The People of Today Are Hungry for A Lynching. Its not good.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Yes, but they are both nonetheless things you would not do to someone who is in fact innocent. The point being if "they might be innocent even though convicted" stops you from one, why should it not also stop you from the other?

Because the potential innocence is only one premise of a multi-premised contingent argument?

[Phenia]

Yes, but they are both nonetheless things you would not do to someone who is in fact innocent. The point being if "they might be innocent even though convicted" stops you from one, why should it not also stop you from the other?

Because the potential innocence is only one premise of a multi-premised contingent argument?

Is it? It was the only argument I saw in what I was replying to and the only part I'm rebutting at the moment...

[EvilDarkMagicians]

It's not "innocent until proven guilty and even then still innocent." If you're not going to do anything to convicts you wouldn't do to the unconvicted why bother with the system at all?

There's a big difference between incarceration and medical experiments.

Yes, but they are both nonetheless things you would not do to someone who is in fact innocent. The point being if "they might be innocent even though convicted" stops you from one, why should it not also stop you from the other?

Because the other could kill, have traumatic psychological damage and wouldn't make the offender an acceptable member of society.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Is it? It was the only argument I saw in what I was replying to and the only part I'm rebutting at the moment...

In my arguments, it is.

[The Imperial Navy]

Change the laws.
Advocating meeting violence with violence isnt criminal or innately immoral.
And it really depends--tell me you intend to rape my wife, and will gleefully go to jail for killing you--"you" being a general "you" and not you you.

Suddenly i'm glad that i'm not you.

[KenKenpachi]

Change the laws.
Advocating meeting violence with violence isnt criminal or innately immoral.
And it really depends--tell me you intend to rape my wife, and will gleefully go to jail for killing you--"you" being a general "you" and not you you.

Suddenly i'm glad that i'm not you.

Pft I agree with him.

[Korex]

We can't base the law on the small possibility that a person was wrongly convicted. If we do that we wouldn't be able to punish anyone at all just because they might be innocent.

You'd be surprised just how big the possibility of being wrong is.

We shouldn't punish. We should incarcerate. Extra punishment beyond incarceration doesn't really serve any rational purpose.

Proof? If you can't prove that a considerable percentage of people convicted are innocent then they probably arn't. The system is careful to not wrongly convict the innocent going so far that the guilty go free at times too. If there is sufficient evidence to convict then chances are the person did it. There is certainly rational reason to punish beyond incarceration, someone who is merely incarcerated is likely to eventually be released to hurt someone again. The only option then is to keep them in prison the rest of their lives, thereby costing the taxpayers money to keep them alive. Keeping someone alive in prison when they'll never get out serves no rational purpose.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Proof? If you can't prove that a considerable percentage of people convicted are innocent then they probably arn't. The system is careful to not wrongly convict the innocent going so far that the guilty go free at times too. If there is sufficient evidence to convict then chances are the person did it. There is certainly rational reason to punish beyond incarceration, someone who is merely incarcerated is likely to eventually be released to hurt someone again. The only option then is to keep them in prison the rest of their lives, thereby costing the taxpayers money to keep them alive. Keeping someone alive in prison when they'll never get out serves no rational purpose.

Keeping someone in prison for life costs less than executing them.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/do ... 497915.htm

As of that article's writing, 122 people have been released from death row after being later found innocent. Only about 1,000 executions had been performed in the same amount of time. Those aren't great numbers.

[Ifreann]

Unless they were wrongfully convicted. But whatever, torture innocent people to death. They deserve it for being unlucky.

It's not "innocent until proven guilty and even then still innocent." If you're not going to do anything to convicts you wouldn't do to the unconvicted why bother with the system at all?

You have to do something. That shouldn't mean "They were convicted, so now we can do whatever".

---

Rape is a pretty terrible, offensive thing. Lotta anger wells up inside when a friend or loved one gets raped. Just sayin'.

The punishment is irrelevant. Are we good people if we torture someone to death for doing something bad? I think not.

Only per your definition of "good" which is completely subjective to your own opinion and bias like every other person.
They are completely entitled to sympathize with the victims and be apathetic towards the victimizers as you are completely entitled to sympathize with the victimizer and be apathetic towards the victims. Welcome to Earth.

There's a subtle difference between "torture" and "sympathy". Subtle.

[Wiztopia]

Proof? If you can't prove that a considerable percentage of people convicted are innocent then they probably arn't. The system is careful to not wrongly convict the innocent going so far that the guilty go free at times too. If there is sufficient evidence to convict then chances are the person did it. There is certainly rational reason to punish beyond incarceration, someone who is merely incarcerated is likely to eventually be released to hurt someone again. The only option then is to keep them in prison the rest of their lives, thereby costing the taxpayers money to keep them alive. Keeping someone alive in prison when they'll never get out serves no rational purpose.

Keeping someone in prison for life costs less than executing them.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/do ... 497915.htm

As of that article's writing, 122 people have been released from death row after being later found innocent. Only about 1,000 executions had been performed in the same amount of time. Those aren't great numbers.

Maybe how the U.S. handles it but obviously it could cost shitloads less. For instance, one bullet to the head would cost a lot less than 30 years worth of food.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Maybe how the U.S. handles it but obviously it could cost shitloads less. For instance, one bullet to the head would cost a lot less than 30 years worth of food.

It would also ensure far more innocent people are killed. It also really wouldn't serve much of a purpose.

[New Amerik]

Rape is a pretty terrible, offensive thing. Lotta anger wells up inside when a friend or loved one gets raped. Just sayin'.

The punishment is irrelevant. Are we good people if we torture someone to death for doing something bad? I think not.

Only per your definition of "good" which is completely subjective to your own opinion and bias like every other person.
They are completely entitled to sympathize with the victims and be apathetic towards the victimizers as you are completely entitled to sympathize with the victimizer and be apathetic towards the victims. Welcome to Earth.

How about this way then. Breaking the law to deal with a lawbreaker is a bad idea.

Change the laws.
Advocating meeting violence with violence isnt criminal or innately immoral.
And it really depends--tell me you intend to rape my wife, and will gleefully go to jail for killing you--"you" being a general "you" and not you you.

But you see, having just killed someone, you should be treated the same as all the other murderors, rapists, molesters, eg. put to death or be experimented on.
The trouble with the vigilante method is that doing it makes you just as bad IN THE EYES OF THE LAW. The law isn't some watchful entity that can say, "It's OK, he had a reason for it." the law's job is to punish all who break the law. And that would be you.

Besides, if they change the laws one could claim a fake reason for doing so and get away with killing those they disliked. As in one of the NS optional descisions where ,"People regularly get away with [real] murder by claiming they were defending their honour [or their wife's safety]

[Person012345]

Proof? If you can't prove that a considerable percentage of people convicted are innocent then they probably arn't. The system is careful to not wrongly convict the innocent going so far that the guilty go free at times too. If there is sufficient evidence to convict then chances are the person did it. There is certainly rational reason to punish beyond incarceration, someone who is merely incarcerated is likely to eventually be released to hurt someone again. The only option then is to keep them in prison the rest of their lives, thereby costing the taxpayers money to keep them alive. Keeping someone alive in prison when they'll never get out serves no rational purpose.

Keeping someone in prison for life costs less than executing them.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/do ... 497915.htm

As of that article's writing, 122 people have been released from death row after being later found innocent. Only about 1,000 executions had been performed in the same amount of time. Those aren't great numbers.

Maybe how the U.S. handles it but obviously it could cost shitloads less. For instance, one bullet to the head would cost a lot less than 30 years worth of food.

exactly, round the back of the courtroom (maybe a special room inside) one bullet, and a team to remove and dispose of the body (incinerator most likely). If you wish to have minimal costs, charge the cost of the bullet and the removal either to remaining family, or take it out of his ex-possesions. Though I only advocate for extreme crimes, and 100% certainty.