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.

Strap him to the front of a tank in Iraq and use him as extra armour.

That way you send him home and keep him safe all at the same time (who is going to shoot at a tank with one of your countrymen strapped to it?).

Redbeard wrote:
There are seven billion people on this planet. We have trouble feeding them all as is. That number is expected to grow to 10 billion, or more, by 2050. Do we really need to expend resources on people who are unwilling to abide by the rules of our society to the extent that they kill innocent people? In 2006, 68 billion dollars were spent on imprisoning people. This money could be far better spent on feeding our hungry, educating our children, rebuilding our infrastructure, or simply paying off our national debt.

The only way to do that is by getting rid of the prisoners.

I had a professor that once argued that the penalty for all crimes should be death, and that the number of crimes should be reduced markedly.

In that instance the question becomes: "Is vehicular manslaughter really a crime?"

Redbeard wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I am not in favor of capital punishment, but real prison time (5-10 years, maybe?) and a permanent ban on driving (zero tolerance you go back in prison for life if you violate it) would probably fit. Double the sentence for fleeing the scene of the accident.

There are seven billion people on this planet. We have trouble feeding them all as is. That number is expected to grow to 10 billion, or more, by 2050. Do we really need to expend resources on people who are unwilling to abide by the rules of our society to the extent that they kill innocent people? In 2006, 68 billion dollars were spent on imprisoning people. This money could be far better spent on feeding our hungry, educating our children, rebuilding our infrastructure, or simply paying off our national debt.

The only way to do that is by getting rid of the prisoners.

While I understand the practical arguments, to me the possibility (and historically, significant likelihood) of executing people found guilty erroneously is an unacceptable cost. While imprisoned there is always the possibility of exoneration and getting part of your life back.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I wouldn't give a one way or the other at that point. My reason for existence would be over.

Considering how often you threaten to kill people over trivial nonsense it doesn't really see mas though your reason for existence is your daughter.

I'd love to discuss that in person with you sometime...

mattyrm wrote: I am an equal opportunities hater.

You know an old manager of mine said this all the time, he hated me as well. I learnt a lot from that chap.

Hang em all!

Mr. Burning wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:There's that.

Perhaps, since he was convicted on various occasions of a number of criminal offences, it might have been more convenient for him to be taken from the gaol's door to the airport and shoved on a plane.

Prior convictions are only allowed to be used in certain circumstances (i think).

I think we need to remember that the law works for all of us.

What I mean is that the man should already have been deported on expiry of his visa. Deporting him on completion of his imprisonment would have have saved the trouble of trying to find him, as he would have been already in custody.

Prior convictions are usually not disclosed to the jury, in case it causes them to become biased, but the judge takes them into account when deciding the sentence.

Frazzled wrote:
I'd love to discuss that in person with you sometime...

See, that's an example of what I'm talking about.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Mr. Burning wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:There's that.

Perhaps, since he was convicted on various occasions of a number of criminal offences, it might have been more convenient for him to be taken from the gaol's door to the airport and shoved on a plane.

Prior convictions are only allowed to be used in certain circumstances (i think).

I think we need to remember that the law works for all of us.

What I mean is that the man should already have been deported on expiry of his visa. Deporting him on completion of his imprisonment would have have saved the trouble of trying to find him, as he would have been already in custody.

Prior convictions are usually not disclosed to the jury, in case it causes them to become biased, but the judge takes them into account when deciding the sentence.

Of course, Like a lot of these cases the events need not have happened.

dogma wrote:
I had a professor that once argued that the penalty for all crimes should be death, and that the number of crimes should be reduced markedly.

In that instance the question becomes: "Is vehicular manslaughter really a crime?"

Probably not, but if you're under the influence, it is.

Mannahnin wrote:
While I understand the practical arguments, to me the possibility (and historically, significant likelihood) of executing people found guilty erroneously is an unacceptable cost. While imprisoned there is always the possibility of exoneration and getting part of your life back.

I guess that's where we differ. I view the handful of innocents executed under such a system to be well worth the innocent lives preserved by not having to worry about repeat offences, and having a higher barrier to commit a crime as a result of the greater deterrent. I don't doubt that it will happen, but it's just that the number of innocents executed erroneously will be lower than the number of innocents not killed by criminals. (And, as an aside, the innocents who are accidentally imprisoned tend to be guilty of -something- a lot of the time. The cops don't pick you up near a crime scene in the middle of the night unless you were hanging around crime scenes in the middle of the night...

Redbeard wrote:
Probably not, but if you're under the influence, it is.

Yeah, that's what I figured (hoped?) your answer would be.

I agree. Not necessarily on the idea that DUI equals death, but given the circumstances noted, for sure.

Redbeard wrote:

dogma wrote:
I had a professor that once argued that the penalty for all crimes should be death, and that the number of crimes should be reduced markedly.

In that instance the question becomes: "Is vehicular manslaughter really a crime?"

Probably not, but if you're under the influence, it is.

Mannahnin wrote:
While I understand the practical arguments, to me the possibility (and historically, significant likelihood) of executing people found guilty erroneously is an unacceptable cost. While imprisoned there is always the possibility of exoneration and getting part of your life back.

I guess that's where we differ. I view the handful of innocents executed under such a system to be well worth the innocent lives preserved by not having to worry about repeat offences, and having a higher barrier to commit a crime as a result of the greater deterrent. I don't doubt that it will happen, but it's just that the number of innocents executed erroneously will be lower than the number of innocents not killed by criminals. (And, as an aside, the innocents who are accidentally imprisoned tend to be guilty of -something- a lot of the time. The cops don't pick you up near a crime scene in the middle of the night unless you were hanging around crime scenes in the middle of the night...

If you yourself were subject to execution because of a crime you did not commit or would have warranted a lesser sentence?

Them's the breaks, ain't they. You cannot discount a philosophy because of the off-chance that it might negatively affect you.

Furthermore, from what I've heard of the inside of jails, yeah, I'd probably rather be wrongly executed than wrongly imprisoned.

See, the inside of an (American, at least) jail, is not a nice place. There are gangs, drugs, rapes, violence. And, there's no real effort to change that. The majority of the public don't want to think about jails, and many think that it's a better punishment if the jail is a nasty place too. There's a saying, "no one ever won an election running on a prison reform platform". It's true. So, if I was to be wrongly convicted of something and sent to such a place, I think death would be a faster release than hoping that someone took up my case after the fact and tried to exonerate me.

Being wrongly convicted is pretty terrible either way. I just don't believe death is worse in that situation.

It's great to be enraged and all but at the end of the day I'll be chilling and mellow and nothing will have changed while of you yuppies will have spent energy being mad.

I agree with Gitz though. If we're going to kill people there is absolutely no logical reason not to use any suitable parts. Maybe they could end up causing more good than harm. Some people think this is morbid, but in a thread full of killing advocacy (and I'm going to assume opposition to assisted suicide ) I don't think it should cause too many rifts.

SilverMK2 wrote:Strap him to the front of a tank in Iraq and use him as extra armour.

That way you send him home and keep him safe all at the same time (who is going to shoot at a tank with one of your countrymen strapped to it?).

Dude, they have Friendly Fire as a special rule. It's a racial bonus.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
I'd love to discuss that in person with you sometime...

See, that's an example of what I'm talking about.

You assume much, and all of it incorrectly.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Maybe they could end up causing more good than harm. Some people think this is morbid, but in a thread full of killing advocacy (and I'm going to assume opposition to assisted suicide )

You assume incorrectly in my case.

There's far too many people around. Try driving up the 15 in rush hour traffic and see if you don't agree with me.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:(and I'm going to assume opposition to assisted suicide )

Nope, I'm in favour of assisted suicides too. Pretty much, anything that lowers the population rate, I'm in favour of. I think the number one threat to the planet is the ever increasing number of humans on it.

Anyone who wants to kill themselves likely isn't helping the planet along at that moment either. If we could drop the religious bias of some of our laws we could be so practical. Like a machine. With slaves and women, though that's a little redundant.

Redbeard wrote:

dogma wrote:
I had a professor that once argued that the penalty for all crimes should be death, and that the number of crimes should be reduced markedly.

In that instance the question becomes: "Is vehicular manslaughter really a crime?"

Probably not, but if you're under the influence, it is.

Mannahnin wrote:
While I understand the practical arguments, to me the possibility (and historically, significant likelihood) of executing people found guilty erroneously is an unacceptable cost. While imprisoned there is always the possibility of exoneration and getting part of your life back.

I guess that's where we differ. I view the handful of innocents executed under such a system to be well worth the innocent lives preserved by not having to worry about repeat offences, and having a higher barrier to commit a crime as a result of the greater deterrent. I don't doubt that it will happen, but it's just that the number of innocents executed erroneously will be lower than the number of innocents not killed by criminals. (And, as an aside, the innocents who are accidentally imprisoned tend to be guilty of -something- a lot of the time. The cops don't pick you up near a crime scene in the middle of the night unless you were hanging around crime scenes in the middle of the night...

That is at core a Benthamite argument, and is not without merit as a proposition.

It is therefore necessary to find out the number of murders committed by murderers who finish their sentence and commit more murders after release, and the number of actually innocent people in prison who would be executed.

Without this information, we cannot be sure we would be following the best course in condemning innocent people to death in order to prevent repeat murders.

Assisted suicide is just fine, with proper protections.

Frazzled wrote:
You assume much, and all of it incorrectly.

No, I haven't assumed anything.

I'm merely saying that someone who really considered their daughter as the center of their existence wouldn't threaten other over trivial things. After all, being sentenced to prison tends to deny daughters their fathers.

Unless you don't actually mean anything that you write here, and you're really just massaging your own...masculinity.

Now you're just trying to cover for yourself. Sad really.

I don't know about "massaging my masculinity",but I know that had it been my child who was run down like that,prison be damned...I'd have killed the guy.

dogma wrote:Unless you don't actually mean anything that you write here, and you're really just massaging your own...masculinity.

The point can be made in a better way, wouldn't you agree?

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
You assume much, and all of it incorrectly.

No, I haven't assumed anything.

I'm merely saying that someone who really considered their daughter as the center of their existence wouldn't threaten other over trivial things. After all, being sentenced to prison tends to deny daughters their fathers.

Unless you don't actually mean anything that you write here, and you're really just massaging your own...masculinity.

That is complete BS, because someone loves their daughter more than life they instantly are pacifistic?

FITZZ wrote: I don't know about "massaging my masculinity",but I know that had it been my child who was run down like that,prison be damned...I'd have killed the guy.

Any kids you have are safe Fitzz, as long as you keep that makeup on.

Frazzled wrote:

FITZZ wrote: I don't know about "massaging my masculinity",but I know that had it been my child who was run down like that,prison be damned...I'd have killed the guy.

Any kids you have are safe Fitzz, as long as you keep that makeup on.

It not only keeps my kids safe..it keeps the neighbors off my lawn as well.

FITZZ wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

FITZZ wrote: I don't know about "massaging my masculinity",but I know that had it been my child who was run down like that,prison be damned...I'd have killed the guy.

Any kids you have are safe Fitzz, as long as you keep that makeup on.

It not only keeps my kids safe..it keeps the neighbors off my lawn as well.

YES!

FITZZ wrote: I don't know about "massaging my masculinity",but I know that had it been my child who was run down like that,prison be damned...I'd have killed the guy.

Ditto.

Frazzled wrote:Now you're just trying to cover for yourself. Sad really.

No, covering for myself would involve saying something other than what I initially said. I'm saying the exact same thing I said in my first post regarding this line of inquiry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

corpsesarefun wrote:
That is complete BS, because someone loves their daughter more than life they instantly are pacifistic?

That's not what I said.

I said that if one centers their life on their daughter, then risking one's ability to care for said daughter is reckless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:The point can be made in a better way, wouldn't you agree?

I'm not sure how, other than not making it.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Now you're just trying to cover for yourself. Sad really.

No, covering for myself would involve saying something other than what I initially said. I'm saying the exact same thing I said in my first post regarding this line of inquiry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

corpsesarefun wrote:
That is complete BS, because someone loves their daughter more than life they instantly are pacifistic?

That's not what I said.

I said that if one centers their life on their daughter, then risking one's ability to care for said daughter is reckless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:The point can be made in a better way, wouldn't you agree?

I'm not sure how, other than not making it.

Yep covering. You can't admit when you're wrong can you.