It all depends on the crime. If someone is guilty of raping a woman, "sterylize" him. If they are caught thieving, cut off a hand. If they beat someone up, beat them up. If they embezzle funds from whatever source, take their money away from them and use it to benefit the whole community. Tax Evasion? *FORCE* them to pay double taxes to make up for the time they evaded. It's a farely simple "Hammurabi" style view I have on it. Hard labor would only be for certain cases, which I care not to verify on right now.
Death penalty is fine - that way there is more food and resources for the rest of us. They'll just take up that much less space when they're dead. It's not ever "nice" to kill someone, but if the crime is worthy of it (meaning they probably killed or did some inconceivable act to someone else) they should be killed immediately after a trial, if one is necessary.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Onuma+Feb 13 2003, 05:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Onuma @ Feb 13 2003, 05:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> if one is necessary. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The amount that this sentence angers me is not expressable without delving into the prefix "macro".
I think that the better punishment for this man is that he stay in prision all his life, i don´t believe in the death of the guilty as a solution. Is better one life in the prision.
<!--QuoteBegin--AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Feb 13 2003, 05:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Feb 13 2003, 05:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Onuma+Feb 13 2003, 05:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Onuma @ Feb 13 2003, 05:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> if one is necessary. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The amount that this sentence angers me is not expressable without delving into the prefix "macro". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If a tourist, for example, with a recording video camera is walking around some desolate streets and sees someone strut up to another person, stab him in the spine, and kill him...there is evidence enough there to prove the case without needing to go to trial.
There is always arrainment (forgive my spelling), plea bargains, etc. How can such evidence be disregarded - if the man states his case as "guilty" and owns up to the consequences there need not be a trial.
If you didn't understand THAT much, your anger is ignorance.
A grand jury can indict him, and he can plead guilty before a judge. Thus, a trial in front of a petit jury would not be required. The jury would be there, but would not take part.
What's most disturbing about this thread are not even the inhumane revengemongers, but the example of a "criminal" used in the first post.
A man who drove while being drunk. And then people start talking about capital punishment, as if this _accident_ was in any way comparable to an assault or a murder.
When talking about just punishments, the primary thing to consider is not the end result (horrible in this car accident, I admit) but the _intent_ of the person on trial.
And this man's guilt is quite small: He did not want to harm anybody, he is just too incompetent to drive a car. He should be fined and his driver's license revoked permanently.
And now go ahead and preach how every human being that sinned once must be hanged, tortured and buried alive or whatever. Fortunately I live in a country which doesn't utilize a jury in jurisdiction, so this eye-for-an-eye lynchmob mentality is not going to have any impact on real verdicts.
Comments
Death penalty is fine - that way there is more food and resources for the rest of us. They'll just take up that much less space when they're dead.
It's not ever "nice" to kill someone, but if the crime is worthy of it (meaning they probably killed or did some inconceivable act to someone else) they should be killed immediately after a trial, if one is necessary.
The amount that this sentence angers me is not expressable without delving into the prefix "macro".
The amount that this sentence angers me is not expressable without delving into the prefix "macro". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If a tourist, for example, with a recording video camera is walking around some desolate streets and sees someone strut up to another person, stab him in the spine, and kill him...there is evidence enough there to prove the case without needing to go to trial.
There is always arrainment (forgive my spelling), plea bargains, etc. How can such evidence be disregarded - if the man states his case as "guilty" and owns up to the consequences there need not be a trial.
If you didn't understand THAT much, your anger is ignorance.
And besides, once you start putting people who are "unquestionably" guilty away, how long till you put away people who are "most likely" guilty?
I WIN!!!!
Hence the use of the word <b><i>IF</i></b>.
Think before you speak, it might do you some good.
You=Pwned and I win.
I just don't care to add every if/and/but to my statements. If someone is going to question my words - question them as a whole, don't nitpick.
A man who drove while being drunk. And then people start talking about capital punishment, as if this _accident_ was in any way comparable to an assault or a murder.
When talking about just punishments, the primary thing to consider is not the end result (horrible in this car accident, I admit) but the _intent_ of the person on trial.
And this man's guilt is quite small: He did not want to harm anybody, he is just too incompetent to drive a car. He should be fined and his driver's license revoked permanently.
And now go ahead and preach how every human being that sinned once must be hanged, tortured and buried alive or whatever. Fortunately I live in a country which doesn't utilize a jury in jurisdiction, so this eye-for-an-eye lynchmob mentality is not going to have any impact on real verdicts.