If a lion ate my friend, why would I weep about it?
I'd go hunt that lion down so it doesn't eat other people's friends.
Also, it would be pretty hard to track down the lion
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If a lion ate my friend, why would I weep about it?
I'd go hunt that lion down so it doesn't eat other people's friends.
Something is wrong with the world when they worry more about the human rights of criminals over their victims. Where is the justice? You end a life, and at best you get few years in jail? because the system wants to correct you? if you take someones life, or leave someone with a life handicap, then you deserve the same. to hell with their human rights.
Exactly.
You must be living in that $1.8 million coffin, eating that puffer fish and taking all those drugs you mentioned earlier. That's the only explanation possible for you coming to the conclusion that you have posted.In other words, "eye for an eye".
Hein OP??
You agreed with post 69 as above?
Glad that you realized it was all nonsense in post 40.![]()
You must be living in that $1.8 million coffin, eating that puffer fish and taking all those drugs you mentioned earlier. That's the only explanation possible for you coming to the conclusion that you have posted.![]()
If a fair trial then proves guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, then the murderers have lost all their human rights from the minute they killed their victims. You seem to care more about the rights the killers than the rights of those not wanting to be killed in the first place.
As for how genetics, psychology & environment work together, why not go all the way and simply say that, just like a computer and a computer network with millions of connected CPU's, the individuals brain is simply following the pre-programmed code in a piece of software, the human beings actions are simply the results of neurons acting in a similar way to computers and computer networks.
As AI develops, machines containing AI units,to all intents and purposes, will start giving the impression that they can 'learn' and 'think' just the same as human beings - when in fact they will always be a pre-programmed collection of rules and instructions using '0's and '1's.
In that case, with this genetics, psychology & environment work together lark being used as an excuse, the human brain is simply a very advanced piece of AI technology - one that is preprogrammed to follow instructions and sets of rules.
Meaning none of us are responsible for our actions since our brains are electronic components following the laws of physics and mathematics.
My point was simply this:No criminals never lose all their human rights.
They are removed from soceity as they are danger to the society yes. But there are guidelines regarding how the cells should be, their food requirements, sanitary requirements, working hours, etc.
Granted these requirements arent 100% followed due to various reasons but they are there.
I dont understand AI but i do study medical psychology & forensic sciences
. Most of the serial criminals are extremely sick, they have lost their moral fibre, they are a threat to to themselves & socity but they arent born that way. They become what they are becoz of their environment, their upbringing & genetic predilection.
If they end up as criminals then its the job of the courts & the society to provide them with proper help.
I get your concern of normal people feigning insanity to get away of their crimes but it always doesnt work about that way. Court appoints experienced specialists in that field to verify the claims of the defendant.
Most sane person people dont have the gall to pull off the stuff that would prove them to be insane i.e. it hardly ever works out for them.
Even if declared insane they end up in mental institutions where they are kept under supervision of specialist for a certain time before they are formally admitted there.
Even during your stay there you can pretend to be miraculously cured & get discharged. There are several checks & balances.
@Yossarin, @ Saqs, [MENTION=2099]Cricket[/MENTION] cartoons What absolutely barbaric statements from you guys.
Nothing i repeat Nothing can deny people absolute human rights especially not courts. If you really want to do that there's always vigilantism.
You guys ought to read about forensic psychology. Some criminals may do absolute henious crimes but in the end they do deserve a fair trail as well.
You guys have no idea of how genetics, psychology & environment work in shaping a person & cant begin to understand how a criminal is made by the society.
Human rights are absolute.
In which case, since no one has responded to the following post perhaps you care to respond?Actually human rights are relative, because they are created by humans and change with time and cultural mores.
But I agree about the barbaric statements. A society's values can be based on fear and revenge, or on love and redemption. I want the UK to have the latter values. Apply 'tough love' to the convicted criminal, to redeem him and make him into a decent member of society. Criticise and correct the behaviour, while upholding the value of the person.
So do you think the Norwegians should rehabilitate Anders Behring Breivik and let him out again at some point in the future? After he had blown up 8 people in a bomb explosion, and then hunted down like animals and killed, one by one, 69 other people, mostly teenagers?
His sentence is officially 21 years in prison, the maximum penalty allowed in Norway, with the possibility of being let out after serving only 10 years.
Yes, 21 years max. for murdering 77 people in cold blood. Or around 14 weeks prison time (in a comfy prison cell with all the mod cons) for each murder.
Or possibly as little as 10 years in prison, or under 7 weeks prison time for each life taken.
Sure, the Norwegians could keep on extending that if they think he will continue being a danger to society - otherwise he will be let out possibly after just 10 years for killing 77 people? All he needs to do is to 'convince' the authorities that he's become a 'good guy' in order to be let out.
Is that justice? For the families of the dead? Or for those who were being hunted but managed to evade him by hiding until the police arrived. How would they feel if he was walking the streets again after only 10 years?
(For those who are not aware of these killings, they took place on an island in a lake, with no means of escape, that was being used as a youth camp by teenage members of a politcal party. Once the killings started, he even lured his victims out of hiding by posing as a policeman who had come to save them, and then shooting them dead).
@Yossarin, @ Saqs, [MENTION=2099]Cricket[/MENTION] cartoons What absolutely barbaric statements from you guys.
Nothing i repeat Nothing can deny people absolute human rights especially not courts. If you really want to do that there's always vigilantism.
You guys ought to read about forensic psychology. Some criminals may do absolute henious crimes but in the end they do deserve a fair trail as well.
You guys have no idea of how genetics, psychology & environment work in shaping a person & cant begin to understand how a criminal is made by the society.
Human rights are absolute.
In which case, since no one has responded to the following post perhaps you care to respond?
Do you think by the use of, as you say 'tough love', if Anders Behring Breivik decides to become angelic in the next few years, would you be prepared to put aside his murder of 77 innocents and release him maybe in as little as 10 years time?
And that's why I say, if imposed, a life sentence should mean life and not being let out after a decade or two for good behaviour.No, as he would appear to be a sociopath. I would keep him detained until he dies. That is the level of tough love which seems appropriate to me in his extreme case.
One other thing I would change is this nonsence of being let out early if someone has behaved whilst in prison. A prison should mean serving the full term of the sentence, and good behavour whilst serving the sentence is an expectation and a favour being done by the convict. Sure, 'reward' him for his good behaviour by not increasing the sentence if he behaves, otherwise additional prison time is added on if he doen't.
I fully support capital punishment.
Some crimes warrant it.
Which crimes?
Unjust murder, child trafficking, pedophilia, drug dealing, rape etc. All these crimes should result in death penalty provided crimes were proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
You have quite the fixation on killing. You’ve even left room by adding etc..: just to encompass any other group you’d like to add on later to your killing spree.
Just and unjust are subjective.