Orton's Arm Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 I feel the government should no longer impose fines for stealing. There are two reasons for this: - Confiscation begets confiscation. If people see the government forcibly taking people's money away, it will beget a culture of theft by force. - If the government fines people for stealing, it becomes as bad as the thieves themselves. There is no moral difference between breaking into someone's house and taking their things, and imposing an equivalent fine on such behavior. Then there's the issue of kidnapping. Say that a man imprisons a woman for a year in some shack in the middle of the forest. The judge that sentences this man to a year of jail is just as morally repugnant as the criminal himself. To punish the man in this way will only create a culture of imprisonment; which will actually lead to more kidnappings! What about the idea that the punishment should fit the crime? Forget that! The punishment should fit my inflated self-opinion. I like to think of myself as a generous, understanding person. It makes me feel good to exercise generosity towards criminals; and I don't really care about the larger issue of whether such generosity may be creating a pro-crime culture. What about deterrent? There's no way fines would deter anyone from stealing. There's no way jail time would deter anyone from kidnapping. And there's no way the death penalty would deter anyone from murder. To illustrate this last point, consider nature. If you kill a bear cub, the mother bear will kill you. Do you think this fact has ever deterred anyone from killing bear cubs? I don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 I feel the government should no longer impose fines for stealing. There are two reasons for this:- Confiscation begets confiscation. If people see the government forcibly taking people's money away, it will beget a culture of theft by force. - If the government fines people for stealing, it becomes as bad as the thieves themselves. There is no moral difference between breaking into someone's house and taking their things, and imposing an equivalent fine on such behavior. Then there's the issue of kidnapping. Say that a man imprisons a woman for a year in some shack in the middle of the forest. The judge that sentences this man to a year of jail is just as morally repugnant as the criminal himself. To punish the man in this way will only create a culture of imprisonment; which will actually lead to more kidnappings! What about the idea that the punishment should fit the crime? Forget that! The punishment should fit my inflated self-opinion. I like to think of myself as a generous, understanding person. It makes me feel good to exercise generosity towards criminals; and I don't really care about the larger issue of whether such generosity may be creating a pro-crime culture. What about deterrent? There's no way fines would deter anyone from stealing. There's no way jail time would deter anyone from kidnapping. And there's no way the death penalty would deter anyone from murder. To illustrate this last point, consider nature. If you kill a bear cub, the mother bear will kill you. Do you think this fact has ever deterred anyone from killing bear cubs? I don't. 723368[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted July 15, 2006 Author Share Posted July 15, 2006 723371[/snapback] Let me put it another way. I've heard opponents of the death penalty use the following logic: - Violence begets violence. If the government kills convicted murderers, it will only inspire more murders. - Moral equivalence. Supposedly, executing a convicted murderer is the moral equivalent of killing an innocent person. I wanted to illustrate how silly these ways of thinking seem when applied to stealing and to kidnapping. They are equally nonsensical when applied to the death penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 I feel the government should no longer impose fines for stealing. There are two reasons for this:- Confiscation begets confiscation. If people see the government forcibly taking people's money away, it will beget a culture of theft by force. - If the government fines people for stealing, it becomes as bad as the thieves themselves. There is no moral difference between breaking into someone's house and taking their things, and imposing an equivalent fine on such behavior. Then there's the issue of kidnapping. Say that a man imprisons a woman for a year in some shack in the middle of the forest. The judge that sentences this man to a year of jail is just as morally repugnant as the criminal himself. To punish the man in this way will only create a culture of imprisonment; which will actually lead to more kidnappings! What about the idea that the punishment should fit the crime? Forget that! The punishment should fit my inflated self-opinion. I like to think of myself as a generous, understanding person. It makes me feel good to exercise generosity towards criminals; and I don't really care about the larger issue of whether such generosity may be creating a pro-crime culture. What about deterrent? There's no way fines would deter anyone from stealing. There's no way jail time would deter anyone from kidnapping. And there's no way the death penalty would deter anyone from murder. To illustrate this last point, consider nature. If you kill a bear cub, the mother bear will kill you. Do you think this fact has ever deterred anyone from killing bear cubs? I don't. 723368[/snapback] If this is truly your opinion, it will change when you are affected by a crime. I am no proponent of the death penalty; some people indeed are not worthy, in my opinion, of being on this earth but I am not the right being to judge. I think you're trolling. If not, I agree with the above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted July 15, 2006 Author Share Posted July 15, 2006 If this is truly your opinion, it will change when you are affected by a crime. I am no proponent of the death penalty; some people indeed are not worthy, in my opinion, of being on this earth but I am not the right being to judge. 723378[/snapback] I'd thought the sarcasm of the original post was a little more obvious than all that. No, of course the original post isn't my true opinion. It's the opposite of everything I believe. You say you're not the right person to judge who belongs on this earth, and who doesn't. A criminal justice system which accepted this logic would fail to function. Is any of us truly worthy of deciding who gets jail time, and who goes free? A criminal justice system unwilling to make such judgements has no function. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 I'm not trying to be a Richard here, but.... You know that saying that sarcasm doesn't come across well on the Internet? (Especially sarcasm that is this poorly organized and argued.) Yeah. This thread is an example of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 I feel the government should no longer impose fines for stealing. There are two reasons for this:- Confiscation begets confiscation. If people see the government forcibly taking people's money away, it will beget a culture of theft by force. - If the government fines people for stealing, it becomes as bad as the thieves themselves. There is no moral difference between breaking into someone's house and taking their things, and imposing an equivalent fine on such behavior. Then there's the issue of kidnapping. Say that a man imprisons a woman for a year in some shack in the middle of the forest. The judge that sentences this man to a year of jail is just as morally repugnant as the criminal himself. To punish the man in this way will only create a culture of imprisonment; which will actually lead to more kidnappings! What about the idea that the punishment should fit the crime? Forget that! The punishment should fit my inflated self-opinion. I like to think of myself as a generous, understanding person. It makes me feel good to exercise generosity towards criminals; and I don't really care about the larger issue of whether such generosity may be creating a pro-crime culture. What about deterrent? There's no way fines would deter anyone from stealing. There's no way jail time would deter anyone from kidnapping. And there's no way the death penalty would deter anyone from murder. To illustrate this last point, consider nature. If you kill a bear cub, the mother bear will kill you. Do you think this fact has ever deterred anyone from killing bear cubs? I don't. 723368[/snapback] Yeah, I remember my first beer, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 I'd thought the sarcasm of the original post was a little more obvious than all that. No, of course the original post isn't my true opinion. It's the opposite of everything I believe. You say you're not the right person to judge who belongs on this earth, and who doesn't. A criminal justice system which accepted this logic would fail to function. Is any of us truly worthy of deciding who gets jail time, and who goes free? A criminal justice system unwilling to make such judgements has no function. 723383[/snapback] I was referring to the taking of a life. I sure wouldn't want that on my conscience. I suppose that by NOT campaigning to abolish the death penalty I shoulder some guilt ... but that I can live with. I would not however want to be the judge or jury who sent a human being to death. I believe that humans are too fallible and since every day we're seeing people released from jail because they were mistakenly convicted, well that's a risk I wouldn't take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted July 16, 2006 Author Share Posted July 16, 2006 I'm not trying to be a Richard here, but.... But it just comes naturally! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted July 17, 2006 Author Share Posted July 17, 2006 I was referring to the taking of a life. I sure wouldn't want that on my conscience. I suppose that by NOT campaigning to abolish the death penalty I shoulder some guilt ... but that I can live with. I would not however want to be the judge or jury who sent a human being to death. I believe that humans are too fallible and since every day we're seeing people released from jail because they were mistakenly convicted, well that's a risk I wouldn't take. If you're unwilling to accept this kind of responsibility, I suggest abstaining from jury duty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 I was referring to the taking of a life. I sure wouldn't want that on my conscience. I suppose that by NOT campaigning to abolish the death penalty I shoulder some guilt ... but that I can live with. I would not however want to be the judge or jury who sent a human being to death. I believe that humans are too fallible and since every day we're seeing people released from jail because they were mistakenly convicted, well that's a risk I wouldn't take. 723454[/snapback] Do feel more or less guilty when one of the animals you feel sorry for hurts a prison guard or another inmate because you're too gutless to make a tough decision for fear of having to live with guilt? There are significant consequences to allowing someone with nothing to live for to rot in prison. Hippies - screwing up our country one by one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch19079 Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 i'm agenst the death penalty, but not for the reason you may think. i do believe that some people just deserve to die for their actions. but we are not always 100% sure the person found guilty of commiting the crime actually commited the crime. our system is far from perfect, but its the best we have. People have been found guilty then released as more evidence is discovered... the problem with the death penalty is that you cant say, o we are sorry, we were wrong, your free to go. the person would be dead. its final. there is no room for error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 i'm agenst the death penalty, but not for the reason you may think. i do believe that some people just deserve to die for their actions. but we are not always 100% sure the person found guilty of commiting the crime actually commited the crime. our system is far from perfect, but its the best we have. People have been found guilty then released as more evidence is discovered... the problem with the death penalty is that you cant say, o we are sorry, we were wrong, your free to go. the person would be dead. its final. there is no room for error. 726600[/snapback] Here's an idea: Invent a machine that can scan the brain and detect lies flawlessly. Then have only one punishment for crime: death. See how many people steal, rape or murder. </sarcasm> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 i'm agenst the death penalty, but not for the reason you may think. i do believe that some people just deserve to die for their actions. but we are not always 100% sure the person found guilty of commiting the crime actually commited the crime. our system is far from perfect, but its the best we have. People have been found guilty then released as more evidence is discovered... the problem with the death penalty is that you cant say, o we are sorry, we were wrong, your free to go. the person would be dead. its final. there is no room for error. 726600[/snapback] tis why I'm against it too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted July 21, 2006 Author Share Posted July 21, 2006 but we are not always 100% sure the person found guilty of commiting the crime actually commited the crime. our system is far from perfect, but its the best we have. People have been found guilty then released as more evidence is discovered... I've heard of cases in which someone was sentenced to death for a crime they didn't commit. However, in each of those cases, the person involved was in fact guilty of other heinous offenses. The system made the right decision--execution--but for the wrong reason. I can live with that. What I have a harder time accepting is the unstated assumption that a wrongful execution is somehow a greater tragedy than a highway fatality, or a murder, or a construction-related death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 What I have a harder time accepting is the unstated assumption that a wrongful execution is somehow a greater tragedy than a highway fatality, or a murder, or a construction-related death. 726878[/snapback] I don't understand this comment, and I don't see where this assumption is coming from. I don't believe that point of view is trying to argue about "levels of tragedys", but that we should do what we can to prevent tragedies from occuring, and if we could have reasonably prevented it from happening, then we should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted July 21, 2006 Author Share Posted July 21, 2006 I don't understand this comment, and I don't see where this assumption is coming from. I don't believe that point of view is trying to argue about "levels of tragedys", but that we should do what we can to prevent tragedies from occuring, and if we could have reasonably prevented it from happening, then we should. We have a highway system, even though we know tens of thousands of innocent people will be killed each year in car accidents. We have construction projects, even though this means construction workers getting killed. People are willing to pay this kind of price, because they see the benefits to highways, to construction projects, and to other dangerous things. But my experience has been that most opponents of the death penalty aren't interested in hearing about the benefits of executing criminals. They're willing to do a cost-benefit analysis when it comes to lives lost on highways or construction projects; but not when it comes to criminal executions. Hence my conclusion that many opponents of the death penalty are acting as though an incorrect execution is a greater tragedy than a highway death or murder or construction-related death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 We have a highway system, even though we know tens of thousands of innocent people will be killed each year in car accidents. We have construction projects, even though this means construction workers getting killed. People are willing to pay this kind of price, because they see the benefits to highways, to construction projects, and to other dangerous things. But my experience has been that most opponents of the death penalty aren't interested in hearing about the benefits of executing criminals. They're willing to do a cost-benefit analysis when it comes to lives lost on highways or construction projects; but not when it comes to criminal executions. Hence my conclusion that many opponents of the death penalty are acting as though an incorrect execution is a greater tragedy than a highway death or murder or construction-related death. 726907[/snapback] And we have lawyers willing to make thier case for the defense or prosecution of lives in a death penalty cases like a chess match, where the only desire is to win! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 We have a highway system, even though we know tens of thousands of innocent people will be killed each year in car accidents. We have construction projects, even though this means construction workers getting killed. People are willing to pay this kind of price, because they see the benefits to highways, to construction projects, and to other dangerous things. But my experience has been that most opponents of the death penalty aren't interested in hearing about the benefits of executing criminals. They're willing to do a cost-benefit analysis when it comes to lives lost on highways or construction projects; but not when it comes to criminal executions. Hence my conclusion that many opponents of the death penalty are acting as though an incorrect execution is a greater tragedy than a highway death or murder or construction-related death. 726907[/snapback] Just tell me this: are you "Free Tookie!", or "Fry Tookie!"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 i think we should harvest their organs, and when the vital organs go, and they die; oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts