[DDv]

Originally Posted by ErgoProxy

That’s true as long as you’re not personally concerned...

Don't misunderstand me, I apply these rules for myself too.

Off: I'm grateful, but why did You rep me? :)

[ErgoProxy]

I see... a praiseworthy attitude, then youre concept could work (xD but sm.else would brake these rules... )


Off Stuff >

Spoiler!

Originally Posted by DDv

I don't understand any of this... oO

Can You rep me too please? So I can see how this works.


(Just kidding. Don't do it!) xD

I've read only the first 2 sentences *no joke*

[DDv]

OFF:

Spoiler!

Lol, it worked!!! Thanks anyway! xD

ON: Don't start to hate me, but I'll question almost anything in others' reasoning. This is to move discussions forward (if it's necessary).

[Titens]

Originally Posted by reminder

As much as country is resposible for defending the rights of the murderer, it is equally responsible for defending rights of victim's relatives. Two things are important in the law system : punishment and compensation. In simple terms, you do something bad - you get punished, you hurt someone - you have to compensate. While the punishment part is OK (since government decides the form of it), current law system doesn't take death penalty as a matter which needs compensation. THAT is wrong. The fairest way of compensation is, as I mentioned, eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth. Anything less or more is unfair.
Families of the victims SHOULD have a right to request capital punishment. Though, they usually don't have it - because government protects some members of society more than others.

Noone has the right for vengeance. Vengeance only generates damage, nothing more. It doesn't help anyone. The victims should have a compensation, but exact retribution to the criminal isn't. If he cuts your arm, make him pay for the damage. Cutting his doesn't acomplish anything, and it's plain stupid...or more aquarate, is just emotional violence. What we are looking for is something that makes this world less violent and solutions that might help the victims.

Originally Posted by reminder

Prison SHOULD NOT be a living hell, it's just not the purpose of "correctional facilities" (aka prisons), and ony because of lack of funding prisons ARE hell. So, that's a question on halt untill governments get enough money to improve the prisons

I agree with what you said. But, you lost the point there. You said that life is jails wasn't bad... that prison life was good. Now you are contradicting yourself. That's what I was pointing out. And also, making prisons better, in most countries, is not something that can be achieved from one day to the next, and at least for now, there's no signs of it changing any soon. So prisons will stay as living hells for some time now.

Originally Posted by reminder

You are a little bit wrong about that. it's not the process of killing that's expensive, the process of proving that someone deserves DS is expensive. After all, it's the worst punisment possible, therefore a thorough investigation is needed. And that costs a lot.

Same amount of money (or close) is needed to put a man inside 4 walls for the rest of their lives. A thorough investigation is always needed, not only in death penalty. Or do you think that if DP is banned you will no longer have to investigate things properly.

Originally Posted by dragoncrusher

On the other hand I am against the thought of killing an innocent man because our lovely court system which is oh so flawless.

On fewer words, you are 100% in favor as long as he is not inocent?

Originally Posted by dragoncrusher

But with the death sentence, can you really prove that it'll keep people from committing certain crimes? Most of the serious crimes are committed by temporary insanity, isn't it? It's not like people are going around willy-nilly on killing sprees (except those who are) but first go, "Oh, wait. A death penalty. I could die, I better not." instead of "Oh, wait. Life in jail. I could... ... ... people will say mean things about me in the newspaper!"
Really, the punishment for crimes isn't really an anti-incentive for a lot of people to not commit crimes.
The real motivation for people to not do things illegal is for those people to "pay the ultimate consequences" by either becoming terrible burdened by their sins or by doing the same thing to someone else and feeling a conscious feeling of guilt about it that has the same consequences minus being able to work, live and be normal.

What you said is true. But remember, people do crimes, not thinking in the ultimate punishments, but thinking they woin't be cought. Noone steals anything if they are completly sure they'll spend only a year in prison.

Originally Posted by dragoncrusher

You maybe thinking something like; A pedophile rapes a kid, goes to jail for 40 years and comes out. He's still a pedophile. Jail doesn't change anything. It only keeps him away from non-criminals for those 40 years. When he comes out, does he really feel less likely to commit the same crimes?

Originally Posted by DDv

This is true in the USA, but not in (most countries of) Europe.

In most countries in the world in fact, not only europe.

Originally Posted by DDv

The thing is every one of You think within the boundaries of an idealistic world. Which isn't a problem at all, since we're not here to solve this whole thing, but simply discuss it.

I'm not. And moral is part of the world. Reason must always take consideration of morals. Don't mistake emotions with moral. A good end doesn't justify any method. And turning a whole society into fear isn't something anyone wants (you don't want to live ina nazi society man... even with no crimes at all, believe me that you don't want to)

[DDv]

Eh.. morals. We'll have a discussion about this later on.

About nazi society: I wasn't saying I want the exact same system. I pointed out that the excessive use of death penalty has it's advantages.

[Titens]

Originally Posted by DDv

I know this is cruel and extreme, but still it's effective and this is the keyword. Society should be built on logic and not emotions.

That'swhat I meant. You don't have a problem to live in a cruel and extremist society as long as it achieves effective results. That's what the militars though in most countries in south america when they killed hundreds thouthens of people that they considered were acting against what they though to be good behavior.
They installed a reing of terror, were noone was safe. Militars could come into your house for no particular reason but a rumor and kill you and your family (happened all the time). In the long road it did have some positive efects in some of the countries (like Chile's Pinochet's regime), finishin with some anarchist afctions and terrorist actions.
But the truth is that under those ages everyone felt really bad, life under fear is terrible. This happened here and has happened in so many other places.
That's why a goal doesn't justify any kind of method, and going extreme against your own people is something isn't worth this goal at all.

Also, and this I'm not as informed as europeans are, there was a regime in England around the XVII century I think where they installed a regime in which almost any crime was sentenced with death penalty. Of course, the sistem didn't work, and it exploded in the end. So it's not even guarranted that going extreme with death sentences will solve crime at all.

[reminder]

Originally Posted by Titens

Noone has the right for vengeance.

Seems that here we have totally different ideas what vengeance and what justice is. Vengeance is not related to law at all, act of violence without approval of others is vengeance, while lawful aproach should be considered as justice. If you represent the judge, the jury and the prosecutor, it's vengeance, if others (government officials) do that, it's justice. It's as simple as that. That "justice" may not always be just, but it's the best we have for now.

First of all, the jury would have to decide that a person is completelly guilty. Then, it would not be vengeance, since families of victims would not influence their descision (more than stating facts during the trial). I consider appeal for DS to be a moral compensation, and to deny that, you must say that DS wouldn't be fair for the murderer. Do you say that?

Originally Posted by Titens

Vengeance only generates damage, nothing more. It doesn't help anyone.

Since you use the word "anyone", I can say that I would be happy if my relative's murderer would receive the proper punishment. Therefore, it's only a theoretical statement without any proof. I would also like to say that many relatives of other victims would be relieved knowing that the murderer got the proper punishment. What is proper, they should have a minimal right to decide. DS or life sentence.

Originally Posted by Titens

The victims should have a compensation, but exact retribution to the criminal isn't. If he cuts your arm, make him pay for the damage.

Evaluate the cost of your arm, please. Oh, but you CAN do that, but evaluate the cost of your life after you're dead? Money doesn't cover everything, especially the worst crime - murder. Still, I asked you to evaluate the cost of your arm. Could you do that?

Originally Posted by Titens

Cutting his doesn't acomplish anything, and it's plain stupid...or more aquarate, is just emotional violence. What we are looking for is something that makes this world less violent and solutions that might help the victims.

Though moral relief I would get from knowing that justice is served would be more than enough. And, if you can think of fairer punishment for cutting someone's arm (or ending life of someone), please say so.

Originally Posted by Titens

I agree with what you said. But, you lost the point there. You said that life is jails wasn't bad... that prison life was good. Now you are contradicting yourself. That's what I was pointing out. And also, making prisons better, in most countries, is not something that can be achieved from one day to the next, and at least for now, there's no signs of it changing any soon. So prisons will stay as living hells for some time now.

Oh, no, I thought we both agreed that prison in some states isn't a punishment. Now we're talking about exeptions to the rule, even if there are more exeptions than examples of places where the rule can be applied.

The point is, you see a temporary solution and you think that's ok. I look for a permanent solution. Do you agree that if economy in your country would improve, prisoners would live as good as they do in some states of USA, or you don't? Please explain that.

Originally Posted by Titens

Same amount of money (or close) is needed to put a man inside 4 walls for the rest of their lives. A thorough investigation is always needed, not only in death penalty. Or do you think that if DP is banned you will no longer have to investigate things properly.

Oh come on, this is annoying. Give some proof or else you're pulling this out of your pockets. I already gave my proof, you do that.

Also, if you have the money to spend to make thorough investigations for stealing donuts (DNA tests, voice checking, checking the uniqueness of video proof, law processes which continue for a few decades sometimes), please donate. What you have said is not realistic at all. A thorough investigation takes a lot of time and expenses, so only worst crimes get it.

Originally Posted by Titens

I'm not. And moral is part of the world. Reason must always take consideration of morals. Don't mistake emotions with moral.

I have to agree with this person. If only the facts were taken, even a machine could do judge's job. However, moral damage is something that no one can (and has the right) to evaluate, except the victim and the officials (also humans). If you could make a formula which could count moral damage, then you (DDv) would be right.

[DDv]

Originally Posted by reminder

If only the facts were taken, even a machine could do judge's job. However, moral damage is something that no one can (and has the right) to evaluate, except the victim and the officials (also humans). If you could make a formula which could count moral damage, then you (DDv) would be right.

Ok, I decided on our next topic. I'll comment this when the time comes.

Titens: You totally misunderstood me. I tried to show that DP is useful. The nazi/communist part was only an example. I don't want a dictator on top of things (altough this would solve many present problems of Hungary... -.-). And I know what those systems are like. Hungary was part of the Soviet Union (and not voluntarily) and we even sided with Hitler for a brief time.

[Titens]

Hmmm, it's clear where our opinions defer reminder. You find mental calm and the desire of hurting for payback more important than peoples life's or physical integrity. Or maybe is just that you no longer consider criminals humans?
I can't follow you there, sorry. I could consider the thought of cutting his arm if with that I could put it in the vistim's body, or if I could be certain that that way I would save someone from losing it. But just for satisfying someone's feeling? I can't.

You ask me to value my arm. One thing you got right. No amount of money would be enough to fix the damage completly. But one thing I'm sure of, torturing someone to death might make me feel good by satisfying my desire of vengeance, but it wouldn't solve anything. On the other hand, there are some things that can be done to at least fix the problem a little.

Also, conserning this part: "Since you use the word "anyone", I can say that I would be happy if my relative's murderer would receive the proper punishment".
Here we difer in the word "help". Making you satisfy your impulses (that we all have) isn't helping, it just makes you feel better. Giving drugs would make a lot people happy, but it wouldn't be helping them precicely. Only way DP can really help someone is by making them have a safer life.

Another point is, and this may vary from country to country, and it's directly related to what I said before, penal punishments aren't meant as retribution. Their purpose is not to repair the damage. Retribution to the victims come from another procedures, that don't involve death, prison, fines (the victim doesn't see the money of them... what a better example). They have these porposes, that I already named before:
1: Scaring those who think about breaking the law.
2: Mantaining criminals out of the society
3: Making criminals able to return to society as good persons.

Why isn't satisfying the desires of the victim of the criminal recieving some punishment? Because that's a desire that those who have put though into this matter for centuries now don't consider it to be something good, and consider that nothing good will come out from it. They did think diferent long ago, and you can see that in the kind of punishments they had, like tearing their limbs with horses and things like that.
That also related to what I mean with "vengeance". Judges avoid it, they look for repairs and prevention. They could go after vengeance, but they don't. Why not, because there's no justice in it. And justice is something judges try to reach, not something that is borned only because they decide out of personal interest.

And finally, about the prisons thing. Let's review. You said they weren't bad, since they give you food and stuff, and that because of that, it didn't work to scare criminals from commiting crimes. I said that in most of the cases (and that's over the 90% for sure around the world) jails were a living hell. Also, I never agreed that jails weren't punishments in some states, that's something you said for yourselves. I just said that some jails weren't as bad as the rest... but even in the best cases, noone wants to go there.
But what I was really trying to say in the first place is that jails are more than enough to scare people from commiting crimes, and that they people would risk their lifes to avoid going there in most cases, instead of what you said.
Also, even if it's not the only thing that must change, if prisions have a lot more fundings they would be better and wouldn't be so bad for prisioners. So it is directly conected to the country's economy.
Still, I'm completly lost at what does this have to do with the rest of the discussion.

Finally, I can see that I have probably misundertood you completly about what you said DDV. Sorry bout that.

Ok. I think that if you read my posts you can understand my point of view, even if you completly disagree with it (most people will do, since not many care about criminals and prisioners at all... and only think about the victims... something I also did untill I entered law school and read books and books about it). That's why I probably won't be talking about this topics again unless doubts arise. (or complete misunderstaings of what I said... no unlikely due to the complexity of this topic -.-)

[DDv]

Originally Posted by Titens

But one thing I'm sure of, torturing someone to death might make me feel good by satisfying my desire of vengeance, but it wouldn't solve anything.

Why? The criminal is gone and You are happy. Almost the same result as with a DP, the only difference is that You are happier this way.

Originally Posted by Titens

Making you satisfy your impulses (that we all have) isn't helping, it just makes you feel better.

Again, You're happy and the criminal is gone.

Originally Posted by Titens

2: Mantaining criminals out of the society
3: Making criminals able to return to society as good persons.

This is almost impossible. After being in jail almost noone can blend into siciety again. They're better off dead. No more suffering for them, less criminals for us.

Originally Posted by Titens

Why not, because there's no justice in it. And justice is something judges try to reach, not something that is borned only because they decide out of personal interest.

Justice is something the higher-ups decide upon. If there's a law that says you may kill, then you may kill. Justice is relative.

Originally Posted by reminder

some people from death row are proved to be innocent after new methods of investigation are applied. So, killing them would be unfair.

This is only the minority. It happens with life sentences and you can't do anything with the 30 years already spent in prison. What's the difference?

Originally Posted by reminder

Getting tough on crime increases crime

Killing every criminal decreases the amount of criminals therefore the crimes comitted are decreased too.

Originally Posted by reminder

death penalty actually costs more than life sentence

With the same depth of investigation, it doesn't.

Originally Posted by reminder

Church says "No"

What about the inquisition? They did the very same thing for a long time.

Originally Posted by reminder

Murderers sometimes kill other people in prison, run away, take the crimes of others (therefore setting them free), do inhuman things (genocide, mass murders) and can't be considered to be humans anymore.

Who decides that?

Originally Posted by reminder

Capital punishment IS painful. Unlike some forms of suicide, which are possible in prison.

This can be changed. Also, DP doesn't need to be painful it just needs to be carried out.

Originally Posted by dragoncrusher

I believe that anyone who would intentionally take the life of another human being, without justification, has forfited there right to live as well.

Did he/she sign something?

Originally Posted by dragoncrusher

So as you can see, with my idea, we would lessen the amount of people who recive Capitol Punishment, while still keeping it and ensuring that under normal circumstances only those who are truely diserving of it would recive it.

This way it's really expensive and ineffective. For more info take a look at reminder's posts.

Originally Posted by dragoncrusher

One problem with it is that some people maybe prove innocent years after a sentence. If they're dead, well, your fucked.

Exactly. How are you going to compenstae the families of the innocents?

Originally Posted by ErgoProxy

And this is my opinion -why should anyone kill the f... (those who really deserve it)
when you can use them as tools!

Like working till the ends of their lives? They won't do it, because not working is going to result in the same thing as working hard.

Originally Posted by ErgoProxy

But some deeds should be punished by DEATH PENALTY (raping, killing, helpless human)

They can't be used as tools?