Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Emperors Faithful wrote:No I believe that if you personally go and rip someones eye out, you should forfeit your own as a result. (and further measures should be taken if you show signs of repeating the offence).

I do not believe this is applicable if you trip and accidently poke someones eye out. (Though you should be liable to pay for their hospital fees etc.)

That is good, but your second statement is not what "an eye for an eye" means.

I was trying to point out that 'an eye for an eye' is not always applicable, in the case of accidents. I meant to say that 'an eye for an eye' is not the be all and end all of the justice system.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I was trying to point out that 'an eye for an eye' is not always applicable, in the case of accidents.

Well, yeah, it isn't used to detail what the proper response to an accident is. It is a line of reasoning for criminal punishment, which may have some importance here, but I can't be sure.

I was trying to point out it's unfairness if applied to crimes such as mansluaghter or injuries from accidents.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I find it really pretty silly to say that killing an innocent person is some sort of super-crime, but forcing them to die in prison is an acceptable evil.

As dogma said, you're never going to have anything completely fool-proof. The standard you're holding the death penalty to is illogical.

I find it frightening how easily you would condemn an innocent man to die, just so you can also get to kill all the guilty ones. Under the system many people here are advocating, wouldn't it also be "just" and "fair" to execute the jury who convicted a man who was later found innocent? After all, there's no guaranteee they won't do it again. It's an exaggeration of course, but surely someone must pay with his life for the unjustified killing?

My entire point is that since it's not fool-proof, we shouldn't allow fools to mess with it at all. And I wouldn't call that illogical.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I was trying to point out it's unfairness if applied to crimes such as mansluaghter or injuries from accidents.

You were trying to point out that an eye for an eye has so many intrinsic failings that the principle cannot function.

sebster wrote:Celebrity culture probably plays a part in that instance, but not every drink driving fatality involves a celebrity. I think drinking way too much and driving way too fast are bigger issues.

Most drunk driving deaths aren't caused by cars going a hundred miles an hour though, either.

It's not a matter of simply drinking too much (which is fine, and legal, if unhealthy at times) or having a fast far (which can be driven legally, under some circumstances, and is not hurting anyone else when simply driving 55 on a freeway). It's a matter of having combined the two, which really should not be combined. Water and electricity aren't the problems when a person drops a hairdryer into their bathtub. It's the person having ignored their own safety (but, in this case, they've also ignored the safety of others).

glory wrote:I find it frightening how easily you would condemn an innocent man to die, just so you can also get to kill all the guilty ones. Under the system many people here are advocating, wouldn't it also be "just" and "fair" to execute the jury who convicted a man who was later found innocent? After all, there's no guarantee they won't do it again. It's an exaggeration of course, but surely someone must pay with his life for the unjustified killing?

My entire point is that since it's not fool-proof, we shouldn't allow fools to mess with it at all. And I wouldn't call that illogical.

I would. Say that 1% of the people executed by the death penalty were actually innocent. Let's also say 5% of the people who are imprisoned for life - and serve the entire sentence - were actually innocent. Let's also say the death penalty costs a fifth as much.

By your logic, the death penalty should still be abolished, simply because of the possibility of it going wrong, regardless of how slim that possibility is, or what the possibility of the alternative going wrong is. Meanwhile, no other sentence is held to this standard; I just don't understand how death is so much different. Or maybe you're trying to say something else entirely, and I'm misunderstanding you.

I don't really know where you're going with the jury thing; I suppose I could see the death penalty being applied in extreme cases (i.e. framing someone, making it first degree murder), but I don't know that there's widespread support for killing people who have killed another by accident, especially one they're not at fault in.

dogma wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I was trying to point out it's unfairness if applied to crimes such as mansluaghter or injuries from accidents.

You were trying to point out that an eye for an eye has so many intrinsic failings that the principle cannot function.

I'm not saying that. Did you even read my post?

I'm saying that there are situations where 'an eye for an eye' is entirely applicable, and that there are also situations where it wouldn't work.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
I'm saying that there are situations where 'an eye for an eye' is entirely applicable, and that there are also situations where it wouldn't work.

I read it, and didn't derive that meaning from the text. Seems like an obvious notion.

@Kanluwen

morons here stating that rape shouldn't be a death penalty offense

You sound a little hysterical here - climb down from your high-horse. My point was that rape cases are not cut-and-dried, and not as easy to detect as 'Murder by Blunt Object To The Head', for example . You've just spent a page arguing the same point in a roundabout way.

found something on thejusticecenter.org:

The United States now stands alone with countries such as Cuba, China, Egypt,
and Saudi Arabia in authorizing the death penalty for non-homicide rape.

As you can see, America is in sparkling company.... So, what you're saying is that the rest of the world is WRONG on this issue, and that you, China (which also executes tax-evaders), Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Cuba are RIGHT?


And you say I'M a moron?

Where the hell did that come from Albatross?

@wrex - It was in response to Kanluwen being, quite frankly, a bit of a rude bastard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
fixed it!

I understand the concern of executing an innocent man, but how much more common is it that a paroled murderer kills someone else after they get out?
It could be an interesting statistic to look into.

Albatross wrote:found something on thejusticecenter.org:

The United States now stands alone with countries such as Cuba, China, Egypt,
and Saudi Arabia in authorizing the death penalty for non-homicide rape.

As you can see, America is in sparkling company.... So, what you're saying is that the rest of the world is WRONG on this issue, and that you, China (which also executes tax-evaders), Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Cuba are RIGHT?

He doesn't have to, it's perfectly possible for both groups of countries (there are 16 that have it by the way, not just the 5 you mentioned) to have chosen what's best under their circumstances.

So how do you know that those countries are WRONG about their domestic policy?

Albatross wrote:@Kanluwen

morons here stating that rape shouldn't be a death penalty offense

You sound a little hysterical here - climb down from your high-horse. My point was that rape cases are not cut-and-dried, and not as easy to detect as 'Murder by Blunt Object To The Head', for example . You've just spent a page arguing the same point in a roundabout way.

found something on thejusticecenter.org:

The United States now stands alone with countries such as Cuba, China, Egypt,
and Saudi Arabia in authorizing the death penalty for non-homicide rape.

As you can see, America is in sparkling company.... So, what you're saying is that the rest of the world is WRONG on this issue, and that you, China (which also executes tax-evaders), Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Cuba are RIGHT?


And you say I'M a moron?

Okay, since you want to play it like this...

Rape IS a clear-cut case.
It's having sex with someone against their will.
Period. End of story. Is that too complicated or do you want me to draw you a picture with crayons?

Yes, there are times where rape is used as a tool by women to get back at former partners. And hey, guess what?

If found out, those women then face charges for filing false reports.

And as for your earlier statement about the statutory rape...
Guess what?
It's rarely prosecuted unless you get...what?
Oh right. A large age gap(3+ years), a victim under the age of 16, or a perpetrator over the age of 18. Also you'll get things like ohhh...slowed 15 year olds creating sex tapes, 18 year olds screwing underage minors on film, etc. In which case, hey. They're FORCED to prosecute for child pornography AND statutory rape, at the very least.

@ your point about the death penalty...

When was the last time anywhere outside of the US, China, Cuba, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia had a trial that ended with a death penalty verdict?
I'm quite serious about this. Because you never hear about protests against Britain putting down a serial rapist or Ireland having put down a murderer.

You got it wrong Kan. When a little girl is ripped open and bleeding down there and requires stitches are we still sure it's rape? Maybe it happened while she was riding a horse or playing on the trampoline. That white stuff in her pubic region? That's not sperm, it must be baby lotion.

Like Kan said, to be called a rapist would be horrible as hell but when was the last time a man got sent to prison for rape when he didn't do it. I'd say every single rape case that has been proven bs has been called out or the "victim" recanted.

Umm, the Duke lacrosse players, that girl a few weeks back who someone had taped on their iphone consenting to sex with 4 men. There are ways to verify rape, especially in the case of teens or preteens. I've heard of men falsely accused of molesting a little boy or girl but it takes a doctor 5 minutes to determine for his or herself. It'd probably even be quite obvious to anyone of us if a preteen was penetrated by a full grown male.

The Duke Lacrosse case was a friggin' joke. It only went to trial because Nifong futzed the details in an attempt to get reelected.
Thank God he's gone, and last I heard got disbarred.

I'm actually sharing your opinion. I hope you realize that.

Oh, I do. I just hate the Duke case. We had to watch it nonstop for my Criminal Law class, and write reports on what was going on the whole time.

I hate anything I have to do reports on (well except 40k but started after HS so never had a chance really).

A bit of info on repeat offenders.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivism


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A bit of info on repeat offenders.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivism

I guess the thing to do now is find out how many people were convicted of murder, apply that 1.2% talked of and compare it the the number of people theoretically mistakenly executed and see which number is greater.

Seems a good a reason as any to execute child rapists.

Kanluwen wrote:
Rape IS a clear-cut case.
It's having sex with someone against their will.
Period. End of story. Is that too complicated or do you want me to draw you a picture with crayons?

OK, maybe we didn't agree. What is will?





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:
Like Kan said, to be called a rapist would be horrible as hell but when was the last time a man got sent to prison for rape when he didn't do it. I'd say every single rape case that has been proven bs has been called out or the "victim" recanted.

Yes, which further explains why the death penalty should not be applied in the case of rape.

dogma wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Rape IS a clear-cut case.
It's having sex with someone against their will.
Period. End of story. Is that too complicated or do you want me to draw you a picture with crayons?

OK, maybe we didn't agree. What is will?

Is there another definition I'm missing of rape?


It's the act of forcing oneself, sexually, onto an unaccepting partner.

Kanluwen wrote:
Is there another definition I'm missing of rape?


It's the act of forcing oneself, sexually, onto an unaccepting partner.

Well, duh. What is acceptance, and how do we prove it?

More importantly, what is the result of willful action? Is a drunk man under the auspice of his will?

Are we going to get into this argument again?

If a person was drugged, forcibly intoxicated, intimidated with threats of violence against themselves or loved ones--

Any acceptance is null and void, and should be considered coerced.

dogma wrote:Is a drunk man under the auspice of his will?

Oh you!

Kanluwen wrote:Are we going to get into this argument again?

If a person was drugged, forcibly intoxicated, intimidated with threats of violence against themselves or loved ones--

Any acceptance is null and void, and should be considered coerced.

Why? If I say "You should have a drink." to a girl, am I coercing her?

Orkeosaurus wrote:Most drunk driving deaths aren't caused by cars going a hundred miles an hour though, either.

It's not a matter of simply drinking too much (which is fine, and legal, if unhealthy at times) or having a fast far (which can be driven legally, under some circumstances, and is not hurting anyone else when simply driving 55 on a freeway). It's a matter of having combined the two, which really should not be combined. Water and electricity aren't the problems when a person drops a hairdryer into their bathtub. It's the person having ignored their own safety (but, in this case, they've also ignored the safety of others).

I think we're getting away from the point here. What I'm saying is that what really matters is that people were killed in a drunk driving incident. Our priority should be on stopping such incidents in the future, and the extremity of the punishment has little to no effect on that. What will stop future deaths is changing the drinking culture and changing the revhead culture.

Kanluwen wrote:Okay, since you want to play it like this...

Rape IS a clear-cut case.
It's having sex with someone against their will.
Period. End of story. Is that too complicated or do you want me to draw you a picture with crayons?

I'm not sure how experienced you are, but I can tell you that there is a common dynamic where the man will try and talk the girl into having sex. Exactly where persuasion stops and intimidation begins is a very vague, subjective line, especially when one or both parties have been drinking. And that these cases make up the overwhelming majority of rapes.

As long as you keep pretending rape consists entirely of men in dark alleys with balaclavas and paedophilia you can keep pretending all rape is cut and dry. But in the real world its a very difficult, very subjective issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:Are we going to get into this argument again?

If a person was drugged, forcibly intoxicated, intimidated with threats of violence against themselves or loved ones--

Any acceptance is null and void, and should be considered coerced.

If one or both parties being drunk means any consent ... then just about 80% of sex is rape, with both parties raping each other.


There's also the issue that requiring express consent simply isn't practical. "Excuse me, do I have consent to place my hand on your inner thigh?" "Excuse me, do I have consent to place my hand under your shirt?"

sebster wrote:I think we're getting away from the point here. What I'm saying is that what really matters is that people were killed in a drunk driving incident. Our priority should be on stopping such incidents in the future, and the extremity of the punishment has little to no effect on that. What will stop future deaths is changing the drinking culture and changing the revhead culture.

I think leveling more severe punishments for basic drunk driving could help to reduce accidents; especially for multiple offenses.

I agree that making the punishments very severe once something actually happens isn't going to be as helpful, though. The drivers usually aren't expecting to hit someone; they think they're exceptional, etc. So, in that regard, I don't think executing the footballer would really be a good idea.