very least, the death penalty shouldn't exist when the poor are at a disadvantage, and I don't see that changing for a long time.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by jblakeh1:
<STRONG>

I am against the death penalty for moral reasons... I am in the minority on that one...

But a lot of questionable cases end up with someone on death row. A lot. DNA testing is proving a lot of innocent people have been put in prison... I'm sure there are just as many cases of innocent people being executed.

Sadly, like everything else in America, you get what you pay for when you hire a lawyer. At the very least, the death penalty shouldn't exist when the poor are at a disadvantage, and I don't see that changing for a long time.</STRONG>

So you do or don't support my idea?

[l'ignorante]

Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>

God damn europeans are always so uppity. If it wasn't for my country you'd be speaking German, prick.

- Ca$h</STRONG>

Funny, you're the biggest NAZI here. If you'd been there, WWII, you would have run to the other side to find out that the Stahlhelm fits you perfectly.

[Phanguye]

mskr... you want a logical arguement to refute, why dont you try this on for size

acording to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1987 and 1997
~The proportion of offenders returning to Federal prison within 3 years increased from 11.4% of those released during 1986 to 18.6% of those released during 1994.
~60% returned following a technical violation of release conditions, 30% following a conviction for a new offense, and 10% for other violations.
~Offenders convicted of a violent offense returned to prison at a higher rate (32% of releases) than those convicted of a property (17%), public-order (15%), or drug (13%) offense.

so obviously you idea that prison is really really bad and i dont want to go there doesnt work... lets see some of your evidence that will make me think otherwise

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Phanguye:
<STRONG>so obviously you idea that prison is really really bad and i dont want to go there doesnt work... lets see some of your evidence that will make me think otherwise</STRONG>

Well if there was a chance that they would be forced into the gladiatorial fights, I think that would be much more dissuasive. I certainly would have no problem with murderers and rapists being forced to do this.

[Mskr]

Originally posted by Phanguye:
<STRONG>mskr... you want a logical arguement to refute, why dont you try this on for size

acording to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1987 and 1997
~The proportion of offenders returning to Federal prison within 3 years increased from 11.4% of those released during 1986 to 18.6% of those released during 1994.
~60% returned following a technical violation of release conditions, 30% following a conviction for a new offense, and 10% for other violations.
~Offenders convicted of a violent offense returned to prison at a higher rate (32% of releases) than those convicted of a property (17%), public-order (15%), or drug (13%) offense.

so obviously you idea that prison is really really bad and i dont want to go there doesnt work... lets see some of your evidence that will make me think otherwise</STRONG>

Ok. You're right. We should have killed ALL of the violent offenders to prevent the 32% from commiting other crimes. What about the other 68% you say, that DIDN'T commit another crime and return to jail? Well, they just have to forfeit their lives for the good of society. No second chances, folks! If you commit a violent crime, you die. Period.

Sounds like a society that I want to live in; sign me up! Thanks, Phanguye! [/SARCASM]

In regards to your last statement, you obviously didn't understand what I was saying. Let me rephrase:

What are people thinking about when they commit crimes? Are they thinking about the possible bad long-term consequences (death penalty, jail time), or just about the short-term positive consequences (getting money, revenge, etc.)?

It's the same with smoking. If people who smoked did what was best for them long-term, the wouldn't smoke, since it kills you eventually; however, lots of people do smoke. Why? The short-term gratification of smoking: it's a performance-enhancing drug that relaxes you and makes you feel good. Are people smoking and thinking to themselves, "Man, this is going to kill me in about 25 years"? Nope. They're thinking about something else, I imagine, or else why would they smoke.

I'm sure that criminals sit around saying: "Hmmmm. I could go to prison or even get the death penalty if I car-jack this guy. Because I'll probably get caught. Nah. I'd better not do it." Rather, I think they are probably commiting crimes to fulfill some other need, and are not thinking about consequences AT ALL, beyond the consequence that it fulfills their short-term need.

I would guess that people would do a lot of stuff differently if they actually thought about the consequences of what they do. Ca$h seems to like to street race. If he thought about many people die a year (What is the mortality rate? I can't seem to find these stats online, so I can't provide them for you. Sorry), he might do a cost-benefit analysis and decide whether he should road race or not. But, he probably doesn't think about that; in fact, I'll bet that he could get a ticket for road racing, but he probably isn't thinking about that either. He's probably thinking more along the lines of "I'm gonna smoke this guy and his ****ing ****ty *** Saturn".

Anyway, Phanguye, whatever. You're not really supporting your own argument (which is what, exactly?), but rather, just trying to tear down my counter-argument. Show me some real reason why people should be killed by society when they commit violent crimes. Not emotional arguments, but a factual argument that can be fairly applied and assessed.

[onefinger68]

One reason? HOw about the fact that my friend Cara will probably never feel 100% safe or be able to walk down an alley without thinking of that bastard who ravaged her?

Reason enough? I think so.

And your smoking argument is hte dumbest ****ing thing ever. "Oh this might hurt me in the long run but smoking feels good and relaxes me". Oh so killing or raping someone is okay because it feels good and relaxes someone? **** THAT.

Everyone who's committed REAL rape, not that statitory bullshit, and everyone who's murdered someone without reason, shit like that, they should all be KILLED. PERIOD.

- Ca$h

[climber]

The most truly horrifying concept that has ever drifted ones mind. Worse than a nightmare because it is real. So bad it will send you running with arms flailing about.

Ca$h as a Mac Evangelist

Could this be the reason Bill has more money than Steve?

[Mskr]

Originally posted by onefinger68:
<STRONG>One reason? HOw about the fact that my friend Cara will probably never feel 100% safe or be able to walk down an alley without thinking of that bastard who ravaged her?

Reason enough? I think so.

And your smoking argument is hte dumbest ****ing thing ever. "Oh this might hurt me in the long run but smoking feels good and relaxes me". Oh so killing or raping someone is okay because it feels good and relaxes someone? **** THAT.

Everyone who's committed REAL rape, not that statitory bullshit, and everyone who's murdered someone without reason, shit like that, they should all be KILLED. PERIOD.

- Ca$h</STRONG>

Ca$h, you MUST just be a troll. I thought that you were here to "provoke interesting discussion", but you can't be this stupid. I never said that someone rapes someone else becuase it makes "feels good and relaxes someone". I should have remembered that you have problems understanding and forming analogies.

What I SAID was that criminals most likely don't think about the long-term consequences of their actions, like smokers don't. You're a moron if you can't understand that. PERIOD.

The more I read your posts, the more I think that you are just a troll. Nobody could be that stupid and unwilling to understand what someone else is saying. Maybe English isn't your first language, or you don't read very much? I don't know, but I'm not really able to come up with other situations that might explain your lack of understanding.

Again, your emotional argument to "kill everyone" is moronic and emotionally shortsighted. You won't, or can't, understand that accusing someone of a crime isn't sufficient to warrent taking action against that person. My conclusion: you're a troll, or frighteningly stupid. Oh, well, no loss to humanity, I guess.