London Explosions - Tubes - Bus
-
maybe. But they would be right this time. David
I'm not sure I understand. Executing a murderer or a mass murderer in public would mean we are evil, as opposed to private execution or lifetime imprisonment?
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Homosexuality in Christianity Judah Himango
-
Do you remember that Scot we English executed back in the early 14th century? And look what happened after that. :rolleyes: Ok, so seriously. Don't give people martyrs, you will be shooting yourself in the foot. You can continue to live in the only country in the civilised world that executes its criminals and the rest of that world will continue to take the moral high ground and look down on you for it. State execution is more costly ($) than life imprisonment. It is purely collective revenge to make unaffected people feel better, and that is sicker than the reason these guys are trying to kill us.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (QT)
<serious> You're right. Public mockery of "the idiot who failed to blow even himself up" would set a hilarious example.:) </serious> "We've replaced Bob's explosives with white phosphorous. Let's see if he notices." Top 10 Geek Resulutions: 5. To decipher what that big room is, which has the blue ceiling and poor climate control.
-
<serious> You're right. Public mockery of "the idiot who failed to blow even himself up" would set a hilarious example.:) </serious> "We've replaced Bob's explosives with white phosphorous. Let's see if he notices." Top 10 Geek Resulutions: 5. To decipher what that big room is, which has the blue ceiling and poor climate control.
-
I'm not sure I understand. Executing a murderer or a mass murderer in public would mean we are evil, as opposed to private execution or lifetime imprisonment?
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Homosexuality in Christianity Judah Himango
Well I can imagine it would make a good reality show :sigh: besides, I think in context of Ray's "death, on tv, so thier compatriots can see what happens when we get pissed off." Does it sound like justice? It sounds more like revenge and some sick demonstration of power (in this context IMHO) to me... To sum it up: Public execution to show them what happen when we get pissed of - WRONG. Execution (or lifetime imprisonment) as commanded by law - RIGHT. Do you understand me better now? btw can somebody finally move this to soapbox? I don't think this is a topic for lounge. David
-
Ray Cassick wrote: Nope, death, on tv, so thier compatriots can see what happens when we get pissed off. Yeah great idea, you are obviously genius! Lets give them their heroic martyrs, murdered by evil us/europeans... X| David
What is the difference between that and what they think of us now anyway?
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
My Blog[^]
-
Why? So we can waste money feeding and storing and guarding them? Nope, death, on tv, so thier compatriots can see what happens when we get pissed off.
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
My Blog[^]
-
Do you remember that Scot we English executed back in the early 14th century? And look what happened after that. :rolleyes: Ok, so seriously. Don't give people martyrs, you will be shooting yourself in the foot. You can continue to live in the only country in the civilised world that executes its criminals and the rest of that world will continue to take the moral high ground and look down on you for it. State execution is more costly ($) than life imprisonment. It is purely collective revenge to make unaffected people feel better, and that is sicker than the reason these guys are trying to kill us.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (QT)
-
What is the difference between that and what they think of us now anyway?
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
My Blog[^]
yes, they think. Now they would see it in our TV. I think that would serve them better then their propaganda. Besides, I am not into execution just to show them something (as you basicaly said). David
-
Do you remember that Scott Aye! 'er Wallace! [sorry couldn't resist :-) love the book & the movie] State execution is more costly ($) than life imprisonment. Really? Got any figures? It is purely collective revenge to make unaffected people feel better It's definitely more than that. The state and the District Attorney's office use it as a bargaining chip often: "Tell us where the other bodies are." "What's in it for me?" "We'll take the death penalty off the table, 25 years to life." "I buried them under David Wulff's mail box." You get the picture. I don't really subscribe to the whole "deterrent" theory, but it is most certainly useful as a DA bargaining chip. Further, for purposeful murders, death is the only just retribution, IMO. Question is (for me, at least), do we hand out a full retribution or something seemingly less just, such as lifetime imprisonment? As a believer in Christ, I lean towards the latter, as Jesus pardoned people sentenced to death by the Law. It's hard to say though, I'm not sure Jesus would pardon all of our criminals, more likely only the ones that were truely repentant, and who's to say which of our criminals are repentant?
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Homosexuality in Christianity Judah Himango
Judah Himango wrote: love the book & the movie I haven't read the book, aside from historic stuff, but I enjoyed the film too. Mel Gibson plays that sort of character very well IMO. Judah Himango wrote: Really? Got any figures? I won't bother giving links because they are ten a penny on Google. Many U.S. states have comissioned recent studies with all finding the costs greater (from 30% to 70%). The cost is higher in the U.S. than anywhere else because of the investigation (3x greater), the trial (16x greater) and the appeals (21x greater) that are typically run for a condemened prisoner. It stands at an average of 3 times the cost of a life term (assuming an average of 40 years per term). Judah Himango wrote: I don't really subscribe to the whole "deterrent" theory The problem with the death penalty as a deterrent is that it only works when the criminal knows they have a concrete 100% chance of being executed if they are caught. (i.e. Singapore where as a result they have about 5 or 6 murders in a bad year - and only 1 in 1998.) With the U.S. system there is a much higher chance a criminal wont be executed, and it renders the whole thing totally useless for that aim. Today the first thing you do if the police arrive while you're still holding the smoking gun is to buy a good doctor. There is another very serious flaw with the whole deterrent argument, and that is that most of the really horrific and multiple murders, rapes, etc are comitted by psychopaths who don't feel any deterrent.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (QT)
-
Now there's a fine example of the "civilised" folks dealing with the "barbarians". I think we need to rise above the terrorists tactics and address the issues rather than start a jihad of our own no?
fakefur wrote: I think we need to rise above the terrorists tactics and address the issues Spoken just liek the UN... So in other words we need to play nice nice with the bullies? How long do we need to take it up the a** before we can fight back? How much are we willing to let a rouge government dictate US policy?
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
My Blog[^]
-
fakefur wrote: I think we need to rise above the terrorists tactics and address the issues Spoken just liek the UN... So in other words we need to play nice nice with the bullies? How long do we need to take it up the a** before we can fight back? How much are we willing to let a rouge government dictate US policy?
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
My Blog[^]
I will refrain from speaking my mind and let the votes your rantings have accumulated speak for themselves. I will ask you one simple question though: What would you do if one day China decided that America was a "rogue state" and part of an "axis of evil" that was plotting it's destruction and decided it would invade to force a "regime change" ?
-
Now there's a fine example of the "civilised" folks dealing with the "barbarians". I think we need to rise above the terrorists tactics and address the issues rather than start a jihad of our own no?
We do not always agree... but this got my 5. :-> David
-
I will refrain from speaking my mind and let the votes your rantings have accumulated speak for themselves. I will ask you one simple question though: What would you do if one day China decided that America was a "rogue state" and part of an "axis of evil" that was plotting it's destruction and decided it would invade to force a "regime change" ?
We have not done anything to provoke them. We have not bombed thier buildings. We have not done a single thing to harm them in any way. How would they justify the first strike? Do not get me wrong here. I am NOT saying that we need to invade anyone first. BUT, if someone pushes us why is it wrong to push BACK?
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
My Blog[^]
-
fakefur wrote: I think we need to rise above the terrorists tactics and address the issues Spoken just liek the UN... So in other words we need to play nice nice with the bullies? How long do we need to take it up the a** before we can fight back? How much are we willing to let a rouge government dictate US policy?
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
My Blog[^]
-
Judah Himango wrote: love the book & the movie I haven't read the book, aside from historic stuff, but I enjoyed the film too. Mel Gibson plays that sort of character very well IMO. Judah Himango wrote: Really? Got any figures? I won't bother giving links because they are ten a penny on Google. Many U.S. states have comissioned recent studies with all finding the costs greater (from 30% to 70%). The cost is higher in the U.S. than anywhere else because of the investigation (3x greater), the trial (16x greater) and the appeals (21x greater) that are typically run for a condemened prisoner. It stands at an average of 3 times the cost of a life term (assuming an average of 40 years per term). Judah Himango wrote: I don't really subscribe to the whole "deterrent" theory The problem with the death penalty as a deterrent is that it only works when the criminal knows they have a concrete 100% chance of being executed if they are caught. (i.e. Singapore where as a result they have about 5 or 6 murders in a bad year - and only 1 in 1998.) With the U.S. system there is a much higher chance a criminal wont be executed, and it renders the whole thing totally useless for that aim. Today the first thing you do if the police arrive while you're still holding the smoking gun is to buy a good doctor. There is another very serious flaw with the whole deterrent argument, and that is that most of the really horrific and multiple murders, rapes, etc are comitted by psychopaths who don't feel any deterrent.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (QT)
David Wulff wrote: The problem with the death penalty as a deterrent is that it only works when the criminal knows they have a concrete 100% chance of being executed if they are caught. there are a few logical flaws in your argument: - if I step in front of a tram I don't have a 100% chance of getting killed, I might even get away with minor injuries, and on a lucky day the driver could stop in time or have a local hero pull me back to safety at the last second. You still won't see me try the trick too often. - even with a 100% chance of being sentenced to death, how that would deter someone who's willing to die in the attempt anyhow? And the list goes on... As far as the Singapore analogy goes, that's also weak. East European countries used to have very good records as well, and while they had the death penalty it was rarely used. But that good record had two different causes: 1. local culture. That includes very tough police control, and "only" 20 years in prison is not that different from capital punishment when it applies to you personally. And when you went to prison for X years there was no chance of getting out earlier than that. 2. freedom of information. Only very few of the statistics were real, for example Romania didn't "officially" have any HIV cases till 1990, at least. Murders were not advertised for a lot of reasons. This even had some good side-effects, like it creates the impression that the police solves almost all of the cases. OGR
-
David Wulff wrote: The problem with the death penalty as a deterrent is that it only works when the criminal knows they have a concrete 100% chance of being executed if they are caught. there are a few logical flaws in your argument: - if I step in front of a tram I don't have a 100% chance of getting killed, I might even get away with minor injuries, and on a lucky day the driver could stop in time or have a local hero pull me back to safety at the last second. You still won't see me try the trick too often. - even with a 100% chance of being sentenced to death, how that would deter someone who's willing to die in the attempt anyhow? And the list goes on... As far as the Singapore analogy goes, that's also weak. East European countries used to have very good records as well, and while they had the death penalty it was rarely used. But that good record had two different causes: 1. local culture. That includes very tough police control, and "only" 20 years in prison is not that different from capital punishment when it applies to you personally. And when you went to prison for X years there was no chance of getting out earlier than that. 2. freedom of information. Only very few of the statistics were real, for example Romania didn't "officially" have any HIV cases till 1990, at least. Murders were not advertised for a lot of reasons. This even had some good side-effects, like it creates the impression that the police solves almost all of the cases. OGR
ogrig wrote: if I step in front of a tram I don't have a 100% chance of getting killed, I might even get away with minor injuries, and on a lucky day the driver could stop in time or have a local hero pull me back to safety at the last second. You still won't see me try the trick too often Eh? How on earth does that translate to being the same as consciously choosing to murder or brutally rape someone? (No really, please explain.) ogrig wrote: 20 years in prison is not that different from capital punishment when it applies to you personally I'll remember that should I ever be facing a 20 year term, and I'll save everyone the bother by killing myself immediately. My god, you were serious... :sigh: ogrig wrote: As far as the Singapore analogy goes, that's also weak Would you care to explain why? (And I mean by actually talking about Singapore, not the reported HIV cases in 1980's Romania.) You might be interested to read this guy's thoughts on crime and punishment[^], capital punishment[^] and human rights[^]. Some of what he discusses was presented above.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (QT)
-
ogrig wrote: if I step in front of a tram I don't have a 100% chance of getting killed, I might even get away with minor injuries, and on a lucky day the driver could stop in time or have a local hero pull me back to safety at the last second. You still won't see me try the trick too often Eh? How on earth does that translate to being the same as consciously choosing to murder or brutally rape someone? (No really, please explain.) ogrig wrote: 20 years in prison is not that different from capital punishment when it applies to you personally I'll remember that should I ever be facing a 20 year term, and I'll save everyone the bother by killing myself immediately. My god, you were serious... :sigh: ogrig wrote: As far as the Singapore analogy goes, that's also weak Would you care to explain why? (And I mean by actually talking about Singapore, not the reported HIV cases in 1980's Romania.) You might be interested to read this guy's thoughts on crime and punishment[^], capital punishment[^] and human rights[^]. Some of what he discusses was presented above.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (QT)
David Wulff wrote: Eh? How on earth does that translate to being the same as consciously choosing to murder or brutally rape someone? (No really, please explain.) It doesn't. It is about only a 100% chance being an efficient deterrent. Sometimes it helps if you read the original message and don't take things out of context. David Wulff wrote: I'll remember that should I ever be facing a 20 year term, and I'll save everyone the bother by killing myself immediately. My god, you were serious... So you are really looking forward to a chance of being sentenced to 20 years in jail? I'm glad you don't know where I live if nothing short of capital punishment stops you. With your "kill all" approach to reality I would be able to sleep at night. David Wulff wrote: Would you care to explain why? (And I mean by actually talking about Singapore, not the reported HIV cases in 1980's Romania.) I just did. Read the message. Local culture and false statistics will make the Singapore figures very unreliable for any kind of comparison. As for the rest, you seem a bit fixated on punishment. Let me remind you: they know where we live and they have guns. Some of them would stop from nothing, even if that means their own death, to blow us up. My first instinct is to try and stop this happening again, saving myself, my family and my friends. If others, strangers to me, are also saved in the process, that's an added bonus. Unfortunately punishment can only be applied after, so it's not very helpful. OGR
-
David Wulff wrote: Eh? How on earth does that translate to being the same as consciously choosing to murder or brutally rape someone? (No really, please explain.) It doesn't. It is about only a 100% chance being an efficient deterrent. Sometimes it helps if you read the original message and don't take things out of context. David Wulff wrote: I'll remember that should I ever be facing a 20 year term, and I'll save everyone the bother by killing myself immediately. My god, you were serious... So you are really looking forward to a chance of being sentenced to 20 years in jail? I'm glad you don't know where I live if nothing short of capital punishment stops you. With your "kill all" approach to reality I would be able to sleep at night. David Wulff wrote: Would you care to explain why? (And I mean by actually talking about Singapore, not the reported HIV cases in 1980's Romania.) I just did. Read the message. Local culture and false statistics will make the Singapore figures very unreliable for any kind of comparison. As for the rest, you seem a bit fixated on punishment. Let me remind you: they know where we live and they have guns. Some of them would stop from nothing, even if that means their own death, to blow us up. My first instinct is to try and stop this happening again, saving myself, my family and my friends. If others, strangers to me, are also saved in the process, that's an added bonus. Unfortunately punishment can only be applied after, so it's not very helpful. OGR
ogrig wrote: It doesn't. It is about only a 100% chance being an efficient deterrent. Sometimes it helps if you read the original message and don't take things out of context. That is exactly what I was referring to with my question - how does the death deterrent in your example at all relate to the death deterrent in capital punishment? It is your comment that is out of context with the topic. I will refrain from making sarcastic comments about how to read, you can use your own. ogrig wrote: With your "kill all" approach to reality I would be able to sleep at night. Again, eh? I want to kill people... of course. :doh: ogrig wrote: I just did. Read the message No you didn't. You appear to have not thought your argument through in your own head yet, or else you are deliberately spinning what you say. Either way if you bothered to read the content I researched and linked for you you will find some insight into the reliability of statistics over recent years. I was asking you specifically about Singapore and the effectiveness of a 100% certainty of death if your one-and-only appeal fails on preventing violent crime. Yes, preventing. Punishment is only a formality because as you've astutely observed the crime has already been committed by that stage. Coupled with harsh punishments for more minor crimes (by our Western standards) crime rates are lower there. That's results applied before, which are very helpful.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (QT)
-
David Wulff wrote: The problem with the death penalty as a deterrent is that it only works when the criminal knows they have a concrete 100% chance of being executed if they are caught. there are a few logical flaws in your argument: - if I step in front of a tram I don't have a 100% chance of getting killed, I might even get away with minor injuries, and on a lucky day the driver could stop in time or have a local hero pull me back to safety at the last second. You still won't see me try the trick too often. - even with a 100% chance of being sentenced to death, how that would deter someone who's willing to die in the attempt anyhow? And the list goes on... As far as the Singapore analogy goes, that's also weak. East European countries used to have very good records as well, and while they had the death penalty it was rarely used. But that good record had two different causes: 1. local culture. That includes very tough police control, and "only" 20 years in prison is not that different from capital punishment when it applies to you personally. And when you went to prison for X years there was no chance of getting out earlier than that. 2. freedom of information. Only very few of the statistics were real, for example Romania didn't "officially" have any HIV cases till 1990, at least. Murders were not advertised for a lot of reasons. This even had some good side-effects, like it creates the impression that the police solves almost all of the cases. OGR
ogrig wrote: - if I step in front of a tram I don't have a 100% chance of getting killed, I might even get away with minor injuries, and on a lucky day the driver could stop in time or have a local hero pull me back to safety at the last second. You still won't see me try the trick too often. What if stepping in front of that tram would get you an easy $500? Or rid you of a nagging wife? Or that "friend" who is getting real insistent about that money you owe him? What if stepping in front of that tram gave you a rush like no other, made you feel powerful, gave you pleasure? You can still say you wouldn't do it. But i can think of a good many people who would...
You must be careful in the forest Broken glass and rusty nails If you're to bring back something for us I have bullets for sale...
-
fakefur wrote: I think we need to rise above the terrorists tactics and address the issues Spoken just liek the UN... So in other words we need to play nice nice with the bullies? How long do we need to take it up the a** before we can fight back? How much are we willing to let a rouge government dictate US policy?
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
My Blog[^]