Outside of self-defense or protecting someone else, I don't think it's ever the answer, even against scumbags (as tempting as it may be in many cases, lol). Although it also varies depending on the person and the situation. I can certainly understand the initial reasons for it and I'm sure lots of people may deserve it in theory, but it should be a last resort. I just don't think it's healthy to condone violence in our society, because in some form you're giving the message that it's an acceptable way to solve problems. I think it's important to set a good example too. The police, courts and jail are there for punishment.

That being said, there's of course a difference between a murderer and someone who cut you off in the line at the supermarket.

You are right.  It is worse to become that which you detest, or that which is detestable. 

Violence begets violence.



Cat

I don't know, I wouldn't mind having a go at the child molesters of the world.

I don't know, I wouldn't mind having a go at the child molesters of the world.

Indeed, and sometimes I would like to burn white collar criminals like the Enron guys at the stake in the stock exchange to send a message to the other money thugs out there.

However, violence against either child molestors or corporate pirates accomplishes nothing, contrary to our impulses.  If violence against criminals prevented crime, crime would have gone extinct in antiquity. 

Indeed, and sometimes I would like to burn white collar criminals like the Enron guys at the stake in the stock exchange to send a message to the other money thugs out there.

However, violence against either child molestors or corporate pirates accomplishes nothing, contrary to our impulses.  If violence against criminals prevented crime, crime would have gone extinct in antiquity. 


Too true. I guess it's just a deep rooted human instinct that when you hear about someone being an asshat (like child molesters and murderers), you automatically think, "Man, I'd love to beat the crap out of that person." It doesn't mean I'd actually do it, but the urge is there, especially when helpless children were involved.

I support the death penalty, so my answer would be yes.

Indeed, and sometimes I would like to burn white collar criminals like the Enron guys at the stake in the stock exchange to send a message to the other money thugs out there.

However, violence against either child molestors or corporate pirates accomplishes nothing, contrary to our impulses.  If violence against criminals prevented crime, crime would have gone extinct in antiquity. 



Too true. I guess it's just a deep rooted human instinct that when you hear about someone being an asshat (like child molesters and murderers), you automatically think, "Man, I'd love to beat the crap out of that person." It doesn't mean I'd actually do it, but the urge is there, especially when helpless children were involved.


I agree with both these points.

I think it's only human, out of caring for innocent victims and having a heart, to want to get back at those responsible for it. Don't get me wrong, I've felt it in short bursts myself, when I see a really sad story on the news about murders, rapists, domestic abuse (especially against women and kids) or otherwise despicable people. Although logically I know that it can't be a viable answer to things in a civilized society. It's up to good citizens to be better than they are in the first place.

My opinion is that they should be punished (and in many cases, alot more severely than they are), but punished humanely. Plus, you also have to consider innocent people who occasionally get wrongly accused and sent to prison.

I agree with both these points.

I think it's only human, out of caring for innocent victims and having a heart, to want to get back at those responsible for it. Don't get me wrong, I've felt it in short bursts myself, when I see a really sad story on the news about murders, rapists, domestic abuse (especially against women and kids) or otherwise despicable people. Although logically I know that it can't be a viable answer to things in a civilized society. It's up to good citizens to be better than they are in the first place.

My opinion is that they should be punished (and in many cases, alot more severely than they are), but punished humanely. Plus, you also have to consider innocent people who occasionally get wrongly accused and sent to prison.

Right-wingers hate this, but it's the truth: Some of the people who commit the most heinous crimes are stark-raving bonkers.  Sending them to a barbaric prison to get beaten, raped, and tortured neither turns them penitent nor helps the victims.  You say "Joe Shmo killed my daughter and I can't wait to see him dance at the end of a rope!"  The vindication of payback is fleeting.  The pain of losing a loved one to murder never goes away. 

I'm not saying just because a person is diagnosed with a mental illness should let them off the hook.  Jeffrey Dahmer was as sick a sick boy as I have ever seen, but he knew murder and mayhem was against the law; he intellectually understood his actions were immoral even though he could not overcome the compulsion kill.  The old M'Naughten rule* is still a good measure.  Dahmer was sentenced to life without parole not death; therefore, the madman who killed Dahmer in prison prosecuted no act of justice.  His actions were just as wrong as Dahmer's.  I will say it was so-called "instant karma."  That is, what you put out into the universe comes back to you.  I thought the same thing of the execution of Saddam Hussein.  Saddam was one of the wickedest men to walk the face of the Earth, but I still opposed the death penalty in his case because I oppose the death penalty.  Period.  However, when he was hanged per the warrant of the Iraqi Special Tribunal on 12/30/06, my first thought was he died as he lived--amidst enemies, hatred, and violence. 

The thing is, I'm more to the Right than you might think.  For instance, on principle I oppose early release for "good behavior."  If you're sentenced to ten years and you demonstrate you're no threat to anyone after three, you should serve the other seven because it's your debt to society.  I know there are prison politics that make "good behavior" practical, but I still oppose it on principle.   I cite Leslie Van Houten, the Manson girl who was denied parole last summer at the age of 58 after 35 years behind bars.  She certainly seems to have learned her lesson and she wouldn't hurt a fly if she was released, but she committed First Degree Murder when she selected her target and stabbed the LaBiancas a hundred times and thus her punishment should be incarceration until natural death.  She may go to parole hearings, but she knows she does not deserve parole.

*  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%27Naghten_Rules

Right-wingers hate this, but it's the truth: Some of the people who commit the most heinous crimes are stark-raving bonkers.  Sending them to a barbaric prison to get beaten, raped, and tortured neither turns them penitent nor helps the victims.  You say "Joe Shmo killed my daughter and I can't wait to see him dance at the end of a rope!"  The vindication of payback is fleeting.  The pain of losing a loved one to murder never goes away. 

I'm not saying just because a person is diagnosed with a mental illness should let them off the hook.  Jeffrey Dahmer was as sick a sick boy as I have ever seen, but he knew murder and mayhem was against the law; he intellectually understood his actions were immoral even though he could not overcome the compulsion kill.  The old M'Naughten rule* is still a good measure.  Dahmer was sentenced to life without parole not death; therefore, the madman who killed Dahmer in prison prosecuted no act of justice.  His actions were just as wrong as Dahmer's.  I will say it was so-called "instant karma."  That is, what you put out into the universe comes back to you.  I thought the same thing of the execution of Saddam Hussein.  Saddam was one of the wickedest men to walk the face of the Earth, but I still opposed the death penalty in his case because I oppose the death penalty.  Period.  However, when he was hanged per the warrant of the Iraqi Special Tribunal on 12/30/06, my first thought was he died as he lived--amidst enemies, hatred, and violence. 

The thing is, I'm more to the Right than you might think.  For instance, on principle I oppose early release for "good behavior."  If you're sentenced to ten years and you demonstrate you're no threat to anyone after three, you should serve the other seven because it's your debt to society.  I know there are prison politics that make "good behavior" practical, but I still oppose it on principle.   I cite Leslie Van Houten, the Manson girl who was denied parole last summer at the age of 58 after 35 years behind bars.  She certainly seems to have learned her lesson and she wouldn't hurt a fly if she was released, but she committed First Degree Murder when she selected her target and stabbed the LaBiancas a hundred times and thus her punishment should be incarceration until natural death.  She may go to parole hearings, but she knows she does not deserve parole.

*  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%27Naghten_Rules


Excellent points, Max. I couldn't agree more on all of this. The real way to solve problems is a process that doesn't happen overnight. Yeah, I think prisons are way too lenient on shortening sentences for "good behavior". I can understand if it was a minor offense, but for something like murder or rape, they should serve out their entire sentence without all the extra priviledges.

I really think it depends on the circumstances... and I don't necessarily consider all physical forms of punishment in the same category of violence as spouse-beaters, gangbangers, etc.

I think the whole "violence against criminals" thing is a bit overplayed alot of the time... for example, if you have just committed a crime and a police officer arrives and tells you to stop, and you run... then it's your own fault if you end up getting hurt by the physical force the officer has to use to stop you... but if the officer tells you to stop and you stop and cooperate and then the officer just starts pounding on you, that's wrong.

Likewise, I think spanking a child to teach them a lesson is perfectly fine - but hitting them when you're in a rage or throwing them against the wall or using objects instead of your hand is not ok.

I think if someone is going around killing people they need to die.  I think it's cruel and unusual punishment that we let these people get away with what they do.  If people continually steal why can't we just start cutting off fingers like they do in other countries.  This would make it much harder to pull the trigger on a gun as well. 

I think if someone is going around killing people they need to die.  I think it's cruel and unusual punishment that we let these people get away with what they do.  If people continually steal why can't we just start cutting off fingers like they do in other countries.  This would make it much harder to pull the trigger on a gun as well. 


LOL What other countries are you talking about?
Who needs fingers anyway? hide the children!!!
http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/4476/2003peterpan005ep3.jpg


Eye for an eye leaves everyone blind ::)

LOL What other countries are you talking about?
Who needs fingers anyway? hide the children!!!
http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/4476/2003peterpan005ep3.jpg


Eye for an eye leaves everyone blind ::)


I think she means Saudi Arabia. Punishment for stealing is cutting off a hand.

I think she means Saudi Arabia. Punishment for stealing is cutting off a hand.


Yep...  Arabic justice is lovely, isn't it?

I think if someone is going around killing people they need to die.  I think it's cruel and unusual punishment that we let these people get away with what they do.  If people continually steal why can't we just start cutting off fingers like they do in other countries.  This would make it much harder to pull the trigger on a gun as well. 

Yeah, and anybody who doesn't like it, we'll cut their tongues out!  I'm sick and tired of all these ingrates disrespecting our leaders!
:D

Yeah, and anybody who doesn't like it, we'll cut their tongues out!  I'm sick and tired of all these ingrates disrespecting our leaders!
:D


I'm gonna cut your fingers off for being so sarcastic in your posts. :D

I really think it depends on the circumstances... and I don't necessarily consider all physical forms of punishment in the same category of violence as spouse-beaters, gangbangers, etc.

I think the whole "violence against criminals" thing is a bit overplayed alot of the time... for example, if you have just committed a crime and a police officer arrives and tells you to stop, and you run... then it's your own fault if you end up getting hurt by the physical force the officer has to use to stop you... but if the officer tells you to stop and you stop and cooperate and then the officer just starts pounding on you, that's wrong.

Likewise, I think spanking a child to teach them a lesson is perfectly fine - but hitting them when you're in a rage or throwing them against the wall or using objects instead of your hand is not ok.

I agree with that last point.  Unfortunately, parents who use corporal punishment too often use it in anger, which is more psychologically damaging than the beating itself. 

I don't have a problem with cops using restraint against a person who is out of control.  Furthermore, suspects who run away from the cops give the officers no choice but to use physical force.  However, again, too often the cops get emotionally worked up and brutalize uncooperative suspects as an act of revenge.  Too many rage-aholics go into policework if you ask me, and the authorities do too little to screen these clowns out.  I don't give noooo lip to the cops.  The more annoying a cop is the more restraint you should use, these cops generally fall into two categories:
1. Dumb cops who ask even dumber questions.
2. Mean cops who taunt you hoping you'll get mad so they can get their hands on you.
Sometimes an officer possesses both pathologies!
:D

I'm gonna cut your fingers off for being so sarcastic in your posts. :D

I'm not being sarcastic.  I watch FOX News every night.  I can't help it!
:(

I was talking about the removal of fingers like a surgical amputation.  When going to jail you lose privaliges for a certain amount of time.  This might change ones mind and discourage them from doing it again.  If the person doesn't change their mind and the problem continues then another action needs to take place.  It's just a suggestion for when the death penalty might not be necessary.

I was talking about the removal of fingers like a surgical amputation. 





Oh, I see...well, I guess that's cool.
:-\\

Oh, I see...well, I guess that's cool.
:-\\


Kind of a strange idea I guess.  I get a lot of strange seeming ideas and I think too much even about nothing.  I just thought I'd try to speak up for a change.