Jump to content

Home

Cannibalism in Czech Republic


TriggerGod
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

 

There have been enough cases in the UK of miscarriages of justice (even recently) for me to reject the death penalty out of hand.

 

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.

 

I can't comment on the statistics, safe to say I am aware of the cases of miscarriages of justice.

 

So, lock them away forever?

 

Until they die; despite what some may think about how horrible be locked in a prison cell; the reaction of those on death row in the states, seems to show me that many prisoners still prefer life in prison to death.

 

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.

 

You didn't just compare a human being to a car did you?

 

Perhaps they are taking up space, but I don't have a wanton disregard for human life; as such they should be imprisoned not killed.

 

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.

 

I was more indicating the latter than the former, however if say a serial killer/paedophile has no dependants and they were to be imprisoned indefinitely I would have no problems with the state ceasing their assets to pay for their incarceration.

 

Ok, then why not just get rid of them?

 

Because as far as we know we are the only life in the entire universe, so I would not kill human life so flippantly.

 

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?

 

Cars and human beings are totally different, with your logic why don't we just kill disabled kids?

 

Ok, so the point of having them around?

 

See above.

 

Fear makes a great control device.

 

Only to those who are scared.

 

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

 

Justice in my Oxford wordfinder is defined as; 1. just conduct. 2. fairness. 3. the exercise of authority in the maintenance of right.

 

Revenge is defined as; 1. retaliation for an offence or injury. 2 an act of retaliation 3. the desire for this; a vindictive feeling

 

A court of law cannot be driven by revenge, those seeking prosecution (say the family of a abused/murdered) may be seeking revenge; but that is not what the court is about.

 

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.

 

That depends on the first person... Didn't you just have a go at ED for being subjective?

 

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.

 

As Ghandi pointed out; if we live out an eye for eye the whole world ends up blind. Sure some (perhaps most) people do the above - but the justice system is much more than that, it is for the maintenance of right; revenge is about visiting on someone ten fold what they have done...

 

In the case of a serial killer or paedophile from my perspective, I pity individuals who are so damaged (evil or whatever you want to call it) that they do what they do. I do not wish harm on them, only that they are not afforded the opportunity to commit their acts of violence again.

 

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

 

It is a control device, a proper justice system is never a tool for revenge, as revenge is the antipathy of justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

(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 have been enough cases in the UK of miscarriages of justice (even recently) for me to reject the death penalty out of hand.

 

I can't comment on the statistics, safe to say I am aware of the cases of miscarriages of justice.

Fair enough.

 

Until they die; despite what some may think about how horrible be locked in a prison cell; the reaction of those on death row in the states, seems to show me that many prisoners still prefer life in prison to death.

They have killed someone. Taken the life of another, or possibly many others. They have little to no rights in that cell.

 

Why care that they prefer life over death when they have technically already been sentenced to death in their cell?

 

You didn't just compare a human being to a car did you?

Yes, I did. I'm trying not to speak on the moral level of a subjective view, so a human being can easily be compared to a car if the metaphor fits.

 

Perhaps they are taking up space, but I don't have a wanton disregard for human life; as such they should be imprisoned not killed.

Imprisoned forever?

 

Your morality is wasted. By locking them away forever, you have already proven you have a disregard for certain human lives.

 

You've already killed them. They will sit in a cell for the rest of their life doing practically nothing 16 hours a day, 24/7 until they die.

 

If you have already condemned them to that, why not just outright kill them? You are saving money, you get your corpse, and the family gets their revenge.

 

The only difference is that mine happens faster, and saves more money.

 

Because as far as we know we are the only life in the entire universe, so I would not kill human life so flippantly.

So, human life is better than all the other life we trample on? As far as I know, we kill plenty of life without much of a second thought.

 

And you are not killing them flippantly. You've already killed them by sentencing them to life. The gun is sitting on the back of their head and you have the trigger.

 

You just happen to be holding it there for over 50 years. Eventually you are going to pull it. Technically, you already have.

 

Technically the bullet is already in. You are just letting him bleed a lot longer.

 

Cars and human beings are totally different, with your logic why don't we just kill disabled kids?

You are asking someone who is trying to use an objective opinion whether or not to look at disabled kids?

 

For an attempt to appeal to emotion, you've failed. But, I'll spare you the "Disabled people are drags on society" speech for another thread.

 

A car is a machine. A human is a machine. They both have uses. When they break down, you can fix them. When they die, you scrap them.

 

Why not a car? Would muffins be better?

 

Ok. Mom makes some muffin mix. She pours them into a pan and put them in the oven.

 

But she never takes them out. Eventually, she puts more in.

 

She is always cooking them, but never enough for them to burn. Just ever so slightly.

 

She keeps adding more and more in... but in the end, nothing ever gets cooked, the oven is overloading, and her electric bill is going up by the second.

 

There, that a better comparison?

 

See above.

See above.

 

You might be morally obligated to keep them alive, but your morals cost the taxpayers money and, in the end, just keep dead people alive long past their expiration date.

 

If they were milk, you'd have already of tossed them down the drain.

 

Only to those who are scared.

Your current justice system is based on intimidation, a lighter form of fear. You do this, and we'll punish you for it.

 

So yes, it only works on those who are scared. At the moment, it looks like a good amount of people are not.

 

"Do this, and you'll live and sit in a jail cell and -might- get probation" doesn't sound all that threatening.

 

"Do this, and we'll kill you" However, does.

 

A court of law cannot be driven by revenge, those seeking prosecution (say the family of a abused/murdered) may be seeking revenge; but that is not what the court is about.

In a third person, yes.

In the gallery, yes.

 

But what, may I ask, are you helping about the case by being apart of the gallery?

 

The prosecution table is seeking some form of revenge on the defendant.

 

The prosecution and defense are the justice system. You have a counterbalance to get past the bias and into facts, but the entire system revolves around one person getting legal revenge on another.

 

They are not contradiction. By definition they might be, but in practice they are mutually exclusive. If you didn't have people seeking revenge, then you wouldn't need a court of law.

 

That depends on the first person... Didn't you just have a go at ED for being subjective?

Read above.

 

You have the ability to argue this from the gallery. It would be different if you were a father that had lost a son, and were sitting at the prosecution table.

 

Not trying to make an appeal to emotion, just stating a scenario for a man to go to prison for life.

 

He might be thinking in some way "I need to get him off the street." But, the reason he is sitting at the table and trying to get the other man in jail is revenge. Legal revenge.

 

As Ghandi pointed out; if we live out an eye for eye the whole world ends up blind. Sure some (perhaps most) people do the above - but the justice system is much more than that, it is for the maintenance of right; revenge is about visiting on someone ten fold what they have done...

Well, then they still both have 1 working eye? Sounds like the justice system. He killed your son, you put him in jail for life. You lost your eye, so you took his.

 

If revenge is taken to an extreme, sure. But, revenge can also be a subtle thing.

 

And don't try and argue what is "right" and what is "wrong". Then we just get into the messy argument of moral relativity.

 

You idea of what the justice system is very romantic and all, but, again, you are talking from a gallery seat.

 

In the case of a serial killer or paedophile from my perspective, I pity individuals who are so damaged (evil or whatever you want to call it) that they do what they do. I do not wish harm on them, only that they are not afforded the opportunity to commit their acts of violence again.

By locking them in a cell until they die?

 

And you've already ruled out rehab, so... again...

 

What is the logical reason for keeping them alive? You haven't given me an answer outside of "It is the right thing to do" while completely contradicting yourself by already technically sentencing them to death in the first place.

 

It is a control device, a proper justice system is never a tool for revenge, as revenge is the antipathy of justice.

Then your Utopian, romantic justice system simply does not exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<snip>

 

I don't think you can be persuaded to the course of love on this; you seem to be purely interested in the financial side of things and human beings apparently being nothing more than machines.

 

Firstly my "romantic" view of the judicial system and how I'm apparently sat in the gallery.

 

Now, you have irked me sufficiently with poor observations from ignorance for me to comment; To date, 16 friends of mine have suffered the crime of rape; in not one single of those cases is anyone serving a prison sentence (indeed, such are the problems of trying to get a rape conviction, none got as far as court).

 

1 of those individuals is one of my best friends; rape and child abuse are possibly the worst crimes that can be inflicted on another person and I have never seen anyone fully recover having suffered such a heinous crime perpetrated against them. Now from the above, out of two of my friends I know exactly who did it. Suffice to say given who my best friends is associated with, I could have 'justice' served. I never however will go outside the legal methods of prosecution, why? Because whatever is done to the offender does not take back what was done to my friends; and me perpetrating revenge on them - just makes me as bad as them.

 

For the record on the Gandhi quote - the whole world looses both eyes not just one; and I might hasten to add your world view, is the reason the world is in such a state - hate and revenge only beget more hate and revenge and a horrible never ender circle of destruction is formed.

 

You may also wish to consider that your post came across, as arrogant, that you were talking down to me and that somehow I'm stupid for thinking what I do; good day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(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.)

I don't think you can be persuaded to the course of love on this; you seem to be purely interested in the financial side of things and human beings apparently being nothing more than machines.

Objective debating is interesting isn't it? At the same time, you seem to be only interested in the moral side of things.

 

Objectively, humans are simply an animal. A machine. If you did not want to see an objective argument for human beings, then you shouldn't have tried to debate with me in the first place.

 

Now, you have irked me sufficiently with poor observations from ignorance for me to comment; To date, 16 friends of mine have suffered the crime of rape; in not one single of those cases is anyone serving a prison sentence (indeed, such are the problems of trying to get a rape conviction, none got as far as court).

Then the justice system isn't just now is it? Seems to defeat your own argument that the system works on justice. If it did, then all those rapists would be sitting in a cell now.

 

1 of those individuals is one of my best friends; rape and child abuse are possibly the worst crimes that can be inflicted on another person and I have never seen anyone fully recover having suffered such a heinous crime perpetrated against them. Now from the above, out of two of my friends I know exactly who did it. Suffice to say given who my best friends is associated with, I could have 'justice' served. I never however will go outside the legal methods of prosecution, why? Because whatever is done to the offender does not take back what was done to my friends; and me perpetrating revenge on them - just makes me as bad as them.

I never, ever said to go beyond the legal means of prosecution.

 

I stated that prosecution is a form of revenge. If you chose not to prosecute, then you chose not to take revenge on the person who did.

I did not say that taking it is required. I have said, as you have just stated, that it is merely a form of revenge. You are the one that is taking this to a personal level.

Now please, go up and look at my posts and tell me where I have said that taking the law into your own hands was required?

I will say it again and again. Prosecution is a form of revenge. You do not need to physically stab someone to exact revenge.

As I said, it is often a much more subtle thing.

 

Again, your attempt to appeal to my emotions with a life story is a lost cause.

 

 

Firstly my "romantic" view of the judicial system and how I'm apparently sat in the gallery.

I have yet to see an argument saying otherwise. So far you have attempted to appeal to my emotions and morals, but that is not the attempted argument I am trying to make.

 

For the record on the Gandhi quote - the whole world looses both eyes not just one; and I might hasten to add your world view, is the reason the world is in such a state - hate and revenge only beget more hate and revenge and a horrible never ender circle of destruction is formed.

Humanity will always be in conflict. You, I, or anybody else will never be able to fix that.

 

If we must live with them, why keep those around that we -know- are dangers?

 

 

You may also wish to consider that your post came across, as arrogant, that you were talking down to me and that somehow I'm stupid for thinking what I do; good day.

No.

 

I'd like you to look at the top of all of my posts where I said I was trying to debate an objective point of view. It is an argument based on logic.

 

I have not attempted to insult you in any way. I am merely attempting to make logical conclusions with the information that I presently have.

 

If you saw it as insulting, or undermining your moral argument, then that is your problem.

 

Not mine.

 

Again, if you were not ready to debate against an attempted objective viewpoint then you should not have tried to in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, your attempt to appeal to my emotions with a life story is a lost cause.

 

No, the point of my story, was your claiming to be objective and I'm being 'emotional' and subjective, my point was more that I would suggest my the law of averages I would have far more reason to be arguing from your POV than the one I am arguing from.

 

If you saw it as insulting, or undermining your moral argument, then that is your problem.

 

Not mine.

 

Thanks for proving my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PLEASE READ THIS:

(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.)

 

No, the point of my story, was your claiming to be objective and I'm being 'emotional' and subjective, my point was more that I would suggest my the law of averages I would have far more reason to be arguing from your POV than the one I am arguing from.

On the contrary, your story proves my point right as far as my objective viewpoint is concerned.

 

16 victims, nobody behind bars. That means our current justice system is not working, and people do not fear the "law" enough to avoid doing it.

 

No punishment was exacted. No revenge was exacted. Nothing was gained or lost. And now those rapists that hurt your 16 friends are free to do it again without fear of the "just"ice system.

 

I apologize, however, for making an assumption on the post.

 

Thanks for proving my point.

I am arguing objectively. Not subjectively.

 

If this was a subjective argument I would expect a mod to warn me very quickly. But, I have a warning at the top of my posts if you have not bothered looking.

 

The fact you are being insulted proves my point. I am not in this to insult people. I am in this to debate with a stance that is not normally taken.

 

If you find an objective viewpoint insulting, then you should have never, ever attempted to debate it. You brought it upon yourself.

 

Don't cry victim when the spider bites you when there is a sign right next to it saying "This spider bites"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you'd expect a mod to warn quickly, except we do things like go to work, then to dinner, clean our houses, and other mundane things besides just wait for posts to pop up. Warnings at the top of the post are not sufficient--in fact, if you have to post a warning, that's a pretty good clue that it likely needs a review prior to posting for sure, and possibly a re-write. Everyone: tone down the aggression and the gross comments. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for horrible criminals- I don't beleivein turning our backs on them and kiling them. Punishment is a good deterrent against committing a crime, buut not agaisnt recommitting one. Prison often hardens a criminal further... Many criminals need phycological help.

 

Turning our backs on them because of their mental instability and lack of control/good judgement is inhumane, and cold-blooded in itself. Many people want revenge, for the murderer or rapist or whatnot to die/be punished miserably. Punishment as a technique for 'rehabilitation' is self-destructive.

 

These criminals need positive reinforcement, and somebody to understand them and be able to help them realize the severity of the crimes they have committed. The first step to healing for the victim or victim(s) and victim(s) friends and family is forgiveness- something many people will not give, because of blind emotion and anger aganst the criminal. I'm not trying to say criminals aren't bad- I'm saying that they need help. The first step towards healing for the criminal is guilt.

 

I hate the crimes people commit, and hate them for what they have done- but I'm not one to support witholding another chance at living from those criminals.

 

The cold blooded acts of criminals do not justify cold-blooded acts in return.

When you make it an eye for an eye, everyone ends up blind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Proper, deserved punishment, IMO, isn't effectively done through imprisonment. Rehabilitation, in way I'm saying, should come at whatever neccessary level is required to rehabilitate a person. If that means aggresive therapy, then that works just fine with me. Although there are a lot of criminals too far gone to be rehabilitated, I admit.

 

ES, that's a good point there...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's disgusting.

 

Seriously, I've seen countless sickening crimes performed in my old neighborhood, but this one makes all of them seem pathetic.

 

How do you do that to a child?

I'd suggest the death penalty, but unfortunately that kills the criminals too fast and doesn't allow them to suffer for their crimes.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I swear I responded to this saying how disgusting I thought it was....On the subject of people-eating, from what I've read, human flesh has some kind of chemical/hormones in it that makes it addictive.

 

oh well.

 

On the subject of punishment, I am not foolish enough to believe everyone can be rehabilitated. Should at least give it a try though. For petty crime, this is generally the best solution. For crimes like this, I mean, I dunno, I don't think any of the current "death penalties" are sufficient. And, come to think of it, I don't think Germany even HAS the death penalty does it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I swear I responded to this saying how disgusting I thought it was....On the subject of people-eating, from what I've read, human flesh has some kind of chemical/hormones in it that makes it addictive.

Basically organic cigarettes. Nice.

 

On the subject of punishment, I am not foolish enough to believe everyone can be rehabilitated.

 

True. Look at Lindsey Lohan. Gone through Rehab, got DUI'd.

As for the Penalty:

Death.

I mean, I remember hearing that if you were stranded on an island, you had run out of food, and in order to survive, you had to eat the other person. I believe that should only apply if the other person gave up, and let the other person.

In this case, they had food. And it was the flesh of a 7 year old child.

If Austria can only sentence a person for 20 years, send them to the USA with a note attached, explaining the situation, and they'll be put away for longer (50+)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True. Look at Lindsey Lohan. Gone through Rehab, got DUI'd.

 

to be fair, "punishment" for a star or political figure, or anyone high on the social ladder, is nothing like punishment for regular people. Rehab for a star is a forced stay at the Ritz without the drugs. Rehab for you and me is a Motel Six with mandatory AA meetings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to be fair, "punishment" for a star or political figure, or anyone high on the social ladder, is nothing like punishment for regular people. Rehab for a star is a forced stay at the Ritz without the drugs. Rehab for you and me is a Motel Six with mandatory AA meetings.

 

You got a point there. In fact... it inspires me for a topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Web: Agreed, and I wish more research would be done finding the kinds of rehab that work, and in what circumstances.

 

Trigger: If I ever end up in your island example, I hope you are the other person :p

 

As for how sewere you should be able to punish someone, we have a system where you can only be sentenced for 21 years (in practise it tends to be more like 15-17 years), but if you are considered a threat to society, you'll be sentenced for only three years, which can be renewed indefenitely by a team of specialists. Seems to work alright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...