»

[Glaucus]

Maybe he's not a criminal.

Aha! So there's more to it then just the fear of punishment that prevents one from stealing! You see, if it was just the deterrent of punishment that stopped people from stealing, and if, as Accyd claims, the prisons are more like holiday resorts and thus providing little to no deterrent, then it stands to reason that he should be stealing cars. But, as you pointed out he's not a criminal, and for reasons other then the deterrent of prison. Make sense?

Oh, and btw, statistically, most thefts are crimes of opportunity - which means even non-criminals will steal if given the opportunity to do so and get away with it.

- Mike

[Glaucus]

We have to assume that the justice system works and those that are convicted have committed the crime. Otherwise the whole basis for our criminal system is flawed, is that what you are arguing?

Well of course it's flawed! What, you think it's perfect?!? Show me something that's government run and I'll show you something that's fundamentally flawed. Therefore, we have to assume the opposite, that our legal system will fail repeatedly (as it clearly does) and we have to be careful how we treat those convicted, as some of them will be falsly convicted.

- Mike

[Glaucus]

What about this mans victims? How do you think they feel?? I would hazard a guess that they would completely agree with the treatment of this man.

If it stops further crimes from being committed then yes it is a good idea.

Well, Stalin, Hitler and Saddam seemed to think so as well. At least now we know where you stand.

It is a stupid assumption to make.

Well then why not answer my question? If it's okay to treat Iraqi thieves like this, would you support this type of treatment for suspected British thieves in the UK? The reason I made that statement is because I sense a strong double standard. I don't think you care much about those Iraqis, and in fact, I believe if they shot the guy in the head you'd probably still be defending your troops.

I can now understand how the German people were so "blind" to the attrocities of their SS. People can easily not see what they do not want to see.

- Mike

[T_Bone]

Glaucus wrote:

Aha! So there's more to it then just the fear of punishment that prevents one from stealing! You see, if it was just the deterrent of punishment that stopped people from stealing, and if, as Accyd claims, the prisons are more like holiday resorts and thus providing little to no deterrent, then it stands to reason that he should be stealing cars. But, as you pointed out he's not a criminal, and for reasons other then the deterrent of prison. Make sense?

Sure, but that's only relevant to the people who arn't criminals. Everyone that's a criminal, will only be deterred by the threat of being caught. The criminals who are succesfully deterred remain in society, either waiting to take a chance if they see one arise, or resisting temptation. The rest, we catch.

Oh, and btw, statistically, most thefts are crimes of opportunity - which means even non-criminals will steal if given the opportunity to do so and get away with it.

Those are the people deterrants are meant for. those opportunists would all comit crime, statistically, if there were no deterrant.

[T_Bone]

Glaucus wrote:

Well of course it's flawed!

What's flawed?

What, you think it's perfect?!? Show me something that's government run and I'll show you something that's fundamentally flawed. Therefore, we have to assume the opposite,

So, you're saying, "innocent untill AND after proven guilty by a court of law."
Somehow I don't see the improvement.

that our legal system will fail repeatedly (as it clearly does) and we have to be careful how we treat those convicted, as some of them will be falsly convicted.

Shouldn't the attention be paid to who we convict instead, if that's where the alleged problem is? Your solution just tries to mask a symptom, rather than solve a problem.

[T_Bone]

Glaucus wrote:

Not true actually. The man in the photo of a UK soldier peeing on an Iraqi was a simple thief, not a murderer or rapist or torturer, perhaps not even an Islamic extremist or Baathist, just a simple thief caught by the UK forces. Is that justified? - or do you, like Wolfe, consider all Arabs/Muslims terrorists?

- Mike

Of course it wasn't justified. If Wolfe said it was, I'm sure it was just a conditioned reflex because he smelled the same old same old left setup being laid out like a trap..."The US is wrong about the war and everything it stands for because of isolated incident X" :-)

[mdwh2]

AccyD wrote:

We have to assume that the justice system works and those that are convicted have committed the crime. Otherwise the whole basis for our criminal system is flawed, is that what you are arguing?

No, the point is that we shouldn't add in additional bits to the punishment because they "deserve" it or whatever.

Fine, do the bare minimum to prevent people from reoffending (eg, prison) - at this point we accept the risk that people may be wrongly convicted - but more severe punishments such as the death sentence or harsher prisons do nothing of any extra benefit, but come with increased cost if there is the risk of innocents being wrongly convicted.

[mdwh2]

AccyD wrote:

And you are complaining about this treatment to people who commit multiple murders. How would you feel if your mother was killed by one fo these people?

I'd probably want to torture such a person rather painfully.

But I'd also note that my emotive feelings for revenge have no place in a system of justice and punishment.

And there are all sorts of cases where people can be convicted of murder - that doesn't mean I'm saying it might be right in some cases, but it's illogical to jump to the most severe examples. What matters if we're saying a punishment is too harsh are the cases where we might consider the crime to not be so severe (eg, someone killing someone after years of physical abuse from them).

[Glaucus]

Shouldn't the attention be paid to who we convict instead, if that's where the alleged problem is? Your solution just tries to mask a symptom, rather than solve a problem.

And yet we are careful who we convict. Generally, we convict only those we're sure are guilty, and yet we find we're often still wrong. Anyway, this is silly, we're not even talking about capital crimes here, petty theft is included in this discussion. Should a kid who stole a pack of gum be pissed on or eletrocuted?

- Mike

[AccyD]

Glaucus wrote:
Should a kid who stole a pack of gum be pissed on or eletrocuted?

- Mike

According to the BBC the photo's may now be fakes.

[AccyD]

mdwh2 wrote:
But I'd also note that my emotive feelings for revenge have no place in a system of justice and punishment.

But they do. If you are a victim then you want to see some form of punishment against your attacker, it is only right that the victim feels that their wrong has been mitigated by punishment of the criminal.

The Saudi system is best, (not only with chopping theives hands off), but in that murder and other serious crimes the victim has the option of enforcing the death penalty or allowing other punishments. It serves both issues, as the punishments are strong enough to be a good deterrent, and the victim feels that the impact of their crime has been mitigated.

[Glaucus]

AccyD wrote:

According to the BBC the photo's may now be fakes.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but you bet your last dollar (or pound, whatever) that the Iraqis will believe they're real.

- Mike

[Glaucus]

But they do. If you are a victim then you want to see some form of punishment against your attacker, it is only right that the victim feels that their wrong has been mitigated by punishment of the criminal.

Hey, I know how it feels to be robbed. I've had valuable tools and stereo equipment stolen from my car and shed. Friends of mine had their homes broken into and cleaned out. And yes, my first reaction is that if I could only get my hands on those {bleep}suckers I'd bash their heads in and curb stomp them or something horrificly nasty. But that's not justice, that's rage. Just because I'm pissed off doesn't make it right for me to beat the crap out of them. Also, beating the crap out of them isn't gonna prevent someone else from robbing me (or someone else) the next day, and in fact, the next time someone robs me they might decide to bash my head in before I get the chance to do it to them.

Anyway, from my point of view, I still believe that the robbers and the police are cut from the same cloth. They're both the scum of the earth and I hate 'em both. There's no reason why police should be able to beat up or harras anyone.

The Saudi system is best, (not only with chopping theives hands off), but in that murder and other serious crimes the victim has the option of enforcing the death penalty or allowing other punishments. It serves both issues, as the punishments are strong enough to be a good deterrent, and the victim feels that the impact of their crime has been mitigated.

Yes, it's a system so highly regarded it has produced the likes of Osama Bin Ladden and scores of other extremists. If you employee extreme tactics expect to see people revolt against them in extreme ways. No thanks. If you wanna chop people's hands off then you should be happy to hear that the Taliban is making a comeback in Afghanistan. Go now while air fare is still cheap.

- Mike

[Speelgoedmannetje]

@AccyD
have you actually bothered trying to imagine the situation? Have you tried to feel it?

[mdwh2]

AccyD wrote:

But they do. If you are a victim then you want to see some form of punishment against your attacker, it is only right that the victim feels that their wrong has been mitigated by punishment of the criminal.

I believe that punishment should be for any of: preventing them from doing it again; deterrent to others; rehabilitation; compensation to make up for what they did wrong.

I don't include "getting your own back" - two wrongs don't make a right, and that just leaves us with more people who are adversely affected.