PDA

View Full Version : Death Penalty-The Lighthouse of Humanism



Hoarsewhisper
Thursday, January 19th, 2006, 01:28 AM
It is a not uncommon opinion that Nordic jura are not compatible with the populations thirst for justice. We like to believe that our law, jura, and penalties should act as ideals for the rest of the world. But should it?

Norwegian law are best suited to break down peoples common respect for law and justice. The regards for murders, rapists and thugs comfort and rights, are often far higher priorized than those of their victims.

The resources that are used on these can not be compared. In Noway, it costs about 1.2 millions annual to keep a prisoner.

This is called “humanism” but is it really? Human rights should be for human beings.
But by denying their victims these rights, these criminals have stated that such rights are not valid, and should then logically have lost these rights themselves.

The socalled “humanism” have to set certain limits for what we can accept from “humans”, before they lose the right to be considered human.

Human rights should be reserved those such that respects other humans has the same rights. Also among criminals, it’s axiom that respect is basical. Let us take that serious. By not respecting others, one shall lose respect themselves.

Humanism should care for humanity, not for its enemies. The extermination of twolegged vermin in “human” shape may therefore be much closer to genuine humanism than the quack version “save the antraxbacteria “

In a religious or spiritual perspective, one also does the candidates to DP a favour, by letting them meet themselves in the door, and thereby be given the option to learn to not do such things again. There will also be some a element of penalty in it, at the same time as one eliminates the risk for repeated crimes.

To take away the criminals the option to pay with the most costly one have, is also a manner to take away their responsibility for own actions of cruelty.

The PC`s brags that “human” threathment of all kind of scum have a rehabilizing and preventive effect. That is a bad taste joke, only possible to believe in if one “believe” really hard, and do not consider common sense. Ask the victims and their dear ones. Honestly, all consideration to the victims should come first, and there should be anything left, one could throw a bone to vermin in human shape.

Politicians, criminalogists and their alikes seems to long ago have lost the respect for common sense. These believes themselves to know much better than ordinary people. The consequenzes of this arrogance is unfortunatelt flourishing, and the respect for law and order are in full dissolvement, one shall be as blind as Justitia, or corrupt to not be aware of that.

Good people, that tries to live a decent life, and does their best to adapt to laws, claims that the legal system shall be sane. The laws must be logical, and penalties must reflect the crimes. If not, good people will lose the respect for, and their believe in law and justice.
Also the Peoples thirst to punish gruesome crimes should be respected.

As I said above, some criminals have through their acts proven that they do not accept the contract between the individual and the society, that grants individuals human rights, so we do not have to worry about their wellbeeing.

Not only of generalprevantive considerations, but also for the mental resituation of the victims, all should be sure that certain types of criminals are punished hard enogh. This opens a corridor for quite other methods than these we use on soft-crimes.

Personally, I think the punishment shall recflect the crime, if the crime have been gruesome, so must the punishment be. Of several reason, first the generalprevantive consideration. Then the victims right to mental and emotional resitusion. Then societys thirst for justice. The order of these reasons may be otherwise than mentioned here.

One that tortures and rapes, shall self experience to be violated and have the personality disturbed and decomposed. This is called torture, OK, but we must talk a language that these understand. I am not talking of pettycrime here.

Good poeples thirst for justice have to be loosened upon the heads of these, and this can be done by the help of modern hightech. Let us say that a small society like Norway annually executes a minimum of 3 vermins. The candidates to this special threathment could be elected by the People via SMS, like a negative "talent" competition.

Those that the People FEEL should be staked, should be staked, by the Peoples choice. Its thirst for justice should not be underestimated.

This is closer to humanism: Human rights for human beeings! Exclusively!

Link to poll: http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=46592

Hoarsewhisper
Thursday, January 19th, 2006, 02:09 AM
On the other hand, mercilessness and cruelty are very dangerous areas to move into for anyone, its autodestructivity is also logical.

Extreme justice is fine in theory, but has to be moderated, or balanced, to have constructive practical use according to the ideas it represents, emphathy, peace, law and order

Execution methods would be moderated according to larger groups of peoples common sense, as we consider us human. Humans need love and mercy, also collective, and that implies both give and take.

It is autoadjusting, I trust humanity that much. I agree that society cannot institutialize cruelty, would not that be a "Ministery of Cruelty"?

The electric chair are told to give 15-20 minutes of horror, thats is not more than any junkie goes through on abstinenses, and we care not much for that? Theres a limit, do not worry...

Jehan
Thursday, January 19th, 2006, 03:53 AM
Norwegian law are best suited to break down peoples common respect for law and justice. The regards for murders, rapists and thugs comfort and rights, are often far higher priorized than those of their victims.
I think one might argue that this is the case in most, if not all western countries anyway. I think this is due to the fact that people nowadays think that criminal and antisocial acts are largely due to bad upbringing and other traumatic experiences, and that it is not really the criminal's fault. Even though this might be partially true, it is definitely not the determining factor. Psychopathy and other antisocial behaviors that leads to violent crimes are largely heritable, which makes a potential "curing" of the criminal impossible. It is true that not all murderers are psychopaths, but they do exhibit some similar features, though at a lesser degree.


The resources that are used on these can not be compared. In Noway, it costs about 1.2 millions annual to keep a prisoner.
You know, some time ago, prisoners paid for their sejourn in prison. Doesn't that sound like a terrific idea? I find it completely unacceptable to waste this much resources on harmful components of society. What about work camps? They sound fun too!


This is called “humanism” but is it really? Human rights should be for human beings.
But by denying their victims these rights, these criminals have stated that such rights are not valid, and should then logically have lost these rights themselves.

The socalled “humanism” have to set certain limits for what we can accept from “humans”, before they lose the right to be considered human.
The fact that you commit a crime doesn't change your species.;) I think the problem here is that people believe that the so called universal human rights are intrinsically linked to the mere fact of being human, which is ridiculous. The right to a shelter, food, education or freedom of speech is not granted to you from birth. Human beings have access to these things because they are part of a larger cooperative social unit. And this "membership" comes with duties and responsibilities towards the rest of the bunch. By denying those responsibilities, you also instantly deny your appartenance to the social unit, and you are thus stripped of any privileges (or rights if that's what you want to call them) you previously had. It's as simple as that. You always stays human in the whole process, because of obvious biological characteristics you have. So as a social being, you have rights AND duties(everyone seems to always forget those, like they're not part of the equation), but as a human being, you're really just a dumb primate.:D


Humanism should care for humanity, not for its enemies. The extermination of twolegged vermin in “human” shape may therefore be much closer to genuine humanism than the quack version “save the antraxbacteria “
You're talking like the notion of humanity actually means something in a moral sense. Because you're evil does not mean you're not human anymore, it just means you're a nuisance to society, and as such you need to be put away, by any means...:lynch


Good people, that tries to live a decent life, and does their best to adapt to laws, claims that the legal system shall be sane. The laws must be logical, and penalties must reflect the crimes. If not, good people will lose the respect for, and their believe in law and justice.
Also the Peoples thirst to punish gruesome crimes should be respected.
People have a thirst to punish all crimes because they do not want to get screwed and expoited by parasites. It's a defense mechanism.


Not only of generalprevantive considerations, but also for the mental resituation of the victims, all should be sure that certain types of criminals are punished hard enogh. This opens a corridor for quite other methods than these we use on soft-crimes.

Personally, I think the punishment shall recflect the crime, if the crime have been gruesome, so must the punishment be. Of several reason, first the generalprevantive consideration. Then the victims right to mental and emotional resitusion. Then societys thirst for justice. The order of these reasons may be otherwise than mentioned here.

One that tortures and rapes, shall self experience to be violated and have the personality disturbed and decomposed. This is called torture, OK, but we must talk a language that these understand. I am not talking of pettycrime here.
Harsh punishment serves only as a preventive measure. It's there just to show the criminal(except in the case of the death penalty) and the would-be criminals around that the disadvantages to screwing people largely outweight the advantages. The punishment only needs to be this hard. If it gets harsher than necessary, it's just mindless cruelty, and a sane society does not condone this. The society's thirst for justice is nothing more than the instinctive will to get rid of the nuisance and to make sure it won't happen again by discouraging would-be murderers, rapers, etc.


Good poeples thirst for justice have to be loosened upon the heads of these, and this can be done by the help of modern hightech. Let us say that a small society like Norway annually executes a minimum of 3 vermins. The candidates to this special threathment could be elected by the People via SMS, like a negative "talent" competition.
Why on earth would there be a minimum of executions? Should we go out to look for random people to kill because we're not completing our quota, and the people will be mad? I don't get you on this.


Those that the People FEEL should be staked, should be staked, by the Peoples choice. Its thirst for justice should not be underestimated.
I don't think blind faith in a crowd's emotional reaction is the best way to govern. Gut feeling might be useful sometimes, but it's really not the best tool you have. Louis XVI knows something about it;)

Anyway, good thread, Asthor:thumbup