US Officials: Human Rights an "irritant"

[Mr. Pedantic]

I find this view very interesting given the United States' stance on the PRC's opinion of human rights.

My initial point raised, was that people found guilty (before or after a trial) shouldn't have any rights to hold on to, especially if their crime is a serious one. Maybe I've jumped the gun a bit where trials are concerned, on that note I'd go back and focus on my first post. Why should murderers and rapists (who are going guilty in court) proceed to have any rights?

This presumes that you know for absolute surety that the offender cannot, or will not, in the future become rehabilitated; that is, after all, what parole is for.

This also means that if someone committed such a crime, they are, by definition, no longer human in a moral or legal sense. If that is the case, then the law no longer applies, or applies differently. Notwithstanding the question of who gave you the authority to pronounce people as sub-human, or to kill. Other people who do that usually go to the Hague, to be tried for war crimes.

[Embee]

I think few countries, maybe none, respect the Human Rights and find it "irritating" too. From France with the Roms (the irony, France, which's considered the country of the Human Rights), passing by USA, Israel, many Arab countries, and (sadly) even my own country which I'm attached to: Turkey.

There's a dark spot on every country's Human Rights paper, and they'll use it whenever it suits them, or is beneficial to them.

[Joe Bonham]

Originally Posted by Alakazam

It still remains laughable that people post negative rep without leaving their name. What you so scared about? Revenge Repping? Afraid that's not allowed, so don't go crying about it.

There will be always be dipshits arounds. Don't worry about them.

With respect, if someone had set another person up with video footage, there's a chance that they'd be able to control the trial too.

Which is true - all the more reason to make sure the judicial process has as many checks and balances and safety nets as possible. If we take short cuts like you seem to be suggesting, I.E., jumping to the conclusion that someone is guilty without due process, then we are making it that much easier for a tyrant to frame and punish people he doesn't like.

Regardless;My initial point raised, was that people found guilty (before or after a trial) shouldn't have any rights to hold on to, especially if their crime is a serious one. Maybe I've jumped the gun a bit where trials are concerned, on that note I'd go back and focus on my first post. Why should murderers and rapists (who are going guilty in court) proceed to have any rights?

Murder... maybe. Rape? DEFINITELY NOT. Our definition of "rape" is so politically motivated that a lot of "sex offenders" really aren't by any rational standard. Hell, Julian Assange (wikileaks guy) is being persecuted for supposedly "raping" two women - despite the fact he slept with them both multiple times and even lived in one of the girl's apartment (and sleeping in her bed) for weeks after he supposedly assaulted her. Not exactly typical behavior for evil rapists.

[Nemmerle]

Originally Posted by Alakazam

@ Mihali and Nem, ignore what I've said in regards to trials. Obviously wasn't thinking straight; carried away with the moment. Specifically though, people who are found guilty of serious offences still have their 'human rights' in many cases, when I don't think they deserve to have them.

It is those who I believe should be shot.

'Deserve' is not a term that the law should ever invoke. Many believe that you and I deserve to die for our violation of some religious law or cultural precept - I personally believe that people who speed consistently deserve to die. I'm not kidding there, they put lives at risk for their impatience, I'd kill them all. If everyone who deserved to die, according to some account or other, got killed, then there wouldn't be a person left alive.

You kill people when you have to, to achieve an aim - it's not something you do just because you don't have any further use for a person or because they violate something you hold dear; it's not something that should be done effectively out of hand.

There are good reasons for killing murderers and rapists - in specific ways under specific constructions of the legal system - but you can't just pass a free rule on the basis of what they deserve. We all deserve to die in someone's eyes.

[Joe Bonham]

Many people (Famously Ghandi) regard and hold "eye for an eye" as an example of a shocking and barbaric system. Actually for that time period, eye for an eye was a revolutionary concept that influenced justice systems up to this day.

It's all about consistency, equal standards, and PROPORTIONALITY. It doesn't matter what the guy "deserves". He committed a certain crime which merits a certain punishment.

[Flash525]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic

This presumes that you know for absolute surety that the offender cannot, or will not, in the future become rehabilitated; that is, after all, what parole is for.

Whilst true, why should it be allowed? Because it's 'right' or 'justified'?

Imagine someone you know is killed (on purpose) by another. There was no reason behind said crime, it just happened because somebody decided to kill someone close to you. Would you be happy with the knowledge that this person would one day be back out on the streets, living the free live (whether cured or not). Knowing that someone close to you lost their life because of this individual? I think not.

Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic

This also means that if someone committed such a crime, they are, by definition, no longer human in a moral or legal sense.

You're damn right. People know the difference between right and wrong at an early age. It is the choice of said individual how they choose to live out their life. If their choice is to intentionally kill another, and they are found guilty of said crime, they should be given no quarter, and instead meet the same fate as their victim. Period.

Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic

Notwithstanding the question of who gave you the authority to pronounce people as sub-human, or to kill. Other people who do that usually go to the Hague, to be tried for war crimes.

Death in War is different. I'm not here to discuss that. That's a different sub-topic that we can get into later if you deem it necessary. As for who gives me (or anyone else) the right to label a killer sub-human, in my opinion, the killer has already given themselves that very label the minute they decided to go and kill someone in cold blood.

Originally Posted by Joe Bonham

Which is true - all the more reason to make sure the judicial process has as many checks and balances and safety nets as possible.

Whilst I can't argue your point here (you've got good reasons), personally if I believe someone wants to get someone put down for good, they'll get it done, no matter the evidence, trials, charges ect. If they've got the resources and power behind them, it'll be possible to convict the most innocent of people.

Originally Posted by Joe Bonham

Our definition of "rape" is so politically motivated that a lot of "sex offenders" really aren't by any rational standard.

This and what else you said on the context of rape I cannot argue with. Seems rape is one of those topics that you can't be sure about anymore; like the boy who cried wolf.

That being said though, trials would no doubt determine 'actual' rapists from those who may not be as guilty as others state them to be?

Originally Posted by Nemmerle

'Deserve' is not a term that the law should ever invoke. Many believe that you and I deserve to die for our violation of some religious law or cultural precept - I personally believe that people who speed consistently deserve to die. I'm not kidding there, they put lives at risk for their impatience, I'd kill them all. If everyone who deserved to die, according to some account or other, got killed, then there wouldn't be a person left alive.

Whilst your point stands strong, there are lines to be drawn. There are different levels with this. Humanity (as a whole) would probably agree that murder is a very bad thing, whereas breaking a religious law wouldn't be considered as bad by as many people.

That being, unless you're a catholic priest. Bet a few laws have been broken there.

Originally Posted by Nemmerle

You kill people when you have to, to achieve an aim - it's not something you do just because you don't have any further use for a person or because they violate something you hold dear; it's not something that should be done effectively out of hand.

If you're suggesting we use them for other purposes then we can merely use other prisoners instead. We've got a whole bunch of minor offenders that are quite capable of getting such a job done.

Originally Posted by Nemmerle

There are good reasons for killing murderers and rapists - in specific ways under specific constructions of the legal system - but you can't just pass a free rule on the basis of what they deserve.

I don't think the most serious of offenders should be given any chance of a... second chance. How many times have we heard of murderers who have been caught, had their trial (and found guilty), taken a trip to prison only to be released early due to good behaviour and having been rehabilitated, only for that very person to go and kill someone else.

If you get rid of them in the first place, then that second (or third, fourth, fifth person ect) wont lose their lives. I also believe that if people knew a death penalty was implemented, it would deter more people from committing such acts. Not sure what the rates are in the US, but I sure expect it would make a difference here in the UK. Not just for murder, but other crimes too.

Originally Posted by Nemmerle

We all deserve to die in someone's eyes.

Whilst true, following a majority vote via a trial can be a quicker way to meet this result, especially for someone who has committed such an act.

[Mr. Pedantic]

Whilst true, why should it be allowed? Because it's 'right' or 'justified'?

Imagine someone you know is killed (on purpose) by another. There was no reason behind said crime, it just happened because somebody decided to kill someone close to you. Would you be happy with the knowledge that this person would one day be back out on the streets, living the free live (whether cured or not). Knowing that someone close to you lost their life because of this individual? I think not.

If it was done for absolutely no reason at all, then there's not much chance it could happen again, could it?

Also, what good would killing the perpetrator do, as compared to say, life imprisonment or rehabilitation?

Also: Appeal to emotion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're damn right. People know the difference between right and wrong at an early age. It is the choice of said individual how they choose to live out their life. If their choice is to intentionally kill another, and they are found guilty of said crime, they should be given no quarter, and instead meet the same fate as their victim. Period.

No they don't. Children have to be taught how to share, how to be kind to other children, even though most of us would think it's 'right'. And how does an eye for an eye solve anything?

Death in War is different. I'm not here to discuss that. That's a different sub-topic that we can get into later if you deem it necessary.

Why? I don't think the murdered person would very much care for the distinction.

As for who gives me (or anyone else) the right to label a killer sub-human, in my opinion, the killer has already given themselves that very label the minute they decided to go and kill someone in cold blood.

No, they haven't. They are still human.

On a related note, what about manslaughter? Accidents? Do they also result in loss of said humanity, in your book?

Whilst I can't argue your point here (you've got good reasons), personally if I believe someone wants to get someone put down for good, they'll get it done, no matter the evidence, trials, charges ect. If they've got the resources and power behind them, it'll be possible to convict the most innocent of people.

Yeah. They get a knife, or a gun. They go to the person's house. And then...well. You know what happens next.

Whilst your point stands strong, there are lines to be drawn. There are different levels with this. Humanity (as a whole) would probably agree that murder is a very bad thing, whereas breaking a religious law wouldn't be considered as bad by as many people.

That being, unless you're a catholic priest. Bet a few laws have been broken there.

We don't live in a black and white world. What if the murder saved the killing of 3, or 4, or 20 others? What if that religious crime resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands?

And why would we have religious laws in the first place?

I don't think the most serious of offenders should be given any chance of a... second chance. How many times have we heard of murderers who have been caught, had their trial (and found guilty), taken a trip to prison only to be released early due to good behaviour and having been rehabilitated, only for that very person to go and kill someone else.

Because the media is a completely fair outlet and tries its very best to make its stories of the prison population and their reintegration into society as representative and objective as possible.

If you get rid of them in the first place, then that second (or third, fourth, fifth person ect) wont lose their lives. I also believe that if people knew a death penalty was implemented, it would deter more people from committing such acts. Not sure what the rates are in the US, but I sure expect it would make a difference here in the UK. Not just for murder, but other crimes too.

But then you've murdered someone as well.

Whilst true, following a majority vote via a trial can be a quicker way to meet this result, especially for someone who has committed such an act.

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Flash525]

First and foremost:

Originally Posted by Alakazam

It still remains laughable that people post negative rep without leaving their name. What you so scared about? Revenge Repping? Afraid that's not allowed, so don't go crying about it.

Obviously people feel the need to hide themselves when giving out negative rep. Why?

Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic

If it was done for absolutely no reason at all, then there's not much chance it could happen again, could it?

Well, yes, actually. If someone wanted to kill another person at random, what is there to stop that murderer doing it time and time again?

Even if it wasn't at random, and there was a reason for doing it, the idea that you'd have a killer walking the streets doesn't seem ideal to me. For that purpose, and rephrased for you:

Originally Posted by Alakazam

Imagine someone you know is killed (on purpose) by another. There was a petty reason behind said crime. Would you be happy with the knowledge that this person would one day be back out on the streets, living the free live (whether cured or not). Knowing that someone close to you lost their life because of this individual? I think not.

Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic

Also, what good would killing the perpetrator do, as compared to say, life imprisonment or rehabilitation?

Firstly, life imprisonment is a perfectly good waste of money for someone like that. I'd rather pay to make sure said person never harmed again, than I would to pay for them to have meals, a gym, and a bed to sleep in at night.

Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic

No they don't. Children have to be taught how to share, how to be kind to other children, even though most of us would think it's 'right'.

In the day and age where the average adult is capable of killing another, they know the difference between right and wrong.

Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic

And how does an eye for an eye solve anything?

It gets rid of a problem.

Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic

Why? I don't think the murdered person would very much care for the distinction.

In war, you are sent into combat with a certianty to kill someone. It's your job. You aren't attacking random people for no apparent reason. You're fighting them for their beliefs, because they oppose you by defending their country. It's a completely different conversation.

Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic

No, they haven't. They are still human.

Yet they don't deserve to be.

Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic

On a related note, what about manslaughter? Accidents? Do they also result in loss of said humanity, in your book?

Accidents aren't an attempt on at killing another person, hence the word accident; that being something that isn't done on purpose. I don't see how the two would compare. You can't kill a man because he killed another unintentionally.

Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic

Yeah. They get a knife, or a gun. They go to the person's house. And then...well. You know what happens next.

And you know this... how? You're looking at it in very simple terms.

Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic

We don't live in a black and white world. What if the murder saved the killing of 3, or 4, or 20 others?

Then it would have been a murder with the purpose of protecting others, and not an outright cold blooded killer.

Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic

What if that religious crime resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands?

What crime are you on about?

Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic

And why would we have religious laws in the first place?

Maybe 'laws' was the wrong choice of word to use.

Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic

Because the media is a completely fair outlet and tries its very best to make its stories of the prison population and their reintegration into society as representative and objective as possible.

Yet the stories are true. Such stories have happened. My point stands.

Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic

But then you've murdered someone as well.

To save future lives.

Realistically, we can continue this until the end of time. My opinion on the matter is not going to change. In said opinion, I believe that anyone found guilty of a simple cold-blooded killing of another person shouldn't have the privilege of continuing with their own life. Once they've killed, they don't deserve to live themselves, and as such, should do society a favour and hang themselves, or have somebody shoot them.

[Nemmerle]

Originally Posted by Alakazam

Whilst your point stands strong, there are lines to be drawn. There are different levels with this. Humanity (as a whole) would probably agree that murder is a very bad thing, whereas breaking a religious law wouldn't be considered as bad by as many people.

That being, unless you're a catholic priest. Bet a few laws have been broken there.

Humanity as a whole is more inclined to do nothing than something - so bad people always get ahead in some form or another because they're willing to act. Lives have been ruined even after people have been found innocent because the few who think that person is guilty anyway are prepared to act on that assumption whereas those who don't think he is tend not to care.

It wouldn't be humanity as a whole deciding what was bad enough to kill someone over - it would be the loud-mouths.

Originally Posted by Alakazam

If you're suggesting we use them for other purposes then we can merely use other prisoners instead. We've got a whole bunch of minor offenders that are quite capable of getting such a job done.

I'm saying that you need a good reason to kill them, something in service of a higher goal. You need to decide what the law is for.

Is the law there to take a pound of flesh from nearest the heart; to hurt and murder and take vengeance? In which case who's vengeance? And how then can you condemn the abuses of the past, or guard against future abuses?

OR

Is it to minimise harm in society, or maximise individual freedoms, or.... Much more practical goals.

And then you aim every law you make at that higher law you have decided upon.

You do not simply destroy someone because they deserve it - that is to aim beneath the standard of the law rather than above it. Anyone can use the argument that they deserved it - even the rapist or the murderer. And appeal to what society thinks of as deserved does little to mitigate the problem. Sixty years or so ago your wife had to sign over all her property to you upon marriage, and it was legally impossible to rape her. That is not to say that she could not be raped, simply that it was not a crime for you to do so.

I can see us going back to that way of thinking all too easily, or to worse ways of thinking, and to lay down a precedent that would leave the law open to such abuses is not wise.

Originally Posted by Alakazam

I don't think the most serious of offenders should be given any chance of a... second chance. How many times have we heard of murderers who have been caught, had their trial (and found guilty), taken a trip to prison only to be released early due to good behaviour and having been rehabilitated, only for that very person to go and kill someone else.

I don't know. How many have we?

Originally Posted by Alakazam

If you get rid of them in the first place, then that second (or third, fourth, fifth person ect) wont lose their lives. I also believe that if people knew a death penalty was implemented, it would deter more people from committing such acts. Not sure what the rates are in the US, but I sure expect it would make a difference here in the UK. Not just for murder, but other crimes too.

See you're already extending it. First we kill the murderers, then we kill people who've committed other crimes, then the drug dealers, then we kill people who sell a bit of weed, then we kill the people who smoke the weed, then we kill the next door neighbour because his dog pissed on your lawn.

Originally Posted by Alakazam

Whilst true, following a majority vote via a trial can be a quicker way to meet this result, especially for someone who has committed such an act.

Democracy rarely generates good results. The jury system in this country is a joke. You have people up there who don't know the law, or evidence procedures; being grandstanded to by lawyers who are doing their level best not to tell them any of those things.

I would never want those morons to have the power of life and death. The legal system needs to be seriously reformed before I'd support the death sentence.

Frankly lawyers and judges make such a lot of money off of the legal system being messed up that I don't think it ever will be. - Ever will be fixed that is.

[Mr. Pedantic]

Well, yes, actually. If someone wanted to kill another person at random, what is there to stop that murderer doing it time and time again?

Even if it wasn't at random, and there was a reason for doing it, the idea that you'd have a killer walking the streets doesn't seem ideal to me. For that purpose, and rephrased for you:

Well, there are recidivist drunk drivers walking around every day. Should we kill them too? "For the greater good"?

Firstly, life imprisonment is a perfectly good waste of money for someone like that. I'd rather pay to make sure said person never harmed again, than I would to pay for them to have meals, a gym, and a bed to sleep in at night.

So you're willing to kill someone you have never met...because someone else has killed someone?

In the day and age where the average adult is capable of killing another, they know the difference between right and wrong.

Average adults were always capable of killing one another. And no, they don't.

It gets rid of a problem.

And puts another in its place.

In war, you are sent into combat with a certianty to kill someone. It's your job. You aren't attacking random people for no apparent reason. You're fighting them for their beliefs, because they oppose you by defending their country. It's a completely different conversation.

No, you're fighting them because someone else told you to. Logically murderer stands on firmer ground because the soldier has no reason by himself to kill the other person; and the reasoning that they'd kill you is invalid.

Yet they don't deserve to be.

Why?

Accidents aren't an attempt on at killing another person, hence the word accident; that being something that isn't done on purpose. I don't see how the two would compare. You can't kill a man because he killed another unintentionally.

Again, I doubt the dead person cares for the difference.

Then it would have been a murder with the purpose of protecting others, and not an outright cold blooded killer.

It would have been cold-blooded; but that's beside the point. Again, I don't think the dead person cares much for the difference. Dead is dead.

What crime are you on about?

All this was purely hypothetical of course, but it's not unrealistic, nor was it unheard of.

Yet the stories are true. Such stories have happened. My point stands.

That's like saying that many people with motor vehicles kill and injure others, therefore we should ban all motor vehicles.

To save future lives.

Dead is still dead. What makes one person's life more worth saving than another? The guy hasn't even committed the crime yet.

Realistically, we can continue this until the end of time. My opinion on the matter is not going to change. In said opinion, I believe that anyone found guilty of a simple cold-blooded killing of another person shouldn't have the privilege of continuing with their own life. Once they've killed, they don't deserve to live themselves, and as such, should do society a favour and hang themselves, or have somebody shoot them.

But someone being killed because the government said so is good?