I believe it’s absolutely possible for anyone to find peace in their lives, but if they just aren’t progressing at all then they have to be euthanized. It’s, unfortunately, the only reasonable thing that can be done. Simply locking them up for an arbitrary amount of time is a stupid idea. It guarantees nothing barely makes an attempt otherwise. If they can be rehabilitated, then rehabilitate them! If they can’t, euthanize them. I personally find a life sentence to be far more cruel than capital punishment.
The legal system is far from efficient. It too is a coercive monopoly and therefore overpriced and under employed. And at the end of the day, the choice is only between letting this violent person go now or putting him in a cage for a while and hope he somehow comes out less crazy.
[/quote]
Lol. Our society will never go for killing off all of these people; the death penalty is only reserved for heinous crimes. The only thing we can do is keep them away from everyone else. That’s just the way it is.
…and there is hope or those who commit less serious crimes and are not repeat offenders when they are released from prison. Many people, a couple on this forum, are perfect examples of this.
I agree with this, but my point was that most problems (whatever the origin) cannot be treated. Those that can be treated are treated. For the others, our system tries to condition their behavior with punishment. If they don’t care that they’ll end up in jail again, then what can you do? They just want to rob/steal/kill people, and they have decided that their desire to do those things outweighs their fear of prison. That’s why repeat offenders are often given longer sentences…because they have demonstrated that they are not willing to change…and again, we can’t kill them so we lock them up.
[quote]
Also, if more officers are enough to deter crime, then the problem is not enough officers, NOT that we need harsher punishments and more prisons. [/quote]
Uhh…yea…I never said one thing about needing harsher punishments.
I believe it’s absolutely possible for anyone to find peace in their lives, but if they just aren’t progressing at all then they have to be euthanized. It’s, unfortunately, the only reasonable thing that can be done. Simply locking them up for an arbitrary amount of time is a stupid idea. It guarantees nothing barely makes an attempt otherwise. If they can be rehabilitated, then rehabilitate them! If they can’t, euthanize them. I personally find a life sentence to be far more cruel than capital punishment.
The legal system is far from efficient. It too is a coercive monopoly and therefore overpriced and under employed. And at the end of the day, the choice is only between letting this violent person go now or putting him in a cage for a while and hope he somehow comes out less crazy.
[/quote]
Lol. Our society will never go for killing off all of these people; the death penalty is only reserved for heinous crimes. The only thing we can do is keep them away from everyone else. That’s just the way it is.
…and there is hope for those who commit less serious crimes and are not repeat offenders when they are released from prison. Many people, a couple on this forum, are perfect examples of this.
I agree with this, but my point was that most problems (whatever the origin) cannot be treated. Those that can be treated are treated. For the others, our system tries to condition their behavior with punishment. If they don’t care that they’ll end up in jail again, then what can you do? They just want to rob/steal/kill people, and they have decided that their desire to do those things outweighs their fear of prison. That’s why repeat offenders are often given longer sentences…because they have demonstrated that they are not willing to change…and again, we can’t kill them so we lock them up.
[quote]
Also, if more officers are enough to deter crime, then the problem is not enough officers, NOT that we need harsher punishments and more prisons. [/quote]
Uhh…yea…I never said one thing about needing harsher punishments.
Anyways, it’s been a pleasure. Goodbye forever.[/quote]
Then your argument amounts to deriving an ought from an is. Just because society is stupid don’t mean I’m wrong.
Also, How is pointing out the rehabilitated an argument against rehabilitation? Your first post was great, but your arguments have started to deteriorate fast…
Again, society being stupid doesn’t make my argument wrong.
Oh, that’s right, you’re the one who’s arguing that the system is just fine… all these arguments are starting to blur together. Though, it doesn’t matter either way because the statistics point towards having harsher punishments not necessitating less violent crime and in fact suggests that a less insane nation has less crime (whoda thought?).
Goodbye forever? Why would you write out an entire argument just to announce you’re leaving anyway? You must have known I would write a rebuttal anyway, which makes writing this one pointless. Or did you think this would win you the debate? In which case there’s no reason to leave as you were about to win, right?
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Can you give an example of a persons being violent that has nothing to do with their genetics or mind? I highly doubt it.
[/quote]
Yes, their environment. Never been to a rough city have you?
I believe it’s absolutely possible for anyone to find peace in their lives, but if they just aren’t progressing at all then they have to be euthanized. It’s, unfortunately, the only reasonable thing that can be done. Simply locking them up for an arbitrary amount of time is a stupid idea. It guarantees nothing barely makes an attempt otherwise. If they can be rehabilitated, then rehabilitate them! If they can’t, euthanize them. I personally find a life sentence to be far more cruel than capital punishment.
The legal system is far from efficient. It too is a coercive monopoly and therefore overpriced and under employed. And at the end of the day, the choice is only between letting this violent person go now or putting him in a cage for a while and hope he somehow comes out less crazy.
[/quote]
Lol. Our society will never go for killing off all of these people; the death penalty is only reserved for heinous crimes. The only thing we can do is keep them away from everyone else. That’s just the way it is.
…and there is hope for those who commit less serious crimes and are not repeat offenders when they are released from prison. Many people, a couple on this forum, are perfect examples of this.
I agree with this, but my point was that most problems (whatever the origin) cannot be treated. Those that can be treated are treated. For the others, our system tries to condition their behavior with punishment. If they don’t care that they’ll end up in jail again, then what can you do? They just want to rob/steal/kill people, and they have decided that their desire to do those things outweighs their fear of prison. That’s why repeat offenders are often given longer sentences…because they have demonstrated that they are not willing to change…and again, we can’t kill them so we lock them up.
[quote]
Also, if more officers are enough to deter crime, then the problem is not enough officers, NOT that we need harsher punishments and more prisons. [/quote]
Uhh…yea…I never said one thing about needing harsher punishments.
Anyways, it’s been a pleasure. Goodbye forever.[/quote]
Then your argument amounts to deriving an ought from an is. Just because society is stupid don’t mean I’m wrong.
Also, How is pointing out the rehabilitated an argument against rehabilitation? Your first post was great, but your arguments have started to deteriorate fast…
Again, society being stupid doesn’t make my argument wrong.
Oh, that’s right, you’re the one who’s arguing that the system is just fine… all these arguments are starting to blur together. Though, it doesn’t matter either way because the statistics point towards having harsher punishments not necessitating less violent crime and in fact suggests that a less insane nation has less crime (whoda thought?).
Goodbye forever? Why would you write out an entire argument just to announce you’re leaving anyway? You must have known I would write a rebuttal anyway, which makes writing this one pointless. Or did you think this would win you the debate? In which case there’s no reason to leave as you were about to win, right?
Utterly ridiculous. [/quote]
You are retarded. I was never arguing against rehabilitation. My point was that certain people cannot be rehabilitated. Rehabilitation only works on people that have problems that can be treated and/or those who want to be rehabilitated.
The arguments are blurring together because your brain is failing. You keep rebutting points that I never argued. For example, I never said/implied society was stupid.
I said goodbye forever b/c I was hoping you would not respond…otherwise, this debate will continue for eternity because you are too dumb to realize that you are wrong.
As the classy man that I am, I encourage you to keep jerking off to japanese animation characters. (and you can save the…“ohh how intelligent you are using insults” response for your boyfriend who is dressed up in a furry animal costume calling you a dirty man and begging for his penis to be held tightly).
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Can you give an example of a persons being violent that has nothing to do with their genetics or mind? I highly doubt it.
[/quote]
Yes, their environment. Never been to a rough city have you?[/quote]
If their environment has taught them to be needlessly violent, then it’s a psychological problem. Try again.
I believe it’s absolutely possible for anyone to find peace in their lives, but if they just aren’t progressing at all then they have to be euthanized. It’s, unfortunately, the only reasonable thing that can be done. Simply locking them up for an arbitrary amount of time is a stupid idea. It guarantees nothing barely makes an attempt otherwise. If they can be rehabilitated, then rehabilitate them! If they can’t, euthanize them. I personally find a life sentence to be far more cruel than capital punishment.
The legal system is far from efficient. It too is a coercive monopoly and therefore overpriced and under employed. And at the end of the day, the choice is only between letting this violent person go now or putting him in a cage for a while and hope he somehow comes out less crazy.
[/quote]
Lol. Our society will never go for killing off all of these people; the death penalty is only reserved for heinous crimes. The only thing we can do is keep them away from everyone else. That’s just the way it is.
…and there is hope for those who commit less serious crimes and are not repeat offenders when they are released from prison. Many people, a couple on this forum, are perfect examples of this.
I agree with this, but my point was that most problems (whatever the origin) cannot be treated. Those that can be treated are treated. For the others, our system tries to condition their behavior with punishment. If they don’t care that they’ll end up in jail again, then what can you do? They just want to rob/steal/kill people, and they have decided that their desire to do those things outweighs their fear of prison. That’s why repeat offenders are often given longer sentences…because they have demonstrated that they are not willing to change…and again, we can’t kill them so we lock them up.
No, you’re retarded. Why are you talking to me in the first place if you’re not opposed to what I’m saying? I want a system based on rehabilitation, if you;re opposed to this idea, then yes, you ARE arguing against rehabilitation at least to the extent that it’s the primary means of dealing with violent criminals.
You implied society was stupid by saying they would never bring themselves to euthanize those who need to be euthanized. That is stupidity on societies part and you have pointed it out.
Oh how noble you are, writing an entire rebuttal then calling off the debate. I’m just supposed to give you the first AND last punch? Why? Because that would be convenient for you? Sorry, that’s not going to happen. Your argument is weak and so long as you keep making them I’ll respond. Personally, I think you just decided it was a good time to opt out to protect your ego, which is why you’ve come back now even though you said you were done.
I thought you were pretty smart, but you’re just as egotistical as anyone else in this thread.
RyuuKyuzo, it just sounds like you got a book on logic or critical thinking or took a rhetoric class and keep using the words you’ve learned too often.
You only said things already brought up and addressed. Why are you even here? Your post is totally unnecessary. [/quote]
you just managed to avoid answering all my counters to your points and then wrote it off to everything I posted as already stated.
As far as your assumptions go, you clearly just argue for the statistics in your favour without any concrete proof thereof yet when anyone counters with the same logic you call them out for being wrong.
You only said things already brought up and addressed. Why are you even here? Your post is totally unnecessary. [/quote]
you just managed to avoid answering all my counters to your points and then wrote it off to everything I posted as already stated.
As far as your assumptions go, you clearly just argue for the statistics in your favour without any concrete proof thereof yet when anyone counters with the same logic you call them out for being wrong.[/quote]
The questions you asked have already been adressed. If you bring up something new, then fine, otherwise, just read the posts I’ve already made.
I’ve made no statement unbacked by an argument. If you want to take over for OUTLAW or something, be my guest.
[quote]Nards wrote:
RyuuKyuzo, it just sounds like you got a book on logic or critical thinking or took a rhetoric class and keep using the words you’ve learned too often.
[/quote]
Therefore???
Honestly, there’s more ad-hominems than actual arguments in this thread. Apparently, everything I say is inherently wrong becuase I’m a communist-liberal-anticapitalist-autistic-hippie-faggot 17 year old, of which only the last one is actually true. The only real argument anyone has made is “prisons keeps them off the street”, which I’ve adressed so many times I feel like ramming a spike through my head everytime one of you brings it up for the thousandth time.
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Can you give an example of a persons being violent that has nothing to do with their genetics or mind? I highly doubt it.
[/quote]
Yes, their environment. Never been to a rough city have you?[/quote]
If their environment has taught them to be needlessly violent, then it’s a psychological problem. Try again. [/quote]
This is WHY I will not engage you any longer. You’re out of your depth. You read some text books and formed an opinion.
For example, above you say “needlessly violent”. In some neighborhoods a proclivity to violence IS necessary. And even if it were a psychological problem, you’d have to remove the “patient” permanently from the environment. Between re-locations and all the euthenasia we’ll be doing, I’m not sure we’ll have any money left. What’s going to happen to my taxes? LOL
[quote]Nards wrote:
RyuuKyuzo, it just sounds like you got a book on logic or critical thinking or took a rhetoric class and keep using the words you’ve learned too often.
[/quote]
Therefore???
Honestly, there’s more ad-hominems than actual arguments in this thread. Apparently, everything I say is inherently wrong becuase I’m a communist-liberal-anticapitalist-autistic-hippie-faggot 17 year old, of which only the last one is actually true. The only real argument anyone has made is “prisons keeps them off the street”, which I’ve adressed so many times I feel like ramming a spike through my head everytime one of you brings it up for the thousandth time.
[/quote]
You’re a faggot 17 year old? I knew I was right.
Do you think being gay has given you the outlook you have on rehabilitation? And do you think gays such as yourself can be “rehabilitated” and thus brought within normal, reproductive society?
[quote]Nards wrote:
RyuuKyuzo, it just sounds like you got a book on logic or critical thinking or took a rhetoric class and keep using the words you’ve learned too often.
[/quote]
Therefore???
Honestly, there’s more ad-hominems than actual arguments in this thread. Apparently, everything I say is inherently wrong becuase I’m a communist-liberal-anticapitalist-autistic-hippie-faggot 17 year old, of which only the last one is actually true. The only real argument anyone has made is “prisons keeps them off the street”, which I’ve adressed so many times I feel like ramming a spike through my head everytime one of you brings it up for the thousandth time.
[/quote]
You’re a faggot 17 year old? I knew I was right.
Do you think being gay has given you the outlook you have on rehabilitation? And do you think gays such as yourself can be “rehabilitated” and thus brought within normal, reproductive society?[/quote]
[quote]Hyena wrote:
This is bullshit. This guy is a victim of circumstance. I don’t know if you guys read the whole thing, but the guy didn’t die because of the punch. He got punched in the face, fell backward and bounced his head off the pavement. This guy had no intention of killing anyone. Yeah, it was a cheap shot, and the guy is a little bitch, but he doesn’t deserve 6 years of hard time for it.
The judge was also a complete idiot. He said ‘the statement that ‘I have a killer punch’ denotes that you have some idea of your punching power’. Too dumb to realize that it wasn’t the punch that killed him. You think he had some murderous intention because he bragged about his punching power in a bar? Are you serious?
In closing: Was this guy a douche? Yes. Should he have punched a defenseless drunk for no reason? No. Does he deserve 6 years in prison? I don’t think so.[/quote]