My aim is so terrible I'd probably shoot to wound him and end up killing him.
*sigh* I've seen you in better shape Pika... Gee, I think wanting to execute him would make me for, don't you think? Slavery much? I didn't even think they'd be paying them. Killing them has advantages without losing jobs. Next! Who says you will ever? And how is this different from your "What if he's innocent?" argument? Would you dare to deny it the privileges of a normal life without being 100% certain? Because don't illude yourself by thinking that you will be so sure. Also, I've already said that each case has different nuances which you will never be able to predict. Each case gives new insight on cases given that they are similar enough, which they rarely are. Aside from those, we know plenty. A lot of people dislike the death penalty altogether. We're not here to discuss how it is, we're here to discuss how it should be. I agree that confessions alone aren't enough. Confessions and evidence would work well together though. Also, if the criminal knows he'll be "off the hook" (by death), he just might confess a tad sooner compared to when a lifetime of imprisonment without any chance of getting out is presented to him. Doesn't mean they won't take into account that they might. You'd be surprised how many people pull themselves over the line by saying "Meh, haven't got much to lose anyway." A reduction in luxury can discourage those people and make them reconsider the risks. Who cares? Fine, let them be a hero in their eyes. Why should that concern us? Or maybe we should fight them with tranquilizer guns from now on. That would prevent them from becoming martyrs right? *is tempted to repeat himself for the umpteenth time but realises he doesn't have the time do so*
I don't see it as an obligation at all. I like reading stories but only if I can take my time for it. I dislike having to read hastily so I pick...
Good to hear you're feeling better. I'll get to the second chapter soon, but I don't have much that much time today.
Inspire yourselves. Or take drugs to let them do it for you.
Make up some moves, then tell everyone only the best know these moves.
Doesn't matter. It still is.
The grammar thing is getting annoying.
You call that boobs?
The ability to make your fingers grow blades. Drawback: They grow inward.
Into the bin they go.
Putting pathological criminals to good use is easier said than done. If it doesn't get them out of prison early, why would they lift a finger? Also, giving them tasks that can be completed by free civilians is rather unfair. I don't know hom the unemployment rates are in your country but I'd prefer keeping jobs to those who have proven themselves to be of definite constructive use, i.e. the citizens. Studying them isn't all that useful either: we already charted the symptoms of disorders such as sociopathy and when push comes to shove every case is slightly different anyway. What is left to study? The difference between capital punishment and lifelong imprisonment is or should be reduced expenses and conserved space, as I've clearly said before. That is how I see it, not as a form as revenge (others might see it as the latter but that doesn't concern me nor does it reduce the aforementioned advantages). I find it moronic how the death penalty has more of a vengeful feel to it than any other frorm punishment, and how people turn blind of the other benefits the procedure has to offer because of it. This leaves the "practice what you preach" argument. Well, as I mentioned before, locking people up is against the law as well. Capital punishment is only is only more dangerous to practice because of its irreversibility. Of course since we're dealing with a human life, hard facts and/or a confession are necessary. I've said this from the beginning and I stick by it. Another necessity for it to work well, and it may have been a mistake to not mention this sooner, is a clear and foolproof outline of the violations where the death penalty can be considered in the verdict. I opt for imprisonment in borderline cases. By the way, when I was talking about "reducing luxury in cells", I did not just refer to pathological criminals. I meant in general. Wouldn't it be so that smaller would-be delinquents would reconsider before violating the law if they knew that a cell of few luxuries would await them? I do believe so.
Execute him if proven guilty after proper trial. Yes, that is what I meant. I'd be the last to deny that reformation is very useful. But about the examples you gave, these pathological criminals that cannot be reformed, they illustrate my point. Why would you lock them up for life if you could execute them? This isn't an act of revenge, or at least it's not supposed to be seen that way (getting back to that when replying to Pika). I don't see it as a means to get revenge. And there is a lot more to capital punishment than that. If it eases people's minds because they had their vengeance all the better I guess, but I think it's proposterous to use the "eye for an eye" as a counter argument since it is not necessarily the main reason and definitely not the only aspect that plays a role. I never said we should use it lightly. But we should keep the option open instead of mindlessly forbidding it. See above. As long as there are human beings involved, death penalty is dangerous. Another hazard to it is social bias, for example racism. I admit that we'd have to root out these risks to an acceptable extent first before actually introducing or even continuing with capital punishment. Nevertheless it'd be a good idea for the future. I've already hinted at this. I think you know as well as I do that I only implied instant-death methods. But I do mean cheap instant-death methods, which include methods that leave a mess. "Removal from the benefits of society?" How is this free from being seen as a form of revenge while capital punishment is subject to it? That doesn't make any sense. Furthermore I'm against criminals "choosing" their punishment in any way whatsoever. That's not how justice works or ever should work. As a matter of fact I dislike the idea as a whole. "Leave them to their own devices"? Your worst criminals are no angels. Who's to say they might not strangle eachother for more food or a higher spot in the pecking order? Sure, you could guard them but you'd have to pay for the guards and for the extra transport (relief of these guards, additional supplies from time to time etc). To conclude I'd like to point out that remote islands often suffer from tsunamis, hurricanes etc. You'd also have to take into account the capacity of prisoners it can detain, what nation the island belongs to and whether the island isn't better off to be used for something else. That's how the law works I'm afraid, it's no different for other suspicious lifelong imprisonment cases that are convicted now. The percentage of consent is still quite a bit higher than your average murder's therefore they are hardly ever comparable. Or how about this? Every case wherein death penalty is considered (I assume there wouldn't be too many, like I said I wouldn't use it lightly) requires a voting. If the percentage pro death penalty exceeds say 70%, then the criminal is executed. Only problem with this is that it might cancel out or even overcompensate the reduction in costs that death penalty may have had to offer (internet voting could be an option but then we have a hackers threat to take into account). We'd have to wait for the "hurrr we can't condemn another person's life" preachers to come to their senses first too, in order for the system to be efficient... No, it's a form from cutting expenses with a side motive of discouraging people to actually break the law. To sum it all up: death penalty is extremely useful in capable hands, and in capable hands only. Maybe we're not ready for it yet, but we'll have to work our way towards it. Let's just say that a lot of con-arguments I read here are pure bull. You won't stop progress forever.
The comparison between gay marriage and bestiality is just plain wrong. Animals, as said here before by the looks of it, cannot consent. Not to mention gay couples are actually in love, while this is usually not the case with bestiality. The least you could do is read the whole thread.
I'm complicated.
I didn't read the OP! I didn't fell for it this time! It was about the game right?
Oh the irony.
You bet I did.
On itself? Not really, although it will always retain some advantages. In combination with reformation? Yes. If you have a better idea to reduce crime though, please do tell us. What good him leeching off state money ever do? Oh right, "he'll get his punishment". Like I said, that shouldn't be our priority.
At least (s)he admits it's a pretty bad attempt.
