Slavery and capitol punishment

[halbhh]

Something I thought of (for some weird reason).

If a prisoner is waiting for death row, should she be treated as a slave because of her crime or like a human being despite her crime?

Does one's crime justify treating someone as a slave on earth despite the final consequence of their crime?

No justification ever for mistreating people -- taking advantage of them or other ways of mistreating them -- no justification for treating anyone as a slave. It's breaking the golden rule: Matthew 7:12. But overcoming the natural human tendency to mistreat others...takes more than just a law. An all-at-once law like Matthew 7:12 takes a lot of work ahead of time. It takes a real change of heart, and getting to that can take a while for a culture steeped in the mistreatment of people....

Civilization and progress -- they are sort of like climbing up a slippery hill, where sometimes a nation, people, even much of humanity at times, can slide back some, and has to grab at the dirt, trying not to slip all the way back down to pure law of the jungle culture.

So, a certain Being, caring about us, sent a certain Person, to help us change, inside, in the only way that really can work. You can read about his efforts in the 4 gospels of the common 'bible'. It's a story that can stick with you, and bring one a jewel of great price.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The way prisoners are treated has to be regulated by law. Relying on the whims of the prison wards is a sure way to generate injustice.

Yes. But should they be treated harshly because of their crime despite being on death row?

Do you personally agree with this or should they be treated (personally not legally) harsher than the law?

 

[Hellbound Serpiente]

Yes. But should they be treated harshly because of their crime despite being on death row?

Do you personally agree with this or should they be treated (personally not legally) harsher than the law?

Again, I'd like to repeat, some things are worse than death. If what this individual did was something immeasurably more agonizing than the agony of waiting in death row and execution itself, and they are inherently extremely sadistic and cruel, THAN they far likelier than not [I am saying that because I am not qualified enough to make an accurate enough judgment] deserve the agony they are receiving, personally from the police/public/etc. and/or through the law.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

We had a guy a few years ago who ran havoc and killed a multitude of innocents. It was in Norway. Yet, in Norway even life sentences are considered immoral. therefore, he will eventually get out of jail.

So? We simply like to try to correct, instead of following emotional revenge feelings. even if correction does not always work. We are not Iran.

ciao

- viole

You can't rehabilitate every offender. Look at Ted Bundy. He escaped from jail multiple times and killed and brutalized more young women while he was out, including a 12 year old girl. Death isn't the worst thing. Some people are just monsters, defects of nature or soul that you can't salvage.

Now, certainly some offenders, even murderers and some serial killers can be helped. Not all serial killers are psychopaths, actually. Some are extremely traumatized, mentally ill people (for example, Aileen Wuornos, who was brutalized throughout her early life and was actually suicidal and wanted to be put to death, which the bloodthirsty hicks in upstate Florida were happy to oblige). Others are psychotic, like the V-Tech shooter and the Newtown shooter (who were both psychotic and sadistic, according to their psychological profiles). Those people should be placed in mental institutions and maybe some can be released eventually. I think Wuornos could've been helped, but no one in her life or in the system cared enough about her to help her. So certainly things just end up in tragedy due to ineptness. But not always. Some people are just, for lack of a better term, evil.

What makes the difference is if they're capable of understanding what they've done and if they are capable of remorse, empathy and generally seeing others as beings deserving of the same respect they want. Some people are biologically incapable of those things, and you can't help them. It remains to be seen if Brevik is a full-blown psychopath like Bundy or Eric Harris. He did have a traumatic childhood full of abuse and neglect, so maybe his sickness stems from more a "nurture" cause. But I doubt he is salvageable.

Some heinous offenders are capable of understanding what they've done, but don't care. Psychopaths, for example, aren't insane. They know what they're doing, but they enjoy it. Bundy was one who was like that. Rosemary West is the rare example of a female psychopathic killer with no empathy or remorse, as well.

I can name other examples of serial killers or other extreme criminals that were obviously born that way. There's also all the examples of children (elementary to middle school age) who torture animals to death and, more rarely, kill and rape. So some people are truly just born evil and it can't just be explained by social factors in all cases. Certainly not with those Ukrainian monsters who ran amuck in 2007 (one of them was obviously a full-blown psychopath who was born that way and his parents are likely psychopaths, too) or with Eric Harris, the leader of the Columbine massacre. You can find the non-violent types on Wall Street, in politics, in the military, the corporate boardroom, etc. They're all over the place, wherever they can have power and control over others.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

deserve the agony they are receiving, personally from the police/public/etc. and/or through the law

Would you personally treat them harshly like a slave because they deserve it even though they will die?

I know the rest, just a yes or no question

 

[Hellbound Serpiente]

You can't rehabilitate every offender. Look at Ted Bundy. He escaped from jail multiple times and killed and brutalized more young women while he was out, inckuding a 12 year old girl. Death isn't the worst thing. Some people are just monsters, defects of nature or soul that you can't salvage.

Now, certainly some offenders, even murderers and some serial killers can be helped. Not all serial killers are psychopaths, actually. Some are extremely traumatized, mentally ill people (for example, Aileen Wuornos, who was brutalized throughout her early life and was actually suicidal and wanted to be put to death, which the bloodthirsty hicks in upstate Florida were happy to oblige). Others are psychotic, like the V-Tech shooter and the Newtown shooter (who were both psychotic and sadistic, according to their psychological profiles). Those people should be placed in mental institutions and maybe some can be released eventually. I think Wuornos could've been helped, but no one in her life or in the system cared enough about her to help her. So certainly things just end up in tragedy due to ineptness. But not always. Some people are just, for lack of a better term, evil.

What makes the difference is if they're capable of understanding what they've done and if they are capable of remorse, empathy and generally seeing others as beings deserving of the same respect they want. Some people are biologically incapable of those things, and you can't help them. It remains to be seen if Brevik is a full-blown psychopath like Bundy or Eric Harris. He did have a traumatic childhood full of abuse and neglect, so maybe his sickness stems from more a "nurture" cause. But I doubt he is salvageable.

Some heinous offenders are capable of understanding what they've done, but don't care. Psychopaths, for example, aren't insane. They know what they're doing, but they enjoy it. Bundy was one who was like that. Rosemary West is the rare example of a female psychopathic killer with no empathy or remorse, as well.

Not so mention many habitual sex offenders and many pedophiles are habitual pedophiles, and they just don't change.

To say it is better to "correct" these uncorrectable than doing something about them in a way that is equivalent to their nature ... is like saying UK judicial system relating solely to pedophiles is better than some other judicial system [in history] that just does something about pedophiles/pedophilia, and as a result minimizes the destruction and harm they do.

But then again, some people have some superiority complex and think they are overall better than others. "We consider this", "North Europe that", "Iran this" ... well, truth and justice doesn't revolve around what's convenient to north European and their [possibly false] considerations and whims and **** like that

 

[Hellbound Serpiente]

Would you personally treat them harshly like a slave because they deserve it even though they will die?

I know the rest, just a yes or no question

No. BUT if they receive harsh treatment, I won't save them either.

AND if they ever try to harm me and my family, by my God Almighty, I'll pray, hope and do everything in my limited power to unleash Armageddon upon them.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Not so mention many habitual sex offenders and many pedophiles are habitual pedophiles, and they just don't change.

To say it is better to "correct" these uncorrectable than doing something about them in a way that is equivalent to their nature ... is like saying UK judicial system relating solely to pedophiles is better than some other judicial system [in history] that just does something about them, and as a result minimizes the destruction and harm they do.

But then again, some people have some superior complex and think they are overall better than others.

I think some of it comes down to whether a person thinks those people are born that way or are made that way by their environment. The latter view is more popular in Western Europe. Personally, I think it's coming from good intentions but is naive and ignores that people aren't born blank slates. Some people are born with brains that don't function normally (psychopaths). The question is what to do with these people when they're caught in a crime. Unfortunately, the really smart ones aren't. Like Jimmy Saville, who was a psychopathic monster enabled by those around him. We know we can't rehabilitate them. Treatment fails. They don't even have a real personality.

 

[Hellbound Serpiente]

I think some of it comes down to whether a person thinks those people are born that way or are made that way by their environment. The latter view is more popular in Western Europe. Personally, I think it's coming from good intentions but is naive and ignores that people aren't born blank slates. Some people are born with brains that don't function normally (psychopaths). The question is what to do with these people when they're caught in a crime. We know we can't rehabilitate them. Treatment fails. They don't even have a real personality.

From what I've observed, Europeans also have a very smug personality and a superiority complex. Every time I talked to some European, they always seem to be on high horses, putting down Americans and others who are different from them. Yet they cry and whine and moan like bunch of teenage girls when Hitler or some other powers are oppressing them ... then they come down from their high horses, beg America to come and save their a''es like bunch of damsels in distress, hiding their true smug selves behind the facade the oppressed entities ... only to embrace their inherent smugness and arrogance, go back to their perceptual high horses and put down America and others who are different from them once they are saved. I don't think it's just naivety that is common among European, but also smugness and superiority complex.

I don't think they have good intentions either, for good intentions are only born from inherent goodness. Their intentions are pseudo-good intentions born which are convenient to their false goodness, but ultimately they and their intentions are rife with ignorance and arrogance. Thus, their ultimate naivety and ignorance to alternative views, and religious tenacity to their "popular" views. And when ignorance and arrogance are getting them killed through Hitler, Radical Muslim Fundamenlists [who infiltrated Europe and wreaking havoc there], they cry for daddy America to save them from the very ditch they have dug themselves.

"We consider this, we consider that [OUR CONSIDERATION IS UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTABLE!]"
"We consider it to be highly immoral (SO IT HAS TO BE HIGHLY IMMORAL, YOU NON-EUROPEAN IMBECILES!)"
"We are not Iran (SO WE ARE BETTER THAN THEM, YOU IRANIAN IMBECILES!)"

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No. BUT if they receive harsh treatment, I won't save them either.

AND if they ever try to harm me and my family, by my God Almighty, I'll pray, hope and do everything in my limited power to unleash Armageddon upon them.

Why wouldn't you treat them harshly if you would not save them if someone else does it?

Self/loved one-defense is quite a different story.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think some of it comes down to whether a person thinks those people are born that way or are made that way by their environment. The latter view is more popular in Western Europe. Personally, I think it's coming from good intentions but is naive and ignores that people aren't born blank slates. Some people are born with brains that don't function normally (psychopaths). The question is what to do with these people when they're caught in a crime. Unfortunately, the really smart ones aren't. Like Jimmy Saville, who was a psychopathic monster enabled by those around him. We know we can't rehabilitate them. Treatment fails. They don't even have a real personality.

What neurological condition in their brain have symptoms of multiple murder?

Psychologically, I can see it is in part one's environment and/or even upbringing or so have you. Someone who intentionally kills other people doesn't sound like a brain issue. Why do we excuse people of crimes by saying they have a brain issue, childhood trauma, or their environment as if they had inherited sin? Why can't people just be responsible for their own actions no matter how inhumane they may be?

I don't know about other countries, that tends to be the American concept.

 

[Hellbound Serpiente]

Why wouldn't you treat them harshly if you would not save them if someone else does it?

Because I don't want to across that thin line that separates justice from oppression. Maybe they deserve my harshness, but if I am overly harsh to them, I am making them suffer more than they deserve --- Bad karma to me. If I am not harsh enough, it won't make any difference to them. Why waste your possible good karma if it's most likely won't make any difference to them?

If others do it, then it's their problem. They will have to deal with their bad karma if they are overly harsh and/or wastage of valuable karma if they haven't been harsh enough.

 

[Hellbound Serpiente]

What neurological condition in their brain have symptoms of multiple murder?

Psychologically, I can see it is in part one's environment and/or even upbringing or so have you. Someone who intentionally kills other people doesn't sound like a brain issue. Why do we excuse people of crimes by saying they have a brain issue, childhood trauma, or their environment as if they had inherited sin? Why can't people just be responsible for their own actions no matter how inhumane they may be?

I don't know about other countries, that tends to be the American concept.

Apparently, I have severely traumatic childhood, severe psychological diagnosis [PTSD], and my environment is more or less a living [virtual] hell. Maybe I should slap the smugness out of some European's arrogant numb-skull FOR the greater good of justice [to show that America and the rest of the world aren't inferior to them like they think we are]. Perhaps I'll just get away with it because of my childhood trauma, psychological issues, environment etc.?

 

[viole]

Firstly, I want to congratulating you people for not being like Iran or Punkistan or Afghanistan or Someother-istan. I hate these places and the sheer barbarity in them. Anyway ...

Regardless, it doesn't matter who you are. What matters is who the evils ones are, what are they like, what they do, the overall damage they do and such things.



1. Mistreatment of criminals and/or their execution doesn't necessarily comes from emotions. Some might do it as for the greater good of justice and/or as a deterrent for others for following the same trend. Capital punishments and/or other punishments could very well be for other purposes.

2. Just because they are [arguably] "following emotional revenge feelings", doesn't mean they are wrong. Their feelings could very well be justified and true, and the way they vent out their anger could also be justified and true.

3. Just because you guys like to correct people, doesn't necessarily mean that what you do is overall more constructive and beneficial in the long run as compared to what others do. You may be not like Iran, but that necessarily doesn't mean you guys are better.



Okay, let's use this guy you are talking about in this case. Let's go by the criteria I invented in haste:

"It all depends on factors like --- The prisoner in question and/or her nature, the severity of her crimes, variables that played role in making that crime happen, and other important factors."

"It depends on how inherently evil the said prisoner is, how overall cruel and harmful his/her crimes were, the circumstances surrounding the prison, the prisoners actions, desires, thinking, habits etc.

An accurate enough value of all of this factors would be the criteria how the criminal is and treatment"

Now, let's do some approximations. Is this guy a hardened, habitual and inherently sadistic individual who habitually run havoc and kill innocent individuals? How severe was the damage done by this individual? What was his emotional states like? Was he under influence? Is he likely to commit such a crime again? Was he bullied and/or facing some agonizing situations, problem, crises etc.? What about the family members of the individuals he has harmed, did they lashed out at someone due to their anger at what happened to them and their loved ones? [AND MANY OTHERS FACTORS]

If the value we received from accurate enough calculations of these factors among other factors --- Capital punishment and/or slavery is overall is more constructive, beneficial to the society in general and also the individuals, and (arguably) taking the criminal out of the death row [and freeing him/her from execution], and into voluntary devotion to a cause that'll serve a greater good is also relatively less agonizing to the criminal.

Do you have evidence that murdering convicts leads to less crime? And where is the limit? Should we chop off hands of thieves, like in some Muslim countries? What about torturing the kids of terrorists? Or electrocuting them in front of the terrorist who knows where a bomb is hidden in a school, so that many more kids can be saved? Could that reduce terrorism? If yes, would you endorse it?

There are simply no-gos in modern societies like the ones we find in Western Europe, independently of the moral metrics you want to use. For instance, no European country can apply for EU membership if they torture or execute their convicts. And the only country left that does that is Belarus, a de-facto dictatorship. That's is. It is a value that we consider part of a superior civilisation.

Ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hmm. Maybe I should have been more detailed with slavery. In the States slavery has a negative connotation.

Slavery has a negative connotation anywhere where people care about human rights. Slavery is evil.

How one was treated based on their origin and color of skin warranted them harsh punishment (hitting, shackling, and killing) of the slaves. So, it has more to do with how people are treated as slaves more so than the purpose of slavery and the incentive behind it.

I think you aren't understanding my point. I'll try again:

- slavery is involuntary work.
- that work creates value.
- that value creates a benefit for someone other than the slave.

... so say an enslaved person on Death Row does $20,000 of work per year. Say it also costs $20,000 per inmate per year to keep people in prison.

So say you're a lawmaker trying to balance the budget and keep taxes low, and you realize that it costs $20,000 per year to keep someone in prison on a life sentence, but there's no net cost to keep them on Death Row.

Do you think any of the lawmakers woild be tempted to make more crimea capital crimes as a cost-saving measure?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Slavery has a negative connotation anywhere where people care about human rights. Slavery is evil.


I think you aren't understanding my point. I'll try again:

- slavery is involuntary work.
- that work creates value.
- that value creates a benefit for someone other than the slave.

... so say an enslaved person on Death Row does $20,000 of work per year. Say it also costs $20,000 per inmate per year to keep people in prison.

So say you're a lawmaker trying to balance the budget and keep taxes low, and you realize that it costs $20,000 per year to keep someone in prison on a life sentence, but there's no net cost to keep them on Death Row.

Do you think any of the lawmakers woild be tempted to make more crimea capital crimes as a cost-saving measure?

If I understood correctly, I guess in a business point of view they'd save money on killing people rather than keeping them in jail. I would hope, like in smaller jails and juvenile centers, they'd be a way for that criminal to help themselves. But I guess money means more to the law than a person's life.

My overall point is to where related to this, though.

 

[Hellbound Serpiente]

You know, before I start my response to Voile, I’d like to bring to light a trend most people here [especially bigots (and atheists bigots mostly)] follows:

1. They either intentionally misrepresent others side of the story and/or just don’t represent the argument of others side properly unintentionally.

2. They omit out key points that’ll destroy the entire distorted account they make up about your true arguments

3. They also tweak and add their own false additions and personal tweaks.

4. They represent and attack a very distorted version of your true argument. They put words into other’s mouth by saying they have made arguments others haven’t actually made [aka straw man].

5. And most of all --- They accuse of others of the very wiles they themselves are involved in --- Projection and deflection!

In short, they either just misunderstand the other’s side and blow things completely out of proportion unintentionally, and/or present and attack a very distorted version of other’s side intentionally, and/or bring up irrelevant points absolutely no bearing to the true point and/or just make up outright lies.

I find the arguments of bigots [atheists as well as religious] to be utterly rubbish and just a manifest sign of sure bigotry. These are most likely emerging from inherent lying, deceptive nature of liars, deceivers rife with bigotry. The very nature of twisted people is that they give twisted answers, and many people here are doing a great job at proving that. We should be careful when dealing with reductionist view of the opposing position from all sorts of bigots, whether they are religious bigots or atheistic bigots. Everything they say should be taken with a grain of salt based on their lack of grasp and/or downright deceit and lying about things. It's like they just want to forestall others through designed obfuscation rather than having a healthy discussion for learning.

 

[Hellbound Serpiente]

Do you have evidence that murdering convicts leads to less crime?

1. Do I have to? Where did I said that I personally believe murdering convicts leads to less crime? If not, why bring up irrelevant points?

2. I’ll just muse around with this idea a little. There are MANY examples of serial killers, pedophiles and such criminals being imprisoned by the law, but after receiving freedom [whether it’s by escaping like Ted Bundy did or by being released from the prison like Somkid Pumpuang] … and they continued killing. There are countless examples of criminal continuing their criminal activities even after serving their respective [mild] punishment, I already talked about Carl Panzram, Albert Fish and others I’ve personally crossed path with. Now, if Somkid Pumpuang and/or Ted Bundy were killed, wouldn’t the crimes they would later go on to commit would also have been prevented? Well … there’s the evidence of YOUR assertion [I never said that killing convicts leads to less crimes].

3. Historically speaking, Imperial Japan surrendered after Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing. If they had not, many more crimes against humanity would have occurred because they would have continued their oppression and then later America and/or Allied Forces would have to fight on grounds. That would have caused far more damage. Regardless, nuclear deterrence works [to limited extent, in my humble opinion]. Which is why Cold War didn’t blew into a Hot War. Why can’t the same be equivalent on individual level if it worked on national/global/social levels? Deterrence works [and it causes less crimes]!

So much more can be said about this and other “points” you made, but I am tired and would just respond with all that’ll suffice as an acceptable answer.

And where is the limit?

1. Hell if I know. Like I already said [and you conveniently omitted out] --- I am not qualified enough to make that judgment.

2. Just because we can’t accurately pin-point the exact level of the utmost limit, doesn’t mean we can’t correctly estimate how much is sufficient enough to be under limits.

3. Why do you think there cannot be ever anyone who can know the limits with pin-point accuracy and treat the criminal accordingly?

Should we chop off hands of thieves, like in some Muslim countries?

No, because we aren’t qualified enough to make such a judgment. Like I said, we need to take into accounts MANY factors with sufficient enough accuracy. Which is why I don’t agree with “Shariah” Laws of “Muslim” countries and which is why I don't believe in any religion [among other reasons].

What about torturing the kids of terrorists? Or electrocuting them in front of the terrorist who knows where a bomb is hidden in a school, so that many more kids can be saved? Could that reduce terrorism? If yes, would you endorse it?

No. On the contrary, I feel that is far likelier to backfire and we’ll end up creating more terrorists and increase terrorism. America has done things like these, and look how much Islamic terrorism has skyrocketed. So, no, I won’t endorse it EVEN if it works.

There are simply no-gos in modern societies like the ones we find in Western Europe, independently of the moral metrics you want to use.

I can write a wall of text of many points here too, but that isn’t necessary. By the end of it all, that doesn’t mean that what “modern societies like the ones we find in Western Europe” does is overall more constructive and beneficial in the long run. Maybe they are both equally barbaric, just in a different way. Maybe they are slightly less barbaric but are doing just as much, if not more, damage. Maybe they are better than Shariah Law Muslim countries, but they are worst in another way because such immeasurably mild punishments are failing to deter crimes and encouraging the criminals (and potential criminals and such) to do it for they know nothing too bad will happen EVEN if they are caught, and they are actually doing injustice to the victims and/or society and the law-abiding individuals of the society. They might be “modern” civilization, but they might also be causing harm differently.

That's is. It is a value that we consider part of a superior civilisation.

Again, you guys are acting like what is righteous and beneficial should revolve around your values. Just because you consider it as such, doesn’t necessarily mean it is morally upright and righteous. Your values of superior civilization doesn’t necessarily mean that superior civilization you get through these values is TRULY superior in real life. I’d rather marry Rival, become her obedient little gentile slave and become a part of Jewish/Israeli Society than be a part of your arrogant European, Muslim, American and/or other civilizations who consider themselves to be superior due to their ignorance and arrogance, and look down on other with sheer smugness. Really, how can you be so sure that your civilization is superior to others?

 

[viole]

that your civilization is superior to others?

Others?

Ciao

- viole