The Death Penalty

[Jillamanda]

Here in Oz, we abolished the death penalty in 1967 when we hung our last 'crim', Ronald Ryan. There has never been any calls to reintroduce it. Even after our worst mass murder, ten years ago.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010712055155/www.theage.com.au/news/970412/nsp3.txt.htm

What did come out of this tragic event was Australia became a 'gunless' society - not that we've ever been much of a gun toting society anyway. The government brought in a 'buy back' scheme. In theory it's a great idea, but unfortunately, it was only the honest gunowners who handed in their guns. Martin Bryant, the murderer will die in Risdon Prison, Tasmania.

In recent years, we've had Aussies executed in various Asian countries, usually for drug related offences.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/no-halt-to-execution--singapore/2005/10/27/1130400311218.html

This particular one struck most Aussies to the core. Even though I despise anyone who plans to import heroin into this country, I still can't support the death penalty. Maybe it's more efficient communications these days, but when this young man was hung, we had a minute's silence and churches rang their bells. Watching the lead up to it was heart rending. He was a good kid, trying to help out his twin brother who had got himself into some trouble. We saw his mother and his friends all paying last visits and describing him as being at peace with what was about to happen. It was horrible - even writing this now sends shivers up my spine. I'm well aware of the lives that could have been lost had he succeeded in his mission, but I just can't rationalise his death.

At the moment, we have the 'Bali Nine' - some of whom are facing death by firing squad. They are young Australians who were lured into being 'drug mules' for a heroin trafficking ring. At best, they will spend the rest of their lives in a Bali prison, at worst they'll be shot on some lonely beach with no notice. Their families won't even be told until it's done.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Send-them-all-to-the-firing-squad/2005/04/27/1114462101414.html

Once again, I don't condone their actions at all, and if anything, they should be locked up for sheer stupidity - but the death penalty??

Apparently we're in the process of organising a prisoner exchange program with Indonesia, but I don't know whether this will cover prisoners on death row. Somehow, I doubt it will, because the Indonesians would see that as escaping their 'punishment'.

Anyway, I am most definitely against the death penalty. I don't feel any government has the right to take somebody's life - no matter what the crime. There's also the fact that since we became savvy with DNA, alot of prisoners have been released because they are innocent. Fortunately, in this country, they are still alive, but I have to wonder how many innocent people have been killed in other countries.

What do you think?

(I'm only putting 'yes' and 'no' in the poll. I thought about 'in some circumstances', but that equates to the death penalty anyway.)

[Alice Shade]

Damn, yes. There SHOULD be death penalty.

Reasoning? Simple.

For a psychopath, it`s absolutely the same, if there will be death sentence in end, or not.

For a common criminal, however, life sentence is much less of a deterrent, then death penalty. There could be an amnesty, or appelation, or cassation complaint, or plainly jailbreak, and that`s it for the life sentence. It`s not scary. Some would even view going to jail as being true "criminale", and think of it as badge of distinction, of sorts.

Now death.... It`s final. THAT, is scary. For most people. And THAT does makes one think, BEFORE doing something idiotic.

[GeoffBoulton]

Until such time as there is an absolutely foolproof way of convicting ONLY the guilty I could never support the death penalty. This isn't going to happen any time soon so I'm happy to live in the EU where the death penalty is banned by Human Rights legislation.

Even if such a foolproof way were found I still couldn't support killing someone, no matter how heinous their crime. I may be filled with revulsion over what they did and I may feel that they deserve to die but supporting killing them would make me just as guilty as they are.

In any case who decides what crimes deserve the death penalty? We may have the luxury of living in relatively civilised societies but not everyone does.

When you let the state start deciding who dies and for what reasons then you end up with a country like China where you can get a bullet through the head just for daring to say the government are crap.

The death penalty has never worked as a deterrent and it is unlikely that it ever will. Has it done anything to lower the homicide rate in the US? Will it stop terrorists who are willing to give up their lives anyway?

In many cases the death penalty isn't about punishment it's about revenge and, even worse, the revenge of the eye for an eye mentality of biblical times or simply a cost-saving exercise because a bullet is cheaper than 3 meals a day and somewhere to keep them.

If you want to punish someone then let them live out the rest of their lives in a prison cell where they can do no further harm to society and where they will have ample time to reflect upon what they did.

For those who couldn't give a damn about what they did, they will at least have to spend the rest of their lives without the basic freedoms that the rest of us take for granted.

Well that's my two-penny-worth ;)

[Jillamanda]

It's been proven time and time again that the death penalty isn't a deterrent. You only have to look at the murder rate in the US to see that.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=168

These figures show that the murder rate is actually lower in states that don't have the death penalty.

For a common criminal, however, life sentence is much less of a deterrent, then death penalty. There could be an ambesty, or appellation, or cassation complaint, or plainly jailbreak, and that`s it for the life sentence.

Yes, there could be too, but it still doesn't give anyone else the right to take another person's life - legally or illegally. And what about all the people who have been executed for crimes they didn't commit? Do we simply apologise to the family and say it was all just a genuine mistake?

Even the hanging of Van Nguyen in Singapore this year didn't deter the Bali Nine from attempting to do exactly the same thing. Stupid, yeah - worthy of death - no.

As I mentioned in my opening post, we haven't had it here for forty years and we still live in a reasonably lawful society. There is no evidence to suggest that it is a deterrent.

[GeoffBoulton]

In 2005, 94 per cent of all known executions took place in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the USA.

China is by far the biggest executor of people but it's statistics for How Many and WHY people are executed are a state secret. I wonder why?

Iran and Saudi Arabia. Well you can get executed just for having 'poor morals' whatever that means.

The USA is the world's 4th biggest executor of people so why is it still also one of the most violent?

[Googler]

I'm sorry I don't have sources, but really the states that execute the most people are the states with the highest crime rate. So it's not a deterrent.

There are so many point of corruption in justice system there is no way I will support the death penalty. Life imprisonment it the best option.

[Alice Shade]

Because, while executions are legal in some countries, every accomodation is made to render them as ineffective, as possible.

If I`d lived in USA, and shot a robber in my own house, robber`d sue me over, and toss ME in prison, and I can kiss ANY decent job goodbye for life (so, in short, if I don`t want to starve to death, I get to be criminal or cleaning-lady). In the same time, if he shoots me, he`s getting only another notch in his file. 15 years, reviewed and freed at 7 for good behaviour. This IS ridiculous.


As for you people being all wishy-washy about killing... Well, yea, I can understand your motives, and ideally... Ideally, it could be like that. But only ideally. If everyone could just sit and politely discuss differences in civilised way.

My own opinion is much simpler.
Everyone bets own life. If you are willing to consciously risk it by being criminal... Go ahead. I AM willing to bet my life against yours, for I am confident in my skills.
And don`t give me crap about "not everyone is a violent killer". Yes, but that`s what laws and governments are for. You don`t want to kill for your goals? That`s what army/police are for. If you are going against the grain - be prepared to fight. Win or loose - it all depends on you.


Tell you what... You can be revulsed. I prefer to be safe.

[Googler]

This is a very rare case. Most likely you will get in trouble for shooting them because you have to use equal force or barely more against a robber. So if he doesn't have a weapon shooting him would be uncalled for, if he had a gun then it would be ok to shoot at the robber.

[Alice Shade]

Nevermind that baseball bat across the face is objectively much more lethal, then bullet in leg?


That is ridiculous, that even the mere possibility of such lawsuit is possible. If you are trespassing, threatening owner of property, and refuzing to leave, owner has all the rights to expell you out by any means necessary.


Moreso... A lot of convictees are walking money, but "morals" don`t let that be tapped. Think, how many lifes could ONE, yes, ONE psychopath save, if he/she`d be used a organ donor? You`re ALREADY locking them up for life, and some, for life in straightjacket. And STILL, it`s more "humane" to let them continue pointless existance for years to come, and let a dosen of people die, because "he has right to live".

What`s the point in living the rest of life in solitary? To deep more into insanity, and end your days as drooling vegetable, but knowing deep down, that damn yes, you ARE taking several more people in grave with you, because everyone is too moralous to use your body to help other people. Instead, those everyone will do "humane" thing, by rotting you and your body alive.

You know... For someone humaniatarian, you far excel me in cruelty. Not to mention empty-spending.

[Alice Shade]

People, I have an idea.

Let`s have Formal Debate about if the death penalty should, or should not be employed as capitol punishment.

I volunteer to represent the "Death sentence should be present." side of debate.

[Googler]

Nevermind that baseball bat across the face is objectively much more lethal, then bullet in leg?

As long as you shoot someone below the waist it is not attempted murder and if it was done in self defense there is little to no consequences.

In many if not all countries murder is banned by something similar to the Constitution. Now if someone is convicted of killing another person there should be severe consequences. When a judge sentences someone to die they get a call and order the person to be killed therefore, they violate the law that there should be no killing. Also, because no person is above the law, the judge is committing an offense. So technically in modern day society there either should be no judges alive or no death penalty as I see it.

[Googler]

People, I have an idea.

Let`s have Formal Debate about if the death penalty should, or should not be employed as capitol punishment.

I volunteer to represent the "Death sentence should be present." side of debate.

Good idea let me start working on that, first lets see if anyone else is interested.

[Jillamanda]

If I`d lived in USA, and shot a robber in my own house, robber`d sue me over, and toss ME in prison, and I can kiss ANY decent job goodbye for life (so, in short, if I don`t want to starve to death, I get to be criminal or cleaning-lady). In the same time, if he shoots me, he`s getting only another notch in his file. 15 years, reviewed and freed at 7 for good behaviour. This IS ridiculous.

That is more to do with the justice system than the ethics of legal murder. It just shows that the powers that be have no concept of 'the time fitting the crime', so they most definitely shouldn't be making life and death decisions. A legal system that allows someone to be sentenced to 55 years for selling marijuana to an undercover cop should never have the right to decide whether someone should live or die..

http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2005/court-weighs-of-tough.html

As Geoff Bolton said, who decides whether a crime should attract the death penalty anyway.

[Jillamanda]

I'm interested in debating this issue, by the way. On most issues, I'd be prepared to take either side (for debating purposes), but I don't think I'd have much to contribute if I had to argue for the death penalty - I feel too strongly about it.

Someone else has voted 'yes', maybe they might like to debate on the for side.

[Alice Shade]

Well, USA criminal law is quite a loose accumulation, in jurisdictional terms.

As far as I remember old Soviet law, every crime had very certain punishment rendered.

Example (if I remember correctly): If you sold "small quantity" of Mary-Jane (that roughly equals to matchbox), you got 1 to 3, depending on if you surrendered peacefully and committed that (or other) criminal offences before.

So, there were no differences between judges in doling out punishment, everything was reglamented and pre-set. Courts existed solely to discuss guilty/not guilty, not to discuss the terms of punishment.

In such law envoronment, it`s not judge, who decides, weather person should die, or not. Decision is solely on that person. IF he/she commits a crime with capitol punishment, he/she will die. Noone to blame, but themselves.

[Googler]

Well, USA criminal law is quite a loose accumulation, in jurisdictional terms.

As far as I remember old Soviet law, every crime had very certain punishment rendered.

Example (if I remember correctly): If you sold "small quantity" of Mary-Jane (that roughly equals to matchbox), you got 1 to 3, depending on if you surrendered peacefully and committed that (or other) criminal offences before.

So, there were no differences between judges in doling out punishment, everything was reglamented and pre-set. Courts existed solely to discuss guilty/not guilty, not to discuss the terms of punishment.

In such law envoronment, it`s not judge, who decides, weather person should die, or not. Decision is solely on that person. IF he/she commits a crime with capitol punishment, he/she will die. Noone to blame, but themselves.

I do see where you're coming from, but not all cases are the same. The world changes everyday so we have court to decide punishments based on the situation. This allows punishments to adapt to the time. Before it was death if you stole a horse(beginning of the US), but because of the US system of adaption the punishment isn't as severe. In my opinion the US and other westernized countries should have evolved past the death penalty.

[Jillamanda]

Yes, mandatory sentencing can work well. The Northern Territory introduced the '3 strikes and you're out' rule a few years ago. They were having huge problems with petty crime, so they brought in a law that says once a person is convicted for the third time - they automatically do the time. Whilst I agree with it, our indigenous poulation somehow decided that it was victimising them. Many people, both indigenous and non indigenous were committing crime after crime with no repercussions. How it translated though, in the court system, was that people were getting locked up (usually only for a couple of weeks) for very minor crimes and most of them were Aboriginal. They were getting the same treatment as everyone else, it was just that they were committing more crime and prior to this, cultural values etc got in the way of justice.

However, I don't think it would work for serious crimes - particularly murder. There are so many contributing factors in every crime.

Courts existed solely to discuss guilty/not guilty, not to discuss the terms of punishment.

So where were cases heard, and who decided whether they were guilty or not guilty? The KGB? :wink:

[Alice Shade]

Nah.

It was all pretty generic...

Generic persecutor, generic advocate and generic judge.

Of course, some advocates were better, then others, but they got pitted against better persecutors, usually, so it all balanced out.

Contrary to public opinion, there was no wanton jailing/persecuting after WW2.

Before, it happened. And quite often. Transition to communism was painful, and... mind just not always managed to follow the changes. Who could, they turned over, slower others provided cheap work-force for rebuilding the largely-distraught russian economical conditions.

After the WW2... Well, criminals and politic dissidents were often enough. One can argue, that politic dissidents were victims here, but... You can`t make an omelette without breaking eggs. Communism pre-requisites much less of privacy and private property, then most people were ready to accept as status quo. So, dissidents had to be culled systematically, to uphold the general political guidelines. Theoretically, that was one of the downfalls of the system. Slowing down executional mechanism had proved to be lethal for whole country, as dissidents had infiltrated the government.

Solutions were either to uphold repressions in Stalin volumes (which would be pretty brutal on overall morale state and population), either slow down and let people psychologically accomodate (which was attempted, but in such a ham-fisted way, that it lead to the upheaval, and eventual ruin of communism in Russia.)

But I digress. Even though, as I imagine, propaganda in USA had thoroughly demonised Soviet regime, I believe, that Geoff can corrobate on the legal affairs. In last decades of USSR, it was not all that easy to get jailed/sentenced, unless you did something stupid/criminal. (Of course, you could still be falcely accused, but that is inherent to any law&order system, not just communistic.)

P.S. And yes, system WAS fairly effective. Until after 1991 year and August putsch, my idea of palpable criminal was "hoodlum, who broke that window". I`ve also knew words "thief" and "pickpocket", but they were about as mythical for me, as pirate is for majority of people. However, as democratisation advanced, I`ve learned many new words - from thug to racketeer to rapist.

[Jillamanda]

However, as democratisation advanced, I`ve learned many new words - from thug to racketeer to rapist.

All fine, capitalist ideals. :wink:

As Googler said, things change, and the law has to be adaptable to cater to these changes. Twenty years ago, in this country (and I'm sure many others) we had no laws pertaining particularly to terrorism, but now we do. Fifty years ago, we had generic laws for drugs. It didn't matter if you were dealing or using, you were tried under the only drug laws we had. Now we differentiate between particular drugs, and dealers and users are charged and sentenced differently. Also, we now have things like court ordered rehab and community based orders for minor offenses and first timers.

We used to charge people who had no income and nowhere to live with vagrancy, but now these people don't even enter the court system. They are more of a social issue than a legal one.

One thing we do have mandatory sentencing for is drink driving. Your blood alcohol level determines how long your licence will be suspended - no extenuating circumstances, nothing. You can get yourself a fancy lawyer, but all he'll be able to do is get your fine reduced....maybe, but you'll still have to pay his exorbitant fees, so you're probably better off just copping it sweet and accepting the court's ruling.

But, back to the death sentence. It's all based on the 'eye for an eye' stuff - Biblical stuff, as Geoff said. It's all God's idea - which makes it even more repulsive to me.

[AaronD]

In response to an earlier comment, the reason that the death penalty states have more murders is because only the states which felt they needed to have resorted to the death penalty. I do not think that the death penalty is right, or fair, just, morally irreprehensible, or any other form of the same damn concept. Let me give a scenario to demonstrate this:

A man has been living on the streets for the vast majority of his life. He no longer has a family, not a wife, a child, a parent, or even a relative. He is the last ember of a dying flame of lineage which once had had good times, many generations before his birth. But all that was over now, and has nothing to do with this man's particular circumstances, or the events leading up to them.

The Saturday before last, the particular character in question, who, for the sake of this scenario, shall henceforth be referred to as Edmond, brutally murdered two men and a woman with the butt of his rifle. He did this in desperation, as the three victims in question happened to be passing by at the time he was committing a... rather insignificant crime, in the scheme of things, in order to pay for his food and alcohol, and maybe even a blanket.

The food was, as can be correctly inferred, for his own dining pleasure, if such foods as he bought could be considered to give any sort of pleasure. The blanket, too, was for its obvious purpose, that being its insulation properties, as is also implied in the above paragraph. The alcohol was to drown out those screams, those horrible screams he hears every night as he lies in his bed of cement and thinks of the fire which he caused that took it all away overnight; that fire that consumed his house, his possessions, his mother -- at this point, he winced especially painfully -- and father, his brother... he had not meant to start the fire, it was just that that rickety old house hadn't any heating system, and in the middle of that terrible winter, he had needed warmth more than anything in the world, and he thought that if he put those stones around it like they did in campfires, it would not catch. He was wrong, and he drowned out those ghastly screeches, those reminders of the horrors which he had unintentionally committed, with a bottle of vodka in his hand and a bottle of rum at his feet, a small hair of the dog for those painful mornings he invariably awoke to.

Anyway, the murders. These three witnesses were just as innocent as anybody, and their bludgeoning was magnified by the families which each of them belonged to, which Edmond did not even contemplate them having. Edmond was caught and captured two days later, and was sentenced to death for three counts of manslaughter in the first degree. The jury believes that Edmond deserves to die for what he did, and two of the families agree with the jury's decision. The third family, though, has an interesting spin on things. They believe that death is too good for this man, this Edmond, who lives on the street and would heartlessly murder three people with no repent or remorse. They believe that Edmond should be forced to live life in isolation, with the constant torments of his life's misdeeds to haunt him till the day he dies, to make him suffer and wish every day that he was there that he had been sentenced to death, that he could take the easy way out and be done with it.

With this scenario in mind, I will let you decide which family you think is right, but please do not just say that you believe the first and second families are right, or the third, but instead justify your answer.

[Jillamanda]

That is a perfect example of the many different circumstances that contribute to crime. As you probably expected, I'm with the third family, simply because I don't believe in the death penalty.

Maybe the planet would be a better place without the guy, but that's not for us to decide.

You know what really gets me about the death penalty? The fact that someone has to do it. Not the judge or jury who sentenced the guy, but someone else has to give the injection/pull the switch/release the trapdoor. Surely anyone who does that for a living has got problems. It isn't normal for humans to kill other humans under such circumstances. Specially when the the guy being killed is totally defenseless. I think we should worry that we have people in our society who can kill others for a living. It's not like war (which I'm not all that keen on either), where they are fighting for their country (presumably) and will come home a hero. If I could do it at all, I'd only have to do it once and I'd be a basket case.

It doesn't matter which way I look at it, I could never condone it - under any circumstances.

[Alice Shade]

Well....

Aaron, to your example.

Since Edmond has to spend rest of his days in solitary self-reflection, gvernment, which sentenced him, has to foot all his bills and expenditures. And since Edmond has a life sentence, and it couldn`t get worse, nothing bars him from being a bastard, and refuzing to work.
If you ask me, the sentence to spend the rest of your days fed, under roof and supplied with a number of other means of recreational/timespending value, seems more like paradise then punishment for a vagrant like Edmond. If I were in Edmond`s place, I`d go rob a supermarket, and shoot up a couple of workers there, while pigging out in most expencive foods they have in shop, and when police arrive, play out some hysterics and give myself in. And then - guess who`s set for life?

No, if anything, then Edmond would be overjoyed at life sentence. The only way to deter that kind of crime is to make sure you ARE taking things AWAY from criminal, instead of giving them free stuff/livingspace/sustenance. And as Edmond only has his life as anything of value still to him, it`s obvious, that only the prospect of losing it would really make Edmond think BEFORE bashing in someone`s face with butt of his boomstick.
Is there any reason, why government should suffer incured mony loss from criminals? They don`t steal enough, are they?
My opinion, is that criminals SHOULD be used for cheap workhorse/expendables (for death sentence cases). Would any of you commit a crime, knowing, that you are likely to end up working in uranium mine, and come out of prison (if come, at all) without hairs, and covered in welts? And would you do something really atrocious, knowing, that you will end up as living makivara (doll for fighting practice) for Spetsnaz boys? (Yes, THAT did haopeneed. Often, strong/big/skilled in fighting criminals were used as "dolls" for training. And NO, not for training cruelty or anathomy knowledge. It was done by pitting trainee against the "doll". And if the "doll" twisted off head from trainee, then it just meant, that trainee sucked, and not that "doll" had done something wrong. But, of course, if trainee broke "doll"`s spine, it was just as OK.)

I think, that criminals should be differentiated by severity of crime (aka, length of sentence.), and made use of accodringly.
A) 1-5 years - local prison, to be used as cheap workforce (making of jacks, sockets, curtain rails, cutting boards, licence plates, etc. Minor manual labor, something monotonous and easy to be tought.)
B) 5-life sentence - penal servitude. When physically able, works like lumberjacking, mining, manufacture (furniture, utensils, glassworking, chemical manufacturing). When physically unfit, manual labor like in previous case.
C) Death sentence - lobothomy/anabiosis/brain electrocution, and body used as donor for all the organs/bones/skin/blood, which are still in working conditions.

[AaronD]

There are laws against cruel and unusual punishment, you know... Lobotomy is outlawed as well. And when I said life in isolation, I meant exactly that: Life in solitary confinement.

[Jillamanda]

C) Death sentence - lobothomy/anabiosis/brain electrocution, and body used as donor for all the organs/bones/skin/blood, which are still in working conditions.

You might need to call in Donald Trump to sell the organs of a convicted psychopath to most Christians, no matter what condition they're in.

[Alice Shade]

A) Whom was the donor of organ is not revealed, first off.

B) In the face of death, a LOT of people wouldn`t care, if liver/heart/kidney they need, used to belong to criminal. And those who would, are most likely against transplantation in whole, as it`s "an unnatural abomination in the face of God".


P.S. And while torturing for crimes isn`t very good idea, punishment should still be punishment. Cruel and unusual had shielded quite a number of criminals from rebating their crimes in any way.

[jon_hill987]

The reason I don't agree with the death penalty is because I do not believe it is punishment. I think it is the easy way out and that these rapists/murderers should be locked up indefinitely and put into forced labour. Make something useful out of it.

[Alice Shade]

Now that might be a good idea, but honestly, I don`t think that lifetime of labor will fetch the same price as using them for spare parts to fix other people.

[Fallen Hero]

I volunteer to represent the "Death sentence should be present." side of debate.[/quote]

I hate the death penalty, there is no justification to kill someone, if they have already been put behind bars. I do not see why violence will solve violence themes can be considered logical.

"An eye for and eye will make the whole world blind." -Ghandi knew what he was talking about.

Alice, some of the stuff I read here about you thoughts on why should have a Death penalty are ridiculus. If someone was to be armed in anyway and attack you, you have the right to defend your self. Thus a baseball bat is justifiable for using a gun under U.S. Law. Euggh- the death penalty is stupid.

[Fallen Hero]

Ok, problem with the manual labour thing, then civilians will lose jobs. Please, no one suggest using them as soldiers, that is even stupider. They need to be locked up, prison life does not sound appealing. I am faily certain that it would be punishment enough.

[Alice Shade]

Oh, yes, sure. Not.

Can you name me one valid reason AGAINST death penalty other then "I don`t believe death penalty should be."?

If you want to argue, offer good arguments. If you say - "Because I believe so", you`re not better then christians attacking Googlism, because "they believe so".

My argument is, that locking criminals up is costly, and does NOT works as a deterrent anymore then death penalty, but has added cost and trauma to victims, who can`t be sure, that their assaulter won`t be freed/escape in next few years or so.
On the contrary, death penalty offers relief to victimized people/their families, simply by making sure that THIS particular villain will never accost them again, and has a substantial social/economical boost, by being a source of so much needed transplantants. If it comes to that, who deserves more to live - murderous psychopath, who can`t be executed due to "civil" society norms, or heroic fireman, who has to die, because he lost over 60% of skin in fire, saving all the people in building, but there is NO skin transplant available to save him in time?

[GeoffBoulton]

Can you name me one valid reason AGAINST death penalty other then "I don`t believe death penalty should be."?

You can't guarantee the convicted person is guilty.

It's one thing shouting "burn them, burn them", but would you be quite so supportive of the death penalty if you found yourself on death row for something you didn't do?

[Alice Shade]

I`d do my best to wiggle out of it, and make sure I have one who framed me in my place, instead.

But, I think you read too much detectives. It`s HARD to frame someone, and even harder to get accidentally accused. Criminology had stepped way past the "He saw you" evidence. For example, if you WERE in room, you will need to bend over backwards not to be proved to be present there. Forget fingerprints, we`re talking shedded skin cells here. DNA fingerprinting is damn well useful for that.

In short, NO, I do NOT think that the issue of falsely accused should be taken in account. Considering the limited numbers of such happenings, and mesmerisingly-small number of people ever being pardoned on grounds of falce accusation, I think it`s safe to say, that death penalty would ruin as much innocent lives, as life sentence.

[Jillamanda]

My argument is, that locking criminals up is costly, and does NOT works as a deterrent anymore then death penalty, but has added cost and trauma to victims, who can`t be sure, that their assaulter won`t be freed/escape in next few years or so.
On the contrary, death penalty offers relief to victimized people/their families, simply by making sure that THIS particular villain will never accost them again, and has a substantial social/economical boost, by being a source of so much needed transplantants. If it comes to that, who deserves more to live - murderous psychopath, who can`t be executed due to "civil" society norms, or heroic fireman, who has to die, because he lost over 60% of skin in fire, saving all the people in building, but there is NO skin transplant available to save him in time?

So how would these 'donors' be kept? Ideally, it'd be in prime physical condition and at the ready to donate a kidney or a spleen or a cornea or a couple of pints of blood or some bone marrow - whatever. They would have to be fed and kept in the same high security as they would in prison, only they would need better conditions, diets, exercise and most of all, medical attention.

It still boils down to 'an eye for an eye' and the revenge factor.

[Googler]

I`d do my best to wiggle out of it, and make sure I have one who framed me in my place, instead.

But, I think you read too much detectives. It`s HARD to frame someone, and even harder to get accidentally accused. Criminology had stepped way past the "He saw you" evidence. For example, if you WERE in room, you will need to bend over backwards not to be proved to be present there. Forget fingerprints, we`re talking shedded skin cells here. DNA fingerprinting is damn well useful for that.

In short, NO, I do NOT think that the issue of falsely accused should be taken in account. Considering the limited numbers of such happenings, and mesmerisingly-small number of people ever being pardoned on grounds of falce accusation, I think it`s safe to say, that death penalty would ruin as much innocent lives, as life sentence.

1. In the US there is a problem with falsely accusing people.
2. Fallen and Alice you can start the debate now if you wish because you both have access to the formal debate section

[Alice Shade]

Googler - aight. If Fallen wants, I`m game.

Jillamanda - bull. They are to be killed and dismantled on the spot. Statistically, most of organs would be used for various patients in the next few days, tops. Also, it`s possible to conserve the organs for longer amounts of time, reaching to weeks and months (Blood banks, anyone?)
Of course, there will be an overload or underload on certain bits at times, but on a great scale, it would even out much nicer, then current situation.

P.S. Edited name to correct. Sorry, Jillamanda. Typos will be my death sometime.

[GeoffBoulton]

I`d do my best to wiggle out of it, and make sure I have one who framed me in my place, instead.

I didn't say anything about anyone being framed. Miscarriages of justice DO happen whatever the reasons. China, Iran and Saudi Arabia aren't countries that I would associate with a FAIR trial and they are the 3 biggest executioners.

Are you saying that killing a few totally innocent people doesn't matter because there's only a FEW of them? Sounds like the old Soviet saying 'A life is but a penny' to give it its nearest English translation.

As soon as you say that ONE life doesn't matter then you are immediately opening up the 'well, one's okay so why not two' etc. argument.

EDIT: A second reason would be that in many countries that use the death penalty it has little to do with crime and punishment and more to do with imposing political will or religious beliefs upon the people.

[Alice Shade]

Geoff, are you willing to say, that serving life sentence unjustly is any better, then getting executioned by mistake?

I don`t think so.

[GeoffBoulton]

If you are in prison and still alive you can be pardoned and released.

If I were wrongly convicted this would definitely be preferable to a posthumous pardon ;)

[Alice Shade]

Really?

You`d really prefer to be treated with unwaraanted contempt for rest of life? Prison does NOT washes out like that, Geoff. Even if you are pardoned and declared innocent, you`re still a former convict. Moms will still call off kids from yard, when you go out to smoke a cig. People still will tell you "Better luck elsewhere, jailbird.", when you come looking for work.

Do you think it`s really a much prefered alternative? People are NOT sure you didn`t do it. They still think - "Well, if he WAS in prison, then there was SOME reason, why he was there." And if it was bad enough to warrent possible death sentence, your life is pretty mu8ch shot up either way.

[GeoffBoulton]

Well in England I wouldn't be treated with any stigma if I was released because I was found to be innocent. I would become a media celebrity for a short while before getting a massive payout from the Government and living the rest of my life in luxury.

Even if that wasn't the case, I personally, if given the choice. would always choose life over death no matter what the consequences.

[Jillamanda]

Well in England I wouldn't be treated with any stigma if I was released because I was found to be innocent. I would become a media celebrity for a short while before getting a massive payout from the Government and living the rest of my life in luxury.

Case in point:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/14/newsid_2543000/2543613.stm

[punkinside]

Alice, you make really good points. But it all boils down to giving the government the power to take a life. Nobody should have that power.

Nobody has mentioned it. But states with the death penalty execute people acting in the name of each and every one of its citizens. I think its fair for me to ask the government not to kill anyone in my name.

The loss of the life of a single innocent person is completely unacceptable. I'd rather have 100 criminals go free than to have the blood of an innocent in my hands.

But all things aside, I believe that the death penalty is neither sound punishment, nor deterrent for crime. While I see no problem with "cruel and usual punishment" for rapists, murderers and child molesters, I see no reason to kill them. Its too easy, and I don't mind paying taxes to keep these creeps "entertained" in prison. And by "entertained" I mean them strapped to a chair with a steady source of water drops on their head and a TV playing "Gigli" over and over again. Wishing to die already.

We just have to make sure that they don't have the chance to go free, instead of the death penalty, a couple of life sentences without parole should be enough to keep the perps indoors.

[GeoffBoulton]

On a side issue, here in Poland there were calls for the death penalty to be reinstated. Totally illegal under European Law so they couldn't have actually implemented it, they just thought it would be a vote winner to make the right noises.

Guess who was screaming for it to be brought back? The right-wing Catholic parties with their church going, God fearing followers. The same people who are so violently opposed to abortion because it's 'murder' and every life is sacred.

Anyone spot a touch of hypocrisy here? ;)

[Alice Shade]

Case of Birmingham Six is completely on different scale.

It`s quite clear, that they were used for politic gains rather then being mistakingly accused. In such cases, I think, that police and persecutor will wiggle out from death punishment, because, as you say, "accidental execution" would have heads rolling, if someone discovered it. Bothched case is not exactly the same as murder, and in latter case, there`d be a manhunt for the guilty (or scapegoat).


And it is just as well obvious, that freeing the Birmingham Six is ANOTHER politic shenanigan, this time, aimed to praise those, who aided them (for obvious popularity gain).

Government does not likes to admit mistakes - any government. So, unless someone high in government/law/media (in short, someone with power of making lots of public noise) is actively interested in blowing up the story (again, politics), mistakingly accused would be either:
A) Left as is, if noone interested in their freedom knew.
B) Quietly given boot, and treated as freed on parole, to make sure they won`t try to raise ruckus, and sue.

[GeoffBoulton]

Bothched case is not exactly the same as murder

Miscarriages of justice DO happen whatever the reasons. China, Iran and Saudi Arabia aren't countries that I would associate with a FAIR trial and they are the 3 biggest executioners.


Which is one of the reasons for not having the death penalty. You CAN correct your botched cases.

freeing the Birmingham Six is ANOTHER politic shenanigan

A second reason would be that in many countries that use the death penalty it has little to do with crime and punishment and more to do with imposing political will or religious beliefs upon the people.

The argument you use for their release could equally apply to their conviction e.g. popularity for 'catching' those responsible for the outrage.

Government does not likes to admit mistakes - any government.

All the more reason to keep the power to execute people out of their hands ;)

[Alice Shade]

1) Yes, you can correct botched case, unlike death sentence. On other hand, mandatory death sentence for certain crimes would discourage people of law from things like "Birmingham six" at all. Because, as things stand now, I think that guilty of their imprisonment received something like a reprimand, if they were not long ago on pension, by now. (Note, that atricle says absolutely nothing about present state of cops - yes, those of Birmingham Six DO say, that cops ignored their pleas of innocense, but there`s not a single word about cops being a-chally punished for justise miscarriage.) If those six had to be executed for the "terrorism", there would be MUCH more metaculous and fair investigation - for simple reason of if investigators were to be proven to falcify/botch the accusation and execute mistakingly, they would be sentenced to death themselves.

2) Politic imprisonment could be dismissed as a mistake, but when innocent heads roll, people start howling for blood. Note, that Middle-eastern countries have much less of "basic freedoms" concept understanding, overall. For them, treason is much more encompassing word, then for us. I doubt that any European country would dare to execute for politic beliefs - there`d be a bloodbath.

3) Government does not admits mistakes, because doing so means they will be replaced with more efficient people soon. Thus, any evidence of their inefficuence is hidden as deep as possible, to ensure their stay at power. As long as there is an issue of government having power over people, it`s inavoidable, and has no correllation with laws or death sentence other then both would be twisted in any case, if it`s "for the benefit of nation".

[punkinside]

1) Yes, you can correct botched case, unlike death sentence. On other hand, mandatory death sentence for certain crimes would discourage people of law from things like "Birmingham six" at all. Because, as things stand now, I think that guilty of their imprisonment received something like a reprimand, if they were not long ago on pension, by now. (Note, that atricle says absolutely nothing about present state of cops - yes, those of Birmingham Six DO say, that cops ignored their pleas of innocense, but there`s not a single word about cops being a-chally punished for justise miscarriage.) If those six had to be executed for the "terrorism", there would be MUCH more metaculous and fair investigation - for simple reason of if investigators were to be proven to falcify/botch the accusation and execute mistakingly, they would be sentenced to death themselves.

So we start executing prosecutors and policemen that make honest mistakes along with the corrupt ones? More death! YAY!!! That would only make investigators afraid of imprisoning perps of Capital crime, and because it is seldom that one can be 100% sure of it, such legislation would effectively do away with the death sentence. That's not your goal is it?



3) Government does not admits mistakes, because doing so means they will be replaced with more efficient people soon. Thus, any evidence of their inefficuence is hidden as deep as possible, to ensure their stay at power. As long as there is an issue of government having power over people, it`s inavoidable, and has no correllation with laws or death sentence other then both would be twisted in any case, if it`s "for the benefit of nation".

This supports your POV how? You're basically acknowledging that any mistakes will be hidden. Is the life of innocents worth so little that this is somehow acceptable?

In any case, I feel that the people guilty of heinous crimes should not be put to sleep but made suffer for them while they're still alive.

[GeoffBoulton]

1. Mistakes happen, the reasons why they happen are not important, they nonetheless happen even in the most advanced countries. If that mistake involves someone dying then the mistake cannot subsequently be put right.

Yes, you can correct botched case, unlike death sentence.

Since you have already agreed that this is the case then I can't see what point you are trying to make.

The only thing that seems to be up for debate is whether such mistakes, and the subsequent deaths that would follow them if the death sentence were allowed, should just be accepted as unfortunate and forgotten about. I do not believe that such 'accidental' deaths are acceptable.

2. Political and religious use of the death sentence is practiced by some governments. Hypothetical musings do not change this fact. I believe it is wrong for governments to use the death penalty to impose their political or religious beliefs upon people.

Two simple questions that require only a yes or no answer.

1. Do you believe it is acceptable for people to die because of mistakes and shortcomings in legal systems?

2. Do you believe that governments have the right to kill people in order to impose their political or religious beliefs?

P.S.

Just posted in the last hour by the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6163502.stm
If true, then, whether it went through the legal system or not, it would still be a government appointed death sentence for political purposes.

[Jillamanda]

Can you name me one valid reason AGAINST death penalty other then "I don`t believe death penalty should be."?

You can't reduce someone's wilful death to practical terms. I'm fortunate enough to live in a country that has never experienced war on it's own shores. We have our fair share of criminals but that's humanity for you. Maybe we place more value on human life, and the dispatching thereof, than countries that have experienced war, extreme corruption and rampant crime. To have a law that states wilful killing is wrong, and then to punish an offender with the same crime just doesn't make sense.

...and I "DON'T believe it should be", along with most other Australians. That is enough reason not to have it in this country, and enough reason to condemn it in other countries. It's not a practical matter, it's a moral and ethical matter.

[Alice Shade]

To Punkinside.

On first point.

No. They`d be making sure, they are ironclad certain in convictions, and giving less harsh convictionsmost of time, like life sentence you are so fond of.

On second point.

There`s a margin of error in everything. If it happens, that someone gets caught in this margin, it`s sad, but unavoidable. Any way you slice it, law system WILL make people unhappy, and ruin their lifes, regardless of the laws inherent, because there always will be low-breakers and law-upholders.
My point is, that with death sentence, margin of error would be less, then with "humane" punishments.
Also, from your post, you are making very silly assumption. You assume, that people, who really should`ve gotten death sentence, are somehow suffering, Let me assure you, it`s quite the opposite. Those, who are able to feel remorse or somehow morally suffer for their crimes, are NOT valid for death sentence 99% of time. Or life sentence, for this matter.
Real monsters have a good sleep every night... Honest.


To Geoff.

Point one. See my point two for Punkinside. There is always a margin of error in everything. There is nothing so inherently wrong about death, that being mistakingly sentenced to death is invaluably bigger, then losing 10-20 years, or being locked for life. Any was you slice it, victim loses life as is. The "correction" in each case would be just a scribble on paper. If you don`t believe... Try to look up information, on how many people were accused in crimes and sentenced mistakingly, and that was NOT a politic move, and then compare the number to the number of people, who made it out and lived on. You`ll see, that both numbers are so mesmerisingly-small, that there`s practically no leeway to claim, that possibility of such mistake should be a decisive factor on "to be, or not to be".

Point second.

Thesis one is irrelevant. People will die for government`s mistakes and shortcomings, be it law system, foreign politics or powerstation funding. (Yes, first ir our case, second is that debacle with all the peacemakers in middle-east and mediterranean, and third is infamous Chernobyl.) People always did died for other`s mistakes, and will be. It`s not a question of should and should not. It`s a question if is, and isn`t. As long, as humans stay humans, they WILL die for each other`s mistakes. Errare Humanum Est.
All we can do, is lower this margin. And death sentence will help. Provided, of course, that government is picked for skill and not for money. ^_^

Thesis 2. Short answer, yes. Government needs a basic set of rules to live on. If someone oversteps those rules. he/she is a danger to nation, and should be preventively destroyed.
However, it`s a mistake to disjoint the politics and religion in THIS guestion. Clearly, it`s historically-proven, that all the government-induced religious executions/repressions were made in the name of politics. As for political reasons... It all depends on a type of government.
If we have despotism, which often tends to be corrupted as well... In this case, political executions are merely needed means to establish despot`s position. While a lot of people find it questionable morally, it is again a mistake. There are no universal morals, everything is subjective. And reasonably-thinking, sometimes, those kinds of measures are needed, to draw country from anarchy/economical depression. Of course, if such tactics are used in a hamfisted way, or overbearingly, this creates a precursor for civil unrest and revolution.
On the other hand, if we have communism, for example, then such executions become a needed tool in culling the asocial elements, which are impeding the progress of communal work by indivudualistic/group-indivulualistic endeaveours. As we see, in either case, politic execution is a needed tool to invigorate and cleance the socium.
In democratic meritocracy (Which is theoretically used in most of Europe and North America, though some cases make me suspect, that it`s getting more and more subverted.), politic execution is not a tool of such importance, due to the fact, that selling point of such government is, that it`s based on individualistic opinions/endeaverours. However, political execution is still widely employed to remove spies/saboteurs/terrorists and political opponents of such government, who all, clearly pose a threat to the government, and must be destroyed.

Again, in short, your points about "right and wrong" are silly in the face of is and isn`t. Think about it. So devoutely denying, that Christian values are not acceptable as is - and still attempting to force your own beliefs on others? How is your belief about non-acceptance of forced death differs from religious belief?
Remove all the restraints, then. Let`s see, who is who.

[punkinside]

To Punkinside.

On first point.

No. They`d be making sure, they are ironclad certain in convictions, and giving less harsh convictionsmost of time, like life sentence you are so fond of.


There is always room for doubt. If I were responsible for such convictions, it would take a LOT to put MY ass on the line. Like a videotape of the person commiting the crime or something. But that is just a miniscule amount, and probably not the brightest of criminals. What about the jury's or judges who reviewed the evidence and decided it supported Capital punishment? Do they go scotch free?


On second point.

There`s a margin of error in everything. If it happens, that someone gets caught in this margin, it`s sad, but unavoidable. Any way you slice it, law system WILL make people unhappy, and ruin their lifes, regardless of the laws inherent, because there always will be low-breakers and law-upholders.
My point is, that with death sentence, margin of error would be less, then with "humane" punishments.


First of all, I am NOT advocating "humane punishments". If you read my posts correctly:

While I see no problem with "cruel and usual punishment" for rapists, murderers and child molesters, I see no reason to kill them.


In any case, I feel that the people guilty of heinous crimes should not be put to sleep but made suffer for them while they're still alive.

And by "entertained" I mean them strapped to a chair with a steady source of water drops on their head and a TV playing "Gigli" over and over again. Wishing to die already.

Aside from that, death is final, no way to go back. As long as someone's alive, there is a chance to get things right. Sure, you lost 10 or 20 years of your life strapped to a chair watching "Gigli" but in those cases the govt should really not give you a pat on the back saying: "hey, no hard feelings right?". But real compensation: free shrinks and money!

Once you're out, you can still use the remaining years of your life. Just because they took 10 or 20 away does not mean you can't have the rest back.


Again, in short, your points about "right and wrong" are silly in the face of is and isn`t. Think about it. So devoutely denying, that Christian values are not acceptable as is - and still attempting to force your own beliefs on others? How is your belief about non-acceptance of forced death differs from religious belief?
Remove all the restraints, then. Let`s see, who is who.

This is about NOT forcing beliefs on others. I believe that my govt should not execute people in MY NAME. I don't want my taxes paying for lethal injections. And I don't want to be associated with the death of a single innocent person. This is one thing where everyone has to agree, there is no "mayority" in a death sentence!

[Jillamanda]

Again, in short, your points about "right and wrong" are silly in the face of is and isn`t. Think about it. So devoutely denying, that Christian values are not acceptable as is - and still attempting to force your own beliefs on others? How is your belief about non-acceptance of forced death differs from religious belief?
Remove all the restraints, then. Let`s see, who is who.

If you want to put it in these terms, then you are also forcing your beliefs on others. Only difference is, your beliefs are a matter of life and death, ours are a matter of life and life.

Life becomes very cheap when death is such an easy option.

[Alice Shade]

Well, I probably should point out, that you probably never killed anyone, so... At least a bit biased.

And, I`m not forcing. Note, that I`m giving reasons, WHY I think so. Not "it`s not right". Truth is, that there is very little to support movement against death sentence outside of "I don`t think so" and "what if they mistake/abuse it"?

And.... Life is cheap. At times, it costs ten bucks, at times more. Or, at times - nine grams of lead and ephemeral idea.

Punkinside?

As for free shrinks and money? Hah, sure, right. How about free asylum, and another life sentence, this time under comfy guise of being declared a permanent basket case from prison? And it`s even easier, then pay you even a red cent.

And on first point - whoever responsible, gets persecuted. If it was a PI, who overlooked evidence - bam, no retirement, and trial for negligent manslaughter. If it was judge, who ruled incorrectly - bam, trial for abuse of position and negligent manslaughter. If it was persecutor, who fudged the evidence - trial for intentional manslaughter... Everything has a cause.

[GeoffBoulton]

and still attempting to force your own beliefs on others?

Where exactly? Have I told you you are wrong? Have I said that everyone should do what I say? Have I said that your viewpoint is silly?

No, this is a debating forum and I have been presenting my viewpoint along with the reasons why I have that viewpoint.

The long and short of it is that you believe it's okay to kill people by mistake and that governments should be free to impose their will on people with the threat of death. I don't believe this so we will just have to agree to disagree.

[punkinside]

Well, I probably should point out, that you probably never killed anyone, so... At least a bit biased.

How does killing someone help in this discussion?


And, I`m not forcing. Note, that I`m giving reasons, WHY I think so. Not "it`s not right". Truth is, that there is very little to support movement against death sentence outside of "I don`t think so" and "what if they mistake/abuse it"?


This is very different. I am only saying NOT IN MY NAME. Thank you.
I am all for personal freedom and responsibility, thats what most "christian" arguments are about. You should not do this or that cause its a sin blah blah blah. I am saying: I will never condone government sanctioned murder. "I don't think so" aside, the mistake argument is really the be all, end all argument here. I don't think anyone would have much against the death sentence if we were just killing religious fundamentalists and proven murderers. But I cannot stress enough the importance of a flawless legal system to support the death penalty. There is not, and probably never will be a perfect legal system. And in that light, the mere doubt that we're killing the right person is enough to stop that nonsense.

But lets give you that our arguments have been one-sided. The death sentence will never be a deterrent for crime. Crimes are committed by people who think that they won't get caught! Let's look at the leading reasons for murder:

1. Money
2. Passion

Those in the first group do not think they will get caught. They would not kill for money if they thought they were not going to be able to enjoy it. The second group can be split into those who kill in the rush of the moment, in which case they are not thinking straight or about the consequences, and another group who kill deliberately, who, once again, never think about getting caught.

The existence of the death penalty does not stop these people from committing these crimes. There is no statistical proof that in nations/states where Capital punishment is enacted have lower crime rates in the areas where the death penalty is an option. In fact, they show significantly higher rates than in non-Capital punishment states. So, the death penalty is NOT a deterrent. Nor is prison time for that matter so its a moot point.

You have said that locking criminals up is costly. That is why most prisons should at least attempt to support themselves. Have criminals grow food and work to keep the thing going. But that is another matter. The ratio of prisoners on death row to those simply imprisoned is very small, there is not much added cost.

You have said that the death penalty gives the family/friends of the victims relief from the fear that this particular person will be freed/escape. Well, if someone wants to escape there is enough time to do so until you're put to sleep, as for being freed, people that commit capital crimes deemed enough for capital punishment should not see the inside of a parole board. There CAN be such a sentence where there is absolutely NO chance that you will ever be "freed", unless the charges against you are false, of course.

As for people put to death for their crimes: how often do you think that happens? We would have to be executing people every week to make the smallest of dents on organ transplant demand. So, thats not a real good argument; for the probability of a heroic fireman needing a skin transplant the very day that a criminal is going to be executed is very, very close to 0.



And.... Life is cheap. At times, it costs ten bucks, at times more. Or, at times - nine grams of lead and ephemeral idea.

True. We don't need government making it any cheaper, the market price is enough.


Punkinside?

As for free shrinks and money? Hah, sure, right. How about free asylum, and another life sentence, this time under comfy guise of being declared a permanent basket case from prison?

Well, mistakes WILL happen, thats the whole basis of not having a death sentence. Its never too late to give a person her life back.



And on first point - whoever responsible, gets persecuted. If it was a PI, who overlooked evidence - bam, no retirement, and trial for negligent manslaughter. If it was judge, who ruled incorrectly - bam, trial for abuse of position and negligent manslaughter. If it was persecutor, who fudged the evidence - trial for intentional manslaughter... Everything has a cause.

Once more, this only makes cases that fall short of certainty go the other way, for NO ONE will put their ass on the line for making such a mistake.
This, I'm afraid, will punish the less clever criminals over the more methodical. Which only adds even more unfairness to the whole thing.

[GeoffBoulton]

the probability of a heroic fireman needing a skin transplant the very day that a criminal is going to be executed is very, very close to 0.

Unless you're in China where prisoners are sentenced and executed on demand to feed a lucrative market in transplant organs.

[Jillamanda]

...for NO ONE will put their ass on the line for making such a mistake....

Exactly. If you can find anyone willing to be a cop, or a judge or a PI, knowing that if they screw up, they're dead, they're going to want to be paid damn good wages. They would probably be better off being criminals, the pay would be better and the penalty for screwing up is the same anyway. It would also leave a big doorway open to corruption. Look at all the countries that execute their prisoners freely, for a wide variety of reasons and in a wide variety of ways, not excluding torture. Their legal systems are a reflection of their barbarity.

Well, I probably should point out, that you probably never killed anyone, so... At least a bit biased.

You're quite right - I've never killed anyone. Are you suggesting that I can't have an unbiased opinion on this unless I have? Hey, I've never been killed either, and obviously, you haven't either. So how can you speak on behalf of someone who has?

[Alice Shade]

Alright, one by one.

First of all, cop/judge/persecutor will face death sentence, only if it`s proven, that they had intentionally made efforts to put a certain person to death - same as with every other murder. Out of that, they will have what they have now... Or would, if it wasn`t buddy-buddy system heavily at work.

As for killing/being killed... You make a cardinal mistake of assuming, that all the killers invariably suffer from regret. This is simply not true, and there`d be no shortage in executioners, if such a position was needed. Some people just don`t care.

About beliefs and such... Well, there`s a major difference. You are banning all the death sentences unquesioningly. I`m giving you choice of freedom. Don`t want to walk the death row? Don`t commit crimes needed to land you there.

About organs and demand - not true. There are enough drug dealers/thugs/rapists, who are perfectly healthy, and could be good organ donors to fill the need of the organ demands. Not to mention, that organs could be conserved, and high turnabout ensures, that absolute majority of organs are used productively.

As for causes for crimes...

Passion crimes are made irregardless of possible punishment. Considering, that they are usually committed in state of affect, and rarely take on major destriction/death, most of those would be punished with some sentence, but not even life, let alone death. But let`s agree - sick fuck, who sends box of bonbons chock-full of dynamite sticks to a girl, who said "let`s just be friends", needs to be removed from society.

Money crimes... I wouldn`t be far off, if I say, that corruption deserves death sentence more then murder. Killing someone could be a honorable thing - it all depends on views and circumstances. But stealing medicaments meant for war zones? THAT should be crime punishable by death. Same with other crimes. Payed assassin might be even employed, if a need arises, but paying "boss" should die, to cleanse the society.

In short, it`s all a VERY complicated MORAL question, and it rarely deals with reason. If anything, reasoning tends to offend morals often. If judging from view, utterly disconnected from morals... Everyone should be allowed to kill at wish. And don`t get upset, that there`s a manhunt for them going on, if they go trigger-happy.

[punkinside]

First of all, cop/judge/persecutor will face death sentence, only if it`s proven, that they had intentionally made efforts to put a certain person to death - same as with every other murder. Out of that, they will have what they have now... Or would, if it wasn`t buddy-buddy system heavily at work.


A cop/judge/prosecutor that faces punishment of any sort for making an honest mistake ( DNA matching was not around until a few years back, and it's been a very good way to get people out of prison as it has been to get people locked up). There are still many advances in science yet to come about that can aid crime fighting. There are times when evidence CAN point to the wrong person. Suppose some years from now its possible to get a "video" of people's memory that can prove/disprove what they're saying. And with this new technology, it is found that X number of people were wrongly executed. Should the policemen/judges/prosecutors face involuntary manslaughter for their mistake? If not, do we let it go just like that?


As for killing/being killed... You make a cardinal mistake of assuming, that all the killers invariably suffer from regret. This is simply not true, and there`d be no shortage in executioners, if such a position was needed. Some people just don`t care.

I've never said anything of the sorts. I've been saying over and over again that murderers/pedophiles/rapists should suffer greatly for their crimes, regardless of their "regret".


About beliefs and such... Well, there`s a major difference. You are banning all the death sentences unquesioningly. I`m giving you choice of freedom. Don`t want to walk the death row? Don`t commit crimes needed to land you there.

I think we agree that the people who commit the crimes are fairly certain that they will not face the consequences, or are not taking them into consideration so just saying: If you don't want to be punished, don't commit crimes adds nothing to the discussion. And excuse me, but freedom? Your freedom ends where the freedom of others begins. No one should have freedom to take another human's life, unless it threatens your own. Thats what prisons are for, to put those that threaten the freedom of others out of reach.


About organs and demand - not true. There are enough drug dealers/thugs/rapists, who are perfectly healthy, and could be good organ donors to fill the need of the organ demands. Not to mention, that organs could be conserved, and high turnabout ensures, that absolute majority of organs are used productively.


So we should use criminals for spare parts? Kill them as the need arises? Do we need to expand capital punishment to fit the demand? Thousands of people are on every transplant waiting list.



In short, it`s all a VERY complicated MORAL question, and it rarely deals with reason. If anything, reasoning tends to offend morals often. If judging from view, utterly disconnected from morals... Everyone should be allowed to kill at wish. And don`t get upset, that there`s a manhunt for them going on, if they go trigger-happy.

How anarchistic of you, thats nice...

Of course this is a moral question. I can give you very reasonable arguments of why some people I know should be removed from the gene pool before they get the chance to reproduce. No crimes, they're just really dumb or mean, and it would make the life of everyone around them much, much easier. Is this acceptable? I can surely say that every single member of the KKK should be crucified and burned, and the world would be a much nicer place without every single religious extremist. But it is not our prerogative to do so. Reason is not everything.

[Alice Shade]

There`s such a thing, as outdated crimes. If a crime was committed longer then N years, it`s no longer considered opened, and thus, even though convicts could be redeemed from jail, no new convicts of any kind could be gathered for this case.


And how, exactly, are you going to make those baddies suffer? You can`t make them suffer morally, they have no morals. This leaves you to physical torture... Which is expencive, "unusual and cruel", and heavy on those, who had to make it happen. Remember, they have life sentence, and government can`t let them starve to death, so they can just lay down, and refuze to do anything - thus negating any possible suffering you thought to incure with work.

People, who commit crime, are hoping NOT to be punished, and are hoping to get light punishment, preferably in a form of money loss on bribes, if such condition arises. But the fact, that those similar to them WERE executed without regard to money/relatives/buddies/position WILL make people think long and hard before trying a crime.

And your idea of "threatening your own life" could be so easily misinterpreted... Let`s suppose, that I want to date that one girl. But she has boyfriend. So, I`m killing said boyfriend, becasue he "ruins my life". Sounds ridiculous? Yes, it`s quite what you say. Threat to life could be persieved by various people in various terms.

Now, definition of "threat of you being caused body harm enough to be lethal" will leave you wide open for conviction, if you shoot a guy, who`s raping your four-years old daughter, as you`d be lark-free of ANY harm here - bastard only interested in your daughter.

__________________________________________

And again, let`s not confuze reason and sillyness. Having right to live revoked for crimes is one thing, being taken to spare parts just cause there`s demand is another. Another of moral dilemmas.
__________________________________________


Now, let`s not get all spirirual... "Not our prerogative".... Whos, then? Christian God? Muslim Allah? Hinduist Brahmin? Taoist Divine Bureaucracy? Indian Nature Spirits?
Bull. It`s a prerogative of whoever has the balls and smarts to claim it. And thousand sayings "You can`t" won`t stop a single bullet. Because it can.... As much as you want to deny it.

Let`s FACE it. People ARE able to kill each other. As well, as force each other into all kinds of unpleasant/hazardous/denigrative situations, and causing innumerable harm.
So, instead of debating how it shouldn`t happen, let`s agree, that it does, and seek the ways to minimise it`s influence, if we find it negative from our standpoint of view.

Personally, I think that goals justify the means - if you don`t get caught in means in spite of goal.

[punkinside]

There`s such a thing, as outdated crimes. If a crime was committed longer then N years, it`s no longer considered opened, and thus, even though convicts could be redeemed from jail, no new convicts of any kind could be gathered for this case.

First of all, murder does not "expire". Not in any legal system that I know of. (And I am the first to say that I don't know many legal systems). Second, even if it did, does that mean that because we can't imprison the guilty we should leave the innocent to rot?


And how, exactly, are you going to make those baddies suffer? You can`t make them suffer morally, they have no morals. This leaves you to physical torture... Which is expencive, "unusual and cruel", and heavy on those, who had to make it happen. Remember, they have life sentence, and government can`t let them starve to death, so they can just lay down, and refuze to do anything - thus negating any possible suffering you thought to incure with work.

Its very simple: you have to work to get food outside of prison. The same logic applies inside of prison. I've always thought hunger strikes are really, really dumb.


People, who commit crime, are hoping NOT to be punished, and are hoping to get light punishment, preferably in a form of money loss on bribes, if such condition arises. But the fact, that those similar to them WERE executed without regard to money/relatives/buddies/position WILL make people think long and hard before trying a crime.

We've already established that the death penalty does not, in any way, deter people from crime any more than simple jail time. They just do it.


And your idea of "threatening your own life" could be so easily misinterpreted... Let`s suppose, that I want to date that one girl. But she has boyfriend. So, I`m killing said boyfriend, becasue he "ruins my life". Sounds ridiculous? Yes, it`s quite what you say. Threat to life could be persieved by various people in various terms.

Now, definition of "threat of you being caused body harm enough to be lethal" will leave you wide open for conviction, if you shoot a guy, who`s raping your four-years old daughter, as you`d be lark-free of ANY harm here - bastard only interested in your daughter.


Please, lets not turn this into a discussion of semantics. Once more, I do not know of any legal system that would put me in jail for hitting a guy thats raping my sister over the head with a golf club.


__________________________________________

And again, let`s not confuze reason and sillyness. Having right to live revoked for crimes is one thing, being taken to spare parts just cause there`s demand is another. Another of moral dilemmas.
__________________________________________


I am not talking about the morality of the spare parts, I am talking about the killing of people.


Now, let`s not get all spirirual... "Not our prerogative".... Whos, then? Christian God? Muslim Allah? Hinduist Brahmin? Taoist Divine Bureaucracy? Indian Nature Spirits?


It's no ones prerogative.


Bull. It`s a prerogative of whoever has the balls and smarts to claim it. And thousand sayings "You can`t" won`t stop a single bullet. Because it can.... As much as you want to deny it.

True, saying "you can't" won't stop people who do. I'm just saying government should not.


Let`s FACE it. People ARE able to kill each other. As well, as force each other into all kinds of unpleasant/hazardous/denigrative situations, and causing innumerable harm.


Once more, PEOPLE can, GOVERNMENT should NOT!


So, instead of debating how it shouldn`t happen, let`s agree, that it does, and seek the ways to minimise it`s influence, if we find it negative from our standpoint of view.

There is no way to stop passion or money related murders We can minimize crime with education and a sound economic ambient.


Personally, I think that goals justify the means - if you don`t get caught in means in spite of goal.

What are your goals? Spare parts for the sick? We've already established that punishment is not a deterrent for many crimes, and that the added cost of maintaining prisoners of death row can be neglected.


P.S. Do you sleep, at all!?!

[Alice Shade]

Well... Power psychology. If there`s no sence in reopening the case, fudging old wrongs, and generally, making nuisance to lots of people, why bother with "innocent"? Surely, over the stay in prison, he became criminal, even if he wasn`t, so it`s better to let him rot.

No, it`s not right from moral views (most of them, at least), but it`s pretty reasonable. If you want to stay in power, you learn to hide your dirty underwear, or lose power. And if you have to drown the person, who washes your underwear off - well, that`s sad, but it`s "for the better of nation".


Making baddies work... As I pointed out before, government is magnanimous, or at least wants to look such, therefore, it won`t let them hunger, because it`s "cruel and unusual". Besides, WHO gets to decide, if prisoner did the day`s job fine, or not? You`re opening a very fine venue for wardens to racketeer the prisoners simply by LEGALLY denying them food. What`s worse, that it won`t even come close to death threat - because on a case-to-case, not eating for one day is a minor annoyance, and dieing one day is bam and that`s it. Thus, wardens would get out MUCH easier from accusation of starving prisoners, then from accusation of executing them.


And no, we didn`t established, that death penalty does not deters crime. Look closer on statistics. Offences punishable by death ARE in less amounts. But overall crime rate inflates to same measures because of additional petty crimes, just as robbery, muggery, pickpocketing and such, to make up for increased cost of life.


And for legal system... USA`s legal system gives enough leeway for you to be tried on attempted manslaughter, if you were "hitting a guy thats raping my sister over the head with a golf club". Skillful lawyer will have no problem making you look like a psycho murderer and your sister - like a jailbait slut.


About killing of people.... How does it differs from anything else you might do? What makes that particular action so stanf-offish? It is the moral dilemma, what I`m speaking about, not if it`s moral or not to use transplants.



About government should not... Bull. Bull simply because noone would bother asking you, if you want it, or not.
Laws are made, when there is an accumulation of people, who, united, possess enough power to force everyone else to abide by their rules/traditions/guidelines. Saying "should not" is about as pointless, as telling raging rhino - "You should not". Noone cares, should it, or should it not - it`s irrelevant in face of is and isn`t.


And yes, for once I agree. There is no way to stop crime, at least until humans possess indivudualistic minds. As long as society is a congregation of various entities with different agendas, there will be crime - always. The only thing the dominating society can do, is to make sure, that crimes cause as little damage as possible, and that those punished for crime, bring back as much of rebate, as possible, to even out the economical side. As for moral side... That needs a state religion to be regulated, and as we all agree, is unacceptable.


My goal is to live. Live like I myself want. If this goal is collinear with somone else`s, I`ll further their ends, because they will in return further mine. If someone is opposing me, I will negotiate a compromise... If there can not be a compromise I am satisfied with, I will destroy the opponent, and move on. Simple, no?


P.S. And yes, I do sleep. Just woken up, in fact. My sleeping patterns fluctuate wildly. Army habit - I`m just napping like a cat whenever I feel like it, and have a chance to.

[punkinside]

Well... Power psychology. If there`s no sence in reopening the case, fudging old wrongs, and generally, making nuisance to lots of people, why bother with "innocent"? Surely, over the stay in prison, he became criminal, even if he wasn`t, so it`s better to let him rot.


Once people stop bothering with "innocent" there is no telling what a legal system will do to anyone, why have a legal system in the first place? Just toss people in death row for whatever reason, people with money who need transplants already pay a considerable sum of money in black markets, that would effectively legalize organ markets, at the expense of whatever poor chap has the same blood type. Please, picture yourself wrongfully accused and left to rot. Would you want it to be left alone?


No, it`s not right from moral views (most of them, at least), but it`s pretty reasonable. If you want to stay in power, you learn to hide your dirty underwear, or lose power. And if you have to drown the person, who washes your underwear off - well, that`s sad, but it`s "for the better of nation".

Now, surely you agree that the goal should be that governments need to have LESS power, not more! Whats this "for the better of the nation"?? Do you actually believe this? Do you actually WANT government to lie about everything they do wrong? Is that the red army talking or is it just me?


Making baddies work... As I pointed out before, government is magnanimous, or at least wants to look such, therefore, it won`t let them hunger, because it`s "cruel and unusual". Besides, WHO gets to decide, if prisoner did the day`s job fine, or not? You`re opening a very fine venue for wardens to racketeer the prisoners simply by LEGALLY denying them food. What`s worse, that it won`t even come close to death threat - because on a case-to-case, not eating for one day is a minor annoyance, and dieing one day is bam and that`s it. Thus, wardens would get out MUCH easier from accusation of starving prisoners, then from accusation of executing them.

So, in the sentence above you say that its perfectly acceptable to openly execute prisoners and, should they be proven innocent, hide it for "the good of the nation" and then say that making them work for food opens doors for corruption? You're trampling all over your arguments here.



And no, we didn`t established, that death penalty does not deters crime. Look closer on statistics. Offences punishable by death ARE in less amounts. But overall crime rate inflates to same measures because of additional petty crimes, just as robbery, muggery, pickpocketing and such, to make up for increased cost of life.

Show me.


And for legal system... USA`s legal system gives enough leeway for you to be tried on attempted manslaughter, if you were "hitting a guy thats raping my sister over the head with a golf club". Skillful lawyer will have no problem making you look like a psycho murderer and your sister - like a jailbait slut.

We're not talking about any legal systems here. But in any case, a skillful lawyer can make you look like anything he wants. Indeed, a killer psycho can be made look like one of the teletubbies by a very skillful lawyer. It goes either way.


About killing of people.... How does it differs from anything else you might do? What makes that particular action so stanf-offish? It is the moral dilemma, what I`m speaking about, not if it`s moral or not to use transplants.

I have already acknowledged that this is, in fact a moral dilemma. Like I said before, I can find very compelling arguments as to why we should kill any number of people. Reason dictates that the next time a Jehova's witness knocks at your door, you should stab him in the heart. It can be reasoned that dropping a couple of napalm bombs on the next KKK rally would make a lot of people very, very happy (including me). Do you support this? Should we, as a society, be able to rationalize murder? Bah, he was being a dick so I shot him 16 times. No biggie...



About government should not... Bull. Bull simply because noone would bother asking you, if you want it, or not.
Laws are made, when there is an accumulation of people, who, united, possess enough power to force everyone else to abide by their rules/traditions/guidelines. Saying "should not" is about as pointless, as telling raging rhino - "You should not". Noone cares, should it, or should it not - it`s irrelevant in face of is and isn`t.


What is and isn't? Should we accept status quo? Change comes from "should" and "should not". Surely, belonging to this community, you agree that religions "should not" exist. They do, so you just shrug and go to church? I am saying that government should not have the power to commit murder, and I hope that should becomes an "is".


And yes, for once I agree. There is no way to stop crime, at least until humans possess indivudualistic minds. As long as society is a congregation of various entities with different agendas, there will be crime - always. The only thing the dominating society can do, is to make sure, that crimes cause as little damage as possible, and that those punished for crime, bring back as much of rebate, as possible, to even out the economical side. As for moral side... That needs a state religion to be regulated, and as we all agree, is unacceptable.

Morality != Religion.
Like I said, reason is not everything.


My goal is to live. Live like I myself want. If this goal is collinear with somone else`s, I`ll further their ends, because they will in return further mine. If someone is opposing me, I will negotiate a compromise... If there can not be a compromise I am satisfied with, I will destroy the opponent, and move on. Simple, no?

Take into account, your opponent CAN destroy YOU. And if your opponent is government, it most likely will.


P.S. And yes, I do sleep. Just woken up, in fact. My sleeping patterns fluctuate wildly. Army habit - I`m just napping like a cat whenever I feel like it, and have a chance to.

Ok, I was just baffled at the time of your responses, they spanned the whole of Ucranian and Venezuelan nights.

[Alice Shade]

Once people stop bothering with "innocent" there is no telling what a legal system will do to anyone, why have a legal system in the first place? Just toss people in death row for whatever reason, people with money who need transplants already pay a considerable sum of money in black markets, that would effectively legalize organ markets, at the expense of whatever poor chap has the same blood type. Please, picture yourself wrongfully accused and left to rot. Would you want it to be left alone?

There is a balance to everything. You keep forgetting, that government manages masses of people, not single individuals. While separate persons can and WILL be slighted by government, and harbor contempt, it`s inavoidable by the nature of governing and human mind. For government, it`s mass opinion, that counts. If it does counts at all. ^_^

Now, surely you agree that the goal should be that governments need to have LESS power, not more! Whats this "for the better of the nation"?? Do you actually believe this? Do you actually WANT government to lie about everything they do wrong? Is that the red army talking or is it just me?

I`m merely stating current facts. Unless you can up with better government, we`re stuck with lying conniving unfair ones.

So, in the sentence above you say that its perfectly acceptable to openly execute prisoners and, should they be proven innocent, hide it for "the good of the nation" and then say that making them work for food opens doors for corruption? You're trampling all over your arguments here.

No. I`m saying, that getting away with not feeding prisoners is infinitely safer, then with executing them. Mainly, because tossing someone`s plate in garbage is considered a petty hooliganism, while blowing someone`s brains out with handhun is considered a major felony.
Trouble here is, that people don`t make cumulative transition easily. So three consecutive complaints - "Me and me buds didn`t got fed today." will hardly garner even comparable attention to three consecutive - "They shot one of my buds today." But in a group of fourty, fourty consecutive complaints of EITHER of those two (all of one kind or another) will mean deaths of all fourty. But in case of "not fed", it will start bothering people, only after half of prison starves out, not three-five convicts.

Show me.

www.google.com - everything there.

We're not talking about any legal systems here. But in any case, a skillful lawyer can make you look like anything he wants. Indeed, a killer psycho can be made look like one of the teletubbies by a very skillful lawyer. It goes either way.

Yes. Which is why the system is inherently flawed. It goes much deeper then death sentence or not, on this question.

I have already acknowledged that this is, in fact a moral dilemma. Like I said before, I can find very compelling arguments as to why we should kill any number of people. Reason dictates that the next time a Jehova's witness knocks at your door, you should stab him in the heart. It can be reasoned that dropping a couple of napalm bombs on the next KKK rally would make a lot of people very, very happy (including me). Do you support this? Should we, as a society, be able to rationalize murder? Bah, he was being a dick so I shot him 16 times. No biggie...

Sure. But if I think you`re a dick, because you killed my bud, and pop a cap in your head, it`s just as justifiable. In short, it all comes down to a single thing - "Don`t be a dick, if you don`t want troubles."

What is and isn't? Should we accept status quo? Change comes from "should" and "should not". Surely, belonging to this community, you agree that religions "should not" exist. They do, so you just shrug and go to church? I am saying that government should not have the power to commit murder, and I hope that should becomes an "is".

It`s useless to say "should" and "should not", for simple reason, that until you get up and MAKE it happen, it`s just words. And when you did it already, it`s "is" and "isn`t", and next generation of "should" and "shouldn`t" is already cropping up behind your back.
Road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Morality != Religion.
Like I said, reason is not everything.

Bull, again. You need either reason, either faith for statement. Faith=religion/philosophy. It does not needs to be exactly worshipping of one god, but every society enforces a basic set of philosophical/moral restraints on it`s members, to preserve integrity and drive.

Take into account, your opponent CAN destroy YOU. And if your opponent is government, it most likely will.

Which is why I`m not doing something stupid to come in conflict with government. If I was certain, that I could get away with it (aka, beat the government), and I wanted it, I would, simple as that.
As I said, it`s all in finding the compromise. Obviously, if I`m dealing with entity, which is much more powerful, then me, then I would be much more willing to compromise on less profitable terms for me.

[punkinside]

There is a balance to everything. You keep forgetting, that government manages masses of people, not single individuals. While separate persons can and WILL be slighted by government, and harbor contempt, it`s inavoidable by the nature of governing and human mind. For government, it`s mass opinion, that counts. If it does counts at all. ^_^

Well, and you keep forgetting that, as long as there is an ineffectual and corrupt government, we can only hope to limit its power more and more. I do not wish to give government the power to kill its own people, for the same reasons you state above.


I`m merely stating current facts. Unless you can up with better government, we`re stuck with lying conniving unfair ones.

I HAVE come up with a better government, its just not implemented and I'm too lazy to start a revolution. See above: as long as we're stuck with lying conniving unfair governments, it is best to limit as much as we can their actions, specially if they're irreversible: like death.



No. I`m saying, that getting away with not feeding prisoners is infinitely safer, then with executing them. Mainly, because tossing someone`s plate in garbage is considered a petty hooliganism, while blowing someone`s brains out with handhun is considered a major felony.
Trouble here is, that people don`t make cumulative transition easily. So three consecutive complaints - "Me and me buds didn`t got fed today." will hardly garner even comparable attention to three consecutive - "They shot one of my buds today." But in a group of fourty, fourty consecutive complaints of EITHER of those two (all of one kind or another) will mean deaths of all fourty. But in case of "not fed", it will start bothering people, only after half of prison starves out, not three-five convicts.

How do we know that TODAY, prisoners in solitary are being fed? How do we know if they're being fed at all? What stops wardens TODAY from not feeding the convicts in their prisons right? The same checks are in place!


www.google.com - everything there.


Well, I am unable to find information that backs up your claims. What are you searching for?


Yes. Which is why the system is inherently flawed. It goes much deeper then death sentence or not, on this question.

Once more, why do we trust the life of a person to a system that is inherently flawed?


Sure. But if I think you`re a dick, because you killed my bud, and pop a cap in your head, it`s just as justifiable. In short, it all comes down to a single thing - "Don`t be a dick, if you don`t want troubles."

I'm sure that you can find a person whose death will not bother anyone (I know a couple), are you saying its ok for me to go ahead and kill them?



It`s useless to say "should" and "should not", for simple reason, that until you get up and MAKE it happen, it`s just words. And when you did it already, it`s "is" and "isn`t", and next generation of "should" and "shouldn`t" is already cropping up behind your back.
Road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I'm not sure at what you're getting at here. Please explain.


Bull, again. You need either reason, either faith for statement. Faith=religion/philosophy. It does not needs to be exactly worshipping of one god,but every society enforces a basic set of philosophical/moral restraints on it`s members, to preserve integrity and drive.

Ethics != religion. Laws dictate codes for morality and ethics. When a law says: "Don't kill or you will be killed" thats a moral code right there, that is government enforcing ethics. $DEITY is nowhere to be found. Here you have given me a better word for this: its not so much about morality, its about ethics and ethical behavior. While we agree that crime exists and always will to some extent, we have to have a government that stands by its ethical code. If killing is illegal, then its illegal, even for the government.



Which is why I`m not doing something stupid to come in conflict with government. If I was certain, that I could get away with it (aka, beat the government), and I wanted it, I would, simple as that.
As I said, it`s all in finding the compromise. Obviously, if I`m dealing with entity, which is much more powerful, then me, then I would be much more willing to compromise on less profitable terms for me.

That does not mean that you should not aim for the compromise that has the highest satisfaction content for you. And that is, at least, my goal.

[Alice Shade]

Well, and you keep forgetting that, as long as there is an ineffectual and corrupt government, we can only hope to limit its power more and more. I do not wish to give government the power to kill its own people, for the same reasons you state above.

You can`t directly oppose government, and expect it will allow you. Government has a self-preservation drive. And it WILL insure, that all you`d ever do, would be "should"/"should not" musing. You can come up with any number of should/should nots, but as long as government has the need in something, it will be done, despite your opinion.
And the talk about giving/not giving government something are just ridiculous. You can not give/take something from government. To alter it`s laws, you should be either part of government, or be backed up with enough strength to unquestioningly defeat government in any disput via brute force.

I HAVE come up with a better government, its just not implemented and I'm too lazy to start a revolution. See above: as long as we're stuck with lying conniving unfair governments, it is best to limit as much as we can their actions, specially if they're irreversible: like death.

"I`m too lazy". Well, if you`re too lazy to stand up for what you think, you should not be surprised, that your opinion will get ignored in the end tally.

How do we know that TODAY, prisoners in solitary are being fed? How do we know if they're being fed at all? What stops wardens TODAY from not feeding the convicts in their prisons right? The same checks are in place!

Good question. So, how do you know they do?

Well, I am unable to find information that backs up your claims. What are you searching for?

Look up the statistics you were refering to, when claiming, that crime rates are same in the states with and without death penalty. Then look up break-down by crime types, and compare the relative density of severe crimes (ones, that would warrant death sentence) with relative dencity of petty crimes. (Dencity, as in proportion of offenders to the total population.)

Once more, why do we trust the life of a person to a system that is inherently flawed?

You have some better suggestion? We can not trust government at all, if you want. Muslims have little to no need in civil laws - they are majorly governed by shariat - which is completely independant from country, being a religious scripture. Would you like that?

I'm sure that you can find a person whose death will not bother anyone (I know a couple), are you saying its ok for me to go ahead and kill them?

In short? Yes. If you deem it necessary, go ahead. Of course, by this, you are granting Mr. Dick exclusive right to kill you, if he shoots first.

I'm not sure at what you're getting at here. Please explain.

I`m saying, that until you will take action to realise your beliefs into law system, they are as ephemeral, as air - and have even less sheer weight for anyone else (though they might agree, if they share your beliefs).
But once you take action and DO put your ideas as law, you immediately switch places with government. Now it`s you, who enforces your ideas, and other visionaires are looking into how to correct you to suit their ideals.

Ethics != religion. Laws dictate codes for morality and ethics. When a law says: "Don't kill or you will be killed" thats a moral code right there, that is government enforcing ethics. $DEITY is nowhere to be found. Here you have given me a better word for this: its not so much about morality, its about ethics and ethical behavior. While we agree that crime exists and always will to some extent, we have to have a government that stands by its ethical code. If killing is illegal, then its illegal, even for the government.

Your example is based on reason - no wonder, that it has little to do with faith. What I am saying, that you will invariably have either laws based on reasons, either laws based on faith. Either a mix of both, as most of countries now do.
Ethics, as you describe them, are a mix of deeply-ingrained faiths and reasons, which intertwine too severely to separate one from another - and thus, are called ethics. But you have to understand, that ethics are purely situational. For example, about 150 years ago, if you`d bash in someone`s head with stone, and then fry him over bonfire and feast on his meat in Europe, you would be declared a monster, and hunted down and tortured like a wild animal. In the same time, in Tazmania, you would be a hero of village, and everyone would come to your feast, and praise you for killing mighty opponent.
You`ve got to understand, that there are NO universal ethics, which are good anywhere and everywhere.

That does not mean that you should not aim for the compromise that has the highest satisfaction content for you. And that is, at least, my goal.

Yes, exactly. And if I sleep better, knowing that the jerk, who stabbed my neighbour last week, is now inhabiting several dozens jars, and neighbour is recuperating after having kidney transplanted, to replace stabbed one?

[punkinside]

You can`t directly oppose government, and expect it will allow you. Government has a self-preservation drive. And it WILL insure, that all you`d ever do, would be "should"/"should not" musing. You can come up with any number of should/should nots, but as long as government has the need in something, it will be done, despite your opinion.
And the talk about giving/not giving government something are just ridiculous. You can not give/take something from government. To alter it`s laws, you should be either part of government, or be backed up with enough strength to unquestioningly defeat government in any disput via brute force.

Many governments have abolished the death penalty. I thought your position was "there should be a death penalty" regardless of who's in charge. My position is "there should not be a death penalty" regardless of who's in charge. With these statements you are saying that the death penalty exists because government wants it to, and that we lazy citizens who do not start revolutions over it, have absolutely no say in it. Well, the governments that have abolished the death penalty prove that we do.

Government is nothing but a contract between the inhabitants of a nation. Sometimes they get f*cked over, sometimes not so much. And it has been proven that its just a matter of time that unpopular governments stay in power, and no, its not always by the use of force.


"I`m too lazy". Well, if you`re too lazy to stand up for what you think, you should not be surprised, that your opinion will get ignored in the end tally.


Well, that was meant more like a joke. What you say is true, but like I said before, not all change comes from revolution.



Good question. So, how do you know they do?


Stating the obvious, because there haven't been any reports about it, and they're not dead. Surely, high-profile murderers in solitary suddenly disappearing would be a story for the evening news? And the other, "normal" cons can surely say something next time someone comes to visit.

Here's some statistics for you. This is pertaining only to MURDERS (only crime punished by the death rate in the US) found here (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=169)

The average murder rate (murders per 100.000 people) in 2005 in the US was 5.3

The average murder rate in 2005 in the states of the US with no death penalty is: 2.8

For example, here (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=168) you can find that in states without a death penalty, the murder rate is 42% lower.

Want an article about another country? Here's one about Canada (http://www.amnesty.ca/deathpenalty/canada.php)



You have some better suggestion? We can not trust government at all, if you want. Muslims have little to no need in civil laws - they are majorly governed by shariat - which is completely independant from country, being a religious scripture. Would you like that?

I don't see the connection between the two. I have been saying that we need to trust less in government, because its not trustworthy.


In short? Yes. If you deem it necessary, go ahead. Of course, by this, you are granting Mr. Dick exclusive right to kill you, if he shoots first.


I am not challenging him to a duel. I am killing him in cold blood and defenseless. Just like the ones on death row!


I`m saying, that until you will take action to realise your beliefs into law system, they are as ephemeral, as air - and have even less sheer weight for anyone else (though they might agree, if they share your beliefs).
But once you take action and DO put your ideas as law, you immediately switch places with government. Now it`s you, who enforces your ideas, and other visionaires are looking into how to correct you to suit their ideals.

Completely agreed, its the cycle of life. I do not claim to be completely correct in all my views. They're mine nonetheless and will defend them. But not by bitching on the sidelines, and certainly not by a call to arms. I want to see my beliefs happen more naturally, sadly, not many people are ready to take on many of my ideas or convictions, and one of them is never forcing anything on anyone. So I guess its check mate for me.



You`ve got to understand, that there are NO universal ethics, which are good anywhere and everywhere.

I understand that. But that is a cultural issue also. I cannot be asked to respect the practice in some countries to remove a woman's clitoris so that she will have less sexual pleasure and will be less inclined to cheat on her husband. Nor do I condone, as ethical as it may seem in muslim countries, the stoning of a raped woman because she's no longer "pure". I am sorry, but my tolerance for the ethics of your culture only go as far as their respect for life and liberty.



Yes, exactly. And if I sleep better, knowing that the jerk, who stabbed my neighbour last week, is now inhabiting several dozens jars, and neighbour is recuperating after having kidney transplanted, to replace stabbed one?

Well, as long as you sleep OK knowing that innocent people have walked the death row I guess you're just being consistent.[/url]

[Alice Shade]

Many governments have abolished the death penalty. I thought your position was "there should be a death penalty" regardless of who's in charge. My position is "there should not be a death penalty" regardless of who's in charge. With these statements you are saying that the death penalty exists because government wants it to, and that we lazy citizens who do not start revolutions over it, have absolutely no say in it. Well, the governments that have abolished the death penalty prove that we do.

Government is nothing but a contract between the inhabitants of a nation. Sometimes they get f*cked over, sometimes not so much. And it has been proven that its just a matter of time that unpopular governments stay in power, and no, its not always by the use of force.


Death sentences were abolished, first off, because people in charge held beliefs, that it`s not needed, AND because popular vote was in favor of being "civilised". This is stemming from moderate-to-well well-being. Death sentence usually marks rapid progression, most usually, from the degenerated/drepressed/razed state.

Stating the obvious, because there haven't been any reports about it, and they're not dead. Surely, high-profile murderers in solitary suddenly disappearing would be a story for the evening news? And the other, "normal" cons can surely say something next time someone comes to visit.

Depends. On a
A) Need and demand in torturing inmates.
B) Amount of shit jailers can get away with.
C) Level of public admission.

Obviously, different prisons have different standards.

Here's some statistics for you. This is pertaining only to MURDERS (only crime punished by the death rate in the US) found here (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=169)
The average murder rate (murders per 100.000 people) in 2005 in the US was 5.3
The average murder rate in 2005 in the states of the US with no death penalty is: 2.8
For example, here (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=168) you can find that in states without a death penalty, the murder rate is 42% lower.
Want an article about another country? Here's one about Canada (http://www.amnesty.ca/deathpenalty/canada.php)


I`ll cover those statistics in later post. I need to calculate some stuff to show and tell.


Not exactly the best example.

I don't see the connection between the two. I have been saying that we need to trust less in government, because its not trustworthy.


But that, is wrong. You are supposed to trust your government. If it comes to nation not trusting government in taking decisions, it means, that it`s time to pick new government, more trustworthy.

I am not challenging him to a duel. I am killing him in cold blood and defenseless. Just like the ones on death row!

Your choice. If he finds out before you manage, lures you into basement, and then gradually beats you to death over next month, it`s entirely within his right, as well.
The idea here, is that you pitch your abilities against someone, if you decided to kill them. It`s up to you, which method to prefer - from poisoning food to brawl-to-death to using other people to. You just have to be on guard for all those methods implemented against you.
Of course, if you pick the method, that enrages the society, be prepared to deal with it`s wrath and contempt, as well.

Completely agreed, its the cycle of life. I do not claim to be completely correct in all my views. They're mine nonetheless and will defend them. But not by bitching on the sidelines, and certainly not by a call to arms. I want to see my beliefs happen more naturally, sadly, not many people are ready to take on many of my ideas or convictions, and one of them is never forcing anything on anyone. So I guess its check mate for me.

Nah. You can still be next Karl Marx. Just write ton of your thoughts in books, and with some luck, next hotshot mojo will see your book before someone elses.

I understand that. But that is a cultural issue also. I cannot be asked to respect the practice in some countries to remove a woman's clitoris so that she will have less sexual pleasure and will be less inclined to cheat on her husband. Nor do I condone, as ethical as it may seem in muslim countries, the stoning of a raped woman because she's no longer "pure". I am sorry, but my tolerance for the ethics of your culture only go as far as their respect for life and liberty.


Yes, you can be asked to. If you, once again, start reacting with disguist over eating human flesh in cannibalistic society, you`ll be considered a weirdo. And most likely, killed and tossed away, to make sure you won`t bother their dinner anymore.
If you want to LIVE in society, you can and will be expected to abide. Now, if you view such society with contempt, and strive to change it, or NOT be a part of it, it`s entirely your right. But you have to acknowledge society`s rights for not liking you or your ways - and not interfere with willing members of society, unless you plan on dealing with their displeasure. NOTE, however, that if someone IS induced in society forcibly, he/she has right to defect at any time/place/reason - if he/she realises the reaction of society, and is ready to deal with consequences.

Well, as long as you sleep OK knowing that innocent people have walked the death row I guess you're just being consistent.

Hum? People die all the time, for all the reasons. Do you grief over all the people, who died over others mistakes? All the road accidents, which ended quite badly, and caught up innocent bystanders, for example? Do you lose sleep over them? No... Then, hypocrisy much?

[punkinside]

Hit "submit" quite a few times didn't we? lol has happened to me before.


Death sentences were abolished, first off, because people in charge held beliefs, that it`s not needed, AND because popular vote was in favor of being "civilised". This is stemming from moderate-to-well well-being. Death sentence usually marks rapid progression, most usually, from the degenerated/drepressed/razed state.

So, are you saying that moderate-to-well wellbeing of our society is not a goal for humankind?


Depends. On a
A) Need and demand in torturing inmates.
B) Amount of shit jailers can get away with.
C) Level of public admission.

a) I don't know what this means
b) Jailers in death-penalty states get away with murder
c) Agreed.


I`ll cover those statistics in later post. I need to calculate some stuff to show and tell.

*Holding my breath*



But that, is wrong. You are supposed to trust your government. If it comes to nation not trusting government in taking decisions, it means, that it`s time to pick new government, more trustworthy.

No, it's perfectly acceptable NOT to trust government. In fact, its quite healthy. Change comes from those who are not content with the status quo.


Your choice. If he finds out before you manage, lures you into basement, and then gradually beats you to death over next month, it`s entirely within his right, as well.
The idea here, is that you pitch your abilities against someone, if you decided to kill them. It`s up to you, which method to prefer - from poisoning food to brawl-to-death to using other people to. You just have to be on guard for all those methods implemented against you.
Of course, if you pick the method, that enrages the society, be prepared to deal with it`s wrath and contempt, as well.

Now that would be a pretty society. Everyone just watching over their shoulders and sleeping with one eye open wondering who'd you piss off today.


Nah. You can still be next Karl Marx. Just write ton of your thoughts in books, and with some luck, next hotshot mojo will see your book before someone elses.

I can only hope that my ideas aren't used the way Marx's were.



Yes, you can be asked to. If you, once again, start reacting with disguist over eating human flesh in cannibalistic society, you`ll be considered a weirdo. And most likely, killed and tossed away, to make sure you won`t bother their dinner anymore.

I do not intend to go anywhere near cannibals, thank you.


If you want to LIVE in society, you can and will be expected to abide. Now, if you view such society with contempt, and strive to change it, or NOT be a part of it, it`s entirely your right. But you have to acknowledge society`s rights for not liking you or your ways - and not interfere with willing members of society, unless you plan on dealing with their displeasure. NOTE, however, that if someone IS induced in society forcibly, he/she has right to defect at any time/place/reason - if he/she realises the reaction of society, and is ready to deal with consequences.

Completely agree. I can still wish some kind of virus that only affects racists and bigots wipes them off the face of the earth.


Hum? People die all the time, for all the reasons. Do you grief over all the people, who died over others mistakes? All the road accidents, which ended quite badly, and caught up innocent bystanders, for example? Do you lose sleep over them? No... Then, hypocrisy much?

It's usually not my fault that these people die, and usually its not my money paying for the lethal injection. So yes, I sleep OK knowing my government is not legally murdering people.

[Alice Shade]

Alright, I`ve finished my calculations.

I must say, that statistics referenced do not reflect the true nature of things. I do not question the figures of input, but averages were counted with disregard to some facts.

I have to note, that due to the nature of question, we need to treat each state as separate country, with separate crime averages.

Here, however, while author of referenced statistic does counts an average of each state, for overall statistic, he sums up all the populations and murder counts of every state with death penalty, and out of those two sums, decides on nation average, and does same with states, which do NOT support death penalty.

This would be correct, if each state had laws similar to the letter, with only difference in inclusion/exclusion of the death penalty. Basically, this statistic apriori divides whole USA on two countries - "killers" and "samaritans", and counts averages for those two countries. Obviously, "samaritans" win, because their population is wavering between 1/4 and 1/6 of population of "killers", and it`s a common fact, that crime levels do not grow in strict proportion with population - they are slightly ahead of population advent (because of increasing population density).


Now, I`ve recalculated two years. 1991 and 2004, for objectivity of results.

"Average by sum" is statistic offered by author of referenced page, "Average by state" is statistic, calculated by me via taking arythmentic middle range out of all the state averages.

1991:
..............................Death penalty.......................No Death penalty...
Avg. by sum .............. 9,5 ........................................ 9,16 .............
Avg. by state ............. 7,86 ...................................... 9,82 .............

2004:
..............................Death penalty.......................No Death penalty...
Avg. by sum .............. 5,71 ...................................... 4,02 .............
Avg. by state ............. 5,17 ...................................... 5,47 .............

Interesting figures, don`t you agree? If anyone wants, I will provide my .xls tables I used to calculate, with all the results there.

As we see here, if we consider each state as independant executor/non-executor, on average, states with death sentence have lower murder, DESPITE the fact, that overall, most of murders occur in them (See my notes about population. Also, compare states of DC and N.Dacota for a moment. If we sum them, they even out into a medium-crime single state, but separately, one is the den of anarchy, while other is as lawful, as lawful gets. Is it Death Penalty, that affluences them so, or maybe it`s other laws, which afflict them? Note, that both have no death sentence.)

[Jillamanda]

There is a balance to everything.

Where's the balance in death? You're either dead or you're not, there's no half measures.

[punkinside]

This would be correct, if each state had laws similar to the letter, with only difference in inclusion/exclusion of the death penalty. Basically, this statistic apriori divides whole USA on two countries - "killers" and "samaritans", and counts averages for those two countries. Obviously, "samaritans" win, because their population is wavering between 1/4 and 1/6 of population of "killers", and it`s a common fact, that crime levels do not grow in strict proportion with population - they are slightly ahead of population advent (because of increasing population density).


A murder rate of X in each 100.000 is statistically correct regardless of the population because its a ratio. To simplify, if state A has 100.000 inhabitants and there were 5 murders, then that state has a murder rate of 5 in every 100.000, comparatively, if state B has 50.000 inhabitants and 3 murders, then the murder rate of that state is 6 in every 100.000. So, it does not matter that "samaritan" states have a fraction of the population of "killer" states. As for the other point, while population (and population density) has been steadily increasing in all states, the murder rate is lower each year on all states, so I think it's fair to say that this is not an issue.


"Average by sum" is statistic offered by author of referenced page, "Average by state" is statistic, calculated by me via taking arythmentic middle range out of all the state averages.

(...)

Interesting figures, don`t you agree? If anyone wants, I will provide my .xls tables I used to calculate, with all the results there.

I would like to see those tables you can mail them to punkinside666 at gmail please, as I don't really understand what "taking arithmetic middle range out of all the state averages" means. And yes, I've taken courses in statistics and probability so I will know what you're doing.


As we see here, if we consider each state as independant executor/non-executor, on average, states with death sentence have lower murder, DESPITE the fact, that overall, most of murders occur in them (See my notes about population. Also, compare states of DC and N.Dacota for a moment. If we sum them, they even out into a medium-crime single state, but separately, one is the den of anarchy, while other is as lawful, as lawful gets. Is it Death Penalty, that affluences them so, or maybe it`s other laws, which afflict them? Note, that both have no death sentence.)

In the original page, each state is counted as an independent executor/non-executor. The average is then calculated by simple sum / division as these numbers are population-independent already (see note above)

[Alice Shade]

Uhh... No.

Author of the statistics summed population for all executing states, and murders for all executing states, and calculated the figure out of those two values.

Which is incorrect, as each state differs. Correct is to calculate the rate for each state, and then take average of those rates - which I did.

Oh, and I`m sending xls files.



Jillamanda - death and birth should be balanced, otherwise current society is either going extinct, either undergoes demographic boom, which would nesessitate expansion war or cause econimic depression due to oversaturation of employee market, and insufficient job offers.

[punkinside]

I have reviewed your numbers and they are indeed correct. But if we want to make a thorough statistical analysis. Assuming, as you are, that each state is independent I have some interesting results also:

It appears that the District of Columbia has serious issues, every year its murder rate exceeds 30! But in a serious statistical analysis, one has to look for this things for they alter the "normal behavior" of the variables we are trying to study. It is quite obvious that the murder rate in the district of Columbia is almost 6 times higher than in the second-highest state, which would be Michigan, with a murder rate of 6.36. Comparatively, the highest murder rate in death-penalty states is 12.71 in Louisiana, closely followed by Maryland at 9.37, again followed by New Mexico at 8.88. The first three values of the Death-penalty states are higher than the second highest value in the non-death-penalty states! It goes without saying that the District of Columbia has the highest murder rate in the US. Therefore, any statistical analysis worth two pennies would effectively dismiss this figure in their conclusions because it is a "freak value". If you would like me to do a more thorough analysis of these figures you'll have to wait two weeks until I have more time to crunch numbers with R (if I can remember how to use it!)

Without the District of Columbia, the murder rate of the no-death-penalty states (again, each independent) is a whopping 2.94. Which completely supports my claim. Try it yourself.

EDIT: ALL THE ABOVE FIGURES BELONG TO THE YEAR 2004, taken from your own .xls

[Jillamanda]

You can`t directly oppose government, and expect it will allow you. Government has a self-preservation drive. And it WILL insure, that all you`d ever do, would be "should"/"should not" musing. You can come up with any number of should/should nots, but as long as government has the need in something, it will be done, despite your opinion.

You seem to be forgetting one thing - in democratic countries we vote for our government. If we don't like their policies, then they don't get elected. No system is perfect, and of course there's the old saying 'You can't please all the people all the time', but generally, the will of the people applies, particularly in this country, where voting is compulsory from age 18. Even 'donkey votes' can amount to a vote of no confidence if there's enough of them.


And the talk about giving/not giving government something are just ridiculous. You can not give/take something from government.

Yes, you can - you can take away their right to govern by fair and democratic election.

To alter it`s laws, you should be either part of government, or be backed up with enough strength to unquestioningly defeat government in any disput via brute force.

....or simply part of a disgruntled electorate - at least that's how it works here. Laws are reviewed and changed regularly, to reflect our changing world. As I mentioned before, our anti terrorism laws are less than a year old.

[Alice Shade]

I disagree.

I is NOT scientific - to dismiss facts, which can not be fit into pattern.

If you reviewed the statistics for several years, you could notice, that DC always had very high values, and always had halds-off policy. Now, the reason, why DC has such a high crime, is pretty obvious. Washington, DC, aside from being official capitol of USA, is also widely known as Place #1 in whole USA to buy crack.

Obviously, this situation idn`t just occured, and laws of DC had long and hard aided in creation of such criminal environment.

Since we are doing simple statistics, "dropping" anything successively drops the whole point of making stats.

Also, one may notice, that aside from arguably Michigan, other no-death states are mostly agrarian/recreational in their main venue of income. DC... Uh, I`m not sure, but from what I see, I estimate, that most of DCs income is again, from recreational and government-housing capability.

All the highly-industrial, and simply big states are with death sentence enabled. Coincidence? Or maybe necessity? Crime in the industrial regions is different from recreational/agrarian regions.

If we are to make complex analysis, we should take in account geographic position of states, density of population, ethnical mix (I think everyone agrees, that there`s probably more crime in black quarters of big city, then in small burg inhabited by puritan farmers.), availability of the potential crime (Loisiana is, obviously, better place to try growing coke, then Alaska.), neighboring countries (New Mexico, for example, which has increased crime expectancy due to illegal mexicans immigrating all the time.), law states, general attitudes (I suspect, that it`s easier to be shot by drunk redneck on south, then on north of USA.), and a whole lot of secondary parameters, randing from history of disasters, and ending with social benefits.

I do not think, that it`s a good idea to try - pointless work.


Jillamanda.

It might surprise you, but in comminusm, you voted just as well, as in democracy. And entirely under the same premise. The trouble is, however - WHO MAKES THE LIST OF CHOICES? Even though democracy is, theoretically, free-voiced, often you are offered to demonstrate your free will, by voting for one of:
1. I win.
2. You lose.
3. Shut up.



Fair and democratic election? Who are you kidding? Not even going to comment. Look on your own "free and democratic" choice, and then go around, and ask, who chose that.



Disgruntled electorate... While such electorate has no leader, it stays ignored. As soon as it gains a leader, and organises... Leader begins to change laws, according to wish of his qvorum, using them as said brute force to solve disputes in his/her favor. So it`s not or. It`s befORe.

[Jillamanda]

Jillamanda.

It might surprise you, but in comminusm, you voted just as well, as in democracy. And entirely under the same premise. The trouble is, however - WHO MAKES THE LIST OF CHOICES? Even though democracy is, theoretically, free-voiced, often you are offered to demonstrate your free will, by voting for one of:
1. I win.
2. You lose.
3. Shut up.

I don't know where you get that idea.

It might surprise you, but we have our own branch of the Communist Party here in Oz.

http://www.cpa.org.au/

They are free to field a candidate in the next election, as they always have done..... and I guess they choose their own leader. Our political history has been strongly influenced by revolutionary socialism via the Labor party and the trade union movement. The reason they aren't ruling the country is because the electorate didn't want them to - simple as that.


Fair and democratic election? Who are you kidding? Not even going to comment. Look on your own "free and democratic" choice, and then go around, and ask, who chose that.

I don't understand your point.



Disgruntled electorate... While such electorate has no leader, it stays ignored. As soon as it gains a leader, and organises... Leader begins to change laws, according to wish of his qvorum, using them as said brute force to solve disputes in his/her favor. So it`s not or. It`s befORe.

It does have a leader. It has a leader it elected. A leader who has promised certain things. If that leader doesn't come through with the goods, he'll be voted out of office at the next election. There will be no need for brute force. Our electoral system will do it all for us via a democratic vote. Why don't you understand this?

[GeoffBoulton]

It might surprise you, but in comminusm, you voted just as well, as in democracy.

Yes, you could vote for communist no.1 or communist no.2 or communist no.3.

EDIT: A joke from the communist era in Poland:

When was the first Russian election? The time that God put Eve in front of Adam and said, "Go ahead, choose your wife."

And don't forget that even that system was eventually overthrown by the will of the people, the very reason that countries like Poland are now under their own control and not that of Moscow.

[punkinside]

I will speak of this with a statistics professor of mine. But you do the studies with the data available to you, and do not jump to conclusions BEFORE you set out to make the studies. For example: if you want to establish that smoking causes cancer you do not look at how many cancer patients are smokers, but at how many smokers develop cancer. You can't quantify things like "lives in a rural area" and "lives in a city". If you will, you can put in the average per capita income to get some sort of idea that poorer people experience more crime (I'm sure you will). But thats about it: white, black, city, field. It's all the same, those aren't numbers. As I said earlier, you can probably find a correlation between the two, but that always goes only so far.

I did the same thing you did: studied the figures available to me. And, in that analysis, right off the bat these values pop up, which are outside of the norm. DC has twice the value of the second largest crime rate in the whole country and it only represents 0.19 % of the population. Ask anyone, google it, and you will find that values like these distort the "general truth" we are trying to find, and I was not saying that it would be "discarded". It pushes the average upward, distorting the fact that the rest of the states have a much, much lower average. What one normally does when making such a statistical analysis is note that in our conclusions and say: hey, this value is so and so because there are some variables that push the "normal" behavior upward, so this number is not really a representative of how 99.81% of the population behaves.

I am not here to give you a crash course on statistics since I am no expert so, if we can't even agree on numbers lets leave it at that. I will try to speak with a statistics professor of mine later on this week and post his insight into the whole thing.


As for the other things: Geoff: you had Lech Walesa (or whats his name) to lead you through it also. Every movement either has or develops a leader in the early stages. Still, I don't see how Alice's claims support her POV. The difference is that in the more civilized movements, the role of the leader is downplayed, which, at least politically, is the best choice.

[GeoffBoulton]

Geoff: you had Lech Walesa (or whats his name) to lead you through it also.

Lech Wałęsa (Lek Va'wensa) Actually, I'm English I just live in Poland ;)

Still, I don't see how Alice's claims support her POV.

I think Alice is trying to support her argument by saying that people should obey their freely elected government and that such free and fair elections were part and parcel of communism.

I have my own thoughts on that one but I'll keep those for another thread ;)

[Alice Shade]

About leadership and brute force.

You have a bit skewed idea, of what exactly brute force is. I do NOT refer to brawl value of organisations in this. Brute force is the amount of influence this partiular leader can excercise. Obviously, popular leader is stronger then unpopular one, because of sheer masses - if we are talking about leaders in same demographic group.
There are also different kinds of power - economical, social, military. Brute force in this context means the tally of all the powers available to a leader. Obvoiously, leader, who enjoys more of this forse will be able to move forward more of his/her ideas.
And no, popularity does not instantly equals force.


I am refering to this as brute force, because it`s one of the most straightforward, forceful and simple concepts in politics.

Punkinside..

If we were arguing about the people, you would be absolutely right. But we are arguing about law systems. And as such, DC is a glaring example, of why death sentence is needed.
As you can see, all the "killer" states have averages of pretty stable nature, and it wouldn`t be hard to see correllation between population and crime rate. Also, if we take in consideration proximity to criminogenous zones (DC), it will lead us to conclusion, that all the "killer" states are enjoying pretty stable and expected crime levels.
On the other hand, "samaritan" states sport aberrations, which fluctuate wildly. (Compare DC with N.Dacota, who are about equaly populated, but differ like hell in crime. Or take Maine, for that reason - crimes next to zero.) One can see, that "samaritan" states show no consistency in their crime rates, with hard peaks, and shallow lagoons. Thus, it becomes a gamble - weather society will stabilise in low-crime, or hit a crime peak. Death sentence moderates those values into manageable figures.

[punkinside]

If we were arguing about the people, you would be absolutely right. But we are arguing about law systems. And as such, DC is a glaring example, of why death sentence is needed.

No, DC is a glaring example of what happens to the "crack" capitol of a country.


As you can see, all the "killer" states have averages of pretty stable nature,

Yeah, they are all very stable at HIGH.



On the other hand, "samaritan" states sport aberrations, which fluctuate wildly. (Compare DC with N.Dacota, who are about equaly populated, but differ like hell in crime. Or take Maine, for that reason - crimes next to zero.)

No, the standard deviation of the "samaritan" states WITHOUT DC is pretty low = 1.58 .

In a nutshell, the standard deviation is the sum of the distances of each value to the average, squared. It tells us how "far apart" are the values from the mean, it is squared to avoid negative values. Google "standard deviation" if you want to know more about it, it appears that I am giving you that crash course in statistics after all.

So you can see, they all behave quite the same. One "freak value" should not be altering our conclusions of how the crime rate (not the people, not the population, not the laws) of these states behave.

I will spell it out even more: in our study, we group the values into two distinct groups: death-penalty and no death-penalty and then look at the rate of Capital Crime. Our thesis is that Capital punishment deters Capital Crime thus, states who implement capital punishment should have lower murder rates than those who do not implement it.

This thesis has been proven false by the analysis I have developed over the last few posts. Like I said, I will speak with a statistics professor to ask him if there are any other demographic variables we should be taking into account to further study this in a little more depth in a meaningful way.

[Alice Shade]

Look...

It`s NOT religion. It`s science. There IS a fact, that DC has peak crime, and you can`t dismiss it just because you don`t like it.

My point is, that ith death sentence, ALL the states are having similar values, and more or less, crime rate grows with population&etnicity.

Without death sentence, we have couple of calm states - AND state with huge crime. The only REASONABLE thing to do here, would be to recount the DC population with regard to all the "imported" crime. But even if we allow DC population to be more...

Let`s suppose, that there`s at least one stranger on ten people living in DC, who can also commit a murder (before any yells of ourtage, I`d like to mention, that it`s over 55 thousands of people.)
Still, averages are 5.22 vs. 5.17. ("samaritans" vs "killers")

Let`s push the margin. Let`s suppose, that there`s a stranger in DC on every five of dwellers.
Averages drop to 5.01 vs. 5.17 ("samaritans" vs "killers").

So... We had to pull 110 thousands of people out of hat. Now, let`s consider, that those 110 thousands are NOT staying whole year - they`d be counted as population, otherwise. Giving, that average stay in DC is about 2 weeks (counting both drive-throughs and illegal living), we come to conclusion, that we would need 110*26 thousands of real passer-bys to make crime level in DC "imported". That amounts to whopping 2860 thousands of people each year. Somehow, I doubt, that 3 millions of people go to DC every year.


____________________________________________________________

However, I deviate. Your point was, that DC is an aberration, and should be excluded from the counting? I disagree. On two points:

1) We are discussing LAW system. Such aberrant crime rate shows, that there is something inherently wrong with DC. Now, considering, that none of the executing states have anything close to this peak, we can take as a viable hypothesis, that death sentence DOES contributes to crime prevention, in some fashion.
2) Majority of other states among non-executors are agrarian communities, which are naturally less criminogenous, thanks to their nature. Crimes are much more common in heavily-urbanised areas, which are (with exception of DC and arguably, Michigan) absent in non-execution states.

[punkinside]

Look...
It`s NOT religion. It`s science. There IS a fact, that DC has peak crime, and you can`t dismiss it just because you don`t like it.

All I've been saying is how science: statistics approaches this question. We have accurate numbers from a reliable source, and have only applied logic , reasoning and scientific method in order to prove or disprove a hypothesis. Where is the religion? Please, take a course on statistics or read up on it before coming here and blurting out your opinions over scientific method and formulas. Specially using the "R" word with me.


1) We are discussing LAW system. Such aberrant crime rate shows, that there is something inherently wrong with DC. Now, considering, that none of the executing states have anything close to this peak, we can take as a viable hypothesis, that death sentence DOES contributes to crime prevention, in some fashion.

No, we can't ONE VALUE against 49 DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ANYTHING. We are trying to find out the standard behavior of a variable in the presence of one of the following: death penalty, no death penalty. Peak values way, way beyond the middle quartile do not explain the behavior of the variable. It is a freak value, be it the reason it may be. I am using only numbers publicly available to all of us to prove my hypothesis. You are going on tangents talking about anything else but the numbers, which do not support your claim.



2) Majority of other states among non-executors are agrarian communities, which are naturally less criminogenous, thanks to their nature. Crimes are much more common in heavily-urbanised areas, which are (with exception of DC and arguably, Michigan) absent in non-execution states.
Want more numbers? Here are the crime rates of some developed countries (lots of cities there!), which have no death penalty in 2000

Germany: 1.17
Japan: 1.10 (There goes your population density argument)
France: 1.79 (Lots and lots of black african immigrants)
Canada: 1.76

You can sit there and argue "cultural" differences make these people commit less murders, that the areas are less heavily populated and what not. I think that murders are more of a thing of culture rather than deterrence.

If you will, lets look at areas with similar populations and landscape right there on our beloved .xls:

North Dakota: 634366 pop. 9 mrdr. 1.42 rate
South Dakota: 770883 pop. 18 mrdr. 2.33 rate

North Dakota has 18 % less population than South Dakota yet, South Dakota has 60% more murder rate.

Both Rural areas, close population.

Please, stick to the numbers, they don't lie.

[Alice Shade]

Well, I don`t urge to dismiss the numbers, if they peak out of my theory, do I?

Look, this is getting more personal, and less of debate with every post. I vote to cool it off for a day, at least, because I seriously don`t want to lose my patience.

I think it`s obvious, that the question is much more complicated, then simple yes or no, and I think I would not mistake, if I claim, that death sentence is situational thing, and while it should not be unquestioningly abolished, it should be preserved for special cases, and used sparingly.

Also, it just occured to me, that we are missing a number of cases, which would ratify as death sentence, while not being treated as such. Among those would be police opening fire at criminals in case of arrest resistance, (in which case policeman bypasses all the judical system, sentencing criminals to death all by himself) and all the military operations (On which I`d like to note, that there is a concept of estimated losses in strategy, which is, factually, sentencing a number of soldiers to death to win a battle.)

[punkinside]

Well, I don`t urge to dismiss the numbers, if they peak out of my theory, do I?

Once more, if you do not wish to acknowledge that I have performed a (rough) a statistical study of the variable, in the most strict sense, then there's nothing I can do. Once more, I urge you to read up a little bit on descriptive statistical analysis. See what standard deviation, means, medians, boxplots and the like mean. And how describing the behavior of a variable is about looking at how most values behave. I cannot believe how you can claim that a state with 0.19 % of the population and a murder rate more than 100% greater than the second highest in the country does not affect the behavior of the other 99.81% percent, and that it should not be ruled out to see how the variable truly behaves.


Look, this is getting more personal, and less of debate with every post. I vote to cool it off for a day, at least, because I seriously don`t want to lose my patience.

I agree, but if we're only going to continue debating how to interpret those numbers then I prefer we leave it at that.

[Alice Shade]

Well, as I said, excluding value leads to shoddy results. (I`ve taken statistics in uni too, and the question of peaks handing is difficult. Professor I`ve learned from, favored rather complex methods of averaging them into a more manageable approximations, a-chally.)

But, of course, simple average gives us very shoddy results as well, so I`m not complaining. Frankly, if we are taking it like THIS, it`s just personal figures (aka, only a little bit better, then educated guesses).

But hoestly, I do not want to dig up my textbooks, and rifle through them for correct formulae, nor do I want to cross-reference megabytes of numbers to make more or less complete statistical analysis.

If you (punkinside) agree, I move to conclude the argument about statistics, and return to philosophical debate over the merits and flaws of death sentence - that is, if there is still a wish to debate.

As I said, I`d really like an opinion of how the military/police actions fit in with death punishment abolishment, seeing as both deal with concept in question very closely.

[punkinside]

Agreed. I'm a little tired today to keep thinking. Tomorrow I will post again. And I'm sure you're at least a bit tired, it being 3 AM over there and all. (or is it winter time already? I don't know )

I take my leave to less serious threads :wink:

*punches time card*

until tomorrow!

[Alice Shade]

I`m not sleepy.

Besides, I still can`t find the good shape for extraction flanges. No matter what I do, they keep snagging up the rim and jamming.

[punkinside]

(...)
Among those would be police opening fire at criminals in case of arrest resistance, (in which case policeman bypasses all the judical system, sentencing criminals to death all by himself)

Well this is a more complicated issue. One cannot say that because someone resists to be arrested he is guilty of something. Another thing is that if I didn't trust the police or legal system enough I would too resist arrest. Depends on how arrest is resisted though: if I open fire on a policeman and he shoots me its self defense. If I run away and he shoots me in the heart that should be murder, or at least manslaughter (make those policemen really practice their aim!). If I run away and he shoots me in the leg he was just making sure I didn't get away. Thats how I see it.

and all the military operations (On which I`d like to note, that there is a concept of estimated losses in strategy, which is, factually, sentencing a number of soldiers to death to win a battle.)

War is an entirely different story. First of all, when you enlist (and as I stated earlier, the draft is not acceptable) you acknowledge that you're putting your ass on the line. Thats more of a suicide than a death sentence.

What if there was a war and nobody showed up?

If you are drafted (which I am against) then that surely is a death sentence lottery. It can be you as much as the next guy.

[Jillamanda]

I don't think war and the shooting of criminals by cops is the same as the death penalty, as we comprehend it. The death penalty is being sentenced to certain death. If a cop shoots a crim in the line of duty, whether justified or unjustified, it's still not being sentenced to death. Same with the army, it's not certain....and you'd get to come home a hero.

Incidentally, our most famous historical figure was a 'bushranger' who died by hanging:

Ned Kelly

The bushranger Ned Kelly is one of Australia's greatest folk heroes. He has been memorialised by painters, writers, musicians, and film makers alike. More books, songs and websites have been written about the Ned Kelly and the Kelly Gang than any other group of Australian historical figures.

When people are asked what they think of Ned Kelly, the answers are usually fairly extreme. They either see him as a hero who fought for his family and friends, or a bushranger who robbed banks, stole livestock and murdered policemen.
http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/nedkelly/

.....and his last words were 'Such is life'....

[Alice Shade]

Well, arguably, when policemen are ordered "shoot to kill", it IS sentence to all the criminals they are to shoot. Weather it`s carried out or not is another sentence, but police officer CAN sentence someone to death under certain circumstances.

As for war... Here, draft is still in force, and so, a lot of guys get to pull the sticks and see, who gets short ones.

[punkinside]

Normally, when policemen are ordered to shoot to kill its because

a) the criminals have been proven guilty

b) it is highly unlikely that they will get them alive

So, if four guys hijack a jewelry store, their innocence is not a question, and if they refuse to lay down their arms and come out peacefully, it's ordered to shoot to kill because that situation cannot linger forever!

and for the draft thing, its the same as the death penalty. It exists... it shouldn't IMO, but regrettably, it does.

[Alice Shade]

So, it is OK to kill, if they are committing crime, but when it`s done, whoops, killing is not allowed anymore?

[AaronD]

So, it is OK to kill, if they are committing crime, but when it`s done, whoops, killing is not allowed anymore?

It's not okay to commit murder, nor is it okay to murder somebody as a punishment for said act. Until we have a 100% certain justice system, and even afterwards, murderers are better locked up than killed, because the only thing that separates us from them is the moral inclination not to murder.

[GeoffBoulton]

Police in the UK are only alowed to shoot to kill in order to prevent the loss of other lives e.g. if a gunman is threatening to shoot hostages. The police are as much subject to the law as any other person and many soldiers and policemen have been imprisoned for murder.

That aside, the best argument I can see for keeping the death penalty out of the hands of 'governments' is good old Joe Stalin himself with estimated deaths of up to 20,000,000 of his own people. Never mind though, I'm sure they were all enemies of the state, a danger to society, whatever and deserved everything they got.

Rather makes a mockery of discussing hypothetical situations in legal systems, 'bad' cops, etc. etc. and the, in comparative terms, miniscule number of possible deaths that 'might' be attributed to such things.

[punkinside]

So, it is OK to kill, if they are committing crime, but when it`s done, whoops, killing is not allowed anymore?

If someone is taking a number of people hostage threatening to kill them we are absolutely sure he is guilty. If he refuses to turn himself in peacefully, which is always the preferred option, thats why police have expert negotiators and such, then yes, it is perfectly acceptable to kill him in order to save the lives of the hostages.

[Alice Shade]

So, if we have terrorist, caught in the act, with obvious and clear intent on killing people. Why not execute him, to prevent the deaths he`s going to cause, if left alive?

[GeoffBoulton]

What, like this 'terrorist' caught in the act, or at least they thought he was in the act:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/24/nshot24.xml

Police in the UK are only alowed to shoot to kill in order to prevent the loss of other lives

Mistakes happen!

[Jillamanda]

It's the same here. I doubt very much that cops here would be sent out with orders to 'shoot to kill'. They've shot and killed people, of course, but in recent years, all the cases that I know of have involved someone mentally unstable who has become violent. In most cases the offender was armed, had committed an offense and was threatening others or the cops themselves, and shooting them is a last resort.

I've never heard of a condemned prisoner being armed and presenting some form of threat to anyone at the time they meet their fate....and it most definitely isn't the last resort.

I feel the same as punkinside about the draft. We did away with it after Vietnam, and, like the death penalty, it's going to take something very extreme for it to be re-introduced.

[Alice Shade]

Um-hum.

Well, that`s what happens, if you allow to carry over war on your homeland.

I still see no difference between this action and death sentence.

[punkinside]

Um-hum.

Well, that`s what happens, if you allow to carry over war on your homeland.

I still see no difference between this action and death sentence.

huh? I don't understand to what you are responding.

[GeoffBoulton]

huh? I don't understand to what you are responding.

Me neither ;)

Britain hasn't been successfully invaded since 1066 so I'm not quite sure which war on my homeland we are allowing to continue.

[Fallen Hero]

heh, the vikings got you there.

Also lost by last statement, please clarify Alice.

[Alice Shade]

Terrorism.

It`s a common strategy. To make your enemy disrupted, you just need to organise a state of panic. Panic in the state of war is deadly - as you can all see. Panicked force hits itself more then enemy.

This all stems from one misconception. Towelheads think it`s "holy war", and treat it as such, with all the consequences, while the rest of the world (Well, maybe aside from jews in Israel.) keep thinking, that it`s not a war, merely "pacification" or "police action" or some other bullshit. And, logically, rest of the world gets owned time and time again.

It also stems from "no death" mentality. Logic is pretty simple - if you don`t want to kill, and be killed, for whatever moralous reasons, but someone disregards that, you tend to panic, and do stupid thing to stop them.

What seems to escape you all, is that morals are about as useful, as religion. Their purpose is to serve as behavior guidelines for the society, not to be ultimate truths. In this regard, you are surprisingly like religious people, holding on to your beliefs with almost the same reason. Arguably - "I don`t kill, because I don`t want to be killed", but wait... In a religious society, one can claim - "I believe, because I don`t want to be ostracised".

Belief in "sacred" human life is about as silly, as belief in big dude upwards, who watches your every step. People die, died and will die for all the reasons and causes possible. It`s a fact. Thus, denying it "the right to happen" will accomplish nothing, but distract you from making sure, it does not happens to you.

[GeoffBoulton]

What seems to escape you all, is that morals are about as useful, as religion.

Morals, the idea of acceptable behaviour, are just as evident in monkeys, dolphins and other social animals as they are in humans. They are merely a consensus of acceptable behaviour that allow those societies to exist and allow all the members of that society to benefit from collaboration.

One of those rules is that most societal creatures don't kill one another. This has nothing to do with life being sacred and everything to do with preserving the survival of the society and its benefits.

There is plenty of evidence to show that such 'rules' are actually a process of natural selection with the increased 'fitness' of the benefits of collaboration being the driving force behind that selection.

As such, these rules can hardly be called useless when they are the main reason why man has been able to progress as far as he has. Had we not taken up collective hunting, farming, etc. we would probably all still be living as cave men hunting with pointed sticks.

The fact that a very small minority choose to disregard the acceptable norms of their society's behaviour does not nullify the overall benefits to the rest of that society whether it be man, monkey, whatever.

[Alice Shade]

All correct, Geoff, but you tend to omit one small detail.

Morals apply only to abiding members of society, naturally. As soon, as member of society starts breaking those regulations, all the society turns against him/her and expells/kills the offender.

And exactly THIS small detail is what makes moral-abiding societies naturally-resilient. They are naturally coexisting, AND cooperating against common enemy by all means possible.

Civilised/religious ideas, on the other hand, tend to include the troublemakers in society, despite their obvious disruptive role. Which, naturally, would bring down the society to degradation/stagnation.

[punkinside]

Belief in "sacred" human life is about as silly, as belief in big dude upwards, who watches your every step. People die, died and will die for all the reasons and causes possible. It`s a fact. Thus, denying it "the right to happen" will accomplish nothing, but distract you from making sure, it does not happens to you.

We (or at least me), have not uttered the phrase "sacred" in any way. Nor have I said that I don't kill because I don't want to be killed. My argument from the beggining has beed about law and the reasoning behind it. I do not support government-approved death penalty. Why? If it's illegal to kill someone, why is it legal for the state to do so? Moreover, with justice being "not perfect" to some extent, we cannot let people fall through the cracks for it's not reversable.

Laws have to be based on some sort of morality. If reason were widespread, there'd be no need for laws or even governments. But it isn't. And probably will never be. Thus we have to aim for the best possible compromise.

[GeoffBoulton]

Morals apply only to abiding members of society, naturally. As soon, as member of society starts breaking those regulations, all the society turns against him/her and expells/kills the offender.

We neither expel nor kill our offenders. They are punished, true, but we don't have the death penalty so they certainly aren't killed.

As I said:

The fact that a very small minority choose to disregard the acceptable norms of their society's behaviour does not nullify the overall benefits to the rest of that society whether it be man, monkey, whatever.

Civilised/religious ideas, on the other hand, tend to include the troublemakers in society

What do you mean by civilised/religious ideas?

I would say Britain is civilised but it certainly isn't religious. Yes, troublemakers are included in society and I see no evidence of the degradation or stagnation that you talk about.

Or how about Iraq, religious certainly but civilised? The sunni minority went to great lengths to remove their shia 'opponents', nerve agent attacks, bombings, etc. Hardly including troublemakers in society is it?

[Alice Shade]

Well, Geoff, because you don`t expell/kill, society stagnates, simple as that. Do you want to compare crime level in average city and monkey gang? Bet you anything, that monkeys will come up on top.

Britain is civilised. Iraq is religious. Both have a certain crime level. Shows the degradation quite good, no? (No, you don`t have to only degrade or progress, you can be doing both in the same time.)

As for the war between societies... It`s common between animals, as well. Territorial fights are quite common, a-chally. And I think there`s a certain fact, that no member of animal society feels any moral obligation to non-member.

[GeoffBoulton]

Do you want to compare crime level in average city and monkey gang?

Which would prove what exactly? That monkeys don't have a legal system that includes the death penalty and they have less murders so we should follow their example and do away with legal systems and death penalties. ;)

Britain is civilised. Iraq is religious. Both have a certain crime level. Shows the degradation quite good, no? (No, you don`t have to only degrade or progress, you can be doing both in the same time.)

Britain is civilised, Iraq is religious, both have a certain crime level? How can you compare chalk and cheese? ;)

Well, Geoff, because you don`t expell/kill, society stagnates, simple as that.

I see no evidence of the degradation or stagnation that you talk about.

As for the war between societies

The sunni minority went to great lengths to remove their shia 'opponents', nerve agent attacks, bombings, etc. Hardly including troublemakers in society is it?

I was not talking about wars between societies but about the fact that religious ideas are not inclusive.

[Alice Shade]

Who said, that monkeys have no death penalty? When monkey goes rabid, it`s killed by own comrades, before rabies spread.



Chalk and cheese? Why? Are not Brutain and Iraq both composed of people?

Geoff, you contradict yourself. If Britain and Iraq are chalk and cheese, then either Britain, either Iraq does not consists of humans, that`s what you want to say?
Or you just mean to say, that they have different laws? In this case, I refer you to biology again. In different areals, societies of animals behave differently, and have different "morals". Nevertheless, if they are of same species, if exchanged locations, they would quickly readopt, and swap "morals". So no inherent difference. And getting back to Iraq and Britain, we see, that both countries have crime problems, which have same roots - criminals are omitting fitting punishments though legal systems.


And your last example is not correct. In the case you describe, it`s not ONE society of muslims, but two societies of Sunni and Shia waging war on each other.

[Jillamanda]

Apart from the fact that Britons and Iraqis are people, what else is the same about them?

[Alice Shade]

General needs, ideas, aspirations?

Taste in music? Wearing short-sleeved shirts?

Trimming toes regularly?

Having nose in the middle of face?



Jillamanda, if you pardon me, but this was
A) Silly.
B) Indistinctly racist.
There is NOTHING radically different about Iraqis and Britains, in fact. Small things - plently. But just as many small things, which are exactly the same.
But there is not a single thing you could point out, and say "Because of this, Iraqis can never be Brits, and vice-versa."

[Jillamanda]

Jillamanda, if you pardon me, but this was
A) Silly.
B) Indistinctly racist.
There is NOTHING radically different about Iraqis and Britains, in fact. Small things - plently. But just as many small things, which are exactly the same.


There may not be anything radically different if you take them as individuals, and I did say "apart from the fact that they're people"....but if you take them as a culture, the differences are quite extreme. It's because of this difference that Iraqis kill their fellow citizens more than Brits do.


But there is not a single thing you could point out, and say "Because of this, Iraqis can never be Brits, and vice-versa."

They'd both have to change their culture and beliefs to become true citizens of either country. Culturally, they are chalk and cheese. There's plenty of evidence that traditional Brits and traditional Iraqis don't get along. I'm not passing judgement on either party, I'm just saying that as they are, they don't get along. You may call it racist, I call it fact.

[GeoffBoulton]

Who said, that monkeys have no death penalty? When monkey goes rabid, it`s killed by own comrades, before rabies spread.

Sounds unlikely, attack an animal that has a disease that is passed on by bites and scratches becoming infected by the saliva of the diseased animal. Such an attack would probably leave at least a couple of its attackers infected thereby increasing the spread of rabies, not stopping it.

In any case, this has nothing to do with the legal sentencing to death of criminals by a court of law which was the original question of this thread.

Chalk and cheese?

You originally quoted civilised/religious ideas as being the same thing:

Civilised/religious ideas, on the other hand, tend to include the troublemakers in society

I was pointing out that civilised and religious ideas are not the same thing and do not necessarily include troublemakers in society:

Civilised i.e. Include troublemaker in society:
I would say Britain is civilised but it certainly isn't religious. Yes, troublemakers are included in society and I see no evidence of the degradation or stagnation that you talk about.

Religious i.e. Try their hardest to wipe out 'troublemakers' not include them:
Or how about Iraq, religious certainly but civilised? The sunni minority went to great lengths to remove their shia 'opponents', nerve agent attacks, bombings, etc. Hardly including troublemakers in society is it?

Nevertheless, if they are of same species, if exchanged locations, they would quickly readopt, and swap "morals".

So if I move to Iraq I will suddenly adapt to my surroundings and become a Muslim and change my morals?

I've already travelled all over the world, including the Middle-East, and lived in several different countries. The only adapting that needed doing was getting used to the local food, beer (if available) and women. It certainly hasn't changed any of my moral beliefs. Nor have those beliefs changed now that I am living in Poland, a predominantly Catholic country.

I still think the morals taught here suck and I always will do.

In the case you describe, it`s not ONE society of muslims, but two societies of Sunni and Shia waging war on each other.

Which is exactly what I said:

The sunni minority went to great lengths to remove their shia 'opponents', nerve agent attacks, bombings, etc.

[Alice Shade]

I`m saying, that capital punishment is a natural punishment, and about the only one known to social animals (exile leads to early death just as well). So by trying to deny that, we are doing things unnaturally, and nature`s payback is a bitch.

About ideas... No, I didn`t.

If I meant to say, that civilised and religious ideas are same, I`d write it as Civilised&religious.

As for your argument about Iraq - both societies (Sunni and Shia) do accept troublemakers, which, if examined literally, blatantly violate Qu`ran, as long as it furthers their political ends.

About swapping and adopting... I didn`t said a thing about liking morals. But if you`d tried to enter mosque without removing shoes, for example, I wouldn`t want to be in your place. So, even if you are not Muslim, you have to honor their habits in their place, because you visit their society, and have no wish to be persecuted by society.


Jillamanda? It`s only a matter of social engineering. Given time and desire, anyone can be transformed to any set of morals/religion/etc. Also, the place influences greatly. Of course, Iraqis won`t get along with Brits, who came into Iraq AND dishonor Iraq traditions. But if same Iraqis emigrate into Britain, they adopt Britain habits for exactly the same reasons.

As I said before - you don`t go to other monastery with own statute.

[Jillamanda]

Jillamanda? It`s only a matter of social engineering. Given time and desire, anyone can be transformed to any set of morals/religion/etc. Also, the place influences greatly. Of course, Iraqis won`t get along with Brits, who came into Iraq AND dishonor Iraq traditions. But if same Iraqis emigrate into Britain, they adopt Britain habits for exactly the same reasons.

As I said before - you don`t go to other monastery with own statute.

That's pretty much what I said.....

...and what's all this got to do with whether or not you agree with the death penalty?

[Alice Shade]

If we are going to be anal about it, if country is socially engineered to accept death sentence, it will. If it`s been engineered to rejecti it, it will.

Naturally, death sentence is ingrained in society, so maintaining healthy progressive society without death sentence is somewhat tricker. But in either case, it`s a matter of social engineering, weather it`s acceptible, or not.

[Jillamanda]

....and what if they don't have the 'desire'? We've already seen multiculturalism fail miserably in many countries, and it's all because immigrants/refugees don't have the desire to be 'transformed to any set of morals/religion/etc'. We see many cases of innappropriate 'cultural' behaviour such as female circumcision, child brides, honour killings, polygamy and arranged marriages, all of which are illegal in this country. In some families and cultures, these activities continue even though they might be third generation Australians. Nothing changes except the location. Most of the cultures that embrace these traditions are from countries that carry the death penalty.

[Jillamanda]

If we are going to be anal about it, if country is socially engineered to accept death sentence, it will. If it`s been engineered to rejecti it, it will.

Naturally, death sentence is ingrained in society, so maintaining healthy progressive society without death sentence is somewhat tricker. But in either case, it`s a matter of social engineering, weather it`s acceptible, or not.

I agree with this.....and it's probably the reason why you accept it and I don't.

[Alice Shade]

People continue traditions, because countries mostly operate under "tolerance" levels. "Innocent until caught" is another powerful principle to uphold "illegal" habits in country, as well.

To my opinion, cultural differences will either mar with time (given, that reason wins over faith), either sharpen out to stark antagonism (in case faith prevails over reason).

In first case... Well, death sentence would prove to be widely unneeded, and would probably be used a scarecrow for "money" criminals.
In second... In second, the amount of executions will probably overwhelm the wildest figures. Holy wars are known to leave no prisoners.

[GeoffBoulton]

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT NEEB!

And I thought you were a good Christian who follows the 10 Commandments.

Remember the one about 'Thou shalt not kill'?

[GeoffBoulton]

Holy wars are known to leave no prisoners.

Change that to ideological wars and I'll agree with you, it's not just religion.

You never did say anything about the death penalty in the hands of Stalin and the 20,000,000 deaths attributed to him and his regime.

Naturally death sentence is ingrained in society

Given Russia's history, yes I can see why you would believe that.

[punkinside]

Like I said in an earlier post. That's the red army talking.

[Alice Shade]

Probably.

I still think, that If if history turned different, USSR would still stand. Gorbachov and Eltsin destroyed the country, as is.

If only Andropov had the strength to last a bit longer, and we could`ve had a different batch of politicians, entirely.


In any case, I would be still in army, right now, if it was USSR... And I`d probably already have captain stripes, too.

I should`ve been sniper, not medic. "Perestroika" had ruined it all to hell. Yes, it all could be MUCH different.


_____________________________________

For future reference... If you want to hear shrill rant, just mention something in this venue again. I`m really pissed over how it turned out.

[GeoffBoulton]

I still think, that If if history turned different, USSR would still stand. Gorbachov and Eltsin destroyed the country, as is.

From a Russian perspective this may well be true but don't forget about the millions of people whose countries were held by force and who had to live under an ideology that they neither wanted nor needed.

You wont find many East Germans, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, etc. who see the collapse of the USSR as a bad thing. Unfortunately the many, many people who died or were executed for crimes as 'heinous' as trying to leave their occupied countries or daring to say that things could be better were never able to live to see the collapse.

Whatever the good and bad points of any political, religious or economic system people should not be in fear of their lives because they don't agree with them.

[Alice Shade]

Bull.

People always will be in fear of government. Otherwise, there is absolutely no control mechanism, and any government becomes irrelevant.

[GeoffBoulton]

People always will be in fear of government. Otherwise, there is absolutely no control mechanism, and any government becomes irrelevant.

I don't know ANYONE who is afraid of the Government, well apart from you apparently. They may not like them, they may think they are a bunch of lying, cheating, low-life's but nobody is AFRAID of them.

[punkinside]

True, you only have to be afraid of the government in states like the USSR (CPPP? Whats that stand for?) and lately, Bush US.

I know of no german, englishman or frenchman that is afraid of their government. I know of no latin american (except for cuba!) that is afraid of their government, some of which are the most corrupt.

Ultimately, I would like to see government become irrelevant. But that's another thing...

[GeoffBoulton]

(CPPP? Whats that stand for?)

It's CCCP which are from the Cyrillic Alphabet. The English equivalents would be SSSR

Soyuz Sovyetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik or something like that, I'm sure Alice can give you the correct Russian spelling.

USSR to you and me ;)

[punkinside]

yeah I always thought that looked funny on the cosmonaut's helmets. Dunno why I remembered that

[Alice Shade]

Again, misconception.

If you weren`t afraid of consequences of defying government rules, you would. I`m not talking about "They gonna kill me" kind of fear, I`m talking about "No, this is stupid and illegal, I`ll get jailed, if I`ll do that" kind of fear.

СССР = Союз Советских Социалистических Республик.
SSSR = Soyus Sovetskih Socialisticheskih Respublic.
USSR = Union of Soviet Socialistic Republics.


To Geoff... You know, I always found it fishy, when people say - "Hey, Stalin killed so many and so many people." He might be the most popular, but every country has accounts of things like that. They are just presented differently for political reasons.

[GeoffBoulton]

but every country has accounts of things like that

Just out of curiosity when were millions of British people killed by their own Government?

[Fallen Hero]

Ummm they still do it in Russia, they assassinated a ex-soviet spy recently with radiation poisoning.

[Alice Shade]

Oliver Cromwell, and the conquering of England, Scotland and Ireland?

Or, taking a detour to west, to another english-speaking people...

Good ole` Abe Lincoln? American Civil War had about a million casualties among counted (which, I`m pretty sure, didn`t quite include all the black-skinned people with casualties), over a political difference.

Now, I know, what you will say... "But they conquered", "But it was war".

Look in the essence of problem. All three of them (Stalin, Lincoln, Cromwell) were weeding out political opponents. They just approached it with different zeal, and on different stage of opposition evolution. Methods were exactly the same - "beat the tar outta them, until they give in".

[GeoffBoulton]

Oliver Cromwell, and the conquering of England, Scotland and Ireland?

Now you're just being plain silly. A civil war 350 years ago is hardly the same thing as a modern Government in power, with no opposition, killing millions of its citizens.

[Alice Shade]

300 years from now on, some "civilised" dude like you will say exactly the same thing about Stalin and some modern dictator.

Fresh wounds may be aching more, but old ones do leave scars as well, you know.

[AaronD]

Bull.

People always will be in fear of government. Otherwise, there is absolutely no control mechanism, and any government becomes irrelevant.

People should not be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people.

That pretty much sums it up.

[Alice Shade]

Who`d want to govern then, Aaron?

Sounds like raw deal to me - getting ton of responcibility, and yet having to fear anyone.

[Jillamanda]

Last night I went to see "Borat - Cultural Learning of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan" ......... and I think I know where Alice is coming from now. :wink:

[Jillamanda]

but every country has accounts of things like that

Just out of curiosity when were millions of British people killed by their own Government?

......and the Aussies. And where would Australia be if Britain had been a killin' nation? It was British convicts who settled this country originally.

[Alice Shade]

But it was, Jillamanda.

Traitors, murderers and pirate/robber ringleaders were hung traditionally in Britan.

It`s petty criminals, who made up Australia population - thiefs, smugglers, thugs, putpurses, burglars, charlatans, conartists and such.

In a way, Britain did the perfect colonisation - all the colonists were people both adventurous/bold enough to survive, and neither of them had a thing to lose.

[Alice Shade]

Just noticed this:

Ummm they still do it in Russia, they assassinated a ex-soviet spy recently with radiation poisoning.

Fallen, it`s hazardous for health to be that gullible.

Let me spin a short lesson in an assassination business.

Hit on a person should be:
A) Quick.
B) Instant.
C) As untraceable, as possible.
D) Preferably, not expencive.

Now, this "radiation assasination", while sounding all cool and menacing, fails all four criteria.
A) Quick. BULL. Radiation needs time to build up. He`d blab things long before it`d work.
B) Instant. BULL. Level of radiation to kill in less then a day would be more then enough to make dude glow.
C) Untraceable. BULL. Radiation has the nasty habit of irradiating everything. There`d be NO doubt where or what it was, even if the source would be removed before investigation.
D) Cheap. BULL. Anything radioactive enough to kill in less then several days of constant exposure, costs thousands and tens of thousands per milligrams.


If Putin would really need to remove the dude, solution would be as simple as a bit of HCN vapor sprayed in his face somewhere in crowded place. Untraceable, cheap and instant. Also, give it ten minutes to evaporate, and every doctor will recognise that as lethal heart attack.
Or, even easier, smear some liquid nicotine on the door handle. Now, that one IS traceable - to the door handle, that is, but will kill just about as instantly, simply through skin adsorbtion.


P.S. As to how the dude died from beam disease, I`ll wager, that he was smuggling hazmats, and didn`t quite managed to uphold the safety norms. Or, even more probably, was just a courier for that stuff, and had no idea, what it can do over a week or two.

[GeoffBoulton]

hardly the same thing as a modern Government in power, with no opposition, killing millions of its citizens.

Is the point, not how long ago it was. Nobody in 300 or 3000 years will be saying look how the British Government massacred it's own people in their millions during the 20th Century.

Who`d want to govern then, Aaron?

Anyone who wants to earn a damn good salary, not to mention the backhanders, etc. that are the perks of the job for the average politician.

[Fallen Hero]

Sorry Alice, that was on the News. I do not know the full story but it was on today, either he just died from the radiation of he was just put in the hostpital and he spilled something.

[Alice Shade]

Geoff...

Let me ask YOU.

Would you agree to govern (which is stress 24/7, and constant decision-making), knowing, that one wrong decision, and they`ll going to let dogs lose on you? No money will pay enough for this.

Honestly, if you do not command an authority to make your decisions final, it`s a sinecure.

[Alice Shade]

Fallen, "loud" news really bring up newspaper sells.

I`ve checked the story, aside from guy`s claim "Putin wants to remove me" and hazmat in house, there`s nothing else.

But I`m very serious. Noone uses radiation for assasination. It`s about as effective, as trying to use chlorous acid to get rid of cockroaches.

Yes, it makes one hell of a newspaper header, but I can bet, that noone will ever manage to prove that claim to be even partially true.

As I say, guy probably smuggled hazmat, and when he found he`s getting sick, he wanted to go out with bang (or have legitimate excuse, if medics could save him in time, even).

[AaronD]

Who`d want to govern then, Aaron?

Sounds like raw deal to me - getting ton of responcibility, and yet having to fear anyone.

Having to fear somebody is what turns power, which is otherwise corruptive, into responsibility. You'd make a lot better decisions if you knew you could be overthrown at the whim of the people.

[Alice Shade]

Would I?

If I knew, that I could be overthrown, because some loudmouth could just rile people enough to come and toss me out, I`d do my best to exterminate all the possible ringleaders at every opportunity, just to make sure I`m staying in chair.

[GeoffBoulton]

If I knew, that I could be overthrown, because some loudmouth could just rile people enough to come and toss me out, I`d do my best to exterminate all the possible ringleaders at every opportunity, just to make sure I`m staying in chair.

You really must stop mistaking the Russian way of doing things for the way most of the rest of the world does things

[punkinside]

I bet alice has a stalin poster in her bedroom to remember the good 'ol days.

War is Peace
Ignorance is Strength
Slavery is Freedom

...


Its pretty obvious that I've been done with this thread for a while...

[Alice Shade]

Alright, punkinside, that`s already personally attacking.

I`ve represented my points as objectively as I could, and without attacking anyone personally for their opinions.

If you are going to bring it on the level "you have poster of Stalin in bedroom", I`m going to just ignore your existance until a suitable apology follows.


I don`t think I warrant being accused in upholding any of the three thesises you stated underneath, either, just because I look on life a bit more cynically then you.

While I do understand, that I can`t expect anyone to look on USSR history objective, I do resent personal attacks on me, just because I think it COULD be something more then ruin, in the end, if only wheel of history turned in different side.

That being said, I seriously advocate to study the ideas and basises of communism and USSR, before making such claims. Until then, I`ve nothing more to say to you.


______________________________________________________

Geoff... There is no inherent difference between Russians and the rest of world. And the "russian" way, as you put it, is spread very widely around the world. It`s based on the basic psychology, and simple axiom, that primarily, every single human is selfish, greedy and conniving.
Until we will have a government, which could consist of "saints", things I tell about will manifest. They are unpleasant, detesting, cruel and despicable, but denying them won`t make them go away - only to grow.
Only by acknowledging them and expecting them, one can evade them.
Maybe I sound overly pessimistic, but life had taught me, that if I keep my expectations low, I can avoid much of disappoitment. Thus, I prepare for the worst, and hope for the best.

[AaronD]

Yes, but that gives humans like me, who are selfish and canniving, but not at all greedy, a bad name.

:lol:

[Alice Shade]

Heh.

Aaron, If I assume worst about a person off the bat, then I`m only bound for pleasant surprises. Of course, showing pessimism is quite another matter - being rude off the bat is just not savvy.

[punkinside]

The post was not aimed at attacking you. I sincerly appologize if you felt it was. I acknowledge theres a fine line between a little sarcasm and an insult. Once again, my apologies.

And I'm sure you recognize those from "1984" by George Orwell, read it if you haven't already. That's what popped in my mind reading your "people should be afraid of government" posts, sorry if that offended you too.

[Alice Shade]

I did recognised the line... Which was WHAT riled me up. I despice the hero of 1984.

[punkinside]

That being said, I seriously advocate to study the ideas and basises of communism and USSR, before making such claims. Until then, I`ve nothing more to say to you.


Ideas and basis are one thing. And I completely disagree with those too. Mass murder is another. Do you deny that Stalin killed millions of people during his "purges"? Do you believe that you would be able to even be aware of the existance of this forum, let alone discuss your ideas in it if the USSR hadn't dissolved?


Until we will have a government, which could consist of "saints", things I tell about will manifest.

I do not want a government of "saints" I want to limit what the lying, conniving bastards in government can do.


They are unpleasant, detesting, cruel and despicable, but denying them won`t make them go away - only to grow.

I do not deny that human beings are capable of the worst kinds of atrocities one you imagine (and some you can't) I say that one atrocity does not prevent another from ocurring.


Maybe I sound overly pessimistic, but life had taught me, that if I keep my expectations low, I can avoid much of disappoitment. Thus, I prepare for the worst, and hope for the best.

I can relate to the last sentence. But it has nothing to do with governments or the death penalty. Most certainly, it is because these things that humanity in general has to work to greatly reduce the influence of their governments over them.

[GeoffBoulton]

Georgi Markov - Ring any bells?

Assassinated by a ricin laced pellet from an umbrella tip. KGB defectors Oleg Kalugin (Head of KGB operations in the US) and Oleg Gordievsky (Head of KGB operations in the UK), along with others, confirmed the KGB involvement in this attempt along with their Bulgarian counterparts.

Hit on a person should be:
A) Quick.
B) Instant.
C) As untraceable, as possible.
D) Preferably, not expencive.

A) The ricin took several days to kill Markov. If you want to make sure you have plenty of time to get that all important flight back to the motherland the last thing you would do is use something that kills immediately.

Given the number of CCTV cameras in London these days you could potentially easily be identified in the areas surrounding the dead or dying person as you attempted to make your getaway. Even if they didn't find out until later, there's always the rewind facility of the video recorders. Much better to give him something that will start working long after you've had time to escape.

And what is he going to 'blab' about his executioner, he was quite clearly unaware that he had eaten the stuff, yes it has to be ingested, so how would he be able to identify the means by which he was given it let alone the responsible person. He had three weeks to identify his killer but wasn't able to even suggest the place where he might have been poisoned, let alone the perpetrator.

B) The radiation was from Polonium 210. This is an Alpha particle emitter rather than the Gamma/Beta emitters that are normally associated with 'radioactivity'.

Alpha particles can only travel a few centimetres in the air and are easily blocked by a piece of paper or the human skin. Polonium 210 has to be ingested to be fatal. Incidentally, only a miniscule amount is required to be lethal. If he was being careless with it or it was somehow 'leaking' from the courier operation you allege he was taking part, there would be a trail of dead bodies all across London.

The radiation did not kill him in 1 day, he fell ill on the 1st of November, over three weeks ago. He would not have glowed in the dark, as I said, Alpha radiation is stopped by a piece of paper, his skin was sufficient to block all Alpha particles.

C) Alpha radiation is extremely difficult to detect and tests to find it can only be done in specialist laboratories. This is the very reason that doctors were at a loss to explain what was wrong with him and thought that he had been poisoned with Thallium.

The radiation was detected from urine because of the minute traces of Polonium 210 that are excreted by the body not because someone stood over him with a Geiger counter.

D) Cheap, I don't know how much it costs but cost is hardly a factor in a Government sponsored assassination. In any case, there are no shortage of reactors in Russia that could churn out as much of the stuff as they wanted. As Alpha particles are so easy to stop, a piece of paper will do it, and so difficult to detect it could easily be smuggled through airport security.

Incidentally, traces of the radiation were found in two other places apart from his home. A hotel where he met an ex-KGB agent and another unknown man and a coffee shop where he later met another guy who was also investigating the murder of the journalist Anna Politkovskaya.

Personally, I doubt the Kremlin would have had anything to do with this particular murder, they would have little to gain from it and a lot to lose.

It's much more likely to have been a 'mafia' hit probably linked to the Politkowskaya case, maybe he got too close to the perpetrators, and carried out by one of the many ex-KGB officers who decided becoming gangsters was the preferred option once Yeltsin split up the KGB.

[punkinside]

I did recognised the line... Which was WHAT riled me up. I despice the hero of 1984.

Why? I mean, are you rooting for big brother or something?

[Alice Shade]

Geoff...

We are talking about former spy. He`s OUGHT to know those things. If he`s be treated to something slow-acting, he`d know the symptoms long before he`d be in critical state. Not to mention, that slipping him some shit would be one HELL of a chore without raising suspicion.

No, the only way to kill a former operative surely, is to kill him on spot. HCN or plain old bullet.

Polonium-210 is very exotic thing, costs big money, and there is simply no use in it, since there are much more cheap/specialised things. Maybe it`s a surprise for you, but USSR operations were always designed without additional expences. Oh, they could spend billions, but they`d cut the price back on whatever is possible - to put the spare in pocket, if nothing else.

This one is CLEARLY PR stuff. I do not believe, that former operative could screw up so badly - to eat slow poison, and not apply for help at the first signs. It`s just ridiculous.
Moreso, Alpha radiation DOES fades with distance best of all of them, BUT, it`s also the most nasty. Alpha rads are streams of protons (or ionised helium cores - two protons, two neutrons). While they COULD be stopped by skin, the amount of radiation, which was sufficient to kill the man from inside fairly quickly, would leave burns on his skin.

My opinion is, that Litvinenko was in the business of smuggling Polonium-210. He got careless - probably received a lethal dose of it inadvertingly at the meeting in hotel, where he passed the bulk cargo of Polonium to the next courier either ex-KGB or whoever was with him.

When he started feeling himself REALLY sick, he applied for help, but it was already late, and he was up his neck, if they`d found Polonium on him, and start questioning, where the hell did THAT came. So, he conjures up a story, using relevant case of journalist murder, to claim assassination, at least, protect the identities of Polonium smugglers (Because if he`d reveal that.... He`s already dieing, but it`s all too easily imaginable, what would`ve happened to his family.).


That`s how I see it. To be fair, could you name at least one reason, why something as exotic as Polonium would be used for assassination, instead of more conventional means? To clearly hint everyone, that it`s not ordinary death?

Case of Markov I won`t even touch. It`s obviously been used as a poster case, to "showcase" ricin, in retrospect.


Punkinside - don`t understand your question.

[punkinside]

Why do you hate the protagonist of 1984

[Alice Shade]

Because he broke down.

In my opinion, resilience and deception are much more honorable, then brittleness and stout devotion to word. My opinion, is that he chose a coward`s way out.

[GeoffBoulton]

Maybe it`s a surprise for you, but USSR operations were always designed without additional expences.

Who said it was the USSR?

Personally, I doubt the Kremlin would have had anything to do with this particular murder, they would have little to gain from it and a lot to lose.

It's much more likely to have been a 'mafia' hit probably linked to the Politkowskaya case, maybe he got too close to the perpetrators, and carried out by one of the many ex-KGB officers who decided becoming gangsters was the preferred option once Yeltsin split up the KGB.

Why don't you actually read the posts before going off on one.

[Alice Shade]

Can I ask for a return favor, as well?

My post explained my conclusions about him being ASSASINATED with Palladium, and I offered my own version of what had happened.

As to why I mentioned USSR - all the specialists in THAT area are trained by USSR specialists, and utilise same methods.

[Fallen Hero]

Can I ask for a return favor, as well?

My post explained my conclusions about him being ASSASINATED with Palladium, and I offered my own version of what had happened.

As to why I mentioned USSR - all the specialists in THAT area are trained by USSR specialists, and utilise same methods.

Geoff stated Polonium, not Palladium. There is a big difference there. Stop assuming your country is perfect. Every country has faults. I doubt he was smuggling Polonium and ate it so that no one would find out. That is the stupidest thing I have heard today.

[punkinside]

Because he broke down.

In my opinion, resilience and deception are much more honorable, then brittleness and stout devotion to word. My opinion, is that he chose a coward`s way out.

No, they broke him. There is no man in the world that would survive such an ordeal, much less after being confronted with his greatest fear. To quote the book:


Did I not tell you just now that we are different from the persecutors of the past? We are not content with negative obedience, nor even with the most abject submission. When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will. We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us: so long as he resists us we never destroy him. We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him. We burn all evil and all illusion out of him; we bring him over to our side, not in appearance, but genuinely, heart and soul. We make him one of ourselves before we kill him. It is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world, however secret and powerless it may be. Even in the instant of death we cannot permit any deviation. In the old days the heretic walked to the stake still a heretic, proclaiming his heresy, exulting in it. Even the victim of the Russian purges could carry rebellion locked up in his skull as he walked down the passage waiting for the bullet. But we make the brain perfect before we blow it out.

Here he intends to show that the protagonist will not die until he is "perfect".


'By itself,' he said, 'pain is not always enough. There are occasions when a human being will stand out against pain, even to the point of death. But for everyone there is something unendurable -- something that cannot be contemplated. Courage and cowardice are not involved. If you are falling from a height it is not cowardly to clutch at a rope. If you have come up from deep water it is not cowardly to fill your lungs with air. It is merely an instinct which cannot be destroyed.

Here is the explanation just before the protagonist is faced with his worst fear: rats. He quickly tanks a few paragraphs after.


The whole point of the book is showing just how fragile the human mind and convictions are: In some point in the book, Winston proclaimed that real freedom was being able to think that 2 + 2 = 4! You are only free in the few cubic centimeters of your own skull. In the end, they took even that.


The society you describe has many parallels in a less extreme way with 1984's oceania. A society based on fear, not growth.

[GeoffBoulton]

We are talking about former spy. He`s OUGHT to know those things. If he`s be treated to something slow-acting, he`d know the symptoms long before he`d be in critical state.

He went to the hospital on the same day that he first felt those symptoms and the same day that he is believed to have been poisoned. He was in hospital for more than a week before he became critical and it was a further two weeks before he died.

Not to mention, that slipping him some shit would be one HELL of a chore without raising suspicion.

Polonium dissolves readily in dilute acids

If carried in such a dissolved form it would be no more difficult than slipping it into a cup of coffee. This is especially so with the microscopic amounts needed to kill. A small plastic or glass phial would also protect the carrier from the alpha particles.

the amount of material required to produce a lethal dose of 10 Sieverts would be only 0.12 micrograms

No, the only way to kill a former operative surely, is to kill him on spot. HCN or plain old bullet.

Both cyanide and a plain old bullet are easily detectable which contradicts your point C) It should be untraceable. Even Inspector Clouseau could spot that somebody's brains were spread over the wall. As I pointed out, in the human body:

Alpha radiation is extremely difficult to detect and tests to find it can only be done in specialist laboratories.

Polonium-210 is very exotic thing, costs big money, and there is simply no use in it, since there are much more cheap/specialised things.

there are no shortage of reactors in Russia that could churn out as much of the stuff as they wanted.

It is only expensive on the open-market because so little is normally made. As you pointed out there is little use for it. However here I would agree that it would be better to use something cheaper. Quite clearly the perpetrator/s didn't believe this to be the case, so let's just stick to the facts.

This one is CLEARLY PR stuff. I do not believe, that former operative could screw up so badly - to eat slow poison, and not apply for help at the first signs. It`s just ridiculous.

PR Stuff: Your opinion only.

Swallowing 0.12 micrograms, that could easily have been given to him in a cup of coffee, is not difficult to do, can you even SEE 0.12 micrograms?

Not apply for help at the first signs - As I've already pointed out, he did apply for help at the first signs.

Moreso, Alpha radiation DOES fades with distance best of all of them, BUT, it`s also the most nasty. Alpha rads are streams of protons (or ionised helium cores - two protons, two neutrons). While they COULD be stopped by skin, the amount of radiation, which was sufficient to kill the man from inside fairly quickly, would leave burns on his skin.

I do know what alpha radiation is.

The ARE stopped by skin:

They can be absorbed by tissue paper or the outer layers of human skin (about 40 micrometres, equivalent to a few cells deep) and so are not generally dangerous to life unless the source is ingested or inhaled.

Leave burns - The skin penetration depth is only 40 micrometres, a few cells deep, not exactly third-degree burns are they? In any case you are assuming that there was contact with the skin. There is no evidence that this was so, all the evidence shows internal ingestion.

My opinion is, that Litvinenko was in the business of smuggling Polonium-210. He got careless - probably received a lethal dose of it inadvertingly at the meeting in hotel, where he passed the bulk cargo of Polonium to the next courier either ex-KGB or whoever was with him.

As you said, Opinion.

How would he smuggle it exactly?:

A great deal of energy is released by its decay with a half a gram quickly reaching a temperature above 750 K.

That pretty much excludes carrying more than a few micrograms unless he's got a container that can handle the extremely high temperatures that would be generated.

Polonium-210 (in common with 238Pu) has the ability to become airborne with ease (volatilize), 50% of a sample is vaporized in air in 45 hours

If he was being careless with it or it was somehow 'leaking' from the courier operation you allege he was taking part in, there would be a trail of dead bodies all across London.

Remember we are talking about a stuff that only needs microscopic amounts to kill and which easily becomes airborne.There were two other people with him in the hotel room. Why aren't they dead? What about people who subsequently stayed at the hotel or the hotel staff themselves?

When he started feeling himself REALLY sick

I will say it again, he went to hospital on the same day that he BEGAN to feel sick and the same day he is believed to have been poisoned, became CRITICALL ill a week later and died two weeks after that.

if they`d found Polonium on him

They didn't, let's keep to facts. They found traces of it in his urine which is exactly what you would expect with someone who has been poisoned with the stuff.

So, he conjures up a story

Your opinion with no facts to support it. There is absolutely no suggestion that he has been carrying out ANY sort of illegal operations in the UK, radioactive or otherwise.

Case of Markov I won`t even touch.

Whether you like it or not, it happened. It has been resurrected exactly because of the similarities to the current case. An emigre who left a communist country because of persecution. Someone who has continually criticised the regime he left. Slow acting poison giving perpetrator time to escape. Substance that is difficult to detect and will hopefully not be discovered.

Can I ask for a return favor, as well?

I do read all of the posts and answer them with facts not opinion and supposition. I am the one who has to keep quoting myself from earlier posts because you either chose to ignore facts or didn't read them:

Geoff stated Polonium, not Palladium.

You offered an opinion with no facts to back up your story. The facts about Polonium make the accidental death through careless handling during a smuggling operation scenario completely unworkable.

My post explained my conclusions about him being ASSASINATED with Palladium, and I offered my own version of what had happened.

So now you are saying it WAS an assassination and not bungled handling of polonium during his 'smuggling' operation?

As to why I mentioned USSR - all the specialists in THAT area are trained by USSR specialists, and utilise same methods.

Ah, so the Russians DO train their staff in assassination attacks. Why exactly, just for fun or because they a-chally do carry out such assassinations?

[Alice Shade]

Geoff, every country trains their spies in assasination. Every single one.

USSR specialists are still considered one of the best in this field, because they introduced many innovative and cheap approaches to question, among everything else.

Also, it might be a fact of interest to all of you, that both USA and USSR special forces (saboteurs, spies, infiltration groups, assassins, strike forces) were trained quite excessively in both ability to kill quietly (obviously) and in ability to interrogate (No, I don`t mean making evil faces. All of them were supposed to be able to extract any information from a prisoner only having knife, file and pliers (which are included in standard equipment of any soldier).)



Now, to address the issue. Geoff, I do NOT believe official version. There is no backing as to who and why would poison Litvinenko, and WHY using something SO expencive and exotic?

Geoff, the main question here is WHY Polonium-210? WHY? So every Tom, Dick and Harry knew, that there is something suspicious? Don`t give me crap about "undetectable" - it seems, that medics and police found out very fast. So, why the hell not HCN, which does NOT stays in body long enough to make trace? Why not the proverbial ricine, for crying out loud, even? Why it had to be something so rare, that everyone would be wondering?

As to how`d he be transporting it? A lead tank filled with polonium solved in acid. He could get poisoned just by opening it to demonstrate, that it`s really Polonium (by the flash of polonium evaporating).

Also, I`m not talking about going to hopspital, when you start having aches, Geoff. If he knew, that he is marked man, he`d be suspicious at every fallen hair (not to mention, not eating in public places, first off). Honestly, it`s inconsistent how he can be so blind and gullible to get himself poisoned by mythical assassin, and THEN, on a death bed, have a epiphany "Putin killed me!". Let`s be fair here. If he knew in advance, that someone WILL kill him, he wouldn`t be just putting shit in his mouth with strangers, would he? And if he had no idea, that he is a target, then why being so iron-clad, that it`s "Putin", who ordered him killed? I smell bullshit.

As for my point about being untraceable, you misunderstand my point. For modern medicine, it`s very possible, that they will find out the real cause of death irregardless of what it was. But you got to agree, that it`s easier to trace exotic Polonium-210 to it`s origins, then chunk of lead or plum cores tincture, both of which could be at any home.
If it comes to that, you can just buy a carton of cigarettes, cut them open to get tobacco, and soak it in water (tobacco from all carton, I mean), for a week, or so. Strain, toss tobacco away, and let the water slowly evaporate in sun. You`ll have dose of nicotine in your jar. More then enough to kill a horse, I must add. More then enough to kill a man just by letting him touch it.
(Legal note: I`m only stating common facts, which could be found easily in chemistry and biology books. This is in no way a guide, urging or advice on how to make home-made poison, for assassinations or not.)



I think, that if it was an assassination, then it would be performed in much less suggestive matter. Seeing as Litvinenko did not employed bodyguards (at least, nothing was mentioned in article), it would be a child`s play to ambush him in the hallway of hiw own house, give him vodka enema, and put behind the wheel of his own car. Unless done very shoddy, police would just deduce, that dude was driving piss drunk, and had a "tragic accident".
Equally easy would be to break in his place, open stove (Well, with stipulation, that he has gas stove. won`t work with electric, obviously.), and leave jury-rigged alarm clock+lighter, timed for when guy comes home. He walks in, alarm goes off, BLAM. Someone was careless, and didn`t turned off stove, it seems. Must be a spark in the light switch, that ignited it. Or our Mr. Victim flicked up his lighter to lit up a cig. In any way, he`s lethally burned and possibly crushed in explosion cave-in.
Or, if we definitely want to be cruel, we again break in Mr. Victim`s apartment, and screw out lightbulb in his hall. Instead, we screw in one we "modified", by pumping insides full of napalm (or something even nastier with good incendiary properties). Or Mr. Victim comes in, flicks the lightswitch, and successfully dies in hospital from >80% charring two days later, having felt his eyes boil out before, as an added bonus. Now, this one will clearly tell everyone, that it IS assassination, but tieing it to anyone would be next to impossible.
(Again, legal note: If some of you readers will take this as a hint to action, I`m very sorry for your terminal stupidity. Those are hazardous, leave those to professional killers and victims, please.)

__________________________________________________

Punkinside... I don`t like the hero of 1984, because he allowed himself to be broken. There were dosen ways, where he could just lie, and get out of that. Sticking it out is good, if you can back it up with force. If you can`t - then run away, or show submission, until you are strong enough to run or fight.

[GeoffBoulton]

Geoff, every country trains their spies in assasination. Every single one.

Where have I said they don't?

Also, it might be a fact of interest to all of you, that both USA and USSR...

Also, it might be a fact of interest to you, that I spent 8 years working with the British Special Air Service followed by 10 years working for British Intelligence at Government Communications HQ. I don't need anyone to tell me about what goes on 'behind closed doors'.

I do NOT believe official version.

There is NO official version. If you are talking about press speculation then:

Personally, I doubt the Kremlin would have had anything to do with this particular murder, they would have little to gain from it and a lot to lose.

Geoff, the main question here is WHY Polonium-210?

I didn't say 'undetectable'

Alpha radiation is extremely difficult to detect and tests to find it can only be done in specialist laboratories.

It took 3 weeks of testing by several specialist laboratories to trace the cause. As with all poisons you have to know what you are looking for before you can carry out the appropriate test. It certainly would not have been found in standard toxicology tests.

WHY Polonium-210?

We don't know why, any speculation is pointless until we do know. The fact still remains that that is what WAS used whatever its shortcomings.

Also, I`m not talking about going to hopspital...

Nobody knows how 'safe' he felt before he was poisoned, after all he was in London not Moscow. Nor do we know how 'gullible' he might be. This is all pure speculation.

He could get poisoned just by opening it to demonstrate, that it`s really Polonium (by the flash of polonium evaporating).

Remember we are talking about a stuff that only needs microscopic amounts to kill and which easily becomes airborne.There were two other people with him in the hotel room. Why aren't they dead? What about people who subsequently stayed at the hotel or the hotel staff themselves?


As for my point about being untraceable

More easily traceable, maybe. If that is true then they should be knocking on somebody's door any day now, time will tell if you are correct.

Whatever it's shortcomings it WAS used. We do not know why it was used. Any discussion of the reasons is, as I said pure speculation.

As for the rest of your post. Whatever other methods could have been used to kill him they didn't use any of them they used Polonium 210. And the reasons why are unknown and are pure speculation.

If you have only speculation rather than facts to support your case then there is little point in continuing this debate.

[Alice Shade]

Geoff, I`m arguing the point that he WAS killed.

My point is, that there are equally-plausible explanations about how he got that poison all by himself or accidentally.

What I am talking about, is that you have as much facts backing up your theory, then I have for mine. Therefore, claiming an ASSASINATION is a political trick, until someone will come forward, and claim the facts.

For now, it`s all speculations.

Facts are:
A) He died from Polonium poisoning.
B) He had traces of Polonium at his house, and in two separate locations, but not all over where he ever was.
C) He claims high political causes (while officials deny, that he was all that important)

I tend to think, that officials were truthful here. Russia has more then enough of internal problems to deal with people, who don`t like it in england. Especially, with something as exotic, as Polonium.
My common sence tell me (aside from training), that killing should be as simple and straightforward, as possible under circumstances. Therefore, using Polonium where a big number of cheaper poisons with similar effects could be used strikes me as silly and overly-romantic.
Now, I don`t argue, that "radiation murder" is a great topic to turn everyone`s heads, real murders are much more mundane and routine.

And Geoff? If your claim is true, you should`ve known that like no other.

[GeoffBoulton]

Therefore, claiming an ASSASINATION is a political trick, until someone will come forward, and claim the facts.

I did not say it was a political act, I even said that it was much more likely to be a purely criminal act:

Personally, I doubt the Kremlin would have had anything to do with this particular murder, they would have little to gain from it and a lot to lose.

It's much more likely to have been a 'mafia' hit probably linked to the Politkowskaya case, maybe he got too close to the perpetrators, and carried out by one of the many ex-KGB officers who decided becoming gangsters was the preferred option once Yeltsin split up the KGB.

I tend to think, that officials were truthful here.

Which is exactly what I said:

Personally, I doubt the Kremlin would have had anything to do with this particular murder, they would have little to gain from it and a lot to lose.

How many times do I have to quote this?

Honestly Alice you're starting to sound like those religious 'fundy' types

Me: Yes, I agree with you, I doubt it was the Russian Government.
You: Yes, but you don't agree ENOUGH with me, I'm not giving up until you BELIEVE!

[Alice Shade]

Argh.

Geoff, I`m not arguing about WHODUNIT.

I`m saying, that he`s not KILLED. Committed involuntary suicide, maybe, or had an accident, but intentionally killed - no.

[GeoffBoulton]

If your claim is true

It is, which I why I know exactly what the Kremlin is capable of or at least was capable of when I finished working for GCHQ about ten years ago. It's just that in this particular case I don't think they have much to gain.

In any case, Russia has changed a lot in the intervening ten years and I really don't think they would wish to risk the political fall out with the west from such an act.

I quite agree it could potentially have been self inflicted or an accident but I very much doubt it.

Firstly, while there most certainly is a black market in radioactive materials in the west it is nowhere near as common or widespread as it is in the countries of the former Soviet Union. If people want to get their hands on radioactive materials the place to start looking is there not the UK.

Secondly, the material itself is extremely difficult to handle and extremely dangerous, even by radioactive standards.

Thirdly, there is virtually no demand for the stuff outside the scientific community. About the only use I can find for it, apart from as a power source in space vehicles, is as an alpha particle emitter in scientific instrumentation. For this purpose you can buy it on the Internet for as little as 68$

http://www.unitednuclear.com/isotopes.htm

Fourthly, there is currently absolutely no evidence that he was involved in illegal operations of any kind let alone anything as sinister as smuggling radioactive materials.

As for a purely innocent and accidental contamination, I think this too can be ruled out. Given its scarcity, toxicity and limited usage I don't see how Polonium 210 could have accidentally got into the public domain without it being noticed. It would also have to be one hell of a coincidence that the person who 'found' it was a dissident Russian ex-spy.

While experimentation with radioactive power sources for 'everyday' items, for example agricultural machinery, were experimented with in the former Soviet Union very few such experiments were carried out here and certainly none that I know of since about the 1950s.

I really don't see how Polonium in its pure form could have accidentally got into the environment.

Time will tell and we may yet both be proved wrong as more information becomes available.