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.

Yeah or needling if your American, i guess its the same thing though eh?

EVERYONE OFF THE PERSONAL STUFF NOW or I am closing this thread and putting out supensions. Seriously.

Frazzled wrote:MODQUISITION ON EVERYONE OFF THE PERSONAL NOW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Yeah see his absurd reply to me in the thread below.. he either has an IQ of 65 or he is doing it on purpose cos he likes to bait people. And you can tell the guy isnt an idiot, ergo Its called "winding someone up" and can be most amusing, so try not to get upset, i dont like to see anyone getting banned or anything over a war of words.

It's called needling. Its a form of underhanded debate tactic which just happens to work wonderfully against an entrenched position built largely on a moral highground rather than a foundation of fact or logic. It's similar to the rope a dope of Rocky fame, except it's in a fight without rings and weakness the opposition shows can be exploited by others.

Thts also why you have been suspended three times.

At least most of my arguments are based in non racist, non homophobic, non jingoistic impartial reality (not stating thats happening here, it's not). I drop to the level of the lowest common denominators when an actual well written response would just be ignored specifically because normal debate doesn't work any more in such cases. I haven't really been needling relapse here, he's just incredibly involved emotionally and has posted nothing possessing any sort of logic or evidence, instead choosing to simply reiterate that pedophiles are scary evil people. What am I supposed to do when interacting with him again?

Besides, you yourself are hardly innocent of needling mister frazzled.

mattyrm wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and Killkrazy, englighten me as to how it does not work?

It is a proven fact that crime falls when penalties are more severe.

It isn't.

Crime is too complex a social phenomenon, arising from a wide variety of causal factors, to be easily solved by one severe punishment.

In fact, the opposite is the case. Though its more complicated than simply saying the severity of a punishment has no effect on the rate at which a crime is committed. Start punishing drug possession with death, and the rate of drug possession will likely fall. However, the same is not true for crimes that generally have motivations which run deeper than a desire to get high, or something similar (pedophilia being such an offense).

Multiple studies from around the world have shown that stronger punishments lower the repeat offender pool, but crime remains at a relative constant. It has been shown however that social support for communities (such as sports halls, youth centres, mature education centres) have a possitive effect, lowering crime rates.

Am I in favour of capital punishment? - With the greatest respect to those that are;- No

Dunno, killing someone will sure mean they won't repeat their crime.

Now if we are talking Freddy Krueger or Jason Voorhees than not so much, in fact it'll just piss them off.

Dunno, killing someone will sure mean they won't repeat their crime.

Realistically thats all it does to effect crime statistics.

So see, it works!

Fateweaver wrote:So see, it works!

About as well as life imprisonment, for more money. Considerably less effective than effectual modern rehabilitation methods.

I meant it works on the perps committing the crimes.

Unless a real life Jason Voorhees starts stalking our streets it will continue to work.

In the case of child rapists a dead man can't rape, can he?

I meant it works on the perps committing the crimes.

You can stop crime by killing people from minorities and areas with high related crime statistics too. You'd probably stop more crimes than you word with increased prevalence of the death penalty considering most convicted criminals eligible but not given the death penalty don't ever go back to the streets.

I'd execute for cheap. A case of beer and compensation for any ammo I expended.

That would cost tax payers $25 maybe.

Fateweaver wrote:
In the case of child rapists a dead man can't rape, can he?

No, but he didn't just appear out of nowhere. If you never address the cause there will always be more child rapists to replace the ones you kill.

The cause is them being alive.

You're not looking at the big picture, dogma.

I'd execute for cheap. A case of beer and compensation for any ammo I expended.

The execution isn't what's expensive. It's the trial and appeals process, which is necessary to make sure that you're killing the right man for cheap.

Unless you believe it is better for a hundred innocent men to die than for one guilty man to walk free.

Kilkrazy wrote:Unless you believe it is better for a hundred innocent men to die than for one guilty man to walk free.

KK that statement was just stupid. I am not the biggest fan of the big DP, and I don't mean Doctor Pepper, but I can't believe you made that statement, and as far as I can tell, being deadly serious. If you say that, you leave the door open for cheap shots from the other side as well....

ShumaGorath wrote:

I'd execute for cheap. A case of beer and compensation for any ammo I expended.

The execution isn't what's expensive. It's the trial and appeals process, which is necessary to make sure that you're killing the right man for cheap.

I'm betting the medicine they use in the needle style execution costs a lot more than a case of beer and a .45ACP round. Good God, 20 anti-strep pills cost me $80 from the doctor.

Yeah KK, that was so uncharacteristic of you to say that. I hope you don't truly believe people believe that?

It is exaggeration for dramatic effect.

Clearly there aren't 100 unjust executions for every just one, but even one is too many.

Fateweaver wrote: I hope you don't truly believe people believe that?

I've met people that do indeed believe that. In fact its essentially China's philosophy with respect to the justice system.

I don't look to China as a model for anything.

I only acknowledge China exists because the US is selling out to them (I swear that 2/3rd's of all toys I see in stores are stamped "Made in China").

I, contrary to what others might say, do not believe what KK said. I don't want innocent people to die but when someone is found guilty of a heinous crime (and rape and child murder are heinous) they don't deserve to live.

I also think when someone is caught red handed doing something they shouldn't get a trial as it's obvious they are guilty. If a security camera catches you in the act of raping someone and it's 100% certain that it's you on that tape it is case closed, open and shut. Die. End of.

I'm for fair trial if it is uncertain but when all the evidence is there (and not just circumstantial) and it is 100% irrefutable and they committed a crime deemed to be heinous even by society (such as rape or child murder) they should die. End of.

Rehab doesn't work on sex offenders. It is why sex offenders are monitored and kept track of. Which begs the question.

If sex offenders are rehabilitated why are they meant to register their whereabouts and are not allowed to do certain activities. Thieves and drug dealers might have a PO after getting out of jail but don't have to register in some database letting others know that they were in for drugs or robbing a liquor store so apparently the courts feel they can trust those perps enough to not keep them under surveillance.

I mean if I didn't feel someone was safe enough to let back into society I sure as hell am not going to let them out back into society.

As a note of interest:

China recently executed the first European to have been put to death there in 50 years, for drug smuggling.

Fateweaver wrote:
I, contrary to what others might say, do not believe what KK said. I don't want innocent people to die but when someone is found guilty of a heinous crime (and rape and child murder are heinous) they don't deserve to live.

There's a difference between wanting innocents to die, and accepting that innocents will die. KK's example relates to the latter.

Obviously the justice system will never be perfect. The question is the extent to which you're willing to accept the inevitable imperfections. China is quite willing, the US is less so, and obviously there are variances within each of those groups.

Fateweaver wrote:
I also think when someone is caught red handed doing something they shouldn't get a trial as it's obvious they are guilty. If a security camera catches you in the act of raping someone and it's 100% certain that it's you on that tape it is case closed, open and shut. Die. End of.

See, now you sound like you endorse something worse than the Chinese justice system. You might not look to them as a model for anything, but even they would hold a trial in such a matter.

Fateweaver wrote:
I'm for fair trial if it is uncertain but when all the evidence is there (and not just circumstantial) and it is 100% irrefutable and they committed a crime deemed to be heinous even by society (such as rape or child murder) they should die. End of.

There is always room for error. That point can never be stressed enough.

Surely if the only realistic way to be sure that someone is 100% guilty is by presenting said video to the court no?

I do not think the issue of whether or not people are entitled to a fair trail is at issue here. They clearly should have a fair and just trial, regardless of what they are accused of. To think different is, quite simply, utter lunacy.

When it has been verified that the person is indeed guilty of said atrocities (IMO only possible through a fair trial) then what should follow is a different matter...

The death penalty has been shown not to work, repeat offenders of serious crimes are low due to a high catch rate and high imprisonment percentage, but people are murdered and people are raped all the time, an aggresor does not think of the consequences and penelties to his/her (usually his) actions, all they think about is action they are commiting. and on top of that most death row inmates live longer than they would inside a normal prison (especially in the case of pedophiles). capital punishment didn't work in 1700's and it doesn't work now.

I think we should do it just like in The Running Man.

Lots o' fun.

BluntmanDC wrote: on top of that most death row inmates live longer than they would inside a normal prison (especially in the case of pedophiles). capital punishment didn't work in 1700's and it doesn't work now.

So you're saying our prison system is so flawed that people that have only been sentenced to incarceration will be murdered more quickly than we can execute someone our courts deem guilty and deserving of death? This seems like more of a reason to reform the appeals process than it does to do away with an official death sentence. If our prisons are so bad that a criminal has a lower survival rate in them than they do on death row, we need to speed up our execution procedures or make our prisons safe. Allowing inmates to take justice into their hands is the very definition of cruel and unusual punishment.

Death by sharpened toothbrush and coat hanger stabbing (or whatever the murderous inmate is using these days) is far more cruel than even the most outlandish execution ideas proposed in this thread.

I don't believe many of the supporters of capital punishment favor it for its deterrence ability. It is simply the only thing to do for people that are unfit for society and never will be, in the opinion of a judge and a jury of their peers. If all an execution prevents are the 2 or 3 rapes or murders an individual will commit when he gets paroled, I'm quite comfortable with that. Mission accomplished.

Why are pedophiles being singled out in this thread? A rapist or molester is an individual that gets their kicks out of dominating others and is incapable of recognizing another person's right to free will. Such a person has no place in society, whether they rape children, women, or men. They may have a mental illness, but this isn't a chemical imbalance. There's no anti-rapist or molester pill. These are individuals that do not recognize humans as having any inherent value greater than their own pleasure.
If this trait can be identified and it can be shown that someone is acting on that impulse, they cannot be allowed to ever roam free.

Gitzbitah wrote:

BluntmanDC wrote: on top of that most death row inmates live longer than they would inside a normal prison (especially in the case of pedophiles). capital punishment didn't work in 1700's and it doesn't work now.

So you're saying our prison system is so flawed that people that have only been sentenced to incarceration will be murdered more quickly than we can execute someone our courts deem guilty and deserving of death? This seems like more of a reason to reform the appeals process than it does to do away with an official death sentence. If our prisons are so bad that a criminal has a lower survival rate in them than they do on death row, we need to speed up our execution procedures or make our prisons safe. Allowing inmates to take justice into their hands is the very definition of cruel and unusual punishment.

The increased life expectance is due to the long applies process and living in seperate, single cells, with low to no interaction with other inmates.

Gitzbitah wrote:Why are pedophiles being singled out in this thread? A rapist or molester is an individual that gets their kicks out of dominating others and is incapable of recognizing another person's right to free will. Such a person has no place in society, whether they rape children, women, or men. They may have a mental illness, but this isn't a chemical imbalance. There's no anti-rapist or molester pill. These are individuals that do not recognize humans as having any inherent value greater than their own pleasure.
If this trait can be identified and it can be shown that someone is acting on that impulse, they cannot be allowed to ever roam free.

Actually there is a 'pill', the medical treatment of chemical castration. on the point of punishment, there are two types of offenders: ones that can be rehabilitated, they should serve their time and we should help them start a new life free of crime; and ones that can't be helped, they should be locked up. keeping these two groups seperate is the key to lower repeat offender rates. the reason i used the pedophile for an example is that even criminals don't like them and if they are introduced into the main population they don't last long, which i feel is the prosecutions way of getting the death sentance without the appeals process.

From the evidence found by goverment and free bodies it is clear that increases in the death penalty do not decrease crime rates. As most murders are commited by people that know the victim and are performed with a motive, murderers are actually less likely to murder again that other convicts, if given support.