8 year old "raped" and "buried alive" in FLORIDA ....

[Timber Loftis]

uss, in the U.S. *punishment* is an expected purpose of criminal law. I realize that in most of Europe, the only justifiable reasons for criminal sentences are rehabilitation and safely removing dangers from society. Here, two big uses for criminal punishment are revenge (unwritten, but it's obvious) and also discouraging criminal behavior in others.

You may or may not consider these legitimate goals.

In accomplishing both of those goals, a painful execution is arguably better.

[uss]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: and also discouraging criminal behavior in others.

Oh yes, I had forgotten about that bit. Guess it's a matter of more effectivity though more cruelty vs. less effectivity though less cruelty.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: You may or may not consider these legitimate goals. In accomplishing both of those goals, a painful execution is arguably better.

"Better" is quite subjective - it all depends on whether one thinks it to be morally okay or not.


I agree with the discouraging criminal behaviour part but laws satiating the victim's feel of revenge - that's quirky. [img]tongue.gif[/img] Oh well, maybe the wish for revenge is built into human mentality so deeply that it's pointless to tell the victim to resist it after an act of life-changing crime happens. I have had no experience on this subject.

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

I'm going to have to side with Morgeruat... but for repeat offenders.

But why, dear God, WHY are there repeat offenders? If the sex offender registry isn't working, either keep 'em in jail or arrange it so that they won't be able to do it again. I've also toyed around with the idea of branding (and I mean a big 'ol mark in the forehead) but that might be too cruel... That leaves absolutely no room for rehabilitation. But I'm in favor of sterilization/castration for repeat offenders, only because I don't believe in the death penalty.

[Ziroc]

I like how Saudi Arabia does it. Town center beheading.

[Sir Degrader]

Break them.

[a_decent_1]

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: I could not believe it when I heard yesterday that New York reported that they had been giving Viagra to convicted sex offenders of children as young as 2 years old, being payed for by taxpayer money. Now that they realize their mistake, they will begin working on fixing that loophole, but sheesh! To answer the first question, the US does not have strict enough punishments in the law for sex offenders of minors, and it is just wrong for me to consider that a convicted man still has the right to things that he should not in my opinion. This conversation has come up many times in the past on these forums, and we are no closer at solving the matter. I would have the parents of the child be given a choice in the matter as to what should be done to a man that has harmed a child of theirs. It just seems right to me, since I do not like how the law prevents those wounded by criminals from having any active part in the sentencing. I suppose I say this for one reason. If somebody were to harm my child, I would not wait for the law, I would live by the "old ways" and hunt the man down myself, and carry out my own form of execution. I would have to. It was my child, not the judge's. I'd then flee to Mexico, where I have friends. But you did not read that last bit, right? And to confirm what Link just asked of you, a decent 1, you have proven that you write very good in English, so the laziness of incorrect abbreviations is really annoying and hard to read sometimes. We do not like that stuff on these forums. Please try not to write in such a manner.

Hey plz clearify what r u talking about?
Abbreviation like BTW and Suff? If u cld plz Just tell me. Actually its how i've been writing in all forums so really not sure what u r talking about.

[Spelca]

Originally posted by a_decent_1: Hey plz clearify what r u talking about? Abbreviation like BTW and Suff? If u cld plz Just tell me. Actually its how i've been writing in all forums so really not sure what u r talking about.

I think he's talking about abbreviations like those you just used in your post... "plz" for please, "r" for are, "u" for you, etc. [img]smile.gif[/img] I don't think they're bothered by all abbreviations (BTW, IMO, etc. are okay), but it really is difficult to read when the post is full of them. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Link]

Originally posted by Ziroc: I like how Saudi Arabia does it. Town center beheading.

Yay for the permanent red stains in the town centre!

[Memnoch]

Basically, it's your MSN-speak, A Decent 1. Like this:

Originally posted by a_decent_1: Hey plz clearify what r u talking about? Abbreviation like BTW and Suff? If u cld plz Just tell me. Actually its how i've been writing in all forums so really not sure what u r talking about.

People tend to be more gramatically correct here, as a rule. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Aragorn1]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: uss, in the U.S. *punishment* is an expected purpose of criminal law. I realize that in most of Europe, the only justifiable reasons for criminal sentences are rehabilitation and safely removing dangers from society. Here, two big uses for criminal punishment are revenge (unwritten, but it's obvious) and also discouraging criminal behavior in others. You may or may not consider these legitimate goals. In accomplishing both of those goals, a painful execution is arguably better.

Punishment is a goal, although it should be a just punishment, not a punishment out of revenge. Only where revenge and jusitce meet should it be considered approporiate. Otherwise, why bother with the whole fair trial thing and impartial sentencing, a lynch-mob is much cheaper [img]smile.gif[/img] . And as for detering crime, the prospective punishment has been seen to be wholey ineffective as a deterant factor. It was discovered that it was the chance of being cuaght which was far more important, although obviously some sort unacceptable punishment must be behind this. However, if there were a death penalty for crimes which people did not think they would get caught for, it would not for the vast majority of people act as a deterant.

[ 05-25-2005, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: Aragorn1 ]