h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Uhhhhh...

Which b*****ds are we talking about?

wouldn't that be for you to decide/interperate ?

I vote for the neighbours kids and their mates who spend the entirity of their free time hanging out on our stairwell/landing. Actually, maybe just a watercannon would surfice.

This would be a quote, Happy?

Lyric from a New Model Army song

Alright then. I think the obvious interpretation is that this song lyric is about capital punishment, so here goes...

I don't believe in justice. It's a pipe dream.

I don't believe in vengeance. It only feeds a cycle of violence.

I believe you sometimes have to kill the b******s. It's the most effective deterrent to repeat offenders.

...Discuss. I'll be a Levellers girl myself. Which tells you all you need to know about what a lighteight I am. Not what you meant? Ah.

I think it might be important to believe in justice. Cos if you don't beleive it is attainable, then you might just give up on it altogether, leaving the way open for even greater abuses. Though I agree that as a consistant reality it is a pipe dream.

I think generally that vengance is a better modal for a punishment system - with deterence I think you could get, say, the problem that two people having commiteed the same crime get hugely different sentences, depending on how that crime is viewed at the time and in that geographical location - a stronger sentence might be just a response to the perceived need to deter criminals committing the crime that the papers are particularly getting their knickers in a twist about at that moment. At least with a vengence model each crime carries a set punishment. I think that's fair. Plus, if I'm honest, I think if you, say, murder someone, you should be punished. Not because you act as an example to others but just because I think that's right.

And then, I'm not sure that deterrence actually works (which is the only reason I can think of for using that as a model). Particularly not with murder. I'd say that most people don't commit murder cos they think it's wrong, and also never get into the sort of situations where most murders take place - extreme anger aggrivated by alcohol and a convenient wepon nearby sort of thing. It doesn't work as a deterent in the first case, as, well, I don't know about you, but I feel a bit insulted by the idea that the only reason I didn'y off my husband when he mildly irritated me the other day is that I'm afraid of The Chair. Or in the second, cos you're in that mental state where rational thinking is not at a premium - otherwise your own moral sense or practical considerations (including fear of punnishment) would probably stop you.

And then there are people like serial killers, which is the sort of catagory of murderers that the death penalty is usually reserved for, (isn't it?), who frankly are just so weird that I seriously doubt that the throught ofd the death penalty has any meaningful restraint on them at all. It's not, actually, that I'm particularly against the death penalty in their case, but that I simply think that I would be relatively happy with the idea that, regretfully, they must be put down.

I think that these arguments apply only to the system of punishment within a community, however. I'm not sure that I would agree with my arguments if they were applied to relationships between communities.

Sol: I said the death penalty is the best deterrent for *repeat* offenders. You might off your husband without worrying about the chair, true. But if you're given the chair afterwards, you'll hardly be in a position to commit that crime again.

*wonders just how much Solnushka's husband is insured for *

on a slightly different note I must say I found it interesting that it's the criminal-justice system the statement has been immediately applied to...

If I said that I'm not sure you can say it's a _deterrent_ if they are simply in no position to attempt repeat the offence, would that be hair splitting?

Clearly not enough, Happy.

And so what did you have in mind?

I did not really have anything in mind, it just struck me as an interesting statement open to exploration, one that could be applied to a variety of situations when taken out of its original context. While it's most obvious application is to the criminal justice system for purposes of discussion it could be applied to a varid range of situations (for example) ranging from The War on Terror to the Nazi's treatment of the Jews in WWII or perhaps the actions of the Church against the Cathers in 13th/14th century Europe.

I must admit, I did wonder if it was a particularly spectacular example of one of Mr Bush's carefully crafted speaches. But then I decided that was a bit nasty.

*giggles*


slight change of subject - any comments on the news story over at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/technology/2563249.stm

*poke*

Though y'all might be interested in this... A1052146