To me death would be preferable to life in prison. It would be getting off easy for those actually guilty of the crime.
To me death would be preferable to life in prison. It would be getting off easy for those actually guilty of the crime.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
It's not about vengeance for everybody....in the guts of life two eyes for one eye is the law of the jungle. I'm more than happy to dish out the gruesome consequences upon anybody who took one of mine. It boils down to self-respect. I've got too much self-respect to be in favor of letting such a person live....just like I got too much self-respect to go on welfare or compromise myself in jobs that require being smooth with people you can't stand so you can buy stuff you don't need. Thus, death penalty, by default...the burden is upon those opposing it to make a case for showing mercy, for being weak. There's no reason to be...all the so-called "rational" arguments are nullified through expedited, cheaper forms of execution with varying degrees of brutality...the method of execution used upon Jeffrey Dahmer perfectly calibrated to the crimes he committed and cost nothing.
Last edited by Kill4Me; 03-28-2019 at 06:16 PM.
I guess you consider yourself top of the food chain K4 but there are hungrier animals than you in this world. In the "law of the jungle" having exacted your vengeance, in order to preserve your self respect, you would be next (someone would use you to preserve their own self respect) and so on... until there is nothing left but blind, toothless, animals or their carcasses.
The Torah says, “eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise” (Exodus 21:24)Did Torah really encourage people to take personal revenge? No. In the context of Jewish interpretation, the Torah’s eye-for-eye laws created axiomatic limits for restitution and damages imposed by formal courts of law. Eye-for-eye is a biblical expression for fair and equitable punishment. Jewish law courts did not actually poke out eyes and knock out teeth. Rather the court of law ascribed a penalty or punishment considered to be of equal value (usually monetary) to the offence committed. “Eye-for-eye” means “let the punishment fit the crime.” The Torah imposes the eye-for-eye rule as a standard for liability in a court of law.
https://torahportions.ffoz.org/disci...e-for-eye.html
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
I am opposed because every false positive is something society cannot allow itself to happen.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Well... I don't really consider the point of imprisoning people to punish them. It's just a necessity that they be imprisoned. You simply can't allow criminals to go unchecked and reigning throughout society, it's chaotic and people are victimized by it. So from that standpoint the only argument that could convince me the death penalty is justified is one which demonstrates that it deters future crime. In other words... via the fear of the death penalty are criminals less likely to commit a heinous act. This is dubious because if you're insane enough to commit such acts you probably do not give a shit about your life and clearly you aren't thinking ahead anyway. So I don't really buy that it does deter crime.
As far as seeking personal revenge... I've seen enough in this life to know that some people are just... raised in absolute insanity. I've seen people flat our lose their minds - descend into schizophrenia without any warning. I've seen people grow up in conditions that would remind you of a dog kennel, probably worse... where they literally had no path forward but to be a completely maladapted nutcase or criminal, etc.. So I also know that, as innocent or righteous as people consider themselves to be, if placed in the right conditions anyone (or almost anyone) can turn out to be a complete fuckup (to a degree, I mean when you're talking the capacity to commit atrocities there's a biological component and maybe a spiritual component).
So I'm skeptical that you are as righteous as you claim to be and worthy of punishing such people. This is why I don't believe imprisonment can be a matter of punishment, it has to merely be practical.
Last edited by cR4z3dr4T; 03-28-2019 at 07:53 PM.
I think using it as a way of retribution is more than fair in some cases. For instance, I think several people on this forum should be executed.
Oh oh, am I on the list??Originally Posted by Remiel
"I would rather be ashes than dust"
"Ultimately, man should not ask what the meaning of his life is, but rather he must recognize that it is he who is asked."
There are plenty of murderers I’d happily see extinguished, when it comes to my personal sentiments. I put no particular faith in the U.S. legal system, either. All I’m saying is that in the bigger picture, revenge-based justice can be equally unsatisfying yet also suffer from lack of transparency and due process, and lead to unforeseen outcomes, which is why it’s the stuff that Greek tragedians dwelt on.
The reason for that dissatisfaction—the reason there’s no such thing as true justice—when it comes to such serious crimes is that there is no restoration. You can’t give someone back a life once it’s taken, or replace lost innocence and the like.
Justice is only a concept, and in practice it will simply never be perfect.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
i endorse omnicide
Eh, I made a mistake earlier. I thought Dahmer had been sodomized to death so I said that the method of execution was calibrated to the crime...turns out he was only bludgeoned over the head. Still, better than lethal injection and only accentuates how pathetic the system is when it's the prisoners doling out the needed consequence. Shame really a subhuman cockroach like James Holmes eats and sleeps better than many Americans.
Heh, I'd hunt the person down like a dog and kill 'em. As I said, I respect myself too much not to put a target on their head...it's not about chasing around some platonic ideal of justice or even revenge. I get it...there are philosophical angles, but so what. It's about self-respect. I respect myself too much to let somebody kill one of mine but not come back and kill them and in a worse way. I've seen people die in front of me before Golden...doesn't move me. Believe me when I tell you, they'd better pray the legal system got to them first.
Last edited by Kill4Me; 03-29-2019 at 08:10 AM.
For criminals to be afraid of, to think of the outcome of their crime - punished by death. Maybe. But maybe not. What's more scary to just die and that's all or to live all your life stuck in a cage. Maybe it would be better for the highest punishment to spend life in jail. But. Criminals sometimes live in jail too comfortable, have connections and all. And there's teeny tiny possibility that they can somehow escape, you never know. And if we think about people changing, what is done you can't undone, why not think first before doing smth horrible. I think death penalty is okay, but only for the worst crimes.
I went for a walk and I thought about this briefly... it's possible that on some unconscious level the general population will take the very idea of crime more seriously if the death penalty exists and this could translate into some deeply instinctual inhibition for committing crime, which might ultimately save lives. So I suppose I'm not entirely opposed to it. But if that's the aim than it could probably be accomplished by applying it in only the most extreme cases and making a public spectacle of it.
Research shows that the existence (or not) of a death penalty does not deter criminals from committing violent crimes. These are crimes of passion, not logic. What is more effective in reducing deaths is to reduce the lethality of the weapons at hand.
Most people are in jail for crimes that they will not repeat, and more likely will not repeat after their are 40 years old. Criminals either learn and change the way they act or they get too tired to commit crimes anymore.
However, there are some impulses, like pedophilia, that are not altered by incarceration. In those cases, it is best to arrange things so they don’t have the opportunity to repeat their crimes.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 03-29-2019 at 04:57 AM.
A most astute observation. 3 hots and a cot are not worth one's humanity...
Against in most circumstances.
It is about going to the core and if it exists then it conflicts with itself. No need to think further.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
It would be aimed at effecting instinct, not logic.
What research? If for example you had two neighboring states, one with the death penalty and one without, the average criminal is not going to be consciously aware of the laws and will still have been exposed to executions on the news throughout their lives, possibly internalizing an instinct of inhibition towards committing violent acts. If however an entire society did away with the death penalty, this was widely known and in place for a few decades... that's another matter. You could test easily for the logical consequences but not so easily for the instincts, in other words. So I'm interested in the actual design of your research
?? You have said it's not about vengeance for everybody, then described something that falls squarely under the definition of vengeance. "In the guts of life two eyes for one eye." That is retaliation for a wrong done, that is what vengeance is.
Notice I haven't said I think you are wrong to feel the way you do. I think these feelings are understandable.
I just don't think it is a set of feelings that people are going to agree will be practicable across a contemporary society. As you said, it's a "law of the jungle."
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
It’s pointless. Having people sitting around waiting to die when most die of old age waiting to be put to death. It’s pointless but makes jobs because we pay for prisons. I am not in favor of incarceration. I also don’t know what should be done with people who commit bad crimes. My idealism says kill them and be done with it since I don’t want them near people I love.
Also, as a mother of a fragile and joyful child I am not at all afraid of taking the law in my hands as I feel no parent should be either. I wouldn’t hesitate to get violent on anyone who brings sexual crime against children. The thought of it is disgusting
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
If the penalty is not violent, then what is the point?
Now that Netflix have put up their prices again, allowing those unable to pay for Netflix to brutally slaughter those we do not like will decrease the prison population and provide free entertainment.
Yes, and they should kill their kids, too, so that criminals doing things that deserve the death penalty eventually die out.
Trump endorses quick and painful death penalty for Mass Shooters.
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-stateme...143508003.html
Too many liberal pussy loopholes keep these cockroaches alive. It's the biggest disgrace on earth that James Holmes hasn't been shot dead, yet. All mass shooters must face immediate execution.
According to some criminals, the death penalty would have been more merciful than keeping them locked up for the rest of their lives. Food for thought.
I really don't really have strong feelings about the death penalty; kill them or put them behind bars for life, either outcome is fine by me.
However, I do feel very strongly about giving people the right to die, and I see this right as a bit of a litmus test for freedom in any given society. Unfortunately, the consensus is that anyone who wants to die is by definition mentally ill, and that mentally ill people can't make decisions for themselves and therefore it's perfectly okay to rob that person of their personal freedoms and autonomy, and this trend persists regardless of whether a person is homeless, starving, have a painful terminal illness or facing a lifetime behind bars.
In other words, forcing a prisoner to live by force feeding them food would upset me far more than merely sentencing this same prisoner to death or otherwise not intervening if they wanted to die by their own hands.
Posting Permissions
