LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksIn 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.
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.
Please correct my English
[quote=Ленивец]Thank you - I stay corrected.[/quote:2wzh29va]Originally Posted by starrysky
'Subhuman' is the correct English translation for 'untermensch'.
This debate is refreshing in its TOTAL lack of "political correctness"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.
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.
"Россия для русских" - это неправильно. Остальные-то чем лучше?
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...
=======================
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.
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.
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?
Send me a PM if you need me.
Yes I read it and watched the video. It is terrible. I had not seen it in such detail before.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.
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.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.
Please correct my English
It exists in two forms, the positive and the negative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden ... 8ethics%29
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.
What comes of it?
Why should justice come in "an eye for an eye" form?
Please correct my English
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.
Send me a PM if you need me.
The universal principle of justice mixed with the co-existence.What comes of it?
"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.
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.
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.
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?You may not believe it but it does work.
"Россия для русских" - это неправильно. Остальные-то чем лучше?
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...
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...
*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:
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.
Alice: One can't believe impossible things.
The Queen: I dare say you haven't had much practice. When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
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.
See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_Tat
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_psychologyGame 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?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!!Death is enough. 7 years in a comfortable cell for a person with no conscience is mockery. I'll quote Веллер:
– 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.
Alice: One can't believe impossible things.
The Queen: I dare say you haven't had much practice. When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
I will probably steal Ramil's thunder if I quote the story he mentioned earlier:Are you joking?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!!
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.
В общем-то я не расстроена, что смертную казнь отменили...
Alice: One can't believe impossible things.
The Queen: I dare say you haven't had much practice. When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
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.
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).
Posting Permissions
Russian Lessons | Russian Tests and Quizzes | Russian Vocabulary |
Reply With Quote