Cannibalism in Czech Republic

[mimartin]

If you just agreed with Jae that is a horrible thing to do to any person, why would you encourage it to be their punishment?

It must be acceptable to them or they would not have done it to another human being. After all, how we define cruel and unusual is different for each of us. Yes, I do consider this cruel and unusual, but they obliviously do not consider it cruel or usual.

[EnderWiggin]

It must be acceptable to them or they would not have done it to another human being. After all, how we define cruel and unusual is different for each of us. Yes, I do consider this cruel and unusual, but they obliviously do not consider it cruel or usual.

 

That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

 

_EW_

[El Sitherino]

It must be acceptable to them or they would not have done it to another human being. After all, how we define cruel and unusual is different for each of us. Yes, I do consider this cruel and unusual, but they obliviously do not consider it cruel or usual.

 

True, however philosophically what you had stated is incorrect and wrong.

 

Either you agree it's acceptable on any level, or you don't. You can't justify your poor choice of words with their mental instability. I think I should be able to shoot someone with a tranquilizer dart if they cut me off. However that's a safety risk, therefore it shouldn't be that it happens to me either as a punishment.

[mimartin]

That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

More absurd than a mother cutting body parts off her own son and eating it?

Either you agree it's acceptable on any level, or you don't.

I really don't think it is acceptable, but neither is what they did to a child and there is no punishment that fits this crime.

[jonathan7]

Can I please point this out...

 

Nowhere in the Independents article I linked too is cannibalism mentioned as the form of abuse. However the sensationalist, childish, idiotic, (I don't think words can express how much I hate) the Sun - article claims the cannibalism... I do not trust the Sun, in fact I would go so far as saying people who read the Sun should not be allowed near any academic institution ever! And indeed I would more likely trust the Iranian Ministry for propoganda than anything ever published in the Sun.

[Inyri]

More absurd than a mother cutting body parts off her own son and eating it?

It's not that absurd. As a civilized people we find it atrocious, but 'parents' eat their 'children' in nature as well. Of course they don't typically chain them up and eat them bit by bit, but we have to make some concessions since supposedly we're 'smarter' than animals.

 

Don't be kidding yourself, though. Just because it's a horrible thing to do doesn't mean they deserve to be punished in an inhumane way. Remember -- violence begets violence. If you want them to eat each other when you already said it's a horrendous crime then you're really no better than they are.

I really don't think it is acceptable, but neither is what they did to a child and there is no punishment that fits this crime.

Read above. It's either wrong or it's not wrong. It can't wrong for them to do it but okay for it to be done to them because they did it first. You need to decide which it is.

 

I do not trust the Sun, in fact I would go so far as saying people who read the Sun should not be allowed near any academic institution ever!

When I read it my first instinct was it was a fabrication. That's not exactly high-level professional writing right there.

[El Sitherino]

More absurd than a mother cutting body parts off her own son and eating it?

I really don't think it is acceptable, but neither is what they did to a child and there is no punishment that fits this crime.

 

Clearly you do not understand the pain and suffering the human mind is capable of conjuring. I think you need to take a bit of course study in Psychology.

 

Find these peoples weaknesses and you can make them beg for death within 5 minutes. Don't give it to them and they'll suffer more than the child ever did.

[mimartin]

It's not that absurd.

Maybe not to you, but to whom the question was direct at, EnderWiggin, he said it was the most absurd thing he ever heard.

Remember -- violence begets violence. If you want them to eat each other when you already said it's a horrendous crime then you're really no better than they are.[/Quote] Yes, and turn the other cheek gets that one slapped too. Some people only understand violence. I never said I was better or worse than anyone else and I don’t consider myself better than these people or anyone else. I have my morals code and I don’t violate that code and I don’t judge others by my moral code. I do however, believe children should not have to worry about becoming someone dinner and I believe in punishing anyone that would harm a child severely.

Read above. It's either wrong or it's not wrong. It can't wrong for them to do it but okay for it to be done to them because they did it first. You need to decide which it is.[/Quote] I already said that it would be unacceptable. What more do you want? I still think the punishment should fit the crime, but there is no punishment to fit this crime.

Clearly you do not understand the pain and suffering the human mind is capable of conjuring. I think you need to take a bit of course study in Psychology.

 

Find these peoples weaknesses and you can make them beg for death within 5 minutes. Don't give it to them and they'll suffer more than the child ever did.

I guess I should have continued in Psychology because in Basic Psychology and Child Psychology we did not learn that. Although in the second level of Psychology I took at University of Houston-Clear Lake the professor did kill his stepfather with a claw hammer during winter break. That kind of killed my appetite to continue in that field of study and I went into accounting and finance instead.

 

Wouldn’t what you are proposing still be considered cruel and/or unusual?

 

make note never to upset El Sitherino nor to tell him where I live.

[EnderWiggin]

As scary as that is, what Sithy said is completely true.

 

@mimartin - yes, having them be eaten because they ate someone is more absurd than the eating in the first place. And I spoke using a superlative because it had more of an effect.

 

_EW_

[El Sitherino]

Wouldn’t what you are proposing still be considered cruel and/or unusual?

 

 

That depends if you consider the manifestation of ones own thoughts causing torturous pain, unusual. For some it's their everyday depression.

[mimartin]

That depends if you consider the manifestation of ones own thoughts causing torturous pain, unusual. For some it's their everyday depression.

Sounds like you've watched too many 1980's movies. If I did not know better I would have thought you were describing a 1984 movie starring Dennis Quaid called “Dreamscape.”

[Samuel Dravis]

I already said that it would be unacceptable. What more do you want? I still think the punishment should fit the crime, but there is no punishment to fit this crime.

Then I suppose we should stop thinking in terms of punishment and start thinking in terms of societal protection, shouldn't we? And in that context, it is very easy to think up things that would protect people in the future from monstrosities like this family. I say: put them in jail until they're no longer a threat to anyone.

[mimartin]

Then I suppose we should stop thinking in terms of punishment and start thinking in terms of societal protection, shouldn't we? [/Quote] Agreed.

 

And in that context, it is very easy to think up things that would protect people in the future from monstrosities like this family.

I agree, but I really don't see how the government can protect a child from his/her own parent. To me that is more a job falls upon us all. Just like in the story, the neighbors are the ones that called the police and it is up to everyone to pay attention to what is happing around us, especially when it involves children. That boy owes his life to neighbors that were willing to get involved after they happened to see his tortured body on the monitor. I’m thankful that they did not turn a blind eye to such abuse just so they did not have to complicate their life anymore than it already is.

[El Sitherino]

Raise your kids right, instill true family value (love for your family, not the other **** they pass off as family value) and compassion for others.

 

Problem is everyone wants to hate somebody, make a human enemy. Make the enemy a poor choice, a poor sense of life; hate.

[Rabish Bini]

How about, like, for the rest of their miserable lives?

 

_EW_

 

 

Yeah, down here in Aus you can't really get locked up much longer than 20 yrs...

[EnderWiggin]

Yeah, down here in Aus you can't really get locked up much longer than 20 yrs...

 

Then your system is wrong

 

_EW_

[Arcesious]

I shouldn't first be a measure of years- it should be a judgement of how rehabitation for a second chance can be done, and, if not the first time committing a crime on such a level, how much longer the person(s) should serve time in jail/what the higher punishment should be.

[Rev7]

I shouldn't first be a measure of years- it should be a judgement of how rehabitation for a second chance can be done, and, if not the first time committing a crime on such a level, how much longer the person(s) should serve time in jail/what the higher punishment should be.

Do you not believe in punishment though?

[Totenkopf]

Yeah, down here in Aus you can't really get locked up much longer than 20 yrs...

 

Funny thing here is that a "life sentence" really ~=20 years, so perps will often get multiple life sentences to keep them locked up till old age or death.

 

@Arc--second chances are all nice and fine, but prison is for punishment. If you manage to rehab an inmate prior to release, wonderful/bonus.

[mur'phon]

Rev7: I can't speak for Arc, but to me the reason to punish criminals is A: to prevent them from reoffending, and B: to scare others from comitting a crime.

I have a very hard time imagining a criminal thinking "well, if I get caught it's only 20 years, but if it had been life, I wouldn't do it". So I don't really see a point in keeping people locked up for longer, unless there is a significant chance of them reoffending.

[jonathan7]

Rev7: I can't speak for Arc, but to me the reason to punish criminals is A: to prevent them from reoffending, and B: to scare others from comitting a crime.

I have a very hard time imagining a criminal thinking "well, if I get caught it's only 20 years, but if it had been life, I wouldn't do it". So I don't really see a point in keeping people locked up for longer, unless there is a significant chance of them reoffending.

 

I'd add a 'C' to that as well; the protection of society - some parts of the prison population have extremely high re-offending rates (Serial Killers and Paedophiles); so they should be locked up for the rest of their lives for societies safety - even if some are reformed; is it really worth the risk letting them out?

[True_Avery]

(Ok, I'm about to make a few very radical generalizations and comments. This is me trying to be objective on this subject, and something like that can get out of line very quickly. Subjective views have been shown already, so I might as well throw in something else.)

 

There is Punishment or Rehab.

 

Ok, Punishment. We are very punishment oriented beings. We like to see things suffer, and then we justify that suffering. Some do it through psychotic tendencies. Some do it because they want to see someone punished for a crime. The list goes on practically forever.

 

All in all, humans need to hate -something-. The man who beats his children yearns for the some suffering dose as the man who wants someone to sit in a jail cell the rest of their life. If not that, they place their hate towards a co-worker, boss, job, lifestyle, etc.

 

But why punishment via Jail/Prison time?

 

Guy rapes a child. Ok. We got a crime. Put him away for the rest of his life you say?

 

Why?

 

Wouldn't it just save tax payer money and Prison space to just kill the guy? Kill him. You are paying for his living conditions. You are paying for his meal. Paying for his mattress. Paying for the steel that keeps him in there.

 

If you hate the guy so much, why on earth are you paying to keep him alive? Freaking kill the guy.

 

This whole "Make him suffer like he made his victim suffer" thing makes you just as bad as the criminal. You just have the luxury of fulfilling your suffer dose on the other side of the bars, and in a legal way.

 

A: to prevent them from reoffending' date=' and B: to scare others from comitting a crime.[/quote']

From the United State's stats on prisons, it doesn't seem to be working. You could take all those life inmates, line them up, and gas them.

 

That would scare people away from doing a "crime".

 

As you said, 20 years is about as long as you need. If they are just going to keep going, why keep them around in the first place?

 

@Arc--second chances are all nice and fine, but prison is for punishment.

Couldn't death make just as easy a life sentence? Why make them feel bad for what they have done when it benefits absolutely nobody?

 

Making him cry and apologize to the family of the kid he murdered wont fix a thing. Sure, it makes the family feel better...

 

So you've essentially been paying for his cell in the hopes that he will one day cry in front of the parents of the kid he killed.

 

Ok, he cried... What was achieved? Was it worth the money, or was he just better off dead?

 

I'd add a 'C' to that as well; the protection of society - some parts of the prison population have extremely high re-offending rates (Serial Killers and Paedophiles); so they should be locked up for the rest of their lives for societies safety - even if some are reformed; is it really worth the risk letting them out?

Let them out?

 

Why put them behind bars in the first place? If they have proven they are a danger to society, why not just get rid of them entirely?

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Well, then you get into rehab.

 

Rehab isn't punishment per say. It is an attempt to fix.

 

Sitting in a cell is not a good fixer upper. It might get you going, but Rehab can get you help.

 

Why not have a Capital Rehab system instead of a Capital Punishment system?

 

If you are going to pay for them to sit in the cell, why not actually fix them as well instead of fulfilling your addiction to human suffering?

 

And, if you honestly think they cannot be fixed, why are you allowing them to live in the first place?

 

Or, do you just prefer your legalized revenge?

 

If you are in it to see them suffer, don't think you are any better than they are. In this society, your suffering fix just happens to be legal. Theirs is not.

[jonathan7]

Why put them behind bars in the first place? If they have proven they are a danger to society, why not just get rid of them entirely?

 

I'm not in this discussion for revenge, or wanting to see anyone suffer. Prison is there as a punishment, something to scare people into not committing crime and to keep those dangerous to society for harming others as well as themselves. Justice cannot bring itself down to be about hatred or revenge, else it is not justice, it is something else entirely.

 

Why do I disagree with capital punishment?

 

Because;

a) What happens if you have capital punishment and kill an innocent man? I don't think a dead man is too bothered about being declared innocent.

b) I find it highly illogical to kill someone who is guilty of murder.

c) The state should set an example - thus if it doesn't want it's citizens to murder one another it should not murder it's citizens either.

(and to quickly answer an objection, I can foresee) d) Criminals locked up in prison should be financially viable; that is to say if we assume a criminal costs x amount - they should somehow with in the confines of the prison do something towards their upkeep.

 

With regards Rehab; it has been proven that group rehab of serial killers has only made them more effective at serial killing. As such rehab in their case has proven to be pointless.

[Emperor Devon]

Wouldn't it just save tax payer money and Prison space to just kill the guy? Kill him. You are paying for his living conditions. You are paying for his meal. Paying for his mattress. Paying for the steel that keeps him in there.

 

Ends don't justify the means. Any measure of punishment beyond what's required to keep society safe from criminals (and serve as a deterrent to other criminals) is pointlessly cruel, even if it saves money for us.

 

(Whether it actually costs less money to kill them or not is debatable, but as I'm too lazy to provide any links and haven't even provided an argument don't feel like you have to respond me on that count.)

 

Why not have a Capital Rehab system instead of a Capital Punishment system?

 

Depends on the odds of any attempt at rehabilitation actually rehabilitating them. And whether the benefits of that outweigh the potential harm they could cause if they don't end up being rehabilitated.

[True_Avery]

(I'm about to make a few very radical generalizations and comments. This is me trying to be objective on this subject, and something like that can get out of line very quickly. Subjective views have been shown already, so I might as well throw in something else.)

Ends don't justify the means.

That is a subjective point of view.

 

If an End has been met, then the means have automatically been justified.

If the means were not justified, then the End will have never been met.

 

The saying contradicts itself.

 

Any measure of punishment beyond what's required to keep society safe from criminals (and serve as a deterrent to other criminals) is pointlessly cruel, even if it saves money for us.

Cruelty is as subjective as "Ends don't justify the means". If the End has been met, then the means have been justified.

 

Money has been saved, space has been saved, and you have a commonly used control device: Fear.

 

a) What happens if you have capital punishment and kill an innocent man? I don't think a dead man is too bothered about being declared innocent.

This is, of course, assuming that the person in question is without hope, and proven, without a doubt, to be guilty.

 

Also, nowadays the margin of error, for going in in-mates, is roughly 1% from the last time I checked. I'll double check that and someone is welcome to link me a statistic.

 

b) I find it highly illogical to kill someone who is guilty of murder.

So, lock them away forever?

 

If a car breaks and it looks, without a doubt, incapable of repair, why not sell it to the scrapyard?

 

Why keep a broken car in your garage?

 

As you have stated in your post, the car cannot be fixed because it just makes it crash with a bigger boom.

 

You are essentially keeping an item with you that is taking up space.

 

d) Criminals locked up in prison should be financially viable; that is to say if we assume a criminal costs x amount - they should somehow with in the confines of the prison do something towards their upkeep

Considering that a good percentage of those sitting in prison are from the poverty and low class, they are in no financial state to pay for their own room.

 

That added to the damages they may have had to pay the family, and the expensive lawyer.

 

But, I could agree with you on your notion of having them work their due. currently, however, inmates spend the better part of 16 hours in the prison cell doing just about nothing but thinking.

 

Depends on the odds of any attempt at rehabilitation actually rehabilitating them. And whether the benefits of that outweigh any potential harm they could cause if they don't end up being rehabilitated.

Ok, then why not just get rid of them?

 

If the car cannot be fixed, why are you keeping it around? For memories sake? To keep in you front yard to scare the kids from speeding?

 

It is obvious it will never drive again. Except this time, the dead car is sitting on government property and the grass it is staining just happens to be paid by the taxpayers.

 

With regards Rehab; it has been proven that group rehab of serial killers has only made them more effective at serial killing. As such rehab in their case has proven to be pointless.

Ok, so the point of having them around?

 

The state should set an example - thus if it doesn't want it's citizens to murder one another it should not murder it's citizens either.

(and to quickly answer an objection, I can foresee)

Fear makes a great control device.

 

Justice cannot bring itself down to be about hatred or revenge, else it is not justice, it is something else entirely.

If there was no revenge, then we would not need a justice system.

 

From a third person point of view it is to protect people. In first person, when you are trying to get the person in jail that may be the case in some small way.

 

But you take someone to court and try to get them in jail because they have taken something from you and you want to get as much, if not more, back.

 

Objectively the justice system is a control device for society. Subjectively, it is both a control device and a tool for revenge.