Justice

Killing them humanely may not be as therapeutic for the family, but it's a lot easier and less costly if it's a humane method, at least in the west where shit like having trials based on evidence is important.

>this is one of the few areas where islamic countries are more advanced than the west, (even public stoning is a great idea for certain criminals, and is the closest thing to justice that a victim or their family members can be offered).
Lol, Anglos.

you are on the emotional and intellectual level of a nigger if you really believe in that "eye for an eye" bullshit

>Lol, Anglos.

Jawohl! Stattdessen müssen wir die Mörder, Vergewaltiger und Muselmänner jahrelang aushalten und ihnen zu speziellen Anlässe, wie Geburtstagen der Eltern, Freigang gewähren - wie z.B.: in den NL erfolgte wobei der Täter 2 Mädchen ermordete.

The criminals aren't even really the problem, it's shitlibs like you who need to hang first.

>t. abdul who migrated to germany after half his cousins and uncles were hung by saddam

>intellectual
>ur so dumb!

ah yes, the common shitlib's Selbstüberschätzung....

>abdul

not even necessarily the case. this place is that cucked.

Because
1/ Public executions (especially brutal ones) are barbaric and get the masses in blood thirst mode which (you can ask the Romans) are very hard to get off of. It's like a drug which you need more and more of, it perverts the brain. It's not for the sake of the rights of the criminal as much as the mental well-being of the masses
2/ Its unjust in itself. If a person has caused misery to another trough rape or murder then a simple 1 minute suffering which leads to death is not a just solution as opposed to a lifetime of torture and struggle which will truly terrorise him and deprived of the opportunity to suicide he will truly understand what the victim felt like.
3/ Its economically inefficient. If you have a labour camp system you can dish out very lengthy and painful punishments to criminals whilst at the same time earning money from these prisons as opposed to spending it as all countries in the world do. You can use the revenue which these camps make for education, building roads, building entire new cities which can increase the population of the nation and thus make it's existence more secure.

Yes but any justice system is imperfect and will make mistakes but the difference is that if you've killed the guy you can never make things right.
If he's in a labour camp he can be dug out and given compensation, if he's dead you cant bring him back.

>"eye for an eye"
literally he founding principle of the justice system ideally and the very description of the concept of justice itself.

Are you going to tell me that we need to rehabilitate and release murderers, child rapists, and sadists back into the world? Do you even consider that this "humane" aproach you're insinuating we should take will have disasterous consequences if even one person relapses?
What will you tell the victims of each of your systems failings other than "Sssorry"?
Heres a better idea, that has 0 negatives to society, bring back the death penalty and check how many repeat offenders it produces v.s rehabilitation.

Attached: 1523178149238.gif (405x228, 580K)

no, not an argument, you either have the evidence to convict him or not. if not he goes free. the problem is that this shit has been politicized and DAs/judges have to get conviction rates up to so you get zelous prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves. that's the problem, not the death penalty. you don't get sentenced to death by "mistake" without somebody else committing a crime do make it so...

so if I take out one of your eyes, you'll be happy if the same was done to me? really? I find that logic offensive. if you blinded me, not only do I want you dead but I also want all your assets seized to pay for the disability you inflicted upon me. your kids and wife? they can suck it, your bank account, house and car are mine now. taking somebody's eye is an offense that was unwarranted. mere reciprocity in sentencing is not enough. any unwarranted violence should carry the death penalty and reparations. this would weed out the violent elements from society and ultimately, through biological selection, help make society safer.

the term 'eye for an eye' is cucked, i prefer 'eyes for an eye'.

that's blackstone's formulation (better to let a guilty man go free) and core in jurisprudence. i'm not anti-death penalty but you'd better be sure about it, and not fall victim to overzealous cops and prosecutors

1) Your first point is invalid since all the 1st world consumer does is watch televised violence instead of real violence and the popularity of these shows is telling
2) You want to torture the person/murderer/rapist that does these things by means of isolation? Why dont you just strao them to a table and leave them to rot you portrait of humane ethics you.
3) Now you're just advocating for slavery all so you can point a finger and say how much better you are for not killing Ted Bundy

“Brainlet, The Post”

It is an argument there are no perfect justice systems. But if you make a permanent decision you cannot reverse it. And it is possible that the person in question is guilty but there is not enough evidence or the researchers didn't do their job properly or there was but the evidence was scattered and impossible to gather. Either way if you make a permanent decision it cannot be reparated.
It's a metaphor, its not supposed to be taken literally. The meaning is that the punishment should fit the crime, not actual scenarios of people who've taken other's eyes out. Just a declaration of a broad principle that people should suffer consequences similar to those they've wronged and that the entire system should be based around that.
>this would weed out the violent elements from society and ultimately, through biological selection, help make society safer.
If you put them in labour camps without option for mating they're still being weeded out simply there will be revenue generated for that society as well as for the family and/or the victim himself.

Guillotine, motherfucker. Get on my level.

>Your first point is invalid since all the 1st world consumer does is watch televised violence
Did I ever say I support that? I said that violence perverts and twists the minds of the people that observe it and it makes them see more while at the same time being terrified.

I want people who do bad things to know terrible things will be done to them if they do, yes I believe that is quite just. I really don't care about the feelings of a rapist.

Being deprived of freedom is in itself slavery. Prisons are slave camps, just such where the prisioners do not do productive work for their societies or the people they've aggressed against whilst at the same time being energetic all day long due to the lack of labour they
1/ Do not learn positive work ethics
2/ Use that energy to forms gangs, sell drugs, rape eachother as well as other forms of violence that wouldn't happen if they were too tired to do ti as well as the aspect of labour humbling individuals, people without labour degenerate.
The sole practice of incarceration by force is slavery you numpty, think before you use words. I simply advocate that there is instilled order in these places as well as punishing the wrongdoers by making them produce valuables for the people that they've wronged as well as their society.
Also your entire comment sounds so bitchily-written, I can feel the soy transcending your screen while you type your arrogant comment behind a poster of Obama.

why not just like have someone walk up and slit their throat?

>It is an argument there are no perfect justice systems.

it's called the perfect solution/nirvana fallacy and it applies here. look it up on wikipedia.

>But if you make a permanent decision you cannot reverse it.

yes, that's why, like I said, youa ren't making it without THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE!

>And it is possible that the person in question is guilty but there is not enough evidence or the researchers didn't do their job properly or there was but the evidence was scattered and impossible to gather.

So now you're saying you can jail a guy on a hunch without the evidence but because you're not killing him "permanently" it's ok? wow. just wow. there are so many ways this can be abused and in fact it's exactly what has been happening in the US for a long long time.

>Either way if you make a permanent decision it cannot be reparated.

if you jail a guy for 10 years based on oppinion I say you can't "repair" that damage either. no amount of vash will bring me back 10 years. if fact, if it were to happen to me, I'd call for the lives of the DA, the jury and the judge who convicted me IN ADDITION to at leat 10bn$$$ in "reparations".

>It's a metaphor
no its not, read a book/bible.

>revenue generated
slavery is not effective. if it were, we'd still be doing it. I'll concede however that the victim should ahve a say. if they want the criminal to not be killed but instead work in a camp for their benefit so be it. I just don't see that working out economically... prisons don't produce jack shit. they are a net tax $$$ drain and redistribution operation from the tax payer to the prison industrial complex corporations.

Reading your post I'm already hung

Nitrogen you fag. You have any idea how much helium costs? We have a limited supply on the planet, so wasting it on killing criminals is stupid.

Meh. It's not like your body metabolizes it, so you could reuse it, but sure.

Yeah, children's birthday parties are going to bankrupt the planet,

He's not wrong that our supply is limited, short of doing nuclear fusion, but that's not going to be broadly adopted for a good while.

can't we just re extract it from the air anyway?

Helium? Nope. We extract it from ores. It's the second most common element in the Universe, but it's actually really scarce on Earth.

I support the instant assassination of anyone who starts a "muh children" argument.

Literally as the topic turns to "muh children" as a justification for anything jut pull out a gun and off them.

Attached: 1469261290800.gif (200x167, 727K)

Almost 80% of the air you breathe is nitrogen and it works exactly the same way as helium. Whereas helium, unless recompressed after filtering out the guys brief CO2 exhalations, simply floats away and eventually gets blasted into space by solar winds.

Helium is obtained from natural gas extraction. It's not economical to extract it from the atmosphere because it's 0.0005% by volume. That's why is so much more expensive than nitrogen.

>yes, that's why, like I said, youa ren't making it without THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE!
Yes but I already answered that, there are cases and accusations where it's extremely difficult if not IMPOSSIBLE to gather scientific evidence. In the cases of rape for example if the rape has been conducted and the victim has not went to the police immediately to show her internal and bodily bruises that evidence is discarded and even if so the chance that there can be absolute evidence that the supposed perpetrator was there and did that is very low. Unless there are cameras overseeing the whole thing you cannot get scientific evidence and often these trials go along the path of
1/ Where were you on x date at y time
2/ What were you doing at those time
And if the suspect makes a slip out of nervousness and mistakes the jury will take that as evidence which it isn't as you would describe evidence. But there is no other way to lead these kinds of trials where physical or photographic evidence is inherently low or non-existent. But what you are proposing is that the system simply leaves those whose trials have not managed to gather unrealistic amounts of evidence go which will result in many people who have committed a crime never facing justice due to unrealistically high criteria for evidence.

>no its not, read a book/bible.
That is irrelevant, when most people use the saying they mean that the punishment for a crime should fit the punishment.

>slavery is not effective. if it were, we'd still be doing it.
I'm not advocating for the wholesale return of slavery for the purpose of generating production but the application of the practice on members of society that are uncontrollably aggressive and uncivilised as a form of punishment which is more harsh due to lasting longer thus terrorising potential criminals/terrorists from engaging in these acts which will of course save lives as well as generating production which can be redirected to necessary projects which will help the nation improve it's position.

holy fucking shit. so in your world it's ok to lock a guy away for 20y based on circumstancial evidence because you aren't permanently killing him? is that the sort of jurispridence you advocate? you want to lock people away based on feels? that's actually worse than straight out coldblooded murder. I am actually at a loss of words to describe how evil what you propose is and you probably lack the empathy to understand what sort of psychopath you are.

And others get to listen to the condemned beg for their live with a stupid helium voice. I like it

I've really tried to get to you and to make you understand my proposal but you seem to be dedicated to like a leftist take things I say out of context. What I said is it is not possible to have a justice system which demands unrealistically high amount of evidence to convict without allowing a lot of people who are genuinely guilty to get out of punishment. I was not advocating '' to lock people away based on feels'' take your head out of your ass and stop being so hysteric, insulting and sperging at my face and read what I actually wrote without trying to misrepresent for the purpose of sperging at me.

no friend, you want to convict people based on feels like in your rape example. if a woman does not go to a doctor and has the rape documented immediately then tough luck. and even if it is documented, this sort of "damage" is not proof positive that the sex was not consensual. we have plenty of men jailed for rape that was lie. in fact, I know of such a case from my workplace.

you want to admitt sub-standard evidence in order to convict people you feel might be guilty and are justifying the uncertainty in this approach with "well we aren't permanently killing them like you would do so it's ok!"

either you have the evidence or you do not. any other approach is the actualy leftist method you accuse me of.

bump