155 replies to this topic

[Sgt. Rho]

General Camo, on 6 Feb 2011, 4:55, said:

[...]there should also be periods of torture[...]

TORTURE. The most ineffective of extracting information ever. Also the most barbaric thing a human can do.

[CJ]

Sgt. Rho, on 7 Feb 2011, 2:49, said:

General Camo, on 6 Feb 2011, 4:55, said:

[...]there should also be periods of torture[...]

TORTURE. The most ineffective of extracting information ever. Also the most barbaric thing a human can do.

Hmm, what does extracting information have to do with Death Penalty? Also killing a hundred persons with a bomb is by far more barbaric than torture (which I do not condemn by the way, as I stated in another topic here)

[Sgt. Rho]

Nothing. But it's still pointless and barbaric. And so is killing hundreds. But Torture is the most barbaric thing one can do to one other.

[Chyros]

CJ, on 7 Feb 2011, 16:13, said:

Sgt. Rho, on 7 Feb 2011, 2:49, said:

General Camo, on 6 Feb 2011, 4:55, said:

[...]there should also be periods of torture[...]

TORTURE. The most ineffective of extracting information ever. Also the most barbaric thing a human can do.

Hmm, what does extracting information have to do with Death Penalty? Also killing a hundred persons with a bomb is by far more barbaric than torture (which I do not condemn by the way, as I stated in another topic here)

But what would torturing the condemned accomplish?

[Sgt. Rho]

Nothing, other than maybe pleasure to those he wronged. So effectively nothing.

[CJ]

Sgt. Rho, on 7 Feb 2011, 21:29, said:

Nothing, other than maybe pleasure to those he wronged. So effectively nothing.

Stop talking as if you knew what it represents to lose a friend because of a criminal or something like that, you can't say it's nothing.

[Chyros]

CJ, on 7 Feb 2011, 22:38, said:

Sgt. Rho, on 7 Feb 2011, 21:29, said:

Nothing, other than maybe pleasure to those he wronged. So effectively nothing.

Stop talking as if you knew what it represents to lose a friend because of a criminal or something like that, you can't say it's nothing.

If you did lose a friend because of a criminal, and he'd get the death penalty, and you would execute the order, would it really actually please you in the end, though?

[Sgt. Rho]

CJ, how would you know if I ever lost a friend/relative to a criminal?

Edited by Sgt. Rho, 07 February 2011 - 22:22.

[CJ]

Chyros, on 7 Feb 2011, 23:21, said:

CJ, on 7 Feb 2011, 22:38, said:

Sgt. Rho, on 7 Feb 2011, 21:29, said:

Nothing, other than maybe pleasure to those he wronged. So effectively nothing.

Stop talking as if you knew what it represents to lose a friend because of a criminal or something like that, you can't say it's nothing.

If you did lose a friend because of a criminal, and he'd get the death penalty, and you would execute the order, would it really actually please you in the end, though?

It would please to know that he won't be able to commit any more crimes in any case.

Sgt. Rho, on 7 Feb 2011, 23:21, said:

CJ, how would you know if I ever lost a friend/relative to a criminal?

Your way of speaking and your stubbornness to repeat the same "Revenge is useless" argument proves it, since anyone who has lost a relative to a crime must have wished at least for a moment to kill the criminal by himself.
Plus you might find it useless, I can assure that my friend's family didn't, and even if most of them just want the guy to be thrown in jail now, it's obvious that none of them could blame someone else if they wanted to get their revenge for the same reason.

[Chyros]

CJ, on 8 Feb 2011, 0:36, said:

Chyros, on 7 Feb 2011, 23:21, said:

CJ, on 7 Feb 2011, 22:38, said:

Sgt. Rho, on 7 Feb 2011, 21:29, said:

Nothing, other than maybe pleasure to those he wronged. So effectively nothing.

Stop talking as if you knew what it represents to lose a friend because of a criminal or something like that, you can't say it's nothing.

If you did lose a friend because of a criminal, and he'd get the death penalty, and you would execute the order, would it really actually please you in the end, though?

It would please to know that he won't be able to commit any more crimes in any case.

Neither could he in a cell. Death isn't the only solution.

[CJ]

Ever heard of general amnisties? Last one here happened a month ago, and there were murderers released in the lot (except the only one who was in the death row and wasn't pardoned by the former dictator)
Not to mention jail breakouts, I'm given to understand those are not very rare in some western countries...

BTW, there were a lot of members of Ben Ali's militia who were captured by civilians after they ran out of bullets while shooting those formers, most of them got beaten to death by the people, and I challenge anyone of you to say that they didn't deserve it.

[Sgt. Rho]

CJ, on 7 Feb 2011, 23:36, said:

Your way of speaking and your stubbornness to repeat the same "Revenge is useless" argument proves it, since anyone who has lost a relative to a crime must have wished at least for a moment to kill the criminal by himself.
Plus you might find it useless, I can assure that my friend's family didn't, and even if most of them just want the guy to be thrown in jail now, it's obvious that none of them could blame someone else if they wanted to get their revenge for the same reason.

Are you a Psychologist? No? Thought so. The way I talk proves nothing. If I loose someone, of course I would want revenge, but I'm incapable of intentionally taking a life. It would make me no better than a murderer and goes against every single thing I believe in. I'd rather leave him for the rest of his life in prison.

[CJ]

The way you talked proved you didn't lose anyone important to you because if you did, then you'd understand that any normal person would like to get revenge, and therefore you couldn't possibly prevent them by saying that it would be "Nothing"
You might want him to go to jail, you'd still be aware that some victims wouldn't be happy with that sentence, and most importantly you wouldn't be able to to blame them for that.

[Sgt. Rho]

Maybe I'm not normal? Or maybe I just have a very utilitarian view on certain things. What would be the point of becoming a criminal myself, just to satisfy my with for revenge? None, other than for the sake of it. Bloodthirst never has helped anybody.

[CJ]

Once again you're talking only about yourself... And once again I must say that if you don't want to become a criminal or whatever you're considering that, dozens of others are fine with it.

[Sgt. Rho]

Of course I'm only talking about myself. I'm stating my opinion, not more not less.

On a side note: IRL, I don't know a single person in favor of the death penalty.

[Alias]

CJ, on 8 Feb 2011, 11:30, said:

Once again you're talking only about yourself... And once again I must say that if you don't want to become a criminal or whatever you're considering that, dozens of others are fine with it.

It's not just him.

People in every Western country besides the United States are generally against the death penalty by a fair margin. Even some second-world countries such as South Africa, Central America and Argentina/Chile are against it as well. The main countries that maintain it is the US, China and the Arab world/Muslim majority nations.

It may be the case in Tunisia that the majority support it, but in the more 'civilised' (I can't really think a better word for it) sections of the world it is seen as a barbaric practice and both the government and the people are against its use.

Now, considering the eventual development of every country to a first world level it is reasonable to assume that most countries will eventually phase out the death penalty.

[Mbob61]

CJ, on 8 Feb 2011, 0:20, said:

The way you talked proved you didn't lose anyone important to you because if you did, then you'd understand that any normal person would like to get revenge.

tbh, this sounds like utter crap to me.
95% of people i know would want justice for what has happened rather than revenge. They would want the person to be properly punished for the crime they have commited.
I sure as hell know that if i lost a close family member or friend to some sort of crime, i wouldn't want the criminal to be given the death penalty for it. That makes me just as bad as the person committing the crime itself.
This sounds a lot like a person experience being over generalised to me, sorry. Speak for yourself, not for everyone.

Mike

[CJ]

@Mbob : I'm not speaking for myself but for my friend's family, and all I'm saying is that if there are some people who want revenge you can't really possibly tell them that they can't have it.
Let's say a psychopath ties you up, kills your wife, and then rapes your 10 yo daughter in front of you, I'm perfectly sure you'd be happy with him going simply to jail for that...
Also, I'd be rather curious to know where you've gotten your actual statiscs... You can't really know how people will really react when they're the ones affected.

Alias, on 8 Feb 2011, 2:20, said:

CJ, on 8 Feb 2011, 11:30, said:

Once again you're talking only about yourself... And once again I must say that if you don't want to become a criminal or whatever you're considering that, dozens of others are fine with it.

It's not just him.

People in every Western country besides the United States are generally against the death penalty by a fair margin. Even some second-world countries such as South Africa, Central America and Argentina/Chile are against it as well. The main countries that maintain it is the US, China and the Arab world/Muslim majority nations.

It may be the case in Tunisia that the majority support it, but in the more 'civilised' (I can't really think a better word for it) sections of the world it is seen as a barbaric practice and both the government and the people are against its use.

Now, considering the eventual development of every country to a first world level it is reasonable to assume that most countries will eventually phase out the death penalty.

For your info, Tunisia actually doesn't really have death penalty, as I said, only one person was sent to death row in 30 years, and it was our local Jack the Ripper, but it still discourages most criminals. And seriously, "more civilized"? What the fucking hell are you talking about? Well at least we're not a bunch of grass eating morons like you (I can't really think a better word for it)

Edited by CJ, 08 February 2011 - 06:11.

[Alias]

CJ, on 8 Feb 2011, 17:00, said:

@Mbob : I'm not speaking for myself but for my friend's family, and all I'm saying is that if there are some people who want revenge you can't really possibly tell them that they can't have it.

And there's some people who want to rape little children, by your logic you can't possibly tell them they can't have it.
If it's against the law, it's against the law. Whether the murder is comitted for the sake of murder or for 'revenge'. You can't be cherrypicking definitions.

CJ, on 8 Feb 2011, 17:00, said:

Alias, on 8 Feb 2011, 2:20, said:

CJ, on 8 Feb 2011, 11:30, said:

Once again you're talking only about yourself... And once again I must say that if you don't want to become a criminal or whatever you're considering that, dozens of others are fine with it.

It's not just him.

People in every Western country besides the United States are generally against the death penalty by a fair margin. Even some second-world countries such as South Africa, Central America and Argentina/Chile are against it as well. The main countries that maintain it is the US, China and the Arab world/Muslim majority nations.

It may be the case in Tunisia that the majority support it, but in the more 'civilised' (I can't really think a better word for it) sections of the world it is seen as a barbaric practice and both the government and the people are against its use.

Now, considering the eventual development of every country to a first world level it is reasonable to assume that most countries will eventually phase out the death penalty.

For your info, Tunisia actually doesn't really have death penalty, as I said, only one person was sent to death row in 30 years, and it was our local Jack the Ripper, but it still discourages most criminals. And seriously, "more civilized"? What the fucking hell are you talking about? Well at least we're not a bunch of grass eating morons like you (I can't really think a better word for it)

The death penalty has not been abolished there, therefore you still have it in law. We've already disproved the fact that it 'reduces' crime, you can read the first page of this article. As I said, I couldn't think of a better word than 'civilised' for it, but there is pretty empirical evidence along with common sense that says the Western world is far more developed in both economic and social ways than you are.
Eventually you will reach the same level of development as well, and by that time you would have quite likely abolished the death penalty.

[Golan]

Laws, both moral and legal, should apply universally and neutrally - revenge is very personal though. Is Death the most cruel punishment? Confinement? Torture? Crippling? Outlawing someone? Does revenge mean equal punishment, comparative punishment, crueler punishment? It varies from person to person, so how could you derive a law from it?
If you wish to have someone killed anyways, do so and face the consequences. That's what the big talk about revenge is all about, isn't it? Doing justice and receiving justice. If some bureaucrat ordering a hangman to pull the plug after several decades serves your hunger for revenge - well frankly, I'd consider a very measly revenge. None that'd satisfy my hunger in any of the examples you, CJ, gave. If you truly lost, there's nothing the death of such scum could give to outweigh the loss.

Edited by Golan, 08 February 2011 - 09:43.

[CJ]

Alias, on 8 Feb 2011, 9:25, said:

CJ, on 8 Feb 2011, 17:00, said:

@Mbob : I'm not speaking for myself but for my friend's family, and all I'm saying is that if there are some people who want revenge you can't really possibly tell them that they can't have it.

And there's some people who want to rape little children, by your logic you can't possibly tell them they can't have it.
If it's against the law, it's against the law. Whether the murder is comitted for the sake of murder or for 'revenge'. You can't be cherrypicking definitions.

That's why death penalty is needed, since it's a PART of the law and it represents a mean of getting revenge. An execution ordered by a court or a judge is not a murder for the law.

Alias, on 8 Feb 2011, 9:25, said:

The death penalty has not been abolished there, therefore you still have it in law. We've already disproved the fact that it 'reduces' crime, you can read the first page of this article. As I said, I couldn't think of a better word than 'civilised' for it, but there is pretty empirical evidence along with common sense that says the Western world is far more developed in both economic and social ways than you are.
Eventually you will reach the same level of development as well, and by that time you would have quite likely abolished the death penalty.

You didn't disprove it, if anything you just proved it was useless in some American states.
Technically there is no way to exactly knowing if it had any impact on crime rates, the article isn't actually presenting any accurate data or proofs, merely saying that crime rates became higher (but let me remind you that only capital crimes get death penalty sentences, so that sentence doesn't work as a deterrent for other crimes)
And while I concede that the west is more advanced economically and technologically, it's utter crap to say they're more advanced than us socially, the European society is at least as corrupt as the Tunisian one, except your governments hide it better, seeing that presidents will actually enforce any law they want regardless of the number of protestants suffices to prove that, same goes for racism as Tunisians are by far more tolerant than Europeans or Americans.
And it's also better than being governed by a bunch of senile people who think video games are too violent to be sold.
It'd be good if people stopped implying that all Arab countries are full of terrorists, and people living in a medieval era. I suppose you also think that we still cut a thief's hands and burn wizards too?

Edited by CJ, 08 February 2011 - 13:31.

[Alias]

CJ, on 9 Feb 2011, 0:17, said:

Alias, on 8 Feb 2011, 9:25, said:

CJ, on 8 Feb 2011, 17:00, said:

@Mbob : I'm not speaking for myself but for my friend's family, and all I'm saying is that if there are some people who want revenge you can't really possibly tell them that they can't have it.

And there's some people who want to rape little children, by your logic you can't possibly tell them they can't have it.
If it's against the law, it's against the law. Whether the murder is comitted for the sake of murder or for 'revenge'. You can't be cherrypicking definitions.

That's why death penalty is needed, since it's a PART of the law and it represents a mean of getting revenge. An execution ordered by a court or a judge is not a murder for the law.

It's not 'part' of the law in the developed world, bar a few countries. Revenge is not justification for law, either, as 'revenge' is both counterproductive and very difficult to define. What is the limits of 'revenge'? When does punishment suddenly become 'revenge'? Is 'revenge' only 'revenge' if the person committing the revenge was close the the victim?

CJ, on 9 Feb 2011, 0:17, said:

Alias, on 8 Feb 2011, 9:25, said:

The death penalty has not been abolished there, therefore you still have it in law. We've already disproved the fact that it 'reduces' crime, you can read the first page of this article. As I said, I couldn't think of a better word than 'civilised' for it, but there is pretty empirical evidence along with common sense that says the Western world is far more developed in both economic and social ways than you are.
Eventually you will reach the same level of development as well, and by that time you would have quite likely abolished the death penalty.

You didn't disprove it, if anything you just proved it was useless in some American states.
Technically there is no way to exactly knowing if it had any impact on crime rates, the article isn't actually presenting any accurate data or proofs, merely saying that crime rates became higher (but let me remind you that only capital crimes get death penalty sentences, so that sentence doesn't work as a deterrent for other crimes)
And while I concede that the west is more advanced economically and technologically, it's utter crap to say they're more advanced than us socially, the European society is at least as corrupt as the Tunisian one, except your governments hide it better, seeing that presidents will actually enforce any law they want regardless of the number of protestants suffices to prove that, same goes for racism as Tunisians are by far more tolerant than Europeans or Americans.
It'd be good if people stopped implying that all Arab countries are full of terrorists, and people living in a medieval era. I suppose you also think that we still cut a thief's hands and burn wizards too?

America is part of the developed world. Most countries strive to be developed countries. Thus if it is ineffective in a developed country it should not be strived towards.
At least I'm providing written 'proof', as it were. Where exactly is your proof that it does the opposite?
You were ruled by a dictator, something that hasn't happened in the majority of Europe for at least 20 years. The argument of racial tolerance is pretty moot as that tends to be a very subjective view. I have never been in Tunisia so I have no idea how tolerant you are, just like you do not know how tolerant Australia is. Lets put it this way, though: 98% of Tunisians are Arab/Berber. 25% of Australians are born overseas. There is obviously going to be more issues with tolerance with 25% compared to 2%.
Since when did I imply you were full of terrorists or still in the medieval era? I merely stated that you are developing and as such strive to meet the standards of the developed world. These include not having barbaric practices like the death penalty.

[CJ]

Quote

same goes for racism as Tunisians are by far more tolerant than Europeans or Americans.

I don't see Australia in that sentence, I don't know anything about racism in your country so I don't use it as an example. And so should you, since you've never been in Tunisia, how can you judge our social model in that case?
You say Tunisia is not a civilized country, or at least not enough by your standards, while you know approximately nothing about our country, at least the examples I cite frequently are France and Italy, which I both know well to make some judgments on their social and political models.
And stop saying that death sentence is barbaric, mass murder and pedophilia are even more barbaric yet it doesn't seem to cause you any problem.

Finally, about dictatorship, what's the difference between a dictator and a president who enforces a law that 80% of the French citizens were opposed to, who raised his own pay by 200% as a first action when he was elected, and who's clearly threatening the media and leading attacks on French journalists? Different methods but same result.

[Golan]

Sorry, but the "developed countries" aren't the pinnacle of human society. As CJ correctly mentioned, we have our fare share of fucking up big time too. Crime rates are spiraling out of control in many areas of high population density in most countries, there are effectively law-free areas, et cetera - our jurisdictional system really isn't the only shiny beacon in the night, and it's light could very well be a pillaging fire.
Just because we might be the most developed countries doesn't mean there isn't still lots of developing left to do.

CJ, on 8 Feb 2011, 13:17, said:

Alias, on 8 Feb 2011, 9:25, said:

CJ, on 8 Feb 2011, 17:00, said:

@Mbob : I'm not speaking for myself but for my friend's family, and all I'm saying is that if there are some people who want revenge you can't really possibly tell them that they can't have it.

And there's some people who want to rape little children, by your logic you can't possibly tell them they can't have it.
If it's against the law, it's against the law. Whether the murder is comitted for the sake of murder or for 'revenge'. You can't be cherrypicking definitions.

That's why death penalty is needed, since it's a PART of the law and it represents a mean of getting revenge. An execution ordered by a court or a judge is not a murder for the law.

Then why restrict it to murder? Why restrict it to the death penalty? Shouldn't a rape victim be allowed to have the rapist raped in return, too? How do you take revenge for the scars inflicted to ones soul? When no one is left that could have any interest in revenge, is the penalty to be carried out still? If the idea is to take revenge, why have a bureaucrat and a professional decide and do the slaying? And isn't it still morally a murder?
An eye for an eye for an eye for an eye...

Edited by Golan, 08 February 2011 - 14:19.