Capital Punishment

Axtech · Post by **Axtech** » 12/12/2004, 5:54 pm

Locke did the Social Contract shtick a century before Rousseau. It just bugged me that my history teacher always credited Rousseau with coming up with it. Right after teaching Locke's Social Contract. :freak:

reza · Post by **reza** » 12/12/2004, 5:59 pm

Locke's over-rated. How can you go wrong with a name like "Jacque?"
To be honest, i prefer Rousseau's version because it just appeals to my own personal beliefs a lot more. Locke was probably more of a product of his time, whereas Rousseau is unlike anyone else from his era.

nelison · Post by **nelison** » 12/12/2004, 6:07 pm

so I guess the US constitution is over-rated then eh?

closeyoureyes · Post by **closeyoureyes** » 12/12/2004, 6:18 pm

Its hardly a very fair constitution, when there isnt equality, and where people can be put to death.

nelison · Post by **nelison** » 12/12/2004, 6:23 pm

There can never equality. Unless you're a Marxist, but theory is great like that.

If that's the case then you've just made a pretty good argument for an anarchist system

closeyoureyes · Post by **closeyoureyes** » 12/12/2004, 6:24 pm

I like Anarchy. Except that in theory its awesome, but in practice it could never ever work.

nelison · Post by **nelison** » 12/12/2004, 6:26 pm

well rather than turning this into a anarchist thread cause heaven knows we've had enough of those...

What should be done about the judicial system to make punishments fit crimes?

reza · Post by **reza** » 12/12/2004, 6:27 pm

J-Neli wrote:so I guess the US constitution is over-rated then eh?

yes, nothing in there was new or original. During the French Revoloution, once the Republic was established (and eventually lost), the people had similar freedoms.

closeyoureyes · Post by **closeyoureyes** » 12/12/2004, 6:29 pm

I think atleast in Canada, alot of criminals get off easy. A few years ago a man was beaten to death in Stanley Park for being gay, and the guys who did it got 2 years apiece, and the bystanders that watched and didnt tell anyone got off, scot-free.

I just think more realistic terms should be set, with considerations like what kind of murder weapon was used, and the circumstances behind the murder.

closeyoureyes · Post by **closeyoureyes** » 12/12/2004, 6:30 pm

kermit__35 wrote:
J-Neli wrote:so I guess the US constitution is over-rated then eh?

yes, nothing in there was new or original. During the French Revoloution, once the Republic was established (and eventually lost), the people had similar freedoms.

Yeahh.. Freedoms. :roll:

Also: Can you pleeeeeeease change your signature.

Thankkkk youuu :sugar:

reza · Post by **reza** » 12/12/2004, 6:36 pm

Cracky wrote:I think atleast in Canada, alot of criminals get off easy. A few years ago a man was beaten to death in Stanley Park for being gay, and the guys who did it got 2 years apiece, and the bystanders that watched and didnt tell anyone got off, scot-free.

I just think more realistic terms should be set, with considerations like what kind of murder weapon was used, and the circumstances behind the murder.

Under Rousseau's Social Contract, that would never happen, because the individual would feel the need to tell the authorities because of his natural goodness. Actually, the beating wouldn't have occured either, because the officer's natural goodness wouldn't allow them to do it.

That's right, can Locke do that?

Rusty · Post by **Rusty** » 12/12/2004, 9:13 pm

I'd just like to say it was so nice of you people to actually read what I took the time to actually research and post about what the purpose of jail is.

J-Neli wrote:Once you're dead, that's it. It doesn't matter if you lived or not. I mean you can believe in an afterlife if you want to but once you are dead you don't care. It's not like after dying you regret everything you've done and want to live again. (this is of course from a non-spiritual aspect, beliefs of an afterlife cannot be prooved.)

Why keep someone alive if it is unnecessary? What good is it for a man to be in jail for life with no chance of parole? What are you socializing him for? He can't be released. if prison is in place to resocialize, and an individual will never be released, than isn't it unnecessary?

As I said in my post before, if you would kindly take the time to read it thank you. Prison is also used for punishment and to protect society by keeping prisoners locked up.

Axtech wrote:But prison isn't a place for resocialization. It's for punishment.

As for reasons for not killing people - you might be surprised to hear this, but most of the world is not athiest. So right there is a plethora of reasons, not the list of which is that little phrase "thou shalt not kill".

Again kindly go and read what I wrote, I spent a lot of time finding that and typing it out, I'm glad to know it was all for nothing though. Prison is a place for and for what the third time now? punishment, rehabilitation/resocilization, and to protect society.

J-Neli wrote:you mean Karla Homolka?

My point that I'm trying to make is that once someone kills another person, they lose all rights. They have breached the social contract and therefore by taking the right to life away from an individual they should have their rights taken from them. Read Locke's second treatise on civil government to see what I mean (or just take a look at it on spark notes http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/locke/) A lot of it has to do with property rights, and there is no bigger piece of property that you own than your body.

Yes they lose all civil rights However they maintain their Human Rights. Human Rights are rights guaranteed to all people all over the world and can never be taken away. Listed in these Human Rights is The Right To Live.

reza · Post by **reza** » 12/12/2004, 9:16 pm

nelison · Post by **nelison** » 12/12/2004, 10:11 pm

Rusty wrote:I'd just like to say it was so nice of you people to actually read what I took the time to actually research and post about what the purpose of jail is.

J-Neli wrote:Once you're dead, that's it. It doesn't matter if you lived or not. I mean you can believe in an afterlife if you want to but once you are dead you don't care. It's not like after dying you regret everything you've done and want to live again. (this is of course from a non-spiritual aspect, beliefs of an afterlife cannot be prooved.)

Why keep someone alive if it is unnecessary? What good is it for a man to be in jail for life with no chance of parole? What are you socializing him for? He can't be released. if prison is in place to resocialize, and an individual will never be released, than isn't it unnecessary?

As I said in my post before, if you would kindly take the time to read it thank you. Prison is also used for punishment and to protect society by keeping prisoners locked up.

Actually I did read it Rusty. If you look a few pages back I commented about how I felt the text book was using a very old and outdated source. You then posted an updated section from the same text explaining the stages of imprisonment. Unfortunately, its blatantly apparent that these stages are not working, and I believe if you read any of the stuff I posted earlier you would have noticed the large population of repeat offenders that use the prison system as a revolving door.

Anyways though about prison being used for punishment and to protect society... wouldn't the death penalty serve the same purpose only it would ensure the greatest punishment and the greatest safety? I mean think about it, no need for people to worry whether someone is getting the proper punishment, no need to worry about jail breaks or plea bargains or anything else that could arise.

closeyoureyes · Post by **closeyoureyes** » 12/12/2004, 10:14 pm

Wait, I'm confused. Jim, are you pro death penalty?

nelison · Post by **nelison** » 12/12/2004, 10:19 pm

J-Neli wrote:I think that someone should be put to death in rare circumstances. For instance, Timothy McVeigh. If you kill multiple people, and there is absolutely no chance of parole, then you might as well be put to death. You're just a burden on my taxes otherwise.

I think that many of the countries that use capital punishment use it too often. It should be used sparingly if even used at all.

That's basically how I feel. There is a time and place for everything. I don't think there should be executions everyday but there are people who have a blatant disregard for life, and would be better off put to death as a form of punishment.

reza · Post by **reza** » 12/12/2004, 10:21 pm

J-Neli wrote:
Rusty wrote:I'd just like to say it was so nice of you people to actually read what I took the time to actually research and post about what the purpose of jail is.

J-Neli wrote:Once you're dead, that's it. It doesn't matter if you lived or not. I mean you can believe in an afterlife if you want to but once you are dead you don't care. It's not like after dying you regret everything you've done and want to live again. (this is of course from a non-spiritual aspect, beliefs of an afterlife cannot be prooved.)

Why keep someone alive if it is unnecessary? What good is it for a man to be in jail for life with no chance of parole? What are you socializing him for? He can't be released. if prison is in place to resocialize, and an individual will never be released, than isn't it unnecessary?

As I said in my post before, if you would kindly take the time to read it thank you. Prison is also used for punishment and to protect society by keeping prisoners locked up.

Actually I did read it Rusty. If you look a few pages back I commented about how I felt the text book was using a very old and outdated source. You then posted an updated section from the same text explaining the stages of imprisonment. Unfortunately, its blatantly apparent that these stages are not working, and I believe if you read any of the stuff I posted earlier you would have noticed the large population of repeat offenders that use the prison system as a revolving door.

Anyways though about prison being used for punishment and to protect society... wouldn't the death penalty serve the same purpose only it would ensure the greatest punishment and the greatest safety? I mean think about it, no need for people to worry whether someone is getting the proper punishment, no need to worry about jail breaks or plea bargains or anything else that could arise.

Even sentencing the wrong person to death?

closeyoureyes · Post by **closeyoureyes** » 12/12/2004, 10:21 pm

I see. I thought you were completely against it and thats why i was wondering why you kept arguing for it. :lol:

nelison · Post by **nelison** » 12/12/2004, 10:24 pm

Sometimes I argue things on the other side just for fun. You learn more that way, and you definitely see the flaws in different arguments.

Sentencing to death should only be used sparingly and a court should ensure that all measures are used to determine that the accused is 100% guilty.

reza · Post by **reza** » 12/12/2004, 10:28 pm

But there is no 100% way to ever know for sure, even if the person admits to the crime.