This is why chinese government doesn't get involved. OTHER COUNTRIES' POLITICS ARE NONE OF YOUR BUSINESSES!
This is the right way to do Justice
- Thread starter jesuschrist
- Start date
Sure.... it sounds like you are willing to give half your salary to keep him incarcerated, correct? yeah, didn't think so.....But don't use my tax dollars, but by all means, you can donate freely to the 'keep a murderer imprisoned fund'. And when he's released, we'll make sure he goes to live in your neighborhood. When he does, he can work at your children's school as their school bus driver....good luck with that.
You do know that putting somebody on deathrow costs taxpayers more then a life sentence, right?
Half your salary to keep people in prison???
How much tax does you think you personally would save, if we returned to capital punishment?
If we adopted standards similar to the state, maybe 2-3 executions per year??
Damn skippy a few pennies of your taxes.
Or do you believe capital punishment for many more crimes?
Is it fair that this person lives way more luxurious in prison than we do? Does it look like this person in jail is getting punished?
Not in this case for that Chinese guy.
The government even get their money back from the bullet! lol
Right... china doesn't get involved in other country's politics. Ever heard of Tibet? North Korea? North Vietnam... Iran? What about industrial espionage, hacking other gov't computer systems, trade in 'recycling' old computers and lead? Ponzi schemes, illegal levels of lead, or other industrial chemicals in food, toys and other manufactured goods sent around the world, consumed by Western countries. China is not an example of how to run a country. Not to be trusted, not to be used as an example.This is why chinese government doesn't get involved. OTHER COUNTRIES' POLITICS ARE NONE OF YOUR BUSINESSES!
Wtih China becoming a 'power' in the world, and the unblinking light of world opinion shining through that 'veil' all the world will see what sort of sordid practices that regime has it's hands in.
Yes, because Democracy is expensive, and partly because having some form of a bill of rights for citizens is expensive. The expense is from endless litigation to defend rights and to "improve" - or rather - fine-tune our legal system.
But we've gone too far, much too far. It's so far that we don't know what Justice is anymore. I don't think the Chinese way is the right way for the most part, but it certainly gets some things Right.
In the United States, their system of laws basically state what you can't do. In Canada, our laws state what you can do. That is why when you compare the US to Canada, they have way more litigation than we do. In practice, the US laws gives you more rights than Canadian laws. But this is just another example of where having more rights is expensive. To top it off, having more rights has the pernicious effect of favouring the rich - because the rich have the means to defend their rights (and I'm sure you can find endless examples of rich people getting off on crimes where others wouldn't have a fighting chance).
We've gone too far in terms of individual rights... so far that people who do seriously horrible crimes at others expense have their rights supercede that of others and society's in general. Standing up for the rights of the individual versus standing up for the rights of the society is like standing up for minority rights versus standing up for the rights of the greater whole. It always takes less guts to stand up for the single versus the group because it's politically correct to do so. It takes more guts to look out for the greater whole and crush the rights of the individual or the minority. That is what we need to do in order that a guy like Clifford Olsen gets executed instead of living out the rest of his life while all the children he killed had their lives cut short; Clifford Olsen ate free dinners every day until he grew too old, while the children he killed never got to see their parents the next day. That is why, despite what some will say might be harsher to have life in prison, he must be executed. This is not about Punishment, this is about Justice.
"Justified" in what sense? If the crime is as given nobody's going to spill tears over the guy, but pretending the death penalty machinery in China is akin to justice is lunacy.
What you are talking about now is business. As to the countries that you listed, read the history of China. If I remember correctly, they somewhat "attacked" China in the past!
B
BrokeBastard
I remember when everyone was so happy Clifford Olsen died of cancer. Surely the posters against capital punishment would have made an exception for this monster?
Served justice well? What kind of justice would that be?
Your opinion is very similar to the opinion of those who confuse justice with punishment.
Justice is about being fair and equitable. When Olsen killed the children, not only did he take away their lives, but he forced their families to suffer for the rest of their lives. For the price of the lives of the children and the suffering of the families, Olsen paid by being in jail until old age with free meals everyday. What would be an equitable compensation for children's lives and the suffering of their families? Would all of Olsen's assets be enough? Would all his future income be enough? Would his freedom be enough? Would any of these things be received as fair compensation by any one of the families if they were forced to accept the murder of their child? What could Olsen offer that is his that could ever come close to a fair compensation? Everything including his life.
The only thing close to fair compensation in the imprisonment of Olsen was for the tax payer, if you could call that fair. We were forcibly paying for the expense of housing and feeding a dangerous individual, at no expense to him, at a relatively cheap rate only because the conditions weren't luxurious.
Justice when it applies to criminals seems to have been forgotten, yet we experience justice every day. When we buy a loaf of bread, we compensate the seller for his cost, his risk and his efforts. When we insult someone, we apologize because we feel an apology is owed.
Our system does not focus on justice, it focuses on punishment - despite its denials to the contrary. Focusing on punishment will always lead to the wrong path in the handling of criminals. A liberal society will think that punishment is too severe or pointless, and instead try to rehabilitate the criminal - but forget about the victim. A conservative society will enact harsh punishments even if they are cruel, but will undermine the moral fabric of society in so doing and will perpetuate cruelty to criminals (and others).
This society's concept of Justice is warped to the point of extinction. In being a society based on the rights of individuals, we've lost our way and we don't know what Justice is anymore.
Before Jesus, God told us "an eye for an eye". When he came he gave us another way, to "turn the other cheek".
Now God can't be wrong, and neither can Jesus. We swung the pendulum both ways, and we should bring it to the middle and do what we're told. So we should do both: we won't begrudge, we'll forgive - but only after the debt has been paid.
But in reality, prison lives are way better than non-prison lives. We work our asses off and they don't.
So, to add jesuschrist's comments, it is not cost-effective!
Exactly the point of this whole thread! You have no right to kill others. And if you do so, others have the right to kill you! There are obligations and responsibilities that you have to follow in order to EARN the right to exercise the right! But the system here in Canada lets people to ABUSE the rights that the system gives!
Let's assume you are right, for argument's sake, that the purpose of the criminal courts is what you say:
1) to balance the rights of all,
2) to render a decision based on evidence ... offers reasonable odds that those convicted will not re-offend.
On point 1: I agree, that it balances the rights of all.
On point 2: I agree again, that it renders a decision based on evidence, etc.
But both points are predicated on what? They are predicated on the set of laws as set forth for which the criminal courts are directed to interpret and apply, that is all. If I accept the laws, then I have to accept the courts, and thus I have to agree on your points. The problem is, your points are immaterial because I wasn't arguing about the courts, I was in disagreement with the principle behind the laws themselves.
We need to throw out our current laws and replace them with a set of laws that codifies Justice correctly: it correctly balances the rights of the victim against the convicted by redressing and restoring the victim as much as possible, thus redressing and restoring society. The current set of laws applies rights to victim and the convicted as if they were equal; although the individual becomes convicted, his fundamental rights remain equal to the victim because his punishment is minimized in order not to impinge too greatly on his rights - while turning a blind eye to the vast destruction of rights to the victim by the offender and by the courts that refuse to redress them.
As I stated before, the problem with our system today is that it focuses on punishment and forgets about justice, and this is because we hold individual rights above all, even if the individual has committed a capital crime.
If real Justice were in place, neither would have the chance to reoffend, forever.
The current system works if you only look at whether or not the criminal has a chance to reoffend, and you turn a blind eye to the injustice to the taxpayer who affords his lifelong imprisonment, and you turn a blind eye to the suffering of the victims and their families for which there was no effort at any redress. Simply imprisoning an offender is not the only factor in protecting society. To protect society, the victim must also be compensated or redressed or restored, and it is in the redress of the dignity of the victim and their families as human beings that the termination of these types of offenders is the only option.
