News Stories

[Kusa-San]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

Like I said, instead of nukes, we have bankers and politicians instead, so it's an economic war more than anything else, and it's proven to be more destructive than nukes in a subtle way and more toward the long term.

I will not say tht's more destructive tha nukes

Really? I don't remember saying I was against it.....maybe a long time ago
Nah, but Kamui's the one against it.

Here is waht you said :

Lol. Well, death penalty is debatable. Imho, killing someone for their crime wouldn't really solve anything. Best punishment for criminals guilty of high crimes like mass murder would be to put them in isolation like they did to Mesrine, except permanently.

So that's why I thought you were against it

[monir]

Originally Posted by Jinto

But do you think this was professional or was the choice of lethal force really apropriate in this situation (i.e. were the car occupants visibly armed)? And I want to debate that this decission was made in a split second... you need more then that to draw a gun unlock safety and fire aimed shots. At least several seconds. If the police had the driver at gun point already when they were approaching, it might have been a split second decission, but then it is a recless, unprofessional approach to begin with (at least from my POV).

Professionalism is one of those words that are defined according to individual perspective. There is no universal outlook to it. Even if there were, the definition still would remain incomplete considering most of us are interpreting without putting on the same shoes. We are looking in from outside. It would be very interesting to read how a Police Officer would have broke down the above scenario.

I personally don't have any opinion about how professionally they have done their job and etc. I just tried to recreate the event to see if a chance would arise that would force the hands for a shooting solution. In my mind, it did.

As for the split-second decision part - the shooting was the act itself. It's not part of the decision. They have made their decision as soon as they felt they needed to draw their weapon. From that time on, all they needed was a reason to press on that trigger.

Everything else (our interpretation, outlook, judgment, etc) is after the fact. Sorry if I couldn't express myself any better, or if I come across as someone who is trying to remain vague.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Kusa-San

So that's why I thought you were against it

Not against it. I just know that most people find lifelong isolation unacceptable and violates human rights, so the next best thing is death penalty. I didn't say I'm against it, I just don't think it's exactly the best solution to let criminals understand just why they were wrong. Imho, the best punishment is to let them know how much their victims suffered, but most people would disagree with me if I say the best punishment is putting them in an isolation cell, give them one meal a day of crap food, a few torture sessions throughout the week in the first few months, and let him rot in there until he dies. That, and I have a sick and twisted logic However, I know most people would disagree with me, so death penalty is the only other solution, although it doesn't really teach the criminal a lesson. It just ends their suffering like that, no trouble to anyone.

EDIT: But this is only for people who committed intolerable crimes, like the ones I mentioned in the post you quoted, not neccessarily for the example we've been talking about.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by monir

...
I personally don't have any opinion about how professionally they have done their job and etc. I just tried to recreate the event to see if a chance would arise that would force the hands for a shooting solution. In my mind, it did.

In my mind it did not. Everyone can shoot the target because he/she is frightened the target could be armed. But that is not professional, that is putting one's own life above the targets (who's guild is not proven yet and who's danger is not imminent... no weapons visible).

Originally Posted by monir

As for the split-second decision part - the shooting was the act itself. It's not part of the decision. They have made their decision as soon as they felt they needed to draw their weapon. From that time on, all they needed was a reason to press on that trigger.

So 2 wrongs make a right or how am I meant to understand that?

Originally Posted by monir

Everything else (our interpretation, outlook, judgment, etc) is after the fact. Sorry if I couldn't express myself any better, or if I come across as someone who is trying to remain vague.

Okay, so why do you bring it - enriched by your own POV - into the discussion in the first place? (just a rhetorical question)

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Slice of Life

Nobody should ever lose the chance to become free again through their own effort. Which implies that they should have the right to have their personality being reevaluated at some point. If they pass or fail is a different matter.

The crime rate in most European countries is low and falling by the way. Cries for tougher laws are more often than not nothing more than attempts to satisfy their own primitive emotion of rrrrraaage under the thin veil of the concerned citizen.

so what happens if the evaluators are wrong and the person release rape and kill again.

do you advocated letting this guy out again in 10 yrs for good behaivor and passing whatever personality test he is given?

Do you honestly think someone like Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer and Charles Manson would ever change and should even have the possibility of ever being let out of prison alive?

[Narona]

Originally Posted by JMvS

Reminds me when we voted to make the provisions on pedophilia harsher, and when we voted for violent offenders to be kept in custody for life (each time with a popular initiative).

Unsurprisingly, each were depicted as huge blows from the emotional population toward the reasonable government, and incompatible with "Human Rights".

Not surprising. A little minority likes to play the idealist and take decisions for the big large majority of a people from a country. Whatever what they say, when a government does not check the public opinion because it knows the very big majority will go against them, then it's a dictatorship with a mask of democracy.

Anyway, about the criminals, I wonder how it is in switzerland despite those new votes. Because in France, the state cares more about the well being of the criminals than the victims. And we will do more for the criminals in the future. While the sentences will become less severe even more. And it will be even more the case if the next president is not sarkozy. You can even find some people who say "all the criminals are good people in the inside and prisons should not exist anymore". One day it will end like the good old French revolution, that's all When those idealistic and corrupted politicians will get their head cut in public place.

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

someone form Europe explain to me how it is incompatible with Human Rights to lock up someone for life who has history of violent behavior (including murder and rape)?

don't the avg person have a right to be safe form someone like that?

Because in Europe, at least in France, we care a lot for the criminals. In France you can see people who killed and raped, then who got out of prison, then re-raped re-killed, then got out of prison again etc etc. Because a bunch of morons (actually, they are not numberous, they just impose their way of doing things, a real dictatorship.) who play the idealistic humanists think they are right. That's laughable.

When I said we have NO perpetuity in France, I was not joking. French use the term perpetuity while it's 25-30 maximum (and it doesn't mean that you will do those 30 years, of course. You can get out early by lying to the people in saying that "you became a good now, that you killed and raped many people three times in a row, but now after having been caught again and put in prison again for the third times, you saw the light and you became a good person )

Problem is, it will not last forever, because the french people start to have enough of that. And from what I know, French people are the Kings of Strikes and such. The line between strikes and riots is not big

Originally Posted by Kusa-San

Just to add, that's the normal thing in France. I mean, here, it's not normal to have rapist and murderer to spend the whole time in jail. No no, they will go out before. So when they say you have 10years of jails, it means in reality : 10/2.

Well, "if" you get 10 years. The sentences are not severe at all. It's laughable. Even some criminals can't help but laugh when they get that kind of sentences.

And in the meantime, the victims can stick the word "justice" up their arse.

And you need to see some prison, they even better than some french apartment. The truth is that there are some criminal who prefer to go to jail than being at home

I see that you remember that TV program... And yes, I know a few students from my university who live in worse conditions than people in some prisons.

And in France, when you want to be more strict, you're a monster .....

Did you see? Next in line, some politicians plan to ban slapping/spanking.

And after that? what will we do?, we'll ban "yelling on your kids"?

We product bad people because we are less and less allowed to educate our kids. The poor kids that spend their time doing nothing good, and that you can't punish because the idealistic morons think it's a good evolution that way. True, to see kids with no morals with STD and cannabis or cocaine in the pocket is a good evolution Our country starts to becomes even more minable.

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

History will always repeat itself because no one cares about it, foolishly thinking that history is in the past and it has nothing to do with them. We're living in a second Cold War right now, but instead of nukes, we have bankers and politicians corrupting the social order while hiding behind a mask of democracy.

That's the point. Some people think it's good that those people are the onbes who shall choose things for millions of people. Problem is, those people are corrupted, and if they create laws less and less severe, that's also to protect themselves.

Should I remember the recent Mitterrand fiasco in France? Sure, he's the perfect type of persons to have the right to create law. Nothing better than a guy who do sex tourism and defends rapists during his free time

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

so what happens if the evaluators are wrong and the person release rape and kill again.

do you advocated letting this guy out again in 10 yrs for good behaivor and passing whatever personality test?

Do you honestly think someone like Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer and Charles Manson would ever change and should even have the possibility of ever being let out of prison alive?

The guy I was talking about (the one who raped a 12-13yo girl and got out after 6 years) did PASS tests, and the tests said that he was sane and good now.

Result: he raped again and this time killed the girl. And you know what? He might get another joke sentence and get out early again.

[Kusa-San]

Originally Posted by Narona

Well, "if" you get 10 years. The sentences are not severe at all. It's laughable. Even some criminals can't help but laugh when they get that kind of sentences.

Well the truth is that jail for them is something to be proud of. They don't fear that anymore and they even insult judge during the lawsuit

I see that you remember that TV program... And yes, I know a few students from my university who live in worse conditions than people in some
prisons.

Oh but don't forget their live are difficult. I mean, they just have a TV, a computer, they can eat each day well etc...Oh wait

Did you see? Next in line, we plan to ban slapping/spanking.

And after that, we'll ban "yelling on your kids".

We product criminals because we are less and less allowed to educate our kids. The poor kids that spend their time doing nothing good, and that you can't punish because the idealistic morons think it's a good evolution that way. True, to see kids with no morals with STD and cannabis or cocaine in the pocket is a good evolution Our country starts to becomes even more minable.

This morning I read on a newspaper how a teacher (a substitute) was insulted by her student with word such as "Vous marchez mal, vous vous êtes fait enculer ? !!" etc...And when she reported to the principal the man says : "Vous savez un de vos collègue c'est fait tabasser et grâce à ça il a eu une bonne mutation !"....

And all of that is due to one thing laxity. I just find that totally aberrant to see such thing.

Should I remember the recent Mitterrand fiasco in France? Sure, he's the perfect type of persons to have the right to create law. Nothing better than a corrupted and hypocritical pedophile who defends rapists during his free time


The guy I was talking about (the one who raped a 12-13yo girl and got out after 6 years) did PASS tests, and the tests said that he was sane and good now.

Result: he raped again and this time killed the girl. And you know what? He will get another joke sentence and will get out early again. That's France for you!

French touch ? What else ........

Originally Posted by Yoko

So that's why I thought you were against it
Not against it. I just know that most people find lifelong isolation unacceptable and violates human rights, so the next best thing is death penalty. I didn't say I'm against it, I just don't think it's exactly the best solution to let criminals understand just why they were wrong. Imho, the best punishment is to let them know how much their victims suffered, but most people would disagree with me if I say the best punishment is putting them in an isolation cell, give them one meal a day of crap food, a few torture sessions throughout the week in the first few months, and let him rot in there until he dies. That, and I have a sick and twisted logic However, I know most people would disagree with me, so death penalty is the only other solution, although it doesn't really teach the criminal a lesson. It just ends their suffering like that, no trouble to anyone.

You're a monster ! ....

More serioulsy, I'm for ginving one chance to people but if they commite again an horrible crime such as rape then Guillotine.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Narona

Not surprising. A little minority likes to play the idealist and take decisions for the big large majority of a people from a country. Whatever what they say, when a government does not check the public opinion because it knows the very big majority will go against them, then it's a dictatorship with a mask of democracy.

I've always been wondering if the minority group really is a minority. I remember you mentioning some surveys among people in France and that when the results of those polls came out it showed completely different opinions from those of pretty much everyone you hear personally. I also know that in Italy, when Prodi and Berlusconi were duking it out for the position of Prime Minister, there were actually a lot of boxes filled with people's votes sitting outside like trash, untouched. It makes me think, is it really that uncommon for polls, votes, what have you to be rigged?[/conspiracy theory]

Originally Posted by Narona

We product bad people because we are less and less allowed to educate our kids. The poor kids that spend their time doing nothing good, and that you can't punish because the idealistic morons think it's a good evolution that way. True, to see kids with no morals with STD and cannabis or cocaine in the pocket is a good evolution Our country starts to becomes even more minable.

I think the ideal of american capitalism has a lot to do with this. What these idealistic morans are trying to do is put the kids in an environment where they can learn from their own mistakes and grow on their own. This is what happens when kids are given too much freedom to do as they like. Problem is, kids don't learn from their mistakes until long after they've repeated it. Someone needs to teach them what can be good and bad. Granted, not every kid will be obedient, but given the incentive, they will be.

Originally Posted by Kusa-San

You're a monster ! ....

Why thank you! I'm quite proud of it in fact!

[ChainLegacy]

It's a result of idealism. The desire to 'correct' and 'reform' individuals is understandable because some people do reform. The problem is, we humans aren't very good judges of when people truly have changed their character. We don't have the capability of discerning that consistently and accurately and if we try we put many people at risk.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

Because given the right tools or weapons, that percould could kill anyone randomly. He's dangerous and you know he's dangerous. You know who he is, what he could do and that makes it easier to stop him from killing someone. When a murder is premeditated, it's much harder to catch the killer because he will most likely have a way of averting responsibility by minimizing the evidence left behind. That said, they're harder to deal with, but the end result is still the same: they took human life. Ergo, the punishment should also be the same, especially when you know the manslaughterer could kill at any time unexpectedly.

So they should be locked up for life because they might kill again? By that logic, everyone should be locked up. Both you and I can potentially kill someone at any time. A simple blunt object does well enough to kill someone, and there's no shortage of them laying around a house. Hell, we don't even need tools. Bare hands have been proven to be effective weapons. The whole point is someone who commits manslaughter did not deliberately kill the person. IE they're less likely to go out and kill someone else. Just because a person has killed someone once because of a bad split second decision does not turn them into a monster out for human blood. In fact most people who commit premeditated murder aren't that likely to kill again either.

Also the way one arrives at a result does matter. Suppose someone comes at you with a knife. You're able to grab his arm and the two of you struggle for a bit. Now if he kills you, he's clearly committed murder and should be thus charged. But what if during the struggle, he dies instead? Should you be charged with murder for his death? After all the end result is the same, someone's life is taken, right? Or should the fact that you never intended to kill him and it was self defense enter into it?

As for US jails, granted, but not every jail is like in the US, which is what you seemed to be assuming, so I wanted to point out to you that it's different in Italy and in other parts of Europe, mainly west.

We were originally talking about a case in the US. US jails were thus the ones that were most relevant to the discussion. Still, while western European jails may be better than US jails, that still doesn't make them friendly places, especially for an ex-cop who may arrested some of those prisoners himself. Even if it is a nice place though, he's isolated from his friends and his family. That alone makes things tough.

[Narona]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

I've always been wondering if the minority group really is a minority. I remember you mentioning some surveys among people in France and that when the results of those polls came out it showed completely different opinions from those of pretty much everyone you hear personally. I also know that in Italy, when Prodi and Berlusconi were duking it out for the position of Prime Minister, there were actually a lot of boxes filled with people's votes sitting outside like trash, untouched. It makes me think, is it really that uncommon for polls, votes, what have you to be rigged?[/conspiracy theory]

Well, in the case, for example, of the new Europe treaty, it was national surveys.

And about the survey that showed supposedly that 70% of people think we should not fire Mitterrand....... it was a survey ordered by the government.

Actually, the results of those surveys ordered by the gov are so "weird" that some deputies asked the creation of an investigating commitee to check things. And you know what? The government and their friends do all they can do to block it.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

So they should be locked up for life because they might kill again? By that logic, everyone should be locked up. Both you and I can potentially kill someone at any time. A simple blunt object does well enough to kill someone, and there's no shortage of them laying around a house. Hell, we don't even need tools. Bare hands have been proven to be effective weapons. The whole point is someone who commits manslaughter did not deliberately kill the person. IE they're less likely to go out and kill someone else. Just because a person has killed someone once because of a bad split second decision does not turn them into a monster out for human blood.

You misunderstood me. If authorities know the man killed randomly, and they know he can do it again, then it's only fair that he receives the same punishment because he has already killed. I'm not saying someone should be thrown in jail because he is a potential danger, but he because he is in fact dangerous and has been proven to be so. I also apologize if I misunderstood you. If you always meant that the cop killed unintentionally, then the circumstances do change. I was referring to a case where the murder, while not premeditated, was intentional. I have only been referring to policemen who wrongly feel they are above the law because they represent it. If the murder was unintentional, it depends on the circumstances. If he admits what he's done and pleads guilty, death isn't warrented, but an extensive amount of time in jail is. If he hides the fact and pretends it never happened, it's the same as casting away the guilt and pretend that it meant nothing, in which case, the crime can't be forgiven by a mere 20 to 30 years in prison.

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

In fact most people who commit premeditated murder aren't that likely to kill again either.

I did say people who can kill at random (and intentionally) are more dangerous.

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Also the way one arrives at a result does matter. Suppose someone comes at you with a knife. You're able to grab his arm and the two of you struggle for a bit. Now if he kills you, he's clearly committed murder and should be thus charged. But what if during the struggle, he dies instead? Should you be charged with murder for his death? After all the end result is the same, someone's life is taken, right? Or should the fact that you never intended to kill him and it was self defense enter into it?

That is a case of self defense, it has nothing to do with what I was discussing. My argument was against those people who commit an act of murder, not an act of self-defense.

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

We were originally talking about a case in the US. US jails were thus the ones that were most relevant to the discussion. Still, while western European jails may be better than US jails, that still doesn't make them friendly places, especially for an ex-cop who may arrested some of those prisoners himself. Even if it is a nice place though, he's isolated from his friends and his family. That alone makes things tough.

It still wouldn't absolve him from the crime he's committed, that being to intentionally kill someone at random because he believes he has the right to. Of course, this was said for the sake of argument, nothing more.

[Kusa-San]

Hum, personnaly I think that even a murderer can have a chance because you can have many reason to kill someone. So I think a justice which is righteous need to let a chance to someone. But, if this someone do it again, then I'm for the death penalty when it come to soemting such as rape or murder.

Anyway, even if I'm for the death penalty, for me it won't work without a real and essential job to do. By that, I mean that's essential to have, for example, center which helps young boy to have an aim on their live. In France there are approved school which give young people a setting. A setting that help them to have an aim. And how they do that ? By being strict wth them, not let them what they want. Tell them that's bad to do that and slap them if they don't understand. Yes because I will say it again but one of the biggest problem of our society is the laxity !

Parent must have their autority back, teacher must have their autority back, autority must be back in our Society !

[Narona]

Originally Posted by Kusa-San

Hum, personnaly I think that even a murderer can have a chance because you can have many reason to kill someone.

A second chance? Yes (even if I am against that "doing 5 years only when you got 10"), a third/fourth/fifth chance (I am ashamed of my country, seriously)? In the case of dangerous criminals who kill and/or rape people, no.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Kusa-San

Hum, personnaly I think that even a murderer can have a chance because you can have many reason to kill someone. So I think a justice which is righteous need to let a chance to someone. But, if this someone do it again, then I'm for the death penalty when it come to soemting such as rape or murder.

Anyway, even if I'm for the death penalty, for me it won't work without a real and essential job to do. By that, I mean that's essential to have, for example, center which helps young boy to have an aim on their live. In France there are approved school which give young people a setting. A setting that help them to have an aim. And how they do that ? By being strict wth them, not let them what they want. Tell them that's bad to do that and slap them if they don't understand. Yes because I will say it again but one of the biggest problem of our society is the laxity !

Parent must have their autority back, teacher must have their autority back, autority must be back in our Society !

Was the victim given a second chance? I don't think so. Like I said, if it's for self defense, then there are special circumstances for it. If it was deliberate and intentional, I doubt it. Life inprisonment is also fine so long as the killer understands that's what happens when you kill someone.

[Narona]

Did the swiss say what the French think but don't say?

The part about the surveys:

Plusieurs sites Internet de presse ont interrogé leurs lecteurs. Ces "sondages" n'ont évidemment rien de scientifique, mais le succès qu'ils ont rencontré illustre la passion qui entoure cette question. Sur Le Figaro, 73 % des 49 000 votants se prononcent contre la construction de minarets en France. Le chiffre atteint même 86 % sur le site de L'Express (plus de 19 000 participants). Les Suisses s'étaient prononcés – dans des circonstances différentes – à 57,7 % contre de nouveaux minarets.
La contagion du vote suisse ne s'est pas arrêtée à l'Hexagone. Les mêmes "sondages" organisés par des sites d'information en Espagne ou en Allemagne donnent des scores comparables. Sur le site d'El Mundo, on découvre ainsi que 80 % des lecteurs ayant répondu à la question sont d'accord avec les Suisses. Quant aux lecteurs de Die Welt, ils sont 86 % à refuser la construction de nouveaux minarets en Allemagne.

The swiss are not the only ones to react about the minarets. Since the vote in switzerland, people started to talk about it (before that, it was kind of taboo). What is said for most is that "French don't want their country to be altered/distorded". A deputy said "it is not an Islamic country". The reaction happened because there are people planning to build more minarets.

So, the results of surveys now:

- Survey on the Figaro (49.000 people voted) 73% are against more minarets.
- On L'Express (19.000 people) 86% are against it.
- In Spain, survey on El Mundo, 80% think the siwss are right.
- In Germany, on Die Welt, 86% are against new minarets in Germany.

[Kusa-San]

Originally Posted by Narona

Did the swiss say what the French think but don't say?

The part about the surveys:

The swiss are not the only ones to react about the minarets. Since the vote in switzerland, people started to talk about it (before that, it was kind of taboo). What is said for most is that "French don't want their country to be altered/distorded". A deputy said "it is not an Islamic country". The reaction happened because there are people planning to build more minarets.

So, the results of surveys now:

- Survey on the Figaro (49.000 people voted) 73% are against more minarets.
- On L'Express (19.000 people) 86% are against it.
- In Spain, survey on El Mundo, 80% think the siwss are right.
- In Germany, on Die Welt, 86% are against new minarets in Germany.

I think the main question is : "Is that really bad to want to protect the culture of our country" "Is that really bad to want a France which is french and and arab country which is arab" "Is that really bad to want the diversity of different country ? "

Personnaly and I will be honest, I want this diversity, I want an arab country which is arab, I want my country to be french. I don't want to go in an arab country and seing what I saw in France. Diversity is what I want.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Slice of Life

I think you misunderstand what democracy actually means. Democracy is a system to ensure good governance through a system of checks and balances to limit any party's power. Compromises, individual rights, and independent judges are elements as important as the principle of majority vote.

By the people, for the people. It means that legitimacy, the right to rule, doesn't come from God, or some supposed inborn (or even acquired) fitness, but - directly or indirectly - from the urns.

Which I consider a different matter from checks and balances, against which I don't object anyway. First because they were voted in, second because I consider them to be an insulator against momentary moods, like keeping your gun in a locked safe so you won't murder your wife the next time she nags at you to take out the trash. (OK, bad example. No one should need that to not murder their wives, but let's not dwell on it.) And third, they're a safeguard against people who would abuse the system.

You seem to think the systems would work better by somehow going to the basics.

Better in what way?

What I'm against, ultimately, is the separation of the people in two castes:
- the elite, who rule.
- the ignorant rabble, who shouldn't meddle in the affairs of the state, and should just shut up and take it no matter what it costs them.

What I'm against is the "elite" and their followers (of whom, amusingly, I am: I'm for the rule of law, and that means following the leader, if not blindly or silently. More or less.) forgetting that whatever powers they've got, they got it from the same morons who'd vote the minaret ban. They've got the exact same legitimacy as that law, no matter how much they hate it, or fear its consequences.

Yes, democracy sucks because from time to time, maybe all the damn time, the urns will turn against you. But that's true whether it's direct or representative.

No. Actual democracy is to your idea of democracy like driving a car is to blowing up the tank. You might find the latter more appealing because it embodies the fundamental process that drives a car forward in all its pureness; but it won't get you to the next city, only to hell.

Or maybe you're already intellectually satisfied by the beauty of the pure solution and don't care for its practicality.

I must admit that practicality does tend to be a secondary concern, as long as I'm not responsible. And I don't remember being made tyrant of the world, or even of Switzerland, so I don't have any responsibility in their government system.

Still, I don't object to representative democracy itself. More the idea that, because you don't like the result of a votation, it's wrong and shouldn't count. And that representative democracy is better on the principle that elected officials are a demographic closer to yours, and thus share more ideas with you than the population as a whole.

But conflicts, hierarchies and power concentrations in need of moderation won't get away by the political system turning a blind eye on them. By sweeping them under the carpet you only allow them to rot.

Hm... Yes? And when did I say otherwise? For that matter, how is representative democracy less of a concentration of powers than direct democracy?

You're in no position to hold anyone responsible for his or her vote, especially not in the system your desire. Except in the meaning of some moral judgment.

Well, yes. I was answering a call to "blame the media", as if the media was some alien entity with mind control rays dictating everyone's votes. Who I blame or don't blame won't a make a difference. I think we all know that.

If that already satisfies you, you've never really been in the position of the powerless at the mercy of the powerful.

Ad hominem. How is my personal history relevant? And why should I want power over Switzerland?

Your dismissal of representative democracy is trendy, especially among anti-democrats of any flavor. You have no idea how a real tyranny looks like and the system you enjoy is meant to prevent you from ever finding out.

What about your dismissal of Joe Six Pack's vote? Where does it stand, among anti-democrats? What would your criteria for citizenship (and right of vote) be? College education? Sure, go ahead: I've got one. Money? "Noble" blood? Then we've got a problem.

Nobody should ever lose the chance to become free again through their own effort. Which implies that they should have the right to have their personality being reevaluated at some point. If they pass or fail is a different matter.

I might agree if said evaluations didn't fail so spectacularly. Since they do, I definitely think some people should never be let out - though I am against pointless cruelty.

Yoko: If we've already decided to never let them out, what purpose would torture serve? Except indulging in baser instincts which make me wonder on what side of a prison wall you should be?


And by the way: despite what Narona and Kusa say, our prisons are notoriously bad. Worst in Europe. From what I've heard, it wouldn't even change if Turkey joined the EU. Sure, some prisons can be alright. But by and large, there's a reason for the high suicide rate.

[Kusa-San]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

And by the way: despite what Narona and Kusa say, our prisons are notoriously bad. Worst in Europe. From what I've heard, it wouldn't even change if Turkey joined the EU. Sure, some prisons can be alright. But by and large, there's a reason for the high suicide rate.

Well if we want to be more precise which kind of jail ? There are two sort of jails in relation to the prison term. But I'm sorry from what I did see it's not bad at all and when I see criminal saying that their life will be easier in jail than in their actual life, it's hard for me to believe that it's so bad. And I will not cry for the high suicide rate of high mass murderer. The only problem in France is that we don't have enough jail.

[Slice of Life]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

do you advocated letting this guy out again in 10 yrs for good behaivor and passing whatever personality test he is given?

You're being polemic. No, obviously not whatever personality test he is given. Though I'm willing to put more trust into the decision of a psychologist who's looking into the case in 10 years than any layman in front of his TV now.

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

so what happens if the evaluators are wrong and the person release rape and kill again.

What if I rape and kill someone. What if you got run over by a bus tomorrow. Risks have to be assessed and evaluated. There is no such thing as a no risk society.

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

Do you honestly think someone like Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer and Charles Manson would ever change and should even have the possibility of ever being let out of prison alive?

Is Charles Manson even in prison or in some mental facility? I though he is mentally ill. In any case, you can answer the question by yourself from what I wrote already.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

By the people, for the people. It means that legitimacy, the right to rule, doesn't come from God, or some supposed inborn (or even acquired) fitness, but - directly or indirectly - from the urns.

Representative democracy is not by the people but on behalf of the people. And who is to judge if it's for the people. Of course the final legitimation comes from the people and not god or whoever. It's just not the first and final legitimation.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

What I'm against, ultimately, is the separation of the people in two castes:
- the elite, who rule.
- the ignorant rabble, who shouldn't meddle in the affairs of the state, and should just shut up and take it no matter what it costs them.

Representative democracy does not make any distinction between "the elite, who rule" and "ignorant rabble".

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

They've got the exact same legitimacy as that law, no matter how much they hate it, or fear its consequences.

Thoughout the text I detect a lot of malice in your words. I wonder if you still remember that minarets in Switzerland weren't built by shady elites or corrupt politicians or whatever haunts you.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Yes, democracy sucks because from time to time, maybe all the damn time, the urns will turn against you. But that's true whether it's direct or representative.

I think it is generally agreed on that to what degree a democracy "sucks" depends strongly on how exactly it is constructed. You could end your sentence in "... if there are independent judges or not." "... if human rights are respected or not." and your argument would be exactly as (in-)valid,

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I must admit that practicality does tend to be a secondary concern, as long as I'm not responsible.

I'll leave that as it stands.

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

Still, I don't object to representative democracy itself. More the idea that, because you don't like the result of a votation, it's wrong and shouldn't count.

For the time being, it does count. Can you name a Swiss politician who said "this result is wrong and should not count"? Or do you principally object any criticism? Do you object to constitutionally limit direct democracy, not in the cases when SoL doen't like the result, but principally? Will you object the ECHR ruling when it comes?

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

And that representative democracy is better on the principle that elected officials are a demographic closer to yours, and thus share more ideas with you than the population as a whole.

Closer to me in what way? I didn't say anything about setting up rules of who should be elected into office. I'd rather like to see level-headed experts in office though. I'm not an expert of anything useful in a parliament or a cabinet nor am I level-headed enough.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Hm... Yes? And when did I say otherwise? For that matter, how is representative democracy less of a concentration of powers than direct democracy?

Excuse me? Representative democracy is all about balancing powers. It does not give a simple majority in parliament the right to change the constitution or interfere with justice for example. It gives a framework to solve conflicts. "Let's vote" is just another way of saying "I'm not willing to talk about that." Which is necessary if you want results at all. As method of first choice its a recipe for the disintegration of society. Yes, I know, you don't care as long as its not your fault (and as long as some rebel faction's tanks don't roll through your living room I suppose).

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Ad hominem. How is my personal history relevant?

In so far as it shapes your worldview. I'm just saying a man with leukemia would probably be less interested in the abstract beauty of the principles of his health care system and more in the chances of survival it offers. How is this ad hominem?

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

What about your dismissal of Joe Six Pack's vote? Where does it stand, among anti-democrats? What would your criteria for citizenship (and right of vote) be?

I'm saying that certain decisions should be left to certain institutions and others to others. That does hardly make me an anti-democrat, or is any person who did ever participate in formulating a constitution an anti-democrat too. I don't know where you got the idea from that certain people should be denied to right to vote or (as you claimed above) the right to be elected. Certainly not from what I wrote.