DisabledMind

In pondering the meaning of the statement "Everyone should be treated equal". I believe this statement Should be used in every aspect.
If someone kills someone, and they have been given a fair trial, and have been convicted, should they then be put to death because of there wrongful doing? Or should they live the life at which the do not deserve?
Some people like to quote Gandhi "An eye for an eye, and the whole world goes blind." But if you don't go for the Equal treatment wont the same thing just happen all over again? I believe people should have to pay for the cost of the crime at which they have committed. And in doing so they should have equal treatment as to which they have given out.

Give me what you got.....

joesmith

You're getting the "all treated equally" concept the wrong - t more pertains to the concept that if killing is wrong - then noone deserves death - and two wrongs don't make a right.

Examples agaisnt what you say - if someone commits manslaughter (involunatry killing) do they deserve to me involuntarliy killed back? Or if someone develops a sickness that can br treated, but is gone unnoticed - and hurts someone, they deserve the same, if their illness would be solved by simple medication?

I think you should study some more Ghandi. Right now the premise you're working off of seems a little weak.

Killconey

I agree with you in some ways and on an very basic level, but I must ask you what you plan to gain through exact retribution? Mercy can often lead to a reformed life, which would benefit the whole world.

Also from a Biblical perspective, does this exact retribution count for God? If so, kiss your ass goodbye because the very sin of our nature is enough to jusitify eternal damnation.

__________________
Look out for numbers two and up and they'll look out for you.

Bobaphat

Why do you even believe that everyone should be treated equally? You reap what you sow and quite frankly, we aren't all equal. Its a nice concept but not true to life.

__________________
--size matters not-- yoda

sixate

Exactly! I hate when people say that we're all created equal. It's a bunch of shit. People need to wake up and get a serious dose of reality.

RatherThanWords

Nice try lizzy...but not everyone is created equal. If everyone was, there would either be no Albert Einstein or, on the opposite end of the spectrum, no Charles Manson's.

If you start from a weak foundation (premise), all of your subsequent ideas will have nothing to fall back on.

joesmith

Once again peopel seem confused "all men are created equal" is a statement largely agasint slavery. And we are all born with the equal right to freedom, pursuit of happiness, etc...

To say we are equal in one regard Doesn't mean we are the same in all regards.

XenuHubbard

The fact that we're debating this on the net is proof that we're far luckier than most. It proves we're not child soldiers in Angola.

And the poster's premise alone could be debated, since he/she already states the perpetrator going on living a life that they "do not deserve".

I tend to look at the practical end of the issue. If revenge and first instinct becomes the tool for measuring justice, people will soon kill each other over nothing.

__________________
The above was written by a true prophet. Trust me.

"What doesn't kill you, makes you bitter and paranoid". - SB2000

Lebell

Let us look at the full quote.

From the preamble to the Declaration of Independence (Thomas Jefferson):
Looking at it in context, I fully agree with it.

I also agree with the underlaying premise that government should treat everyone without regard to race, color, religion, etc. (even though in reality, this did and does not happen).

This is different from the concept of "an eye for an eye" which is essentially dictating how punishment for crime is meted out.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

mistic84

There are leaders and there are followers. No one is the same. People get ahead in this world by being better then everyone else. People also become better by making mistakes and learning from them. Its called experience.

sportsrule101

Utopia doesn't exist, never will. Man is to flawed to ever create it. So therefore we are not created completly equal. Just are given certain rights and privlages (atleast in the USA), which can be lost later on, but are granted to a person at conception.

__________________
winning isn't everything but
losing isn't anything

DisabledMind

Ok, You had totaly contridicted yourself on that one. I stated that people should be given what they give out (an eye for an eye)... same concept as you reap what you sow, and i hadn't said anything about being "created" equal. I simply stated that if your going to do something expect it in return.

In responce to most of your replys i've noticed that many of you misinterpreted what i was going for. I stated that every one should be "treated equal"(by law not people) that has nothing to do with creation.
I believe that in order to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, you must obtain control over the government. People kill, comit crimes, cause destruction etc etc everyday. Now where does life, liberty and the persuit of happiness come in there? If the penalties are not working, shouldn't the government be more strict?

BBtB

The phrase you reap what you sow does NOT mean you get back exactly what you give out. It means you get back what you DESERVE based on what you get out. Lets just think about the origin of the phrase. It was originally talking about sowing seeds for (most likely) wheat. You sow the seads and reap the wheat. You do not sow the seeds then reap more seads.

Your whole concept that we should do to the perpetrator of a crime whatever crime they did is preposterous. If you rob a bank we don't then rob you and call it even. The punishment should fit the crime regardless of who YOU are. But that dosn't mean it should involve the crime you did against you. Like with murder for example, there are differn't degrees of murder with differnt amounts of punishment. And I agree with that system because someone who plans to kill somone else for a month and someone who just flys off the handle for the second deserve diffren't punishments. They both deserve to be punished just not the same way. Neither of them deserve to be killed though. This whole eye for an eye bullshit is all just based on archaic christian dogma from 2000 years ago.

__________________
Meridae'n once played "death" at a game of chess that lasted for over two years. He finally beat death in a best 34 out of 67 match. At that time he could ask for any one thing and he could wish for the hope of all mankind... he looked death right in the eye and said ...

"I would like about three fiddy"

duckznutz

The purpose of this plan is to establish a 'deterrent' is it not? You are thinking that if people know they will be killed for killing then they wont do it? Unfortuneately, the countries and states where the death penalty exists is no 'safer' than any other . . people kill in the heat of the moment without thought to consequence, except of course for 'professional' contract killers . . who never get caught anyway.

Plus you have to contend with the fact you will certainly kill a percentage of innocent men . . .and to what purpose . . . . . it is not a deterrent. Now if you wee to argue that a bullet or an electric shock is a lot cheaper than paying for loking after them in Jail year after year then i might have to agree with you! Lets execute for commercial reasons . . but not in the vain hope that its a deterrent.

RatherThanWords

And if you look at our legal system, everyone is treated "equally". The penalty for first degree murder has it's statutes (I believe 25 to life), and anyone convicted of that gets punished the same. Now I think that's pretty equal consequences for one's actions. In fact, I believe it's better than equal because a truly reformed person can be paroled in 25 years while the scum of the earth can stay locked up indefinately. The american legal system is wonderful in the aspect that one is innocent until proven guilty. Surely some people fall through the cracks, but for the most part the guilty are where they belong.

Zips

In the legal eye things are perfect, but from the public standpoint the views are reversed. Most often it's "guilty until proven innocent." That, however, really comes around from the media and their tendency to oversensationalize everything for the quick ratings fix.

Often times the proof of guilt is less than 100%, sometimes it's closer to 50% and it's up to a supposedly unbiased jury to return a fair verdict. So again, what is considered fair when the guilty and non guilty choice could swing either way? You can't answer that and have everyone be pleased. You can't really ever arrive at a decision that will same "fair" for the parties involved, there will always be at least one person who finds one decision unfair for some particular action... Or are we just going by the majority rule here? If 50.00000000000001% of a group says it's fair, then it's fair?

I honestly don't think that you can have a truely fair repercussion for an action. You can't appease everyone.

__________________
Artificial Intelligence is No Match for Natural Stupidity.

Tom Thumb

We should definitely use 'eye for an eye' justice when sentencing those charged with possession of marijuana.

__________________
My name is marketing. Now buy my product.

lurkette

Forgive me for using Tolkien as a philosophical authority, but this has always resonated with me:

"Many that live deserve death, and some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise can not see all ends."

Who are we to say who "deserves" to die? Or what they will become if they are allowed to live? Are they beyond redemption? Perhaps. How do you know that death is justice? It is certainly a remedy to that particular person committing a crime again, but is it justice? Killing someone for a crime does not bring their victim back, and only contributes to a culture of violence. It only spreads more misery.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

crow_daw

It is my opinion that there is an exception to almost every rule. When talking about the Judicial system, there are certain circumstances when I think "an eye for an eye" is totally appropriate, and sometimes when I don't even feel a man should be punished at all.
I always felt they should've executed Timothy McVeigh by tying him to a chair in a wooden shed in the desert with a few sticks of dynamite under his chair with a 500 foot long slow burning fuse. That son of a bitch.
But I totally understand crimes of passion. If a man catches his wife with another man, I don't blame him if he flips out and kills them both. But thats probably just because I'm the jealous type myself.

__________________
"We each have a star, all we have to do is find it. Once you do, everyone who sees it will be blinded." - Earl Simmons

bermuDa

Sorry to droll up old points, but I think we're all pretty much on the same level when we're born. While we're all 'created' equal, what follows [life] shapes the people we form into, and creates that inequality. We're a product of our environments; Einstein could've grown up to be a redneck gas station attendent given the proper childhood surroundings, just as Charles Manson could've been a senator if he had a different upbringing.

Back on track, I believe the punishment should fit the crime. Jail isn't much of a deterrant, it just toughens the criminals up and teaches them how to be better criminals. The amount of inmates who serve one or two sentences and are rehabilitated is far outweighed by the amount of repeat offenders who use prison like a revolving door. I've known people who brag about 'doing time' like it's honorable.

I don't think removing people from society is going to help rehabilitate them, but I think moving them out of their current environment would do more help. There are those people who are beyond rehabilitation... but they are a minority in the prison population. Over 60% of the US prison population (by 1998 statistics, sorry too lazy to find more recent numbers) is incarcerated for non-violent drug charges... I find this a waste of tax-payer's money.

__________________
I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.

rodimus

i believe in the quote "An eye for an eye...", but i also believe people need to be dealt with for commiting serious crimes. if not they will continue to follow their chosen path. i know what your going to say. criminals can reform. the fact is that they originally had the abillity to commit the crime so what's to keep them from doing it again.

I don't want to ramble on here forever, but in short, yes i do believe in punishment equal to the offense for serious crimes such as premeditated muder.

Wooderson

Two wrongs don't make a right...... humm. Maybe killing a murderer is not wrong. Perhaps hanging a sick bastard for being a serial rapist is not wrong. Putting to death a child or baby killer is a pretty damn good idea. MAybe at that point in time those kind of people lose their own right to live. Maybe that is the cue the rest of us take to go ahead and wipe that person's seed from the very Earth. So, perhaps, just perhaps, killing somebody like that is mercy for the rest of humanity and is actually the correct thing to do.