Quote:
Originally Posted by Suave
You're using our current faulty system to justify an even faultier method of dealing with crime?
If the deterrent method of crime control actually worked then we'd see the lowest crime rates in the countries with the most draconian laws, and this is certainly not the case.
|
saudi arabia, where folks are executed almost every friday after prayers in the square, has VERY little crime, and is extremely safe. its a boring shitty police state with a whole lotta human rights violations that no one seems to notice or care about. it is as draconian as you can get. so yeah, it is the case. but who would want to live in that environment?
-----Added 16/12/2008 at 06 : 38 : 15-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
strange that you would refer to situations involving not only war but occupation to support your claim regarding vigilante-style action (not justice) in such situations---these are exceptional circumstances in which most of the rules that shape regular life are suspended. and even in that context, efficiency is not the same as equitability, not to mention fairness or justice.
..............
so i really don't understand the arguments in support of this style of law or of punishment, except that it appeals to one's inner flinstone.
|
in this instance, my inner unevolved caveman is attracted to this idea, yes. i dont see how throwing acid in someone's face is acting in accordance with rules for regular life. its not like he snaked her parking spot.
if someone could be brutal enough to throw acid into a girls face, i can be brutal enough to throw acid in his face because he threw acid in her face.
(no, "I" couldnt do it. by "I" i mean someone else. but just because i lack the stones to do it doesn't mean i don't think it should happen. go ahead, i know i just opened myself up for all sorts of ridicule and i wont be able to justify it.)