[archosman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marados /img/forum/go_quote.gif Fantastic! A dog-eat-dog, anarchist world. On what grounds? Who gets to decide that you have the power to have someone executed? As I said before, who watches the watchmen?

I didn't say I would make the decision. I said I would do what no one else wants to do.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Marados They're not productive members of society, so they should be shaved off. It truly is chilling, really, when you view a human life as a factor in an economy that you're streamlining. Also, from the sounds of it, the people you are describing are mentally ill. It is my belief, then, that they most certainly do not deserve a bullet to the head, as it's obvious they're not acting out of malice or spite or malevolence (or any conscious decision of such, of course), but have a natural implication which is simply inevitable and wasn't picked up on early enough. The outcome still remains tragic, as well as what the criminal has done - but to kill someone for their nature is draconian.

You really need to read the definition of what a sociopath and a psychopath is...



Quote:

Originally Posted by Marados Once more, this is flawed reasoning. If we were to make an effort to rehabilitate them, then the ones who are judged unfit for society, the people you are describing as serial murderers, would be kept away in the interest of the public, and the ones who were rehabilitated, you wouldn't need to worry about.

Short of a lobotomy these people don't want to be helped at all. Ever. I worked with a sociopath who not only destroyed his family damn near destroyed our business. Granted he didn't kill anyone... so I'm not saying that everyone deserves that fate. But there's enough of them out there that are doing nothing but breathing valuable air.

I would love to drop you off on an island with 20 or 30 of them and see just how far you could get with them through reasoning. I'm not trying to be malicious... but I doubt you could get very far with them.

What do you do with a person you can't reason with?

Once again not counting a lobotomy those people don't respond to treatment because they just don't care.

That's the danger.

 

[bundee1]

Quote:

In my opinion, teaching a child to question people in authority is a much better alternative than beating your children and teaching them to fear authority. And, it should be noted that questioning does not necessarily equal defying.

You do not teach a child to question authority until they know the boundaries that authorities represent. Do you have children? You can only teach them to question authority when they have a reference point of authority and right and wrong.

 

[Marados]

Quote:

Originally Posted by archosman /img/forum/go_quote.gif I didn't say I would make the decision. I said I would do what no one else wants to do.

You gave the impression of being the person to make the decision when you said "I will."


Quote:

You really need to read the definition of what a sociopath and a psychopath is...

"Antisocial personality disorder (APD) is a mental disorder defined by the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual: "The essential feature for the diagnosis is a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood."[1] Considered essential features of the disorder are deceit and manipulation. Therefore it is essential in making the diagnosis to collect material from sources other than the individual being diagnosed. Also, the individual must be age 18 or older as well as have a documented history of a conduct disorder before the age of 15.[1]"

By the definition, this child is neither (note the age limit). Perhaps it is you who should revise their definitions.

Quote:

Short of a lobotomy these people don't want to be helped at all. Ever. I worked with a sociopath who not only destroyed his family damn near destroyed our business. Granted he didn't kill anyone... so I'm not saying that everyone deserves that fate. But there's enough of them out there that are doing nothing but breathing valuable air.

Once again, this all boils down to a human life vs an economy. Who decides that a particular one is doing nothing but breathing valuable air? What gives you the right to destroy another human being, who you don't know, who is living their life irrespective of you, because you want a bit more of a share of resources than them?

Who decides. If you decide that someone is doing nothing by "breathing valuable air", can someone else decide that you are doing nothing but breathe valuable air? Who watches the watchmen?

The answer, of course, is that you don't have that right. You don't, and you never will, nor will anyone but, arguably, the people themselves.

Quote:

I would love to drop you off on an island with 20 or 30 of them and see just how far you could get with them through reasoning. I'm not trying to be malicious... but I doubt you could get very far with them.

Once more, the people who are a danger are locked up in the interest of the public.


Quote:

You do not teach a child to question authority until they know the boundaries that authorities represent.

Sure; what's your point? It's not exactly like these two are mutually exclusive.

 

[EyeAmEye]

I think if a judge, like Judge Joe Brown for instance, sat these kids down and gave them a serious finger wagging, they could turn themselves around.

Or, we could hang them in a very public place and let all the little punk crap kids see what happens to their waste product friends who think beating people to death is a cool and fun thing to do.

I choose method #2, and wouldn't think twice about it.

Anyone who thinks any human life is so sacred it must be spared at all costs is delusional.

 

[Marados]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EyeAmEye /img/forum/go_quote.gif Anyone who thinks any human life is so sacred it must be spared at all costs is delusional.

Remind me, what costs are there. What difference will it make if this boy isn't killed?

That's right - jack ****. Don't talk about preserving "life at any cost", when there's no cost involved.

 

[archosman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paragon /img/forum/go_quote.gif Kids these days are not brought up properly these days. There are a lot of parents that expect the teachers to teach them the basics of life. Tis a shame. A lot of kids do not know right from wrong. I know a few Elementary teachers and some of the stories are unbelievable. It seems to have gotten worse since there is a lot of "both parents working" situations and also divorce and abuse issues. Anyhoo..

You were saying?


The incident began when teachers at the Moss Elemenary School in Orange County confronted an 11-year-old girl for allegedly attempting to push another student into ongoing traffic outside the campus, MyFOXOrlando.com reported.

Authorities say the young female ignored the teacher and walked inside the homeroom, where she was again approached by teachers over her behavior. The student responded by thowing a desk and chair and attempting to spit on the instructor, according to MyFOXOrlando.com.

Donna Hudepohl, a school resource officer called to remove the troubled girl from the classroom, was allegedly pushed and punched in the face during a struggle to restrain her.

Hudepohl responded by tasering the girl.

The student was charged with battery on a law enforcement officer, disrupting a school function as well as resisting with violence and is being held at the juvenile detention center.

Hudepohl was treated for a possible broken nose.

 

[archosman]

You never answered my question Marados...



What do you do with a person you can't reason with?

 

[Marados]

Quote:

Originally Posted by archosman /img/forum/go_quote.gif You were saying? The incident began when teachers at the Moss Elemenary School in Orange County confronted an 11-year-old girl for allegedly attempting to push another student into ongoing traffic outside the campus, MyFOXOrlando.com reported. Authorities say the young female ignored the teacher and walked inside the homeroom, where she was again approached by teachers over her behavior. The student responded by thowing a desk and chair and attempting to spit on the instructor, according to MyFOXOrlando.com. Donna Hudepohl, a school resource officer called to remove the troubled girl from the classroom, was allegedly pushed and punched in the face during a struggle to restrain her. Hudepohl responded by tasering the girl. The student was charged with battery on a law enforcement officer, disrupting a school function as well as resisting with violence and is being held at the juvenile detention center. Hudepohl was treated for a possible broken nose.

I find it bizzare that an eleven-year-old girl was tasered - how incompetent of the forces involved. She obviously has some sort of illness, and should be treated as soon as possible.

Quote:

You never answered my question Marados... What do you do with a person you can't reason with?

That depends. If the person who you cannot reason with has violent tendencies, and there's a good chance they will harm someone, then I believe in the interest of the public they should be secluded from society, most likely in the form of a jail cell (or, alternatively, a psychiatric ward or something similar).

This is a stark difference to executing someone out of malice, executing someone on the grounds that they're breathing your air, locking them up to make them suffer, et cetera.

 

[bundee1]

Forget this guy he doesn't get it and is probably trolling around looking to goad us. I guess things are different in Hobbiton.

 

[Marados]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bundee1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Forget this guy he doesn't get it and is probably trolling around looking to goad us. I guess things are different in Hobbiton.

Yeah, things are pretty different here. For one, we don't argue with ad-hominem.

 

[EyeAmEye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marados /img/forum/go_quote.gif Remind me, what costs are there. What difference will it make if this boy isn't killed? That's right - jack ****. Don't talk about preserving "life at any cost", when there's no cost involved.

The cost is how many other people they will continually hurt after they have been "rehabilitated" by their punishment. I believe in protecting the rights and lives of the innocent, not the guilty. Letting criminals have another go at their activities after serving their "time" protects nothing but the criminal's opportunities to hurt others.

As far as I'm concerned, as soon as you knowingly and willingly cross the line and deny someone their basic right to live, you forfeit your own in return.

 

[883dave]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EyeAmEye /img/forum/go_quote.gif The cost is how many other people they will continually hurt after they have been "rehabilitated" by their punishment. I believe in protecting the rights and lives of the innocent, not the guilty. Letting criminals have another go at their activities after serving their "time" protects nothing but the criminal's opportunities to hurt others. As far as I'm concerned, as soon as you knowingly and willingly cross the line and deny someone their basic right to live, you forfeit your own in return.

I agree.

However there is always someone that will want to give the person a chance at rehabilitation.
If someone feels this way they should be given the chance to try in their house with their family...

Wonder how many people would step forward???

 

[Marados]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EyeAmEye /img/forum/go_quote.gif The cost is how many other people they will continually hurt after they have been "rehabilitated" by their punishment. I believe in protecting the rights and lives of the innocent, not the guilty. Letting criminals have another go at their activities after serving their "time" protects nothing but the criminal's opportunities to hurt others.

An absolute straw-man. Did you seriously fail to read any of my clarifications? I mean, forgive the exasperation, but when I say stuff like

"And once again, the people that are more than likely to reoffend would be kept in prison in the interest of the public. I am not suggesting that we just tell a serial murderer "That was bad! People don't like that," and then set him on his way. I am not suggesting we should have dangerous people running around on the streets."

repeatedly, how can you still argue these points which I've already addressed?

Quote:

As far as I'm concerned, as soon as you knowingly and willingly cross the line and deny someone their basic right to live, you forfeit your own in return.

Ok, I'll try and explain this again.

So, say somebody kills another person. They've denied someone their basic right to live, so they must forfeit their life according to your system.

Who kills this person? Whoever kills the guilty murderer, now has denied someone their basic right to live.

It doesn't work - the eye-for-an-eye system is endless.

Quote:

I agree. However there is always someone that will want to give the person a chance at rehabilitation. If someone feels this way they should be given the chance to try in their house with their family... Wonder how many people would step forward???

This post lacks perspective, and reason.

How does "giving someone a chance at rehabilitation" suddenly equate to letting a criminal live amongst your family? It's completely non-sequitar.

All I'm suggesting is that rather than have a system which is interested in retribution, in eye-for-an-eye justice, we have a system where people are positively reinforced to act in a way which will benefit society, and slowly rehabilitated.

So ease up on the straw mans.

 

[RYCeT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 883dave /img/forum/go_quote.gif I agree. However there is always someone that will want to give the person a chance at rehabilitation. If someone feels this way they should be given the chance to try in their house with their family... Wonder how many people would step forward???

ask marados to step forward

Btw, marados, if you ever been in North Philadelphia, I bet you'll be ****ting in your pants and begging to get you ticket back to NZ.

If it ever happens to you, your family or relative, I want to see if you still hold the same thinking

 

[EyeAmEye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marados /img/forum/go_quote.gif An absolute straw-man. Did you seriously fail to read any of my clarifications? I mean, forgive the exasperation, but when I say stuff like "And once again, the people that are more than likely to reoffend would be kept in prison in the interest of the public. I am not suggesting that we just tell a serial murderer "That was bad! People don't like that," and then set him on his way. I am not suggesting we should have dangerous people running around on the streets." repeatedly, how can you still argue these points which I've already addressed? Ok, I'll try and explain this again. So, say somebody kills another person. They've denied someone their basic right to live, so they must forfeit their life according to your system. Who kills this person? Whoever kills the guilty murderer, now has denied someone their basic right to live. It doesn't work - the eye-for-an-eye system is endless. This post lacks perspective, and reason. How does "giving someone a chance at rehabilitation" suddenly equate to letting a criminal live amongst your family? It's completely non-sequitar. All I'm suggesting is that rather than have a system which is interested in retribution, in eye-for-an-eye justice, we have a system where people are positively reinforced to act in a way which will benefit society, and slowly rehabilitated. So ease up on the straw mans.

Your exasperation is forgiven, now please forgive me in return for letting you in on a little secret. I did not read any of your posts, nor will I. I truly don't care what your opinion is, nor ever will. See, I posted on this thread my own opinion, never once referencing your posts. You referenced mine, so I answered with my viewpoint. I could care less what you had previously addressed, as I did not read it, nor will I backtrack in the future. Do as you will henceforth.

Eh, if someone has already forfeited their right to live, how could the executioner deny him the right he no longer possesses????