Botswana hangs inmate

[Alan]

Damn how did somebody find out my plan?

Well it's perfectly logical and makes complete sense so no surprise your dastardly plan was exposed

 

[bwana]

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

We all hear people moaning about the police investigating cases where someone breaks in and is shot and killed by the home owner but how many of these home owners have been convicted?

 

[Xarog]

Its the difference between manslaughter and murder.

So? The only difference between the two is the sentence you get at the end of the day after the trial has been conducted. The police have no idea what the NPA is going to charge a given suspect with or if it will even go to trial, so how is a policeman going to distinguish between someone who should be allowed to bleed to death and someone who shouldn't? And if the policeman makes an honest mistake, is that just tough?

You also have to have a relatively peaceful, stable base from which to build that social system.

There are alternatives which aren't hypocritical.

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.

No we don't. I'm not saying that the system is fine as it is, but there's definitely better ways (and more effective ways) to go about dealing with the problem.

Based on that principle the death penalty would be wrong too, while that may be your viewpoint many would disagree.

I agree with it in principle, however, the fact that the state makes mistakes, and that innocent people will be put to death makes it an unreasonable trade-off.

Far better for the person being robbed to shoot the bastard who's robbing him.

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.

No, that's not the case at all. If you're charged with slander, and the court upholds the charge, you don't lose your freedom of speech, nor can your right to freedom of expression to be non-existent in such a situation. When the death penalty is legalised, the rationality behind it is that although the person has a right to live, there are other considerations which are more important than the right. The criminals right to life is never ever reduced in any way.

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.

rephrase?

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.

They're still in prison for 3 years. While not a punishment that fits the crime, its still a better result than letting them go to fend for themselves.

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

No, I don't want the state to have the power to murder people arbitrarily. Though nice attempt to put words in my mouth.

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

That's for a court to decide.

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

Hmm. I guess I would seem like a "liberal extremist" to a Nazi.

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.

Actually I was associating your views with Nazism. But again, nice try putting words in my mouth.

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.

I'm sure China would welcome your presence. Or if that's not to your liking, feel free to move to Singapore.

 

[Alan]

Tsk tsk

Godwin's law

 

[Xarog]

Tsk tsk

Godwin's law

Godwin's doesn't cover situatoins where a view geniunely resembles nazism. It doesn't apply here, unfortunately for you.

 

[Alan]

Godwin's doesn't cover situatoins where a view geniunely resembles nazism. It doesn't apply here, unfortunately for you.

*Sigh*

You are completely deluded.

Hey Syndyre when last were you labelled a nazi?

 

[Xarog]

*Sigh*

You are completely deluded.

Hey Syndyre when last were you labelled a nazi?

Hmm. I suppose you would think I'm deluded, all things considered.

As for Syndyre, since he can actually debate an issue on its merits instead of resorting to snide one liners, ad-hominems, straw men and putting words in someone's mouth, I'm willing to bet it's been quite a while.

 

[Syndyre]

So? The only difference between the two is the sentence you get at the end of the day after the trial has been conducted. The police have no idea what the NPA is going to charge a given suspect with or if it will even go to trial, so how is a policeman going to distinguish between someone who should be allowed to bleed to death and someone who shouldn't?

The reason there's a sentencing difference is because the crime itself is different. I'm just saying there's a clear difference between someone who was speeding and someone who wilfully shot at others in cold blood.

There are alternatives which aren't hypocritical.

Such as?

No, that's not the case at all. If you're charged with slander, and the court upholds the charge, you don't lose your freedom of speech, nor can your right to freedom of expression to be non-existent in such a situation. When the death penalty is legalised, the rationality behind it is that although the person has a right to live, there are other considerations which are more important than the right. The criminals right to life is never ever reduced in any way.

However you word it it amounts to the same thing doesn't it? Their right to life is still effectively reduced if their life is taken away.

rephrase?

Unless I misunderstanding you you said that people that didn't medically treat criminals and look after their welfare were murderers and no better than the criminals themselves. I was just saying that's an unreasonable moral equivalence.

They're still in prison for 3 years. While not a punishment that fits the crime, its still a better result than letting them go to fend for themselves.

What do you mean letting them go to fend for yourselves? Would you consider it better for them to be bleed to death on the road where they were shot or be in prison for 3 years, then be released, after which they attack more innocent people?

 

[Syndyre]

*Sigh*

You are completely deluded.

Hey Syndyre when last were you labelled a nazi?

Lol not for a while I don't think, though I think someone on here called me a fascist a while ago.

 

[Syndyre]

We all hear people moaning about the police investigating cases where someone breaks in and is shot and killed by the home owner but how many of these home owners have been convicted?

I'm not sure but wouldn't you agree that the law should favour the home owner rather than the criminal? I don't know of cases where people have been convicted but I have heard of cases where it has gone to trial, which causes major expenses and other problems for the accused.

 

[a-person]

What about their human rights?

Seriously though I think a new law needs to be introduced here. It would state that any criminal injured while committing a crime does not have the right to be treated.

For example if a hijacker is shot he isn't taken to hospital or even treated. Just chucked in the police van and taken away. If he expires tough ****.

And then what happens if you are badly injured in accident where you look like the likely perpetrator, even if it's not the case?

 

[Alan]

Lol not for a while I don't think, though I think someone on here called me a fascist a while ago.

LOL it seems Xarog thinks you're a "nice" nazi

 

[Alan]

And then what happens if you are badly injured in accident where you look like the likely perpetrator, even if it's not the case?

I'd be treated then obviously.

 

[Xarog]

The reason there's a sentencing difference is because the crime itself is different. I'm just saying there's a clear difference between someone who was speeding and someone who wilfully shot at others in cold blood.

And I'm saying the cops can't usually tell the difference as soon as they arrive at the scene of the crime.

Such as?

Increasing funding, increasing the number of policemen around. Giving policemen the right to shoot at armed suspects commiting a crime, as well as giving homeowners the right to defend themselves with force even if the criminal that enters their house is unarmed. Etc. etc.

However you word it it amounts to the same thing doesn't it? Their right to life is still effectively reduced if their life is taken away.

No. If the right to life was reduced, then it would be reduced in all circumstances.

Let's say we both run around a 400m track at different times of the day. I get a time of 1 minute. I beat everyone else in the track, and so I'm first. But later you run the same track and make it in 50 seconds. Clearly you become the winner then. Although my position on the podium was lowered, was the time that I ran ever reduced?

The answer is no. If a right was "reduced", it would affect every single situation where the right was relevant. If one prisoner murders another prisoner who is on death row, it doesn't magically become not-murder.

Unless I misunderstanding you you said that people that didn't medically treat criminals and look after their welfare were murderers and no better than the criminals themselves. I was just saying that's an unreasonable moral equivalence.

Murderers violate a person's right to life. If we also violate that right by depriving them of the ability to seek medical attention, how can we claim the moral high ground?

What do you mean letting them go to fend for yourselves? Would you consider it better for them to be bleed to death on the road

That's not what's happening here though. The proposed suggestion would have the cops *apprehending* the suspect.

Quite frankly I do think it better that they bleed to death on the side of the road - but only before the cops arrive.

LOL it seems Xarog thinks you're a "nice" nazi

Yeah, I've never called Syndyre a facist, nor do I think he is one. Of course, you knew that before you even said anything, but don't let that stop your little attempt at libel

I'd be treated then obviously.

No you wouldn't. You look like a perpetrator, the cops would let you bleed, china.

 

[Alan]

Yeah, I've never called Syndyre a facist, nor do I think he is one. Of course, you knew that before you even said anything, but don't let that stop your little attempt at libel

Odd I never claimed you called him a fascist

No you wouldn't. You look like a perpetrator, the cops would let you bleed, china.

Yeah sure they would being nazi stormtroopers of authoritarian oppression

 

[Browser]

An eye for an eye, beautiful!