2009-12-03, 09:47 | Link #4841 | |||
I'll end it before April.
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
|||
2009-12-03, 09:51 | Link #4842 | |
cho~ kakkoii
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 3rd Planet
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
|
|
2009-12-03, 10:10 | Link #4843 |
Disabled By Request
|
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. |
2009-12-03, 13:17 | Link #4844 | ||
Asuki-tan Kairin ↓
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Fürth (GER)
Age: 43
|
Quote:
Quote:
Okay, so why do you bring it - enriched by your own POV - into the discussion in the first place? (just a rhetorical question)
__________________
|
||
2009-12-03, 14:09 | Link #4845 | |
Not Enough Sleep
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 48
|
Quote:
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?
__________________
|
|
2009-12-03, 14:13 | Link #4846 | |||||||
Emotionless White Face
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
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 Quote:
And in the meantime, the victims can stick the word "justice" up their arse. Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
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 Quote:
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. Last edited by Narona; 2009-12-03 at 16:01. |
|||||||
2009-12-03, 14:30 | Link #4847 | |||||
I'll end it before April.
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And all of that is due to one thing laxity. I just find that totally aberrant to see such thing. Quote:
Quote:
More serioulsy, I'm for ginving one chance to people but if they commite again an horrible crime such as rape then Guillotine.
__________________
|
|||||
2009-12-03, 14:43 | Link #4848 | ||
Disabled By Request
|
Quote:
Quote:
Why thank you! I'm quite proud of it in fact! |
||
2009-12-03, 14:47 | Link #4849 |
廉頗
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Age: 35
|
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.
|
2009-12-03, 14:48 | Link #4850 | ||
Aria Company
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
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? Quote:
__________________
|
||
2009-12-03, 14:51 | Link #4851 | |
Emotionless White Face
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
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. |
|
2009-12-03, 14:59 | Link #4852 | ||||
Disabled By Request
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
2009-12-03, 15:10 | Link #4853 |
I'll end it before April.
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
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 !
__________________
Last edited by Kusa-San; 2009-12-03 at 15:22. |
2009-12-03, 15:38 | Link #4855 | |
Disabled By Request
|
Quote:
|
|
2009-12-03, 15:50 | Link #4856 | |
Emotionless White Face
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Did the swiss say what the French think but don't say?
The part about the surveys: Quote:
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. |
|
2009-12-03, 15:59 | Link #4857 | |
I'll end it before April.
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Last edited by Kusa-San; 2009-12-03 at 16:10. |
|
2009-12-03, 16:19 | Link #4858 | ||||||||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||||||||
2009-12-03, 16:35 | Link #4859 | |
I'll end it before April.
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Quote:
__________________
Last edited by Kusa-San; 2009-12-03 at 16:45. |
|
2009-12-03, 19:19 | Link #4860 | |||||||||||
eyewitness
Join Date: Jan 2007
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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? 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.
__________________
Last edited by Slice of Life; 2009-12-03 at 20:00. |
|||||||||||
Tags |
current affairs, discussion, international |
|
|