Botswana hangs inmate

[Chavez]

Guy's, if the ANC reintroduce the death penalty, half their supporters will then be executed

BRILLIANT!!!!

 

[Syndyre]

Why not?

If you guys really want to let these guys bleed to death, then you should also vote that the cops leave wounded robbers alone. Once they're chucked into the police van, the state becomes responsible for them because they're restricting the freedoms of those who've been arrested, even though they're presumed innocent until proven guilty.

But hey, if you want to chuck away the fundamental cornerstones of justice and rule of law, be my guest. Or rather, no. I happen to like these concepts, and if you threaten them, then like the all the other criminals you deserve to be removed from society for your crimes.

Why not? Would you consider speeding and hijacking to be crimes of equal magnitude?

I don't want to "chuck away the fundamental cornerstones of justice and rule of law", I just want people to realise that we're not living in a normal, civil society and so the current responses and laws aren't working, we need to recognise we're living in a situation very close to civil war and respond accordingly.

 

[Juice]

I agree, they just mentioned on the radio how full the prisons are, maybe such a deterant will help alleviate the problem.

Not really. It's not so much a deterrent because criminals don't expect to get caught. The purpose of the death sentence is to remove undesirable elements from society with irrevocable finality. And yes, it saves you from having to support someone with 16 life sentences into their dotage because you're never, ever going to set them free.

However, as a society, it's kinda hard to condone the death sentence unless you are fully prepared to pull the lever yourself. I've realised that, as bad as the situation is and as heinous as the crimes are, I don't think I'd be able to personally put someone to death, unless perhaps the crime they perpetrated was against me personally, or someone I cared for.

 

[Syndyre]

However, as a society, it's kinda hard to condone the death sentence unless you are fully prepared to pull the lever yourself. I've realised that, as bad as the situation is and as heinous as the crimes are, I don't think I'd be able to personally put someone to death, unless perhaps the crime they perpetrated was against me personally, or someone I cared for.

I'm not sure that's a fair standard to use, there are plenty of unpleasant things that have to be done that people would rather not do themselves, it doesn't make them any less justified or necessary.

That being said, I'm sure you could find plenty of volunteer executioners on the forum.

 

[Juice]

You can't equate speeding with hijacking.

Ah, actually, let's look at this another way.

You, a supposedly law-abiding citizen, with a fixed address and a steady income, commit casual insignificant breaches of the law. Let's see: speeding, talking on your cell-phone while driving, driving under the influence, smoking in public, perhaps some recreational drug use, software/music/movie piracy, littering... Nothing serious there, right?

But now, because you are the guy with the fixed address and steady income, you are something of a soft target when it comes to policing. I mean, it's FAR easier for the police to come after you, fine you. In terms of risk and reward, you're a policeman's dream.

But, what you are doing is wasting the police's time. Because it's easier to persecute YOU, they don't have the time, capacity or inclination to hunt down the REAL criminals, as you see them. Isn't it ironic, then, that you, the law-abiding citizen who hates the crime in this country, are actually making it easier for the criminals to get away? Purely because you, the law-abiding citizen, get in the way.

So yes, I equate speeding with hijacking. Because with your casual, insignificant approach to crime, you are aiding and abetting the hijacker. Because the police actually have to police YOU, they're not getting around to the really difficult task of cleaning up the place.

 

[Syndyre]

Ah, actually, let's look at this another way.

You, a supposedly law-abiding citizen, with a fixed address and a steady income, commit casual insignificant breaches of the law. Let's see: speeding, talking on your cell-phone while driving, driving under the influence, smoking in public, perhaps some recreational drug use, software/music/movie piracy, littering... Nothing serious there, right?

But now, because you are the guy with the fixed address and steady income, you are something of a soft target when it comes to policing. I mean, it's FAR easier for the police to come after you, fine you. In terms of risk and reward, you're a policeman's dream.

But, what you are doing is wasting the police's time. Because it's easier to persecute YOU, they don't have the time, capacity or inclination to hunt down the REAL criminals, as you see them. Isn't it ironic, then, that you, the law-abiding citizen who hates the crime in this country, are actually making it easier for the criminals to get away? Purely because you, the law-abiding citizen, get in the way.

So yes, I equate speeding with hijacking. Because with your casual, insignificant approach to crime, you are aiding and abetting the hijacker. Because the police actually have to police YOU, they're not getting around to the really difficult task of cleaning up the place.

Well I don't smoke, drive under the influence, use drugs or litter. And I've got one speeding fine in the last 3 years, not sure how fast I was going but it was a whole R50 so I doubt I was hitting 200.

I don't think you can blame the essentially law abiding people for the inaction of the police towards serious crimes, if there were no lesser crimes is there any indication that they'd be more inclined to go after the serious criminals?

The root problem to me is accountability, the police/government aren't
accountable for either their actions or inaction so they're free to do what they like. Surely they have very skewed priorities if they go after the people littering rather than the murderers and rapists?

 

[Alan]

@Syndyre

It will really upset the extremists though

Told you

 

[Syndyre]

@Syndyre



Told you

 

[Alan]

That's a daft law, you might as well just introduce kangaroo courts because you're basically labelling the person a criminal before they've had their day in court. Would you condone the same actions if a loved one killed someone while speeding?

If you guys really want to let these guys bleed to death, then you should also vote that the cops leave wounded robbers alone. Once they're chucked into the police van, the state becomes responsible for them because they're restricting the freedoms of those who've been arrested, even though they're presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Pfft

Yes the dude with an AK47 mowing down civilians can't possibly be considered "guilty" untill his day in court

It's not the state responsibility to look after the criminal. They responsible for their own actions and if they break the law the state "ows" them nothing.

I've realised that, as bad as the situation is and as heinous as the crimes are, I don't think I'd be able to personally put someone to death, unless perhaps the crime they perpetrated was against me personally, or someone I cared for.

I would. Even if I didn't know the victim. Whether the victim is someone I care for or someone I don't know makes no difference to me. As for as I'm concenered they are both innocent people who suffered the consequences of the criminals actions.

 

[Xarog]

Why not? Would you consider speeding and hijacking to be crimes of equal magnitude?

They're both crimes.

I don't want to "chuck away the fundamental cornerstones of justice and rule of law",

Sure you do. You can't give the state carte blanche which would allow it to arbitrarily deny suspects of their right to good health, their right to a fair trial, their right to life, their right to be treated equally, and their right to human dignity, and then turn aroud and say that you don't want to disregard these fundamental principles of a just and moral society.

I just want people to realise that we're not living in a normal, civil society and so the current responses and laws aren't working, we need to recognise we're living in a situation very close to civil war and respond accordingly.

Your suggestions would effectively put us IN a state of civil warfare. If one side is intent on killing the other side, or at the very least "allowing" them to die, what is it BUT war?

Obviously crime is a problem and there are many things that can and should be done to minimise it. However, suggesting that suspects be arbitrarily denied basic human rights is not productive.

Yes the dude with an AK47 mowing down civilians can't possibly be considered "guilty" untill his day in court

You obviously don't understand that one of the consequences of your suggestion is that a wounded homeowner could well find himself summarily executed by the police because he was wounded while defending himself from armed robbers. All the police would have to do is claim that the homeowner was a "suspect" as he "may" have lured the guy into his house before attacking him.

It's not the state responsibility to look after the criminal.

Actually it is. As a side-effect of imprisonment or detainment, the state prevents the criminal from looking after himself. Again, the consequences of your claim, if accurate, would mean that the state could imprison someone without needing to bother to feed them, because there is no responsibility to do so.

They responsible for their own actions and if they break the law the state "ows" them nothing.

See above.

 

[Syndyre]

They're both crimes.

Maybe so but the key phrase was "of equal magnitude".

Sure you do. You can't give the state carte blanche which would allow it to arbitrarily deny suspects of their right to good health, their right to a fair trial, their right to life, their right to be treated equally, and their right to human dignity, and then turn aroud and say that you don't want to disregard these fundamental principles of a just and moral society.

I'm not sure Alan's comment was totally serious, but assuming it was, if you have a situation where limited resources are available, such as your average SA government hospital, is it unreasonable to have a policy that prioritises the innocent citizens over the criminals?

I do think there's an argument to be made that when people flagrantly disregard the rights of others they forfeit their own rights, at least to an extent.

Your suggestions would effectively put us IN a state of civil warfare. If one side is intent on killing the other side, or at the very least "allowing" them to die, what is it BUT war?

Obviously crime is a problem and there are many things that can and should be done to minimise it. However, suggesting that suspects be arbitrarily denied basic human rights is not productive.

That is what one side is currently doing, i.e. the criminals. On a philosophical level, is it reasonable to expect the other side to fund and support the treatment of those who are trying to kill them so that they might live another day to do the same? Effectively it amounts to arming those who would destroy us, which isn't even a choice we're allowed to make for ourselves because there doesn't seem to be that much correlation between taxpayers and ANC voters.

 

[Alan]

Sure you do. You can't give the state carte blanche which would allow it to arbitrarily deny suspects of their right to good health, their right to a fair trial, their right to life, their right to be treated equally, and their right to human dignity, and then turn aroud and say that you don't want to disregard these fundamental principles of a just and moral society.

Ah yes the poor criminals rights Shame

Your suggestions would effectively put us IN a state of civil warfare. If one side is intent on killing the other side, or at the very least "allowing" them to die, what is it BUT war?

Yeah don't dare declare war on the poor criminals

Obviously crime is a problem and there are many things that can and should be done to minimise it. However, suggesting that suspects be arbitrarily denied basic human rights is not productive.

Yes it is. It would save plenty of resources that would instead be used on innocent law abiding citizens and not criminals.

You obviously don't understand that one of the consequences of your suggestion is that a wounded homeowner could well find himself summarily executed by the police because he was wounded while defending himself from armed robbers. All the police would have to do is claim that the homeowner was a "suspect" as he "may" have lured the guy into his house before attacking him.

Oh please. This reminds me of the wacko who clamed you should not be allowed to shoot people on your property because somebody might "lure" innoent people to his house to kill them

Actually it is. As a side-effect of imprisonment or detainment, the state prevents the criminal from looking after himself. Again, the consequences of your claim, if accurate, would mean that the state could imprison someone without needing to bother to feed them, because there is no responsibility to do so.

Hey that's not a bad idea. The state should just supply the incarceration and the then it's up to the criminal to sort himself out. Again that would free resources for those innocent people without anything.

 

[Alan]

I'm not sure Alan's comment was totally serious,

Shhhhhhhhhh

 

[Syndyre]

Hey that's not a bad idea. The state should just supply the incarceration and the then it's up to the criminal to sort himself out. Again that would free resources for those innocent people without anything.

Did you see one of the new Prison Break episodes, there's a Panamanian jail where all the guards do is control the perimeter, everything else inside is up to the inmates.

 

[Xarog]

Maybe so but the key phrase was "of equal magnitude".

The justification for laws against speeding is to protect people's lives. Speeders and drunk drivers kill people every day through their negligence, when they know better, so from that perspective I don't see much of a difference between the two.

I'm not sure Alan's comment was totally serious, but assuming it was, if you have a situation where limited resources are available, such as your average SA government hospital, is it unreasonable to have a policy that prioritises the innocent citizens over the criminals?

No. I think victims of crime have a right to claim compensation from the state, which includes the cost of any medical bills resulting from a failure of the state to protect its citizens.

I do think there's an argument to be made that when people flagrantly disregard the rights of others they forfeit their own rights, at least to an extent.

Yeah, but simply assuming that they've violated someone else's right without reasonable proof and a lack of reasonable doubt isn't the way to go about it.

That is what one side is currently doing, i.e. the criminals. On a philosophical level, is it reasonable to expect the other side to fund and support the treatment of those who are trying to kill them so that they might live another day to do the same?

On a philosophical level we're trying to build a social system which ascribes to a certain set of standards. You can't behave according to those standards AND willingly ignore those standards at the same time. Our society is basically built around the recognition that humans are universally *valuable*. To then go and say that anyone who doesn't agree with this principle is valueless (i.e. not worthy of any rights) is hypocrisy. Murderers tend not to murder their family members and friends afterall. If we become willing to murder murderers, then the murderers are also killing murderers, and you've just created two identical sides - at least the murderers in this case would be honest about their views.

Effectively it amounts to arming those who would destroy us, which isn't even a choice we're allowed to make for ourselves because there doesn't seem to be that much correlation between taxpayers and ANC voters.

I fail to see how it arms anyone. The state can only pay for the medical costs of those they catch. Although the system is far from perfect, those caught after being wounded in a crime tend to be easier to pin TO the crime and are thus less likely to go free.

Yes it is. It would save plenty of resources that would instead be used on innocent law abiding citizens and not criminals.

Hitler said the same thing about the "criminal" Jews.

Oh please. This reminds me of the wacko who clamed you should not be allowed to shoot people on your property because somebody might "lure" innoent people to his house to kill them

Yeah, none of that actually refutes the point I made. Just because you don't like the results doesn't make it any less possible. The more power you give to the state, the more able it is to abuse that power.

 

[Syndyre]

The justification for laws against speeding is to protect people's lives. Speeders and drunk drivers kill people every day through their negligence, when they know better, so from that perspective I don't see much of a difference between the two.

Its the difference between manslaughter and murder.

On a philosophical level we're trying to build a social system which ascribes to a certain set of standards. You can't behave according to those standards AND willingly ignore those standards at the same time. Our society is basically built around the recognition that humans are universally *valuable*. To then go and say that anyone who doesn't agree with this principle is valueless (i.e. not worthy of any rights) is hypocrisy. Murderers tend not to murder their family members and friends afterall. If we become willing to murder murderers, then the murderers are also killing murderers, and you've just created two identical sides - at least the murderers in this case would be honest about their views.

You also have to have a relatively peaceful, stable base from which to build that social system. Maybe we need less attractive methods to reach that point before we can effectively implement a liberal constitution such as the one we're have. Its good for somewhere in Scandinavia, I'm just not convinced it deals effectively with our current reality. Based on that principle the death penalty would be wrong too, while that may be your viewpoint many would disagree. While human life may not be valueless, some may be more valuable than others which is how the killing of criminals can be justified to protect the innocent.

I don't think you can create a moral equivalence between those that kill criminals because they are criminals and as a result of their actions and the criminals themselves who sadistically slaughter innocent people.

I fail to see how it arms anyone. The state can only pay for the medical costs of those they catch. Although the system is far from perfect, those caught after being wounded in a crime tend to be easier to pin TO the crime and are thus less likely to go free.

It arms them because, lets assume they are tried and convicted and sentenced to say 10 years, then they're let out in 5, maybe even 3 for good behaviour and go back to their life of crime.

 

[Alan]

No. I think victims of crime have a right to claim compensation from the state, which includes the cost of any medical bills resulting from a failure of the state to protect its citizens.

You don't want the state to have the power to stop crime but the state must now compensate victims for not preventing it

Yeah, but simply assuming that they've violated someone else's right without reasonable proof and a lack of reasonable doubt isn't the way to go about it.

Yeah a dude who shot people with a AK47 is not reasonable proof

Our society is basically built around the recognition that humans are universally *valuable*.

No only extremist liberals like yourself value the lives of mass murderers and child rapists

Hitler said the same thing about the "criminal" Jews.

I'm sure the Jews ran around hijacking, torturing, raping and murdering innocent people. . No surprise though you associate criminals with Jewish victims of Nazism. Talk about "criminal is a victim" mentalilty

The more power you give to the state, the more able it is to abuse that power.

I'd rather have the state wielding power than criminals who are a law upon themselves to do what they please at the expense of innocent peoople.

 

[Syndyre]

As for the state being given power, I'd also advocate the citizens being given power through laws such as the Castle Doctrine.

 

[Alan]

As for the state being given power, I'd also advocate the citizens being given power through laws such as the Castle Doctrine.

Oh no but then we'll have home owners "luring" innocent people into their homes and killing them

 

[Syndyre]

Oh no but then we'll have home owners "luring" innocent people into their homes and killing them

Damn how did somebody find out my plan?