Page 3 of 3 [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

ASPER
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 354

22 Mar 2007, 2:17 pm

death death death! give them nothing but death! they destroy kids and women lives and all for their own benefit...

if i know where one of them live ill kill him with my own hands.
i hope they die.

persecution is worst than slaughter.



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

22 Mar 2007, 4:27 pm

peebo wrote:
snake321 wrote:
The only way to even out the situation and give him a punishment equal to the damage he caused...


punishment does not "even things out". 1+1=2, not 0.


Oh, ok, I see now, so why have laws? I mean, if we don't have punishments to stop people from breaking them, then laws obviously do no good. So lets take your method and just let everyone run wild and act as hostile and disfunctional as they feel like :roll:



Corvus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Sep 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,674
Location: Calgary

22 Mar 2007, 6:34 pm

snake321 wrote:
peebo wrote:
snake321 wrote:
The only way to even out the situation and give him a punishment equal to the damage he caused...


punishment does not "even things out". 1+1=2, not 0.


Oh, ok, I see now, so why have laws? I mean, if we don't have punishments to stop people from breaking them, then laws obviously do no good. So lets take your method and just let everyone run wild and act as hostile and disfunctional as they feel like :roll:


Snake, what does killing them do? Does it bring their victims back? No. Does it punish them? Maybe, though, they are dead so we dont know what actually happens (you could be giving them what they want). Is it satisfying? Christ, I hope people dont get off on it or else we SHOULD make it legal (as apparently people enjoy seeing it). I think the best one can create is "its relief" < -- how about the relief that that person is off the street and won't be back on it to commit the crime again? No, they need to be punished even though, surprise, murders still happen (not detering many people because they keep doing it; repeat offenders anyone?). Peebo never suggested removing "law" as law is not define by punishment, its defined by "rule" or "order."

Face it, punishments have existed since civilization and surprise, they still need to exist because they are NOT addressing the problem. You want to punish these people AFTER they've committed a crime and you're very focused on it but you're not offering any solutions on how to prevent it. Its been proven, for many various crimes, that the punishment, itself, can actually ENCOURAGE the crime to happen.

Drug traffickers in some asian countries are put to death yet people still run drugs - illegal=risk=money=crime. Major deterent but opposite effect (so calling it a deterent is wrong when I see it as more of an encouragement).

I think one cannot punish someones crime WITH a crime. Its hypocrisy. You cannot have your cake and eat it to, in other words.

EDIT: Look up various method of how humans have punished other humans - hangings, ovens, shootings, etc. Which one has worked?



Corvus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Sep 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,674
Location: Calgary

22 Mar 2007, 6:58 pm

Additionally, I've read in a lot of studies or newsreports that people who may rape others have been raped themselves (maybe by a parent then they rape a sibling or something, for example). How would your "balances out" theory work, then? This person has already been raped so it won't teach them anything. What then?