Burned Alive During 18th Birthday

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5
 

wulf3n:

By that logic, there's no point punishing them at all it will only "harm" society.

Besides, prove that someone is "not dangerous and will never be dangerous again"

Yeah if someone does something by accident there is little point in punishing them at all. It was a total accident. The guy in this case obviously has some issues because he got so angry. He likely needs something to remedy that. Because if their justification is reasonable and human and something youre equally as likely to do again theres equal justification to put you away also. Jail doesnt change the past. Its about protecting the future.

You havnt made a single point. I asked "Theres only harm from removing him, theres no good" and youve still presented zero good. Since anything is larger than zero the tiny amount of harm done outweighs the no good and thus removing him serves no purpose other than to waste money feeding him in an over crowded prison and remove his tax payer money/services/general good he might do for society for the sake of nothing. Youve still presented nothing. Give a single good reason to put him away. Anything at all that isnt based on "I like it when people are in jail" or whatever. Its pretty blatant youre either fixated on vengeance or just want these people put away because it "Makes you feel good". Thats not how it works. The justice system exists to protect us. If it puts people away with no goal of protecting us its failed utterly. It most certainly isnt about giving people jollies by putting away people who will likely as not never harm society again.

I believe the entire purpose of court is to determine that. Some people make mistakes. Some people need help. Some people are the victims of accidents that cause terrible things to happen by their hand. Your logic doesnt apply anywhere at all and its utterly rediculous. Im VERY happy society doesnt run the way you wish it did. Lets take parenting:

A kid breaks all my things on my shelf on purpose.

A kid falls and hits his head on my shelf knocking it down and breaking it.

By your logic they both deserve punishment. But they dont. Im not teaching anything by punishing the kid who did it by accident. They KNOW breaking things is wrong and would never do it on purpose. Ever. The former obviously does not. And since im an adult i dont need to take revenge on a child. Theres no reason to punish him or her at all whatsoever. I cant think of a single scenario where your logic makes the tiniest bit of sense at all.

BiscuitTrouser:
Because if their justification is reasonable

Besides self-defence[and war to some extent] what could possibly be considered "reasonable" FYI Slept with my wife isn't reasonable.

BiscuitTrouser:

something youre equally as likely to do again theres equal justification to put you away also.

Exactly, now how do you determine whether someone will or will not kill again? The only way I know of is to look at precedent.

BiscuitTrouser:

Give a single good reason to put him away.

Here's an oldie but goodie "deterence".

BiscuitTrouser:

Its pretty blatant youre either fixated on vengeance or just want these people put away because it "Makes you feel good".

Yup, that's me in a nutshell vengeance fuelled nutter who get's a kick out of seeing people in jail.

BiscuitTrouser:

Thats not how it works. The justice system exists to protect us.

Sure that's one aspect, but there's also Rehabilitation and Deterrence.

BiscuitTrouser:

Lets take parenting:

Lets do.

BiscuitTrouser:

A kid breaks all my things on my shelf on purpose.

A kid falls and hits his head on my shelf knocking it down and breaking it.

Uhuh.

BiscuitTrouser:

By your logic they both deserve punishment.

Correct.

BiscuitTrouser:

But they dont.

Your opinion

BiscuitTrouser:

Im not teaching anything by punishing the kid who did it by accident.

On the contrary, you're teaching them that actions have consequences.

BiscuitTrouser:

They KNOW breaking things is wrong and would never do it on purpose. Ever.

Yet there's still a broken shelf that needs to be fixed.

BiscuitTrouser:

And since im an adult i dont need to take revenge on a child.

Since when has it ever been about revenge?

BiscuitTrouser:

Theres no reason to punish him or her at all whatsoever.

Except to teach that actions have consequence, and that you need to be aware that practically everything you do can affect someone else, and that you need to be careful.

BiscuitTrouser:

I cant think of a single scenario where your logic makes the tiniest bit of sense at all.

Oh, well in that case I guess there mustn't be a scenario. I retract my opinion.

Well, as you might expect, Stormfront have gotten in on this story and it's not pretty.

Man, in my day we just used to punch the bloke in the arm a few times.

3.5 years seems about right for a load of drunken tomfoolery that resulted in a lads death.

wulf3n:

BiscuitTrouser:

Give a single good reason to put him away.

Here's an oldie but goodie "deterence".

Sorry, I just wanted to pick out this bit... Deterrence? From what, accidents? You can't deter people from accidents, on account of them being accidental! No one drives around thinking "Well, it doesn't matter if I crash my car, wrecking it and potentially killing someone, because I won't got to prison! No Sir, never mind the huge amounts of guilt and material loss I may go through, so long as I'm not punished severely by the law I'm fine!"

And even if they did think like that, then they can be sued for negligence anyway, since by being careless they would have broken the duty of care that is implicitly part of driving on public roads. The three possible reasons for punishing an individual are rehabilitation, deterrence, and containment. None of these can possibly effect something that happend by accident; you can't rehabilitate them from it, since they never meant to do it in the first place. You can't deter them from it because, again, they never meant to do it. And containing them is meaningless, because if it was genuinely an accident then any other random citizen is just as likely (probably more likely following the accident, in fact) to make the same mistake themselves.

Geo Da Sponge:

Sorry, I just wanted to pick out this bit... Deterrence? From what, accidents? You can't deter people from accidents, on account of them being accidental!

Really? so why do we have laws against speeding? and Fines/Imprisonment for breaking said laws?

Geo Da Sponge:

None of these can possibly effect something that happend by accident;

Accidents are rarely no ones fault, someone was doing something stupid. Now you're right some people are going to be stupid no matter what, but I like to have a little faith [very little] and think that some people do recognise the risks of certain stupid acts and avoid them because they don't want to go to prison.

Geo Da Sponge:

you can't rehabilitate them from it, since they never meant to do it in the first place.

You can rehabilitate stupidity hopefully.

Geo Da Sponge:

You can't deter them from it because, again, they never meant to do it.

You're not deterring them, you're deterring others who are likely to do the same.

Geo Da Sponge:

And containing them is meaningless,

True, but I've never said containment is the best option, it's just the option we have at the moment.

Geo Da Sponge:

because if it was genuinely an accident then any other random citizen is just as likely (probably more likely following the accident, in fact) to make the same mistake themselves.

I certainly hope not, that's a pretty low view of humanity you have there.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked