pros: gov't saves money
cons: criminals get off easy
that's all
Printable View
pros: gov't saves money
cons: criminals get off easy
that's all
[QUOTE=Dresta] you'd like to wipe out half the population if you could.[/QUOTE]
Perfect. Then we'd be living in a utopia. Only people with something to hide should be worried by my plan.
[QUOTE=D-FENS]Perfect. Then we'd be living in a utopia. Only people with something to hide should be worried by my plan.[/QUOTE]
I think you mean dystopia, otherwise you're pretty deranged.
[QUOTE=D-FENS]Great post. I think in clear-cut cases the Chinese method is great. If you agree to live within a society you agree to abide by the rules. If you can't respect the rights of others, then you should not be a part of that society.
I really think that so many countries have it wrong right now. We have a worldwide population crisis and most countries have huge financial problems.
We should be working on a 10 points death system as follows:
10 - murder
9 - rape
8 - attempted murder
7 - business corruption related offences
6 - Making class A drugs
5 - Dealing class A drugs
4 - fraud
3 - theft
2 - common assault
1 - Drink driving
So let's see here. If you were 100% guilty of rape with out any doubt, you are awarded 9 points. 1 more point and you get the death penalty. That person would either have to fit in or f[COLOR="Black"]u[/COLOR]ck off. If they drove drunk just once, they would be given the death penalty.
How about that drunk guy that keeps getting behind the wheel no matter how many times they attend AA, or what other interventions take place. 10 times doing that and we kill him.
It seems very fair to me, but ONLY if we have all the required evidence.
Look at countries like Canada and New Zealand. They believe in reforming all criminals, shit you can kill and rape someone in either country and potentially do less than 20 years in prison. That's a terrible system, and it's basically the only point of contention for me with liberal/democratic parties.[/QUOTE]
I dont agree with the way you have ranked the crimes, but this point based execution system is actually an interesting idea. Good thinking.
[QUOTE=ForeverHeat]I dont agree with the way you have ranked the crimes, but this point based execution system is actually an interesting idea. Good thinking.[/QUOTE]
I don;t agree with my rankings either, I was just trying to put different crimes on a scale so each point would be represented.
It would be great to put recidivist drunk drivers to death
[QUOTE=Dresta]I think you mean dystopia, otherwise you're pretty deranged.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://media.giphy.com/media/UHMiW2FEBTOCI/giphy.gif[/IMG]
A world without violence!
[QUOTE=D-FENS]I don;t agree with my rankings either, I was just trying to put different crimes on a scale so each point would be represented.
It would be great to put recidivist drunk drivers to death[/QUOTE]
I get where your coming from, but a lot of serial drunk drivers dont have malicious intentions towards others. They probably arent bad people. They are mostly alcoholics who want to stop but cant, thus resulting in multiple drink-driving cases. With help these people can become well functioning members of society, its a bit too extreme to start killing them.
[QUOTE=D-FENS]Perfect. Then we'd be living in a utopia. Only people with something to hide should be worried by my plan.[/QUOTE]
You have one sick, warped, and ethically-twisted belief system. Do you enjoy fantasizing about playing ruler in this chthonic society you've constructed? Just execute all of the wrongdoers! There's nothing wrong with bloodshed if I don't like the people being cut down! Nobody can repent of their mistakes! All criminals are addicted to crime, so we might as well kill them before they get the chance to do it again! A regime of violence that is supposedly opposed to it...
[QUOTE=travelingman]You have one sick, warped, and ethically-twisted belief system. Do you enjoy fantasizing about playing ruler in this chthonic society you've constructed? [B]Just execute all of the constant wrongdoers that never show signs of staying away from crime![/B] There's nothing wrong with bloodshed if I don't like the people being cut down! Nobody can repent of their mistakes! All criminals are addicted to crime, so we might as well kill them before they get the chance to do it again! A regime of violence that is supposedly opposed to it...[/QUOTE]
Fixed
[QUOTE=D-FENS]Fixed[/QUOTE]
That's so much better!
:facepalm
It's simple. Nikkas that deserve to die, get put down.
People against it are pvssies.
[QUOTE=dude77]are you including there unrepentant, violent offenders like child rapists/murderers ?[/QUOTE]
My main issues are inmates being subjected to violence and rape. I think that's inhumane no matter what you did, and everyone should be protected way better than we do now. The social attitude that prison fights and rape are justifiable revenge against rapists is morally wrong. First of all those people may be innocent in many cases. Second, we are all humans and all could have wound up like any other. Good circumstance like where we were born and how our parents raised us, things completely out of our control, are the only reason we are not the ones doing crime and making mistakes. I think compassion is necessary.
From there, I could imagine a system where inmates that do the most positive can gain more allowances. I'm not saying prison should be Disney world. But it should be possible to earn better food, more sunlight, or more entertainment if you show you're striving to be a better person.
[URL="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/27/babysitter-jailed-three-year-old-boy"]This babysitter gave a 3 year old boy she was babysitting to a known paedophile who drugged and raped him twice.[/URL] I showed the article to my friends and told them I thought he deserves the death penalty but the disagree for varying reasons
EDIT - I should add that we don't have the death penalty in England. It was abolished completely in 1969 after a man named Derek Bentley was hanged after he was found guilty of the murder of a police man. His accomplice killed the officer but he was under 18 and so couldn't be executed. Bentley was found guilty under "joint enterprise".
[QUOTE=KobesFinger][URL="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/27/babysitter-jailed-three-year-old-boy"]This babysitter gave a 3 year old boy she was babysitting to a known paedophile who drugged and raped him twice.[/URL] I showed the article to my friends and told them I thought he deserves the death penalty but the disagree for varying reasons
EDIT - I should add that we don't have the death penalty in England. It was abolished completely in 1969 after a man named Derek Bentley was hanged after he was found guilty of the murder of a police man. His accomplice killed the officer but he was under 18 and so couldn't be executed. Bentley was found guilty under "joint enterprise".[/QUOTE]
:( :facepalm
[QUOTE=D-FENS]Great post. I think in clear-cut cases the Chinese method is great. If you agree to live within a society you agree to abide by the rules. If you can't respect the rights of others, then you should not be a part of that society.
I really think that so many countries have it wrong right now. We have a worldwide population crisis and most countries have huge financial problems.
We should be working on a 10 points death system as follows:
10 - murder
9 - rape
8 - attempted murder
7 - business corruption related offences
6 - Making class A drugs
5 - Dealing class A drugs
4 - fraud
3 - theft
2 - common assault
1 - Drink driving
So let's see here. If you were 100% guilty of rape with out any doubt, you are awarded 9 points. 1 more point and you get the death penalty. That person would either have to fit in or f[COLOR="Black"]u[/COLOR]ck off. If they drove drunk just once, they would be given the death penalty.
How about that drunk guy that keeps getting behind the wheel no matter how many times they attend AA, or what other interventions take place. 10 times doing that and we kill him.
It seems very fair to me, but ONLY if we have all the required evidence.
Look at countries like Canada and New Zealand. They believe in reforming all criminals, shit you can kill and rape someone in either country and potentially do less than 20 years in prison. That's a terrible system, and it's basically the only point of contention for me with liberal/democratic parties.[/QUOTE]
Ι completely disagree that the sum of an x amount of petty crimes can equal the severity of a much graver crime. To put it more mathematically, this is like claiming that having 4 2.0-richter scale earthquakes would give you 1 of M-8.0.
I don't care if someone is caught 100 time DUI, as long as this is his only crime and nothing more, this should still belong to the "1" category, not "10 murders" and be punished by what is expected by DUI (but multiple times over). If he's caused an accident, death, injury, whatever, he should receive each punishment separately, not a punishment derived by the sum of all his crimes.
Neither do I agree that the value of a human life is "a bit above protecting yourself from being raped". Serious a crime as a rape may be, murder should still stand at a category of its own. To make another analogy, it's like comparing the King in chess to everything else. Losing your Queen, Bishop, etc, may suck, but there's still a possibility of recovery, have your King captured and it's all over.