Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
I wasn't referring to the actual execution itself. You are correct: the act of executing someone is not particularly costly.andyb wrote:Absolutely, that has nothing to do with my question though. Why does the execution cost so much.???
Are the lawyers present at the execution at the tax payers expense..... Surely not, the cost of lawyers has nothing to do with the cost of execution.
9/11 changed nothing. Some people had the agenda ready waiting for their new pearl harbor. Iraq was ruled with an ironfist by Saddam who kept all sorts of people in order, but it was not a terrorist state. And American and British forces are not fighting terrorists, they are fighting the insurgent Iraqi population, who by large margin agree that attacks on foreign troops is OK. This is why you have lost, you've lost the battle for the hearts and minds of man. Time to leave...Bluefront wrote: The USA "War on Terrorism" was started by the 9/11 terrorists.....keep that in mind. Had we not been attacked, Saddam would still be alive along with his terrorist regime...... I get the feeling some around here would prefer that be the case.
I actually agree with you: it really can't be compared to a typical capital punishment case in the United States. Trials of dictators are, by their very nature, "show" trials. There is generally enough dirt on the person that their guilt is almost undeniable. Nobody in their right mind would ever argue Saddam wasn't guilty of some terrible, terrible things.Frankly I don't think the execution of a mass-murderer/dictator can be compared to a common murderer's death sentence. There are many reasons why Saddam was executed........probably last on the list was any deterrent effect on potential dictators. There was no place left for Saddam....he had to die.
Perhaps something along those lines, he was after all the leader of the local arab supremacists.aristide1 wrote:BF, you are going under the assumption that he would actually surive in prison. How would he do that? Can he bench press 410 pounds? Can he join the local white spremacist gang?
The influence could be working in either direction, perhaps being surrounded by criminals is a deterent against liberalism?aristide1 wrote:2. Texas's murder rate is still higher than many states that do not have capital punishment. So where's the deterrent?
Yeah right, what are the odds of that death sentence actually happening? And how would this work any differently with life sentences?aristide1 wrote:Recall the first crime committed in the movie "Heat". They had all the witnesses, the people from the armoured car bound and gagged. When one of the theives got nervous he killed one of the guards. Now they were all going to get the death penalty.
Exactly, there's all this talk about the high cost of executions as if it's money that's completely going to waste. What's so bad about making damn sure that the convict really is guilty? Does limiting the sentences to life imprisonment somehow make false convictions okay?andyb wrote:The "punishment" is a life-sentence, whether the person gets life in prison or death after a long stay in prison is quite irrelevant as the costs should be the same, they are either guilty, not-guilty or guilty of a lesser crime.
The amount of effort one goes to to be found not-guilty should be the same if they are going to rot or be executed.
Exactly how is giving large amounts of money to the families of suicide bombers not supporting terrorism?Kaleid wrote:Iraq was ruled with an ironfist by Saddam who kept all sorts of people in order, but it was not a terrorist state.
I couldn't agree with you more. Human rights shouldn't be taken for granted. If you violate someone elses human rights, then you freefully forfeit your own. Those human rights should be stripped from the violator the same way a drivers licence is stripped from a drunken driver. You earn your human rights back by serving your punishment. Preferably in a 2 by 2 meter cell with a bed, toilet and a shower (only cold water). No visitation rights, zero contact with other inmates, no tv, no radio, maybe a newspaper once a week to stay in contact with the outside world, maybe some old school books to keep you "busy". I'm sure even an old mathbook will look like a Dan Brown novel after you have been deprived from the "luxuries" people take for granted. Feed them only the cheapest food possible (oatmeal?) and add some vitamin pills to prevent vitamin deficiency. Concidering millions of people are starving every day they should be thankful for recieving the porridge...andyb wrote:You bunch all seem to be missing a couple of points. If you put your personal opinions aside for a while and read this, you might stop bickering like children.
1, Criminal punishment is there for a reason, if someone does something bad they need to be punished for the bad thing that they have done, and also as a deterent to other people. If someone can expect a punishment if they do something wrong, then they might not do that crime at all.
2, Human rights lawyers should be kicked in the nuts until they are dead, or rather put on a very very very short leash. They are trying to destroy pont 1, and things are so ridiculous now that criminals might as well not be punished at all.
3, You guys seem to be argueing about "what is the correct punishment". Well this is something that has been talked about and changed over hundereds of years. Torture used to be allowed, prisons used to be filthy shinking cesspits, people used to be killed.
If we look at the shit sentences that judges are handing out to people and think about what they have done, everying is wrong, absolutely everything.
If someone commits fraud and lets say they steal £500,000, they should be given a menial prison sentance where that person will get bum-raped on a regular basis. They will have their bank accounts plundered, property sold etc etc and that money given back with interest to the company that was stolen from, and they should pay all and any costs associated with their crime.
If someone mugs someone and hurts them (common enough), then they should be put in a prison in disgraceful conditions for a year or 2, and have money taken from them to pay back in compensation the person(s) they have mugged.
If someone causes GBH (Grevous Bodily Harm) to someone, they should have the crap beaten out of them and put in a vile prison for 5-10 years, and they will be denied the appropriate human rights.
If someone murders someone they should be put in a prison until they die, they should be denied any and all human rights as they have violated someone elses. They should be denied doctors, medicine, nice food, sanitation, daylight, friendly guards, room to move around in etc etc. That is what is know as punishment, and it would be allowed if all of the human rights lawyers were kicked in the nuts until dead, and people stopped being such pussies and backed real punishment for criminals.
Andy
Inhuman punishments for inhuman people... But none of my suggestions qualify as evil torture, or if you think confinement in simple life is torture, then you are misusing the word. For some criminals it would even be a upgrade in quality of life, when they wouldn't have to be someones prison bitches anymore... But the main point for the punishment is to punish. Jailtime isn't supposed to be fun. And some prisoners already serve their time in solitary condinement, that is even worse.loz wrote:Once again, I don't get your ideas.
I understand that you want severe, inhuman punishment, but I don't understand why.
- moral point of view (you feel more comfortable in a world were evil acting people get tortured) ?
- Security (you think it 'd have a deterrent effect) ?
- Educational (people tortured wouldn't do bad things no more) ?
- Other ?
English is not my first language. I may miss some nuances. I hope we understand each other though.Erssa wrote:then you are misusing the word.
I don't know any prison which could be qualified as fun, even without "prison bitches" time.Jailtime isn't supposed to be fun.
I'm not convinced. Ask any prisoner you want, he was convinced (falsly) of not being caught at the time of his crime.You ask why? Well first of all criminals respond to incentives just like everybody else do. For example, if you cut the hands off pick pockets, pick pocketing crimes would surely plummet.
Any links ?It has been shown, that softer punishments lead to more crimes. For example in the 1960s conviction rates dropped in the USA and as a result crime rates started to grow.
It's not that simple if you look at the crimes instead of the "criminals".It's simple, when you keep criminals inside a prison they cannot commit crimes.
He told that, he'd never want to go back there again, so at least it had an educational effect on him.
How you think drug can enter the prison ? If drug enters the normal cells, it can enter isolation cell too.Other: Imprisonment in solitude would kill the drug dealing etc
Again, what is important for you in repenting ?maybe even repent.
I don't think raping in prisons is a good thing. That's why one of the reasons I'd keep every inmate in solitary confinement.loz wrote:I don't know any prison which could be qualified as fun, even without "prison bitches" time.Jailtime isn't supposed to be fun.
And, by the way, I suppose that if you think it's a good thing for some prisoners to be "prison bitches", you agree that some other prisoners are allowed to be prison raper ?
It's all about profit vs. risks. If the price of the crime is big enough, noone is willing to take a chance.I'm not convinced. Ask any prisoner you want, he was convinced (falsly) of not being caught at the time of his crime.You ask why? Well first of all criminals respond to incentives just like everybody else do. For example, if you cut the hands off pick pockets, pick pocketing crimes would surely plummet.
Sorry, no links, I read it in a book. Professor Steven Levitt has wrote something of this sort in his book Freakonomics. And I think Nobel Prize winner Gary Becker talked about it in his book "Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach".Any links ?It has been shown, that softer punishments lead to more crimes. For example in the 1960s conviction rates dropped in the USA and as a result crime rates started to grow.
Sex slaves, drug dealing, illegal guns, smuggling, car thefts etc... are all ruled by organized crime. Murder might be only crime where that 1% holds true.It's not that simple if you look at the crimes instead of the "criminals".It's simple, when you keep criminals inside a prison they cannot commit crimes.
If you get rid (forever, by killing him, locking him, or whatever...) of any person convinced of a crime, you will only get rid of habitual offenders.
I don't have American figures, but in France less than one percent of the "big crimes" (in France law makes the difference between small and big crimes, those have 10 years or more of prison as a punishment), are due to habitual offenders.
Well first of all, you are talking about big crimes here, not crime rates per se. But even a half procent improvement is an improvementSo any way preventing habitual offenders would lower crime rates by only half a percent...
Why ask me to prove something that cannot be proven or is almost impossible to prove. There are no usable data on inhuman punishments that could be used to prove this. But it has been proven that softer punishments increase crimes. So I believe that the same works for opposite. Though it would be cool, if I could pass a law that enables guards and police officers to shoot shoplifters on sight. Combine that with public executions of shoplifters and I could guarantee that shoplifting crimes would be reduced to 0 in less then a year after the law is passed. Repeated offenders would be dead and everybody else would be too scared to risk his life for a chocolate bar...He told that, he'd never want to go back there again, so at least it had an educational effect on him.
What does it proves ? Show me that there are less crime with more inhuman punishment than without.
There are many ways for drugs to enter prison. Mail, visits, guards... Don't allow mail and visits and you eliminate 2 ways for drugs to enter prison. Keep everyone in solitary and you eliminate the market. Guards might still smuggle drugs in, but at least the trade wouldn't be between the inmates. Have a narco dog check the guards before they come to work and you eliminate that problem as well.How you think drug can enter the prison ? If drug enters the normal cells, it can enter isolation cell too.Other: Imprisonment in solitude would kill the drug dealing etc
Without repentence prison is just an institution for punishment. I think it's role should also be to prevent criminals from repeating their offences. I would never release a prisoner, who doesn't feel remorse.Again, what is important for you in repenting ?maybe even repent.
Erssa wrote:I couldn't agree with you more. Human rights shouldn't be taken for granted. If you violate someone elses human rights, then you freefully forfeit your own. Those human rights should be stripped from the violator the same way a drivers licence is stripped from a drunken driver.
Solitary confinement like this is arguably torture; it has a demonstrable mental effect on people to be confined in such a restrictive manner. And what is your goal here? Punishment, or reform? You're assuming that this is going to "reform" someone, but I think that's extremely debatable.You earn your human rights back by serving your punishment. Preferably in a 2 by 2 meter cell with a bed, toilet and a shower (only cold water). No visitation rights, zero contact with other inmates, no tv, no radio, maybe a newspaper once a week to stay in contact with the outside world, maybe some old school books to keep you "busy". I'm sure even an old mathbook will look like a Dan Brown novel after you have been deprived from the "luxuries" people take for granted. Feed them only the cheapest food possible (oatmeal?) and add some vitamin pills to prevent vitamin deficiency. Concidering millions of people are starving every day they should be thankful for recieving the porridge...
Or drive them completely insane. At which point in time this method has generated an additional cost to society, rather than deriving some sort of benefit.That should give them time to think and reflect their behaviour.
In my opinion human rights are also a privilege, that can be revoked, if you don't respect the rights of other people.Beyonder wrote:
- Driving is a privilege, not a right. This is why someone's driving privilege can be revoked, but their "right" to not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment cannot.
- The whole reason behind having basic, intrinsic rights is to prevent some of the things you go on to describe.
Are you saying Ramzi Yousef was perfectly ok, before he was put to solitary confinemen?Solitary confinement like this is arguably torture; it has a demonstrable mental effect on people to be confined in such a restrictive manner. And what is your goal here? Punishment, or reform? You're assuming that this is going to "reform" someone, but I think that's extremely debatable.
Or drive them completely insane. At which point in time this method has generated an additional cost to society, rather than deriving some sort of benefit.That should give them time to think and reflect their behaviour.
I already gave the sources. But even without studies, it's perfectly logical. Just think about it, if you were fined 1$ for a murder, I'd bet there would be a whole lot more murders. Or if you were fined 1$ for car parking violation, who'd give a damn about where they leave their cars? What if you were given a death penalty for parking violation? I bet everybody would make pretty sure they park their car right...Beyonder wrote:Source please.But it has been proven that softer punishments increase crimes.
So why do you call them rights ? Admit you just don't want human rights, your opinion will get much clearer !Erssa wrote:In my opinion human rights are also a privilege, that can be revoked, if you don't respect the rights of other people.
No it's not ! Say you find it logical.But even without studies, it's perfectly logical.
Would you kill if it was so ? Would you ?Just think about it, if you were fined 1$ for a murder, I'd bet there would be a whole lot more murders.
No, because nobody would get condemned. Because there would always be somebody in the long chain of justice application that wouldn't do his job because his conscience don't allow him to be party to.What if you were given a death penalty for parking violation? I bet everybody would make pretty sure they park their car right...
This contravenes the principle (which underpins the British justice system) that the punishment should be in proportion to the crime; I think we can all agree that being executed for sloppy parking is grossly disproportionate. It's very important that justice is seen to be fair, otherwise it is no justice at all. Also, by having very severe sentences for trivial offences, you are not sending out the message that some crimes are worse than others; after all, if you execute someone for speeding (for example), what will you do to a paedophile? Are you saying someone who parks badly does as much harm to society as paedophiles?What if you were given a death penalty for parking violation? I bet everybody would make pretty sure they park their car right...
Bill Bennett once said when talking about the effects of Roe v. Wade in crime rates:jaganath wrote:This contravenes the principle (which underpins the British justice system) that the punishment should be in proportion to the crime; I think we can all agree that being executed for sloppy parking is grossly disproportionate. It's very important that justice is seen to be fair, otherwise it is no justice at all. Also, by having very severe sentences for trivial offences, you are not sending out the message that some crimes are worse than others; after all, if you execute someone for speeding (for example), what will you do to a paedophile? Are you saying someone who parks badly does as much harm to society as paedophiles?What if you were given a death penalty for parking violation? I bet everybody would make pretty sure they park their car right...
Yeah, I think human rights is a misnomer. After all human rights are a product of welfare in the world, it's a privilege of the rich, just like philantrophy and the pay out is moral superiority. But it's just as easy to take away, as it is for a murderer to the snuff the life out of you. If we lived in a different world, a world of wars, hunger and misery, where survival is your only goal, there is no room for human rights, of course WE don't live in such a world, but some people do.loz wrote:So why do you call them rights ? Admit you just don't want human rights, your opinion will get much clearer !Erssa wrote:In my opinion human rights are also a privilege, that can be revoked, if you don't respect the rights of other people.
Your world is obviously ruled by morals, the real world is not.No it's not ! Say you find it logical.But even without studies, it's perfectly logical.
Maybe, depends on circumstances. World where crime goes totally unpunished is hard to think of, I'd do what it takes to survive. But know this, in a world like that, you and other people like you, would also have to bend on your beliefs of human rights just to survive.Would you kill if it was so ? Would you ?Just think about it, if you were fined 1$ for a murder, I'd bet there would be a whole lot more murders.
You are way too optimistic my friend and it's you who is the dreamer. And that is not the world I dream of, I have the same dreams as most of you, a world where all people can get along, but unlike you, I know this is just a dream and can never be obtained.No, because nobody would get condemned. Because there would always be somebody in the long chain of justice application that wouldn't do his job because his conscience don't allow him to be party to.What if you were given a death penalty for parking violation? I bet everybody would make pretty sure they park their car right...
You are just dreaming the world as you want it to be.
Read the part, where I responded to jaganath.But when a theory doesn't match reality, it's not reality that is wrong. Never.
If you think human rights are a privilege, then it's a bit difficult to respect the rights of others. You'd be respecting the privileges of others. By definition, you cannot revoke a right; that alone makes it not a right, but a privilege. Really what you're stating (or accidentally implying) is that you don't believe in rights, but rather that people have human privileges. Doesn't quite roll off the tongue the same way, does it?Erssa wrote:In my opinion human rights are also a privilege, that can be revoked, if you don't respect the rights of other people.
Umm, duh...How about you tell me if you think I'm saying a 9/11 hijacker is "perfectly ok?"Are you saying Ramzi Yousef was perfectly ok, before he was put to solitary confinemen?
:P:PYou've got it backwards: because I care about the lives of other people, I care about the mental health of people charged and/or convicted of crimes. The last thing anybody needs are these people leaving prison worse off then when they arrived.I guess the lives of other people don't really matter, when you have the mental health and rights of a murderer to worry about...
Please give me the sources again. There's a pretty gigantic difference between "perfectly logical" and "reality", so humor me.I already gave the sources. But even without studies, it's perfectly logical. Just think about it, if you were fined 1$ for a murder, I'd bet there would be a whole lot more murders. Or if you were fined 1$ for car parking violation, who'd give a damn about where they leave their cars? What if you were given a death penalty for parking violation? I bet everybody would make pretty sure they park their car right...
What about taxes? I can assure you, that if you lowered the penalty for tax fraud, there'd be plenty more people doing it...
Like I said, human rights is a misnomer. You are going into semantics here. When I say I respect someones human rights, I respect his privilege to be treated equally to everyone else. There simply are not any universal human rights. It's not uncommon for a human rights to be limited or restricted. Take freedom of speech for example, which basically says: "Everybody has the right to voice their mind, until you say something some people in your country or somewhere else doesn't accept. For example defamation, obscenity, blasphemy or hate speech." For example David Irving was incarcerated just because he told his opinion about holocaust. It seems that even freedom of speech, which is a conceptual human right, is different in different countries. Try going to Iran and voice your opinion how Muhammed was a pedofile for having a 9 year old wife Ayesha, and see what happens to your rights. While you cannot say this in Iran without getting stoned to death, it's pretty safe to utter it in Finland or in the USA. Universal rights cannot really exist, because they clash with cultures. I could imagine that, from a muslims point of view Human Rights aren't an universal objective right for everyone, but instead a law, a product of corrupt kuffars of the immoral western societys, that defame the words of Allah spoken in the holy Q'ran - the only set of rules a true righteous muslim has to follow. Even though Freedom of Speech, might seem like a universal concept for a secular humanist like me, or some western christian like you(?), it definately isn't universal.Beyonder wrote:If you think human rights are a privilege, then it's a bit difficult to respect the rights of others. You'd be respecting the privileges of others.Erssa wrote:In my opinion human rights are also a privilege, that can be revoked, if you don't respect the rights of other people.
Yes, this is exactly what I'm stating. A society is a group of individuals who share their rules of play. In my society, there would be no room for absolute and uncontentested rights. Human rights, just like every other ruling and law in a society should be dynamic and shaped to fit the society and to bend for greater good. Especially to protect those who follow the laws and rules. Human rights rights go wrong, when they protect criminals at the expense of other people. When a criminal does wrong, he willingly gives away his privilege to be treated as equal member of the society. So he loses all his privileges of belonging to the community. And while laws should always serve the greater good, they should never violate privileges of those who follow the rules.By definition, you cannot revoke a right; that alone makes it not a right, but a privilege. Really what you're stating (or accidentally implying) is that you don't believe in rights, but rather that people have human privileges. Doesn't quite roll off the tongue the same way, does it?
While I think you may have made the above statement in haste, I totally disagree with it. I think people should have fundamental, basic rights. This includes not being subject to cruel and unusual punishment, for a number of reasons too varied and established to ennumerate in this thread.
You are implying this, just like the article. You don't get solitary confinement for no reason. These people have been put there for a reason, they most likely had psychopathic tendencies before they were put there. People like Ramzi Yousef would never be productive members of society, no matter how you treat them in prison. This solitary confiment served a purpose, it was to protect people outside from the terrorist plots of Yousef, while he is inside.Umm, duh...How about you tell me if you think I'm saying a 9/11 hijacker is "perfectly ok?"Are you saying Ramzi Yousef was perfectly ok, before he was put to solitary confinemen?
I'm sure that if I wanted to go through the trouble (which I don't), I could easily find an expert to contradict your experts...Needless to say, this isn't the point. The final statement in the article is the point: "Most of these people that are in these cells, 23 hours a day, are going to eventually be released," said Levin, "and they are going to come out a lot worse than how they went in."
...so, in advocating this sort of treatment, are you advocating a punitive measure based around retribution or a measure that's actually going to improve society? Correctional experts seem to disagree with you: people subject to this sort of treatment leave prison worse than when they arrived, which is (in my opinion) a gigantic tragedy.
Well first of all this is the kind of article that I find the least reliable on wikipedia, because it serves a political purpose. After saying that, this is exactly the case of human rights/privileges I'm talking about. This guy clearly was involved in terrorist activities and you cry for his human rights, when the U.S goverment probably saved countless of lives having him incarcerated. I find torturing of these criminals perfectly acceptable. It should be allowed in the law and done with pride.Here is an even more atrocious example. Is it too much to ask that someone be charged and convicted before being driven insane by years of solitary confinement?
I agree, if they aren't suitable to go back to society, don't release them...You've got it backwards: because I care about the lives of other people, I care about the mental health of people charged and/or convicted of crimes. The last thing anybody needs are these people leaving prison worse off then when they arrived.I guess the lives of other people don't really matter, when you have the mental health and rights of a murderer to worry about...
If you don't bother to read my post, I doubt you'd read the books either. I think you're gonna have to find some other way to humor yourself.Please give me the sources again. There's a pretty gigantic difference between "perfectly logical" and "reality", so humor me.I already gave the sources. But even without studies, it's perfectly logical. Just think about it, if you were fined 1$ for a murder, I'd bet there would be a whole lot more murders. Or if you were fined 1$ for car parking violation, who'd give a damn about where they leave their cars? What if you were given a death penalty for parking violation? I bet everybody would make pretty sure they park their car right...
What about taxes? I can assure you, that if you lowered the penalty for tax fraud, there'd be plenty more people doing it...
How are you any better than the terrorists then? They torture their captives also, no doubt with pride.I find torturing of these criminals perfectly acceptable. It should be allowed in the law and done with pride.
As they say in the American vernacular, no shit, Sherlock. This is a truism; something so obvious it is vacuous to point it out.Everything has a price, and I mean everything.
His opinion about the holocaust being that it didn't happen. I'm actually suprised by how many countries make it a criminal offence to deny the holocaust; I don't actually agree with that, theoretically you should be able to say anything you like, although why do we make such a big distinction in the West between hurting someone with actions and hurting them with words? You don't think it hurts the Jews to hear someone say their relatives weren't murdered and tortured by Hitler?For example David Irving was incarcerated just because he told his opinion about holocaust.
You mean different countries have different laws? Wow, you must be the first person to figure that out!It seems that even freedom of speech, which is a conceptual human right, is different in different countries.
I'm sure they torture. Yeah, maybe we shouldn't lower ourselves to their level, just so we can feel morally superior. I guess it's more convenient to stand at a pedastal, when blood starts to flow (keeps your feet dry). Don't mind the victims, at least you know you are better then the bad guys (or me).jaganath wrote:How are you any better than the terrorists then? They torture their captives also, no doubt with pride.I find torturing of these criminals perfectly acceptable. It should be allowed in the law and done with pride.
Oh, the sarcasm! Obviously it still needs to be pointed out, that the feeling of moral superiority comes at a price.As they say in the American vernacular, no shit, Sherlock. This is a truism; something so obvious it is vacuous to point it out.Everything has a price, and I mean everything.
I always thought it was pretty obvious.why do we make such a big distinction in the West between hurting someone with actions and hurting them with words?
I think it probably hurts many Jews. But, if we punished/incarcerated people everytime their opinion hurts someones feelings we'd live in prisons and talk only of weather.You don't think it hurts the Jews to hear someone say their relatives weren't murdered and tortured by Hitler?
You clearly have a talent for singling out the important and relevant parts of my post. At this point, I feel completely overwhelmed by your witty sarcasm.You mean different countries have different laws? Wow, you must be the first person to figure that out!It seems that even freedom of speech, which is a conceptual human right, is different in different countries.
I would for sure. Iraq is in a Civil War. It's so 'free' it's in anarchy. What good came from our human rights intervention? Was it in any way in the best interest of the US to replace a Stalinist with a civil war that will likely lead to the empowerment of extremist Shia? Also, the weak government cannot police its territory and prevent terrorist training as easily now, and the educated middle class has largely fled.Saddam would still be alive along with his terrorist regime...... I get the feeling some around here would prefer that be the case.
Intelligence gained from torture is next to useless, as they will say anything you want to make the torture stop; they will even tell you you are an intelligent human being if you really make them! So don't try and pull that "you don't care about the victims" crap; it's a pragmatic issue as much as a moral one.I'm sure they torture. Yeah, maybe we shouldn't lower ourselves to their level, just so we can feel morally superior. I guess it's more convenient to stand at a pedastal, when blood starts to flow (keeps your feet dry). Don't mind the victims, at least you know you are better then the bad guys (or me).
That's not an answer. I suppose because physical and financial damage can be quantified and catalogued on a rap sheet; but for example in a crime such as rape arguably the physical hurt is nowhere near as damaging in the long-term as the emotional impact; so because we can't use a machine to say "this person suffered X% emotional damage". suddenly it doesn't exist? Try and deal with the point this time, instead of responding with a non-answer.why do we make such a big distinction in the West between hurting someone with actions and hurting them with words?
I always thought it was pretty obvious.
You completely missed my point. Rights only exist where they are enshrined in the legal framework of a country and enforced effectively, otherwise they are just pretty scribbles on a page. Different countries have different legal codes and traditions (although the EU is to some extent trying to achieve some measure of legal harmonisation) and therefore rights that exist in one country may be completely absent in another, depending on the legal framework.You clearly have a talent for singling out the important and relevant parts of my post. At this point, I feel completely overwhelmed by your witty sarcasm.
There must be a place for such discussions though for a self-governing society, e.g universities, private institutions/businesses, and certain internet sites. In such private groups, discussion ought to be regulated by whomever is in charge I think.jaganath wrote:although why do we make such a big distinction in the West between hurting someone with actions and hurting them with words? You don't think it hurts the Jews to hear someone say their relatives weren't murdered and tortured by Hitler?
Coming from the expert on torture, it really must be so. But what would prevent verification of the information?jaganath wrote:Intelligence gained from torture is next to useless, as they will say anything you want to make the torture stop;I'm sure they torture. Yeah, maybe we shouldn't lower ourselves to their level, just so we can feel morally superior. I guess it's more convenient to stand at a pedastal, when blood starts to flow (keeps your feet dry). Don't mind the victims, at least you know you are better then the bad guys (or me).
What an outrageous lie!they will even tell you you are an intelligent human being if you really make them!
What ever makes you feel better...So don't try and pull that "you don't care about the victims" crap; it's a pragmatic issue as much as a moral one.
I wouldn't call myself a definite authority on why West does something or doesn't, but if someone could be punished for hurting someone else with words, there'd be no end to lawsuits. Not to mention, it would be impossible to give fair sentences, because, like you said, it's impossible to measure the sensitivity of an individual and how much something can hurt that individual. For example, if I was a sensitive person, I could ask that you apologise to me, for implying that I'm not a intelligent human being.That's not an answer.why do we make such a big distinction in the West between hurting someone with actions and hurting them with words?
I always thought it was pretty obvious.
Very arguable, as you said, but this has nothing to do with being hurt from words. This kind of emotional pain is already taken into account, when sentences are given and rapist is ordered to pay reparations for emotional damages.I suppose because physical and financial damage can be quantified and catalogued on a rap sheet;
but for example in a crime such as rape arguably the physical hurt is nowhere near as damaging in the long-term as the emotional impact;
Like I said it's being done already and without a machine for that matter. But I still think it's obvious, why it doens't apply to something said by a person.so because we can't use a machine to say "this person suffered X% emotional damage". suddenly it doesn't exist?Try and deal with the point this time, instead of responding with a non-answer.
You completely missed my point.You clearly have a talent for singling out the important and relevant parts of my post. At this point, I feel completely overwhelmed by your witty sarcasm.
Yet you had to point the obvious, for the second time? I have to admit, I missed the relevancy.You mean different countries have different laws? Wow, you must be the first person to figure that out!It seems that even freedom of speech, which is a conceptual human right, is different in different countries.
And again for the second time, you quote and adress something that has nothing to do with the actual message of my text. Yeah, I really must have missed your point. Because to me it seems, you selected those quotes just to nitpick.As they say in the American vernacular, no shit, Sherlock. This is a truism; something so obvious it is vacuous to point it out.Everything has a price, and I mean everything.
Was this your point? I guess I have to improve my skills on reading between the lines. That said, I agree with you.Rights only exist where they are enshrined in the legal framework of a country and enforced effectively, otherwise they are just pretty scribbles on a page. Different countries have different legal codes and traditions (although the EU is to some extent trying to achieve some measure of legal harmonisation) and therefore rights that exist in one country may be completely absent in another, depending on the legal framework.
I couldn't possibly tell, you'd have to ask a Finnish peon. But I'd speculate, that probably for the same reason some British students adore the little red book...By the way, why does a Finnish peon seem to read exclusively neo-conservative American right-wing drivel?
You're missing the point. If he was "clearly" involved in terrorist activities, then why not charge him and have him convicted, thus offering him his right to habeus corpus, and a fair/impartial trial as a U.S. citizen? What is the benefit to "countless lives" saved and the federal government to not give Padilla his right to be charged and stand trial? I'll answer for you: there is no benefit, not to Padilla, to the U.S. government, nor to innocent people. If Padilla is convicted, then he can be incarcerated. Same result. If he's innocent, then he can be released.Erssa wrote:Well first of all this is the kind of article that I find the least reliable on wikipedia, because it serves a political purpose. After saying that, this is exactly the case of human rights/privileges I'm talking about. This guy clearly was involved in terrorist activities and you cry for his human rights, when the U.S goverment probably saved countless of lives having him incarcerated.Here is an even more atrocious example. Is it too much to ask that someone be charged and convicted before being driven insane by years of solitary confinement?
Of course it does. So far, the only price of illegally detaining Padilla seems to be his sanity and the government's credibility. You seem to think there's some benefit to the way Padilla is being treated, but it's absolutely non sequitur: if he's guilty, then let it be demonstrated, and let him be incarcerated. If not, he should be set free. In any event, it would result in Padilla not going insane, "countless lives" being saved, and the government not undermining their credibility.Everything has a price, and I mean everything.
Again, this is totally besides the point. What you're advocating is more analogous to dropping a third or forth bomb on Japan to really drive the point home (we won't even get into the discussion of whether or not the second bomb was needed). Or another example of "extreme" punishment gone wrong within the context of a bastardized historical perspective would be the Versailles Treaty. The "punishment" did nothing but worsen an already exacerbated position.This same princible is what morally justified the use of atom bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasagi, great human tragedies, that served greater purpose in preventing even greater human tragedies. For me, the limit is a just one person. I'd trade a criminal for an innocent any day.
...that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that jail shouldn't be making criminals into hardened and/or insane criminals. Seems like your current plan is "hey, let's toss them in prison, drive them insane via solitary confinement, and then not allow them to be released because they're insane!" If you don't see the obvious conflict of interests with the overall welfare of society (i.e. not having correctional system spend obscene amounts of money jailing people, and not having people be made worse in prison), then we have little left to discuss.I agree, if they aren't suitable to go back to society, don't release them...You've got it backwards: because I care about the lives of other people, I care about the mental health of people charged and/or convicted of crimes. The last thing anybody needs are these people leaving prison worse off then when they arrived.I guess the lives of other people don't really matter, when you have the mental health and rights of a murderer to worry about...
You're not getting it. They couldn't allow him habeas corpus, because they considered he was holding valuable information, inside a prison, he would have been basically untouchable. By the count of charges, it seems he really was connected with Al'Qaida. They deliberately ran over his rights. I'm also pretty sure he was tortured, if not physically, then at least mentally.Beyonder wrote:You're missing the point. If he was "clearly" involved in terrorist activities, then why not charge him and have him convicted, thus offering him his right to habeus corpus, and a fair/impartial trial as a U.S. citizen? What is the benefit to "countless lives" saved and the federal government to not give Padilla his right to be charged and stand trial? I'll answer for you: there is no benefit, not to Padilla, to the U.S. government, nor to innocent people. If Padilla is convicted, then he can be incarcerated. Same result. If he's innocent, then he can be released. To drive the point home: if he's truly guilty, then the U.S. government hasn't saved a single additional life by limiting Padilla's rights, and they've also hindered their credibility to combat terrorism, thus subjecting "countless lives" to potential peril.
The charges have been filed. I guess U.S intelligence has no more use for Padilla.If he is guilty, then it should be easily demonstrable in a court of law by bringing formal charges against Padilla, and convicting him.
Well I cannot know, but I suspect that Padillas aprehension helped to prevent a terrorist attack, or at least it helped U.S officials to close in on a terrorist cell. It was done at the cost of Padillas rights.So unless you can think of an obvious benefit of illegally detaining someone, I don't understand how there has been any benefit to anyone regarding the way Padilla has been treated. It damages the U.S. government's ability to execute the war on terror, and does not "save countless lives" over the option of charging and trying him.
Government's credibility? War against terrorism isn't a PR campaign. European socialist elite doesn't need excuses like Padilla to hate the USA, so nothing is lost. For the rest of us? It sends a message USA ain't doing any half measures.So far, the only price of illegally detaining Padilla seems to be his sanity and the government's credibility.
The benefit doesn't lie in the way he is treated per se. It's the motives behind the treatment. His case is now in the court and he will most likely be sentenced shortly.You seem to think there's some benefit to the way Padilla is being treated, but it's absolutely non sequitur: if he's guilty, then let it be demonstrated, and let him be incarcerated. If not, he should be set free. In any event, it would result in Padilla not going insane, "countless lives" being saved, and the government not undermining their credibility.
It's easy to speculate, that the second bomb wasn't needed, when you have perfect hindsight.Again, this is totally besides the point. What you're advocating is more analogous to dropping a third or forth bomb on Japan to really drive the point home (we won't even get into the discussion of whether or not the second bomb was needed).This same princible is what morally justified the use of atom bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasagi, great human tragedies, that served greater purpose in preventing even greater human tragedies. For me, the limit is a just one person. I'd trade a criminal for an innocent any day.
I actually think this is a pretty good example. Although I don't think you can apply the same princible to a country, that can be applied to an individual. I think mankind has learned from their mistakes. That's why only Saddam was sentenced to death, instead of burdening Iraq with the same kind of unpayable debt France forced on Germany in the treaty of Versailles.Or another example of "extreme" punishment gone wrong within the context of a bastardized historical perspective would be the Versailles Treaty. The "punishment" did nothing but worsen an already exacerbated position.
My argued idea of solitary confinement doens't exist in real world. You cannot draw conclusions from the current info on solitary confinement, because:In any event, these historical comparisons are getting away from your idea that solitary confinement is a swell idea. What I'm arguing is that your proposed "correctional" methods are:
1. Contrary to what correctional experts suggest (and please: do find evidence contrary)
2. Likely to make things worse than better.
In this case, without a doubt. Like Jaganath said earlier punishment has to fit the crime.You seem to think there's this obvious benefit to harsher punishments, which is what I'm contesting. Taking your "execution for parking illegally" example, do you agree that this policy would ultimately hurt society?
Here's where you are wrong, it would be effective, but the practicality and sensibility can be questioned. Of course the severe punishments would be spared for only the severest of crimes, violent crimes.That's the only point I'm making: just because a punishment is severe does not make it effective or practical.
Yeah I knew, what you meant from the beginning, I just answered to it with a bad joke....that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that jail shouldn't be making criminals into hardened and/or insane criminals. Seems like your current plan is "hey, let's toss them in prison, drive them insane via solitary confinement, and then not allow them to be released because they're insane!" If you don't see the obvious conflict of interests with the overall welfare of society (i.e. not having correctional system spend obscene amounts of money jailing people, and not having people be made worse in prison), then we have little left to discuss.