This little fucker should die

[CrAz3D]

iago, you said to show you countries that do that, I did.
I believe that makes it usual now, not unusual

[iago]

iago, you said to show you countries that do that, I did.
I believe that makes it usual now, not unusual

Did I say that?  I seem to remember saying that you're insane for wanting to cut off arms, and I stand by that. 

[Forged]

I would like to beat that fat little fucker with the tire iron in the back of my truck.  See how much he likes that shit. 

Is that rehabilitation?

What would be the motivation?  I observe many people trying to demonstrate how much a crime repulses them by statements such as these, including acts with an equally brutal act of revenge.  Is it exactly like you said, you wish to see how much he likes being beat by a tire iron in the back of your truck?  I am not trained in criminal rehabilitation, but that seems like it would have a low success rate.

No it isn't, that is revenge.  I don't feel his punishment should be caining, as that is not how or justice system works.  However, if someone where to walk up to him and beat the fuck out of him with said tire iron I don't think I would fill sorry for him, I would probablly laugh.

[CrAz3D]

hmm, ok, I spose you ust asked what countries beat people.
Singapore flogs people with cane, that could be like hitting someone with a smaller 2x4.

The Taliban flogged women for adultery while removing the right hand of men who stole things.

[Mephisto]

"why torturing him is a bad punishment"

Well, let's see here:  U.S. Constitution?  Cruel & Unusual Punishment?  Ethical Reasons?  I could just see the publicity if we used torturing to administer justice.  If you were suggesting torture in a fantasy land where we could do exactly what it would take, then dismiss this post, but keep in mind the invalidity of yours.

So, if it's written not to do it, it's a bad idea? Hahahaha.

It says I'm not supposed to pirate copyrighted material, but I do it anyways. I bet you're guilty of having done this at least one point in your life, as well.

Ethical reasons exist inside your head and may or may not be agreed upon by the rest of society. Some may react in a hostile way, others may react in a happy way, with the satisfaction that the kid got what he deserved.

"what punishment would be a good punishment?"

As Crazed suggested mildly, a proper course of rehabilitation to restore him to "proper" society.  Not torture.  In fact, I think torture would only worsen the situation by making him hateful to society and so he would be keen to inflict additional crimes on society.

Haha. He inflicts more crimes, he gets punished some more. Eventually he'll figure it out.

Please elaborate to me the following:

- why he should be rehabilitiated when he is at an age where he basically has figured out what he wants to do with his life?
- what chance he has of being restored into a good sumeritan?

Semi-off-topic, but I bet you didn't want Tookie to get executed, did you?

You think that a written law should be defied if an alternative illegal approach would be theoretically better (even though it is unproved)?  Seems to me you think torture should be made legal although it clearly breaks Constituional provisions?  Silly.

What does your example of Copyright infringements have anything to do with this?  You're arguing about right/wrong in a self decision; and do you think making Copyright infringement is a good idea?  No...  So your example has no support to your initial point that torture should be legal because it would have better results for criminals.

In regard to ethics, I was referring to basic ethics that torturing a person is wrong and should not be condoned, regardless of the situation.  Even if the person killed 6 million Jews or beat an individual, I don't think torturing is a viable solution, and I'd hope most people would agree with that.  We do afterall live in a civilized world, yes?

Also, you think that if the torturing does not work the first time, that torturing him again will get the point accross?  I doubt that; and even if it did, the initial torture didn't accomplish anything therefore he is out there committing crimes you sought to prevent.

Why he should be rehabilitated even when he is conscious with his decisions?  Even you should be able to answer that.  It's already been established he has problems, so those need to be addressed.  Additionally, people who are 40 are rehabilitated.  You seem to think that at a certain point in life you are no longer a candidate for rehabilitation to society, which is ridiculous.

What chances? He has all the chances in the world if he is submitted to rehab.  There he will be kept until he can prove he is capable of being part of human society; until then he will remain in a place where he cannot commit crimes.

[CrAz3D]

hmm, torture, generally bad...but I believe it would be ok in extreme circumstances.


hmm, rehab, I think people should be rehabilitated as much as possible up until age 18/21, then they should be terminated for violently serious offenses.

[Mephisto]

hmm, rehab, I think people should be rehabilitated as much as possible up until age 18/21, then they should be terminated for violently serious offenses.

I don't think anything justifies the death penalty except in extremely rare cases (for example, if we had a modern Hitler).  I especially don't think the death penalty is justifiable by what this kid did.  I think he needs a proper course of rehab and time served.  I'm also disturbed by the word you chose, 'terminate', as if they we're just subtle creatures terminable at will.

I also will point our your controdiction with your statement and the topic statement you chose in saying that rehabilitation should be used until 18/21, and that this kid is 16 and you wish for him to die. 

[CrAz3D]

Death penalty should be for any extreme criminal acts.
Aggravated battery resulting in paralization/deformation
Child abuse

& should still apply to:
Murder (obviously)
treason
I think there are a few other federal crimes in which someone can be executed


Termination is sufficient for people whose life no longer serves as a purpose


The title was written 'in the heat of the moment', but yeah, I see the contradiction as well.
However, if I had my way the kid still should be killed, but giving him the benefit of the doubt that he can be so to say "fixed" makes almost as much sense & is ALOT nicer to him.

[iago]

hmm, ok, I spose you ust asked what countries beat people.
Singapore flogs people with cane, that could be like hitting someone with a smaller 2x4.

The Taliban flogged women for adultery while removing the right hand of men who stole things.

Are you saying that the US should be more like the Taliban?

treason

Define?  Is speaking out against your government treason?  Is making fun of Bush treason?  Is overthrowing a corrupt government treason?

[Newby]

You think that a written law should be defied if an alternative illegal approach would be theoretically better (even though it is unproved)?  Seems to me you think torture should be made legal although it clearly breaks Constituional provisions?  Silly.

What does your example of Copyright infringements have anything to do with this?  You're arguing about right/wrong in a self decision; and do you think making Copyright infringement is a good idea?  No...  So your example has no support to your initial point that torture should be legal because it would have better results for criminals.

In regard to ethics, I was referring to basic ethics that torturing a person is wrong and should not be condoned, regardless of the situation.  Even if the person killed 6 million Jews or beat an individual, I don't think torturing is a viable solution, and I'd hope most people would agree with that.  We do afterall live in a civilized world, yes?

Also, you think that if the torturing does not work the first time, that torturing him again will get the point accross?  I doubt that; and even if it did, the initial torture didn't accomplish anything therefore he is out there committing crimes you sought to prevent.

Why he should be rehabilitated even when he is conscious with his decisions?  Even you should be able to answer that.  It's already been established he has problems, so those need to be addressed.  Additionally, people who are 40 are rehabilitated.  You seem to think that at a certain point in life you are no longer a candidate for rehabilitation to society, which is ridiculous.

What chances? He has all the chances in the world if he is submitted to rehab.  There he will be kept until he can prove he is capable of being part of human society; until then he will remain in a place where he cannot commit crimes.

1 and 2. I don't even know what you got out of what I said. I said "give me a reason why it's a bad idea to torture" and you responded "U.S. Constitution."

I asked that if it's written, it's suddenly bad?

Apparently, you think so. I agree, if a punishment that steps out of the boundaries of the laws would work better than one that stays within the boundaries of a law, it's probably a better choice in the end.

My example was that copyright infringement is a written law, but I do it anyways. Similar to the fact that the U.S. constitution says cruel and unusual punishment is illegal, and I believe it should be done anyways.

Just because something is written doesn't mean it's always right.

3. So? Civilized or uncivilized, I fail to see where torture makes you uncivilized.

4-6. If torture doesn't work, nothing will. Pretty simple. I fail to see where a real good physical beating would deter someone less than a 12 step program.

And if he fails the 12 step program / torture in the first place and commits another crime, when the fuck do you think the 12 step programs / torture is going to work? Never. It won't work.  The criminal has his mind set on breaking the law, and nothing can take away from that.

Funny, I have to write an essay in English right now on whether or not juveniles should be charged as adults.

[Arta]

Torture doesn't work. It is an unreliable information gathering tool. A person subjected to torture will say whatever the torturer wants them to: whether it's true or not is anyone's guess.

[Newby]

Torture doesn't work. It is an unreliable information gathering tool. A person subjected to torture will say whatever the torturer wants them to: whether it's true or not is anyone's guess.

This has nothing to do with torture for information.

[CrAz3D]

Are you saying that the US should be more like the Taliban?

I didn't say that.
Point out to me where I said the USA should be more like the Taliban

Define?  Is speaking out against your government treason?  Is making fun of Bush treason?  Is overthrowing a corrupt government treason?

Treason is defined in Article III Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution.
It says:
"Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

Remember John Walker a few yewars back?...yeah, treason I spose.

[iago]

Treason is defined in Article III Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution.
It says:
"Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

Remember John Walker a few yewars back?...yeah, treason I spose.

Hmm, that law has a problem, it doesn't use the word "knowingly."  If a terrorist asks me for a bandage, or food, or something, then I'm giving them aid and comfort.  That counts as treason.  I think that that law ought to be re-worded.

[topaz]

Since when does ethics have anything to do with justice?