++ [ originally posted by gray ] ++
Okay, maybe the murdering society wasn't a good example, but I don't think it's for the government or lawmakers to determine whether a person has done enough to forfeit their human rights. Where do you draw the line? If a man embezzles $1,000 maybe you wouldn't punish them that severely, but if he steals $1,000,000... does that make his worth as a human so much less that he deserves to die?
Why is a thief such a threat to society that he should be killed? I've never suggested that and wouldn't think of doing so. You punish him by other means.
I think we build our society on certain foundations. We recognise property, we don't permit murder, or assault, or intimidation. We build our legal systems around these concepts. If someone, for example, commits a premeditated murder, then he undermines one of these foundations.
Obviously someone who steals is also undermining this, but stealing is a much lesser threat, and you can punish someone who steals amply by taking back what's stolen and further fining them, or even taking their liberty from them. You also take their good name - would you like to employ a thief? These measures are enough to stop a thief (or at least to bring it down to an acceptable level).
I'll give you an example of a law that was actually once in force, to counter your 'murdering society' example. In Celtic Ireland, a man could be fined for being too fat. In a warrior society, that made sense - how much less effective is a fat soldier? Less effective soldiers mean less effective armies to protect a village's cattle and people, whether it was from Viking raiders (you sods have a lot to answer for Martin!
) or just domestic cattle raids. Today, there'd be uproar if that law was passed - it would be unconstitutional, violate rights,
.
...in all practicality, executing domestic murderer's ain't gonna make a scrap of a difference to the world.
That's a good point, and my example wasn't perhaps the best possible one, but consider this: how much did your country spend on prisons last year? How much did they spend on hospitals? Schools? Social housing? Social Welfare payments? Pensions? How much money does your local charity for feeding the poor and homeless have? How much more does a murderer deserve those resources?
I might have told you guys a couple of weeks ago that my friend was killed in a car accident after he was hit by a drunk driver. That driver sped away and only confessed to the police the next day, when he was sober and the police couldn't charge him for drunk driving.
That's completely despicable, and it's almost as bad as murder, because he took no responsibility for his actions at the time, and thought only of himself when he knew that such an accident would surely kill the other driver involved.
I've since forgiven that man, and even though he's a threat to society, because there's a fair chance that when he gets over the shock, he'll drink and drive again... I don't feel that it's my right to take away his human rights. The only place I'd want him to be kept is in a rehabilitation center.
That's simple Gray. The man is a clearly a threat to society behind the wheel. His licence should be permanently revoked. Or perhaps revoked until he gives up alcohol - though that may not be practical.
It's quite clear that these two boys <The Bulger murderers> are a threat to society as long as they live.
Would I find it hard to forgive them if i was Jamie's mother or father? Of course I would.
Should they be forgiven? Yes.
Should they be executed and not given a chance to live? No. I think they should be in prison.
There are two questions here:
- Are they a threat to society?
- If they are, how should they be punished?
[/list=1]
1. They certainly were a very disturbed pair of 11 year olds. Why'd they do it? Would they do it again? I don't know - the chances are that even a criminal psychologist would have only a vague idea. Can we risk letting these guys out?
2. If they are a continuing threat to society, they cannot be let out. Ever. I'd rather see them dead than have the British economy feed, house and guard them for the rest of their natural lives. That's the point under debate though.
You say that they shouldn’t be denied the chance of life, but that they should be locked up. All your doing is not killing them for the sake of not killing them – they have no life if they’re locked up in a little cell for their natural lives. Is all that money you divert from better uses worth propping up a misplaced sympathy for someone who will kill for no reason? If someone can’t afford a particular treatment in hospital, and dies, because money is diverted from the health budget to jails, is it worth it, having kept your mind at ease.
EDIT: Sorry all for the multiple posts - fixed now. I kept getting an error page when posting, and assumed my post hadn't gotten through.
Buy on AliExpress.com
