Yes, well, the Japanese seem to be more honorable than the average 'Murican, wouldn't you agree?

Honestly (puts down his red white and blue coffee cup, loosens his eagle themed tie)?  Nah, the place is (and was) just as chock full of dirtballs as this place is, lol.

Per-spective.

If we are drawing parallels, though..the practice (and it's acceptability) was exploited by private individuals and the state as a means to intimidate ones political, financial, and personal rivals into killing themselves.

Anyone wanna take bets on how it would play out as a legitimate part of the us system?

I'm no good at betting. I don't even play the lottery.

*gasp* The horror.

(August 16, 2018 at 12:58 am)Tizheruk Wrote:

(August 16, 2018 at 12:43 am)The Valkyrie Wrote: 1.  The re-offending rate in released offenders does not justify the threat of letting dangerous offenders loose to repeat their barbarous acts.  While there is some success -kudos to you - seriius offenders shouldn't be allowed out.

2.  I'm not justifying physical or psychological abuse or torture.  But I don't see locking up a prisoner, especially a violent repeat offender, as torture.  Of course the prisoner might disagree but we see them playing the victim game all too often.  An example is the piece of shit neo nazi who murdered so many kids in Norway.  A few years ago he complained of inhumane treatment because the authorities wouldn't provide him with an xbox.

3.  Yes thousands of charities and the millions who support them would disagree.  But the tens of millions who voted for the likes of Trump wouldn't.

4.  Good part 2.

5.  Again, who said the victims or their families would get to torture anyone?  And I don't see prison sentence as torture.  In fact many prisoners in the West get better access to food and medical treatment than the average citizen.  Such a shame they're inconvenienced by being jailed for their crimes...

Hypothetical:  Eight year old Tina is walking to school one morning and is attacked by one or more dogs.  She suffers horrible wounds and eventually dies of the wounds.

Should the dogs be put to sleep or smacked on the nose with a rolled up newspaper and told not to do it again?

I hope your answer would be the former.

Now, replace the dogs in the scenario with humans.  They kidnap, rape and torture Tina before killing her.

Should they be treated any differently than the dogs?

Why?

1.And the possibility of re offense is not enough to condemn someone to death or torture who might be saved .

2.Accept it fits definition of torture and one extreme case does not justify that torture 

3. And people who voted for Trump are not even a majority of the populous

5. Access to food and water does not make something not torture. That's  the same logic trumps defenders use to excuse his child prisons .Imprisonment for life is cruel and inhumane .

Your analogy does not work 

1. A dog cannot be held responsible for it's action. 

2.No i don't believe i dog should be killed for an attack it's unfair to hold a dog responsible.

3. I never compare a dog to human for an attack .The same way i would not treat a human who broke their leg the same as horse

---

Why life in prison without parole is the definition of cruel and inhuman treatment 

https://decarceratepa.info/voices/life-w...nhuman-and

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/...other-name

1. You forgot to add "In my opinion". I've already stated I don't agree with torture. I've said it several times. I've also said I don't accept incarceration as torture. But, the number who can be "saved" is too low to justify the risk. Remember, we're talking about rapists, serial killers, murderers, and other serious, usually repeat offenders here.

2. No, I won't accept it just because you say it. You sound like a Christian fundamentalist here...

3. So you're advicating shutting down prisons and letting the offenders all walj free? I didn't say food and water, did I? I said tgey have better access to medical treatmenr and other things many people have to wait a long time for or can't get at all.

My hypothetical is perfectly fine, you just don't want to accept it.

Yes, a dog CAN be held accountable for its actions. They frequently are.


The broken leg comparison is weak.

So we're back to letting the criminals run free after closing the prisons?

(August 16, 2018 at 12:43 am)The Valkyrie Wrote: An example is the piece of shit neo nazi who murdered so many kids in Norway.  A few years ago he complained of inhumane treatment because the authorities wouldn't provide him with an xbox.

Did he get his xbox?

I missed the thing about the xbox, lol.  I think they should have given him one.  Over and over and over...to the face.

See...this is why I'm not in charge of anything!

(August 16, 2018 at 9:16 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(August 15, 2018 at 8:30 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: This.

There are certain crimes, as far as I'm concerned, that are worthy of removal from the planet.

Serial killers.
Terrorists who commit a terrorist act.
Serial rapists.
Serial kiddie fiddlers.
Anyone who commits a murder that results in the prolonged suffering of the victim.
And others...

BUT...

...ther must be absolutely no doubt (and such cases do exist).

If you're not going to have the death penalty then the other penalties need to reflect the severity of the crime.  Life should mean life, not out in ten or twenty years.

If you deliberately murder someone then your prison sentence should result in you leaving in a box.

It seems often that laws are all about the rights of the criminal and not the rights of the victims or their families.

I could rant a lot more but I'll stop here..

I can see an argument for murderers, according to lex talionalis, but rapists?  That seems to run afoul of the cruel and inhuman punishment constraint, and I don't see a way to ethically recommend it.  If you're arguing simply that you would find it emotionally satisfying, that's something else.  As with Amanda, I have the same question about it's rationality and ethicality.  A commonly given example is the man who catches someone raping his daughter, and beats the rapist to death with a baseball bat.  His actions are certainly understandable, and we can empathize with him emotionally, yet at the same time not be willing to endorse his beating the rapist to death as either legal, or an ethically justifiable response to the crime of rape.  I take it Amanda has quit the thread, but I'd have to ask the same question of her that I ask of you.  Is your stance towards serial rapists and kiddie fiddlers an emotional one, like that of the father with the baseball bat, or is it a calmly reasoned response?

---

(August 16, 2018 at 12:43 am)The Valkyrie Wrote: Should they be treated any differently than the dogs?

Why?

Yes, they should. And if you have to ask why, then I question your humanity.

1. I'm talking serial rapists. But I'm open to alternatives. Like life in prison.

2. Question away. The difference is that the humans will get a trial and years of appeals while the dogs won't. But I don't see that the end result should be any different.

(August 16, 2018 at 1:49 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote:

(August 16, 2018 at 9:16 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: I can see an argument for murderers, according to lex talionalis, but rapists?  That seems to run afoul of the cruel and inhuman punishment constraint, and I don't see a way to ethically recommend it.  If you're arguing simply that you would find it emotionally satisfying, that's something else.  As with Amanda, I have the same question about it's rationality and ethicality.  A commonly given example is the man who catches someone raping his daughter, and beats the rapist to death with a baseball bat.  His actions are certainly understandable, and we can empathize with him emotionally, yet at the same time not be willing to endorse his beating the rapist to death as either legal, or an ethically justifiable response to the crime of rape.  I take it Amanda has quit the thread, but I'd have to ask the same question of her that I ask of you.  Is your stance towards serial rapists and kiddie fiddlers an emotional one, like that of the father with the baseball bat, or is it a calmly reasoned response?

---

Yes, they should.  And if you have to ask why, then I question your humanity.

1.  I'm talking serial rapists.  But I'm open to alternatives.  Like life in prison.

You didn't answer the question.