Civil death sentences, what do you think of them?

[cronus]

What a primitive mind. Go back to the middle ages.

It is more middle ages than the middle ages ever were with these days.

[Svartalf]

[pErvinalia]

Um ok. So explain how a person would be "forced" to seek retribution. This should be a laff..

Just like Hermit, you wouldn't understand.

I'm pretty sure I would, if it was even possible to make such a patently absurd argument. I mean, come on. You don't seriously believe this shit, do you? You said something stupid, and now you are pretending like it is beneath you to explain your point. And I see down the page in your next response to Dutchy you pulled the smiley out. As I said in another thread, when that smiley comes out it's always an indication that you've lost your argument. It's like clockwork.

[mistermack]

I've yet to see any of you wankers state what justice is, and how it doesn't involve retribution.

I know when I've won by default, and this is yet another case.

[JimC]

Deterrence, and keeping the community safe from further offences should be the key, emotionally neutral aims of prison sentences; there is no need to add primitive emotional ideas of retribution to the mix. I add the possibility of rehabilitation, with a benefit of reducing future crime from released prisoners, but concede that it is rather hit or miss.

[mistermack]

Deterrence, and keeping the community safe from further offences should be the key, emotionally neutral aims of prison sentences; there is no need to add primitive emotional ideas of retribution to the mix. I add the possibility of rehabilitation, with a benefit of reducing future crime from released prisoners, but concede that it is rather hit or miss.

It's a bit condescending to call the desire for retribution primitive, when it's probably the first thing that 99 victims out of a hundred want.
If your ninety five year old mother got battered close to death by some scumbag burglar, I'll bet that keeping the community safe would run a distant second to wanting the shitbag to suffer.
And there's nothing wrong with it. They should suffer.

Of course, if you shoved a microphone under people's noses, and asked them if they wanted criminals to suffer, they might very well come out with some of the pious shit that people have written here.
Especially when it's happened to someone else. It all changes when it gets personal.

Anyway, what is the point of all this concern for criminals all of a sudden?
I'm an atheist, I don't believe in souls, and I don't care about redemption of criminals. Why should I? Just because some bunch of bleeding hearts plead their cause?
I care about the innocent victims, and don't give a fuck about the guilty, and how they got led astray.

Are people claiming that good and evil exist, independent of a god, and we should all be good and kind to people, even if they act in the most depraved manner?
What's the actual basis for that, other than it's the current fashion?
A few hundred years ago, the fashion was for severe retribution. What makes you right, and them wrong, other than the current "consensus" point of view that is constantly peddled at you in liberal media?

[Hermit]

There's really no need to dig any further.

[mistermack]

There's really no need to dig any further.

Oooooooooooooohhhhh !

I seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee !!

Is THAT why all I'm seeing is arseholes these days???

[JimC]

The fact that I or others may feel a strong emotional reaction to violent crime, particularly if it affects loved ones, should not be a relevant factor in setting policy for incarceration. What matters is reducing such occurrences as much as possible, which calls for a rational and unemotional approach. I'm certainly in favour of making prisons uninviting places, if that adds to the deterrent factor, and I question the lengths of some sentences and the ease of parole. However, one doesn't need to regard criminals with misplaced sympathy to understand that they retain some basic rights. Prisons should be very well organised and tightly controlled - if only for the reason of keeping them so, violence among inmates must be reduced to a rare minimum, with increased sentences for perpetrators and employment consequences for incompetent guards.
Prisoners also need access to basic medical services, and for those who want it, educational programs/counselling services to reduce the rate of recidivism as much as possible.

[pErvinalia]

I've yet to see any of you wankers state what justice is, and how it doesn't involve retribution.

This has nothing to do with your claim that people will be "forced" to seek retribution. No one will be forced to do anything. They might choose to do so, but that's not being "forced". And as Jim, I think it was, said, acts of retribution have gone down as we've reduced more barbaric methods of justice.

[laklak]

Retribution isn't, or at least shouldn't be, the purpose of the criminal justice system. If someone seriously hurt or killed someone I loved I wouldn't seek retribution, I'd just want to be sure they didn't do it to anyone else. I think the best way to ensure that is to encase their feet in concrete and drop them into 10,000 feet of salt water. Or run them through a wood chipper feet first. Either would work.

[pErvinalia]

I have no problem saying I'd kill someone who seriously harmed or killed my kids. I'd quite possibly still do it after they got out of jail. I'm a bit unique, probably, in that I'm more your thinking person's bogan. It's probably because I am an existentialist who borders on nihilism. But I do have a pragmatic side, and that's why I'm happy to support the concept of state sanctioned justice. However, I don't believe in the death penalty. I believe in it if it was a victim's closest kin exacting it themselves, but the state should definitely not have the right to do it. For a number of reasons that everyone has heard of before (that I'm too lazy to go into).

[pErvinalia]

Or run them through a wood chipper feet first.

Timely. There's just been an arrest in Gympie (Australia's Florida, or Alabama, or general deep south town) of two men who fed another man (a work colleague I think) into a woodchipper. When it happened a few years ago, the inquiry ruled it an accident. But they decided that the colleagues did. Fuck, that's a brutal way to off someone.

[laklak]

Yeah it's pretty hard core if you think about it. Probably takes a while, too. Bet they wiggle around a bit, but if you stun them first it wouldn't be as satisfying.

I still like the idea of concrete and deep water, though. Could use the dinghy hoist to lower them in slowly, maybe pull them up a few times to catch their breath before you cut the line. Fuck with me, asshole??

[laklak]

Duplicate.