Penal System

by Omnipotent June 8th 2009, 6:44 am

I think theres something wrong with our penal system. Criminals are put in jail so they can reflect on what they've done wrong an learn from their mistakes, but in reality jail inmates meet other notorious inmates and by hanging around with these ppl they forget the purpose for which they are in jail or just don't care anymore. When these ppl get outta prison they find the friends from prison and basically the cycle starts all over again.

Punishment is supposed to make a person realize what they've done is wrong and should never do it again, after all, ppl are punished because we want them to learn and become better people, so whats with the Capital Punishment?That in itself is a contradiction because how can u become a better person if ur dead? I understand why some ppl would want it for mass murders and terrorists but couldn't they be put into jail for life ?

I think all jails should just be work camps where if u commit a crime, u go there and u have to work for the duration of the time ur there, in places like farms and factories, that would benefit society instead of wasting the food the government has to provide for u and rotting in a jail cell.

Post what u think the penal system should be like or ur views on it.

by Guest June 8th 2009, 6:54 am

My wiew is EXACTLY EVERYTHING YOU SAID!!

But Capital Punishment is neccasary for extreme violators of law, so that it shows others who plan to do the same act to refrain from it, becasue of the fair of death. We are all human, thus we all fair death(for the most part).

If you teach one before one makes a mistake then the mistake won't be made

by tobi is a good boy June 8th 2009, 7:04 am

sure, this is a major problem with jails... but I definitely agree with you, I mean are prisons just made to make criminals die and do nothing? They have a chance to change their foolish ways by doing what omnipotent offered... help the environment, help the government, help elderly or diasbled! (however they must be kept under guard 24/7) LOL!

by ipsilonv June 8th 2009, 9:13 am

You are talking about an impossibility. As it is, jails are overcrowded and waste too much of our money. Sending them to farms and factories is a fairy tale... ~~it won't happen~~ it can't happen. Any penal system sucks because of the nature of a penal system that tries to be "moral". Ultimate justice requires sacrifices in morals and ethics, which is why it's so controversial. What we have now is something in between that has a bureaucracy that determines the punishment of a criminal based on the arbitrarily-defined magnitude of the crime. You can't give them physical punishment, or a sever psychological one. The fact is, we are trapped in a web of our own ideas that contradict and overlap each other. Another example being when we decide to give up our freedoms to have laws and a government.

Capital punishment is right or wrong depending on what you believe.. problem is, we all think differently. You have the people that don't want it period, you have those that want it, but don't want to kill themselves, and you have the ones who would kill criminals with their own hands. All of them are understandable based on the roots of human nature, the problem is the hypocrisy entailed in all of them. You don't want to kill, yet you want order. The second one is obvious. And the last one.. you want to kill but don't want to be killed yourself. There's also the question of killing someone who was wrongly convicted. For the greater good? Who knows.

If we lived for "The greater good," all our hands would be stained with blood. We all live with the sins of the people who do the dirty work for us, that's the ultimate evil of government and society.. But can you live without a government? Probably not... This all brings up the question: Is there really a god up there? How could he put in front of us all these choices where we are evil no matter what we do?

We all have perfect or beautiful ideas at some point, until we find the catch. Depressing? Meh, sort of... but then again, we always have anime to cheer us up!

I didn't reread what I wrote.. so there might be some bad sentences.. but you get the idea.

Edit: Also, a lot of the times criminals are mentally unstable people who will never get corrected. I don't know if you've seen people who have no consciousness talk. And there are people like this, lobotomy is the key word here. I'll post a link when I find it. Found one of them
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xopaCQB4XM0&feature=related look at the links and find a different one if you don't want to watch the whole thing.. it's pretty insane though.

Also, about the god thing... lets not get into an argument of whether or not it exists. I believe in my own god, that is I am christian but do not really agree with some of their teachings. I don't believe a god would make such basic laws. Nways.. it's easy to say I don't believe in a god, much easier than otherwise. Which is why atheism is becoming so popular.

by Guest June 8th 2009, 10:00 am

ipsilonv wrote:You are talking about an impossibility. As it is, jails are overcrowded and waste too much of our money. Sending them to farms and factories is a fairy tale... ~~it won't happen~~ it can't happen. Any penal system sucks because of the nature of a penal system that tries to be "moral". Ultimate justice requires sacrifices in morals and ethics, which is why it's so controversial. What we have now is something in between that has a bureaucracy that determines the punishment of a criminal based on the arbitrarily-defined magnitude of the crime. You can't give them physical punishment, or a sever psychological one. The fact is, we are trapped in a web of our own ideas that contradict and overlap each other. Another example being when we decide to give up our freedoms to have laws and a government.
Agreed,ethics of the world are self contradictory thus nobody can judge what is wrong or what is right for somebody else or a large community...but if I would to act trough my ethics I would simply kill them based on how severe their crimes are,lesser crimes like theft fraud etc would be handled in psychological institutions,but murder and worse would end with instant death....call my ethics cruel but it is the most rational way,not to waste resources only to make them regroup and become more of a threat

Capital punishment is right or wrong depending on what you believe.. problem is, we all think differently. You have the people that don't want it period, you have those that want it, but don't want to kill themselves, and you have the ones who would kill criminals with their own hands(KIRA FTW!...had to do it...a joke is good once in a while ). All of them are understandable based on the roots of human nature, the problem is the hypocrisy entailed in all of them. You don't want to kill, yet you want order. The second one is obvious. And the last one.. you want to kill but don't want to be killed yourself. There's also the question of killing someone who was wrongly convicted. For the greater good? Who knows.
For order yes if it I were stupid enough to kill somebody in a not protecting way I would not mind getting the death penalty,and dont say you dont really mean it life is good but my stupidity wouldn't help it...

If we lived for "The greater good," all our hands would be stained with blood.
Our hands already are.Making it official and killing the ones who really deserve it not people protecting their countries(by this I mean soldiers during wars) would be way more rational and ethical by your standards(by you I mean the majority )
We all live with the sins of the people who do the dirty work for us, that's the ultimate evil of government and society.. But can you live without a government? Probably not... This all brings up the question: Is there really a god up there? How could he put in front of us all these choices where we are evil no matter what we do?
In my opinion there is no god and the ethical dilemmas are made by man

We all have perfect or beautiful ideas at some point, until we find the catch. Depressing? Meh, sort of... but then again, we always have anime to cheer us up!
CHEERS!
I didn't reread what I wrote.. so there might be some bad sentences.. but you get the idea.

Edit: Also, a lot of the times criminals are mentally unstable people who will never get corrected. I don't know if you've seen people who have no consciousness talk. And there are people like this, lobotomy is the key word here. I'll post a link when I find it.

Also, about the god thing... lets not get into an argument of whether or not it exists. I believe in my own god, that is I am christian but do not really agree with some of their teachings. I don't believe a god would make such basic laws. Nways.. it's easy to say I don't believe in a god, much easier than otherwise. Which is why atheism is becoming so popular.

Atheism is popular for the wrong reasons,me being a atheist understand that the most,people who claim to be atheistic are ignorant and just want to have a life with no consequences,but that is wrong I became a atheist by wanting to understand, reading the bible ,the Qur'an and about the other most popular religions and also the religions of old.I have found so many contradictions and illogical and unethical thing that could or should never be ,Science still doesn't understand everything and neither do I but we both strive to do so

by ipsilonv June 8th 2009, 11:14 am

Agreed,ethics of the world are self contradictory thus nobody can judge what is wrong or what is right for somebody else or a large community...but if I would to act trough my ethics I would simply kill them based on how severe their crimes are,lesser crimes like theft fraud etc would be handled in psychological institutions,but murder and worse would end with instant death....call my ethics cruel but it is the most rational way,not to waste resources only to make them regroup and become more of a threat

Rationality has nothing to do with it. You can't talk about rationality when it comes to something that is so subjective. I don't agree with your ethics, but I think they are human. And of course I understand that my ethics cannot be realized because you can't have peace without murder. But just because there is no other way doesn't mean we have to be alright with it. Living with myself after being ok with all that goes on, even though I can't realistically do anything about is a burden I and many people have to carry. It sucks, but I don't get emo over it, I'm a perfectly happy human being, and will be no matter what happens.

For order yes if it I were stupid enough to kill somebody in a not protecting way I would not mind getting the death penalty,and dont say you dont really mean it life is good but my stupidity wouldn't help it...

It's pointless to say something like that though. It's so circumstantial, and so many factors are involved there that you can't make a good judgment of what you would want in such an occasion. Life should never be taken lightly though, and killing so willingly will lead to the deaths of innocent people. And not in a way that we can mask with the bullshit "greater good"... It would become a massacre that would form a juggernaut leaving only an uncontrollable dystopia behind. Basically... life would have little meaning, which would turn us into non-humans.

Our hands already are.Making it official and killing the ones who really deserve it not people protecting their countries(by this I mean soldiers during wars) would be way more rational and ethical by your standards(by you I mean the majority )

Only people who are willing to die should be involved in war, and there is no such thing as "deserving" death. Deserve implies that you know better.. which is bullshit for the reasons we discussed above.. we all have different opinions. Death penalty ultimately becomes a sickle to weed out what's in the way of a country's happiness to an "intolerable" level. Of course each country and state draws it's own lines. Of course taking care of criminals is bullshit, but we can't kill them all. Not for their sake, but for the sake of our children and everyone's humanity. Devaluation of life is the ultimate evil, a very dangerous idea

In my opinion there is no god and the ethical dilemmas are made by man
The existence of a god is an issue parallel to dilemmas and whatnot.. I'll explain bellow.

Atheism is popular for the wrong reasons,me being a atheist understand that the most,people who claim to be atheistic are ignorant and just want to have a life with no consequences,but that is wrong I became a atheist by wanting to understand, reading the bible ,the Qur'an and about the other most popular religions and also the religions of old.I have found so many contradictions and illogical and unethical thing that could or should never be ,Science still doesn't understand everything and neither do I but we both strive to do so
It's good that you see that most avid atheists are ignorant, and I would never try to preach you what to believe. I do however want to make you understand that believing or not in a god has nothing to do with science, or anything like that. Going into Mechanical engineering, I see myself as quite the realist. First of all, understand that based on the scientific method.. which I'm sure all science people abide by. One of the most important rules is that, in short, all scientific explanations must be potentially disprovable. This means nothing can ever be proven to a 100% certainty. If you understand this, then it becomes clear that a god doesn't necessarily have to overlap with science at all. My belief in god is something more about things that I ~~can't~~ don't want to scientifically understand. Because if it can be scientifically unraveled, then our existence becomes nothing. I believe in a god, because I believe in humanity and nature. I don't believe we are mere super-organic androids. It's hard to explain, but I believe in a god (not one with a beard and super powers) and I'm sure it's there because of my observations. I think, therefore I am. Or rather: I think he exists, therefore he exists. And as Descarte's idea... it's not as basic as it sounds. but that's enough offtopic.

Oh, and I also strive to understand everything deep down, but I also don't. Understanding things always oversimplifies everything. Ignorance is bliss, just don't abuse it. And of course I contradict myself, but everyone does when trying to put something so complicated into words.

Oh and I hadn't seen you in a while. Welcome back? Razz

by Guest June 8th 2009, 11:53 am

ipsilonv wrote:
Agreed,ethics of the world are self contradictory thus nobody can judge what is wrong or what is right for somebody else or a large community...but if I would to act trough my ethics I would simply kill them based on how severe their crimes are,lesser crimes like theft fraud etc would be handled in psychological institutions,but murder and worse would end with instant death....call my ethics cruel but it is the most rational way,not to waste resources only to make them regroup and become more of a threat

Rationality has nothing to do with it. You can't talk about rationality when it comes to something that is so subjective. I don't agree with your ethics, but I think they are human. And of course I understand that my ethics cannot be realized because you can't have peace without murder. But just because there is no other way doesn't mean we have to be alright with it. Living with myself after being ok with all that goes on, even though I can't realistically do anything about is a burden I and many people have to carry. It sucks, but I don't get emo over it, I'm a perfectly happy human being, and will be no matter what happens.
The problem is that the very idea of humanity is relative ,rationally speaking human life is no different then some other animals....but we as the same species see it as a problem if we weed out the problematic aspects of our community,but why is that.as every species we have a instinct to protect our own and to grow in population ,but there the human race contradicts itself instead of weeding out the unnecessary members we try to protect to heal them in a metter of speaking,but at that time we dont see what a waste of time that is....as said humanity is at some points relative....
to preserve our humanity do we not need to eliminate the factors that in danger or corrupt it?
to keep thinking humanly we need to preserve its standards

For order yes if it I were stupid enough to kill somebody in a not protecting way I would not mind getting the death penalty,and dont say you dont really mean it life is good but my stupidity wouldn't help it...

It's pointless to say something like that though. It's so circumstantial, and so many factors are involved there that you can't make a good judgment of what you would want in such an occasion. Life should never be taken lightly though, and killing so willingly will lead to the deaths of innocent people. And not in a way that we can mask with the bullshit "greater good"... It would become a massacre that would form a juggernaut leaving only an uncontrollable dystopia behind. Basically... life would have little meaning, which would turn us into non-humans.

that is also very circumstantial

Our hands already are.Making it official and killing the ones who really deserve it not people protecting their countries(by this I mean soldiers during wars) would be way more rational and ethical by your standards(by you I mean the majority )

Only people who are willing to die should be involved in war, and there is no such thing as "deserving" death. Deserve implies that you know better.. which is bullshit for the reasons we discussed above.. we all have different opinions. Death penalty ultimately becomes a sickle to weed out what's in the way of a country's happiness to an "intolerable" level. Of course each country and state draws it's own lines. Of course taking care of criminals is bullshit, but we can't kill them all. Not for their sake, but for the sake of our children and everyone's humanity. Devaluation of life is the ultimate evil, a very dangerous idea

Most people in war dont have a choice,and the term deserving was a lapsus of mine...an devaluation of life is something already found in wars epidemics and etc,most people dont treasure this one and only life we have thinking its not worth it or its not the only one...so that devaluation already exists in many individuals

In my opinion there is no god and the ethical dilemmas are made by man
The existence of a god is an issue parallel to dilemmas and whatnot.. I'll explain bellow.

cough I UNDERLINED opinion ...cough

Atheism is popular for the wrong reasons,me being a atheist understand that the most,people who claim to be atheistic are ignorant and just want to have a life with no consequences,but that is wrong I became a atheist by wanting to understand, reading the bible ,the Qur'an and about the other most popular religions and also the religions of old.I have found so many contradictions and illogical and unethical thing that could or should never be ,Science still doesn't understand everything and neither do I but we both strive to do so
It's good that you see that most avid atheists are ignorant, and I would never try to preach you what to believe. I do however want to make you understand that believing or not in a god has nothing to do with science, or anything like that.

I have never implied so,Einstein believed in god and so did many others ,I added that part so that some moron quotes me out of context and ask...then in what do you believe?

Going into Mechanical engineering, I see myself as quite the realist. First of all, understand that based on the scientific method.. which I'm sure all science people abide by. One of the most important rules is that, in short, all scientific explanations must be potentially disprovable.
Thus the beauty of science is that it corrects it self not holding to a locked and unchangeable dogma....

This means nothing can ever be proven to a 100% certainty. If you understand this, then it becomes clear that a god doesn't necessarily have to overlap with science at all. My belief in god is something more about things that I ~~can't~~ don't want to scientifically understand. Because if it can be scientifically unraveled, then our existence becomes nothing.
Not really I dont believe life itself has a particular meaning but I believe we should enjoy it to the fullest ,if you really wish to have a reason look at it like a basic human instinct seeing yourself as a buliding block for future generations

I believe in a god, because I believe in humanity and nature. I don't believe we are mere super-organic androids. It's hard to explain, but I believe in a god (not one with a beard and super powers) and I'm sure it's there because of my observations. I think, therefore I am. Or rather: I think he exists, therefore he exists. And as Descarte's idea... it's not as basic as it sounds. but that's enough offtopic.

I know what you mean....you see god as a manifestation of your own opinions hope and ethics seeing the good side of life and living in it...do you...I apologize if this offended your opinion in any way

Oh, and I also strive to understand everything deep down, but I also don't. Understanding things always oversimplifies everything. Ignorance is bliss, just don't abuse it. And of course I contradict myself, but everyone does when trying to put something so complicated into words.
trying to understand everything is for no man but striving to do so is part of our nature...that is how religion was created at first

Oh and I hadn't seen you in a while. Welcome back?

was kinda bored with the forum....+ I am making a special list of animes for the summer ...mwuahahahahahahaha...too much?

by ipsilonv June 8th 2009, 1:00 pm

Too tired to answer one by one.

But I want to understand your point of view.. because I'm not sure what it is you are going fore (Not on the religion part... on the war). I understand your idea of killing killers but that's as far as I get you.

I understand that it's your opinion, but I dont like the science part of the argument. As for me, I don't know what the beauty of science is... I actually hate it for several reasons, but at the same time I'm attracted to it and have always been. I do believe in a god that exists and is not just a figment of my imagination. It's a force that is very real, maybe the 5th dimension? assuming the 4th one is time of course.

I don't think we have a right to make choices of elimination. We make choices that we might or not regret depening on our love for life. Generally in a society we don't see the blood because other people hold it for us. And I'm not talking the war in Iraq, The blood from that war will never touch a single part of me, I will hold no burden on something like that. War for peace.... please explain me what peace you are talking about. Want me to believe they were going to bomb my house. Well, innocent until proven guilty, and even then you don't erradicate a race.

Oh, and talking about war, episode 12 of Kino no Tabi has a really awesome scenario... I assure you, you won't ever see it coming.

I'm going to cut to the chase though.. I believe in god, but not so much in organized religion. I believe no one has a right to eliminate anything when they posses the power to reason. I believe certain aspects of society are awful but make our life possible too. Capital punishment is something I hate to see, and feel it's wrong. But no matter how good you are, if you are smart you'll come to somewhat turn your back on stuff like this, because it benefits society. However morbid that might be. And omni's idea is not a possibility... too many factors affecting the outcome. Try to keep water from falling off a dish while running... now do it with a closed bottle... It's not even a question of which is better, it's a question of which is even possible.

Sorry omni for the extensive offtopic, although they were somewhat related.

by Omnipotent June 8th 2009, 4:52 pm

:XQ: Christmas colors again!

Nah its ok, i dont mind the off topic.

I don't believe in retributive justice. It doesn't help anyone in the world really except for maybe vengeful feelings.

I understand that there are those mentally unstable people in this world that can't be helped. That's an issue i really have no idea for a solution other than death, since putting them in asylums or jail would do nothing to help them and once they're let out u know what'll happen.

Ultimately i don't believe we should try to play god and weed out the people that have made mistakes but for the mentally unstabled ppl that will continue to make mistakes or the ones that think there's no other way or are stuck in a life of crime i really have no solutions and ur right, that is one contradiction of our society we will have to face.

by Consural Hatake June 8th 2009, 5:23 pm

Every country does have their own penal systems,dont they?
At least,some countries have different systems,right?

by Guest June 8th 2009, 10:49 pm

ipsilonv wrote:Too tired to answer one by one.

But I want to understand your point of view.. because I'm not sure what it is you are going fore (Not on the religion part... on the war). I understand your idea of killing killers but that's as far as I get you.

I am saying that killing criminals wont endanger the views of humanity and its standards...if not purify the meaning of humanity by taking the damaging factor away...our race is self contradictory and as such we strive to survive and evolve and grow but while doing that we do illogical and irrational things that slow us down(this can be seen as one of the parts of the so called humanity),protecting criminals is one of them,other animals like wolfs for example kick out a member who does not benefit them and is only looking for a free meal ,if he tries time and time again to follow them he will be attacked

as omni said there is no other logical solution that would not make a great problem as a reaction

I understand that it's your opinion, but I dont like the science part of the argument. As for me, I don't know what the beauty of science is... I actually hate it for several reasons, but at the same time I'm attracted to it and have always been. I do believe in a god that exists and is not just a figment of my imagination. It's a force that is very real, maybe the 5th dimension? assuming the 4th one is time of course.

Draging dimensions are we ?xD
we are geting way to relative....
well what I see as beauty of science is that it isnt closed to one opinion that cant and wont change if not forced in some way,it changes it adepts
it evolves .

I do not wish to argue about existence of god as everybody has their own opinion and have a claim to it...I wont be one of those irogant assholes wjo try to "convert" somebody,you have your opinion and I respect it

I don't think we have a right to make choices of elimination. We make choices that we might or not regret depening on our love for life. Generally in a society we don't see the blood because other people hold it for us. And I'm not talking the war in Iraq, The blood from that war will never touch a single part of me, I will hold no burden on something like that. War for peace.... please explain me what peace you are talking about. Want me to believe they were going to bomb my house. Well, innocent until proven guilty, and even then you don't erradicate a race.

there is no such thing as peace ,there are only the controllers and the controlled(not really the right term,nut you get the idea),saying something like word peace is moronic(thus it is a standard question and answer in beauty contests )

Oh, and talking about war, episode 12 of Kino no Tabi has a really awesome scenario... I assure you, you won't ever see it coming.
*added*
I'm going to cut to the chase though.. I believe in god, but not so much in organized religion.
And I respect that
I believe no one has a right to eliminate anything when they posses the power to reason. I believe certain aspects of society are awful but make our life possible too.
but not 100% of what it could be
Capital punishment is something I hate to see, and feel it's wrong. But no matter how good you are, if you are smart you'll come to somewhat turn your back on stuff like this, because it benefits society. However morbid that might be.

it isnt morbid ,it is no defferent of not thinking of cows being slaughtered while eating a burger
And omni's idea is not a possibility... too many factors affecting the outcome. Try to keep water from falling off a dish while running... now do it with a closed bottle... It's not even a question of which is better, it's a question of which is even possible.

Sorry omni for the extensive offtopic, although they were somewhat related.

by Blkdrgn V June 8th 2009, 11:29 pm

0_o... So much reading. Anyways about the putting prisoners to work, it would be a bad idea because if they are in a dangerous mental state, they could add something into a food product, toy, etc. Instead they should be put to enviromental help like picking up garbage and such. And about the freeloading thing, I think they should have to grow there food and eat what they grow, obviously people would steal other peoples food, but it's their fault if they can't guard it.

by ipsilonv June 8th 2009, 11:34 pm

it isnt morbid ,it is no defferent of not thinking of cows being slaughtered while eating a burger - I think that's exaclty what's so morbid... We are not animals, we became a different entity when we grew a consciousness and became one step closer to godhood (or whatever your analogous state of being is). This is also why we can't work as if we were wolves or any other animal. I can't kill for a harem, I can't kill for territory. Humans work at a completely different level, which is important in many ways. Intelligence and consciousness make this world what it is... and without humans this world would not exist, which is what I mean by being closer to godhood than animals.

100% of what life could be... Such a thing does not exist. It's like saying that a monk up in the mountain is unhappy because he doesn't enjoy TV. All that matters is that you are happy in life, not the degree, because that is defined by your own mind.

Killing all the criminals that "deserve" it leads to more killings. Violence always leads to more violence, hence the potential juggernaut. The only things that stop violence is obliteration, and humanity. That feeling a lot of people get, where they understand the value of life is what separates us from animals, and from destruction. Exchange humans with wolves, and your planet is no more, they would kill eachother and eat everything they find. Of course this is a scenario based on MY experiences and observations. And I do believe such a way of killing would lessen the value of life. Like what happens in a lot of countries in Africa with constant war.

by Guest June 8th 2009, 11:57 pm

ipsilonv wrote:it isnt morbid ,it is no defferent of not thinking of cows being slaughtered while eating a burger - I think that's exaclty what's so morbid... We are not animals, we became a different entity when we grew a consciousness and became one step closer to godhood (or whatever your analogous state of being is).
we still have the basic instincts we are just doing things on a much bigger and grander scale ..rationality is what makes us such higher beings but as I said it sometimes being unused by us and thus we are so much closer to our primal counterparts ...closer then we think at least...
This is also why we can't work as if we were wolves or any other animal. I can't kill for a harem(if you would see a harem as a object of desire and as a object that represents a brighter future for you would,you are ...we are...as I said doint things on such a big scale makes things confusing,if a state would lets say need oil..and lets say that a third world county has oil but doesnt want to give it ...a conflict of interest would start,and it would end in conflict which result are atleast a few deaths), I can't kill for territory.(kill for territory....hmmm....killing for territory...hmm...brilliant idea I shall call these acts as wars-sorry had to do it... ) Humans work at a completely different level, which is important in many ways. Intelligence and consciousness make this world what it is... and without humans this world would not exist, which is what I mean by being closer to godhood than animals.

100% of what life could be... Such a thing does not exist. It's like saying that a monk up in the mountain is unhappy because he doesn't enjoy TV. All that matters is that you are happy in life, not the degree, because that is defined by your own mind.

but some people are not and I am sure alot more people would be happier if the resources used for prisons would be used to help the poor

Killing all the criminals that "deserve" it leads to more killings. Violence always leads to more violence, hence the potential juggernaut. The only things that stop violence is obliteration, and humanity.
how about fear
That feeling a lot of people get, where they understand the value of life is what separates us from animals, and from destruction. Exchange humans with wolves, and your planet is no more, they would kill eachother and eat everything they find. Of course this is a scenario based on MY experiences and observations.

ahahahahaha go to Hollywood dude..night of the living wolfs!xD

and that is very imaginative and very wrong

And I do believe such a way of killing would lessen the value of life. Like what happens in a lot of countries in Africa with constant war.

it is war,killing criminals would be a much more sly and easier task...making them isolated the deaths would not be a problem...

by ipsilonv June 9th 2009, 5:36 am

we still have the basic instincts we are just doing things on a much bigger and grander scale ..rationality is what makes us such higher beings but as I said it sometimes being unused by us and thus we are so much closer to our primal counterparts ...closer then we think at least...
Yes, and its exactly those instincts what cause violence. Evil is whatever humans make it, and based on most people's definition of evil... Instincts are evil. Instincts lead to "through whatever means possible" attitudes, which are the most dangerous ways of thinking. And history has clearly demonstrated this more than once.

(if you would see a harem as a object of desire and as a object that represents a brighter future for you would,you are ...we are...as I said doint things on such a big scale makes things confusing,if a state would lets say need oil..and lets say that a third world county has oil but doesnt want to give it ...a conflict of interest would start,and it would end in conflict which result are atleast a few deaths), I can't kill for territory.(kill for territory....hmmm....killing for territory...hmm...brilliant idea I shall call these acts as wars-sorry had to do it... )
And you are saying that such an attitude is fine? Forcing a country to give you oil? If so, then this is pointless, because theres no way I can understand such a way of thinking. It's somewhat psychotic, something a kid would do to his little brother. But countries are not ruled by kids, or at least they shouldn't. Wars are not about territory, if you analyze history you will see this clearly. Humans don't need territory like animals do, it's NEVER about territory. I should say, it's never about territory unless you are the victim.

but some people are not and I am sure alot more people would be happier if the resources used for prisons would be used to help the poor
I would be happier if I was never in danger of anything happening to me. But I will never kill anyone for such a happiness. I could never live with myself, but that's just my philosophy. I respect life way too much. It's not about religion, its about my duty as a superior (in case of animals) or equal (in the case of humans) being.

how about fear
ahah that's a great connection to Dune, it's an idea that Frank Hebert explores in his book. I haven't finished the series, so I don't know what his concluding thoughts on this are (BTW it's a very similar, although more complex, idea as code Geass has. I wouldn't be surprised if Code Geass is partly inspired by the book). As both stories understand though, fear is only good at a grand scale, and the path needed to reach it is gruesome. And given the ease with which blood is shed in this world.. something as drastic as killing all killers in the world would lead to a lot of bloodshed. The world would be divided between those who are ok with it and those who arent. Among those who aren't, strong minds would arise to rebel. Blood attracts violence. As I already said, such low appreciation of life would lead to a juggernaut of bloodshed, and by definition, there is no way of stopping it once it's started.

ahahahahaha go to Hollywood dude..night of the living wolfs!xD
You clearly didn't understand what I meant :/.

and that is very imaginative and very wrong
I'm just trying to make it clear that we are not wolves or animals... Instincts are what people define as "evil". Instincts tell you to kill, to do whatever you can do to survive. This is the base for the creation of a murderer, exactly what we don't want. This is why we can't behave like wolves. We can't rely on our instincts, the only reason animals are not evil when they follow their instincts is because they have no consciousness. This lack of consciousness makes them mere animals. Instincts betray us, and history has shown this. Your ideas are based on instincts. There's a reason you idea doesn't happen, people don't want to turn into wolves.

it is war,killing criminals would be a much more sly and easier task...making them isolated the deaths would not be a problem...
Sly does not have a good connotation to it. If you kill criminals in a "sly" manner, then you are cheating your country and the world.

Edit - this is not entirely connected to the last paragraph: Killing is easy, but unless you burden those deaths, you become a monster. I'd rather have 100 murderers that are the exceptions of society. Than a murderous society. I'd rather live among dogs than wolves, at least I won't live in fear. Fear represses freedom, freedom represses the happiness of intelligent people.

by **Storm** June 9th 2009, 8:11 am

Regardless of any way you slice it, the court system as a whole is messed up and always has been from the start. Killing those who commit a crime especially if it's a federal one in the end doesn't make it right, but judges as well as the jury will see it that way. I take a law class at my school and have come to realize that crimes must end, but is impossible. We don't live in a perfect crime-free world, because crime will always exist just like how racism will exist to some extent.

Putting criminals to do their time in a factory won't help at. They could either kill the guards and escape back into society or start a riot and hold some of them hostage until their demands are met. That sounds more like a bad solution for doing their time in.

The reason why the law exists is to judge criminals fairly and sentence them based on how severe their crimes were. Without the law in places, crimes would go unpunished and criminals would continue committing heinous acts.

When it comes to jails, $60,000 are wasted to hold one a prisoner a day and $4,000 is spent on a child for education. Tie that in over a year and you'll see how much money is wasted on prisons and more and more are being built just to accommodate the ever-rising number of inmates.

Through and through, those who commit a crime must be punished and avoiding to make a decision by a judge on the sentence shows weakness.

by Kilik 64 June 9th 2009, 8:27 am

The penal system is not to make you learn from your mistakes. It's to punish you for wrongdoings. The idea is that you are punished by having your freedoms stripped from you, and you learn from this and go back out and be a productive and law abiding citizen afterwards. It doesn't work like that because of many reasons, but there's nothing that can really be done about that.

by Guest June 9th 2009, 9:29 am

ipsilonv wrote:we still have the basic instincts we are just doing things on a much bigger and grander scale ..rationality is what makes us such higher beings but as I said it sometimes being unused by us and thus we are so much closer to our primal counterparts ...closer then we think at least...
Yes, and its exactly those instincts what cause violence. Evil is whatever humans make it, and based on most people's definition of evil... Instincts are evil. Instincts lead to "through whatever means possible" attitudes, which are the most dangerous ways of thinking. And history has clearly demonstrated this more than once.

that is only the negative side,the goal of instincts is to protect us and help us

(if you would see a harem as a object of desire and as a object that represents a brighter future for you would,you are ...we are...as I said doint things on such a big scale makes things confusing,if a state would lets say need oil..and lets say that a third world county has oil but doesnt want to give it ...a conflict of interest would start,and it would end in conflict which result are atleast a few deaths), I can't kill for territory.(kill for territory....hmmm....killing for territory...hmm...brilliant idea I shall call these acts as wars-sorry had to do it... )
And you are saying that such an attitude is fine? Forcing a country to give you oil? If so, then this is pointless, because theres no way I can understand such a way of thinking. It's somewhat psychotic, something a kid would do to his little brother. But countries are not ruled by kids, or at least they shouldn't. Wars are not about territory, if you analyze history you will see this clearly. Humans don't need territory like animals do, it's NEVER about territory. I should say, it's never about territory unless you are the victim.

Fine or fair is not important in reality it is so,it has and it will always be done in some way,you may call it psyhotic or childish but it is real,to think that all things are fair is naive,again showing that the one with power will be that alpha male

and about wars...

in the old times the most powerfull and famous kings were the ones who invaded and took enemy teritories,it is said that trajan was one of the greatest rome emepors because rome had the biggest teritory at that time,with territory come recources ,building spots and etc
growing in population humans need territory and recources,not all wars but most are about territorial domination

I cant say that crusades or world war 2 was about territory(WWII in some ways but not really the main goal)
but those primal wars that men had fought in the past were about territorial domination

but some people are not and I am sure alot more people would be happier if the resources used for prisons would be used to help the poor
I would be happier if I was never in danger of anything happening to me. But I will never kill anyone for such a happiness. I could never live with myself, but that's just my philosophy. I respect life way too much. It's not about religion, its about my duty as a superior (in case of animals) or equal (in the case of humans) being.
their deaths are not necessary just for them to stop,thus I have mentioned fear,kira(death note) had the right idea,he wasnt planning on killing everybody just to strike enough fear for them to stop,ofc he overdid it with the whole asking for every face and name in the world

how about fear
ahah that's a great connection to Dune, it's an idea that Frank Hebert explores in his book. I haven't finished the series, so I don't know what his concluding thoughts on this are (BTW it's a very similar, although more complex, idea as code Geass has. I wouldn't be surprised if Code Geass is partly inspired by the book). As both stories understand though, fear is only good at a grand scale, and the path needed to reach it is gruesome. And given the ease with which blood is shed in this world.. something as drastic as killing all killers in the world would lead to a lot of bloodshed. The world would be divided between those who are ok with it and those who arent. Among those who aren't, strong minds would arise to rebel. Blood attracts violence. As I already said, such low appreciation of life would lead to a juggernaut of bloodshed, and by definition, there is no way of stopping it once it's started.
But fear would strike even the minds of the innocent as they to would fear bloodshed

ahahahahaha go to Hollywood dude..night of the living wolfs!xD
You clearly didn't understand what I meant :/.

nah just was in the mood for a badly timed joke

and that is very imaginative and very wrong
I'm just trying to make it clear that we are not wolves or animals... Instincts are what people define as "evil". Instincts tell you to kill, to do whatever you can do to survive. This is the base for the creation of a murderer, exactly what we don't want. This is why we can't behave like wolves. We can't rely on our instincts, the only reason animals are not evil when they follow their instincts is because they have no consciousness. This lack of consciousness makes them mere animals. Instincts betray us, and history has shown this. Your ideas are based on instincts. There's a reason you idea doesn't happen, people don't want to turn into wolves.
What I am saying that we should act rationally but still follow the basics of our instincts that have guided us this far
it is war,killing criminals would be a much more sly and easier task...making them isolated the deaths would not be a problem...
Sly does not have a good connotation to it. If you kill criminals in a "sly" manner, then you are cheating your country and the world.
there are two options do it like that or do it in such a meaner that it would strike fear of ever doing something illegal

Edit - this is not entirely connected to the last paragraph: Killing is easy, but unless you burden those deaths, you become a monster. I'd rather have 100 murderers that are the exceptions of society. Than a murderous society. I'd rather live among dogs than wolves, at least I won't live in fear. Fear represses freedom, freedom represses the happiness of intelligent people.

just had a historical memory..

Australia as a state was made by the colonists AND prisoners that were taken there,those who were taken showed no signs of violence or rebellious behavior as they had nowhere to run,so is that the solution..isolation?

let them take care of themselves....let them be in their own world....let them correct themselves as they have no other option

just a idea...if I am wrong about the rebellion part pls Australians out there correct me!

by ipsilonv June 9th 2009, 10:34 am

Fine or fair is not important in reality it is so,it has and it will always be done in some way,you may call it psyhotic or childish but it is real,to think that all things are fair is naive,again showing that the one with power will be that alpha male
Fine and fair are very important in reality. Their impossibility is very clear, but they exist as vital ideas to humanity. Without fine and fair, justice does not exist. The Hypocrisy and whatnot entailed in these ideas is another story. There's a reason colonists in the US came up with the system of checks and balances... An alpha male approach is a bad idea, a tested one at that. The idea of "Checks and Balances" doesn't only keep the government in check, it provides a much needed "sense" of security to the people. This sense of security is what keeps a sense of "fairness", without it countries eventually fall. All dictatorships eventually fall, they are a failure of an idea.

in the old times the most powerfull and famous kings were the ones who invaded and took enemy teritories,it is said that trajan was one of the greatest rome emepors because rome had the biggest teritory at that time,with territory come recources ,building spots and etc
growing in population humans need territory and recources,not all wars but most are about territorial domination
War is NEVER about just territory. Unless you have a much broader definition of territory than I do.

their deaths are not necessary just for them to stop,thus I have mentioned fear,kira(death note) had the right idea,he wasnt planning on killing everybody just to strike enough fear for them to stop,ofc he overdid it with the whole asking for every face and name in the world
Fear gives you a false sense of control. It's like Leto II explains in Dune. When it comes to these kinds of things, you have to think long term. Only through literal immortality you can use such ideas to control a country or an entire planet. Basically, its un unrealistic, short-term way of thinking. Which is exactly what Leto sees as the problem of humanity, their inability to think long-term.. but you either agree or disagree with that based on your way of thinking, since it's not proof, it's a book. I see the rational, and also see the same scenario as Hebert shows through his books.

What I am saying that we should act rationally but still follow the basics of our instincts that have guided us this far.
And here is where we disagree. Instincts betray us, they are the forces that lead to mistakes. They are not mistakes if you are an animal, but we are not. Instincts are very dangerous to humans, we should only follow them at a very basic level. A person with power who lives by his instincts becomes one of the most dangerous things out there. We are beyond instincts, they hold us back... they remind us that we once belonged in the same place as animals. They are the cause of all our problems as intelligent beings, they are impulsive, destructive and dangerous.

there are two options do it like that or do it in such a meaner that it would strike fear of ever doing something illegal
Governments need to follow their own ideals. Not doing so will become their undoing, since people will not put up with it. In other times this might have not been totally true. But in this day in age, with such a degree of globalization. As I stated in another topic, cross the line and the world will turn on you.

Australia had lot of problems because of them becoming a giant jail. But I would agree with sending prisoners to live as outcasts. I agree with liberating society of such trash, I'm just not OK with killing them. We as a people have a right to kick people out of our home. But no person and no group of people, has the right to decide who is to be killed. Not only that... it's a scary scenario. We have to send them to Salusa Secundus... sorry about all the Dune references Razz

.

by Zazz June 9th 2009, 10:40 am

Can someone tell me what types of crimes are serious enough to be sentenced capital punishment? We don't have the death sentence in Australia, so yeah...

by ipsilonv June 9th 2009, 10:25 pm

That depends on your personal opinion. You should know this, having neighbor countries that will hang you for trafficking drugs. I'm not sure though.. I think in the united states it's kind of arbitrary, when you've committed "atrocious" crimes being fully aware of the wrongness of your actions. And the judge thinks it's the right choice. It also depends on which state you are in.

by **Riki X** June 10th 2009, 12:06 am

a long long time ago you could get killed as a punishment for lots of things. I never knew they still do that.

by Zazz June 10th 2009, 8:27 am

ipsilonv wrote:That depends on your personal opinion. You should know this, having neighbor countries that will hang you for trafficking drugs. I'm not sure though.. I think in the united states it's kind of arbitrary, when you've committed "atrocious" crimes being fully aware of the wrongness of your actions. And the judge thinks it's the right choice. It also depends on which state you are in.

Yeah, I only know the drug one, because the first Australian to be hanged for decades was hanged because of drug trafficking, and he was hanged ON MY BIRTHDAY :\

by ipsilonv June 10th 2009, 8:48 am

That's muslim countries though, they have different views on punishment than catholic countries.

As a response to Zazz's question, here is a list of capital offenses that might lead to death penalty in the state of the U.S.A that I currently reside at, California.

Capital offenses

The penal code provides for possible capital punishment in:
treason against the state of California, defined as levying war against the state, adhering to its enemies, or giving them aid and comfort.[6]
perjury causing execution of an innocent person[7]
first-degree murder with special circumstances[8]
-for financial gain (1)
-the defendant had previously been convicted of first or second degree murder (2)
-multiple murders (3)
-committed using explosives (4) ; (6)
-to avoid arrest or aiding in escaping custody (5)
-the victim was an on-duty peace officer; federal law enforcement officer or agent; or firefighter (7) ; (8) ; (9)
-the victim was a witness to a crime and the murder was committed to prevent them from testifying (10)
-the victim was a prosecutor or assistant prosecutor; judge or former judge; elected or appointed official; juror; and the murder was in retaliation for the victim's official duties (11) ; (12) ; (13) ; (20)
-the murder was "especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, manifesting exceptional depravity" (14)
-the murderer lay in wait for the victim (15)
-the victim was intentionally killed because of their race, religion, nationality, or country of origin (a Hate crime) (16)
-the murder was committed during the commissioning of robbery; kidnapping; rape; sodomy; performance of a lewd or lascivious act upon the person of a child under the age of 14 years; oral copulation; burglary; arson; train wrecking; mayhem; rape by instrument; carjacking; torture; poisoning (17)
-the murder was intentional and involved the infliction of torture (18)
-poisoning (19)
-the murder was committed by discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle (21)
-the defendant is an active member of a criminal street gang and was to further the activities of the gang (22)
train wrecking which leads to a person's death.[9]

A total of 13 individuals convicted of murder have been executed by the state of California since 1976. All were by lethal injection, except for those indicated by an asterisk which were by gas chamber.

Source: Wikipedia.org

Clearly though, the reasons above are not enough to lead to death penalty, since there have been only 13 cases. It depends on a lot of things. And it is California, which is one of the hippiest states.

I also found this interesting:

The debate over the death penalty centers around four issues: whether it is morally correct to kill; whether the death penalty serves as a deterrent; whether the penalty is being applied fairly across racial, social, and economic classes; and whether the irrevocability of the penalty is justified considering possible new evidence or future revelations of improper conduct by the state. It is also claimed that the financial costs of a complete death penalty case exceed the total costs of a lifetime of incarceration.[81]

Source: Wikipedia.org

To add to the last fact in that wikipedia paragraphs, I'd say that what kind of death is moral enough? It connects directly to the first point, but it is very important. Of course it would be cheaper to put all of them in a gas chamber, or drown them.. but I think you understand the problem in doing that.

by Sponsored content

Penal System

Penal System

Re: Penal System

Re: Penal System

Re: Penal System

Re: Penal System

Re: Penal System

Re: Penal System

Re: Penal System

Re: Penal System

Re: Penal System

Re: Penal System

Re: Penal System

Re: Penal System

Re: Penal System

Re: Penal System

Re: Penal System

Re: Penal System

Re: Penal System

Re: Penal System

Re: Penal System

Re: Penal System

Re: Penal System

Re: Penal System

Re: Penal System

Re: Penal System