|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 1, 2011 19:04:09 GMT -6
We have already been around the block on this, do we steal from thieves, do we rape rapist. You want to be consistant that we execute all murderers though why is that? Sorry to add" Why was it aburd to have a legal professional rapist to rape inmates who rape as punishmnent then? I mean pro or not does this really make any logical sense to you? Now if we are going to rape a rapist he would have to have what a woman has when she is raped. Are we going to pay for their sex change so this can happen? Aww no you would not have to have a women rape him or even physically touch him to rape him. But, I will not get into that on a public forum Or him have what a female has......... Though being a female myself and if a guy raped me, if I could trust me" he would be raped by me without worrying about needing a condom on him ;D But, then that is what the law is for, lock the POS up.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Oct 1, 2011 19:06:54 GMT -6
In order to punish them in the same way you would need the same body parts.
However, if you are going to use the part I'm thinking of you would need to find a man to do it. One that would be willing. And what if the two enjoyed it. Where would the punishment be?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 1, 2011 19:09:01 GMT -6
In order to punish them in the same way you would need the same body parts. However, if you are going to use the part I'm thinking of you would need to find a man to do it. One that would be willing. And what if the two enjoyed it. Where would the punishment be? Yeh put it on the end of that broom handle you mention back a few post, and what you are thinking of would work
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 1, 2011 19:10:38 GMT -6
In order to punish them in the same way you would need the same body parts. However, if you are going to use the part I'm thinking of you would need to find a man to do it. One that would be willing. And what if the two enjoyed it. Where would the punishment be? Yeh put it on the end of that broom handle you mention back a few post, and what you are thinking of would work No they would not have to be willing, was the acutual female victim of rape willing?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 1, 2011 19:13:26 GMT -6
Yeh put it on the end of that broom handle you mention back a few post, and what you are thinking of would work No they would not have to be willing, was the acutual female victim of rape willing? I doubt they would enjoy it , it would be violent. Like killers hate being executed but ok to murderer others at their whime.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Oct 1, 2011 19:16:23 GMT -6
Yeh put it on the end of that broom handle you mention back a few post, and what you are thinking of would work No they would not have to be willing, was the acutual female victim of rape willing? I'm talking about the one who did the raping of the male rapist would have to be willing.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 1, 2011 19:16:39 GMT -6
We have already been around the block on this, do we steal from thieves, do we rape rapist. You want to be consistant that we execute all murderers though why is that? Sorry to add" Why was it aburd to have a legal professional rapist to rape inmates who rape as punishmnent then? I mean pro or not does this really make any logical sense to you? It makes sense to me not to rape a rapist tbut lock them up and to put a murderer to death. However, if we are going to punish people in a way that we do to them what they didn't committing their crime then the only ones who should be locked are kidnappers. Now if we are going to rape a rapist he would have to have what a woman has when she is raped. Are we going to pay for their sex change so this can happen? Ladies, there are machines or handheld devices that could do the judicial penetration. Another man's *deleted* would not be required for this proposal.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 1, 2011 19:22:06 GMT -6
It makes sense to me not to rape a rapist tbut lock them up and to put a murderer to death. However, if we are going to punish people in a way that we do to them what they didn't committing their crime then the only ones who should be locked are kidnappers. Now if we are going to rape a rapist he would have to have what a woman has when she is raped. Are we going to pay for their sex change so this can happen? Ladies, there are machines or handheld devices that could do the judicial penetration. Another man's *deleted* would not be required for this proposal. Of couorse machines or hand held devices could do the job, hands free of the POS like execution is. For me I hate wasting money on them, so a crudely made device that even I could make in the garage..
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Oct 1, 2011 20:54:12 GMT -6
It makes sense to me not to rape a rapist tbut lock them up and to put a murderer to death. However, if we are going to punish people in a way that we do to them what they didn't committing their crime then the only ones who should be locked are kidnappers. Now if we are going to rape a rapist he would have to have what a woman has when she is raped. Are we going to pay for their sex change so this can happen? Ladies, there are machines or handheld devices that could do the judicial penetration. Another man's *deleted* would not be required for this proposal. I should have known you'd have the solution.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 1, 2011 23:10:01 GMT -6
Well you sure have me beat with that. Let's move back to killing murderers. Do you think it is just that the mother of the murderer should lose a son when she has not herself taken anyone's son? How is that 'justice'? A mother does not have the right not to have her son killed. What limits are there on the pain and/or harm that the state can cause an individual who has committed no crime? Are there any? I asked you whether causing the emotional distress of losing a son to someone who has committed no crime struck you as just. You concede that the relatives of a person wrongly killed may have a civil claim. But I wouldn't have thought they would have a claim of any sort unless they had been unjustly treated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2011 23:16:58 GMT -6
Actually, no... we punish all crimes with fine or imprisonment or both, and certainly imprisonment for all the most violent crimes. It's only once in a great while that we dole some other thing ~ DP. Would that be consistent with punishing those the way they committed the crime? Steal from those who stole. Use a weapon if they committed arm robbery. etc. If the death penalty can be justified, then so can those punishments, certainly. I've asked ad nauseum why it is that we humans feel it's okay to kill (execute) but not to torture, and no pro has given me more of an explanation than 'we think that's icky ~ obviously implying that torture (including rape, etc) is worse than killing. Yet, we don't execute torturers (rapists, etc) unless they happen to kill their victims, implying just the opposite. So............. most of you pros make very little sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 1, 2011 23:20:16 GMT -6
It makes sense to me not to rape a rapist tbut lock them up and to put a murderer to death. However, if we are going to punish people in a way that we do to them what they didn't committing their crime then the only ones who should be locked are kidnappers. Now if we are going to rape a rapist he would have to have what a woman has when she is raped. Are we going to pay for their sex change so this can happen? Ladies, there are machines or handheld devices that could do the judicial penetration. Another man's *deleted* would not be required for this proposal. The scumbag deserves to be raped. What you're proposing isn't rape.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2011 23:26:13 GMT -6
if thy hand offends thee, lop it off.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 1, 2011 23:34:19 GMT -6
A mother does not have the right not to have her son killed. What limits are there on the pain and/or harm that the state can cause an individual who has committed no crime? Are there any? You concede that the relatives of a person wrongly killed may have a civil claim. But I wouldn't have thought they would have a claim of any sort unless they had been unjustly treated. In most common law jurisdictions I don't think they would have had a claim for such damages. Many statues now give them one, depending on the circumstances. And perhaps the common law was right. Regardless, the primary reason families are allowed to bring wrongful death suits is because otherwise no one would be able to since the person who suffered the harm is dead. By and large, wrongful death suites are about compensating the person who was wrongfully killed in the best way it can be accomplished given that the person is dead. In any event, such suits stem from a wrong done to the deceased, not the loved ones of the deceased. An exception might be a mother suing for infliction of emotional distress where she herself is the plaintiff and not simply as a representative of the deceased's estate. Typically, she would have to be at the scene and viewed the incident to recover. But I think that is getting off track because something wrong must be done to the deceased to recover in a wrongful death suit. A lawful execution would not count.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 1, 2011 23:42:58 GMT -6
A mother does not have the right not to have her son killed. What limits are there on the pain and/or harm that the state can cause an individual who has committed no crime? Are there any? Well, the state could not juice the mother, fine the mother, restrain the mother's liberty, etc. Basically, the mother of the executee should not count for anything one way or the other. Afterall, I'm sure you would agree we should incarcerate a murderer even if his mother would be devastated that her poopsikins is doing hard time.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 1, 2011 23:51:12 GMT -6
Ladies, there are machines or handheld devices that could do the judicial penetration. Another man's *deleted* would not be required for this proposal. The scumbag deserves to be raped. What you're proposing isn't rape. If you or someone else wants to rape the guy be my guest. But I'm sure as hell not doing it. I agree a *deleted* up the butt might be less humiliating than a man's actual dick, but I really can't ask a fellow citizen to volunteer for something like that. Thus, unless someone steps up and offers to do it, I think a non-human device would be sufficient.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 2, 2011 0:30:11 GMT -6
You concede that the relatives of a person wrongly killed may have a civil claim. But I wouldn't have thought they would have a claim of any sort unless they had been unjustly treated. In most common law jurisdictions I don't think they would have had a claim for such damages. Many statues now give them one, depending on the circumstances. And perhaps the common law was right. Regardless, the primary reason families are allowed to bring wrongful death suits is because otherwise no one would be able to since the person who suffered the harm is dead. Why couldn't the government bring the suit? Are you making this up? How on Earth can you compensate the dead person in any way? I don't understand your last sentence. You still haven't answered the question, or even tried. Originally, the board was asked "when neither deterrence, economy, protection and those left behind are valid reasons... What's left?" You said: "Justice." You did not reply "Because it is the law." Indeed, that would have been a moronic response. You are being asked, after all, to motivate the law, not remind us what it is. We all know what it is, thanks. So don't remind me of the law, or interpret the law, or any more of that horsesh*t. Tell me whether you think it is JUST to harm an innocent in the interests of punishing someone who deserves to be punished.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 2, 2011 0:34:31 GMT -6
What limits are there on the pain and/or harm that the state can cause an individual who has committed no crime? Are there any? Well, the state could not juice the mother, fine the mother, restrain the mother's liberty, etc. Why not? I know that you cannot *punish* a person without due process. But what if the state just wants to f with a certain portion of the populace, killing or maiming them just because the majority does not like them? Can the state do that? Sure I would agree with that.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 2, 2011 0:39:35 GMT -6
The scumbag deserves to be raped. What you're proposing isn't rape. If you or someone else wants to rape the guy be my guest. But I'm sure as hell not doing it. I agree a *deleted* up the butt might be less humiliating than a man's actual dick, but I really can't ask a fellow citizen to volunteer for something like that. Thus, unless someone steps up and offers to do it, I think a non-human device would be sufficient. No, it would not be sufficient for JUSTICE. It might *have to do* if no-one is willing to volunteer. But rest assured there will be someone out there, not quite visually appealing enough to do gay porn, who will be happy to earn a smaller salary raping inmates who deserve it.
|
|
|
Post by mel77 on Oct 2, 2011 0:57:26 GMT -6
You mean they are law-abiding yet sociopathic nonetheless? Sure. Sociopathic doesn't mean one has no self-control at all. Have you ever thought about moving?
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 2, 2011 5:13:41 GMT -6
In most common law jurisdictions I don't think they would have had a claim for such damages. Many statues now give them one, depending on the circumstances. And perhaps the common law was right. Regardless, the primary reason families are allowed to bring wrongful death suits is because otherwise no one would be able to since the person who suffered the harm is dead. Are you making this up? How on Earth can you compensate the dead person in any way? No, I'm not: accident-law.freeadvice.com/accident-law/wrongful_death/wrongful_death.htmA wrongful death lawsuit claims that the victim was killed as a result of negligence (or other type of unjust action) on the part of the person or entity being sued, and that the victim’s survivors are entitled to monetary damages as a result of the improper conduct. This type of claim is different from a normal negligence lawsuit, which is filed by the person injured for the resulting damages. Originally under “common law” (the general legal principles passed from England to the United States over hundreds of years), a wrongful death claim did not exist based upon the reasoning that the claim died with the victim where there was no way to compensate him for damages. The surviving family members then could not claim damages from the person who caused the victim's death. Over the years, states have passed wrongful death laws that provide compensation for persons who may have been damaged from the death of the victim as well as an incentive to act carefully and safely. Today, all states have some form of a wrongful death claim action in force.injury.findlaw.com/personal-injury/personal-injury-a-z/wrongful-death/A "wrongful death" occurs when a person is killed due to the negligence or misconduct of another individual, company or entity. An action for wrongful death belongs to the decedent's immediate family members (often called "distributees"). The most common distributees are surviving spouses and children, and sometimes parents. A suit for wrongful death may only be brought by the personal representative of the decedent's estate. Every state has a civil "wrongful death statute," or set of statutes, which establish the procedures for bringing wrongful death actions. Actions for personal injury, conscious pain and suffering, or expenses incurred prior to the decedent's death are also brought by the personal representative. The damage awards from these actions belong to the estate and may pass to different parties as directed by the decedent's will.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 2, 2011 5:19:38 GMT -6
I don't understand your last sentence. I mean the mother would have to physically see the accident to recover for her emotional distress. If the police call her and tell her about it, she can't sue in her own capacity. She has to see it with her own eyes, and, on top of that, she has to suffer some physical manifestation of her emotional distress. See, you have to understand the difference between suing somebody in your own capacity and suing someone as a representative of the descendant's estate.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 2, 2011 5:34:35 GMT -6
Tell me whether you think it is JUST to harm an innocent in the interests of punishing someone who deserves to be punished. Because the interest of punishing the perpetrator is greater than preventing any harm such punishment might cause the perp's loved ones. If we took the perp's loved ones into consideration, many perps could avoid the full brunt of the law, provided they had loved ones. Answer this: Why is it still just to send a murderer to prison for life when doing so will devastate his family and deprive the murderer's kid of having a father at home?
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 2, 2011 5:39:53 GMT -6
Well, the state could not juice the mother, fine the mother, restrain the mother's liberty, etc. Why not? I know that you cannot *punish* a person without due process. But what if the state just wants to f with a certain portion of the populace, killing or maiming them just because the majority does not like them? Can the state do that? No. That would be a due process problem, for one. You can't deprive someone of life or liberty without due process. I think you already know the answers to these questions.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 2, 2011 5:43:53 GMT -6
If you or someone else wants to rape the guy be my guest. But I'm sure as hell not doing it. I agree a *deleted* up the butt might be less humiliating than a man's actual dick, but I really can't ask a fellow citizen to volunteer for something like that. Thus, unless someone steps up and offers to do it, I think a non-human device would be sufficient. No, it would not be sufficient for JUSTICE. It might *have to do* if no-one is willing to volunteer. But rest assured there will be someone out there, not quite visually appealing enough to do gay porn, who will be happy to earn a smaller salary raping inmates who deserve it. Well then it looks like we have our rapist. Problem solved. But as I said earlier, the rape has to be part of a prison sentence. I am not in favor of raping the prisoner and turning him loose into the community. And for what its worth, executing a murderer still does not result in perfect justice. As Donnie teaches, even in the event of an execution, the murderer still has an advantage over the victim. Same analysis would probably apply to rape, albeit to a lesser degree.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 2, 2011 7:25:00 GMT -6
Are you making this up? How on Earth can you compensate the dead person in any way? No, I'm not: accident-law.freeadvice.com/accident-law/wrongful_death/wrongful_death.htmA wrongful death lawsuit claims that the victim was killed as a result of negligence (or other type of unjust action) on the part of the person or entity being sued, and that the victim’s survivors are entitled to monetary damages as a result of the improper conduct. This type of claim is different from a normal negligence lawsuit, which is filed by the person injured for the resulting damages. Originally under “common law” (the general legal principles passed from England to the United States over hundreds of years), a wrongful death claim did not exist based upon the reasoning that the claim died with the victim where there was no way to compensate him for damages. The surviving family members then could not claim damages from the person who caused the victim's death. Over the years, states have passed wrongful death laws that provide compensation for persons who may have been damaged from the death of the victim as well as an incentive to act carefully and safely. Today, all states have some form of a wrongful death claim action in force.injury.findlaw.com/personal-injury/personal-injury-a-z/wrongful-death/A "wrongful death" occurs when a person is killed due to the negligence or misconduct of another individual, company or entity. An action for wrongful death belongs to the decedent's immediate family members (often called "distributees"). The most common distributees are surviving spouses and children, and sometimes parents. A suit for wrongful death may only be brought by the personal representative of the decedent's estate. Every state has a civil "wrongful death statute," or set of statutes, which establish the procedures for bringing wrongful death actions. Actions for personal injury, conscious pain and suffering, or expenses incurred prior to the decedent's death are also brought by the personal representative. The damage awards from these actions belong to the estate and may pass to different parties as directed by the decedent's will. where does it say that this is meant to compensate the victim?
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 2, 2011 7:26:13 GMT -6
I don't understand your last sentence. I mean the mother would have to physically see the accident to recover for her emotional distress. If the police call her and tell her about it, she can't sue in her own capacity. She has to see it with her own eyes, and, on top of that, she has to suffer some physical manifestation of her emotional distress. Well that's very silly isn't it? Huh?
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 2, 2011 7:29:46 GMT -6
Tell me whether you think it is JUST to harm an innocent in the interests of punishing someone who deserves to be punished. Because the interest of punishing the perpetrator is greater than preventing any harm such punishment might cause the perp's loved ones. Yes I see. So if a murderer killed my sister then, in the interests of justice, society should kill his sister. Sure, it's hard on her, but the interest of punishing the perpetrator is greater than preventing any harm such punishment might cause the perp's loved ones. To protect the public. I never said it was 'just'.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 2, 2011 7:34:58 GMT -6
Why not? I know that you cannot *punish* a person without due process. But what if the state just wants to f with a certain portion of the populace, killing or maiming them just because the majority does not like them? Can the state do that? No. That would be a due process problem, for one. You can't deprive someone of life or liberty without due process. I think you already know the answers to these questions. No I don't. The text of the fifth says: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. But that's all about when you commit a crime. It doesn't stop the state from killing non-criminals arbitrarily. The 14th meanwhile, says you can't be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. But limbs are not property, as you have argued, and anyway, if the state decides to kill gays, "due process" would just amount to proving they were gay. no?
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 2, 2011 7:36:29 GMT -6
No, it would not be sufficient for JUSTICE. It might *have to do* if no-one is willing to volunteer. But rest assured there will be someone out there, not quite visually appealing enough to do gay porn, who will be happy to earn a smaller salary raping inmates who deserve it. Well then it looks like we have our rapist. Problem solved. But as I said earlier, the rape has to be part of a prison sentence. I am not in favor of raping the prisoner and turning him loose into the community. And for what its worth, executing a murderer still does not result in perfect justice. As Donnie teaches, even in the event of an execution, the murderer still has an advantage over the victim. Same analysis would probably apply to rape, albeit to a lesser degree. Actually, with rape, we can have them raped multiple times, reducing the 'advantage' every time. Sooner or later, the state would find justice.
|
|