Printable View
The president of Georgia pops in mind. )))Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
Generally there are cases when there are plenty of evidence, traces of blood, fingerprints, DNA samples, eyewitnesses, camera recordings, etc. If we listen to you we can assume that prisons are full of innocents now.
Umm.. can you elaborate? I'm not sure I get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ленивец
That's true. That's why I said that I "highly doubt", not that he hadn't in fact had much legal defense. The "highly" is based on my assumption that he's probably not Berezovsky. And the other side (the state = the police) would probably be represented much better as they are desperate to close the case as soon as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ленивец
The "full of innocents" is definitely stretching is out, but there are some who are innocent. And killing them would be irresponsible. You see, you have to give the meaning for their death. Basically, you mentioned two different things:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
1. You want the justice - so the "non-humans" ought to be punished.
2. You want "non-humans" exterminated (the "sanitization").
In the former case, I think unless a "non-human" gets it exactly like he'd done to his victim, there's no justice (as outlined by the Golden Rule and intuitively accepted by everyone). And if there were ten victims he should get it ten times. Otherwise, there's no justice. Other means (e.g. 9gr of lead, the euthanasia, the uranium mines, etc.) are too soft. So, advocating either of those means, you prevent the justice to take place.
In the latter case, you stopped short of realizing the society advocating the "sanitization" becomes the non-human society. I was looking for the extent you can accept treating the "non-humans" and for some reason burning them alive was hard on you to accept. So, that indicates to me that you ARE human and you think the executioners ARE humans too.
I just want to point out that you cannot say "innocents".
The word cannot be bent in that way. You have to say "innocent people" or "wrongly convicted people" or something like that...
Anyway, my view is that no man is so perfect that he has the right to decide who should die. There is a religious aspect to this.
Same thing with saying that some people are sub-human. There is a good precedent in history from Germany which shows that things quickly get very nasty if society takes it upon itself to say that some people are unworthy for some reason.
I mean, where do you draw the line? Killings can be manslaughter, pre-meditated, accidental etc, etc. What about euthanasia... What if the person was acting under threat, under influence of drugs...
There are lots of "unless" that almost any religion would recognize. Unless you're threatened to be killed, unless you see that someone who's dear to you is threatened to be killed (or killed in front of you), unless ... and so on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
True... But this discussion is about whether the state has the right to kill people, isn't it? The state is just (supposedly..) a representation of all the citizens in the country... So the question is, in this respect, is it right for it to decide to kill those who cross certain boundaries? I say it's not.
I say, get them out of they way so they can't hurt anyone else.. and make them work to redeem themselves to the rest of society. But I don't want any killing done in my name, as a citizen.
Obviously if somebody was about to kill somebody I loved and I could stop it by killing them, then I'd do that. But that's a "spontaneous" situation that cannot be planned for.. Whereas state executions are very much a conscious policy.
I DO think it is important to have tough sentences for certain crimes though - just to deter people - particularly those that have no morals of their own, or who are driven by perversion or ruthless greed.
I also think that young offenders should be given rehabilitation if possible - it may not be too late to turn them arond and make them change their lives. They may have been pushed into a life of crime by circumstances they couldn't contro.
Older people have had more opportunity to think reflect on the choices they make and are completely responsible for their action -- and should take the consequences of their actions -- which should be tough for serious crimes, but nor death.
This is my view.
I think you somehow miss the point that Ramil was stressing. Do you think there are certain actions that deserve the death as their punishment in principle? Yes or no? If yes (as you mentioned in your "spontaneous" situation), then who can kill (the state or the individual) is just a matter of seek-n-hide with your own consciousness. If no (as you mentioned in your "religious aspect"), then you should deny all killings and punish those who administered it (even as a result of their self-defense).Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
So, I'm trying to propose the compromise. I'd say YES there are actions which deserve the capital punishment in principle, but since the judicial system cannot ensure the 100% accuracy, when in doubt - act conservatively (do not kill). If there's enough evidence though, the life imprisonment (as the means of the further crime prevention) is legitimate in my opinion.
I'll use the term 'Subhumans', if everyone agrees to use it to describe people who do not fall under the definition of 'human beings' in its non-biological context. Yes, you can draw some parallels to the nazis, but this is a matter of terminology. The nazis were obsessed with the notion of some 'higher race' and tried to breed one. So there's a vast difference. Nobody suggests to cast out people by some ideological or biological features. Only by harm or damage they have done to the society and/or individuals.
Ok, to the 'where to draw the line question'. Incidental killing is one thing, but deliberate murder is another one. That's why every court considers so called aggravating and attenuating circumstances. They are well defined and have been used for centuries by assorted courts.
Crocodile, I don't advocate torture or some exotic ways of killing. It is simply a matter of principle: if you take a life then we will take yours. Period.
And the last thing about the executioners. People manage to get by with so called 'collective responsibility'. That's why there are several people in the firing squad and there are several people who close the electric chair circuit, etc. They don't become 'subhumans' because they don't kill for their personal motive. This is I think is the main difference. And this is where 'that line' should be drawn.
Based on what grounds?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Read above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
Justice? (Your "sub-humans" theory doesn't speak to me.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
There is no objective definition of 'human beings' in its non-biological context.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Then lives of those "we" should also be taken. This logic can only be justified with the immediate suicide of the judge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
I like "10 little ni99ers" (in English AKA "And then there were none"), the film by Govorukhin rather than original book by dame Agatha. Only the one who sacrifices his own life has a right to judge.
Yes, the jury verdict in the official court.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
it-ogo - that is a simplified version, a figure of speech if you want. I defined the criteria in my posts above if you had only bothered to read.
Well to answer the Croc's question I'd say I'd rather err on the side of caution.
I'd rather a bad person "got away" than somebody innocent was executed.
And if I have to choose whether it is OK to kill somebody who is about to rape you.. I'd say "no", even if it the victim was my sister or myself. But that doesn't mean that I would blame somebody who killed a person under such circumstances, or that I wouldn't try my best to stop him. I might accidently kill him, for example, while I tried to defend myself... and I don't think I'd feel particularly guilty about that.
I think it is a sign of a moral, advanced, sophisticated society that it can deal with violent and maladjusted people in a better way than killing them.
In a very rich country there is no excuse for solving a problem in this type of "quick-fix" way, when the person could perhaps be completely rehabilitated through therapy etc. Obviously a poor country cannot afford this.
Here is a very interesting report about a Norwegian prison. I have heard about this prison and it actually "rehabilitates" a lot of people. But Ramil will feel sick when he sees this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSaoirOdZOQ
:bad:
I remember from school something about "crime and punishment" in other countries. There was a horrible film about an American black man from poor circumstances who grew up to be a criminal, accidentally killed somebody and got executed in the electrical chair. The execution was incredibly scary to watch. In the same class their was also a story about a writer in the USSR who was critisising the governement and refused to work. He got sent to a mental institution and given drugs against his will. At the end of the film he had become crazy for real.
Nasty stuff all of it. Justice is such a difficult question.. The point of that lesson was that both the people had in fact broken the laws of the society in which they lived but both could be said to have mitigating circumstances.
The matter of what is "right" and "wrong" varies from culture to culture and from between different times.
How would you feel if you release a prisoner giving him the 'benefit of doubt' and hear he kills another ten people afterwards?Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,1296676,00.htmlQuote:
when the person could perhaps be completely rehabilitated through therapy etc
I don't really want to give [s:2d8208dr]people[/s:2d8208dr] animals who did this and who ordered this ANY chance. THEY DO NOT DESERVE IT.
Watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eJDUVkJS6g
Yep, you rely on the state punitive machine (jury is a part of that machine anyway). A strange thing for an anarchist. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Machine is used to avoid personal responsibility for the killing. OK, let's assume that sometimes it is necessary. What for? For someone to enjoy sweet revenge? I believe it is unacceptable.
To make the society safe. This is OK. Will the life imprisonment be less safe for the society than killing? Only if the state punitive machine fails to afford the life imprisonment. That is if the machine is ineffective in general. If the machine is ineffective in general how it can be effective in selecting whom to kill?
Execution a criminal is an act of love and compassion - to the crime's victims and their relatives. If there's a grave crime (e.g. a murder) and we have direct evidence against someone, death penalty must be administered.
Indeed. I'm just trying to find a compromise. You wouldn't want me administering justice accoding to my own views on morale. Ideally, people should perceive the truth and deal with the criminals without the state intervention. But alas, this option will not be available to us in the forseeable future. So if we can't get rid of the state we can at least utilize its functionality.Quote:
Originally Posted by it-ogo
No. To instill fear of possible punishment to potential criminals. And what will be wrong if the victim's relatives know that at least the justice is done properly? I don't see any problem with that. Yes, maybe some will call it 'revenge' - I still don't see anything wrong with that.Quote:
Machine is used to avoid personal responsibility for the killing. OK, let's assume that sometimes it is necessary. What for? For someone to enjoy sweet revenge? I believe it is unacceptable.
Yes. A life imprisonment sentence can be reviewed, altered or softened.Quote:
To make the society safe. This is OK. Will the life imprisonment be less safe for the society than killing?
It is horrible. But I suppose it must have happened half a century ago, when blacks were still discriminated. Even in tzarist Russia people weren't necessarily executed if they committed just one murder and if there were mitigating circumstances -- like a state of affect, previous clear record, etc. Raskolnikov comes to mind, and some other cases. Their sentences would often be commuted to penal servitude.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
I do not believe in taking someone's life just because he did it to someone else, each case needs individual treatment. I've recently re-watched that Sherlock Holmes episode (they're almost constantly on our tv :) ), where a woman kills a vile, unrepentant blackmailer, Charles Augustus Milverton, who has destroyed not only her life (her husband died of grief/heart attack? when her letters written god knows how long ago were sent him by this blackmailer) but also the lives of dozens of other women. Holmes and Watson saw this woman kill that scoundrel with their own eyes. Yet they do not betray her to the police. I say, they did right! And any normal person will say the same. The same story is if, for example, an alcoholic husband has been beating his wife and children to pulp until finally she loses it and kills her oppressor -- in my opinion, she should be acquitted -- he asked for it. And it's no good saying she should have left him instead of killing him -- in Russia, it is often very difficult to leave one's spouse due to poor housing conditions, and living with an alcoholic is hell.
BUT when we are talking of a person who has killed many times, maybe with special ferocity, and doesn't show any signs of repentance -- I'm just trying to work out the logic of letting him live. I am not personally vindictive, as far as I know, but I don't know how I'd feel if I was a victim's relative and knew that the murderer continued to live...
Chikatilo had a difficult childhood, too. I feel extremely sorry for those children who do not have a normal, happy childhood, but he can't possibly be excused by it for what he's done while being an adult, mature person with family.
I totally agree with the judge:
And out of those two persons, who were executed instead if Chikatilo, at least one wasn't a furry bunny either, but a person who'd served a prison sentence for a similar crime -- rape and murder. Which doesn't mean, of course, that his execution wasn't a horrible mistake.Quote:
Taking into consideration the monstrous crimes he committed, this court has no alternative but to impose the only sentence that he deserves. I therefore sentence him to death.
Chikatilo may be a relatively rare case, but just this May a girl went missing in my neighbourhood. She was last seen coming out of a nightclub with some unknown guy. She was found only in September -- raped and murdered -- by a man who was gathering mushrooms in the nearby forest. To be sure, you can say that she should have been more cautious -- the club had a bad reputation and anyway, going anywhere late at night with a stranger is not a good idea. But that's just a lesson for others, which will not be heeded, either. By my logic, the person who did this doesn't really deserve to live. It's another matter that he might not be caught. Or caught only years later, after he's killed a good many other girls. Or caught, found crazy, and therefore not responsible, treated for a couple years in a lunatic asylum and then released to commit more crimes.
Another woman went missing this very spring -- there was a huge uproar. She was last seen going into her appartment block (подъезд) at 00:00 but didn't make it to her flat (her boyfriend just gave her a lift in his car to her house but didn't accompany her to the flat). Later, her keys were found in the lift/elevator. Search groups were organised but it all proved useless. She hasn't been found and we know nothing of her fate but it is utterly impossible she just left without saying anybody because she had a ten year old son and she was by all accounts a very responsible mother who would never have left her child like that.
That said, I'm glad that the punishments aren't so severe now as they used to be. For example, it is my understanding from classic literature that in the 19th century England, people could be hanged for as slight a breach of law as mere stealing. :-o
A link to the discussion in "Литературная газета" -- http://www.lgz.ru/article/10959/
In prisons there is a professional criminal society which causes many security problems both when in jail and when its members are freed. This society reproducts itself. Death penalty for repeated crimes is a method that could get us rid of them.
[quote=Ленивец]Thank you - I stay corrected.[/quote:2wzh29va]Quote:
Originally Posted by starrysky
This debate is refreshing in its TOTAL lack of "political correctness" :shock: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness which is a real hinderance to constructive debates about anything controversial in Europe. (Probably also USA, but their view of what is "politically correct" is different).
Anybody Europe will choke on his food and cover his ears at hearing anybody mention the expression "subhuman" (untermensch)! That's what Hitler & co called Jews, Gypsies, and people with a different ideology.... And remember what he did with them...
I think it's a combination of genetic factors and social background that turns some people into violent criminals. I don't think the answer is as simple as saying that there is a class of people who are "subhumans" (even if their behaviour would point at that conclusion.... )
Perhaps the situation with crime is more out-of-control in Russia than in Western Europe and that is why you favour death penalty so honest people can have a better life. But to me -- it is unthinkable. I can't even imagine the state deciding that somebody should die and killing that person.
But if a violent criminal tried to escape from prison, then I would think it would be OK to shoot them.
I just can't stand the idea of the state deliberately trying to kill anyone. My view is that the state should represent the GOOD side of everybody in society. And the GOOD thing to do with a murderer would be to prevent him from killing again (by locking him up) and then try to reform his character. If the crime was particularly hineous, then let him work hard for the rest of his life doing someting that nobody else wants to do - like a mine;
In Sweden, I think that the maximum penalty for murder; "LIFETIME" is in fact only 14 years. But the prisoner only serves half of the sentence. So it's really 7 years.
And the prisons are pretty darn nice! I visited one, with school. It looked perfectly fine. Staying there and studying for a degree and working a bit is probably not bad at all. They've got TV in the cell, internet access, gym..... This is a mockery of justice, I think.
I don't believe that the threat of death would stop the one who is not stopped by the threat of life imprisonment. Those who make "anti-human" crimes usually either do not care of the consequences or do not believe to be punished at all. On the other hand when the threat of being captured becomes very real they can become even more dangerous both to those who are going to arrest them and to people around. More danger, more deaths.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
It is right by itself, but it can not be the direct purpose of the punitive machine. This machine is more dangerous than all subhumans together and needs much caution, exact objective and non-emotional rules to function.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
PS - I pretty much share Starrysky's views on this (didn't see her post until now).
Haven't seen Russian Sherlock Holmes but it sounds like a thought-provoking series. More than just a "costume drama" as we call films about old times here in the UK..
I raced through "Crime and Punishment" once, but I was too rushed and too young to really appreciate it. Perhaps in a couple of years I can read it in Russian... :yahoo:
=======================
Oh, and one more thing: I am not questioning that it is probably more "efficient" to kill undesirable people. For example if you want a very orderly society, the then fear of draconian punishments is probably very efficient. Like Singapore today.
I am just saying I don't think it's ethically right for the state to kill people for any reason.... Because once it is allowed to do it.. then where does it stop... ?
A clear line "killing is not allowed for the state" is clear and cannot be manipulated.
You may not believe it but it does work. And many would at least think before committing a crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by it-ogo
We were speaking of the extremes, about Chikatilo, etc., i.e. maniacs. But what concerns me more are quite rational people who kill for money or property. They're not maniacs, they just think that it's all right to kill somebody and take their money, car or jewelry. Some 7 to 9 years of imprisonment is a laughable punishment for this.
Yes, it is dangerous, but nuclear reactor is also dangerous, yet we use it to produce power. Even a kitchen knife can serve as a device of murder. Every machine is dangerous to a degree, but that doesn't stop us from using them.Quote:
Originally Posted by it-ogo
There are certain conditions that decide whether death penalty is applicable or not. If all the conditions are met then yes, death penalty should be applied. Delayed execution as a legal norm should also help to avoid errors.
Johanna, have you read my post on the previous page? Would you really feel pity for those who arranged the massacre in Beslan?
Yes I read it and watched the video. It is terrible. I had not seen it in such detail before.Quote:
Johanna, have you read my post on the previous page? Would you really feel pity for those who arranged the massacre in Beslan?
They deserve to be severely punished and are definitely a threat to society for the rest of their lives. They can never be released.
But in their TWISTED minds, they believe that they are fighting for a just cause, don't they? Supposedly they believe that Russia has done terrible damage to them, their families, culture or something like that. (I don't know much about this conflict...)
They did it because they are incredibly misguided, brainwashed and filled with hatred and wish for "revenge". Same as the Palestinian terrorists in Israel, ETA and others around the world. They do terrible things, but they actually think they are fighting for a just cause. (With this I am NOT saying that there is any similarity between Israel and Russia - just giving an example of an area that everybody knows about. )
I don't think it would be constructive to have such people executed. They'd just turn into martyrs and world opinion would turn more against Russia for no particular gain. Anyway, didn't the military commando unit "accidentally" kill all of them when they stormed the school? Problem solved then - it happened in the heat of the battle, not premediated, at least not officially.
Don't forget the judicial system altogether has very little to do with The Justice as outlined by the Golden Rule and as the most people understand it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
Here's a simple example. In some countries the thieves were punished by cutting off their hands. Was that something even close to being equivalent to the amount of money they stole? No way! That was done TO PREVENT them from doing that in the future. And to SCARY OTHER potential thieves! That's how the "correctional" nature of the judicial system came to be. And the way the correction has evolved into the cells equipped with TVs is another story.
So, I read again and again the word "DESERVE" in the context that the serial killer and raper deserve their death. All I was asking from you guys was to reflect on where this "deserve" has come from! Revenge, sub-humans, etc. are only the words to substitute the very notion of The Justice. The people who live by the principle: "Don't do to others what you do not want being done to you," have a very strong NEED to see that working in the real world!!!! Otherwise, what's the point for them to live by this principle?!! That's the foundation of the human society. "I am willing to trade my good behavior for your good behavior."
Having said that, the point I'm trying to make is that The Justice is rarely possible. You can't kill and rape a serial killer 10 times. So, the 9gr-of-lead, the rope, or the euthanasia are a way TOO SOFT a punishment!! You guys admitted it yourself! So, why the 9gt-of-lead exactly is a compromise? I personally don't really see it as a fair compromise! Perhaps the heroin diet for one year (which will eventually also lead to the death) is a compromise? No? Too soft? I'd say rape and kill the serial killer at least ONE time would be a compromise! And broadcast that on TV! Why not? Is it too exotic? Is it too hard for the execution squad to do? So, in that case give the serial killer to the hands of his victims relatives! They will find a decent punishment and the state (which "represents the good side of the people") will sleep tight.
By advocating the common capital punishment (e.g. 9gr-of-lead) you promote The Injustice! So, you're trying to teach the future killers a lesson? That would be a bad lesson as they would know their maximum penalty and it's too soft by all standards. So you basically allow the killers to go WILD! The punishment is the same after all, and the army guys die from the 9gr-of-lead on a regular basis and it's considered a decent death. If the killer would know he'll get exactly the same as he's doing to his victims, that would prevent A LOT of CRUELTY!
So, what I'm saying is that - before supporting the capital punishment, think it through first. What do you really want? The Justice, prevention of crimes, protection of the people? Each of those would result in a different law.
PS. The judicial errors are real.
Croc:
The Golden Rule is formulated "do to others what you would like to be done to you". Now we're to apply it to the cases of grave crimes. E.g.Quote:
Don't forget the judicial system altogether has very little to do with The Justice as outlined by the Golden Rule and as the most people understand it.
What what you would like to be done to you, if YOU have stripped an 3 y.o. adopted son, and thrown him off a bridge to a river?
I think that one's conscience could demand death for oneself in such case. That looks natural.
It exists in two forms, the positive and the negative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden ... 8ethics%29Quote:
Originally Posted by Ленивец
I think I mentioned it a couple of times. Death could come in different ways. In order to hold the justice, the offender should be stripped and thrown off the bridge to the river. Anything else would not do justice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ленивец
What comes of it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
Why should justice come in "an eye for an eye" form?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
Anybody tell me what 'The Golden Rule' has to do with the discussed topic? There's some perverted logic in bringing it here since you can't really imprison a man according to this rule since you wouldn't want to be imprisoned yourself.
One man does something permanent to another one. Then the third one decides what to do. According to this rule that third man should leave the first one alone.
And Crocodile, your sermon is full of sophistry again. Your first and fundamental assumption that Justice is based on the Golden rule is wrong. And starting from there you got carried away (IMO). Justice has nothing to do with the Golden Rule. They are different concepts.
The universal principle of justice mixed with the co-existence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ленивец
"An eye for an eye" is actually a principle of "equal measure" in Akkadian Law system (think guys like Sargon and Solomon) and does not mean its direct physical application (as improperly interpreted by some). The principle states the follows: if a person A caused another person B to loose his eye, the person A deserves his eye to be lost. However, if the person A has only one eye, it will not be equal for A and B as the person B can still see with his one eye left and the person A becomes totally blind. Therefore, the equal measure should be considered each time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ленивец
If the equal measure is apparent, it could be applied to restore the justice. So, throwing the bad guy off the bridge would do the justice.
I actually think what I'm saying is rather simple. If you have anything you don't understand, feel free to ask.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
I think I explained the relationship rather simple. If you think those are different concepts, bring on your explanation. The "sanitization of sub-humans" explanation is not an explanation. It's just an angry emotion and prevents the balanced thinking. You go on bringing the emotional side to it and make everyone angry (=poor judges). That's the way the propaganda usually works. And I have to admit it was quite successful with the "sub-humans" last time it was widely adopted by Nazis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
This is interesting. I heard there was statistical research proved that it doesn't work. But I did not find any link now so I wrote just "I believe". Do you have some reference to the research results confirming that it works?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Err... I don't quite understand why anybody would choke on his food hearing it mentioned -- as a historical fact it gets mentioned when the subject of the Great Patriotic War comes up. I believe in Russia this word is mostly remembered because that's what Hitler called Slavs. I think Jews were even lower in his category... Slavs in his opinion were at least fit to be servants and slaves -- that was the fate that awaited Russians if Nazis won...Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
This belongs in the political correctness thread but I certainly think that some suggestions related to it, like banning Mark Twain's books because they have the word "Negro", are ridiculous.
This is a good point. In Russia, Europe is often (or maybe sometimes -- but I hear this opinion a lot from people who left Russia to live and work in Europe) considered a much more civilised and safe place, so I guess because of the universal welfare and well-being there are fewer criminals, and softer punishments are enough. The only gripe that I have when anyone starts singing eulogies nowadays about how Germany is SO much more civilised than Russia, is that the same thing Hitler said to his soldiers at the eve of their invasion -- that Russia is a barbarous, uncivilised country, that Slavs are "untermensch" and so on. And he showed how 'civilised' he was in his treatment of Jews and Slavs...Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
*The very operation of the Russian invasion was called "Barbarossa"...
When and if Russia becomes quite as prosperous and safe, perhaps there will be less crime. Russia has always aspired to be closer to Europe, at the same time retaining its identity. At any rate, I can't say that I'm disappointed about the fact that there is going to be no capital punishment. The less violence, the better. Perhaps I would like it to just be there a potential threat, reserved for the most atrocious cases -- as it was in the 1990s, if I'm not mistaken.
About death penalty in Russia -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital...ment_in_Russia
In the Soviet Union, after WWII:
Quote:
In most cases (96 percent according to 1987 statistics), only murders of several people, of children, or those committed in an especially cruel manner were punished by death.
Yes, I agree. I need to see it working. If I remember correctly, according to Richard Dawkins, and other scientists, one of the most evolutionary stable strategies is "Tit for Tat" (which is basically similar to "eye for eye"). He describes it on the "Prisoner's dilemma" game. That is, if I've been slapped on the cheek, I'm not gonna turn another cheek, or lie down in the mud and let that person walk all over me. At the very least, I'm not going to trust this person anymore, but I'll forgive him if he shows signs of repenting and good behavior.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_Tat
Quote:
Tit for tat is a English saying meaning "equivalent retaliation". It is also a highly effective strategy in game theory for the iterated prisoner's dilemma. It was first introduced by Anatol Rapoport in Robert Axelrod's two tournaments, held around 1980. An agent using this strategy will initially cooperate, then respond in kind to an opponent's previous action. If the opponent previously was cooperative, the agent is cooperative. If not, the agent is not. This is similar to reciprocal altruism in biology.
This strategy is dependent on four conditions that has allowed it to become the most prevalent strategy for the prisoner's dilemma:
Unless provoked, the agent will always cooperate
If provoked, the agent will retaliate
The agent is quick to forgive
The agent must have a good chance of competing against the opponent more than once.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychologyQuote:
Game Theory / Evolutionary Game Theory
Organisms adapt, or respond, to competitors depending on the strategies used by competitors. Strategies are evaluated by the probable payoffs of alternatives. In a population, this typically results in an "evolutionary stable strategy," or "evolutionary stable equilibrium" -- strategies that, on average, cannot be bettered by alternative strategies.
"Tit for Tat" Reciprocity
One can play nice with non-kin if a mutually beneficially reciprocal relationship is maintained across multiple social interactions, and cheating is punished.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...table_strategy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_dilemma
Are you joking? :| Death is enough. 7 years in a comfortable cell for a person with no conscience is mockery. I'll quote Веллер:Quote:
Having said that, the point I'm trying to make is that The Justice is rarely possible. You can't kill and rape a serial killer 10 times. So, the 9gr-of-lead, the rope, or the euthanasia are a way TOO SOFT a punishment!!
Quote:
– Следует говорить не о смертной казни, потому что смертная казнь означает, что вот сейчас я вас поймаю и на плахе топором обрублю руки, ноги. Мы должны говорить о том, должна ли оставаться священной и неприкосновенной жизнь детоубийц, маньяков и серийных садистов. А современный закон цинично подменяет понятия «человек» и «убийца». Декларируя – «право человека на жизнь священно» применительно к убийце, закон имеет в виду не жизнь жертвы или любого другого человека, а именно убийцы. Тогда следует сформулировать прямо: «Право убийцы на жизнь священно». Далее: полагать пожизненное заключение сравнимым с казнью убийцы – величайшая глупость или величайшее лицемерие. Разница между Бытием и Небытием, Жизнью и Смертью принципиально несравнима с разницей между хорошей жизнью и плохой. Пожизненно заключённый дышит, видит, слышит, он думает, чувствует, он ест и пьёт, у него есть воспоминания и фантазии. Он живёт! И когда миллионы честных людей нищенствуют на грани голода, нам предписывают заботиться о сытости и тепле для убийц. Что касается справедливости. Смерть убийцы успокаивает душу жертвы. Во все времена и у всех народов это почиталось за справедливость.
А когда платный адвокат за деньги спасает жизнь изувера и публично объявляет извечные представления людей о справедливости атавизмом – такому закону и такому государству недолго осталось жить.
I will probably steal Ramil's thunder if I quote the story he mentioned earlier:Quote:
Originally Posted by starrysky
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://masterrussian.net/mforum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=19599&start=30
И фто? Не поняла. Отрубление рук и носов никоим образом не является справедливым наказанием за кражу... Если мораль в том, что правосудие продажно и несправедливо... Так это не всегда так, я видела и очень хороших и справедливых судей и следователей. А прежде чем вынести смертный приговор маньяку, должно быть собрано огромное количество доказательств -- они сами показывают места, где зарыли своих жертв, которые еще не были найдены.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
В общем-то я не расстроена, что смертную казнь отменили...
Совершенно верно. На планете Джаммара был несправедливый закон. Но я, собственно, имел в виду другое. Справедливось, как и многое другое в нашем мире, вещь относительная. Она измеряется относительно субъекта. Джаммар, рассчитывавший получить рабов в результате войны, достоин сам попасть в рабство.Quote:
Originally Posted by starrysky
Did the Russian Orthodox Church have an official view on this? After all, it is a moral / religious type of question to a large degree..
I would think that most Christians would not be in favour of the death penalty (although I understand that some Christians in the USA support it).