woolley Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Corporal punishment effective? For some people it is the only punishment that is effective short of execution. As for an example, I know personally two juvenile delinquents who were birched and who were absolutely turned round out of nothing but raw fear of a repeat. One lived in Onchan Royal Avenue West, the other (unsurprisingly) in Pullrose. For some people, possibly those with some forms of genetic moral terpitude because such things do tend to run in families, physical pain is the only way of 'getting through'. Rubbish, societies have been executing people for crimes since society began, and yet people still commit heinous crimes. Yes. But not the same people. Zero percent reoffending rate. What more effective way to deal with "the causes of crime"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Corporal punishment effective? For some people it is the only punishment that is effective short of execution. As for an example, I know personally two juvenile delinquents who were birched and who were absolutely turned round out of nothing but raw fear of a repeat. One lived in Onchan Royal Avenue West, the other (unsurprisingly) in Pullrose. For some people, possibly those with some forms of genetic moral terpitude because such things do tend to run in families, physical pain is the only way of 'getting through'. Rubbish, societies have been executing people for crimes since society began, and yet people still commit heinous crimes. Yes. But not the same people. Zero percent reoffending rate. What more effective way to deal with "the causes of crime"? What a short sighted view. Yes that one person will never offend again (and you best hope you got the right man), but what about the next guy, and the next and so on. You are escalating the risk to reward. Child molesters will be more likely to kill because dead kids tell no tales for example. Also, and the most important point, do you want to live in a society that intentional kills more people than some diseases? "What more effective way to deal with "the causes of crime"?" Education, personal improvement, more opportunities? Yeah that sounds like too much hard work, lets just lock them up, beat the crap out them or kill them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 All great in theory but for all of the hand wringing, a small minority of people are simply bad and incorrigible. Best be rid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 All great in theory but for all of the hand wringing, a small minority of people are simply bad and incorrigible. Best be rid. Would you agree spending more on education than defence would be a good start? Smarter kids equals smarter potential employees equals less kids falling through the system and into a life of crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 You don't believe in strong defence? I think that is the first duty of any government. If anything I'd be spending more. No point in education if we were to be invaded. Actually, I would spend more on education too, but I would target it in very different ways. I would cut waste elsewhere in the public sector. There is a lot to go at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Capital punishment became unsupportable when the first innocent man was put to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Capital punishment became unsupportable when the first innocent man was put to death. That's a philosophical argument but there are plenty of cases where certainty is beyond any denial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Capital punishment became unsupportable when the first innocent man was put to death.That's a philosophical argument but there are plenty of cases where certainty is beyond any denial. It's not a philosophical argument. Supporting capital punishment is supporting the infrequent killing of innocent people. Which is obviously not OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 This I know. When I was a teenager it was the fear of the Birch that kept me in the straight and narrow more than anything else except the desire not to bring shame on my family. While in the later I was probably in the minority in the case of the former I was very far from being unique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Bobster Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Capital punishment became unsupportable when the first innocent man was put to death.That's a philosophical argument but there are plenty of cases where certainty is beyond any denial. It's not a philosophical argument. Supporting capital punishment is supporting the infrequent killing of innocent people. Which is obviously not OK. Indeed. More or Less is a super podcast. They verified the claim that, in the US system, for every 9 prisoners on death row, one innocent person has been put to death. And that's in a relatively well-run justice system with lots of checks and balances. What might the ratio be in less robust jurisdictions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 and how long until it moved on to political prisoners? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Well we've been around this particular mulberry bush ad nauseam in the past, and I have no intention of prolonging another circumnavigation because we are never going to convince each other, are we? I respect your views as sincerely held but I believe that they are misguided and in time the pendulum will swing back the other way to sanity. Obviously, killing innocent people is not "alright". I note with interest that nobody picked up or contested my point that there are plenty of cases where the identity of the perpetrator is beyond any doubt whatsoever, so I conclude that the mistaken identity objection is in reality a fig leaf to cover a more broadly based objection to judicial killing under any circumstances. Unfortunately for those of this persuasion, so many evil criminals have been released, supposedly as rehabilitated, reformed characters, to murder, rape and torture afresh, some more than once, that the policy of "understand and treat" is demonstrably discredited and is failing the innocent and the vulnerable in our societies. The blood of countless victims is on the hands of the liberal establishment and all of those who support the laissez-faire attitude to law and order of successive governments in the last 50 years. Is it more "alright" to allow the deaths of the innocent to spare the lives of the guilty so long as we are not the ones actually operating the gallows? So it would seem In our topsy turvy world of enlightenment, understanding, cowardice and cop out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Well we've been around this particular mulberry bush ad nauseam in the past, and I have no intention of prolonging another circumnavigation because we are never going to convince each other, are we? I respect your views as sincerely held but I believe that they are misguided and in time the pendulum will swing back the other way to sanity. Obviously, killing innocent people is not "alright". I note with interest that nobody picked up or contested my point that there are plenty of cases where the identity of the perpetrator is beyond any doubt whatsoever, so I conclude that the mistaken identity objection is in reality a fig leaf to cover a more broadly based objection to judicial killing under any circumstances. Unfortunately for those of this persuasion, so many evil criminals have been released, supposedly as rehabilitated, reformed characters, to murder, rape and torture afresh, some more than once, that the policy of "understand and treat" is demonstrably discredited and is failing the innocent and the vulnerable in our societies. The blood of countless victims is on the hands of the liberal establishment and all of those who support the laissez-faire attitude to law and order of successive governments in the last 50 years. Is it more "alright" to allow the deaths of the innocent to spare the lives of the guilty so long as we are not the ones actually operating the gallows? So it would seem In our topsy turvy world of enlightenment, understanding, cowardice and cop out. It doesn't matter how many cases there are where you're "sure" it's the right person. If the wrong person is killed EVER, the system cannot work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 That is just a way of closing your mind to the fact that the present system kills the wrong person over and over and over again. This clearly doesn't matter so long as it isn't the hand of the state doing it directly and your conscience is clear. However, the state has the blood of innocents all over its hand by being lenient with evil individuals and releasing them amongst us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 I note with interest that nobody picked up or contested my point that there are plenty of cases where the identity of the perpetrator is beyond any doubt whatsoever, so I conclude that the mistaken identity objection is in reality a fig leaf to cover a more broadly based objection to judicial killing under any circumstances. People are convicted beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond any doubt whatsoever, so to accomodate that you'd either need to change it to beyond any doubt, reducing the number of convictions, or have a two tier conviction system, of "definitely guilty" and "probably guilty", which would cause more problems than it solves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.