Since there is a lack of debates as of late I just thought I'd throw out this question and see what happens.
In my opinion, the ends always justify the means. These 'means' are usually acts that are seen as negative based on a flawed code of morals, but the ends outweigh the 'negativity' needed to get there. The only reason people would see the means as being negative is because it works against their own moral code which favors emotion over logic. As we look back in history, we see examples of "Ends Justify Means" perfectly. The Oda clan of Japan was known to burn down holy temples, burn down settlements with innocents still inside, and overall the most brutal of the other warring clans. Their end was a unified Japan, and it worked.
What do you think? Do the ends always justify the means? If not, in what kind of situation?
Always? All the time? Sometimes? Not at all? Maybe. Yes. No. Sometimes today, and sometimes tomorrow, but none the next day? Always sometimes, but not all the times when it's other times? Maybe sometimes today, but not at all the next week.
Depends on whether or not the means will undermine the ends. Most of the time? Yes, the ends justify the means.
But let's say your End is to get a cup of water cuz you're kind of thirsty, and there's a line of 12 innocent little orphans in front of you hogging all the water. Killing the orphans will get you past the line and your cup of water, but your end hardly justifies your means.
Now, let's say that you had a horribly deadly virus that was going to be spread by those 12 innocent orphans, who were secretly infected. In this case, to stop the disease from spreading, it is an acceptable means to burn each of those orphans into little piles of orphan ash, as the importance of the End is far more important than the means needed to get there.
That question sucks since it depends on the situation, but no, ends don't justify the means. A country where your people are rulers and happy doesn't justify eradicating the Slavs and gassing 6 trillion jews.
Funny that you mention this, I participated in a debate tournament in high school where the resolution for my event asked if the United States' intervention in the Middle East was justified. It basically boiled down to pro taking a "The ends justify the means" stance (for the life of me I can't remember the philosophic idea we used) while the Neg claimed that the substantial damage was too costly to overlook (the neg views were a lot more varied than that, but this was the most common).
At the end of it, after I researched both sides and debated them both, I realized that if you're looking at it from a moral standpoint, then really looking at the ends and the means is entirely useless. If you look at it at one side, it shows that there was severe devastation, innocent lives were lost, and entire countries were left with a severely damaged economy and an oppresive nation playing The Sims with their politics. If you look at the other, you see that a commander won't always know that there are civilians in the area, or he won't mean for a certain building to be destroyed, or sometimes you're left with the fact that if they didn't commit the actions then a much worse action would be committed (Like the atomic bombings in Japan).
In the end, I find that if you want to look at what's morally correct then you have to look at it from an analysis of intent rather than results. Was it a moral action to bomb a building containing only civilians? Well that depends, did the commander ordering the strike know that there were civilians or was he told there were only soldiers? Was it moral for the soldiers to outlaw public expression in an occupied city? Well that depends, was the intent to oppress their rights or to keep public unrest at a minimum? In the end it's still difficult to determine morality, but it makes it slighlty more possible to define a moral action from an immoral action, even if you still have to go by a case-by-case basis.
If you're looking at it pragmatically, then you have no choice but to weigh the ends versus the means, this is just my moral view on it.
Existentialism would say yes.
Usually people who vote for the Moral side are focused on the hindsight that they have while the people who go with the Ends side understand that the people who committed the act didn't always know everything that would happen.
At least, that's how I've always seen it. But I say if the Means could not have been done in a 'visually' better way then it was acceptable. By visually I mean one that the acting persons knew about and could have acted upon instead of the easier way.
My only answer :
Ethics And Moral Value vs. Physical Value.
Depends how utilitarian I'm feeling at the time.
Really, it depends on the situation.
Lets say a transvestite prostitute took your cash and then changed her face with said cash. There are 7 transvestite prostitutes on your block right now.
Would you really be able to kill as many of them as possible to find it?
Jesus, I sound like Jigsaw...
That's an example of not worth it.
Now, if it took the cure for every major disease in the world that people have worked years on and some have died for, then it would be worth killing for.
You never laid out a scenario for us but if you were to kill 100 people so you can save your mother for example, no the Ends do no justify the mean.
You also talk about how the Oda clan unified Japan by there actions, well first, Oda Nobunaga was killed shorty after. This led the shogun being taking over by Hideyoshi. So yeah....
There is an old saying, "Nobunaga pounded the rice cake (by beating Japan into submission), Hideyoshi shaped it (took over after Oda), and Iedayasu ate it (he's a pig)".
The scenario I meant to put out was if the ends is beneficial long term wise, does it matter how it is done. Say one would seek to bring about change that would help their country establish peace, would that not justify going to war and fighting for it. Because the fact is, real change doesn't come without some sort of bloodshed, thus you wage war for peace if that makes sense to you.
Bloodshed might be effective, but that doesn't make it right.
Depends on the people. Would you refuse to kill 100 Hitlers?
Depends on the situation. Do I have power to imprison them? Can i rewrite there minds? Can I banish them from anywhere that will hurt someone?
Imprisonment is pointless when you could just end it right then and there. It would be better off if we just killed off prisoners for certain crimes instead of wasting tax payer money to feed them.
"wasting tax payer money" .....
Ever thought that these people are still people no matter what they have done.... If we become them then we have dealt no justice. Hitler should of been put in jail and lived his life there.
"An eye for an eye, will make the whole world blind"
It's amusing that you consider the fact that these are people to be I any way relevant to the situation. Human life has no inherent value; society is founded on the idea of mutual illusion - with life having some value so that we can gain protection from one another (hence murder being illegal, theft being illegal, etc... If everyone can murder and steal, probability dictates you're likely to be one of the victims).
When someone breaks this contract, they by consequence lose the protection that this contract offers. Therefore your life loses its illusory value, and your death becomes acceptable.
Also, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"? Really? That overr-used old adage? That's bullshit, fear of repercussion (by the above) is what keeps society in check, if you didn't take an eye for every time someone else took an eye, then what you have are idiots who let the big guys rip their eyes out for fun and no one who does anything about it. Pacifism is idiocy of the highest order.
You're bringing the "contract" concept of morality in the table and accuse "an eye for an eye would make the whole world blind" as old?
And no, a man who steals (breaks the law) to support his driving family shouldn't be executed. A mind-fucked serial killer should though... slowly
So what do you do if that man had killed others to support his sick and hungry family in a backwater part of the country? What would you do then?
I said stealing, simply stealing. If he went and killed innocent people who were only doing their job to support their families, then he is another scum
If he killed other people while he was stealing the food/medicince/ect to save his sick children and feed his starving family and if you executed him or threw him into prison then most of his family would die.
What do you do then? (Obviously excluding welfare system answers)
You say: "Hey kids, don't be a retard like your father"
Backwater country with no welfare, they are also sick and will die without the meds you can steal for them. But you have to kill a person or two to get those meds.
Does saving your children+family justify killing those people because they wouldn't help you and tried to stop you?
You really haven't answered the question yet Drako.
Wasn't it clear? I already said that the moment he killed innocent people who were working for their families, he did a wrong thing
The contract is correct, and an entirely different beast to the worthless "Eye for an eye" adage.
Well even then I only find capital punishment justified for murder, and that's after a significant period of time has passed so we can ensure that they actually did it and the wrong man wasn't imprisoned for the crime.
I don't agree with you but that is certainly better than saying "Kill them so we don't waste tax payer money"
No arguments there, we don't want to execute the wrong person.
As to what Mad said, they are in fact still people. They are people who are willing to take the lives of others and leave scars that may never heal. Those people don't deserve their lives and so it will be doing the world a favor to eliminate them. And don't give me that whole, "It will make us lose what makes us human" because that is stupid. What makes us human is our anatomy, not our morals.
There are some people who actually go to prison because of the free food and housing, so they just break a few laws just to get in. I don't see how you don't think it's a waste of money. I also believe it is a good deterrent to other law breakers.
"It will make us lose what makes us human"
First, I never said that. But what I did say was killing them makes us as bad as them. All you are doing is adding another family that is going to mourn. They deserve justice and in this day and age that means prison.
Personally I think it's pathetic you don't want to pay for prison but whatever...
First off, you claim this is solely because I don't want to pay for prison. Untrue, otherwise I would have said to just kill all prisoners. I only stated to kill those based on their crime. You took what I said without looking at the context. I told you not to say "It will make us lose what makes us human", never did I say you said it yourself.
Second, killing them doesn't make us as bad as them. If we execute a murderer, who has already killed a large amount of people, how are we anything like that? He has killed those who have committed no crime, we aren't killing an innocent man. If you execute a terrorist leader who is responsible for a few hundred deaths, how are we anything like him?
Finally it's not just a matter of not wanting to pay for prison, because never did I say anything along the lines of "Prison is useless and we should just kill all prisoners".
"Crime indicates a diseased mind in the same manner that sickness and pain do a diseased body. And as in the one case we provide hospitals for the treatment of severe and contagious diseases, so in the other, prisons and asylums should be provided for similar reasons".
I'll provide my own quotes then.
"The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the most brutal wrongdoer." - Theodore Roosevelt
“I think people would be alive today if there were a death penalty.” - Nancy Davis Raegan
“I support the death penalty because I believe, if administered swiftly and justly, capital punishment is a deterrent against future violence and will save other innocent lives." - George Bush
Mentally ill can just be an excuse. There are rapists who will openly admit that they do what they do because they enjoy it. There are murderers who kill people because they simply feel that they can. And do realize that many of these murderers were just ordinary people before they started killing, but it doesn't mean they should be excused from capital punishment.
Oh yeah, Pacifism is utter idiocy.
Only quote there worth listening to is the George Bush one so i shall reply to that.
http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/student/c/about/arguments/argument1b.htm is a good read.
Also I saw a good doc about a jail guy who would watch the exucutions and say when they were to be done, he now suffors from depression and had thoughts of suicide. Fact is that exucution only adds more victims and if someone is a psycopath then they will not give a fuck about being killed.
"Imposition of the death penalty is arbitrary and capricious. Decision of who will live and who will die for his crime turns less on the nature of the offense and the incorrigibility of the offender and more on inappropriate and indefensible considerations: the political and personal inclinations of prosecutors; the defendant's wealth, race and intellect; the race and economic status of the victim; the quality of the defendant's counsel; and the resources allocated to defense lawyers."
-Gerald Heaney, former appellate judge
"To take a life when a life has been lost is revenge, not justice."
Of course a psychopath cares about being killed, everyone cares about being killed.
Also, stop using quotes to be your entire argument, if you can't rely on your own words and reasoning then you have nothing to begin with. Appealing to authority just makes you look weak.
So I guess you'll just disregard the other two despite that they make sense, or perhaps too much sense.
As to the second, criminals who get out of jail will often just go back to the life of crime they had before. This is why there is the system that keeps them inside. If they were just executed, it would no longer be a problem. Earlier you mentioned banish them. To where exactly? How would that solve the problem? You'd just dump them in another spot so they can cause trouble there?
As to the first, pacifism is the issue. You see someone who takes lives and are not willing to do the most logical act to solve the problem quickly and efficiently. In the end not killing a killer is causing more harm then good.
When i said "Banish them" i was referring to how the poster didn't write the scenario so i was listing what was to be done depending on the situation.
If you kill a killer...you will become a killer yourself.
Irrelevent, the intent when killing is what matters, not the act in and of itself.
You probably saved a life?
Yes! But you have to kill a life to save a life.
I just love how people use mentally ill as a defence. So saying that it wasn't something that just happened, but you are a crazy fuck who did it for no reason and did it again means you shouldn't be punished. Go figure.
Well, that's why they get stuck in mental hospitals.
Yes, let's pay even more money to treat a dangerous nuttjob
They're sick. In the head, that is! Bwahahhahahah!
Your point being?
We shouldn't waste our money on those- mentally fuck up idiots!
If your disease is a danger to society then you would be best killed than let to live and continue what makes you so dangerous.
Well then come to my house and kill my sister and saves us all...
Is your sister a psychopathic killer? If so, then yes, she should die.
Does your sister have a genetically passed-on disease that will ruin the life of whatever children she has (if they get it)? She should be euthanized.
Does she have a highly infectious disease that will kill her? End her now, so that she does not make others suffer.
1. Maybe one day....
2. No but jeez really? You would do that....
3.No but again really.....wow
EDIT: Wait, no, had that off (I didn't mean euthanized for number 2, I meant sterilized. Always mix the two up. No need to kill her if it's only genetic).
What, do you think i'm being unreasonable? If she's a murderer then she has (as I stated above) forfeited the protection offered by her societal contract.
If she will ruin the lives of any children (and indeed her entire family line, and the family line of whoever she decides to marry) then she should not be allowed to have children, especially when she could easily adopt or get a surrogate. Idiotic to pass on your defects.
If she has a highly infectious disease that will kill her anyway, why give the disease a chance to spread? Why keep it alive for the sake of someone who will likely be suffering anyway? Why not just kill them then and there and save many others (especially any loved ones) who risk everything just by being near her?
There are a lot of people who are suffering yet still want to live. I'm not entirely certain you can make the decision for other people that their lives are not worth living.
(The slippery slope of sterilization is of course, where do you draw the line at what is considered a defect?)
Also, there are definitely people who would argue in favor of desiring to pass on their genetic characterstics to their children, even if some of them could be harmful. It's better to have existed for a while, than never to have existed at all.
Some people would argue that life is necessarily preferable to non-life. That even if it's painful and sad and too short, it was better than non-existence.
Oh, and afaik, there's substantially more evidence on the side of "capital punishment does nothing to deter crime from being committed."
Which makes logical sense: most people don't not commit crimes because they're afraid of the punishment. Most people don't commit crimes because they think they'll get caught. Punishment has nothing to do with it- it's likelihood of getting away with it.
Indeed, this doesn't change the fact that you have to pay for a crimincal to live. And let's be honest here, some people ought to be removed
P.S: What are the crime rates in countries with Shariah, where if you steal they cut your hand? Pretty sure it's lower
That's because capital punishment has so many restrictions that people don't worry about it. You could kill over twenty people and vicious ways and still get life in prison. If they were to extend capital punishment, it would in fact deter crimes.
And if your manhood was on the line...
It has been shown through history that countries that punish crimes more harshly tend to have lower crime rates. Just like countries where citizens have guns. I forget which, but one of the European countries took guns away from the citizens and surprise surprise, the crime rate increases.
Who would have thought that disarming the victims would encourage the criminals... that's crazy!
As I said, only if the disease is infectious, if you're the only one that suffers then it's your business, if there is a risk to others then it is no longer just you.
Oh, and as for the slippery slope - you draw the line at genetic diseases specifically. If you have huntingtons or parkinsons, for example, don't have kids and pass that on to future families.
I agree but as long as it is 100% certain that the child will be born with disabilities. So, do you think that if the fetus is diagnosed with a disease that will 100% harm it, that the woman should have an abortion?
I dunno, specifically regarding both Huntington's and Parkinson's, both allow life. Parkinson's tough, but one of the greatest people I knew had it, and he managed to have a worthwhile life, and Huntington's gives you some life. It's not that there's a limit to how many kids can be born per year.
And i'm not saying you should kill the guy who had a worthwile life with Parkinsons, just don't let him have any kids (because when he spreads that disease then there's a better chance that those people will live horrid lives than good ones).
Same with Huntingtons, you don't need kids to have a worthwhile life; it's not like i'm saying "euthanize em' all", just make sure they don't spread their defection to others.
Not everyone would agree that "you don't need kids to have a worthwhile life."
If having children is all that gives any sort of meaning to you then you are living a very disappointing life.
What about autism, retardation, etc? And what about carriers?
Dependant on severity (I don't care that there are "autistic savants", the majority of them suffer a much worse quality of life for their disease, what affects the many is more important than what affects the few).
There is little to be done about carriers (I don't think you can even detect it most of the time, no?).
Which genetic diseases? What about predisposition for cancer? What about schizophrenia? Alcoholism?
All of them (that are dangerous or will drastically reduce quality of life anyway), they are diseases and would be best eradicated.
Predisposition for cancer is not a genetically transmitted disease, it is a genetically transferred predisposition to a disease, same for schizophrenia. Chances of it manifesting are significantly lower than a strictly genetically transmitted disease.
Alcoholism is not genetic, it is based on environmental factors.
Alcoholism is genetic, mostly.
Not, it is not. Alcoholism runs through families because the children of said parents usually either have alcohol forced on them or are driven to drinking through bitterness (and very easy access). Environmental factors, not Genetic.
Also, looking it up, nothing says "Mostly", at the most I see "Half". And frankly, you can't blame genetics for everything, if you're a weak-willed fucker who gains an addiction to alcohol then that's your problem. It's like fat people complaining about how they are genetically fat, it's total crap. Sure, maybe they won't look like a freakin' supermodel but if they work out and don't shove 18 hamburgers a day down their throats they'll at least be at a healthy weight.
Genetics affect everything. Even killing. Doesn't mean it's a valid excuse for being one, ha ha.
I disagree with the last part. A quarantina can work just fine till a treatment is found. Would you wish to be executed in favor of others IF there is a realistic chance of a cure?
People always break quarantine. Unless it is in a managed, sterile hospital environment with air-sealed rooms and no physical contact with others, and the person is forcibly detained, then it is not safe.
You'll notice this as near identical to prison, and frankly, dying of a dangerous disease in the equivalent of prison does not sound like an experience worth going through to me.
And otherwise, you are dangerous.
But then there is always the chance of a cure and quarantines can and have worked... meh, I'm not settled on this
Who would sterilize the sister? The government?
Sure. It doesn't particularly matter who, just that it is done.
But it does. What gives the person authority in it? That sort of power could easily be abused.
Is your sister a murderer?
Yeh, I've heard Brad mention his sister being a psycho before, but I'm starting to wonder what exactly it is that's she's done now.
Suspicious isn't it?
She must've raped him. It'd explain some things.
Fuck you, this is a spiderman thread
4chan meme whenever incest comes up
Regarding the Death Penalty VS Life sentencing though, If I was a criminal I would much, much prefer the death penalty to life in prison. Life in prison would be horrible (growing significantly worse as you get to be too old to defend yourself) and a death would be a merciful end, if you really want them to suffer make them dredge out their existence in some of the shittiest places on earth. People say they would rather die quickly than be tortured to death, I maintain that prison is a form of prolonged torture.
On the other hand, if you're put on death row you usually have to wait decades before they execute you anyway.
A simple way of killing a prisoner while making them suffer is crucifixion. Crucifixion is not religious despite what many believe since it was done before Christ was even a thought. It was a capital punishment for those who committed high-level crimes and it would last from a few hours to days.
As you said, people don't like to suffer. It will decrease the crime rate as well.
Why do you think it's not a law? Because it's sick!
In the US, it would be the eighth amendment, no cruel or unusual punishment. Which basically means no crucifixion or brazen bulls :P
Do you agree with it?
In some ways, however this amendment is entirely up to interpretation. What I find is cruel and Drak finds are likely going to differ greatly. The amendment was made because they were used to a government that would resort to immediate punishment with barely any trial, so they were putting this amendment here just in case someone gets a false trial and is immediately sentenced to death (also because several of the founding fathers were smugglers and were tired of getting their shit burned).
Which means that literally every punishment could be considered cruel. Like Drak said, prison could be considered torture, so technically the eighth amendment could outlaw prison. However I do agree that things like crucifixion and the brazen bull shouldn't be used, if only because it allows innocent people to be horribly executed. For no other reason than some self-rightous lawmaker thought that criminals aren't suffering enough.
However, I'd far rather crucify someone than burn them to death. I'd rather resort to beheading or firing squad, but not whatever causes an unneeded amount of suffering.
Do you mean unneeded suffering based on the crime they committed?
Unneccesary suffering period. I agree that some crimes require death to have a just punishment, however I also agree with Brad that some of the punishments you guys are suggested just lowers you to their level. I get that they're getting punishment for what they did, but come on public execution like crucifixion and the guillotine? What is this, the French Revolution? If anything we're just encouraging psychological scarring in juveniles or the spread of disease by just leaving the corpses strapped to a crucifix on the side of the road.
Just shoot 'em in the head and be done with it.
After death, the corpses were always removed for that reason. The point I was trying to make is that those methods did work to deter criminals. Children would know that in this world, your actions have consequences that can ruin your life. When I picture where these executions take place, I imagine it happening near a prison area instead of stacking them along the roads.
Can you explain how it would lower us to their level? I never understood when someone says that.
Because the justice system is supposed to dispense unbiased justice, not go on a personal vendetta everytime somebody does something fucked up. And trust me, that shit happens a lot in America. I hear so many stories from my father (Police officer, so access to the blotter) that it's completely ridiculous.
But yeah, I just don't think that the justice system should involve itself on a personal level if that makes sense. It should just be "Well you murdered a guy, therefore you get the death penalty" not "Hmm, you murdered a guy, now let's think up a fucked up judgement based on the specific way you murdered it." It just leaves way too many opportunities for human perversion of the law.
This isn't personal, it's just justice. The way they are executed is base on the crime's severity. There is 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree murder. Each of these would have different methods of punishment. But choosing a single, brutal method of execution would be fine since it would make it much less complicated.
The Crucifixion of a criminal is supposed to scar/scare others into following the law and to humiliate the criminal before he dies so people will dislike him.
By sentencing somebody to it you(the court) believe that s/he should be humiliated and serve as an example. That's involving yourself on a personal level since YOU(as part of the court for this example) believe he should be punished like this.
Fireplay pretty much said it for me. That and you're consciously saying "I want this man to suffer," you can't say that without emotion. Either because you're disgusted by the severity of what they did or angered about that he did it in the first place it's gonna come with emotion
Not public at all (I at no point suggested this), and a beheading is a painless death (more so than the bullet to the back of the head would be, for that matter). Believe it or not, the guillotine was invented as a humane method of execution (because it is exactly that, humane).
Also, there is no "Lowering to their level", they forfeited their right to live when they killed, and the manner in which they die is irrelevant, all that matters is the intent.
If the intent is to enact retribution for suffering caused, there is no "moral" issue. If the intent is to harm for personal pleasure then there is moral issue.
I was more referring to the crucifixion than the guillotine, but you have to admit that it carries an air of publicity after the revolution. However, the guillotine was not always painless. There were recordings of spines not fully severing, or when Luis the whatever (I can't remember all these numerals XD) was so fat he didn't fit right and it got stuck in his jaw. And if there's one thing we Americans do down here, it's obesity.
But for the lowering to the level, look at my response to Daedalus's comment. It more has to do with specifically designing our methods to torture (once again, more crucifixion than beheading) rather than kill.
Edit: I also don't believe in Social Contract theory, but that should be saved for another debate.
Make the blade heavier, use a big, heavy, hydraulic beheader, technology has improved.
And again, if it is a sentence then the method in which the criminal is killed is irrelevent, they die either way.
Social Contract is flawless heretic! Flawless I saw! (Well, not Hobbes' version, but...)
I hadn't considered a mechanical guillotine, actually. It could easily cut through the spine regardless of whether or not it's hampered by placement or rust or anything like that. It could easily behead anyone (and probably a fucking elphant too. At the same time.)
But myeh, the social contract is alright but flawed. I believed in it up until the end of my junior year. The closest it got to perfect was with Socrates but that was probably because he didn't know he was making a social contract :P.
I can't even believe you just said that.
How sick can your mind be to even think that is acceptable.
Yes I did say that because it is logical.
Nmlessx, it is illegal because Emperor Constantine thought it was "inhuman and a bad way to go". Again, using emotion over logic. When it was done, it worked. Period.
Where would you break a law?
Country A: "If you break a law here we will throw you in jail!"
Country B: "If you break a law here we will crucify you!"
Of course you would choose A because no one wants to die by crucifixion.
Wait, any laws? Such as stealing too?
Depends on what was stolen. There are some countries that will cut off fingers for stealing something small but I think that is a bit much.
If they steal something, depending on the value, I think they should make them work it off.
And that sounds logical vs cutting off fingers.
Far more torturous ways of killing someone (the wheel comes to mind, subjects would last days) but even then, i'd take that over years of progressively growing insanity and helplessness.
I find the lethal injection approach to be entirely meaningless (and overly expensive), by the way. A beheading kills instantly, even if the subject remains alive for, like, a millisecond after they are killed, that is too fast to register any significant pain and since the body is entirely disconnected at the spine you won't be feeling anything even if you could register pain.
Lethal injection takes out the purpose of execution. It is not only to rid the world of criminal scum, but also a deterrent. The injection is just like sleeping, and not many criminals are intimidated by that. Beheading depends on who's doing it. Sometimes, if it was by axe, they would not cut all the way through or miss there mark.
I was thinking more "Guillotine".
The deterrent in lethal injection is not pain but death.
Given the preference for guns in the U.S. I still don't know why we just don't take China's approach to executions.
A bullet to the back of the head seems like it would be pretty quick and cheap.
But easy. And relatively painless. Too easy.
But still... dat wasted bullet. I propose the good old public stoning (jk)
Isn't a couple blocks of wood and rope cheaper than bullets?
The cross is a sacred symbol now mate. There are plenty more effective ways than that
Yes but that method was done before Christ was even born. I bet you that if he was executed by a guillotine, the guillotine would suddenly become a holy symbol.
I know that it existed before Christ, that's why he was crucified in the first place. This doesn't change the fact that it is a sacred symbol now. Sort of like Swastika, you can't wave that shit around and expect people to not think you're a Nazi
Yes, and the irony is that the Swastika originally meant positive things like good luck and peace.
I know. What I hate most is that the Roman Salute, a salute used by all nationalist is forbidden now.
Hitler never used a Swastika, he used an inverted Swastika - which symbolically would mean the exact opposite of good luck and peace.
Or bleach. Bleach is definitely cheaper. ;P
Looks like crucifixion is the cheapest, though it seems like stoning would be, I mean rocks are everywhere.
I call BS. Stoning HAS to be cheaper
You have to get a crowd together, convince them to kill this man by stoning, find enough stones to kill him with, find some extra stones just in case, hire guards incase the criminal decides to try and kill people, clean up the mess afterwards, and deal with the traumatized kids who watched the whole thing happen.
the Crucifix is just getting to large beams of wood and some nails+rope to tie the criminal up there and let him die on his own, then you clean up and put the next criminal up.
Meh, not really.
You have to get people to set up the cross, convince them to carry it and nail the fucker in, have a spare cross for just in case, hire guards in case things go south, clean up the mess by getting the dude down (and probably throwing the cross and nails in the trash) and deal with the traumatized kids who watched the whole thing happen.
Now that doesn't mean the execution is bad, it means the planning is bad.
The one being crucified always carried the beam on his back through town as he walked to his execution site. I don't see why the guard can't just put him on the cross. Also, nails weren't used very often. Rope works fine enough...or a belt. Belts work as rope.
I know how it worked mate, but you'd still need someone to carry the cross back after the criminal is done, or bring the cross to the criminal in the first place. Or probably pay the random guy who helps the criminal when he can no longer carry it.
Anyway, crucifiction is just stupid
Crucifixion is the best method of execution. What can compare?
Gulotine comes to mind, it is cheap and effective and can be done in public if you wish to. If you want him to feel pain then torture him beforehand (like what you would do during the crucifiction anyway)
Crucifiction is too expensive, takes too long, and as I said, the Cross is a sacred symbol
Crucifixion is too expensive...it's just a couple blocks of would and rope. How much money do you think is put into it.
Too expensive compared to stoning and the guilotine. But that's not the point, the cross is a sacred symbol. Let me say it once more: it is sacred. You have to be realistic if you do support the death penalty
I was being realistic. There are still countries that crucify to this day. Also when crucifying, it does not have to be a cross. It could be a T or just a single block.
Still the same.
And ah yes, the great countries that still crucify people, a role model for us all, like Saudi Arabia
You're killing tress you bastard!
We could use iron or steel beams instead?
If the tree committed a crime it deserves death. What else are we going to use for the beams? Bones?
Guillotine requires the blade to be forged, more expensive.
You can set it up and leave it wherever you plan to execute the criminals on your own, nails can be substituted by rope and you can always have the criminal unconscious before you nail the first nail or as you tie him up. Cleaning up the mess is just removing the body and cleaning up some of the blood and just kick the kids off of the government property.
Not sure why you would throw the nails or rope away seeing as how the next person to use them is going to die anyway. So getting clean/new ones would be pointless.
You want him to die from the crucifiction not HPV
He would die from the crucifixion long before HPV got him.
Nah, just throw people off things. Buildings, cliffs, airplanes, have a good time of it.
Plus not only do they use the cheapest bullet they can find, they charge the convict's family for the bullet. A bit cruel, but no cost to the government besides man hours.
So it would play out like this.
"Hello ma'am, you're son has been convicted of a felony and is being sentenced to death by gunshot. Of course, we will have to charge you for the bullet that we use to kill your son. So just sign here...and here. Thank you and have a nice day."
Signs. "You too. ^_^"
And if they don't they're convicted of tax evasion, so everybody wins!
I dunno if painful death is necessary. We should certainly not aim for a painless one, though. XD
Depends on the prison status. Some are living luxirious lives in there.
Luxurious? I think that is a bit too much...
Yeah, some prisoners are hooked up with some good connections. Watch "Law Abiding Citizen" and it shows a decent example. All the more reason to execute them.
I enjoyed that one line from Wolf of Wall Street. I forgot how exactly it went, but itw as basically along the lines of "I was scared shitless of going to prison. But then I remembered: I'm rich." and it cut to him having a great time in jail.
I think this is relevant, but I think that instead of something like jailtime for doing something 'trivial' (whether [illegal] drug possession or car-jacking) we should just reinstitute flogging. I really doubt anybody would try to do something like that after getting 39-lashes Talmud style. Would definitely do more than 2 years in jail (where at the very least you get fed and housed :P).
Medieval Greeks did it better. Just cut his balls off or blind him
Could you plead down to a reduced sentence of just losing one eye and one ball instead?
Good thinking, so if he ever does crime again we can remove the rest.
Blinding him would mean he couldn't help himself or anyone else, and cutting off his testicles is just... Wrong. Probably due to my illusionary morals :P
It isn't about being gruesome, it's about trying to get the guy on the right track. (Though as Sethaniel said, prosecution rates are more important, admittedly).
The Ancient Greeks did it better. They were masters of flogging.
I'd rather be burnt alive in that metalic bull than become a castrato
But when you're burnt alive, you're manhood burns as well.
Fuck, that would still be a hard choice. The Brazen Bull was pretty damn bad as far as executions/tortures go.
Always thought Scaphism was one of the worst ancient world execution techniques though. The Persians used use that one.
Being burnt inside a bull is the same as being burnt in any other confined space (sort of)
Scaphism is just damn brutal, even by my standards
Well, I was going to say "No", but after thinking about it more, I'm going to follow the crowd and say "It depends on the situation."
Your example of the Oda clan burning settlements and murdering innocent people resulting in a unified Japan might not have been the best example, because who's to say that a unified Japan is better than what might've resulted if Japan wasn't unified. Maybe the warring clans would've stopped warring eventually. Maybe Japan would've unified in the end some other way. Maybe Japan would've split up into smaller (yet still peaceful) countries. Just because history shaped the world as it is today, doesn't mean that everything that happened in history had the best possible outcome. So in that case, I'd say the end doesn't justify the means.
After coming to that conclusion though, I thought of the classic question that's usually brought up in these kind of debates which is "If you could go back in time and kill Hitler when he was a baby, would you?" (For the smart-asses, no you can't go back in time to when Hitler was an adult and kill him then, and no, you can't go back in time and adopt Hitler and raise him to be a lovely, cuddly, Jew-loving person. You either kill him when he's a baby or you let history unfurl as it did.) And in that situation (though I'd probably chicken out) I'd like to think that I would kill the snotty little brat because... Hey, it's Hitler.
The warriing clans had been at it for at least a generation and weren't showing any signs of stopping, especially with the kind of emperor they had. Whenever a peace treaty was signed, it was only temporary. Had Japan stayed separated it would have made the country as a whole weaker since they would not have modernized quickly. In fact, had Nobunaga lived to the end, the would have caught up to the rest of the world faster than America did. Nobunaga knew that the only was to unify the country was being the most ruthless of the warring clans, that's why some see him as some sort of demon.
As you said, we don't know what would have happened if they all eventually made peace. But historically I can't think of many countries that are stronger when divided (eg. America).
Yeah, but stronger doesn't necessarily mean better, and what's bad for one country might've positively affected another. For instance, say that Japan wasn't unified and the tribes carried on warring and killing each other for centuries to come. That way, either Japan divides into several smaller countries, or is taken over by another country, (no real way of knowing what would've happened to it) but you end up with a future where it's highly unlikely that Japan would've been involved in the Second World War, which probably means that considerably fewer people end up dying in it.
... On the flip side, if Japan never becomes a unified country, who's gonna make all the tentacle porn?
By that logic every time a country DoWs another one then the defenders should surrender. That way less people die
Nah, just pointing out that what's bad for one country could be good for another... And looking back over what I wrote I'm really not sure how you came to that conclusion.
Well you seemed to say that what would make things better if less lives were lost. Even if Japan was never united and let us say they never joined WW2, then yeah, it's likely that less lives would be lost, however Japan would be weak. You can't take "global good" as your goal when deciding internal/foreign affairs
She's saying that if Japan never unified then maybe China or the Mongols might have grabbed onto their land and that would have benefited China/Mongolia but not Japan.
We kicked the Native Americans off their land for our own reasons(if your American). It helped us out but obviously didn't help them.
What's good for me isn't always good for you basically.
And? That's what I said to. It would still be wrong by the Japanese/Nobunaga's stance. As I said, you can't take "global good" into account at this cases
Why can't we take global good into account? The basic idea behind this thread is asking, "Is it okay to do something wrong, even killing innocent people, if it ultimately works for the greater good?" ... Why would the greater good of Japan be more important than the greater good of the world? (Not saying the world would be better off without Japan, just trying to make a point.)
Had Nobunaga lived to conquer all of Japan, they would have modernized faster and possibly exceed even the U.S military technology as well as conquering parts of China and other areas of Asia which means nothing good will come for the Allies during WW2.
Had Japan never unified, they would likely become a colony of either France or Britain through means of conquest since many clans hated outsiders.
How do you know if the Japanese would have even bothered to fight against the Allies or work with Germany if it had managed all the things you said previously.
Someone will. Eventually. Someone like the- great Nmelssx-sama.
I'm sure Mongolia would have made the tentacle porn.
Dat be racist.... somehow
How is it racist?
First recorded tentacle porn actually came from England.
Funny since the first thing I thought of was British. Mongolia just sounds better.
Japan only adopted it because their government demands the censorship of genitalia in pornography, so they needed a different medium to get their jollies off.
So all japanese porn should really have British sounding people/things? lol
I've seen "blurry" censored tentacles so I guess that it didn't work
So what if those states were at peace? It still means that an ethnos is split by artificial boundaries