History proves that harsh punishments don't make people less likely to commit a crime in the long-term. You have to go after what causes people to commit these crimes in the first place if you want good long-term results. Most of the time these people are just  product of their own culture (like this guy). I also disagree with the ideea that there should be any situation in which people lose their rights.

For the record... Hammurabi's code wasn't so much an eye for an eye as...

Your life for an eye if you were of a lower class.

Some lashes for an eye if you were of a higher class

Some money for an eye if you aren't a slave and he was.

Your master's money for an eye if you arewertyu a slave and his slave wasn't.

An eye for an eye if you were even class.

The government shall repay you for anyhing you lost of "natural" misfortune if you swear to god you lost it due to natural misfortune... even if you didn't lose anything.

 As long as you rent something or someone from someone and claim to god that it broke or died of natural causes your in the clear.

Oh really? History tells us that? When in history have we had something  that informs you of the news like the Internet? Hell I'll even set for something like a TV? A radio?

Historically just about everyone other than whoever was at the execution heard about what happens to criminals by word of mouth, or if they are lucky in a newspaper if they can read (lower classes couldn't read until recently). Maybe, just maybe, if some sociopath play the video of the guy who had acid dripped in his eyes, or if the video is uploaded for some reason, he will be able to see just what happens when he pulls some retarded stuff and appeal to his very basic instinct of survival.

As I said, he should have been institutionalized BEFORE he commited any crime. After he commited it, what the hell is the point? He already committed the crime, he should be punished accordignly. Honestly I don't think it should be an eye for an eye. If malicious intent was involved, then the wronged should be able to choose the punishment of the perpertrator, as long as it is within reasonable limits. That right there is perfect justice. 

When you throw him in an institutionor in jail did you prevent his doing terrible things than when he is blind? In other cases, if you kill the motherfucker outright with chances are there of him doing anything wrong to others? Let me put it this way. It is really nice and great to sit on high and look on below and speak, but when shit happens to you, that is when you grow a real pair of balls and realize that there are just humans who should never be allowed to live in a society, and special some should be punished by brutal torture (I don't believe in this hell shit they talk about in fairy tales, they need to suffer while alive for me to be happy) before being killed. The whole "let's fix human society by locking away people even if they have commited inhuman acts" is EXTREMELY idealistic. It is the exact equivalent of me saying that communism works. Well I hate to break your fragile ignorant world, but it DOESN'T work, some are not worthy of being called a human, and it is laughable to think an institionalization as a punishment will actually do anything down the road. What kind of a deterent is it knowing you will be in an institutionalized? You have to appeal to much more basic things, like the instinct of survival, to these sub-humans so you can prevent crime.

The Babylonians believed in "God"?

@vlad321:

Oh really? History tells us that? When in history have we had something  that informs you of the news like the Internet? Hell I'll even set for something like a TV? A radio?

Historically just about everyone other than whoever was at the execution heard about what happens to criminals by word of mouth, or if they are lucky in a newspaper if they can read (lower classes couldn't read until recently). Maybe, just maybe, if some sociopath play the video of the guy who had acid dripped in his eyes, or if the video is uploaded for some reason, he will be able to see just what happens when he pulls some retarded stuff and appeal to his very basic instinct of survival.

In the past there would be things like public hangings. The punishment of people who commited crimes used to be public spectacle for the blood thirsty masses. There goes your hypothesis.

As I said, he should have been institutionalized BEFORE he commited any crime. After he commited it, what the hell is the point? He already committed the crime, he should be punished accordignly. Honestly I don't think it should be an eye for an eye. If malicious intent was involved, then the wronged should be able to choose the punishment of the perpertrator, as long as it is within reasonable limits. That right there is perfect justice. 

I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by "institutionalized". Do you mean thrown in jail? You can't throw people in jail if they don't commit any crimes. Do you mean he should've been commited in a mental institution? Well, if he has mental problems, then it's obviously not his fault, and he shouldn't be punished, but rather treated for his illness.

When you throw him in an institutionor in jail did you prevent his doing terrible things than when he is blind?

People are very resourceful. As long as they're not rehabilitated, to only sure way to make sure they don't commit a crime is to simply kill them.

In other cases, if you kill the motherfucker outright with chances are there of him doing anything wrong to others?

None. He's dead. Killing the people you don't like to make them go away... Why hasn't anyone come up with this ideea before?

Let me put it this way. It is really nice and great to sit on high and look on below and speak, but when shit happens to you, that is when you grow a real pair of balls and realize that there are just humans who should never be allowed to live in a society

Maybe there are such individuals. I doubt there's many of them. Most of the times they're just people with serious problems, but are described the way you said because no one can realise what their issues are. It's quite easy to just call someone PURE EVIL.

and special some should be punished by brutal torture (I don't believe in this hell shit they talk about in fairy tales, they need to suffer while alive for me to be happy) before being killed.

I do not want to live in a society where torture is considered an appropriate form of punishment. Why don't you go back in time and live in the Middle Ages. Guess that period would fit your worldview.

The whole "let's fix human society by locking away people even if they have commited inhuman acts" is EXTREMELY idealistic. It is the exact equivalent of me saying that communism works. Well I hate to break your fragile ignorant world, but it DOESN'T work, some are not worthy of being called a human, and it is laughable to think an institionalization as a punishment will actually do anything down the road. What kind of a deterent is it knowing you will be in an institutionalized? You have to appeal to much more basic things, like the instinct of survival, to these sub-humans so you can prevent crime.

First, you should wathc your tongue. There's no need to insult me. Won't make your argument any more comnvincing. As I said, your solution doesn't work either. Plus, the appropriate method for rehabilitation has not been found yet.

Another issue I was talking about is PREVENTING crime for happening, and the threat of violent punishment doesn't work. It never has (especially in the long term). The best way to solve this is to study the causes of what makes people commit a certain crime, and to try to eliminate it (which will result in long term success). Such behaviour is a sign that there's a problem within society, a problem that needs to be fixed. In order to fix it you need to find out what it is, and you won't be able to do that if you start killing and torturing people. Most people don't go around commiting crimes for no reason.

You're response is one fueled by emotion, and such a response is not appropriate for such a situation. In past threads I let my emotions get the best of me, and make claims such as yours. Such a response makes you no better than this guy. After all, he commited a crime of passion, fueled by his emotions, and even now he doesn't realsie that what he did was wrong. Similarly, you yourself don't see just how terrible and inhuman your views are.

Public hangings defeats my point? I even mentioned that only people in public executions would see the results, and therefore most would only hear of it by word of mouth. I defeated your counter argument before you even wrote it out. So there goes your counter-point.

You get to the crux of the problem. You can't just commit a person to jail without him committing a crime. If a person is mentally unstable, it is very much his fault nonetheless. If someone is harmful to society, for whatever reason, he is harmful to society. Mentla handicap does not absolve one from his crimes. Though it may mean that the purpose/intent of the crime may not have been as cruel.

I find it laughable that you equate murderers, rapists, and other such people with "people we don't like." Nice strawman fallacy you got going on there.

I was also not insulting you, I was just calling you idealistic and ignorant of human nature, because that is what you are. I was like that as well up until a little bit ago too, so there is nothng wrong with that, I don't feel like I was dumb or stupid back then. So I don't see why you feel insulted by that. Furthermore I would like to point out that this isn't just emotions speaking. What seperates our species from others is that we can function as a social group to achieve great things. Cheetahs run fast, lions can kill easily, bears are large and strong, humans work in a society. If someone can't function in society and is outright damaging to it, murderers and rapists obviously fall in this category, then those individuals can't be counted as human. Therefore killing them is no more inhumane than killing the bear/lion/dog/whatever that killed another human. Also, torture is only for those especially heinous crimes like child rape and murder. Those people deserve to experience the most excrutiating pain imaginable for what they did, and then die. Those types of people are lower than absolutely any living being, an ddeserve to be treated as such.

Edit: Torture is actually much milder than what most people believe will happen. Most people believe in eternal agony, being reincarnated as a worm, or other forms of eternal agony. I don't believe in fairy tales, so I want that eternal punishment to be exacted while the person is still alive. On the bright side, it isn't all eterntiy, just a few days, then it's over. So in fact I am much nicer than the majority of people on Earth.

Eye for an eye and the whole world is blind...

If I was a sociopath who wanted to hurt someone, then making me blind would do little to deter me. And there are always ways to cause damage or hurt someone, even if you're blind.

However, providing psychiatric treatment to the person will break their sociopathis behaviour. It may be hard, they may try to resist like you say. But being persistent with the help will mean that one day they will be less dangerous.

Look at prison reform in the 18th and 19th centuries. Prison was a place of mental and physical torture, yet reoffending rates were through the roof. Back then people would have their identity stripped and were forced to perform manual repetitive tasks that kept them exhausted and in constant pain. Why would anyone want to go back to that? It was because when they were released from prison they were still in the same position as before. They didn't want to go back, but they couldn't change their behaviour.

The reformers found that to stop reoffending the cycle had to be broken, which is not accomplished by punishing. If a person was reoffending ebcause he couldn't hold a job, then you would teach them a practical skill in prison that they could use when released. If a person had a mental issue that drove them to crime then you did all you could to correct that issue so it didn't cause them to reoffend later on.

I agree with everything you say, for all lesser crimes. There are however some crimes that are simply undeserving of any form of reform.

@vlad321:

Public hangings defeats my point? I even mentioned that only people in public executions would see the results, and therefore most would only hear of it by word of mouth. I defeated your counter argument before you even wrote it out. So there goes your counter-point.

You really didn't defeat my counter-argument at all. When you mention public executions, you're looking at them as the executions carried out today (private events, were only a few people are present). Back when such barbaric forms of punishment (which are essentially fetishized) were practiced they were a public even where everyone gathered around to watch (sort of like sports games). Also, they took place on a local level, so the whole community would view such a thing. Everyone had a clear image of the punishment omne would recieve. My point still stands.

You get to the crux of the problem. You can't just commit a person to jail without him committing a crime. If a person is mentally unstable, it is very much his fault nonetheless.If someone is harmful to society, for whatever reason, he is harmful to society. Mentla handicap does not absolve one from his crimes. Though it may mean that the purpose/intent of the crime may not have been as cruel.

O_O This is probably one of the most disturbing paragraphs I've read in a while. If a person suffers for mental illness it is not their fault (I've enver heard of a person intentionally making themselves go insane) and they are not responsable for their actions. Any psychiatrist would agree to this. It's just pure ignorance to ignore this (LOL).

I find it laughable that you equate murderers, rapists, and other such people with "people we don't like." Nice strawman fallacy you got going on there.

Really not a straw man argument. It's quite easy to label people as "evil" and wash your hands of them, rather than trying to understand them.

I was also not insulting you, I was just calling you idealistic and ignorant of human nature, because that is what you are.I was like that as well up until a little bit ago too, so there is nothng wrong with that, I don't feel like I was dumb or stupid back then. So I don't see why you feel insulted by that.

What understanding of human nature do you have?

Furthermore I would like to point out that this isn't just emotions speaking. What seperates our species from others is that we can function as a social group to achieve great things. Cheetahs run fast, lions can kill easily, bears are large and strong, humans work in a society. If someone can't function in society and is outright damaging to it, murderers and rapists obviously fall in this category, then those individuals can't be counted as human. Therefore killing them is no more inhumane than killing the bear/lion/dog/whatever that killed another human. Also, torture is only for those especially heinous crimes like child rape and murder. Those people deserve to experience the most excrutiating pain imaginable for what they did, and then die. Those types of people are lower than absolutely any living being, an ddeserve to be treated as such.

O_O Disturbing... Your reasoning is largely fueled by emotion and irrational beliefs. It's also like something out of the Old Testament. Your post clearly indicates that you enjoy torturing, and are probably a sociopath yourself. I hope one day you'll look back and be as terrified of what you said as I am now.

Edit: Torture is actually much milder than what most people believe will happen. Most people believe in eternal agony, being reincarnated as a worm, or other forms of eternal agony. I don't believe in fairy tales, so I want that eternal punishment to be exacted while the person is still alive. On the bright side, it isn't all eterntiy, just a few days, then it's over. So in fact I am much nicer than the majority of people on Earth.

No one deserves torture. Sorry.