"Do you have a job? Or do you get paid to post replys?"
Of course I have a job, in fact many jobs....I'm the leader of a communist abortion club, the VP of The NSFC (Not-So-Fast-Capitalist) squad, the Black masked executioner in Texas and the guy behind the guy who stands behind the green curtain.....oh yeah and a dishwasher as well
"So you mean to say to prevent a possible escape they should be put to death? What about those escapees who weren't on death row? Or do you think that only pocket thieves and small time criminals should not be put to death?"
I'm saying to prevent anymore harm already done by vicious individuals they should be put to rest. I'm saying murderers should be put to death for the harm they have done and because there is a chance they will do it again if let free or escape. I also think they should be put to death because the ultimate act should have the ultimate punishment....not much of a deterant if the punishment is less than the crime...not fair justice being done if you are sent to your room for killing your brother. As far as petty thieves go, I think there is a good chance that they can be rehabilitated and should be given a second chance to conduct themselves appropriately in society....I hardly think people should die over a stolen t.v. Can't say I'm too worried about losing my t.v. set....just my life.
"Yes, as I said, on a one to one basis it is justifiable. I do find killing under great emotional stress such as grief over a murdered child somewhat more acceptable than a government having the right over life and death."
So then it should be up to the victim's family and friends if the murderer lives? Sounds good to me. Don't you think the majority of victim's family would like to see the murderer dead....if this is true why not bring back the death penalty? Or are you saying that only if the loss of someone has made you crazy then it's okay to kill the murderer but it's not okay to kill a murderer if you've had time to think about it and thought about it rationally?
"what purpose do they serve?"
For that matter, what purpose do I serve?"
I often ask that about you as well J/K Actually if you think that a murderer has as much right to live as you then that's fine. Let me ask ya something....If Charles Manson and Ghandi were both hanging off a cliff and you only had time to save one of them....which one would you choose? and why? The purpose of one was destruction....destruction of lives, a negative chain reaction throughout generations....who knows where and when his bad influence stopped or will stop, whereas the other individual....I believe his actions justify his purpose for having lived.
"Such rights are applicable to sentient beings alone. But don't get me wrong, my heart bleeds for every animal that is tortured. Ppl who would beat their dogs and make them vicious are the ones I want to hurt really badly, and I don't want to hurt anyone ever."
I think the animal world being excluded from the class of "sentient beings" is still open for debate. To say that we think and feel more than, say a dog, is a pretty bold statement. It is now known that some animals have a sense of self, such as guerillas (sp?). If they know they exist, have a structured society, can feel emotions and think about what they percieve they how can they not be considered a sentient being? Just because we do not understand the thoughts or actions of another animal doesn't make them less intelligent creatures but rather just different....can you prove to a dog that you are a sentient being? No, so why should it have to prove it to you?
Hypothetically, if you had to make a decision about who would live, "fluffy" the playful and friendly dog that likes humans, or Charles Manson, a human who by his own admission has stated that what he'd like to do if he was set free is kill people, who would you pick??? By your own rules you'd have to pick "fluffy" to die because Charles Manson has the right to live and "fluffy" doesn't....shouldn't some things be a little more based on good and evil....right and wrong?
"I just don't see how I could have the right to decide what is better off dead and what deserves to live. I don't want to make such judgements. It's dangerously close to fascism."
And so we shall disagree.....again Maybe you don't want the right to "permanently" protect yourself from those who would not blink an eye if they were to kill you and kill you over a look you gave them but I think many people would like that right....maybe it should be up to the friends and family of the victim? If you knew that someone was planning to kill someone you knew wouldn't you try to stop it? And that's what the death penalty is....you know this murderer kills and you don't want them to ever do such a crime again, so you give them the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime....death. A permanent resolution to a problem that could effect anyone.....for we all are victims when there is a horrendous murder. What effects the one often effects the many.
"But then killing babies would be ok as they could not yet have earned their right of life!? No if ANYthing you loose your right to life (still don't agree with that though) but who were to decide when and how you may humbly earn the right to not be killed??"
Well a baby can't live on it's own. What I was trying to say is that maybe everyone should walk on eggshells (no one is expendable) because maybe your founding fathers of the constitution were wrong. Maybe killing is a right, just like life and liberty are....Truthfully, who really has any power over anyone. We all have the right to do as we please, that is what being a conscious being means. Do as we please, kill if you want, but then be prepared to die. Try telling a serial killer that he shouldn't kill you because it violates your rights. Rights are nothing, individuals usually behave themselves because either they are empathetic/sympathetic or there are consequences to their actions. No one has the right to live....nothing does...it's a gift and a mystery and should be treated as one and not boasted about how you automatically deserve to live without ever having to contribute something good or you deserve to live even if you kill millions of people. Maybe no one has the right over another because there are no rights....maybe it's just make believe....like most human things.....I just read what I wrote and honestly it's not supposed to be as harsh as it reads....just kinda getting a little passionate about the subject at hand so forgive me if I'm coming off as a rude SOB. I guess what I'm trying to say is that maybe rights should be something earned by good deeds....deeds not open to "good or bad" interpretations but kind, decent acts like treating other things with respect. I dunno....you're wearing me out
"Maybe this is a coincidence but most European countries do not have capital punishment, yet America does. When it comes to crimes Europe is no where near the brutality or frequency of crimes in America (sorry, no idea about Canada). So the conclusion must be that the threat of the death penalty does deter ppl from committing murder either. And no it does not supersede. It reconfirms the INALIENABLE right to life."
My opinion of the death penalty practise is much like Jbouder, takes too long and is not shown publicly as an example. If people could see what it is like to serve the ultimate punishment I'm sure it would deter many from killing.
Yes the states has more than it's share of killers. Now this might also be a coincidence but USA is one of the most populated Westernized countries and is also the most capitalistic of them as well. They have the most slack gun control laws also...now some may argue that guns don't create killers, but if someone is a coward and they are given the opportunity to kill at a distance rather than a more up close and personal level which I speculate would be much more difficult both physically and mentally, would this not also "encourage" the creation of a killer? Also not all of the US practises the death penalty....in fact I'm pretty sure it's the minority of the States that still have that law.
"To live and not to live cannot be a question of money. A life's worth cannot be weighed against money."
...Now are you a capitalist or a communist...make up your mind I agree, but priorities are needed, should we take care of killers or the law-biding needy....if we can't do both who should live? There's a poor person and a serial killer hanging on a cliff......
"National safety, roads, police and fire prevention is a matter for the government cause it is in the best and direct SELF-interest of each citizen."
But it's not in the best intrest of the criminals....do they not have a say? First you say no one should be "forced" to pay for certain programs because it violates their rights then you say people should be forced to pay for certain things that you feel are in your best SELF-interest for their own good??? Who should decide what's best for who? A lot of people think social programs are in SELF-intrest, so shouldn't you be forced to pay???
"And besides why is it that poverty is and was so terrible ESPECIALLY in socialistic countries (i.e. the former East Germany)?"
Because the people had no say and the leaders milked it and ran the country into the ground because there was no real consequence to most of their actions. Also they failed to realize the needs of the people and instead suppressed them, told the people what they can make, what they could have and what they could think and do....which is not the communist philosophy but rather quite the opposite. The people tell the gov't what they want and need and the gov't organizes the tasks. The old "socialists" demoralized the working class thereby disabling an individuals drive to excel.
"Why, if there are so many social programs do ppl still suffer so much? I'll tell you why. Cause in a socialistic system there are not enough work-willing cows to milk to feed the masses."
Or often tax money paid does not reach the needy or is spent on "unfit" programs. In Vancouver, Canada, instead of using money to set up long term substance abuse programs, the gov't decided to make safe houses where people could go and smoke crack and shoot herion....and they even went a step further....they gave out free needles. Most current social problems are answered by the gov't with a cheque instead of a real solution....it's easier to get and stay on welfare for life then it is to get funding to go to school for a year so that you can get a decent job. Hell it's easier to get money for an education in prison then it is for a lawbiding citizen to get money for school. A prisoner gets sick, he gets treated for free, a law-biding citizen gets sick he/she may have to mortgage their house to pay the bills. SO why should a criminal get a social program and not a law-biding citizen?....I think I'm starting to get a little off topic here...sorry....but my point is social programs can work...but the ones in place don't.
"As to that monster… he killed himself cause he knew that, were he to be caught alive, a far worse fate would await him than death could ever be. Yes I do think that a man like Hitler should be kept alive. Such a monster deserves to live a long and awful life in one of his own concentration camps. I wonder if all these massacred Jews would not also think that death would be too easy for one like him. But then that would be speaking with high emotions again. And as we both agreed, the law has to be objective and dispassionate. Difficult in a case such as this…"
I disagree....that's why the Jewish Death Squads were formed. They hunted down many of the war criminals and executed them shortly after the war...documented fact. But I agree maybe a life of torture would fit Hitlers crime....but would he survive being tortured six million times??? And to keep him alive he would have to have his own special guards and his own special room. He wouldn't even feel a fraction of the pain his victims did, nor his victims family's, who still suffer from what he did ....that's why it would be better just to rid the world of him if he had lived.
"To be honest I don't understand what you are saying here. Do you mean to say that inmates should live off the taxpayers money cause that would hurt less law abiding citizens than if prisons grow their own vegetables? Or do you mean to say that all inmates should be put to death to avoid costs and so that the land the prison would stand on can be sold to law-abiding citizens?"
NO what I'm trying to say that keeping a killer alive costs money no matter if they're on an island or in a jail and should be put to death. They shouldn't be allowed to have jobs that effect the marketplace, jobs that could go to law biding citizens. They shouldn't be allowed the priviledge to hold down jobs and be paid for them....Honestly if they could support themselves, Ie. grow enough food to sustain them, and live somewhere they could NEVER escape and cost me absolutely NO MONEY then I'm all for it. I just don't feel good about keeping someone alive and healthy(and working and profiting from their work and taking jobs from honest people), who would have no problems slitting my throat and pissing on my corpse and then gladly do the same to someone else. Makes no sense to pay for the upkeep of someone who wants to kill you at the cost of people who want to work with you.
As far as minor criminals go, I think they should only be allowed to "better" their situation once they've served their sentence, which should be more harsh then it is....Honestly, I like Jbouder's idea of the "Tartarus" punishment....If I have to pay for them then shouldn't I have a say in their punishment? Also give them the minimum, cheap food and poor accomodations, no cable, no computers. Once they've served their sentence I'll gladly help them get on their feet by providing tax dollars for re-education, decent shelter and good food and social programs.....maybe better social programs would reduce crime anyways. The states have poor social programs and high crime....one American city has more murders than all of Canada combined. Toronto is around the fifth largest city in North America and doesn't even compare crime wise to American cities with half of it's population....maybe it has to do with the social programs, honestly I don't know but I think it might play a significant role.
"No, you are right. Poverty isn't always a choice but drug taking always is (unless it's slipped to you without your knowing of course). And this day and age NO one can convince me that they thought their life would turn out better rather than far, far worse if they took drugs."
Addicts don't think their life will turn out better by using drugs....but they also don't think it will turn out worse....hence an illusion of hopelessness, the feeling that no matter what they do, things will not get better. And when you think your life will not see a better reality then you create an illusion of something better, like being stoned....lets you forget that you have nothing and that you think you will never have a decent life. And you are right, taking drugs is a choice, but when faced with what appears to be no choices, no way to escape your crime ridden neighborhood, no way to escape the fact that you can't pay your rent, no way to escape the fact that you have no job then sometimes people mistake drugs for a good escape plan....a momentary bliss where you don't have to think about all your troubles, unfortunately this usually causes more problems. Try to see it through the eyes of others and not in terms of your strong willed self, we all have our breaking points and some, when broken, turn to drugs....and sometimes the stresses society creates causes people to break. Try telling some woman who sees no other way, or no other way is available, to feed her daughter other than having sex with strange men for money, not to do drugs or that drugs isn't the answer. We get to take vacations...what do they get to escape their lives? Society tells people that money isn't everything but then calls you a failure if you are a bum and homeless. Now I'm not trying to excuse actions because of addictions, the blame still lies on the criminal but in some ways does society perpetuate criminal behaviour and is there a way to curb such behaviour? I believe it does and there are more viable solutions....what they are...I'm not sure....different solutions for different people I guess.
"Many ppl spend their lives not having that wisdom and fighting things they cannot change and full of resignation towards things they could. And yes sometimes fighting against poverty is futile. But even the attempt HAS to be better than taking drugs instead. And anyone with half a brain should see that and abstain from drugs."
First we should all "walk a mile in their shoes" and see how we would hold up living their life. I think most of them know abusing drugs are bad but when faced with no happiness whose to say who would hold up under the stress. Also nothing is futile except believing in futility. Anything that can be dreamt, can be done....at least that is what I aim for.
Thanks again for getting the membrane flowing and I hope some of this response doesn't come off as harsh, I think by now you know that my intention is not to hurt but rather communicate. Thanks for your time. Take care,