Why? When you are doing such a great job and striving to be a social engineer all at the same time Daniel?

(January 2, 2013 at 4:29 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: But THIS is ok by you fellows??

---

---

Oh yes of course, leave out the first part Deut 22:13-19:

• “If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then hates her and accuses her of misconduct and brings a bad name upon her, saying, ‘I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her evidence of virginity,’ then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate. And the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man to marry, and he hates her; and behold, he has accused her of misconduct, saying, “I did not find in your daughter evidence of virginity.” And yet this is the evidence of my daughter's virginity.’ And they shall spread the cloak before the elders of the city. Then the elders of that city shall take the man and whip him, and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name upon a virgin of Israel. And she shall be his wife. He may not divorce her all his days.

Or maybe you could try Genesis 38:24-26:

• About three months later Judah was told, “Tamar your daughter-in-law has been immoral. Moreover, she is pregnant by immorality.” And Judah said, “Bring her out, and let her be burned.” As she was being brought out, she sent word to her father-in-law, “By the man to whom these belong, I am pregnant.” And she said, “Please identify whose these are, the signet and the cord and the staff.” Then Judah identified them and said, “She is more righteous than I, since I did not give her to my son Shelah.” And he did not know her again.

^ Of course if you don't understand it in context, it may not make sense to you. "BURN HER", "BURN HER!!!!!!"

I don't know where I stand here. I'm against the death penalty for the same reason Creed is. It's impossible, as of right now, to employ an errorless system. Innocent people will and do die by the hands of the death penalty. However, I don't necessarily think the idea of putting people, who are guilty of committing horrible things, to death, is a bad thing.

I hate weak people, who make the choice to put their urges above another person's well-being and I think it may be more beneficial for these people to just be killed off.

But then, I also know people are capable of change. Through rehabilitation, it is possible for someone who was once weak and did cruel things, to become much more, both as a person and a member of society

Indeed!

And people may not be willing to change.

But those who are willing need a helping hand, don't they? You can't expect to just leave them to rot in gaol and expect they will magically rehabilitate themselves, can you??

So aren't they worth investing in?

Thing is Gil, as you so rightly pointed out, we do NOT have a perfect system. And perhaps I am being interpreted as ambiguous, panoptic and gender biased.

What I AM saying is that in some instances , equivalent to the recent violent rape and murder of the young lady in India, SOME perpetrators of these crimes SHOULD face the death penalty.

Pontificating, sanctimonious hypocrites who think that a 2000 year old book and cult is going to stop REPEAT offenders is living in lala land as far as I am concerned since said cult and book support atrocities against females.

If it was YOUR Daughter/ Wife/ Mother ....what would you do/want?

(January 2, 2013 at 5:35 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: What I AM saying is that in some instances , equivalent to the recent violent rape and murder of the young lady in India, SOME perpetrators of these crimes SHOULD face the death penalty.

Why should they not face rehabilitation?

Quote:If it was YOUR Daughter/ Wife/ Mother ....what would you do/want?

I'm a free-thinker so it makes no difference.

(January 2, 2013 at 5:46 am)Gilgamesh Wrote:

(January 2, 2013 at 5:35 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: What I AM saying is that in some instances , equivalent to the recent violent rape and murder of the young lady in India, SOME perpetrators of these crimes SHOULD face the death penalty.

Why should they not face rehabilitation?

In the case of the mutilation of the Indian lady I would say no rehabilitation is applicable. From what I heard and read it was a pretty brutal and violent death.

In OTHER instances, IF rehabilitation had failed then yes...death. Or Castration either way.

(January 2, 2013 at 5:46 am)Gilgamesh Wrote:

Quote:If it was YOUR Daughter/ Wife/ Mother ....what would you do/want?

I'm a free-thinker so it makes no difference.

Ah I see. Not as old as I am then?

(January 1, 2013 at 10:39 pm)Aractus Wrote:

(January 1, 2013 at 8:37 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Bullshit. By that logic, giving birth (or getting pregnant) is just sentencing the baby to death after a number of years of life. Dying naturally is a "sentence" that we already carry, so it cannot be imposed on us again by some judge or any other person.

There is a difference between sentencing someone to confinement for the rest of their life, and sentencing someone to an unnatural death by means of execution...a massive difference.

Arguing against yourself!

Good spot. Unfortunately it was just an editing error where I removed part of a quote (just the wrong part). The words in the quote are actually those of CapnAwesome.

Ah shucks, no torture? Too bad. My first impulse toward those thug rapists in India is to get the anvil and hammer ready. Of course, the problem with preventing an imperfect and too often biased or even corrupt system of justice from implementing extreme sentences on the wrong people would prevent my signing off on torture any more than I can on the death penalty. It just galls me to provide these monsters with three hots and a cot after they've inflicted so much damage on another human being.

Well if death and torture are off the table, how about indentured servitude with all income going to the family of the victim? The work would not have to be physically difficult and potentially dangerous, though clearly some of us would really appreciate that.

(January 2, 2013 at 7:23 am)Tiberius Wrote: Good spot. Unfortunately it was just an editing error where I removed part of a quote (just the wrong part). The words in the quote are actually those of CapnAwesome.

Yes I know, but I still found it funny. Your actual post was good though.

---

(January 2, 2013 at 8:26 am)whateverist Wrote: Ah shucks, no torture? Too bad. My first impulse toward those thug rapists in India is to get the anvil and hammer ready. Of course, the problem with preventing an imperfect and too often biased or even corrupt system of justice from implementing extreme sentences on the wrong people would prevent my signing off on torture any more than I can on the death penalty. It just galls me to provide these monsters with three hots and a cot after they've inflicted so much damage on another human being.

Well if death and torture are off the table, how about indentured servitude with all income going to the family of the victim? The work would not have to be physically difficult and potentially dangerous, though clearly some of us would really appreciate that.

Ah how irrational your futile emotional guidance system is. First "kill them" next "torture them" then "enslave them". I suppose next you'll try and explain to me how you're anti-slavery.

If a friend of yours has hurt their spouse, let's say by having an affair and has left that person emotionally torn, do you suddenly decide upon whether he/she should be: 1. killed, 2. tortured, 3. enslaved, or in some other way victimized? Does it make a difference to you? Do you have a right to punish them for that? Imprisonment is the punishment for rape. You guys that want to add more and more punishments seem to have a deep-seeded engrained hatred and anger towards your fellow man that I for one find disturbing, somewhat offensive and hypocritical, and above all else morally and ethically intangible. But carry on.