[Cerek]

Originally posted by Aragorn1: quote: Originally posted by shamrock_uk: You signed up just to post that? [img]tongue.gif[/img] Welcome to the forums Bhaalspawn, good to have you with us! And especially the CE forum of course [img]smile.gif[/img] I gather you're in favour of the punishment then? Normally I'd be siding with Aragorn on this because his arguments are extremely cogent, but I tend to take the view that criminals give up their rights when they commit crimes and thus deserve what authority sees fit to mete out to them. Edit: Hey, another Brit too! Schweet.

If you think that criminals give up the rights soceity gives them, then surley they are also releived of their responability to soceity, therefore, if punishment is to repay the debt to soceity a criminal would owe it nothing and there for should not be punished. Further more he would be free to do anything forbidden by that soceity and could feel free to commint would that soceity would call crimes. Its a two way thing. [/QUOTE]Not exactly, Aragorn. Criminals originally have all the same "rights" as every other citizen in a given society. But in exchange for these rights, the citizens agree to abide by the rules of that society. When someone breaks the rules and commits a crime against another member of the society, then the criminal has willingly forfeited their rights granted by that society. They have broken the trust the society placed in them to behave according to the rules, therefore they do owe a "debt" to society for breaking that trust.

Now, in America, the criminal does not forfeit ALL of their rights. In fact, our Constitution gaurantees that even criminals still have SOME rights granted to them by our society. They have the right to a speedy trial, the right to legal representation and the right to a trial by a jury of their peers. However, their action(s) have also caused them to forfeit many other rights - primarily the right of freedom in the society. Their actions also have warranted the society to exact whatever punishment the rules of that society deem acceptable for the action taken by the criminal. The more violent or heinous the action taken, the harsher the punishment will be (usually).

When a criminal decides to break the rules of society, then they have forfeited their rights to the protection offered by that society and must now face the punishment that society metes out for breaking their rules.

To return to the example at hand, was the punishment received by this individual too harsh? That depends on the society viewing the actions. It was certainly brutal and barbaric when measured against the rules of societies that consider themselves more "civilized". But I think a good point has been made that the individual KNEW he would face this type of horrific death IF his actions were ever discovered by his society.

There are many punishments that seem "brutal" by the standards of other countries. But is it fair for one society to tell another their rules should be changed? Or does each society have the right to decide for themselves the rules and punishments that will apply to their citizens?