London Riots - OR - What's your favourite thing about Hitler?

[Calin Leafshade]

The death penalty isnt an effective deterrent because murderers simply dont think about it before they do it. Despite what you may have seen on Murder, She Wrote, murder is almost always an impulsive crime.

@ WHAM

You used the phrase 'final solution' in quotes. Therefore you meant it as either a quote or an accepted historical phrase. That phrase originated in Nazi Germany and the reference was clearly intended.

[InCreator]

There should be some islands for sale in the kingdom of Tonga. Let's buy one and declare independence.

I'm pretty sure we'll be infested with classic european immigrants soon. Like the ones who looted UK. After we hanged most of them, there will be another wave of immigrants, orderly people whose stuff was ruined in riots and who actually like our decorations on palm trees.

/evil mode

[WHAM]

@Calin: You keep repeating that "death penalty is not effective" like it was a proven fact, whereas I have repeatedly expalined to you that there is no proof of it ineffectiveness in the form I and others here have spoken of.

"Death penalty" IS admittedly ineffective, for example in the United States, because of bureucracy, lengthy procedures, massive costs and logistical issues, as well as human rights ones. What we propose is a system wholly different, with swifter punishments and less cost in time and taxpayer money. A streamlined process, if you will, which WOULD without a doubt deter hard crime. Even the crimes of passion you mention would be likely to drop as people simply would either think twice of the consequences, or the idiots who don't would stop existing thanks to natural selection: the WHAM way.

And yes, I quoted "final solution" and yes I was thinking of the WORDS Hitler used back in the day. Not the idealism Hitler built on, but the exact WORDS. However, thank you for enforcing Godwin's Law. 

[WHAM]

There should be some islands for sale in the kingdom of Tonga. Let's buy one and declare independence.

"Welcome, tourists, to the lovely paradise of WHAMstate! To the left you will notice the beatiful palm tree lined beaches you will most certainly come to enjoy during your stay. To the right you can see the gallows, where currently seventeen convicted criminals are hanging for hard crimes, such as murder, rape, drug-dealing and inciting widespread violence amongs the populace. Please note the wonderful bleached white colour of the structure, as it is built entirely out of the bones of those convicted of crimes during the period of time known as the "First trials", which took place soon after the first wave of immigration into WHAMstate..."

EDIT: Shit, sorry, doubleposted by accident. I was supposed to modify my last post.  

[Matti]

Disagreed! There'd be a civil war! And if I'd live there I would fight!

So mr. Matti would start a civil war for.... his right to -- loot shops and burn cars.

No, but I think that fascist governments should be overthrown as soon as possible.

@Matti - regarding the nazi metaphor

Think about it this way: if the Nazis had won the darn war, WOULD that person have been seen as a bad person today? It's the winners who write and shape history, and since the War ended the way it did, those things are now looked down on. But I digress: comparing 1940's world to modern world is just as ridiculous as comparing the dark ages to modern days. These are different times and different things are effective now.

You know, there were people DURING the Nazi regime who DIDN'T think that gassing jews was a good thing. And what have different times to do with that? Killing syrian civilians isn't against syrian law, does that make the assassins and soldiers good people? And why?

Also, for the record: I haven't gone to church since I finished 9th grade in 2005. It was mandaroty on christmas to go to church, but at heart I am an atheist. Religion is of no matter in thus subject and I find it silly you even brought it up when we are taling about laws and their meaning in relation to the recent riots, when these matters are and should remain completely separate from religious matters.

It's just that I've never heard an atheist using the terms 'good' and 'bad' to describe a human being.

[WHAM]

@Matti: So you are simply saying, that taking a hard stance on crime makes you want to overthrow the government, and therefore you believe a government should be lenient on crime? That makes absolutely NO SENSE!

You know, there are people DURING the current regime who believe the current laws suck and summarily executing criminals is a good thing. Does that change anything? No...

I had no idea it was completely legal in Syria for people to kill one another for no reason whatsoever! That is SO COOL!
However, we are again trying to compare the western civilization to that of the one in middle east. As was stated before, such comparisons are unrealistic and pointless.

I learned about good and bad from Disney movies! 

[NsMn]

Disagreed! There'd be a civil war! And if I'd live there I would fight!

So mr. Matti would start a civil war for.... his right to -- loot shops and burn cars.

No, but I think that fascist governments should be overthrown as soon as possible.

Good luck defining that. Leftist supporters have used that word so often even for social democracies. So, apparently overthrowing the government is always legitimate as long as you want to intall something more left-wing? Man, the Antifa here in my home country would be proud of you...

[Matti]

@Matti: So you are simply saying, that taking a hard stance on crime makes you want to overthrow the government, and therefore you believe a government should be lenient on crime? That makes absolutely NO SENSE!

Good luck defining that. Leftist supporters have used that word so often even for social democracies. So, apparently overthrowing the government is always legitimate as long as you want to intall something more left-wing? Man, the Antifa here in my home country would be proud of you...

No, I'm saying that a government that publicly hangs people should be overthrown.

You know, there are people DURING the current regime who believe the current laws suck and summarily executing criminals is a good thing. Does that change anything? No...

I just wanted to point out that what you consider good or bad doesn't depend on who wrote the history.

However, we are again trying to compare the western civilization to that of the one in middle east. As was stated before, such comparisons are unrealistic and pointless.

It's legal to push a homeless out of a train station at night so that he might die in winter. It's legal to imprison someone who owns a certain amount of dope. It's illegal to have sex with someone <18 if you're older than that. It's illegal to play instruments in a train without permission.

I'd consider doing good things as 'good', not abiding the law.

I learned about good and bad from Disney movies! 

If your thoughts about the world originate from movies then we can stop talking.

[ddq]

This is simply ludicrous. You are advocating oppressive, fear-based, forced forfeiture of freedoms that I cannot see difference from fascism in which you agree with the leader's radical ideals and support their tyranny. Your barbaric adherence to capital punishment as an umbrella solution to all violent offenders informs me that you do not share my appreciation for the value of a human life. The ease with which you suggest execution as retribution for crimes that lie in an alarming range of severity strongly clashes with my ideals.

See, I don't really support killing of any kind since I'm a pussy pacifist. I have wrestled with what the just punishment should be for seriously deranged violent offenders such as serial killers and rapists, but while I do believe that these individuals have become a danger to society and should not be allowed to continue in their crimes, I'm not sure if capital punishment is the most valid solution.

Now everyone keeps talking of "deterrence", but what does that really mean? Essentially, deterrence as WHAM and co. define it is fear. Fear of harsh punishment. Fear of death. But what, really, does this fear accomplish? Practically, the fear does not stem from the criminal act itself, but rather of getting caught and facing the consequences, however severe they may be. Let us examine which criminal acts would be eradicated through this fear. For crimes of passion and opportunity, one is aware only of the immediate results of the act (e.g. dead spouse, new TV, adrenaline rush), and is unfocused on or discounting of possible punishment that would await one after capture. For premeditated cases, the perpetration takes the steps necessary to avoid apprehension and intends on escape. Whether they would spend 10, 25, or 50 years in prison of face the death penalty would have negligible effect on someone who intends to get away with it.

What then should be done with criminals? Should they merely be released with a stiff fine and community service? Of course not. The deterrence lies in the presence of punishment and the closer that punishment is to guaranteed, the more effective the deterrent is. Of course, it is impossible to eliminate the notion in a criminal's mind that they can "get away with it", and equally difficult to have a 100% capture rate for criminal behavior without the termination of many liberties of criminals and law-abiding citizens alike. My point is that more severe "discipline" will have very little effect on those who expect to escape or are caught up in the moment.

And what of the police officers? You speak of them as incorruptible executors of justice who can rightly say "I am the law!" while beating a man's skull in. What do you say to police brutality? Correct me if I am wrong, but your opinion on this matter would seem to be that the "good police officers who live to serve and protect the common citizen" are always in the right, despite being human themselves and susceptible to emotion, prejudice, and corruption. I should not have to remind anyone of the Stanford prison experiment. Police officers are merely Men, albeit Men with a job entrusted to them by the public, with a duty to protect and serve their population, but they're not Jesus Christ with riot batons and tear gas.

Brief aside aside, the only way I can see your suggested lowering of the threshold for capital punishment would have an impact on crime is if the threshold were lowered very dramatically and the death sentence applied to what are considered much less deserving crimes. At least in the United States, opposition to capital punishment for even the highly violent crimes to which it is frequently prescribed is currently fairly strong, and I have a hard time believing that the institution of a much more versatile application of the death penalty to the extent you are suggesting would not meet fervent resistance. What you are suggesting is basically a fascist police state in which all criminals are met with swift and terminal retribution. Setting aside the issue of false accusations since the idea of due process appears to be lost on you, I do not believe that citizens of your golden society would be as welcoming to an oppressive, fearful regime as you are.

In fact, I believe that many would see such a perversion of the justice system as evil and would rise up in protest. I'm talking riots. Not the groupthink, flashmob, wanton destruction, loot everything you can, just for the hell of it, first-world riots as seen in London and Vancouver. I'm talking the rise up against your oppressors, fight for freedom, I'm taking back my country from the dictator who rules it with an iron fist, justified riots seen in Egypt. But by this time, these would no longer be mere riots. This would be revolution. Revolution against a government that does not value human life, a government that believe not all lives are created equal, a government that will execute the small for the benefit of the great, and a government where justice is not blind, where life and liberty are privileges that can be taken away on a whim, and where judges give a bullet to the head to those they see fit.

To conclude, I present a few of your own words.

I say "if they don't follow orders, shoot a few, see if they learn a lesson".
---
Saying they lose their citizenship when they go out to riot is just right. No citizenship, no rights.
---
I don't know and I dont care. I just hope as many rioters as possible suffer as much as possible.
---
If people want violent entertainment, let them have an arena and televize the figts, actually, lets just put all criminals in an arena and commercialize their deaths.
---
They actually did put criminals either into a colosseum for a good show, or made slaves out of them, with no moral issues or thought about "human rights". While I'm not a fan of raping and pillaging, you have to admit they had some good things going on back there.
---
Hard Punishment: removal of human rights / citizenship permanently, forced hard labour, choise between entertainment sentence or death sentence
---
If you attempt escape, you automatically get transferred to death row = they will not even drag you back to jail, but will place a 9mm copper tranquilizer inside your skull.
---
No we don't get more people in prison because we KILL them.
---
the idiots who don't would stop existing thanks to natural selection: the WHAM way.
---
I had no idea it was completely legal in Syria for people to kill one another for no reason whatsoever! That is SO COOL!
---
These issues are easy to fix if we take human rights away from those who commit hard
crime.
---
if we take human rights away
---
TAKE HUMAN RIGHTS AWAY

And thank you for horridly misinterpreting one of my favorite novels and twisting its message of the universal reach and power of mob mentality and the capacity for violence that is present in all humans - not just the ones you consider animals - into support for your brutal, social-Darwinist, fuck-it-just-kill-all-the-lesser-human-beings views.

[WHAM]

I just wanted to point out that what you consider good or bad doesn't depend on who wrote the history.

Yes it does...

I'd consider doing good things as 'good', not abiding the law.

I'm considering abiding the law in general as good and breaking the law as bad. Maybe that's just me, maybe we don't need laws and eveyone will just magically get along.

If your thoughts about the world originate from movies then we can stop talking.

My thougts are my own. That is all I can say about that.

[NsMn]

It's legal to push a homeless out of a train station at night so that he might die in winter. It's legal to imprison someone who owns a certain amount of dope. It's illegal to have sex with someone <18 if you're older than that. It's illegal to play instruments in a train without permission.

I'd consider doing good things as 'good', not abiding the law.

So... in your world, where things are just defined as "wrong" and "right", who told you that having sex with someone younger than 18, annoying people on a train with your mediocre guitar skills or that even consuming drugs is actually not wrong? There's something wrong in your logic. And that is one thing I can definitely say is wrong.

[Calin Leafshade]

I'm considering abiding the law in general as good and breaking the law as bad. Maybe that's just me, maybe we don't need laws and eveyone will just magically get along.

The law != morality.

Adultery is legal but parking badly is not. Which of those things is least moral?

Lying is legal but gay marriage is not. Which of those things is least moral?

[Matti]

I just wanted to point out that what you consider good or bad doesn't depend on who wrote the history.

Yes it does...

Aha! Then why don't all people agree on what's good if they all know the same history and seem not to think about anything other than what people wrote about the past? Why are there still Nazis around?

Maybe, just maybe because they use their brains... (regardless of the quality of their thoughts).

I'm considering abiding the law in general as good and breaking the law as bad. Maybe that's just me, maybe we don't need laws and eveyone will just magically get along.

It's legal to push a homeless out of a train station at night so that he might die in winter. It's legal to imprison someone who owns a certain amount of dope. It's illegal to have sex with someone <18 if you're older than that. It's illegal to play instruments in a train without permission.

I'd consider doing good things as 'good', not abiding the law.

So... in your world, where things are just defined as "wrong" and "right", who told you that having sex with someone younger than 18, annoying people on a train with your mediocre guitar skills or that even consuming drugs is actually not wrong? There's something wrong in your logic. And that is one thing I can definitely say is wrong.

So, you people don't think? You actually don't think about things? Some laws are being made and then you suddenly know what's good and bad? You study the code of law and then know how to act in life? Why do you want stronger punishment if the laws are good as they are? That's some twisted logic.

[WHAM]

Phew, ddq, that a LOT of words there. Let me go through that and see if I have any arguments left.

For crimes of passion and opportunity, one is aware only of the immediate results of the act (e.g. dead spouse, new TV, adrenaline rush), and is unfocused on or discounting of possible punishment that would await one after capture.

On this matter I believe in evolution. If those people who fail to control themselves are diminished in number, then they are less likely to reproduce, multiply and grow. I truly believe such people are like cancer. You cut it off, and even if it spreads, you keep cutting or you die. It will hurt, it will disfigure you, but you WILL live. Humankind's "body" in this example is quite strong and healthy, and actually could do with some lopping off of body parts.

For premeditated cases, the perpetration takes the steps necessary to avoid apprehension and intends on escape. Whether they would spend 10, 25, or 50 years in prison of face the death penalty would have negligible effect on someone who intends to get away with it.

Well, if we manage to deter even SOME criminals from crime, AND we cut down on the costs of maintaining prisons and prisoners, the money and resources we save can be put to apprehending these clever premeditated criminals. It will never be perfect, but it will be better than what we have now.

And what of the police officers?

They are humans, yes. They make mistakes, overreact and break the rules, yes.
This is why we need more police, more ways for the police force to be internally regulated. Internal investigation departments already exist and their importance will certainly grow in in a world where punishments are tougher, as the risk of critical mistakes on the part of the police grows.

I have a hard time believing that the institution of a much more versatile application of the death penalty to the extent you are suggesting would not meet fervent resistance.

Sadly I know you are right. Humankind has always HATED change, even if the purpose of the change was to make the life of humans better in some way. It is the few who do not resist change who are siding with me in this argument, and many others like it, who seek to truly better mankind. We can only live as we do now for a certain amount of time and the way we live today will probably one day in the future be called a "dark age" too.

a government that believe not all lives are created equal

Where did you get the idea I think of some lives as less valuable than others? That was nowhere in my earlier writings! The law and the punishments it doles out should be universal, worldwide and equal to all.

And thank you for horridly misinterpreting one of my favorite novels

You are... welcome? However I do not think it as a misinterpertation. The novel, like almost all works of art and literature, are open to interpertation and all who read will have their own interpertations.

I first read The Lord of the Flies when I was about 10 years old and I really hoped the children who "went feral" and killed Pig (I think that was what he was called, the sick but smart boy with astma) didn't deserve to be saved off the island. I felt they deserved a punishment and should be left on the island forever for what they had become.

[NsMn]

@Matti: So you are simply saying, that taking a hard stance on crime makes you want to overthrow the government, and therefore you believe a government should be lenient on crime? That makes absolutely NO SENSE!

Good luck defining that. Leftist supporters have used that word so often even for social democracies. So, apparently overthrowing the government is always legitimate as long as you want to intall something more left-wing? Man, the Antifa here in my home country would be proud of you...

No, I'm saying that a government that publicly hangs people should be overthrown.

I understand that to be a joke (Neither Hitler, Stalin nor any other modern-day tyrant did that), but it doesn't answer my question except that it hints at you not being able to seriously define that.

[Matti]

I mean if a state is publicly hanging people, it most likely is a brutal, militant, authocratic policestate. It doesn't necessarily have to be a racist one and I don't care if you call that fascist or not, that wasn't the point. My point was that it wouldn't stop the violence at all and should be overthrown.

Also, I'm pretty sure that Mussolini and Pinochet did hang 'enemies of the state' publicly. But I don't really care.

[WHAM]

I'm also pretty sure the "good guys" in Italy hanged Mussolini and his allies publicly...

[Matti]

1. I wouldn't do that.
2. He was working hard on getting that reaction from those who survived.

[Ali]

For a dictator, swinging from a lamppost is natural causes.

(I'm still a hippy opponent of capital punishment in all its forms, of course, just not very sympathetic in some cases.)

[NsMn]

Soooo.... you ARE for letting criminals pay, eye for an eye, thooth for a tooth? I don't quite get it. Is being a dictator a crime different from any other kind? That's actually worse than what you condemned to this second.