Dutchy wrote:Is there any evidence for that. I have seen some, anecdotical evidence, to the contrary.
There are victim family organisations fighting capital punishment, so there is that. We probably all know people that have fallen victim to crimes without changing out attitude towards punishment and many of us have been victims of crime ourselves without any change in attitude.
ArciniegaJR wrote:Save the criminals and kill the babes? And you're talking about survival?
a very young child.
"his wife's just had a baby"
synonyms: infant, newborn, child, tot, little one; More
a lover or spouse (often as a form of address).
"my baby left me for another guy"
synonyms: darling, sweetheart, dearest, dear; More
comparatively small or immature of its kind.
"a baby version of the Oxford Movement"
synonyms: miniature, mini, little, small, small-scale, scaled-down, toy, pocket, midget, dwarf, fun-size; More
treat (someone) as a baby; pamper or be overprotective towards.
"her aunt babied her and fussed over her clothes"
synonyms: pamper, mollycoddle, spoil, cosset, coddle, indulge, overindulge, pet, wait on someone hand and foot, feather-bed, wrap in cotton wool, overparent, nanny
Killing babies isn´t allowed anywhere, you are using words wrong.
c933103 wrote:That's also why jail terms are determined by severity of a crime instead of how easily can the crime be corrected.
Not quite. Here, like in other countries that do understand human rights and accept how our brains work, you are convicted for murder, whether you commit one or 100 doesn´t really matter, you are still just a murderer, and the sentence is life, not 100x life. Judges will often include the effect of serving time into their rulings, for example let someone get away with two years of parole instead of sending them to prison for two years, because prison would reduce the chance of reoffending and increase the overall chance of another crime committed. The potential future victims rights exceed the rights of past victims at some point.
Missed the part in previous reply
Well, and apparently you still reject science, you know, like a good fundamentalist would.
- The message that "we are not criminal so we shouldn't kill people like what a criminal did" doesn't seems to be persuading as it only tell why we shouldn't kill them ourselves, but say nothing about why the person should not die. If the concern is just that the society should not kill someone, then we can lock the person into a room without supply of new food/water/air and everything, and then include a gun into the room so that the person can decide when will he kill himself. Alternatively, we can also, for instance, create a huge room under a large train station, lock up people who are going to get death sentence in, and then put some lethal pathogen on top of the roof of the room each time everyone use the train station, there's a chance that those pathogen would fall off from the roof and onto the room's air due to pressure of footsteps, and then they would have a chance to be inhaled by the person and that would killed them. So no one will need to conduct the execution process.
The guy who locks the door is still the murderer.
And given your violent torture fantasies, you know the stuff that made ISIS burn people alive in cages instead of just shooting them in the head, you should probably see a mental health professional about those, especially if you took/take delight from hurting animals.
So you think applying punishment against criminals according to crimes that committed doesn't work? Then why are there countries that do so and are still working?
They don´t. Countries that have capital punishment are the most ignorant: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 81196.html
Tend to be fragile nations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... ates_Index
Tend to be corrupt: http://fortune.com/2016/01/27/transpare ... ion-index/
And unsuccessful societies correlate nicely not just with religiosity, but also with having capital punishment: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10. ... 0900700305
None of which is surprising....
]If it is "universal" than why am I, together with many others, thinking the other way?
It is universally not just accepted, but simply true, that earth is 4+ Billion years old. There are plenty of people still putting that at 6 to 10k years. That doesn´t make them any more right than you are, and they maintain that "believe" for the same reason you do: fundamentalism, and as we learned from your posting above: sadism.
Which part of "outside these countries" do you not understand?
answered by implication. It follows that all countries in the Americas have capital punishment outside, in just one country.
Imprisonment still allow the criminal to come in contact with outside society, have a chance to be released in the future for things like prison break, change of political regime, amnesty, parole, and such, which mean they would still have a potential threat on the society
Dang, how many reasons do you have to murder people? That they might break out? That they may be, lawfully, released? That they talk about ideas that you don´t like, but are not more extremist than yours oh.. and yes.. because it is better for them to get murdered....... i almost forgot.
As for modify behavior, how can that happens when all human are intrinsically thinking around oneself or his own surrounding in nature? Sometimes people would understand and be considerate about a wider scope of objects like the entire society or entire humanity or even all forms of life, but that still doesn't change the fact that human would only do what they want.
Irrelevant, since it is just made up fantasy. What you think doesn´t matter, with an effective correction system re-offense rates are low. For crimes against life just about 1%.
It could simply mean they don't have chance to redo what they did in their life and doesn't mean that they won't if they're given the opportunity to do so. There have been millenniums of philosophical iterations that all come to the conclusion that the nature of human is not to be beneficiary to "others".
And now you want to murder people even when you are 99% confident they won´t commit a crime. Given your sick violent torture fantasies we should think very hard about executing you preemtively, you don´t mind, right? Since you are totally ok to do that to others....
Then again that is a utilitarian way of saying what kind of punishment would yield less crime instead of saying what kind of punishment they deserve. Also many European countries have higher crime rates than many Asian countries.
The only country in Asia that has significantly lower crime than European countries is Japan.
Japan also has rising crime rates: https://abcnews.go.com/International/st ... 963&page=1 against the global trend.
And obviously in a country that culturally doesn´t see much crime, the number of criminals is so low that mistreating them doesn´t have much effect on overall society. Of course you will reject that, but Japans "hard time" policy gives them really bad, and getting worse, re-offending rates: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/20 ... 0WamtIzaUk
Those Asian counties debunk your position quite nicely.
How can one maintain living without working and be accepted into a country without sales tax/vat? Even farming or hunting might need to pay tax
I didn´t say it is practical, starving to death is however your problem, according to you at least. There are however places where you are not taxed, you can find those. Just go there.
I mean, there are people losing election because they want to remove capital punishment
And other people do because they want to increase LGBTQ protections.... fundamentalists get to vote, you know.
tommy1808 wrote:Again: where do you get punished/executed for discussing extremist views in private?
Like https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2 ... conviction for France or https://www.eurozine.com/no-freedom-to- ... ncitement/ for Germany?
France: wasn´t convicted for discussing extremest positions in private conversations.
Germany: Nothing about discussing extremest positions in private conversations, just about publicly promoting those views.
1. Yes causing innocent person to be killed is the price that need to be pay for to maintain the system
BS. By far most countries don´t execute people and those that do seem to have trouble maintaining their system.
18th century? You mean 18th century of Europe? The way 18th centuries European see the world seems to be different from 21st century European, and in a similar way other world area could also see thing differently from 21st century western society.
exactly, the 18th century where fundamentalist like you where much more common. By far most countries have learned, you didn´t.
a.) Those persons are needed for the society to function
By far most countries obviously disagree with that assessment, and are less dysfunctional than those societies that do. We should lock them up for a) being murders and b) doing real harm to society.
If anyone have been intentionally caused an innocent people to be sentenced to death then they should be charged accordingly of course
That would be all of them. They decided there isn´t reasonable doubt, they decided to get an innocent person murdered.
ah, maybe they're just not being considerate enough and forget about there are persons that need to be sentenced to death.
...... said the ISIS fighter when he lit a Christian on fire.