The Death Penalty

正在查看此主题的用户

dalai pasha 说:
human nature (among justice) is quite subjective and to me it is neutral without the influence of the society. 

To you human nature is subjective and neutral without the influence of society, but to other people, such as professional psychologists, human nature and society are both caused by and affected by each other.

It is human nature for people to form bonds and be gregarious. When you have a group of people forming bonds and interacting together, this is a society. Once there is a society, it starts to become hierarchical, and the dominant member(s) begin to exert his/her influence and ideals over the society. Eventually laws arise to protect all members within that specific society, and the laws of each society change, and the further away they get from each other, the more they change.

This, along with the will to live, is the very basis of human nature. Now, it is possible for a strong-willed individual to overcome human nature, by, say, learning to live alone without any human interaction. Or by overcoming the human pre-programmed ability to fight back if threatened, by becoming a pacifist.

Scientists have done experiments with monkeys, who also are gregarious in nature and form societies. They took 2 baby monkeys, and put them into 2 seperate cages, where they could not see each other. One was given milk in a bowl or a bottle, and given nothing else. The second baby monkey was given a substitute mother -- a fur-covered monkey-shaped doll, from which is could 'suckle' milk. It was also given stimuli, such as toys. When the first monkey matured it was neurotic, violent and anti-social. The second monkey was a more 'normal' monkey... it had some social interaction and did not freak out at the sight of other monkeys. They haven't done this experiment on kids yet because it's deemed unethical.

So we see, humans, by their very nature, form societies. Gotta have someone watching your back when that cave lion's looking hungry.

i read most of the arguments here but it is surprising that almost nobody mentions the fundamental reasons of crime like private property, unjust distribution of welfare etc.  and discuss which one would be more pragmatic.  screw benefits we are talking about lives! what are you all americans??!!!?

Oh yes, because it is private property, not greed, that is the problem here.

Let me share with you an anecdote. The dojo where I go training is an old mill, with ancient copper wires run through the building to distribute electricity. There are 4 wires in total, and a tonne of copper can be sold for about £2000. One evening, somebody came along, cut the power to the building, and stole one of the wires. Bugger, now we have to put in a generator to power some of the rooms. Then, a few nights later, the same thing happened again. Now the sensei was struggling -- the ability to run and power the dojo is his livelihood. He may only be leasing the building, but if one more wire goes, the dojo will have to shut down and he will have no income. Gasp Horror!

He knew it couldn't be the nearby gypsies doing the thieving, because they're not that stupid. So the next night he sat in the dojo with another sensei and waited. Sure enough, a few hours later, along come a five heroin addicts and their tools turned up, all ready to cut the power, take the copper wire and put him out of business. So they caught these guys, had a nice long talk with them, and 4 hours later handed them over to the police/ambulance crew.

The moral of the story is this; when I have a job, I work hard to earn my money. With my money, I buy things that I like -- not because I am a capitalist pig-dog, but because I DESERVE nice things. So if somebody comes along with the intention of stealing my things, you're bloody right that I'm going to beat them senseless with a bigstick, and they better hope to god I don't have time to reach one of my daggers.

When I was 10 years old, somebody stole my pet rabbit, it's hutch, and it's run. At Christmas. Now what kind of person does that to a child, at Christmas? It's too bad that if you beat somebody senseless when they break into your property, you get in trouble for it. IMO, if they don't want a beating, they shouldn't be stealing.
 
dalai pasha 说:
they can t be "born" sociopaths they can be born "psychopaths", by definition.  the term sociopath was invented for the favour of nurture side of nature vs. nurture duality by social democrats.
Not really. There's only one school of thought which separates sociopathy into individual disorder types. The common (and in most cases legal) definition is simply someone who is incapable of functioning as a member of a social group. This can be down to psychopathy, post traumatic stress or even certain forms of autism.
Pharaoh Llandy 说:
It's too bad that if you beat somebody senseless when they break into your property, you get in trouble for it. IMO, if they don't want a beating, they shouldn't be stealing.
Ah, the nice thing about having them come to you is it makes it so much easier to hide the corpse in the cellar. People tend to comment when you need to drag the bodies through the street first.
 
Archonsod 说:
Ah, the nice thing about having them come to you is it makes it so much easier to hide the corpse in the cellar. People tend to comment when you need to drag the bodies through the street first.

I don't have a cellar, and I lack the effort to dig a hole in my garden. Can't I just cut the body up, mix it in with oats and sell it as some sort of high quality cattle feed? It's probably a lot better than what factory farmed cows are eating.
 
Fatman123 说:
Wow youre kidding right, that means that their has to be some genitical relationships. So logically we can say that there is a gene for sociopaths.
Genes basically influence everything.

But about sociopathy... well, there's neurological correlates to all cognitive/behavioural patterns at some level. So it's still a fairly arbitrary distinction one way or another. It's just about setting up practical definitions in my view.
 
dalai pasha 说:
Archonsod 说:
dalai pasha 说:
  pedophilia is again a social construct.  not all civilizations let people have sex above 18.  and there is no good explanation for that age being 18 or 16 or 21 actually.
The exact boundaries of precisely where you draw the line differ, but it is a recognised psychological disorder.

psychological disorders again are "mostly" ideological... the ussr had people institutionalized for believing in capitalism, saying that only madmen would want to leave their state capitalism (although they called it socialism)

Ideological? I don't know about that. They are culturally based, however.
 
I'd say if we're talking about disorders arising from physical damage or deformity in the brain itself then it's a disorder irrespective of cultural background. Much like an amputee is still an amputee whether they're Asian or Egyptian.
 
Archonsod 说:
I'd say if we're talking about disorders arising from physical damage or deformity in the brain itself then it's a disorder irrespective of cultural background. Much like an amputee is still an amputee whether they're Asian or Egyptian.

Ah, forgot about those ones.  :lol:

Just to explain myself, I was thinking of the definition of a psychological disorder that I'm currently working with (in my psychopathology course): it's a psychological dysfunction within an individual associated with distress or impairment in functioning and a response that is not typical or culturally expected.

Of course, it not being atypical is insufficient reason to call something a psychological disorder, but it is part of it.
 
First off, there are some really well debated posts on this thread, very holistic in nature.

I can't speak for any country other than the one I live in, but in New Zealand the death penalty was abolished in the 1950's (can't remember the exact year). Over the last 50 years NZ, like most western countries, has undergone societal changes like the rise of feminism/equal rights, rights of gays and ethnic minorities etc. These are all good, but seemingly the pendulum has swung too far and now NZ is crippled by political correctness, and governed by a corrupt and morally bankrupt government. Our justice system exists, not to protect the rights of the victim, but to protect the rights of the criminal. Too often repeat offenders of capital crimes, such as murder, rape and paedophilia, not to mention minor crime, are released into the community only to reoffend. The maximum sentence for murder in NZ is 14 years, and this is very seldom passed down by the court. I can think of only one instance in the last 10 years.

I support the death penalty as a final measure, but the problem is the misuse of its application. Before ending someone's life you have to be absolutely certain of their guilt.

I believe there are many reasons why people commit crimes. Many have been listed in previous posts, nature vs nurture, mental illness, genes, poverty, greed, peer pressure, abuse. Ultimately I think it is a combination of reasons that make certain individuals predisposed to commit crimes.

To look at it from a sociological perspective, the rise and importance of city's in centralized states offers the perfect breeding ground for criminal activity. For the individual nothing is taboo in the city. An individual's social structure is broken down as they move away from the family unit (excl. those that have no family unit in the first place). This sense of isolation is compounded by the causes listed above. I am not saying that crimes only occur in cities, but in a small town or neighborhood people tend to know one another so social hierarchies and constraints exist. 

As far as I'm concerned it is the individual's choice to either live within the laws of society, or not, and face the repercussions of their actions, whether that be the death penalty or prison.
 
Morningstar 说:
Our justice system exists, not to protect the rights of the victim, but to protect the rights of the criminal. Too often repeat offenders of capital crimes, such as murder, rape and paedophilia, not to mention minor crime, are released into the community only to reoffend.
I am a New Zealander and I agree completely. In my opinion once you become a prisoner for a capital crime you lose all your rights. In New Zealand things have gone to far. For example a case not to long ago in New Zealand where a prisoner went to court over a guard hitting him and forcing him back to his cell. He won the trail and the guard had to pay damages. The part of the story that was not mentioned was that the prisoner was rioting and and becoming a danger to the guards and the other prisoners.

Morningstar 说:
These are all good, but seemingly the pendulum has swung too far and now NZ is crippled by political correctness, and governed by a corrupt and morally bankrupt government.

New Zealand is way too politically correct. A good example of this is that we can no longer call somebody a policeman we must call them a policeperson.
 
Bleh, more countries should take Singapore's approach to justice. They hand out fines, long jail terms and tickles on the backside to most criminals. Career criminals usually spend a significant portion of their working life languishing in a prison. For the drug dealers and the murderers, there's the noose. Serves them right for ruining so many lives.

One of the things that I appreciate about Singapore is that the justice system doesn't care who you are. The American teen who was caught for vandalism got the tickles on the bum anyway, and the idiots who tried to smuggle drugs and got caught were hanged regardless of what their governments did. That's fairness.
 
I agree the Singaporeans have got it sussed. In New Zealand we have a big tagging problem. My dad constantly goes on about the punishment in Singapore compared to the punishment here in NZ. The punishment here being 200 hours of community service or 6 months in jail maximum. In Singapore the punishment is 5 strokes to the back of the neck with a cane. It's so bad that they can't give you more than 3 without killing you (something they must have learnt throughout trial and error) so they give you three then chuck you back in jail for a day then give you 2 more.
 
Not the neck, it'd kill you. They hit the bum with the cane, and there has to be a doctor to examine the criminal after every stroke to ensure that he is medically fit to receive more. There is also a limit on the maximum number of strokes you can receive in one session.

 
Hmm ok I was pretty sure that it was the back of the neck. Anyway the only good way for us to have a low crime rate is to have a extremist government, subseqently we lose our freedom in the process.
 
Fatman123 说:
Anyway the only good way for us to have a low crime rate is to have a extremist government, subseqently we lose our freedom in the process.

Vigilante justice is looking more and more popular every moment.
 
Fatman123 说:
Hmm ok I was pretty sure that it was the back of the neck. Anyway the only good way for us to have a low crime rate is to have a extremist government, subseqently we lose our freedom in the process.

that s wrong both in theory and practice.  extremest governments tend to higher the crime rate, again, both in theory and in practice.
 
dalai pasha 说:
Fatman123 说:
Hmm ok I was pretty sure that it was the back of the neck. Anyway the only good way for us to have a low crime rate is to have a extremist government, subseqently we lose our freedom in the process.

that s wrong both in theory and practice.  extremest governments tend to higher the crime rate, again, both in theory and in practice.

So does a government that considers handing out ASBOs to be an effect deterrent to antisocial behaviour. Personally, I believe chopping off a limb would be more of a deterrent. A person can be handed all the ASBOs in the world, yet they only have a limited amount of limbs to play risk with.
 
后退
顶部 底部