Prisoners in norway sues the årison for their right to...

[Tagaziel]

What an idiotic claim. I'll refer you to Cesare Beccaria's On Punishment. Corporal punishment is not a deterrent - otherwise, the Dark Ages would be an idyllic, tranquil period.

And yes, rehabilitating criminals doesn't work if you're not even trying to rehabilitate them.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Chemical castrations all around, that'll solve the rape problem.

We've progressed beyond corporal punishment. Sometime around the 19th century.

Just thought you might like to know.

Actually the prison offers voulentary chemical castration to serial rapists that want it.

Note the key word in that sentence, voluntary, hence it's not capital punishment.

Once you put forward some actual arguments, I'll consider responding.

Simply claiming that you've magically "progressed beyond corporal punishment" without any facts to back up the claim that said policy is indeed working as intended really didn't warrant a more cerebral argument on my part; but I'll throw you a bone. You can't "rehabilitate" criminals. I know this comes as a shock to the liberals, but prison doesn't work. It simply helps criminals network with others of their ilk, and teaches them how to better themselves at committing said crime... and guess who picks up the tab? The taxpayers.

The economy is shit, school budgets are constantly being slashed, families are STARVING stateside... while billions of tax dollars are going towards housing, feeding, and training better criminals. Good fucking show.

Thieves? Cut off their hands. Rapists? Castrate them. Murderers? Hang them. It's infinitely cheaper, and is a proven deterrent.

Actually it's more expensive in the states to give a criminal the death sentence than it is to imprison them for life due to the many appeals. Also education (aka rehabilitation) programs have proven effective in preventing future offenses by convicts, what doesn't prevent repeat offenses is just imprisoning (aka punishing) people. I could link you to a bunch of articles but I'll just link you to a wikipedia article which does the linking for me.

 

[Ravager69]

So, death penalty discussion it is.

Honestly, folks, you need to watch Dirty Harry a lot more often. All we need to do is train a squadron of Clint Eastwood kids in shooting and taunting, so they'll provoke the bandits into a shoot-out. Self-defense. If the bad guys manage to survive though, we give them a fair trail.

And now seriously. Death penalty reeks of hypocrisy - why aren't american soldiers that fight in Iraq arrested for killing and executed? Oh I forgot - their killing serves the government's political interest. Why isn't the man that carries out the death penalty exececuted? He kills, too, as is the court that condemns someone to death. They aren't, because they have the *right* to decide who should be killed or not? They make no mistakes?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Truth is, you can't kill someone for killing - it's plain hypocrisy.

 

[Sander]

Truth is, you can't kill someone for killing - it's plain hypocrisy.

WHile I don't agree with the death penalty, this is the dumbest argument against the death penalty I've ever heard.

The death penalty is there to remove harmful elements from society that have committed such severe crimes that they are deemed to have forfeited their right to live.
In other words, people who get the death penalty supposedly get it because they cause great harm to society.
The death penalty isn't a penalty for killing someone (see self-defense), it's a penalty for killing someone without justification, being harmful to society etc etc

 

[Ravager69]

Call it what you will, in most (if not all) cases death penalty is commenced on people guilty of murder. So you kill for killing.

I understand that this may not be the best comparison, but let me try to explain.

Who deserves death penalty? Murderers. Who gets death penalty? Murderers. Don't tell me that people get sentenced to death because of theft or rape. So basically, it's life for life. Sounds familiar? I guess Hammurabi (or whatever the hell his name in english is) already had that idea some years back.

Think about it - courts don't sentence robbers to be robbed. They don't sentence rapers to be raped. Why? Because raping, stealing and killing is WRONG and AGAINST THE LAW. Therefore death penalty is against the law. How can the court uphold the law with death penalty then?

Another thing - how can you tell who has the right to live? How can you even describe such thing? Don't all people, no matter who they are and what they did, have the right to live? Do you really need them killed in order to remove them from society? Aren't that jails for?

And again - who do you become, when you willingly kill\sentence to death another person, even if he is a maniacal killer?

 

[Deleted member 53669]

Ravager69, Understand that Sander is speaking from a utilitarian standpoint, not a moral one.




Morality bleeding across the lines of law and government is a slippery sloped argument.



From a modern standpoint, the law is unbiased on moral grounds and mostly a gray area. Though laws started within civilization on moral ethics in most cases, the lines on the envelope have been pushed considerably in the last 6,000 years. Laws of today are more about efficiency in governing the populous, and appeasement of the masses rather than a structure of morality.



Edit* To break it down, I'll use the scales of justice for sake of the argument. All hail Libra.


Old Socratic Argument- Right/Wrong or Logic/Opinion or Stupidity



Today- Appeasement/Economic Governing or Loosen the Chains/Tighten the Chains.



*Edit* Keep in mind my opinion on this isn't really stated clearly. Socrates/"Plato's imagination" was a puppet for the state masked in a way to appease the populous by giving them a half-assed system to work with, which they didn't follow.

 

[Ravager69]

Well, I understand where is he coming from, but that doesn't change the fact that you can't uphold and breake the law at the same time. So from this point it ain't about morality, it's about credibility of the law enforcers.

If we talk about morality, then killing is a neccesity when you have to save your\someone's life from an attacker. When someone is already captured, you don't have to kill him to shield the society from harm, because that's plain murder and it's wrong. If the guy is irreversibly evil, you lock away the creep for life in some hellhole on the other side of the world. Not many of them will escape I guess.

And there's always the matter of innocents sentenced to death. Really, this topic is already discussed to death.

Let's get back to porn.

 

[Deleted member 53669]

Well, I understand where is he coming from, but that doesn't change the fact that you can't uphold and breake the law at the same time. So from this point it ain't about morality, it's about credibility of the law enforcers.

If we talk about morality, then killing is a neccesity when you have to save your\someone's life from an attacker. When someone is already captured, you don't have to kill him to shield the society from harm, because that's plain murder and it's wrong. If the guy is irreversibly evil, you lock away the creep for life in some hellhole on the other side of the world. Not many of them will escape I guess.

And there's always the matter of innocents sentenced to death. Really, this topic is already discussed to death.

Let's get back to porn.

Alright let me explain by example what's going on here. The fact has been known that killing a person as a form of punishment for a crime is a great deterrent and very economical. It's cheap to have some paid goon slit the throat of a criminal in the middle of a public square. It is a good form of utilitarian governing, but as Uncanny Garlic stated, the cost of killing prisoners nowadays is less economical than actually keeping them alive. Why is that? Appeasement and governing for numerous reasons.

People today in society have moral codes against "wanton", or "inhumane" forms of punishment. The government in charge has to appease the populous or else questioning of the parties rule will occur. The thing is though, abolishment of capital punishment will cause the same questioning, for allowing such criminals to live in society, and the impact it would have on the people to have these criminals live. So, the ruling party must compromise, and does so cleverly in the way it writes it's laws.


The end result is billions of tax money used to facilitate for the "Humane and Comfortable" form of execution. 12 year waiting periods, advanced prison facilities, meals, favors, and lethal injection... where they actually swab your arm with alcohol before they stick the needle in your arm.

Illogical to the extreme but the most amount of people possible are appeased with this outcome.


Morality and Law are separate entities nowadays. Well, from a historical standpoint, they always have been. The lie that "The law is moral" is what people usually fall for.



So, this argument is really null and void. The correct question should be "Is killing someone in any sense moral, regardless of law and institution?"



*Edit* Which the idea of public appeasement comes back to the main question of this topic. "Norway criminals having access to porn?".

Norway party probably 75% chance cares not. Depends on what public reaction is. The case will probably be dismissed.


We shackle ourselves daily to a discordant system, and plead our love for the chains... without realizing it.

 

[Sorrow]

We've progressed beyond corporal punishment.

IMO we have "progressed" too far. While I find some forms of corporal punisment unacceptable (maiming individuals for example), other forms, like canning may be more humanitarian than prison or fine.
Especially, when one has loans to pay, home to upkeep, children to feed, etc., etc., etc.

Death penalty reeks of hypocrisy

So does the whole justice system. Prison - kidnapping people. Fine - robbing people.

Low crime rates in Norway, that speaks for itself.

Norway is rich and has the highest standard of living in the whole world. Show me a poor country with a crime rate that low.

 

[TheGM]

Just make them take saltpeter.

 

[Blakut]

Isn't prison supposed to be a form of punishment? Why then should we give them porn? i mean, what's next? I want uncensored porn at work?

Although, it would keep them from raping each other. Maybe.

As for the death penalty, i am usually against it:

Imprisoning criminals and making them work instead of killing them is much more profitable. Also, a criminal that knows that if he gets caught he gets killed will fight to the death, possibly commiting more and more crimes.

 

[PastaMasta]

Fuck giving them porn.


Chemical castrations all around, that'll solve the rape problem.

Do it, that is all.

 

[Deleted member 53669]

Isn't prison supposed to be a form of punishment? Why then should we give them porn? i mean, what's next? I want uncensored porn at work?

Although, it would keep them from raping each other. Maybe.

As for the death penalty, i am usually against it:

Imprisoning criminals and making them work instead of killing them is much more profitable. Also, a criminal that knows that if he gets caught he gets killed will fight to the death, possibly commiting more and more crimes.

Talk about rehashing everything thats already been said already.