Where did this idea start, that punishing people for crime is wrong, and that justice must be purely rehabilitative? In my country most criminals now avoid prison under this ideology. It is common for offenders to have dozens of crimes on record before ever seeing the inside of a cell. Punitive justice would straighten them out quickly. The cane, cat o nine tails, or even just being tied to a post in public and then fricked up the ass would also be orders of magnitude cheaper. No one can maintain a hard man image when they've been bummed in public
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Only evil people do not understand basic Justice and Good vs Evil. OP is clearly from a pagan nation.
>OP is clearly from a pagan nation.
When you say "pagan" do you actually mean "polytheistic religion" or do you just mean "thing I don't like?"
Justice gives the criminal what he deserves. Mercy spares the criminal at the expense of the victim. Justice is good, mercy is evil
>Mercy spares the criminal at the expense of the victim
Not killing the killer won't bring back his victim. It won't undo a rape or assault.
hb
rehabilitative gives the possibility of returning them to society thus not having to pay for them in prison. of course not everyone is able to be rehabilitated but it's worth a try at least, and those that you can't well you can lock them away.
but what's the point of whipping and torturing them? the crime is already done before, torturing them isn't gonna change anything.
Flogging makes total sense if you think about it. The whole point is to be a deterrent.
It's infinitely cheaper to just give a small time offender a good flogging than what it would cost to put them in jail, plus they'll remember it next time.
Prison needs to be about removing people from society that are truly dangerous. For the rest just flog 'em.
Do you ever research and look at statistics or do you just spout whatever sounds sensible in your head?
Yes.
Statistically Singapore (practices flogging) is far, far safer than America (doesn't practice flogging).
Corporal punishment is very widespread in the world, including in some countries that are decidedly less safe than Singapore. It's one of the many ways Singapore is such an anomaly.
But can you not see how flogging has contributed to their success?
As the rehabilitationists ITT point out a longer prison sentence doesn't better rehabilitate someone, in fact often it just makes it worse because prisons are usually full of crime. With flogging the majority of criminals don't even need to go to prison, 1 day is all you need.
And as we can see in Europe making prison comfier is no solution either, what any country needs to be thinking about is prison alternatives.
>But can you not see how flogging has contributed to their success?
there's nothing indicating that it had anything to do with it's success
Apart from what I just explained I suppose not.
you presented no explanation
Because it didn't include links to the Washington post, I get it.
European cities are generally safe, especially when it comes to violent crimes. Singapore's use of corporal punishment wouldn't have such a great record if the city itself didn't benefit from geography, trade routes, and economic planning, which are key to the city's very low poverty, homelessness and unemployment and general prosperity.
>European cities are generally safe, especially when it comes to violent crimes.
Tell that to esteemed American ambassador and peace activist Ethan Oliver Ralph
>Iran
>Afghanistan
>Pakistan
>Sudan
>Nigeria
>Fricking Somalia
But yeah, focus on Singapore.
Definition of cherrypicking
All future superpowers, except Sudan.
Somalia is a special case they NEED flogging, normal western justice is just not practical .
>hey look guys, developing nations grow faster! That means they’re taking over
No, you’re delusional. They’ll hit a wall like every other country that made the transition
Somalia doesn't need flogging. Xeer is a justice system and does not rely on physical punishment. Westies constantly omit that
Some of the safest countries in the world have rehabilitative justice systems and that includes European countries like Portugal and Denmark
Yeah, Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria, and Guyana are truly the most advanced civilisations the world has ever seen
>But can you not see how flogging has contributed to their success?
Singapore's prisons still have people inside it
kys dumbfrick zoomer
The only way any country could have a jail population of zero is either by killing all criminals or legalising crime, are either of those really appealing?
Because the practice and non-practice of flogging is the only determining factor in the crime rate of a country. Of course.
Singapore also has significantly fewer blacks of course.
They have indians and Chinese who can get pretty criminal lol.
And then they'll brag about how much flog scars they got to their fellow criminals.
If they keep it up their bragging days are done.
Every country that practices flogging also practices capital punishment.
making evil doers suffer provides justice to their innocent victims and sets a good example for the rest of society by clearly seperating right and wrong and standing up for what's right and encouraging scorn towards those who do wrong. Making evil doers suffer also disincentivises other potential evil doers who will be less willing to commit evil when the expected value to them of doing so is more detrimental than if the punishment was mild. People respond to incentives therefore this reduces crime.
Also, most violent criminals are already permanently fricked up due to their childhood and so playing pattycake pattycake with them and giving them a short sentence doesn't do anything and just lets them victimise more innocent people in society again sooner.
The only thing you can do with violent criminals is wait for them to age out since after the age of 50 because male aggression dramatically lowers after that. This doesn't work with sexually violent criminals though like rapists and child molesters since they'll continue after then.
Locking up every violent criminal until the age of 50 would also have the added benefit of preventing them from reproducing and would accomplish the same thing western europeans did in the 18th and 19th centuries where they made their populations much less violent by executing all their violent criminals and selecting them out of the gene pool.
This hasn't happened with black or mexicans which is part of why they're so violent and dramatically over-represented among murderers and other violent criminals.
I was caught with drugs going into a music festival. First time offence, they locked me up for a few months, but the conviction means I can’t work anything other than manual labour. I would have taken a flogging. I’m not reoffending either way, but it kills your ability to live normally that a scumfrick wouldn’t care about. I’ve delayed having kids because I can’t look after them well, but the shitheads that taxpayers pay to lock up have no worries getting bennies to look after their kids too. In short, punitive measures would have meant I wouldn’t need “rehabilitation “ and rehabilitative measures won’t work on those that will only respond to fear.
F
Anon do you think that flogging worthy charge would go away after being done? They branded criminals so they could be identified instantly for exactly the same reason as they branded you.
Sorry about the system fricking up your life though. No one performing a victimless crime deserves such a fate.
The idea is that punitive justice often makes offenders worse, because of how poisonous prison culture is and because high stress situations can degrade a persons mental health. Additionally, they’ll be more likely to reoffend because they’ll be even less economically stable when the get out.
I think you’re wrong about the effectiveness in punishment as deterring criminals from reoffending. In some cases I’m sure that would work, but there are types of people who will always reoffend because they are moronic psychos. For them, the punishment needs to be permanent.
And by permanent I mean life in prison or constant surveillance by authorities. I don’t mean to imply that they can be rehabilitated
Or just euthanasia
Based on the idea that government shouldn't be deliberately violating the human rights of its citizens unless absolutely necessary.
I want to lick aquas butthole
It must be very clean since she's a goddess of water
Maybe trying to become less barbaric. I understand that in the middle east they have countries with laws that say instead of imprisonment, how about you get your hand taken away. That would in fact stop most people from doing things like this right? But thats barbaric middle age type shit
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism
Christianity unironically
Self-hating, bleeding-heart, demoralized libtards.
God calls for the death penalty for murder. What is it with you fedora tipping morons that don't know anything about Christianity yet won't ever shut up about it? No, watching some cartoon like family goy or shabbos park doesn't make you an expert on religion.
Your god is a dead israelite on a stick dude, you dont have the moral authority to make israelite comments
Trips of truth
>Punitive justice would straighten them out quickly
All studies demonstrate otherwise.
Those studies are a conspiracy by leftist israelites.
Dilate.
It just empirically doesn't work unless your goal is to make le evil thief suffer and dont give a shit about recidivism rates.
Imagine you were fricked in the ass publicly for whatever crime. Do you see yourself becoming a law abiding citizen afterwards?
This. Governments that don't respect the rights of their citizens are less likely to receive their respect.
Perhaps. But only out of fear
You are already a law abiding citizen out of fear, boy
No most of us arent controlled by simian impulses so we simply do not commit crimes for fun like most criminals do. The majority of us do not even need to be told X is wrong because our empathy allows us to develop our own moral compass where as most criminals lack empathy so are morally moronic which is why they become confused why all humans arent selfish pieces of shit like them.
>more non sequiturs
I accept your concession on the topic at hand
beatings are a great form of punishment.
it is cheap and doesn't cost the tax payer money.
Maximalist punishments
>someone robs a bank
>throw them in prison for 20 years
>they leave prison with no savings, no job prospects, but with criminal connections
>they continue to be a bank robber
Rehabilitation
>someone robs a bank
>punish them in a way that doesn't stop them from reintegrating into society (AKA "being soft" for the paint drinkers)
>they no longer rob banks
The problem with maximalist punishments is that it only works if the person is never released into society. If you lock someone up for life, then it works. But if you don't, then you need to make sure that they continue to follow the law after they are released. The "new wave" in the criminal justice system is the idea that the state shouldn't seek to ruin people, but should instead seek to make sure that the number of criminals decreases by lowering the rate of repeat offenders.
The issue is applying your rehabilitive bullshit to those who committed violent crimes on individuals
Of course you'd use bank robbing in your exemple and not rape or murder
it's funny since violent crimes have lower rates of reoffending
Lower than non-violent crimes?
Sure, because it lends you in jail a little longer, so you can do it less in your life
But the reoffending rate is still pretty high when you look at it in a vaccum instead of comparing it to petty crimes
Genuine scumbags don't stop being scumbags in old age.
>Yeah the re offending rate is high compared to what we are discussing but these ancillary facts that don't affect anything might-
Take the fricking L and walk away instead of pretending you can stop being wrong.
Not an argument
You need it spelled out? Fine.
Rehabilitation strategy, when you deal with double digit IQ scum with many generations of being bred for impulsiveness and stupidity and a culture that rejects any sort of societal advancement.
>Black person robs a bank.
>Put them in probation, give them job training, assign them a social worker type parole officer to try to reintigrate them into society.
>Black person thinks whitey don't do shit.
>Black person robs, rapes, and kills parole officer.
>Not because he needs to, just because well, why not?
People only commit crime because they have no other choice is true for some people, but not for a huge subset of the criminal population. There is no known way to rehabilitate a lot of these people, and the best you can do is lock them up to keep them away from other people.
And then einstein clapped
thinks whitey don't do shit.
>>Not because he needs to, just because well, why not?
>There is no known way to rehabilitate a lot of these people, and the best you can do is lock them up to keep them away from other people.
Medless nonsense. You have no evidence to back this up.
Gotta remember that this site is full of weirdos who have dedicated folders of black people being bad so they can hatewatch it.
>be black
>CIA destroys your neighborhood by flooding it with crack
>get thrown in jail because a cop caught you with an 1/8th of marijuana
>trial delayed by months or years because the system is broken and public defenders are grossly overworked
>be stuck in a cage with the worst scum that society has to offer
>get dumped back onto the streets with no social support network
>people act shocked when you have no investment in the system and lash out criminally because it is the only world you’ve ever known
Must be genetic, right?!
Ha. Even the cucks of places like San Francisco are realizing that no, they're not locking up their Black folk, and yes, that's a problem. And they have tons of social support in places like Frisco, and still have a massively high crime rate. Ooops.
Meanwhile New York City has a lower crime rate than small town America so I very strongly doubt that liberals in San Fran will be coming around to the opinions of backwoods imbeciles instead of revisiting the issue with intelligence and raw data
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/new-york-city-is-a-lot-safer-than-small-town-america/2022/06/07/d5a87e3c-e651-11ec-a422-11bbb91db30b_story.html
That's specifically referring to the murder rate, and when a bunch of small towns are overrun with tweakers shouldn't really be all that surprising. The CDC didn't even release homicide rates unless there were more than 20 deaths, so it's misleading to apply this to all small towns.
And NYC was a crime ridden shithole until Giuliani increased punishments for minor crimes in the 90s, so it's probably not the best example for you case.
Giuliani's important move was hiring like 7k new police officers and making the most of new technology in law enforcement.
>NYC was a crime ridden shithole until Giuliani increased punishments for minor crimes in the 90s
The reality actually was that crime was decreasing before he got in and the trend s pretty easy to spot.
>be stuck in a cage with the worst scum that society has to offer
They ARE the worst society has to offer. They are locked away for the protection of the members in civil society that get prayed upon by criminal scum. Why do the rights of violent criminals seem to matter more to leftists than the right of law abiding, productive members of society to be protected against repeated assaults and muggings?
I mean anon has a point. Sending someone to jail for a little weed is a non solution.
This is why we need flogging. A good slap on the ass will set those small timers right.
Usage shouldn't even be a crime. Dealing it illicitly should merit enforced work ideally to repair the damage done to society, or a fine.
In modern society, most people would rather be flogged than pay a fine, lol.
Probably depends on the fine. Some countries calculate them according to income, so poor people aren't hit so disproportionately hard, and rich people are still hit hard enough.
>repair the damage done to society,
Very hard to define unless it's like cocaine.
Drugs like fentanyl and heroin have ruined a lot of lives and livelihoods. The monetary cost is something I don't know, but maybe people who sell those drugs should be put to work in factories making supplies for reversing overdoses, or have them work in a trade and for a while some of the profit should benefit local hospitals or other organizations that could help curb the effects of the drug.
>Fines
Fines just unfairly punish poor people when they're meaningless to rich people. Flogging stings just as much for both.
make it a percentage based fine then, iirc sweden does this for traffic fines
Still doesn't make it any better for poor people and I don't see how wiping out their saving or even putting them in debt discourages criminality. In the goal of rehabilitating them to society that's just counter productive.
>This is why we need flogging
It can be debilitating and cause lasting pain.
Of course it can, you want them to remember it.
Assaulters and muggers aren't the worst of the worst. The worst are the serial rapists/killers/torturers who are basically rabid wolves, and the people who use their positions of power to undermine and oppress entire societies or subgroups or violate human rights.
>Must be genetic, right?!
its both. systemic problems certainly exist but that doesnt mean that theres no genetic component to crime.
Justice shouldn't be purely rehabilitative, but you should operate under the assumption that a large portion of most guys that go to prison will eventually get released. Now, in this case, would you rather these guys be prepared for life outside of prison or would you rather focus purely on punishing them which would only lead to reoffense. Severe punishment is not an effective deterrent of crime. If you care about deterrence, certainty of punishment is much more important than severity. There is should be a mix of rehabilitation and punishment, most of the World leans too hard into the punishment side of things.
>Criminals are given more rights then the privacy of their victims.
As is always the answer, communists so they can destabilize cultures easier to take control.
lol Cuba and Vietnam have strict justice systems.
Yeah you implement stricter "justice" after you have taken control of a host country.
Objectively the UAE and Qatar are safer Portugal or Denmark and they all practice flogging. Qatar is literally the safest country on planet Earth
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/crime-rate-by-country.
Meant for
They're also swimming in oil money and have no freedoms. Islamic totalitarianism isn't worth a small decrease in the murder rate.
But then you have Singapore where you can still live a normal western lifestyle and enjoy the low crime rate.
The evidence is clear, in order for the lowest crime rate possible it's best to both be rich and practice corporal punishment. Merely swimming in oil money while also trying to practice rehabilitative justice like Norway isn't as effective as just flogging people.
Singaporeans don't have the same rights Westerners have. Imagine a typical HOA but on steroids, and put them in charge of a whole city. It's technically a democracy but has a lot of gerrymandering and suppresses most potential dissent with prohibitions on public demonstrations and very strict defamation laws. Again, not worth a (possible) statistically small decrease in the homicide rate.
> It's technically a democracy but has a lot of gerrymandering and suppresses most potential dissent with prohibitions on public demonstrations and very strict defamation laws.
That's just every western country these days, bro.
No not at all. It's basically impossible for non-PaP to win because of that and Singapore basically micromanages everything to the point of humor. LKYs family is borderline royalty.
Again, not understanding how any of this is abnormal for your typical western country. In mine we have actual royalty.
>how any of this is abnormal for your typical western count
You don't really get it
Singapore has a worse crime rate than Hong Kong, Japan, and Switzerland by your own source
Irrelevant because first and second place are Qatar and the UAE, two other corporal punishment countries. Singapore's just a non Islamic example.
It’s easy to pave over your problems with money when you’re a tiny country sitting on a huge oil reserve
And how exactly do they pave over criminality with money if not with their incredibly strict justice system?
Turns out that having access to good paying jobs reduces people’s incentives to commit crimes. Who’s have thought
So it does, most drastically so in countries where criminals get whipped, moreso than even wealthier rehabilitative systems.
>most drastically so in countries where criminals get whipped
It doesnt. Hell in richer countries losing income earning power while jailed is a major deterrent to crime
But it does, look at the source.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/crime-rate-by-country
All the countries near the top are rich, but the very top also practice corporal punishment.
My bro went to prison and came out with a lot of criminal connections because apparently he was really popular with the inmates and all the tax advice and tips he gave. Still has a lot of friends from that time. He got me a MSI Suprim 3090ti as a gift and told me he had a "bonus".
It's a perfectly reasonable thing to question. Is there a specific purpose, some sort of aim that is achieved through punishment? Maybe there is, maybe there isn't, I'm just saying that it's a perfectly rational debate to have whether or not punishment without rehabilitation (because you can combine both) serves any actual purpose, and arguments could be made on both sides.
The bloody code in England achieved jack shit, with pickpockets targeting people watching other pickpockets getting publicly hanged.
>let's be literal sodomites because the justice system is fricked
No, kys.
>Where did this idea start, that punishing people for crime is wrong, and that justice must be purely rehabilitative?
It starts with Judaism and the inversion of values that it preaches.
The people who argue for rehabilitation don't do so with arguments of right and wrong and you know that perfectly well; they use the simple fact that locking fricked up people up and fricking them up more doesn't help anyone or anything in any way, it just costs a lot of money.
I don't trust sociologists and criminologist working for think tanks in this area. The way they talk about recidivism rates would make you think that countries like the UK that have a rehabilitative approach have much lower rates of recidivism. The reality is that violent criminals in the UK might have 40-45% recidivism rate vs US prisons having a 55% recidivism rate over 5 years. That's not that great. Particularly when you realize that the metrics for evaluating this have large margins of error. It's really Scandinavian countries that have notably low recidivism, under 25%. And is that really due to rehabilitation or just due to a small homogenous society?
They also tend to ignore that prison can contain impulsive young men for long enough for rehabilitation to appear to work. Is it really the rehabilitation that is working or is a setting providing basic humane treatment and the fact that the the guy's test levels crater at age 35 doing most of the 'work'?
The UK has an approach that isn't as harsh as the US but isn't as reformist as say Denmark or Germany. It still occasionally gets called out for having harsh conditions.
Germany has a 40% three year recidivism rate.
Source?
We can't brush a wide stroke over all crime and people. Some people are genuinely just in need of help and correction, rehabilitation for them. Examples would largely be whites or asians who show genuine remose and didn't commit a violent crime.
People who should face punishment are those who are unredeemable, you can tell who they are. Almost all violent criminals fall in to this category, habitual criminals as well. They just need to be beaten, mutilated, or executed. Sometimes even publicly.
Hate to say it, but I agree with the animegay. I also agree with the floggay in this case, it seems like a good way to get the point across without wasting anyone's time.
Of course, these reforms would only come in if the US fully nationalized the prison system.
It would be exponentially better to bring back the concept of exile.
Just ship off all the criminals to some uninhabited shithole on the canadian border and tell them to sort themselves out.
With modern technology you'd just need to install some chip on them to make sure they don't try to come back into civilized society.
The Nazis tried that with the israelites, but other countries were like “if they’re as bad as you say they are, we don’t want them” and that’s why they had to come up with a “final” solution to the israeli problem.
On the other hand, we could force them to live on Mara and Moon bases and be the seed labor that gets the infrastructure off the ground so that more worthy individuals can move there and retain some level of comfort and style and not just be barely clawing to survival on some desolate rock
> Mars*
Weird autocorrect frick up. Can we send Elon Musk while we’re at it so that he can go plant some hydroponic pea gardens and not be making an ass out of himself on social media?
That's the plot of Gundam
>Let's send the dregs of society to operate a massively expensive and sensitive installation that requires extremely specialized technical knowledge to operate.
They’ll figure it out if it is their survival at stake, it’s mostly drudgery and tedious jobs, and because they’re unfree labor they don’t get to b***h about shitty living conditions and if any lash out the company can just vent their pod to the outside and bring in more penal colonists.
I don’t think most people appreciate just how hard it is to develop a society out of virgin land, and how most of the first-comers from Europe to places like North America and Australia were dregs who were already accustomed to living hard lives
Imo these are superior to prison in most cases
>cuts it off and drives away
Yeah that totally works
there's an alarm when you cut it? unless you mean the foot
>there's an alarm when you cut it?
Oh they upgraded. Yeah back in the day you can just cut it off and walk away.
Lol
Thats really stupid if true
I'm going to assume that you live in a mostly irreligious country. Atheists tend to be consequentialists, and consequentialists are likely to view the justice system as some kind of program that's meant to reduce crime, rather than something that's meant to administer justice.
I think that in the natural course of society the penal system evolves in stages.
The first stage is brutal retributive justice with limited due process. The purpose of this is to get clans and families, religious sects, etc to stop extrajudicial punishments because criminals will be brutally punished by the state. Criminals are punished to appease their victims. Ciminals arent usually imprisoned but are directly contained or fettered by being executed or maimed. Banditry and violence are ever present and investigations either are primitive or resources are stretched too thin for good police work.
The next stage is less brutal retributive justice with a strong focus on due process and investigation of crime and the People/State as the wronged. Society now has strong legal traditions and is more cohesive but there is still the nagging sense that if people go unpunished extrajudicial retribution will return. Cruel and disproportionate punishment is banned but execution is common. Crime still occurs at a moderate rate but people are more easily caught. The purpose of prison contains traces of retribution but deterrence, and containment(in prison) with growing elements of rehabilitation are the main ways the penal system functions.
Finally, some societies reach a level of very high social cohesion, prosperity, and law and order so that criminal behavior becomes rare. Serious crimes are so rare that retribution and even containment become uncomfortable for people to support because they cannot empathize with victims because victims are so rare. Rehabilitation and reduction of economic impact become the main purposes of the penal system.
You could look at this as the American frontier in the 1880s vs 1980s America vs modern Scandinavian penal systems.
It's a mistake to think that a Scandinavian style rehabilitative system can be used in a country with low social cohesion, low clearance rates, and high rates of violent crimes. Doing this invites vigilantism .
>Finally, some societies reach a level of very high social cohesion, prosperity, and law and order so that criminal behavior becomes rare. Serious crimes are so rare that retribution and even containment become uncomfortable for people to support because they cannot empathize with victims because victims are so rare.
I doubt most of this. Italy in the 18th century wasn't exactly the safest place. Neither were France, the UK, or especially the US, but they all saw some of the most critical steps in criminal justice reform. People also empathize with victims just about everywhere, even where justice focuses on containment and rehabilitation.
When and why did we ever stop using prisoners for infrastructure development, anyway? If three square meals and a couple liters of beer a day was good enough for the slaves who built the pyramids, why not for the prisoners who could be repairing roads and digging trenches to install fiber optic cables?
Booba
aqua is dumb goddess and you're a moronic aquagay
Cry about it megu-shit
the idea came from privileged, out of touch liberals who sympathise more with the robber and the rapist than their victims.
This is headcanon
this is cope
This is a poster who needs to dilate.
dilate yourself troony lover leftoid
Have dilation
Liberals
I don't particularly care about this topic but that's a cute aqua
Where are her pants?
She's a prostitute
It's like that in all of Western Europe
In France there's one guy called Jawad Bendaoud.
In 2006, he murdered a 15 years old kid with a machet.
He was sentenced to 8 years in prison, but came out after 6 for "good behavior".
Between his release in 2012 and his becoming famous in 2015, he was convicted 13 times for minor stuff (selling drugs, illegally owning guns, beating his girlfriend...etc) but never went back to prison
Then in 2015, he helped ISIS terrorists in planning the Bataclan terror attack, which killed 200.
He was sentenced to some meaningless 4 years and now he's free and often make shitty tiktok videos
Do civil law codes not have much discretion in sentencing?
Based Napoleon does it again
Hey I recognize that dude
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/tough-guy-entrance
A healthy justice system will
>prepare the corrigible for re-entry into society
>execute the defectives
>cater to society's natural appetite for seeing the wicked suffer through occasional corporal punishments
None of these have to contradict eachother, yet it's rare to find all three together.
based and mostly correct except that preparing the corrigible for re-entry to society comes second to providing justice for the innocent victims.
it doesn't matter if a murderer would become a successful businessman and would never kill again if you gave him a slap on the wrist and a kiss on the forehead.
That murderer should still be put to death as justice for the innocent person he murdered.
Death isn't an act of justice.
You're a moron fed with dumb capeshit movies who doesn't understand what justice is
Justice isn't being righteous and forgiving scum to feel superior
Justice is punishing scum by doing to them what they did to other
Then you become scum once you act like them.
No, you low IQ baboon
Killing someone who killed an innocent isn't the same as killing an innocent
Otherwise jailing people guilty of false imprisonment/abduction is bad because "you're doing the same thing hurr durr"
Detaining someone isn't equivalent to killing them, since death is unique.
Why yes, I spared the guy who murdered my family because if I killed him I'd be just like him
Not an argument.
If the problem is solved I don't see why it isn't. Someone who's dead can't kill again.
Then is summary execution justified?
It can be in exceptional circumstances like some kind of apocalyptic situation where a legitimate trial would simply not be possible. But in general no, it's not reasonable to execute people without some demonstration of guilt, ideally in the form of a fair trial.
What makes execution of any sort justifiable when someone can be incapacitated without further violating human rights or giving the government the power of life and death? Modern prisons aren't exactly easy to escape from.
Because death is more humane than incapacitating someone forever against their will, not just to the convict but to the society that has to support this system.
>or giving the government the power of life and death?
The government already has power over life and death, that's what the monopoly of violence means.
I'm pretty sure most people would choose life in prison over death, unless it was literally lifelong torture.
Governments don't necessarily have the power of life or death over citizens. In countries without the death penalty, the government only has that power in the context of some emergencies like police confrontations, or sending people into possibly life threatening situations in wartime.
And what about the society that has to support this? If prison is basically a hotel then yeah, frick it, why not live in prison forever. But what is the point of supporting these people for the rest of their lives at great expense when those resources are desperately needed elsewhere.
>Governments don't necessarily have the power of life or death over citizens.
There is no country on Earth that does not have the power to kill it's own citizens in the right circumstances, laws only differ in what those circumstances are. So why suddenly be squeamish when it comes to the death penalty?
I've noticed that people who pretend that this is all economic primarily seem concerned when the prospect of something that's about human rights but costs money comes into play. They don't seem to have trouble with expensive things that don't protect human rights, like war or a bloated carceral state. They also presumably wouldn't object to the conduct of a totalitarian state like China, which conducts executions with little hesitation, bills the convict's family for the bullets, and sells the organs.
>There is no country on Earth that does not have the power to kill it's own citizens in the right circumstances, laws only differ in what those circumstances are
Just like how legal systems generally don't forbid all killing or have the same penalty. Depending on the jurisdiction, you can avoid charges if you shoot and kill someone who's clearly trying to kill you, and if you kill someone unintentionally (like if you hit them in response to provocation and they fall and hit their head) you will generally get a much lighter sentence than if you carry out a targeted killing. The death penalty is an act of premeditated killing, while war is (at least in theory, and excepting wars of aggression) a defense of the state in an emergency. Even killing enemy troops who surrender can get you court martialed for war crimes.
You're just shadowboxing with imaginary American republicans, no one said anything about war and the whole premise of my position is that prison populations should be far smaller than they are for prisons to be effective.
>The death penalty is an act of premeditated killing
So it is. Are you a deontologist?
Yes if the person is indeed guilty
The only issue with summary executions is that they sometimes affect innocents
>if you kill him you'll be just like him
Unironic shonen anime-tier philosophy. You are a mental midget.
Also why does this thread have some dude with an almost fetishistic obsession with flogging?
Not an argument.
By your worldview I don't need an argument because my power of friendship is stronger than yours.
You forgot to take your thorazine
Numerous people executed for crimes were later exonerated, ergo, the death penalty is guilty of murdering an innocent, and should therefore be killed, which in civilised places, has been done.
see
CSLewisDoodle used to have a video detailing why rehabilitative justice is worse for the prisoner than punitive justice (one of the arguments was that prisoners under rehabilitation are locked away indefinitely until they're "better" while the alternative has fixed sentences)
I would link it but he privated it long ago.
>prisoners under rehabilitation are locked away indefinitely until they're "better" while the alternative has fixed sentences
Depends on the legal system.
Because most people who commit crimes either are to crazy to care about the punishment or assume that they won’t get caught. With rehabilitation at least you can turn the minor criminals into functioning members of society and maintain a peaceful society easier given that violence is seen as unacceptable no matter what
Begins with the emergence of the managerial class, who only see crime as a statistic and forgo the personal feelings involved.
Nothing wrong with physically torturing violent felons.
t. potential mass murderer
i think it comes from marxist thinking really, that most crime is motivated by class struggle and whatnot. and then all other crime is like psychos and shit so they need rehab too like there is no free will there are circumstances which have led people to become what they are so like punishing it is kinda dumb plus i think with rehab it is less likely they commit crime again