|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 7:13 pm
Etherealsage Lol, with technology that can keep track of any person's location, surveillance technology that is almost invisible, and a societal system that documents anything relevent about a person to anybody, technology is easily up to par with the task of keeping track of a minority of children. But most people don't much enjoy the idea of being tracked.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 7:36 pm
Divine_Malevolence Etherealsage Lol, with technology that can keep track of any person's location, surveillance technology that is almost invisible, and a societal system that documents anything relevent about a person to anybody, technology is easily up to par with the task of keeping track of a minority of children. But most people don't much enjoy the idea of being tracked. Nope, but we're not talking about tracking your average person. We're talking about tracking a child that would otherwise be in juvie, a mental institution, or prison/death row if tried as an adult. Do you think that they wouldn't choose being tracked over any of the other options?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:55 pm
Etherealsage Divine_Malevolence Etherealsage Lol, with technology that can keep track of any person's location, surveillance technology that is almost invisible, and a societal system that documents anything relevent about a person to anybody, technology is easily up to par with the task of keeping track of a minority of children. But most people don't much enjoy the idea of being tracked. Nope, but we're not talking about tracking your average person. We're talking about tracking a child that would otherwise be in juvie, a mental institution, or prison/death row if tried as an adult. Do you think that they wouldn't choose being tracked over any of the other options? You can keep track of when and where they are, but you can't specifically keep track of what everyone's doing, you know? Hence the limit of the technology that you put so much faith in. Unless you assign a single person to watch over a set group of individual's activities, the idea of tracking such people is unrealistic. Technology requires human input. If we don't watch over the information we collect, then there isn't going to be any input on what to do next. The same goes for registered child molesters, rapists, etc. We KNOW they're out there. We KNOW where they would/should be. But we don't know specifically what they're up to unless we have someone follow their case, which is an uncommon thing unless it's a severe/recurring case with an individual of sorts. Take parole for instance. We tell them not to go here and there on parole, but there are times when they go to the places they aren't allowed to go near. The only time they're caught is when someone happens to check up on them or something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:21 am
Guardian TK Etherealsage Divine_Malevolence Etherealsage Lol, with technology that can keep track of any person's location, surveillance technology that is almost invisible, and a societal system that documents anything relevent about a person to anybody, technology is easily up to par with the task of keeping track of a minority of children. But most people don't much enjoy the idea of being tracked. Nope, but we're not talking about tracking your average person. We're talking about tracking a child that would otherwise be in juvie, a mental institution, or prison/death row if tried as an adult. Do you think that they wouldn't choose being tracked over any of the other options? You can keep track of when and where they are, but you can't specifically keep track of what everyone's doing, you know? Hence the limit of the technology that you put so much faith in. Unless you assign a single person to watch over a set group of individual's activities, the idea of tracking such people is unrealistic. Technology requires human input. If we don't watch over the information we collect, then there isn't going to be any input on what to do next. The same goes for registered child molesters, rapists, etc. We KNOW they're out there. We KNOW where they would/should be. But we don't know specifically what they're up to unless we have someone follow their case, which is an uncommon thing unless it's a severe/recurring case with an individual of sorts. Take parole for instance. We tell them not to go here and there on parole, but there are times when they go to the places they aren't allowed to go near. The only time they're caught is when someone happens to check up on them or something. They go to school everyday, it wouldn't be that hard to document their behavior and interactions. These aren't fully fledged adults we're talking about here, we're talking about kids, who are almost always supervised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:23 pm
Etherealsage Guardian TK Etherealsage Divine_Malevolence Etherealsage Lol, with technology that can keep track of any person's location, surveillance technology that is almost invisible, and a societal system that documents anything relevent about a person to anybody, technology is easily up to par with the task of keeping track of a minority of children. But most people don't much enjoy the idea of being tracked. Nope, but we're not talking about tracking your average person. We're talking about tracking a child that would otherwise be in juvie, a mental institution, or prison/death row if tried as an adult. Do you think that they wouldn't choose being tracked over any of the other options? You can keep track of when and where they are, but you can't specifically keep track of what everyone's doing, you know? Hence the limit of the technology that you put so much faith in. Unless you assign a single person to watch over a set group of individual's activities, the idea of tracking such people is unrealistic. Technology requires human input. If we don't watch over the information we collect, then there isn't going to be any input on what to do next. The same goes for registered child molesters, rapists, etc. We KNOW they're out there. We KNOW where they would/should be. But we don't know specifically what they're up to unless we have someone follow their case, which is an uncommon thing unless it's a severe/recurring case with an individual of sorts. Take parole for instance. We tell them not to go here and there on parole, but there are times when they go to the places they aren't allowed to go near. The only time they're caught is when someone happens to check up on them or something. They go to school everyday, it wouldn't be that hard to document their behavior and interactions. These aren't fully fledged adults we're talking about here, we're talking about kids, who are almost always supervised. And what are you going to do about their "outside" time? It's no different than parole. Not everyone carries the same image in school/mall/home/work/friend's house at any given time. As I said in the above, you can collect the information, but giving human input is the flaw in a monitoring operation. You'd be surprised how "unsupervised" a lot of the trouble kids are out there, unless you tag someone to watch them. This is where it gets unrealistic, because even when you tag someone to watch a specific person, it's not going to be 24-hours a day. An event/incident can occur at any time. I've also noted earlier in this topic that kids in incoming generations are getting exponentially smarter at a slow pace. Well...more like they have the capacity to carry more information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 7:23 pm
Guardian TK Etherealsage Guardian TK Etherealsage Divine_Malevolence Etherealsage Lol, with technology that can keep track of any person's location, surveillance technology that is almost invisible, and a societal system that documents anything relevent about a person to anybody, technology is easily up to par with the task of keeping track of a minority of children. But most people don't much enjoy the idea of being tracked. Nope, but we're not talking about tracking your average person. We're talking about tracking a child that would otherwise be in juvie, a mental institution, or prison/death row if tried as an adult. Do you think that they wouldn't choose being tracked over any of the other options? You can keep track of when and where they are, but you can't specifically keep track of what everyone's doing, you know? Hence the limit of the technology that you put so much faith in. Unless you assign a single person to watch over a set group of individual's activities, the idea of tracking such people is unrealistic. Technology requires human input. If we don't watch over the information we collect, then there isn't going to be any input on what to do next. The same goes for registered child molesters, rapists, etc. We KNOW they're out there. We KNOW where they would/should be. But we don't know specifically what they're up to unless we have someone follow their case, which is an uncommon thing unless it's a severe/recurring case with an individual of sorts. Take parole for instance. We tell them not to go here and there on parole, but there are times when they go to the places they aren't allowed to go near. The only time they're caught is when someone happens to check up on them or something. They go to school everyday, it wouldn't be that hard to document their behavior and interactions. These aren't fully fledged adults we're talking about here, we're talking about kids, who are almost always supervised. And what are you going to do about their "outside" time? It's no different than parole. Not everyone carries the same image in school/mall/home/work/friend's house at any given time. As I said in the above, you can collect the information, but giving human input is the flaw in a monitoring operation. You'd be surprised how "unsupervised" a lot of the trouble kids are out there, unless you tag someone to watch them. This is where it gets unrealistic, because even when you tag someone to watch a specific person, it's not going to be 24-hours a day. An event/incident can occur at any time. I've also noted earlier in this topic that kids in incoming generations are getting exponentially smarter at a slow pace. Well...more like they have the capacity to carry more information. Knowledge isn't intelligence, nor is it wisdom. Anyway, I would tack on a tracker anklet that they put on probationary offenders, and forbid them to be outside of parental or professional supervision outside of school (who must go through a screening process). It wouldn't be hard for a teacher to submit a report, and if the child has professional supervision, like a daycare or caretaker, I would require it of them as well. The parents, rather than submitting a behavioral report, I would have them tack on where they went with the child, who they saw, and so on. Then follow up with people who saw the child. Now before you say this is unrealistic, how many children do you think commit murder? Or malicious arson? Any serious felony? And any system we could come up with would have flaws. The current rehabilitation system certainly does, putting them to death has considerably more potential for ******** ups. I don't think human input is a flaw. Anyway, I would have suggested recording the kid's interactions, but you can't really expect someone to listen into the kid's life 24/7, and then the kid would really have no privacy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:19 pm
Divine_Malevolence Oh, and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If this magic gun did exist, per say, there would be no negative consequence. People wouldn't have any reason not to kill anybody except for the fact that they'd only be able to do it once. And then they'd be made happy. End result, more people go out and kill people. And then get rewarded for it. Meanwhile, if the threat of actually dieing was placed over the head of a murderer, they'll be less likely to go out and kill people. It's not 100%, but negative consequence keeps people from killing people.
When people are committing the crimes that are awarded with capitol punishment, they are not carefully weighing out pros and cons in their heads. If the death penalty existed for insider trading, pollution, or tax fraud, then it would act as a deterrent. All of those crimes are committed based on some amount of calm 'pros-and-cons' logic. Serial murder is not.
Let's take some famous examples. September 11: the murderers were not at all discouraged by the thought of dieing, but encouraged by it as a form of martyrdom.
The same was true for Gary Gilmore. He is a large part of why we have the death penalty today. He did not challenge his death sentence at all, and thereby chose to be shot by a firing squad. He preferred being shot to life in prison.
It may be difficult to understand, but in most cases these people have many more pressing issues in their minds then self preservation. In both of the above cases a life in prison without parole would have been a better deterrent, but really there can be no effective punishment to act as a deterrent for crimes that are motivated by strong irrational forces of this magnitude.
Serial murderers are not the bad-guys from Sherlock Holmes or Murder She Wrote. They are people with very very serious problems, who frequently do not consider the consequences of their actions. The problem here is a lack of empathy with the people being killed by the state. They do not think like you think: if they were acting out of their own best interest and/or rationally then they wouldn't have committed murder in the first place.
You can look at this from the opposite perspective too. If a punishment would deter crimes, then a reward would encourage them. But in reality how many people would commit murder for any reward? Would you go out and kill someone to be zapped with the gun that made you non-violent and happy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:40 pm
Valheita Good as in Awesome You say that a sane person who kills someone should be killed. What about the executioner? Aren't they a sane person who killed someone? What is the difference between regular murder and government sponsored murder? Actually, on this one I'm going to quote Kenshin Himura (from Samurai X) "A man who feeds on his brother is not a man any more. He is a mad dog, and should be dealt the same fate" Also... who said a sane murderer should be killed? The death penalty should be reserved for the most extreme of cases. Mass murders, clinical insanity (such as cutting some women's arms and legs off with a katana because God told you to), serial rapists.
We all rely on our brains to give us accurate information about the world, when they fail to do so by a degree that large how can anyone judge weather the actions made were just or not.
There is a neurological condition, Capgras syndrome, which can be caused by brain lesions. It causes people to no longer emotionally recognize people, even though they still recognize them in all other ways. This results in the belief that the people closest to the patient have been replaced by replicas. In one instance a man murdered his elderly father to try to prove to everyone that he had been replaced by a robot. Is that man guilty of murder in the same way that an ordinary murderer is? This person wouldn't have killed if they understood what was going on.
The criminally insane need help, not to be murdered themselves.
------------------
Serial rapists is a much better example. Studies have shown that they have a very low rehabilitation rate. If let out, they are likely to commit rape again.
However why do they need to be killed? Why can't they be imprisoned for life?
I always try to argue against myself to challenge my thoughts, but I can only thing of one circumstance in which a logical argument can be made for the death sentence.
If there was someone who posed a great threat, who could not be imprisoned (like Magneto) then the options would be 1) Kill them or 2) Allow them to proceed killing. In that case, I still morally disagree with the death penalty, but I see it as a logical choice. However, there is no one like Magneto. All of these criminals could be detained indefinitely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:44 pm
Good as in Awesome Divine_Malevolence Oh, and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If this magic gun did exist, per say, there would be no negative consequence. People wouldn't have any reason not to kill anybody except for the fact that they'd only be able to do it once. And then they'd be made happy. End result, more people go out and kill people. And then get rewarded for it. Meanwhile, if the threat of actually dieing was placed over the head of a murderer, they'll be less likely to go out and kill people. It's not 100%, but negative consequence keeps people from killing people.
When people are committing the crimes that are awarded with capitol punishment, they are not carefully weighing out pros and cons in their heads. If the death penalty existed for insider trading, pollution, or tax fraud, then it would act as a deterrent. All of those crimes are committed based on some amount of calm 'pros-and-cons' logic. Serial murder is not.
Let's take some famous examples. September 11: the murderers were not at all discouraged by the thought of dieing, but encouraged by it as a form of martyrdom.
The same was true for Gary Gilmore. He is a large part of why we have the death penalty today. He did not challenge his death sentence at all, and thereby chose to be shot by a firing squad. He preferred being shot to life in prison.
It may be difficult to understand, but in most cases these people have many more pressing issues in their minds then self preservation. In both of the above cases a life in prison without parole would have been a better deterrent, but really there can be no effective punishment to act as a deterrent for crimes that are motivated by strong irrational forces of this magnitude.
Serial murderers are not the bad-guys from Sherlock Holmes or Murder She Wrote. They are people with very very serious problems, who frequently do not consider the consequences of their actions. The problem here is a lack of empathy with the people being killed by the state. They do not think like you think: if they were acting out of their own best interest and/or rationally then they wouldn't have committed murder in the first place.
You can look at this from the opposite perspective too. If a punishment would deter crimes, then a reward would encourage them. But in reality how many people would commit murder for any reward? Would you go out and kill someone to be zapped with the gun that made you non-violent and happy?Such people are better off dead. Such problems aren't likely to be fixed, and sending them to jail for life would not reform them. Either way would probably be a death sentence. Might as well dispatch them anyway. And that's only with extreme cases. Minor cases, such as with gangs, have some logic. Their buddies might be in jail. They might have some flawed idea that they'll get busted out and get to live uninhibited. Jail is not something that inspires very much fear. However, if they were going to die as a result, they wouldn't very much want that. Can't talk to buddies when dead. Can't escape from the afterlife. And there are many cases where I'd kill people in the case that there was no negative consequence. Throw in a positive one, and I'll be ripping limb from limb, from here to Shanghai.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:32 am
Good as in Awesome Serial rapists is a much better example. Studies have shown that they have a very low rehabilitation rate. If let out, they are likely to commit rape again. However why do they need to be killed? Why can't they be imprisoned for life? Good as in Awesome The same was true for Gary Gilmore. He is a large part of why we have the death penalty today. He did not challenge his death sentence at all, and thereby chose to be shot by a firing squad. He preferred being shot to life in prison.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 1:00 pm
Etherealsage Guardian TK Etherealsage Guardian TK Etherealsage Nope, but we're not talking about tracking your average person. We're talking about tracking a child that would otherwise be in juvie, a mental institution, or prison/death row if tried as an adult. Do you think that they wouldn't choose being tracked over any of the other options? You can keep track of when and where they are, but you can't specifically keep track of what everyone's doing, you know? Hence the limit of the technology that you put so much faith in. Unless you assign a single person to watch over a set group of individual's activities, the idea of tracking such people is unrealistic. Technology requires human input. If we don't watch over the information we collect, then there isn't going to be any input on what to do next. The same goes for registered child molesters, rapists, etc. We KNOW they're out there. We KNOW where they would/should be. But we don't know specifically what they're up to unless we have someone follow their case, which is an uncommon thing unless it's a severe/recurring case with an individual of sorts. Take parole for instance. We tell them not to go here and there on parole, but there are times when they go to the places they aren't allowed to go near. The only time they're caught is when someone happens to check up on them or something. They go to school everyday, it wouldn't be that hard to document their behavior and interactions. These aren't fully fledged adults we're talking about here, we're talking about kids, who are almost always supervised. And what are you going to do about their "outside" time? It's no different than parole. Not everyone carries the same image in school/mall/home/work/friend's house at any given time. As I said in the above, you can collect the information, but giving human input is the flaw in a monitoring operation. You'd be surprised how "unsupervised" a lot of the trouble kids are out there, unless you tag someone to watch them. This is where it gets unrealistic, because even when you tag someone to watch a specific person, it's not going to be 24-hours a day. An event/incident can occur at any time. I've also noted earlier in this topic that kids in incoming generations are getting exponentially smarter at a slow pace. Well...more like they have the capacity to carry more information. Knowledge isn't intelligence, nor is it wisdom. Anyway, I would tack on a tracker anklet that they put on probationary offenders, and forbid them to be outside of parental or professional supervision outside of school (who must go through a screening process). It wouldn't be hard for a teacher to submit a report, and if the child has professional supervision, like a daycare or caretaker, I would require it of them as well. The parents, rather than submitting a behavioral report, I would have them tack on where they went with the child, who they saw, and so on. Then follow up with people who saw the child. Now before you say this is unrealistic, how many children do you think commit murder? Or malicious arson? Any serious felony? And any system we could come up with would have flaws. The current rehabilitation system certainly does, putting them to death has considerably more potential for ******** ups. I don't think human input is a flaw. Anyway, I would have suggested recording the kid's interactions, but you can't really expect someone to listen into the kid's life 24/7, and then the kid would really have no privacy. That sounds like a promising solution. surprised Resource costly, but effective. Remember that the topic doesn't just talk about 9 and below. We're talking about the "juvenile" age range in this topic. So we're possibly having to deal with ages up to 16. So you have to keep in mind the number of incidents ranging in that area as well. Though if we only consider the age group you're thinking of, then yes, it's an effective solution other than death penalty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 2:10 pm
Death penalty shouldn't be allowed becase I'm just think that people who are innocent but cant prove it will die emo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:14 pm
DEMONN_NNIK Death penalty shouldn't be allowed becase I'm just think that people who are innocent but cant prove it will die emo Is an incorrect life in prison sentence better?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 1:09 am
tkdauronXIII That sounds like a promising solution. surprised Resource costly, but effective. Remember that the topic doesn't just talk about 9 and below. We're talking about the "juvenile" age range in this topic. So we're possibly having to deal with ages up to 16. So you have to keep in mind the number of incidents ranging in that area as well. Though if we only consider the age group you're thinking of, then yes, it's an effective solution other than death penalty. Upon thought, you could make the cut off age around 12, and at any point thereafter up to around 15 pending a background check and psychological evaluation. I came to my senses around 13, and the changing process went on until around 16, so I don't really have an idea what a reasonable age cutoff would be. Maybe someone would come to their senses around 16 or 17. I don't know. I would need input from a larger sample size than just myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
