Crime rates and punishments

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is the fairest model developed.

Yes, the the Scandinavian model achieves (roughly) the same result as SA and the Gulf States in terms of crime. But it forgoes the right of revenge for the victim and the victims family.

As someone who supports the death penalty for terrorists, serial killers and cold blooded murderers I really wouldn't mind if they were to be executed in public. Like am I meant to feel sorry for these people? Because their executions seemed "barbaric"? They certainly didn't have any problems being barbaric when they did their heinous deeds.

"Yes, the Scandinavian model leads to a safer, fairer, more equitable society - but where is the opportunity for violent vengeance?"
And you really think that is supposed to convince rational people?

We both know thats a fallacious argument. There are plenty f unjust laws (and plain idiotic ones) that should be ignored. To blindly follow every law simply because it exists is not only impractical its moral cowardice in my book. To take an example i'll eat my hat if you havent broken a law in your time, be it drinking, using a phone etc.

My point was, again, more that whether he was 'high as a kite' or not is immaterial and shouldnt be considered as a rationale here. It being entirely someones personal business if they wish to engage in private drug use, in my book.

I would point out i have made no comment on this particular aspect, only on the people using the alleged drug taking as a reason the guy deserved what he got. That is it.

He might well be, and this is someting i noted in another thread. Or, more specifically, that he cant have a fair trial one way or the other. However, at the end of the day he did thrttle a man to death in spite of pleas to the contrary. I think the idea that it was a racial thing is tosh but his actions were quite clearly beyond what is acceptable - aptly demonstrated by having a body in the morgue.

Yes. Fear.
What's the crime rate like in Xinjiang Province?

Some children are well behaved because they are encouraged to be so by example and explanation.
Some children are well behaved because they are regularly beaten.
Presumably you consider the latter to be as acceptable and commendable as the former?

You aren't meant to feel sorry for them.
However, you are meant to acknowledge the hypocrisy of "killing is so fundamentally wrong that anyone who does it should be killed".
You are also meant to acknowledge the many miscarriages of justice that would have led to the executions of innocent men and women who are now able to regain some freedom and redress.

It's really not a difficult concept.

It seems to be lost on our cosplay Colonel that part of what makes advanced societies so successful is forgoing the "right" of irrational actions.

Eh ? We have more rights to do irrational actions in the west than in Authoritarian states.

In that case then why not completely scrap the armed forces and disarm the police?

Obviously not.

The point is it's different when the state does it. Just as me stealing from you is different to the state taxing you.

I'm a bit confused. I'm certain I don't understand this point. It feels to me like a 'False dichotomy', where the only options are to allow the State to murder with impunity or utterly abolish all policing.

Can you clarify? I don't want to argue with a point you didn't make.

Uh, yeah I obviously I don't support the right of the state to kill people with impunity...

I am pointing out the fact that there is a difference between someone murdering someone and the state executing that person for murder after a fair legal trial Which QE2 claimed was hypocritical.

Just as it's different for me to steal a cut of your salary without your consent and the state doing that in the form of taxes.

Uh, yeah I obviously I don't support the right of the state to kill people with impunity...

I am pointing out the fact that there is a difference between someone murdering someone and the state executing that person for murder after a fair legal trial Which QE2 claimed was hypocritical.

Just as it's different for me to steal a cut of your salary without your consent and the state doing that in the form of taxes.

Okay. Yes. I can agree with that. Thank you for clarifying.

So any action taken by the state is morally and rationally justifiable simply because it is taken by the state? No other explanation required.

If killing another person is so beyond what is acceptable and justifiable, why is it accepted and justified to kill someone as a punishment for killing when there are other, better options available?

And making a contribution to the cost of running society is not comparable to theft. If the government obtained that contribution by breaking down your door and taking your valuables without any consideration to value and share, perhaps you would have a point.

That is one hell of a stretch my liberal friend! Of course context is important. But in principle I am not opposed to the state / police killing people in certain conditions and I'm sure you support the same unless you don't think those Isis nutters should have been shot by police etc?

Well there's a number of points here. For one I think it's subjective that better options are available. Executing heinous criminals should in theory be cheap and effective (they are not going to reoffend!)

As for why it's acceptable well it comes down to something which liberals like you are very squeamish about: and that's Authority. EG A parent can impose their will on their child to eat certain meals, go to bed and tidy their room against their will (within reasonable confines) whilst the child cannot do these things to their parents . Similarly the state can impose it's will upon its citizens (within reasonable confines) because it has a similar Authority to do so.

Why not? Do you think that Boris Johnson is better to spend your money than you are? (I'm not arguing against taxation I am just pointing out it's subjective) the state has the authority to take my money irrespective of whether I think it's right for them to do so.

Again to reiterate I am not in favour of giving the state cart blanche power to do what they want but simply that the state exists in a separate state to us. In short there is (to use another word QE2 probably hates) a hierarchy

That is one hell of a stretch my liberal friend! Of course context is important. But in principle I am not opposed to the state / police killing people in certain conditions and I'm sure you support the same unless you don't think those Isis nutters should have been shot by police etc?

Well there's a number of points here. For one I think it's subjective that better options are available. Executing heinous criminals should in theory be cheap and effective (they are not going to reoffend!)

As for why it's acceptable well it comes down to something which liberals like you are very squeamish about: and that's Authority. EG A parent can impose their will on their child to eat certain meals, go to bed and tidy their room against their will (within reasonable confines) whilst the child cannot do these things to their parents . Similarly the state can impose it's will upon its citizens (within reasonable confines) because it has a similar Authority to do so.

Why not? Do you think that Boris Johnson is better to spend your money than you are? (I'm not arguing against taxation I am just pointing out it's subjective) the state has the authority to take my money irrespective of whether I think it's right for them to do so.

Again to reiterate I am not in favour of giving the state cart blanche power to do what they want but simply that the state exists in a separate state to us. In short there is (to use another word QE2 probably hates) a hierarchy

The authority and hierarchy of a liberal state is both legitimised and reined in by public accountability. The state-sanctioned violence and "theft" (taxation) is all part of the social contract.