I was going to say this isn't entirely untrue but then I realized I didn't want to get into another 4 page long argument on here...DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
so this is a guy b1rb looks up to? lmao
forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting
posted
Total Posts
56,184
It wouldn't be ITT if it didn't continue for an n amount of pages with completely random nonsense.
for all we know, your last name could be "Peterson"!Jordan wrote:
I was going to say this isn't entirely untrue but then I realized I didn't want to get into another 4 page long argument on here...DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
so this is a guy b1rb looks up to? lmao
what do u call a belt made out of watches?
a waist of time!
xd
a waist of time!
xd
Which of the 2 would you prefer to see. Death penalty or life in prison without parole?
neither
I'd choose prison, then I have a better chance of escaping.
Sorry, the wording of my question wasn't clear enough and people are going to misinterpret what I wanted them to answer. Allow me to rephrase.Kisses wrote:
Which of the 2 would you prefer to see. Death penalty or life in prison without parole?
If a convicted criminal was sentenced to life in prison without parole would you rather have them receive the death penalty? Yes or no, why? If it depends, what does it depend on?
Strike him down and bury him, and so clear me and my father's house of the guilt of the innocent blood that Joab shed. The LORD will repay him for the blood he shed, because without the knowledge of my father David he attacked two men and killed them with the sword. Both of them—Abner son of Ner, commander of Israel's army, and Amasa son of Jether, commander of Judah's army—were better men and more upright than he. May the guilt of their blood rest on the head of Joab and his descendants forever. But on David and his descendants, his house and his throne, may there be the LORD's peace forever.Kisses wrote:
Sorry, the wording of my question wasn't clear enough and people are going to misinterpret what I wanted them to answer. Allow me to rephrase.Kisses wrote:
Which of the 2 would you prefer to see. Death penalty or life in prison without parole?
If a convicted criminal was sentenced to life in prison without parole would you rather have them receive the death penalty? Yes or no, why? If it depends, what does it depend on?
life in prisonKisses wrote:
Sorry, the wording of my question wasn't clear enough and people are going to misinterpret what I wanted them to answer. Allow me to rephrase.Kisses wrote:
Which of the 2 would you prefer to see. Death penalty or life in prison without parole?
If a convicted criminal was sentenced to life in prison without parole would you rather have them receive the death penalty? Yes or no, why? If it depends, what does it depend on?
it's less expensive and still presents the opportunity for some kind of reform
a question to those reading: if you were wrongly convicted of a terrible crime, would you rather your punishment be the death penalty, or life in prison without parole?
suicidal people need not apply obviously
DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
life in prison
it's less expensive and still presents the opportunity for some kind of reform ??? Prison is way more expensive as it requires much more taxes for the occupation of prison, clothing, food, wages of prison wardens etc. Also I can't imagine any man "reforming" after a sentenced to life in prison. Human minds just don't work like that. Also it would be reforming for no reason, you have no freedom and nothing to aspire for once you leave the best you can do is cope with prison
a question to those reading: if you were wrongly convicted of a terrible crime, would you rather your punishment be the death penalty, or life in prison without parole? death
suicidal people need not apply obviously
Lol
How much do you think prison costs for an inmate each year?
hahahaha wtfDaddyCoolVipper wrote:
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
death penalty costs a shitton, guys.
$31,977 on averageKisses wrote:
How much do you think prison costs for an inmate each year?
if the death penalty will cost the state 1.2m on average then that breaks even with 37.5 years in prison
or 75 years in prison if the death penalty costs 2.4m on average
depends on the state. people who think that the death penalty is cheap are very naive about the legal costs of pursuing and carrying out such things
for the record, the average life sentence in the UK lasts for 15 years before the prisoner becomes paroled
but vipper
it is not the true
does not cost alot
they say the lies to make public think it ok to ban kill people
u think u know
u know not
it is not the true
does not cost alot
they say the lies to make public think it ok to ban kill people
u think u know
u know not
The real question is, are there any crimes heinous enough to warrant the death penalty? The answer is yes. Leftists are too naive to realise that there are people who are evil and those sort of people deserve to die for their crimes. It's silly how you have mass murders in Scandinavian jails who can complain because they have a PS2 instead of a PS3 and only kids' games to play. That's not what justice is.
I still stand by my point that instead of life in prison and the death penalty, they should introduce torture - not because of the physical aspect of it, but the psychological. I'm quite positive the number of crimes would be significantly reduced were such a thing to be passed in law.
I know, I know, if mere death sentences pose such a problem in legality, this thing would be even more nightmarish, but as a concept it works just fine... it's just sad that general corruption and the very core of capitalism we practice in this day make it an impracticality and thus improbability, if not an impossibility.
I know, I know, if mere death sentences pose such a problem in legality, this thing would be even more nightmarish, but as a concept it works just fine... it's just sad that general corruption and the very core of capitalism we practice in this day make it an impracticality and thus improbability, if not an impossibility.
B1rd wrote:
The real question is, are there any crimes heinous enough to warrant the death penalty? The answer is yes. Leftists are too naive to realise that there are people who are evil and those sort of people deserve to die for their crimes. It's silly how you have mass murders in Scandinavian jails who can complain because they have a PS2 instead of a PS3 and only kids' games to play. That's not what justice is.
And yet they have the best prison system in the world, when talking about rates of re-offence for example.
Sometimes, solutions are counter-intuitive to your feelings.
Also, re: your video. Ok, Panzram was well and truly evil by the time he went on his crime spree. Execution still wouldn't be necessary, since as a prisoner, he'd therefore been removed from society. Just remember that when the death penalty is an option, many families of victims will seek it, for example, because they want retribution- which can be both very costly and dangerous.
Bonus: Panzram's backstory.
Born in East Grand Forks, Minnesota, the son of East Prussian immigrants Johann "John" and Matilda Panzram, Carl was raised on his family's farm with five siblings. In 1903, at the age of 12, he stole some cake, apples, and a revolver from a neighbor's home. Soon after, his parents sent him to the Minnesota State Training School. While there, he was repeatedly beaten, tortured, and raped by staff members in what attendees dubbed "The Painting House", because children would leave "painted" with bruises and blood. Panzram hated this place of torture so much that he decided to burn it down, and did so without detection.
In late 1905, Panzram was released from the school. By his teens, he was an alcoholic and was repeatedly in trouble with the authorities, often for burglary and theft. He ran away from home at the age of 14. He often traveled via train cars; he later claimed that on one train he was gang raped by a group of hobos.
In 1907, at the age of 15, after getting drunk in a saloon in Montana, Panzram enlisted in the U.S. Army. Shortly thereafter he was convicted of larceny and served a prison sentence from 1908 to 1910 at Fort Leavenworth's United States Disciplinary Barracks. Then-Secretary of War William Howard Taft approved the sentence. Panzram later claimed that any goodness left in him was smashed out during his Leavenworth imprisonment.
...So he had an abusive, awful childhood, exacerbated by the school and prison systems that he'd been to in his youth. A bit hard to see him as just some evil guy that deserves to be judged the same way as anyone else, considering how fucked up his entire life had been up to that point. This is the case for most people who do terrible things.
Aurani wrote:
I still stand by my point that instead of life in prison and the death penalty, they should introduce torture - not because of the physical aspect of it, but the psychological. I'm quite positive the number of crimes would be significantly reduced were such a thing to be passed in law.
I know, I know, if mere death sentences pose such a problem in legality, this thing would be even more nightmarish, but as a concept it works just fine... it's just sad that general corruption and the very core of capitalism we practice in this day make it an impracticality and thus improbability, if not an impossibility.
I'm pretty sure that harsher punishments don't actually correlate with less crime, but that's for either of us to be bothered to research lol.
What does corruption and capitalism have to do with that though? I don't think most people would want torture to be integrated into the justice system, regardless of profit or corruption-driven motives. People have learned as a society that it's quite frankly unnecessary. See the backlash to the Guantanimo Bay torture for example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanam ... mp#Torture
I don't like the idea of criminals having it easy in prison either, but if that is what it takes to create the lowest rate of re-offenders and a healthy society, then maybe i should reconsider if my "sense of justice" is worth being pursued. In other words: If your sense of justice doesn't create any utilitarian value, it belongs on the historical garbage-dump, right next to witch-hunts, laws regarding bastards, the opression of women and everything else we got rid of to create a better life for everyone.
So what. Correlation doesn't equal causation. Just because they do some things right, doesn't mean they do everything right. Whether it is good at reforming petty criminals it a moot point,what is cleat is that it is absolutely lacking in being able to deal justice when people have committed atrocities. How many people does someone have to kill, torture, rape and brutalise before 21 years of playing video games and relaxing in a holiday resort then release for good behaviour becomes insufficient?DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
And yet they have the best prison system in the world, when talking about rates of re-offence for example.
Sometimes, solutions are counter-intuitive to your feelings.
..So he had an abusive, awful childhood, exacerbated by the school and prison systems that he'd been to in his youth. A bit hard to see him as just some evil guy that deserves to be judged the same way as anyone else, considering how fucked up his entire life had been up to that point. This is the case for most people who do terrible things.No. Just because one guy has a sob story doesn't mean you can generalise it to mean that everyone who ever did something bad had a proportionately bad earlier life. You have people like him, then you have people like Elliot Rodger who had a perfectly good childhood but just brooded on some minor hardship and then did what they did. People have free will and it's not just all environmental determinism, I'd be willing to bet that serial killers have lives no harder than 1000 other people who managed to lead normal lives.
In other words the "right side of history" fallacy.Railey2 wrote:
I don't like the idea of criminals having it easy in prison either, but if that is what it takes to create the lowest rate of re-offenders and a healthy society, then maybe i should reconsider if my "sense of justice" is worth being pursued. In other words: If your sense of justice doesn't create any utilitarian value, it belongs on the historical garbage-dump, right next to witch-hunts, laws regarding bastards, the opression of women and everything else we got rid of to create a better life for everyone.
By no means it it obvious that lack of capital punishment is what's best for society. Japan's prison has capital punishment and a harsh and punitive prison system. It also has some of the lowest crime rates in the world, even compared to Scandinavian countries. But would there be more utilitarian value in letting the convicted of the Nuremburg trials off on good behaviour?
Does determinism scare you, B1rd?
Does free will scare you?
How is everyone's Halloween?
@b1rd: Note that I didn't directly say what judicial system would be most beneficial for society (It's probably highly dependent on what sort of society you work with, although I do suspect that something close to the scandinavian system will work best for a society that is already very healthy).
The main point i was trying to make was that anything pertaining to a "sense of justice" is a non-argument and should be ignored. I don't give a crap about what people think is "fair", as that in itself can never be a valid line of reasoning. People thought it fair to burn people to death based on allegations of witchcraft, so there you go.
A more productive discussion can be achieved if justice as a concept is ignored, and everything is only talked about in terms of policy-dependent consequences.
The main point i was trying to make was that anything pertaining to a "sense of justice" is a non-argument and should be ignored. I don't give a crap about what people think is "fair", as that in itself can never be a valid line of reasoning. People thought it fair to burn people to death based on allegations of witchcraft, so there you go.
A more productive discussion can be achieved if justice as a concept is ignored, and everything is only talked about in terms of policy-dependent consequences.
Not at all, it'd be quite nice to live in a world like that. Unfortunately, I'm not religious, so the concept of "libertarian free will" doesn't exactly match the objective reality that I live in.B1rd wrote:
Does free will scare you?
Nice strawman - my arguments are founded on "religion", whilst you conveniently forget to respond to all the arguments I put forth.
Your cultural marxism is showing through. Oh I'm sorry, "objective left-wing determinism". But no, humans are not putty that is infinitely malleable with social engineering. You may create a system which might influence people in a certain direction, but it's impossible to eliminate free will by changing environmental factors.
Your cultural marxism is showing through. Oh I'm sorry, "objective left-wing determinism". But no, humans are not putty that is infinitely malleable with social engineering. You may create a system which might influence people in a certain direction, but it's impossible to eliminate free will by changing environmental factors.
What? You didn't put forward any arguments, lol.
Your post might as well have just said this^, which I'm happy to respond to.
I'm not saying Scandinavian prisons do "everything right", but they're objectively better at reforming criminals than a more punishment-oriented justice system, proven by statistics.
Elliot Rodger may have been mentally ill, he might've been raised badly, or gotten unlucky enough for his mental state to make sense (to him).
Explain how free will is even possible without the assistance of something non-physical? I'm pretty sure you could predict someone's future choices with 100% accuracy if you knew everything that had led up to that point in their life down to the atom, which means that they wouldn't be able to exercise free will without something non-physical like a soul.
I feel like people executed at the Nuremberg trials might've been disproportionately punished, actually. Plenty of psychological experiments since then have suggested that normal people will commit atrocities as long as an authority tells them to, it's human nature.
You spend too much time reading alt-right content, lol.
B1rd wrote:
[
So what. Correlation doesn't equal causation. Just because they do some things right, doesn't mean they do everything right.
Elliot Rodger is an example of someone who reacted disproportionately to their life situation, which means that he chose to do so of his own will. People have free will and it's not just all environmental determinism
Would there be more utilitarian value in letting the convicted of the Nuremburg trials off on good behaviour?
Your post might as well have just said this^, which I'm happy to respond to.
I'm not saying Scandinavian prisons do "everything right", but they're objectively better at reforming criminals than a more punishment-oriented justice system, proven by statistics.
Elliot Rodger may have been mentally ill, he might've been raised badly, or gotten unlucky enough for his mental state to make sense (to him).
Explain how free will is even possible without the assistance of something non-physical? I'm pretty sure you could predict someone's future choices with 100% accuracy if you knew everything that had led up to that point in their life down to the atom, which means that they wouldn't be able to exercise free will without something non-physical like a soul.
I feel like people executed at the Nuremberg trials might've been disproportionately punished, actually. Plenty of psychological experiments since then have suggested that normal people will commit atrocities as long as an authority tells them to, it's human nature.
B1rd wrote:
Your cultural marxism is showing through. Oh I'm sorry, "objective left-wing determinism".
You spend too much time reading alt-right content, lol.
This discussion has gone off the fucking rails lol
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 4705545216
Nvm I think I found why B1rd is so pro-death penalty, LUL
Nvm I think I found why B1rd is so pro-death penalty, LUL