The SS (separated from the Holocaust thread).

[Dead Mans Hand]

@August
In regards to your last wide and sweeping statement, you do realize that you wanting to kill all of them, or just stand by and let them die (same moral action) is a wonderful example of my arguement that prisoners are a joke.

Any soldier harboring your opinion on the field of battle, has lost their right to quarter. Whether they have the power to act on it or not, they would not be willing to take - therfore have no right to be taken as - a prisoner.

Oh and by the way, your arguement is they killed indiscrimenantly, yet you state wanting to kill, or wanting them to be killed, indiscrimenantly. That is hypocracy.

[August]

Originally Posted by Dead Mans Hand

@August
In regards to your last wide and sweeping statement, you do realize that you wanting to kill all of them, or just stand by and let them die (same moral action) is a wonderful example of my arguement that prisoners are a joke.

Any soldier harboring your opinion on the field of battle, has lost their right to quarter. Whether they have the power to act on it or not, they would not be willing to take - therfore have no right to be taken as - a prisoner.

Strawman argument. I neither advocated or recommended that surrendering enemy soldiers or anyone else be killed, including your beloved SS members. Stop trying to say that i am.

Oh and by the way, your arguement is they killed indiscrimenantly, yet you state wanting to kill, or wanting them to be killed, indiscrimenantly. That is hypocracy.

Even if that was my argument, which it is not, your version of honor would mean extending retribution to the parents, wives, children and hometown of the offender. If anyone is hypocritical it is you, not I.

[Kissaki]

Originally Posted by August

There are many people in this world whose lives i think are worthless, but that doesn't mean i necessarily advocate putting a noose around all their necks. That is the tactic of the SS, not me.

I'm glad to hear it, and I apologize if I leapt to conclusions. It shouldn't surprise you that I'm a staunch opposer of capital punishment for any reason

[August]

Originally Posted by Kissaki

I'm glad to hear it, and I apologize if I leapt to conclusions. It shouldn't surprise you that I'm a staunch opposer of capital punishment for any reason

I also oppose capital punishment but my reasons for doing so are fairly specific.

First it's rare that a persons guilt can be determined with absolute certainty. Once a prisoner is executed there is no way to commute the sentence or issue a pardon.

Second, the death penalty, imo, is an easier fate than life imprisonment without possibility of parole. I want a murderer to sit in jail for years and decades and ponder what he has done to put him in that cell.

[Kissaki]

Originally Posted by August

I also oppose capital punishment but my reasons for doing so are fairly specific.

First it's rare that a persons guilt can be determined with absolute certainty. Once a prisoner is executed there is no way to commute the sentence or issue a pardon.

Second, the death penalty, imo, is an easier fate than life imprisonment without possibility of parole. I want a murderer to sit in jail for years and decades and ponder what he has done to put him in that cell.

My philosophy on crime and punishment can be summed up thus:

I want the punishment to be a lesson for the offender. If you kill him, what will he have learned? He will go to his grave with the same mind. I find it much more rewarding when people realize the severity of what they've done, and are genuinely remorseful. Then I can forgive.

For a punishment to be of any value, it must meet one or more of the following requirements (listed in order of priority):

1. The punishment makes the crime undone.
2. The punishment rehabilitates the criminal.
3. The punishment acts as a deterrent for potential criminals.
4. The punishment prevents repetition of the crime by the offender.

Of these four, there is really only the fourth one where you can make a case for hard punishments. Harsh punishment, even capital punishment, has little if any deterring effect, and I see punishment for revenge as barbaric.

I have a friend whose father is a judge, and he likes to quote that in England, back in the days when theft was a hanging offense, executions were public for all to enjoy. They strung up bunches at a time, and it was common to catch pickpockets in the crowd. These would then be among the next bunch to be hung immediately afterwards.

I can bring up another example from Sweden. In the 17th and 18th centuries over 700 people were executed for carnal activities with animals. This number is unprecedented by any other country in the world for this particular crime. The punishment was to be beheaded, then burnt (it was also the executioner's job to administer the same punishment to the animal involved).

The curious thing about it, though, is that most of the 700 people executed turned themselves in. In fact, so many people turned themselves in for buggery with animals, that the courts eventually dismissed confessions not backed up by any evidence or other witnesses, and charged them with perjury instead. Many a man had to be forcibly removed from court, while protesting his guilt. I'm not going to speculate why so many confessed out of their own free will, though. You guys make up your own minds.

No one was executed for this crime after 1778, and the death penalty for it was lifted in 1864. The activity was legalized in 1944 (wonder how they came to decide that one :P ).


Anyway, in spite of this peculiar example from Sweden, I believe that the most effective deterrent is that people worry about their good name and reputation. In some communities, eg. among gangs, prison terms may add to their status. Then what's the point? When there's shame associated with the crime, however, they do not wish to be arrested. Consequently, they try not to commit the crime, either.

The deterring factors are, in my opinion, as follows (and in the following order):

1. Fear of being frozen out from society
2. Fear of getting caught
3. Fear of puishment


For the record, the maximum sentence in Norway is 21 years. Very few people get that much. Crime rate is low.

[August]

Originally Posted by Kissaki

My philosophy on crime and punishment can be summed up thus:

I want the punishment to be a lesson for the offender. If you kill him, what will he have learned? He will go to his grave with the same mind. I find it much more rewarding when people realize the severity of what they've done, and are genuinely remorseful. Then I can forgive.

For a punishment to be of any value, it must meet one or more of the following requirements (listed in order of priority):

1. The punishment makes the crime undone.
2. The punishment rehabilitates the criminal.
3. The punishment acts as a deterrent for potential criminals.
4. The punishment prevents repetition of the crime by the offender.

Of these four, there is really only the fourth one where you can make a case for hard punishments. Harsh punishment, even capital punishment, has little if any deterring effect, and I see punishment for revenge as barbaric.

I have a friend whose father is a judge, and he likes to quote that in England, back in the days when theft was a hanging offense, executions were public for all to enjoy. They strung up bunches at a time, and it was common to catch pickpockets in the crowd. These would then be among the next bunch to be hung immediately afterwards.

I can bring up another example from Sweden. In the 17th and 18th centuries over 700 people were executed for carnal activities with animals. This number is unpresidented by any other country in the world for this particular crime. The punishment was to be beheaded, then burnt (it was also the executioner's job to administer the same punishment to the animal involved).

The curious thing about it, though, is that most of the 700 people executed turned themselves in. In fact, so many people turned themselves in for buggery with animals, that the courts eventually dismissed confessions not backed up by any evidence or other witnesses, and charged them with perjury instead. Many a man had to be forcibly removed from court, while protesting his guilt. I'm not going to speculate why so many confessed out of their own free will, though. You guys make up your own minds.

No one was executed for this crime after 1778, and the death penalty for it was lifted in 1864. The activity was legalized in 1944 (wonder how they came to decide that one :P ).


Anyway, in spite of this peculiar example from Sweden, I believe that the most effective deterrent is that people worry about their good name and reputation. In some communities, eg. among gangs, prison terms may add to their status. Then what's the point? When there's shame associated with the crime, however, they do not wish to be arrested. Consequently, they try not to commit the crime, either.

The deterring factors are, in my opinion, as follows (and in the following order):

1. Fear of being frozen out from society
2. Fear of getting caught
3. Fear of puishment


For the record, the maximum sentence in Norway is 21 years. Very few people get that much. Crime rate is low.

As you have just pointed out the crime rate has little to do with fear of punishment.

As far as i'm concerned deliberately murdering another human being permanently eliminates ones right to ever be a member of society again. There is no penalty, execution included, which will "undo" such a crime.

[Kissaki]

Originally Posted by August

As far as i'm concerned deliberately murdering another human being permanently eliminates ones right to ever be a member of society again. There is no penalty, execution included, which will "undo" such a crime.

Indeed not. That one only really applies to cases such as someone putting your groceries in their own shopping bags by mistake, or something.

But I believe everybody can change. I grant you, they have to want to change, but it is possible. And if someone has truly changed, and genuinely regrets his past deeds - why should he still be punished for them? A different person committed them.

Think about all the mischief you did as a child. Should you still be punished for those things even now? Of course not, you were a child and didn't know any better. Now you do, however, and those childhood pranks are no more than anecdotes in history. You are in fact not the same person now that you were then.

[August]

Originally Posted by Kissaki

Think about all the mischief you did as a child. Should you still be punished for those things even now? Of course not, you were a child and didn't know any better. Now you do, however, and those childhood pranks are no more than anecdotes in history. You are in fact not the same person now that you were then.

Well i might argue that those childhood peccadillos do more to shape who we are as adults than what you're implying but it's sort of besides the point. We're talking about serious violent crimes, not childhood pranks.

But I believe everybody can change. I grant you, they have to want to change, but it is possible. And if someone has truly changed, and genuinely regrets his past deeds - why should he still be punished for them? A different person committed them.

Why? Because they committed a crime, that's why they should continue to be punished. I strongly disagree with the school of thought that says "Oh, he's sorry for what he did so lets let him off the hook".

The reason is that while i agree that people have the potential to change their ways there is no real way of determining this with any degree of certainty. How can we truely know what is in someones heart of hearts?

When society pronounces a criminal to be "rehabilitated" and lets him go free, what we are in effect doing is guessing and hoping that our assessment of this person is correct. When the crime is a violent one the consequences of being wrong can be very, very severe.

[kiwi_2005]

Ahh Abraham i wondered where you got too. i started to miss your wisdom from the holocaust thread and was wondering what the hell happened. But here you are...Keep up the good work.

[Dead Mans Hand]

@August
Sorry for the delay, however a few things to respond to. My rationale for retribution is that justice is balance. Correct? Therefore if something, lets say an attack has been made, retribution should retain the same - no more or less - inent as the original attack.

Let's say I'm in command of a divison of men for instance. Let's say there is a platoon a kilometer ahead of the body of the division investigating a village before divisional HQ arives. That platoon is amubshed en route all but a handful of men are found mutilated where as the remainder are missing. When the bulk of the division arrives at the village, I would order a full out search while demanding the population of the to enter the center and be accounted for. If I found so much as one person without proper papers, one shred of evidence any of my men had been taken here, or any sign of weaponry that could've been used and still could be used against my men I would take the toll from the village. That is I would not assume their guilt in assisting who had done this until there was one - and I do me one - sign that they had or were harboring enemies. At that point, since those they had harbored were intent on destroying a platoon in entirity - I would destroy the village that harbored them in entirity. Burning alive, I'm against. Hanging, however, I am not. An invading army cannot have mercy or pity and a village left with it's population hanging from the trees speaks far louder than any terrorist proposing attacks against me for freedom. It's unfortunate but part of war. There is no guilt on my part.

Why? Because the terrorists involved this village in the war. I did not decide to kill them - they acted in a manor requiring their deaths. Through this balance has been achieved and justice has been served. Resistance in this area would lessen increadibly and my people could repopulate the area. Chattle should know when they are chattle, it's that simple.

As for capital punishment. I believe it is supremely just. It is final. Should it be used willy-nilly? Ofcourse not, I to hold that a man must first befond beyond any doubt guilty of a crime. Less the executioner be guilty of murder himself. Why do I believe this? Because no man can forgive sins. Only God, through Jesus Christ, can accomplish that. Also man cannot forgive men for crimes the commit against others, only the victim can do that. Hence execution sends them to meet their Lord and their victim. That is the only way their soul will ever be at ease. I do not believe it's possible to rehabilitate an individual and do not believe it a fitting punishment to put someone somewhere they will live stress free with no worries of income, shelter, or substance. Rape, murder, and treason should all carry a mandatory death sentance upon conviction.
My priority for punishment:
It ensures beyond any doubt that society will be safe from this individual if ever released. This individual, by commiting their crime(s) has forgone any and or all of their previous rights.

As for Kisaki's four standards:
1. There is no way for crime to be undone, the theft of innocence through rape, the theft of life through murder, the theft of security through buglary. All are irrepreable, so this point is null.
2. Several child molestors will admit to being unrehabilitable, also, this is not a concern, the criminal is secondary to the concerns of the law abiding masses.
3. Sure and swift death, in it's totality is a wonderful deturent. The drawn out process and ease of avoidance of capital punishment in America does not work. However, look at countries that maintain public executions shortly after a trial, their crime rates are far lower. The law should let the people know it exists and public executions show it's vigor and vengence. Such is the way of controlling those incapable of controling themselves. (People are sheep, they must be lead.)
4. Death prevents the offender from ever offending again, except perhaps via strong odor.

Or - to avoid death, make prison hell on earth. One big ugly commune. Remove guards from all but the entrances and any sort of service area (i.e. cafeteria) let the hardened criminals humiliate, via rape and beatings (as are common in prison) the new blood. Let the new blood eventually resent and kill their tormentors before becomming hardened themselves. Thereby removing yourself from guilt as you are not responsable for their actions but are only allowing the natural cycle of the these animals to progress ending in their destruction.

- in close, those who do not live according to the law do not deserve to be protected by it and have given up their rights as a human being (ofcourse I am not talking about jay-walkers or whatever, I'm talking about crimes that result in detainment in mid to high security facilities (violent crimes)
*Side note: After a fourteen year old friend of mine was raped last year, I saw what a victim of that crime goes through. Frankly? The world is way to lenient on rapists. They, along with other violent criminals who through their acts steal an individuals innocence, should be drug out into the street kicking and screaming and hung, shot, beat, or whatever you would like until death. Then their broken bodies should be left to rot or fed to livestock.

[Col7777]

I would like to add to this side of the topic about crimes and punishment.
I think the law has gone soft, it annoys me when a murderer or rapist etc gets caught and they plead some kind of insanity that made them commit the crimes, like hearing voices or things of that nature.
Then they are put in prison where they are kept in some cases isolation so they can't be harmed by other prisoners and fed well, allowed TV, books and even take collage degrees, all paid for by the tax payer.
Think of it like this, some of those tax payers are the families of the victims.

I hear people say they are against capital punishment and a person can change and may be released, we hear of child molesters being released and they commit the crime again.
I wonder if they would think like that if something terrible happened to a close family member, imagine this:
"You know that guy who got life for killing your son/daughter, well they are thinking of letting him out, he reckons he's very sorry and he's changed."

[August]

Originally Posted by Dead Mans Hand

If I found so much as one person without proper papers, one shred of evidence any of my men had been taken here, or any sign of weaponry that could've been used and still could be used against my men I would take the toll from the village. That is I would not assume their guilt in assisting who had done this until there was one - and I do me one - sign that they had or were harboring enemies. At that point, since those they had harbored were intent on destroying a platoon in entirity - I would destroy the village that harbored them in entirity. Burning alive, I'm against. Hanging, however, I am not. An invading army cannot have mercy or pity and a village left with it's population hanging from the trees speaks far louder than any terrorist proposing attacks against me for freedom. It's unfortunate but part of war. There is no guilt on my part.

And if you were in the United States Army you would be relieved of your command and court martialed, along with any of your officers and men who participated in such an atrocity.

In my country soldiers give an oath to obey all lawful orders. The deliberate massacre of civilians in a wanton act of retribution woud obviously NOT be lawful and therefore it would be the duty of any US soldier not only to disobey such an order but to do his utmost to prevent it from being carried out.

[Kissaki]

Originally Posted by Dead Mans Hand

As for Kisaki's four standards:
1. There is no way for crime to be undone, the theft of innocence through rape, the theft of life through murder, the theft of security through buglary. All are irrepreable, so this point is null.

Like I said in another reply, this first ideal only really applies to very minor crimes, which typically do not include malicious intent.

2. Several child molestors will admit to being unrehabilitable, also, this is not a concern, the criminal is secondary to the concerns of the law abiding masses.

Even if a person admits to being un-rehabilitable, does that make it so? Throughout life, people change whether they know it or not - whether they want to or not. The difference in hormone levels at various ages is quite significant, and impact our lives more than many of us would like to think.

3. Sure and swift death, in it's totality is a wonderful deturent. The drawn out process and ease of avoidance of capital punishment in America does not work. However, look at countries that maintain public executions shortly after a trial, their crime rates are far lower.

Can you provide examples to your argument here? Because all the research I've read point to the exact opposite. In the Middle Ages the law was swift and brutal, yet the crime rates back then dwarfs anything in the West today. There seems to be a clear correlation between brutal government and brutal population, and also between mild government and mild population.

It's a chicken and egg question I suppose, and a sudden change is not good in any case. If you suddenly apply mild law to a lawless society I don't think the results will be good. Conversely, if you apply harsh laws to a peaceful society, the people will adapt and harden to said laws.

The law should let the people know it exists and public executions show it's vigor and vengence. Such is the way of controlling those incapable of controling themselves.

In a lawless society you may have to wear iron boots, but people respond favourably to understanding and kindness - even hardened criminals. If you don't treat them as human beings, how can you expect them to behave as such?

People are sheep, they must be lead.

With this I agree.

4. Death prevents the offender from ever offending again, except perhaps via strong odor.

Beyond the moral issues, there's also the practical issues of capital punishment. What if you got the wrong guy? By executing the wrong guy, not only will you have killed an innocent person in the worst way possible (by destroying not only his life but his name as well), but the real perpetrator will still be at large. And no one's looking for him, because they think they got the right man the first time around. This is why a cornerstone principle of modern law is that it's far better that ten guilty people go free, than one innocent person be falsely convicted.

Or - to avoid death, make prison hell on earth. One big ugly commune. Remove guards from all but the entrances and any sort of service area (i.e. cafeteria) let the hardened criminals humiliate, via rape and beatings (as are common in prison) the new blood. Let the new blood eventually resent and kill their tormentors before becomming hardened themselves. Thereby removing yourself from guilt as you are not responsable for their actions but are only allowing the natural cycle of the these animals to progress ending in their destruction.

How do you defend this scenario in a civilized society, other than to slake your thirst for blood?

- in close, those who do not live according to the law do not deserve to be protected by it and have given up their rights as a human being (ofcourse I am not talking about jay-walkers or whatever, I'm talking about crimes that result in detainment in mid to high security facilities (violent crimes)
*Side note: After a fourteen year old friend of mine was raped last year, I saw what a victim of that crime goes through. Frankly? The world is way to lenient on rapists. They, along with other violent criminals who through their acts steal an individuals innocence, should be drug out into the street kicking and screaming and hung, shot, beat, or whatever you would like until death. Then their broken bodies should be left to rot or fed to livestock.[/quote]

You know, both my last two girlfriends were rape victims. The first of the two was raped at the age of 13, and she was a virgin at the time. Her rapist was hospitalized by friends of hers, but she didn't think - then or now - that he deserved that. Both girls feel pity rather than hate toward their assailants, and have long since forgiven them.

The rape was one event. The primary goal for the victim is to stop viewing herself as a "victim" and move on. If she allows her rapist to repeat the rape over and over again in her mind, that's not the rapist's fault. This may sound harsh (and especially coming from me, I guess), but it is the first step toward healing.

Another thing, if you apply capital punishment to rape, why would a rapist stop at rape? The punishment for the rapist is not in the sentencing, but in the fact that he is forever disgraced. Criminals of vice are not popular anywhere, and their punishment is not over simply because they're released from prison. Once out, what future prospects do they have?

I also take exception at your suggestion that a rapist can take away anyone's innocense. If society allows guilt or shame to be transmitted from the rapist to the victim, we have a problem. And the sad part is, I think we do.

[Kissaki]

Originally Posted by Col7777

I would like to add to this side of the topic about crimes and punishment.
I think the law has gone soft, it annoys me when a murderer or rapist etc gets caught and they plead some kind of insanity that made them commit the crimes, like hearing voices or things of that nature.
Then they are put in prison where they are kept in some cases isolation so they can't be harmed by other prisoners and fed well, allowed TV, books and even take collage degrees, all paid for by the tax payer.
Think of it like this, some of those tax payers are the families of the victims.

Think of it like this: taxes should be used for altruistic purposes anyway.

And you think isolation is a piece of cake? Humans are social animals, and no amount of luxury can compensate for being locked up in a box. And I can see no reason why not to feed or treat prisoners well anyway. No one was ever rehabilitated by use of the whip (and rehabilitation is supposed to be the purpose of prison institutions today), and punishment is not a matter of revenge. Brutal punishment and revenge are things of the past, and are throwbacks to less civilized times. Smacks of medievalism to me.

I hear people say they are against capital punishment and a person can change and may be released, we hear of child molesters being released and they commit the crime again.
I wonder if they would think like that if something terrible happened to a close family member, imagine this:
"You know that guy who got life for killing your son/daughter, well they are thinking of letting him out, he reckons he's very sorry and he's changed."

The penal system is far from perfect, and we still have a long way to go. But most countries are moving forward, and crime rates are lower in countries with less severe punishments.

[Col7777]

Kissaki,

I realise isolation isn't a piece of cake as you say, I was demonstrating what someone else said when they said other prisoners sometimes take it out this type of criminals, but while they are in isolation they are kept better than some old age pensioners who have done nothing wrong.

I notice you didn't answer what you would feel if something terrible happened to a close member of the family, would you still feel the same?

If a thief stole your car, I can imagine you saying to the police, "If you catch them don't press charges, they are probably very nice people, just give them a bit of a telling off"