old fasioned justice!!

[Melusine]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: This guy is an SOB who deserves to have both his legs cut off for what he did, and I think it's a good thing that the court in question hold's the wife's pain and suffering on an equal level with her husband's. That said, I have to say I think the punishment is wrong. It's just too brutal. It won't bring her leg back, it doesn't benefit the wife, it doesn't gaurantee he can't hurt anyone else, and actually forces more suffering on the family. I'm sure it's a deterant, but to who? I doubt they're having a rash of "amputative assaults", so what's the point?

Well said, Ronn.

And let me reiterate what Barry said, neither of us was talking about the death penalty as such, we were talking about cruel and unusual punishment in the form of amputation!

One thing that really bugs me is people who assume that just because I am capable of nuanced thinking, I must favour the criminal over the victim. Here's some news for them: I care about society as a whole - the non-criminal part of it in particular. And as Yorick so eloquently argued in another thread, society should NOT become a monster in order to punish the monsters. To me, state-approved killing diminishes the humanity of the state. So I couldn't care less about the criminals. In fact I think some people DESERVE to die for their crimes, I just don't think any other human being has a right to execute the punishment. But don't ever think I am all for pampering crooks and being nice to them. That's one of the silliest and even offensive arguments used by pro-capital punishment folks: that people against the death penalty feel that way out of some sick need to be nice to criminals. D'you know, I happen to think life imprisonment under strict conditions is a worse punishment than quick and merciful death, and it has the added bonus of zero risk of killing an innocent.
Most people retort that conditions in American prisons are just too good to serve as adequate punishment: so why not argue to change THAT, in stead of arguing for capital punishment? There are enough crimes which do not require capital punishment, even if you are pro in more severe cases, so shouldn't you be most vehement about changing the conditions in prisons?

Whew....... I'm sorry that rant came out quite so long, and a bit off-topic too. Ah well, at least I feel better now

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Melusine: ...snip... I just don't think any other human being has a right to execute the punishment. But don't ever think I am all for pampering crooks and being nice to them. That's one of the silliest and even offensive arguments used by pro-capital punishment folks: that people against the death penalty feel that way out of some sick need to be nice to criminals. ...snip...

But if you take that arguement away from the Pro-death camp they will no longer be able to beat their chests and claim the moral high ground.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Rokenn: quote: Originally posted by Melusine: ...snip... I just don't think any other human being has a right to execute the punishment. But don't ever think I am all for pampering crooks and being nice to them. That's one of the silliest and even offensive arguments used by pro-capital punishment folks: that people against the death penalty feel that way out of some sick need to be nice to criminals. ...snip...

But if you take that arguement away from the Pro-death camp they will no longer be able to beat their chests and claim the moral high ground.[/QUOTE]Ah, and here is one of the great inconsistencies in the politics in America:

Liberal:
Don't kill criminals, but kill your unborn babies.

Conservative:
Don't kill unborn babies, as a woman has no right to choose, but hey, we can decide to kill criminals whenever we like.

All in all, [img]graemlins/1puke.gif[/img]
Personally, I think that we should kill all felony criminals upon their first conviction and 50% of unborn babies (we'll draw lots) - both in the name of controlling population.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Personally, I think that we should kill all felony criminals upon their first conviction and 50% of unborn babies (we'll draw lots) - both in the name of controlling population.

Sure thing Mr. Soloman [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Melusine]

Originally posted by Rokenn: But if you take that arguement away from the Pro-death camp they will no longer be able to beat their chests and claim the moral high ground.

LOL! [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img] I hadn't thought of it that way

TB, if only the whole world could be grouped according to those two American specifiers (conservative and liberal)... but alas. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Sir Krustin]

Originally posted by Indemaijinj: That would probably be a flame. I am simply astonished about how much support this "justice by violence" pipedream gets here. There is a good reason why the "eye for an eye" model is banished to the annals of history. The legal systems are here to ensue that a civilised society can function without people having to fear for their lives and well-being. Surely such a viewpoint can be used to defend people's rights to own and occasionally use lethal weapons, but that is not my point. The point is that it is the preventive measures and the protection that the law supplies, not the possibilities for revenge. Call me a weak goodie two-shoe, but I think that a legal system should be judged by how much safety from harm or exploitation that it offers it's citizens, not by how much retribution it exacts on it's culprits.

The problem I have with this viewpoint is that it accords "rights" to the criminals that he isn't allowing his victims to have. When society protects the criminals more than it does the innocent law-abiding citizens there's something wrong.

A system that allows the criminal to sue a homeowner that injures him while defending his home from intrusion is simply wrong.

If a criminal commits a crime, any legal action he takes against his victims should be summarily thrown out of court, as far as I'm concerned criminals - especially violent ones - gave up their rights when they violated the victims rights.

Mind you, that isn't to say they shouldn't have their day in court - I'd hate to see innocent people get hanged or some such but there are limits.

EDIT>typos

[ 01-13-2003, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: Sir Krustin ]

[Sir Krustin]

Originally posted by MagiK: Night Stlaker has the point. The moment we place all of our expectations of well being into someone elses hands, that is when you loose any hope of safety. We each are responsible for our own safety and well ebing, and if we have families we have their well being as our responsibility as well. People are saying it isn't right to kill someone trying to take your "possessions" but in the end those possessions may have the well being and health of your dependants resting on them, so basicly what it comes down to is....If you try to take something that isn't yours, you should be ready to pay for it with your life, because you do not know how those itmes affect those people.

The trouble is, the law seems to be going in the direction of "the police and the government will do everything, you will do nothing or be punished worse than the criminal".

This is what really irks me, the system is providing no protection from immediate harm - it can't. Yet it insists on individual members of society being rendered harmless.

Any society that's lost it's trust isn't worth defending...

[ 01-13-2003, 06:32 PM: Message edited by: Sir Krustin ]

[Attalus]

"When the shield of the law fails to protect, the sword of the law will avenge." Sherlock Holmes, according to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

I quite deny "revelling" someone's pain, criminal or no, though that seems to be one of the charges death-penalty opponents like to hurl. I will agree with Barry to this extent: the reason that we do not allow torture is not the effect on the criminal, but the bad effect that it has on society. I simply do not consider the death penalty a "cruel and unusual punishment," and, so far the Supreme Court of the United States agrees with me.