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

Just a pedantic point - castration is the removal of the testes not the penis - so they would still have a penis to rape you. All you would be doing is preventing them from breeding & exacting revenge. Would that stop them commiting further similar crimes - the evidence suggests not as it is the violence that is the turn on not the 'need to breed'.

If you want to advocate the removal of the penis for sex offenders/child molestors - you will have a small problem with female sex offenders/child molestors in these times of political correctness & little effect on their future behaviour (after all what would they have to loose for a 2nd offence).
Do the victims of female circumcision, or women who've had hysterectomies, or men with vasectomies behave any differently to when they were 'whole'? I don't think so.

;^)#
apologising once again for maintaining topic drift

Killing has never solved anything, whether it's senseless murders being committed all around the world by "conventional" criminals, or under the guise of a "military intervention" to insure peace and restore "democracy" to the world, it's all murder. It's not made a lesser crime because a government or governments decide this is how a situation will be handled.
Capital punishment is indeed very barbaric... does the taking of the accuseds' life really atone for the crime? Does it somehow render the original crime null and void? No, all that is accomplished is to needlessly end yet another life. Though a convicted criminal is permanantly off the streets, how can a second crime, the taking of a life via capital punishment, be deemed the solution to criminal activity?
Life is short, it's too precious to be taken away by anyone. We must look at ways of ending social problems such as poverty, hunger, shelter, clothing... when the basic needs are met, there will be no reason for criminal activity... Unfortunatly money and greed are great influences on peoples lives. Untill, as a world, we can live in harmony and acceptance of each other, crime will continue.. and what to do about it? We need some form of punishment for crimes, but death is too severe for anyone. Perhaps incarceration with real punishment ( no cable TV for example) will work with improvements to the penal system.

Some interesting info/links, for & against, can be found here http://www.derechos.org/dp/

;^)#

It all needs to be varied depending on the results of someone's actions. Someone who kills someone with no relatives or close friends might deserve a siomple death penalty but the problem comes when person A kills(rapes, maims or whatevers) person B which leaves person B dead or unhappy and possibly also leaves person B's family and friends in a similar state. To exact vengeance, person A needs to be made unhappy to the sum extent of the unhappinesses they have caused many people. Make their life living hell, in other words. Rather than having a set length of time for their stuff, they should only be released when they've served an equivalent length of unhappiness to that which they caused. Obviously, some people will feel that this is very soon which might be dangerous when a nutter is involved. Instead, the length of sentence could be calculated from the amount of freedom removed by person A from person B and their associates. If this freedom is a life, person A's life should be made completely unfree as long as it endures.

I have a tendency to diffentiate between a group of people who want to go out and kill people who've never done anything to them- other than be different, and pursue their own interests peacefully- and a group of people who refuse to let anyone live peacefully if they don't fit into their mold. i.e. One group has as it's purported goal the exermination of another group, who's only goal is to live and let live.

I see a great deal of difference between someone who is wanting to kill me, and someone who means me no harm. And yes, I'd much rather the one's who were wanting to kill me bit the bullet than I...

I've never been a great fan of capitol punishment- hence my waivering in my views of it. I see a difference between an immediate threat to my health, life, and well-being and a threat which has been essentially nullified by being taken into custody. The rub is that a great many of these animals shouldn't be out on the streets again, EVER. That's my main concern in the issue.

The only way I would kill is if it were someone trying to kill me, maim me, or in some other way take away my right to pursue my happiness as I see fit.

Now if the nazi's, etc. were willing to live to themselves, like the Amish do, and not bother anyone else- that'd be another thing altogther, and there are some racists who are that way. I don't have a problem with anyone who minds their own buisness.

However, the vast majority of these types of people want to force everyone else to be as they would like to be. And that ain't kosher where I come from.

There's 2 basic problems with the death penalty :-

1: You can't undo it if it's imposed in error
"The most extensive safeguards against miscarriages of justice cannot produce an infallible legal system because human beings are fallible. False testimony, mistaken identification, misinterpretation of evidence, and community prejudices and pressures can wrongfully imprison and sometimes kill the innocent. Since 1973 at least 53 men were released from death rows in seventeen U.S. states due to significant evidence of their innocence. At least twenty-three innocent people between 1900 and 1987 were not so fortunate, they were executed before their innocence was proved."(source Amnesty International USA)

2: It can be subject to inherent misuse (& we're not talking about only in banana republics).
"There is "a pattern of evidence indicating racial disparities in the
charging, sentencing, and imposition of the death penalty" according to a 1990 U.S. Government report. An overwhelming majority of death row defendants since 1977 were executed for killing whites despite the fact that whites and blacks are victims of murder in approximately equal numbers. In Texas, for example, blacks found guilty of killing whites were found to be six times more likely to receive the death penalty than whites convicted of killing whites."(source Amnesty International USA)

Then there's the other minor issue that it doesn't seem to deter crime - in Britain during the 1700 & early 1800's they couldn't deter people stealing loaves of bread with the death penalty, or transportation to the colonies for life. Basically, you need to fix the problems that are causing the crime, not just jack up the penalty.

At its most basic, if someone faces the death sentence for a crime they have absolutely nothing to loose in repeated offences until they are caught. The temptation to 'fight for their life' must, in those circumstances, be almost irrestistable & can only lead to further attrocities from the lunatic fringe.

;^)#

But how do you solve the problems that lead to the crimes.
Face it - if we haven't managed to solve it in over 2000 years are we ever likely to? Especially if we insist on trying to find excuses for it.

The question is - is "society" as a whole progressing towards an ever more enlightened state? From a moral standpoint we can deplore the barbarism which was supposedly moral in the past but yet we are unable to deal with modern barabarism such as murder and rape despite our so-called enlightenment. Are our social problems endemic to life?

I think there are most certainly achievable targets that would have a positive influence - education for all, a decent standard of life, true democracy, a fair legal system and established human rights. These basic necessities are life are absent either totally or partially in even the most modern of countries - Britain and America among. The painful thing to accept is that they are so very very achievable. So I ask myself....why don't we have them?

You're right - it ain't kosher.
But then your last two paragraphs are a bit contradictory - you want the nazis etc to live as you would like (ie keeping to themselves) but "However, the vast majority of these types of people want to force everyone else to be as they would like to be. And that ain't kosher where I come from." - aren't you commiting the same sin you accuse the lunatic fringe of? To extrapolate, you must believe Apartheid in South Africa was OK because they kept to themselves & minded their own business????

You also say, the only way you would kill is if it were someone trying to kill you, maim you, or in some other way take away your right to pursue your happiness as you see fit - so if the nazis, KKK et al want to pursue their right to happiness as THEY see fit through killing opponents thats OK? Or are there different rules for the good guys?

I think you possibly meant, you would kill to defend youself from real physical harm, then you are on more morally defensible grounds - but then what moral ground does the state or the executioner have in capital punishment? - neither are threatened with physical harm by the condemned criminal & there is always the problem of the wrongly comdemned (details posted elsewhere in this forum).


;^)#

I haven't seen or found any excuses here - perhaps you'd care to point them out.
If we haven't solved it in X years are we ever likely to? LOL - just as well you weren't working for NASA during the 50's & 60's, or the Wright brothers - yep its too hard - we should all buy guns & shoot anyone on sight that we suspect of being bad (dripping with sarcasm emoticon needed here)

;^)#

It sickens me to see actors such as Charlton Heston playing the stooge for the National Rifle Association (or whatever it's called). The facts and figures that have been quoted here are irrefutable. But an obsolete element of the US constitution continues to act as the rheumy prop for Americans who feel gun ownership is a right.

Will we ever solve those ills? Those basic necessities can be achieved if self interest is set aside.

arrggghhhh - You want lawyers arguing about the 'amount of freedom' denied to victims - I can see it now
Defence Lawyer: "Well Your Honour, the sentence should only be 6 months because that was the life expectancy of the victim according to his insurance company & anyway all his siblings have often said they hated him so they shouldn't count." The lawyers make a big enough deal (& money)out of pain & suffering litigation in civil damages cases.

No problems with the (real) life sentence for murder though.

;^)#

I'm sorry but we dont get Charlton & the NRA in my country so I can't comment. I dont actually have a problem with people owning guns - what scares me when I visit the US is the huge number of normal people who feel the need to own & carry handguns for protection.

I was appalled when a friend of mine, after being mugged & asking the best way to avoid being mugged in future, was told by US police that the best way was to buy a handgun, carry it on him & wave it about if he felt threatened (sounds like a good way to get shot by a policeman who sees only the waving to me).

I seems to me that the question that needs to be asked is why so many US residents feel the need for a handgun. The crime statistics aren't that much worse for the US than many other countries (discounting shootings). So why so many handguns, machine guns & assault rifles?

;^)#

Education, human rights, democracy, legal system. We have all those things already, they're even quite good. What they are not is absolutely perfect. Perfection is a different kettle of fish altogether. You're calling for utopia - and for human beings that's not "very very achievable" at all. But of course this is exactly the reason I'm with you on the wider topic. As has already been said, the death penalty cannot be made foolproof either, which is the only reason we need to ban it entirely.

Eddie Izzard: "The National Rifle Association says that it's not guns that kill, it's people. But I think guns play a part, don't you? There are very few casualties caused by someone running up to you and shaouting BANG!"

Yes, but in the US the only "household or recreational consumer product" which kills more people than guns is motor vehicles - not many people get hurt by people walking past going "Vroom, Vroom" either - but not many are calling for the outlawing of vehicles.

Why do people feel the need to own guns & use them so frequently?

;^)#

In regards to the "keep to themselves" statement- I meant that if they want to live on their own private plots of land and apply their rules there, that's there buisness. It's when they want to force society as a whole to adopt their model that I have a problem with it.

And, yes, if they wanted to enforce an aparthied (which involves a whole legal structure which effects the whole of society, from determining who you may socialize with to whom you may marry) of any sort on me, I would fight it in every way I could- up to and including armed force.

Perhaps I've been less than careful in my choice of words, but when I said I would "kill the nazis" I meant in a situation where they were a direct threat to my life, OR my freedom. Since I feel that a life in prison or it's equivelent is life stolen from me.

The difference between my posistion, and that of the nazis (since I feel sure you're going to try to make the posistions equivelent here)
is that I don't have any interest at all in telling anyone whom they may marry (as long as it's consensual), whereas the nazis wish to be able to tell anybody and everybody whom they may marry. This is just one example, I'm sure you've read enough and know enough to think of more on your own. If you can't, just go here:

http://www.kof.org

You can read their goals and their plans directly, perhaps even engage some in a chat or something. You may also want to follow the links to the other nazi sites they've put up.

As to capitol punishment- I agree that there's a difference between a threat which is imminent and a threat which has been neutralized by capture. I have a tendency to waffle on this issue, depending on the emotional impact of the latest atrocity committed by some asshole like the one's Fenchurch mentioned at the beginning of the thread. I think that the better way would probably be the no capitol punishment route, but you have to make sure that the offenders are never released to prey on people again.

To address the issue of an armed populance- if 6 million some-odd jews and others who were eventually killed in concentration camps had been armed, they could have surely had an effect on Hitler's war machine. If they had the weaponry, and had been willing to use it.

Yes, I go for that, too, because I have two big problems with the death penalty and a number of smaller ones.

1. Some years back some sick bastards bombed a pub in Birmingham, England, killing and maiming several innocent people. Six people were convicted on strong scientific evidence, and if there were a death penalty in the UK they would surely have been executed. Some years later it was discovered that the incontrovertible scientific evidence had been heavily doctored, and was in any case suspect. One of the accused had already died in jail; the rest were released. No system of justice is infallible. Close investigation of two celebrated murder cases - respectively the last man and the last woman hanged in England - also demonstrates that their convictions were unsound, and there would be strong grounds for appeal, release and compensation. Only they are dead. Innocent (in one case posthumously pardoned), but still dead.

2. A large proportion of the really bad crimes are committed by people who are mentally ill. There is a well-established principle in law that madness precludes culpability. You can't in good conscience execute someone who commits a crime while the balance of their mind is disturbed - and you can't prevent rich people finding good lawyers and good psychiatrists to get them off on that technicality.

Fundamental principle of justice: It is better than ten guilty men walk free than one innocent man is convicted. The desire for retribution is understandable, of course - but then the whole point of civilisation is that we control our baser instincts.

The minor problems are equally intractable:

- if the death penalty is such a strong deterrant, how come the murder rate is so much higher in the US than it is in the UK?

- given the fallibility of the legal system you must have an exhaustive appeals process, but keeping people on death row for years is inhumane; irreconcilable problem

- the disproportionate rate of capital sentences in the black community and those on low incomes suggests that there is inequality of treatment.

Odd point: Those fundamentalist Christians who shout loudest for retribution through the death penalty should join another faith, as the whole point of the New Testament is that the ten Commandments of the old Covenant were replaced by forgiveness and justification through faith under the new Covenant. In other words they are going back to Moses' law instead of Jesus' - a matter on which Jesus and his disciples would had strong views (remember the parable of the adultress? let he who is without sin cast the first stone?). This puts them historically several centuries behind the modern-day Jews, and is a particularly enjoyable argument to throw at them, as they don't expect to find their opinions so completely undermined by Scripture!

Yeah, but it won't stop them abousing OTHER PEOPLE's kids, eh?

Just to continue topic drift, castration has far more important consequences than making it impossible for sex offenders to breed (this is just a by-product). The reason castration is highly effective (and indeed, often requested by repeat offenders) is that it almost completely eliminates the sex drive of the individual who is "sans boules". In a number of European countries I understand that trials of voluntary castration in return for reduced sentencing have proved highly successful.

Castration is not a barbaric method a la "if thine hand offend thee", but is a medical solution in cases where the sex offender is like that because they have hormonal imbalences which predispose them towards this kind of behaviour.

This is of no use when the offender is psychotic or a sociopath, however, even when the individual rapes for the power trip, castration leads to a rapid reduction in agressive behaviour.

I would suggest there is a valid case for castrating all males once they have fulfilled their child farming responsibilities. We'd certainly have a lot fewer wars, since there would be no more aged polititians flexing their last ounce of testosterone in the only way left to them!

Anyway, time I read the rest of the discussion...