Enjoy your patato.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is this humane?
- Thread starter Eddi
- Start date
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Enjoy your patato.
Likewise!
VoidCat
Use any and all pronouns including neo and it/it's
I can't believe folk even brought up Hitler. I don't feel pity for the guy. But Hitler is an extreme case. I don't think it's useful to apply it generally it'd be more useful in context of this thread to talk about cases that are more common.
My quarrel and the only reason I even focused as much as I did on him is that he still was a person. And I focused on that because once you divorce humanity from evil people then you are less likely to try to prevent the things they did from happening again. Because then folk like that not human so it's unlikely those things could happen again.
Correct.
The point is to prevent even more loss of life.
But if an eye for an eye is all that works. Keep it up.
Well said. Bravo.
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
Not really.
If you treat people like animals, they will behave like animals.
Long term confinement and isolation, sensory deprivation, I fail to see how these things result in justice for anyone.
To protect society is one thing, to psychologically and emotionally torture, a criminal, is another. It is not justice, whatever it is.
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
I would not. I do not approve of the death penalty.
The main reason being, it is not necessary. Once we had Adolf in custody within an allied nation's penal system. He wasn't going to be hurting anyone ever again.
If something is not necessary, why do it?
It is necessary:
To harm him as he harmed others to satisfy both justice and his victims, both those who he killed and those who managed to survive
Basically, to make him pay for what he did
And to set an example
What better way to finish off Nazi-ism than to hang the man who brought it to power and who most personified it?
Such people behave worse than animals
My dog would never kill or rape anyone
I've always thought that it is an affront to animals whenever anyone says some violent criminal is "like an animal"
Animals are pure and innocent, even ones who kill humans, they are just animals
And punishment isn't torture
It is making people pay
Justice demands that nasty things happen in nasty places to nasty people
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
Killing someone lets them off the hook.
Set an example, yes it does set an example. That the state has the power and authority to kill you if it chooses to do so. I am not sure that is something we should encourage.
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
Imprisonment, loss of liberty.
Is the punishment.
Anything else added on top, is vengeance.
In my opinion.
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
I would rather kill the ideology, than the man.
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
Nonetheless, humans are animals, and if you treat them badly, they will behave badly, they will respond in kind, they will express their mistreatment later, on other people, innocent people.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
I thought that was invented. Anyway, here's the song about it. Sing to the tune of The Colonel Bogey March.
Hitler, he only has one ball.
Goering has two but very small.
Himmler is very sim'lar
And poor old Goebbels has no balls at all.
One is so very far away.
Floating across the Hudson's Bay.
His mother has got the other.
So poor old Goebbels has no balls at all.
In a democracy the state does the will of the people
When the state puts someone to death it does so on behalf of the people, it is the people's will not the will of the state
This is unlike how things are under an authoritarian, or totalitarian system such as the one Hitler brought into being
It has to be more than loss of liberty
Would we give some mass-murderer life imprisonment in the penthouse suite of a five-star luxury hotel with room service, champagne and a hot-tub?
It is possible to do both
I have read a psychological study of Adolf Hitler and he exhibited all the classic traits of a person who either had only one ball or who had one that was undescended
Sexual, sub-conscious messed-up Freudian stuff
Also, in 1945 some soviet doctors examined the burnt remains of a person that some soldiers found outside Hitler's bunker. This body had only one testicle although some people doubt this actually happened
Not if we keep them banged up or hang them
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Why should that be the point?
Why should the goal be to prevent every single instance of loss of life?
Alien826
No religious beliefs
As I have aged, one of my testicles has become noticeably smaller. I was worried until I learned that is common with aging.
I just hope I'm not getting more and more likely to commit genocide.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
OK, jokes over.
I think our treatment of prisoners says as much about us as a society as the prisoners.
In my view, there are the following reasons for imprisonment.
Protection of society. That is satisfied by adequate containment.
Deterrence of others. I've read that certainty of detection is more effective, but for me fear of detention alone is enough.
Rehabilitation. Obviously desirable if possible, and who is to say that nobody can be helped?
Revenge. What does that say about us?
Hitler. As has been stated, an extreme example, but once you start making exceptions in individual cases it opens lots of doors that should remain closed. I would have locked him up in humane conditions. Publishing details of what the Nazis did should be deterrence enough, surely?
It worries me that victims are called into court to testify when sentences are determined. That seems wrong to me. As an illustration, it would be better to murder an orphan with no friends than a member of a large family.
I think our treatment of prisoners says as much about us as a society as the prisoners.
In my view, there are the following reasons for imprisonment.
Protection of society. That is satisfied by adequate containment.
Deterrence of others. I've read that certainty of detection is more effective, but for me fear of detention alone is enough.
Rehabilitation. Obviously desirable if possible, and who is to say that nobody can be helped?
Revenge. What does that say about us?
Hitler. As has been stated, an extreme example, but once you start making exceptions in individual cases it opens lots of doors that should remain closed. I would have locked him up in humane conditions. Publishing details of what the Nazis did should be deterrence enough, surely?
It worries me that victims are called into court to testify when sentences are determined. That seems wrong to me. As an illustration, it would be better to murder an orphan with no friends than a member of a large family.