# Forum About Russia Politics  Смертная казнь в России

## Ramil

Об истории вопроса
2 февраля 1999 года, Конституционный суд РФ установил мораторий на на смертную казнь, который должен действовать до введения в действие федерального законодательства, обеспечивающего на всей территории России каждому обвиняемому в преступлении, за которое предусмотрена смертная казнь, возможность рассмотрения его дела судом присяжных.  
Сейчас в России остается один регион, где нет суда присяжных, -- это Чеченская Республика. Но и там введение суда присяжных планируется с 1 января 2010 года. 
Таким образом, формальных ограничений на возобновление смертной казни в России не будет с 1 января 2010 года. 
Пленум Верховного суда России обратился вчера с ходатайством в Конституционный суд с просьбой вынести решение о возможности применения смертной казни с 1 января 2010 года в связи с введением института суда присяжных на всей территории России.  
Напомню, что текущий УК РФ сохраняет смертную казнь в качестве исключительной меры наказания, и лишь мораторий ограничивает применение этой меры наказания. 
Как вы считаете, необходимо ли восстановление смертной казни для лиц, совершивших особо опасные и особо-тяжкие преступления или нет? 
Если считаете, что смертная казнь необходима, то для каких видов преступлений, по вашему мнению, её необходимо применять?

----------


## Cocos

Расстрел коррупционерам, предателям, убийцам-рецидивистам, педофилам и другой неисправимой нежити, однозначно!

----------


## Hanna

I don't understand a lot of this and I thought Russia did not currently sentence people to death for regular crimes (as opposed to war-time crimes). (??) 
I rarely express an opinion about how Russia should conduct its internal affairs, but I will make an exception: 
For what it's worth I *really* don't think death penalty should be used against criminals regardless what they have done. Seems to me that Russia has plenty of alternative grim punishments available, like labour camps in Magadan etc. That's more than enough, and through  forced labour the criminal can pay off some of his debt to society through labour.  
Killing other human beings is barbaric.

----------


## Ramil

> I don't understand a lot of this and I thought Russia did not currently sentence people to death for regular crimes (as opposed to war-time crimes). (??) 
> I rarely express an opinion about how Russia should conduct its internal affairs, but I will make an exception: 
> For what it's worth I *really* don't think death penalty should be used against criminals regardless what they have done. Seems to me that Russia has plenty of alternative grim punishments available, like labour camps in Magadan etc. That's more than enough, and through  forced labour the criminal can pay off some of his debt to society through labour.  
> Killing other human beings is barbaric.

 
This is a summary of what this poll is about for English speakers.
In 1999 the Constitutional Court of Russia established a moratorium (temporary suspension) for death penalties up until the moment jury courts would be established on the whole Russian territory. The last region without jury courts was Chechen Republic (so, technically, the moratorium will end on 1st January 2010). The plenum of the Supreme Court of Russia has asked the Constitutional Court to clarify whether the moratorium ends on 1st January 2010. 
There is a number of provisions in the Russian Criminal Code that prescribe death sentences for certain heavy crimes (murders, rapes, terrorism, etc). The only thing that prevented courts from issuing death sentences was this moratorium. The poll has the following questions: 
Do you think that
1. Death sentences must be legally banned from the law.
2. The moratorium should be prolonged.
3. Courts should resume issuing death sentences.
4. We should broaden the list of crimes punishable by death.  
-------------------------- 
Although I agree that killing living people is immoral, but I wouldn't repeat that to parents of a child that had been murdered. In fact, I would deny a man who did this the right to be called human. With all the consequences my saying implies.

----------


## Crocodile

> Although I agree that killing living people is immoral, but I wouldn't repeat that to parents of a child that had been murdered. In fact, I would deny a man who did this the right to be called human. With all the consequences my saying implies.

 I voted against the death penalty because of the possibility of the judicial mistake. What would you repeat to the parents of a person who had received the death penalty, but just a few days later the new evidence had appeared and proved the person was innocent?

----------


## Звездочёт

Убийство не может быть оправдано ничем! Чем мы будем лучше убийц, если сами начнём убивать?

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  Although I agree that killing living people is immoral, but I wouldn't repeat that to parents of a child that had been murdered. In fact, I would deny a man who did this the right to be called human. With all the consequences my saying implies.   I voted against the death penalty because of the possibility of the judicial mistake. What would you repeat to a parents of a person who had received the death penalty, but just a few days later the new evidence has appeared that proved the person was innocent?

 If you're afraid of mistakes - don't make them.
Math says that mistakes are unfortunately inevitable. The same with doctors - lives of their patiens depend on their knowledge and skill. Still, I think that, although you can't guarantee that a jury won't make a mistake, in cases where there is plenty of evidence and the guilt can't be doubted death sentence is justified. That's why those who are sentenced to death can spend decades in prison awaiting the execution. This is done to minimize possible mistakes. But when we speak of Raduyev, for example, there can be no mistake - the man is guilty.   

> Убийство не может быть оправдано ничем! Чем мы будем лучше убийц, если сами начнём убивать?

 Слова, слова... слишком уж категорично. Даже если говорить не про приведение смертного приговора в исполнение, а просто об убийстве другого человека, то в моих глазах, человек, убивающий убийцу будет выглядеть куда лучше, чем его жертва. Убийство преступника во спасение других невинных людей в моих глазах будет выглядеть подвигом. Убийство врага на войне для меня будет также оправдано. Не существует абсолютных категорий в этом мире, все относительно. Всё зависит от точки отсчёта. 
Возвращаясь к судебной практике - чисто из экономических соображений, смертная казнь для лиц, совершивших особо-тяжкие преступления будет меньше бить по карману налогоплательщиков. А исходя из гуманных соображений - 9 грамм свинца куда милосерднее, чем пожизненное содержание в зоне особо строгого режима в одиночной камере.

----------


## Звездочёт

> Слова, слова... слишком уж категорично. Даже если говорить не про приведение смертного приговора в исполнение, а просто об убийстве другого человека, то в моих глазах, человек, убивающий убийцу будет выглядеть куда лучше, чем его жертва. Убийство преступника во спасение других невинных людей в моих глазах будет выглядеть подвигом. Убийство врага на войне для меня будет также оправдано. Не существует абсолютных категорий в этом мире, все относительно. Всё зависит от точки отсчёта.

 Мы говорим не об убийстве вообще, но о смертной казни человека, который уже находится в руках правосудия. Он угрожает вашей жизни и жизни ваших близких прямо сейчас? Чем будет его казнь? Действительно самообороной или местью? Только откровенно, с полным осознанием ответа! Это самозащита или месть?   

> Возвращаясь к судебной практике - чисто из экономических соображений, смертная казнь для лиц, совершивших особо-тяжкие преступления будет меньше бить по карману налогоплательщиков. А исходя из гуманных соображений - 9 грамм свинца куда милосерднее, чем пожизненное содержание в зоне особо строгого режима в одиночной камере.

 Налогоплательщик платит за то, что если в отношении него будет совершена судебная ошибка, он будет иметь шанс быть оправданным. Кто запрещает ввести обязательные работы (не катаргу, а именно цивилизованные работы) для заключённых?

----------


## Crocodile

> Math says that mistakes are unfortunately inevitable.

 Лес рубят - щепки летят?   

> in cases where there is plenty of evidence and the guilt can't be doubted death sentence is justified. That's why those who are sentenced to death can spend decades in prison awaiting the execution. This is done to minimize possible mistakes. But when we speak of Raduyev, for example, there can be no mistake - the man is guilty.

 No, there still could be mistakes. And if you have a simple way to avoid them, don't make them.    

> чисто из экономических соображений, смертная казнь для лиц, совершивших особо-тяжкие преступления будет меньше бить по карману налогоплательщиков.

 Смотря как организовать дело. Соберите всех "особо-тяжких" и пошлите их на рудники. Вот вам и будет не только экономия, а прямо скажем чистая польза.    

> А исходя из гуманных соображений - 9 грамм свинца куда милосерднее, чем пожизненное содержание в зоне особо строгого режима в одиночной камере.

 Во-первых, не стоит решать за других, что им "милосерднее". Во-вторых, какие тут гуманные соображения, раз "в суде доказано", что этот человек - убийца?

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  Math says that mistakes are unfortunately inevitable.   Лес рубят - щепки летят?

 Хорошо, будем проще. Бить людей тоже плохо. Ты бы побил наглеца, оскорбившего тебя, или, скажем, твою женщину? Или подал бы на него в суд?
(Допустим, вы в равных весовых категориях, чтобы упростить задачу).
Мне всегда нравится наблюдать за лицемерием современной морали. 
Это вот хорошо, а это вот плохо и т. д. Возможны ошибки... ни-ни. Ну а когда, не приведи Господи, дело начинает касаться лично их, тут начинается совсем другая песня.   

> in cases where there is plenty of evidence and the guilt can't be doubted death sentence is justified. That's why those who are sentenced to death can spend decades in prison awaiting the execution. This is done to minimize possible mistakes. But when we speak of Raduyev, for example, there can be no mistake - the man is guilty.

 Быть судьёй - это очень ответственная работа. Никто не говорит, что существует легкий путь избежать ошибок, но, может тогда вообще институт правосудия отменить, следуя этой же логике. Ведь если тебя заключат в тюрьму на длительный срок или вообще пожизненно по ошибке, тебе от этого будет не легче.   

> чисто из экономических соображений, смертная казнь для лиц, совершивших особо-тяжкие преступления будет меньше бить по карману налогоплательщиков.

 На урановые рудники  ::  Опять лживость и лицемерие современной морали. Пусть мол сдохнут сами, чего об них руки марать.   

> А исходя из гуманных соображений - 9 грамм свинца куда милосерднее, чем пожизненное содержание в зоне особо строгого режима в одиночной камере.

 Вот я считаю, что страх люди потеряли. Безнаказанность или чрезмерная мягкость правосудия в определённых моментах подрывает доверие к системе правосудия в принципе. Разумеется, в России в честность судов ни один нормальный человек не верит, значит ли это, что не стоит и пытаться сделать систему правосудия справедливой? Мне-то всё едино, - анархия - мать порядка, но вот людей мне как-то жальче получается, чем либералам, поющим о том, что дела надо решать через суд. В конце-концов, у меня всегда будет выбор, если возникнет необходимость, доделать ту работу, которую не доделает суд.

----------


## Hanna

Ok but look what happens in the USA.  
The people who get executed are from poor families, have poor education, usually black. The system is wildly unfair - a real discrace.   
If these men could afford a better solicitor (lawyer) then  they would be able to get off -- but because of their background, they don't have supportive relatives or a good solicitor... So they die...  
Apply this situation to Russia where it seems that the justice system is not always so...  fair....   Some people get nailed for nothing. Others get off with gigantic financial scams and violence.  The risk of abuse or mistakes just seems too great...     
If I was Russian I would  be against death penalty there simply for the reason that the justice system isn't 100% clean. 
Besides - Everybody in Europe thinks America is *disgusting* to be killing people in that way. Why would you want to be like them if you've managed for 10 years without death penalty? And weren't there enough people killed by the state in the 20th century? Why continue in the 21st century?  
Why not let the murderers and rapists build some railways and roads in Siberia? 
(I really don't like death penalty)

----------


## sperk

> Although I agree that killing living people is immoral, but I wouldn't repeat that to parents of a child that had been murdered. .

 I was listening to an interview with a woman whose daughter had been murdered by her boyfriend. The woman was a bleeding heart liberal, against the death penalty, sent half her income to ACLU (just kidding   ::  ). When asked if she was still against the death penalty she said, "If  I could, I would kill him with my own two hands."

----------


## Звездочёт

> На урановые рудники.  Опять лживость и лицемерие современной морали. Пусть мол сдохнут сами, чего об них руки марать.

           Просто пара вопросов... А кто *сейчас* работает на таких рудниках? А вы знакомы с тем, в *каком именно режиме* проходит работа там? Нормы РБ никто не отменял пока.
          Самое интересное, что Crocodile вообще никаких прилагательных со словом "рудники" не употреблял. Так откуда же взялись именно урановые рудники? Получается как-то странно, вы сами же придумали наихудший вариант развития идеи работ для заключённых, однако обвинили в этом не себя, но некую "лицемерную мораль". А ведь никто не говорит, что заключённых следует превратить в рабов. Речь идёт лишь о том, что бы они сами обеспечивали своё содержание. Более того. Даже нет необходимости принуждать заключённых к таким работам, напротив, их вполне можно мотивировать, платя за работу кое-какие деньги. Много меньшие, чем деньги, которые бы заработал правопорядочный гражданин. Разница же в оплате труда пошла бы на оплату содержания под стражей.
          Я неслучайно спросил о мести. Большинство людей рассматриват правосудие как некую "гумманую" месть. Однако это НИКОГДА не решало проблему преступности. Следует не мстить, но прилагать максимум усилий, чтобы снижались преступность и рецедивы.

----------


## Crocodile

> Бить людей тоже плохо. Ты бы побил наглеца, оскорбившего тебя, или, скажем, твою женщину? Или подал бы на него в суд?

 Какой-то левый вопрос. Ну, побил бы если бы смог. Не смог бы, обратился к друзьям. Не помогло - обратился бы в суд. Не выгорело - попросил бы крышу. И что с того? Суд - лишь один из способов решения конфликтов. Типа, самый нейтральный. При чём тут вообще современная мораль? Ты предложил [не]людей убивать. Кто будет решать людь или нелюдь? Суд присяжных? Водопроводчик дядя Вася и секретарша тётя Валя? Ты думаешь, что они не могут наломать щепок?

----------


## delog

Вообще "око за око" - это самая правильная модель поведения, но принимая во внимание тот факт, как у нас быстро находят козлов отпущения, я, пожалуй, против. Все законы в России написаны для "низших классов", на "высшие" они никогда не распространялись. Сначала надо сделать так, чтобы перед законом все были равны, а потом уже принимать смертную казнь.

----------


## alexB

I voted for returning death penalty, but the thing is it’s not going to happen. Russia is striving to keep up appearances in the eyes of the world, WTO joining on the agenda etc.
China does not care about appearances and for who says what, shoots them all and lets God to decide if it’s right or wrong. But here in Russia all that western absurdity is coming our way more and more. A scum raped and murdered a girl but he’s not a villain anymore, he is not responsible, he was raised the way he shouldn’t have been, he is a victim of society, he’s being stroked over the head, spoon-fed and cared after as a child, “Hush, baby, we won’t let them, cruel people, punish you.” 
Isn’t it the way it has always been, in literature or in movies and in real life, that if a murder was committed in the beginning everybody was restless until the murderer was found and relieved when he was finally punished. Why, all of a sudden, does it have to change now? Revenge, and what’s wrong with that? 
I saw a film the other day from the “Tremors” series, where earth worms called Graboids all through the series hunt, eat, tear people limb by limb, even, from time to time, long story short, make their lives hard in every way imaginable. The locals do their best to survive vicious predator’s onslaughts and so goes their life in harmony with Mother Nature. Now, out of nowhere comes a group of environmentalists or what do you call them, anxious about the abused rights of the worms and start a crusade against people molesting innocent Graboids. Seems it’s a current trend today that abused ends up being looked upon as an abuser. A pack of stray dogs bites a woman to death but you can’t shoot them and be done with it, it’s an infringement of animals’ rights, as the elderly in a retirement home living worse than dogs is OK. The notion of justice is turned upside down. So I am for penalty, and the hell with this so called humanity.

----------


## Ramil

> Получается как-то странно, вы сами же придумали наихудший вариант развития идеи работ для заключённых, однако обвинили в этом не себя, но некую "лицемерную мораль".

 Ну, в общем-то, именно наихудший вариант они и заслуживают. Я поэтому и написал "урановые". В принципе, это единственный вариант, который бы меня устроил. )))   

> А ведь никто не говорит, что заключённых следует превратить в рабов.

 Действительно, именно рабами они и являются в настоящее время. Да и всегда заключенные работали бесплатно.   

> Речь идёт лишь о том, что бы они сами обеспечивали своё содержание. Более того. Даже нет необходимости принуждать заключённых к таким работам, напротив, их вполне можно мотивировать, платя за работу кое-какие деньги.

 Агащазблин. Ещё и деньги им платить. Да и какой смысл в деньгах у заключённого пожизненно?    

> Я неслучайно спросил о мести. Большинство людей рассматриват правосудие как некую "гумманую" месть. Однако это НИКОГДА не решало проблему преступности. Следует не мстить, но прилагать максимум усилий, чтобы снижались преступность и рецедивы.

 Смертная казнь нужна не для профилактики преступлений, а для того, чтобы общество верило в справедливость правосудия. Мы сейчас не говорим о некоем идеальном обществе, где "прилагается максимум усилий". В таком обществе и преступности, скорее всего, не было бы. Вот у меня была знакомая, в её квартиру вломился кто-то, убил её и двух её сыновей (8 лет и 11 лет) - множественные ножевые ранения. Да и вынесли-то немного. Вот ни о каком снисхождении к такого рода преступникам я бы не стал даже говорить. К стенке и точка. Дело не в решении проблемы преступности, преступность была и будет всегда, дело в том, чтобы наказание соответствовало тяжести преступления. К слову - смягчение суровости наказаний также не решало никогда проблему преступности.   

> Originally Posted by Ramil  Бить людей тоже плохо. Ты бы побил наглеца, оскорбившего тебя, или, скажем, твою женщину? Или подал бы на него в суд?   Какой-то левый вопрос. Ну, побил бы если бы смог. Не смог бы, обратился к друзьям. Не помогло - обратился бы в суд. Не выгорело - попросил бы крышу. И что с того? Суд - лишь один из способов решения конфликтов. Типа, самый нейтральный. При чём тут вообще современная мораль? Ты предложил [не]людей убивать. Кто будет решать людь или нелюдь? Суд присяжных? Водопроводчик дядя Вася и секретарша тётя Валя? Ты думаешь, что они не могут наломать щепок?

 Вот речь как раз и о том, что пытаясь застраховаться от ошибок, наше общество превращается хрен пойми во что. Всего-то мы боимся. "Насилие - ни-ни! Все мы белые и пушистые, это не наши методы, бла... бла... бла".
А я считаю - по хребтине лопатой мерзавца и нет проблем. Насилие - неотъемлемая часть жизнедеятельности человека. От этой "темной стороны" нам не уйти, как бы мы не старались. Поэтому не надо говорить, что убийство преступника - аморально.  
А если следовать логике "гуманистов", может вообще тогда систему правосудия упразднить, чтобы по ошибке людей в тюрьмы не сажали? 
Думаю, что суд присяжных вполне способен решить стоит казнить человека или нет.

----------


## Звездочёт

Ramil,  ::  так нечестно. Нельзя в дискуссии менять свою точку зрения неявно.  ::  
Вот, например, сначала говорим:  

> На урановые рудники. Опять лживость и лицемерие современной морали. Пусть мол сдохнут сами, чего об них руки марать.

 А потом 

> Ну, в общем-то, именно наихудший вариант они и заслуживают. Я поэтому и написал "урановые". В принципе, это единственный вариант, который бы меня устроил. )))

 Я что-то запутался. Так "за" рудники, или "против"? А главное почему?   

> Смертная казнь нужна не для профилактики преступлений, а для того, чтобы общество верило в справедливость правосудия.

 А почему пожизненное заключение не может укрепить веру в справедливое правосудие? Крови хочется? (  ::  тут должен быть вампирчик  :: ). Так что это: эмоции или действительно требования рассудка?   

> Дело не в решении проблемы преступности, <...> дело в том, чтобы наказание соответствовало тяжести преступления.

 Хе-хе, Ramil. Берём предыдущий тезис: 

> исходя из гуманных соображений - 9 грамм свинца куда милосерднее, чем пожизненное содержание в зоне особо строгого режима

 Рассуждаем логически, поскольку "9 грамм свинца милосерднее, чем пожизненное" заключение, а задача -- сделать наказние пропорциональным тяжести преступления, то не логично ли за особо тяжкие преступления давать именно пожизненное заключение? Не будет ли смертная казнь для таких людей слишком лёгким избавлением от мучений заключения?   

> Мы сейчас не говорим о некоем идеальном обществе, где "прилагается максимум усилий". В таком обществе и преступности, скорее всего, не было бы.

 Мы никогда не будем жить в таком обществе, или хотя бы отчасти похожем на него, если не начнём строить это общество прямо сейчас! Принцип должен быть нерушимым, иначе преступив в малом, по индукции и на волне эмоционального опьянения, принцип будет нарушен и в великом. Нравится нам это или нет, но если мы желаем жить в правовом обществе, мы обязаны соблюдать права даже таких преступников. 
А идея с деньгами уже в качестве эксперимента реализована в одной из женских тюрем, я где-то пол года назад смотрел об этом репортаж. Очень умная идея. Так почему бы нам не внедрить её, тогда никакого рабства и принуждения не будет. Не хочет работать заключённый, ок, вот ему положенный стандартный набор: небо в клеточку, стандартный поёк, стандартная койка. Хочешь большего? Нет проблем -- иди работай. На заработанные деньги сможешь сам выбирать себе рацион питания, сможешь оплатить более подходящие условия заключения, чтобы налогоплательщики за тебя не расплачивались. Но не думай, что мы забудем, что ты совершил.

----------


## Оля

Честно, Рамиль, не думала, что верующий человек может так рассуждать.

----------


## mishau_

Честно говоря, меня больше волнует неотвратимость наказания, чем сама мера наказания. Чтобы не было условных сроков за убийства и УДО для террористов. А справедливость правосудия должна быть в том, что за милионные финансовые преступления добавить милионные сроки, а то у нас за украденную коробку могут дать 8 лет, а за воровство в миллионных масштабах дают условно или сажают и амнистируют.   
p.s. А еще у нас при смертной казни начнут устранять конкурентов. Будут подводить бизнесменов под смертную статью и вперед. Сейчас пока наркоту подбрасывают  и сажают невиновных. А так будут убивать. 
p.p.s.  А еще непонятно как смертная казнь будет коррелировать с другим законом, о том, что присяжным запрещено рассматривать политические преступления, экстримизм, терроризм и т.п.

----------


## Ramil

> Я что-то запутался. Так "за" рудники, или "против"? А главное почему?

 Формулирую - по моему мнению, смертная казнь за тяжкие преступления (убийство с целью наживы, терроризм, рецидив убийства и пр.) вполне оправдана и должна применяться. Рудники, "химия" и пр. - по порядку:
сначала крокодил сказал, что преступников можно отправлять на рудники. Я же выразил недоумение, расстрел - негуманно, а рудники - гуманно, отсюда и вывод - если отправка на рудники была бы равносильна смертной казни, это одно, а если отправка на рудники, а потом ещё и зарплату там выплачивать - это другое. Первое бы "устроило", но, думаю, что слишком сложно. И я категорически против второго варианта для особо-тяжких.   

> Originally Posted by Ramil  Смертная казнь нужна не для профилактики преступлений, а для того, чтобы общество верило в справедливость правосудия.   А почему пожизненное заключение не может укрепить веру в справедливое правосудие?

 А зачем? В чём смысл пожизненного заключения? Общество отторгло от себя некоего негодяя, но довести дело до логического конца, почему-то, не торопится.   

> Рассуждаем логически, поскольку "9 грамм свинца милосерднее, чем пожизненное" заключение, а задача -- сделать наказние пропорциональным тяжести преступления, то не логично ли за особо тяжкие преступления давать именно пожизненное заключение? Не будет ли смертная казнь для таких людей слишком лёгким избавлением от мучений заключения?

 Не будет. Про гуманность я уже высказывался. Наше общество гуманно лишь избирательно, только там, где удобно. Пожизненное заключение не является пропорциональным убийству - жертв преступника в живых нет, а он живет и здравствует за государственный счет. Моя цитата, приведенная тобой, как раз и была ответом на тезис, что общество должно быть гуманным - я и говорил, что не надо усложнять процесс - хотите быть гуманнее - пристрелите мерзавца, чтобы не мучился. В воспитательный процесс тюремного заключения я не верю. Можно теоретизировать, но тюрьма мало кого смогла перевоспитать.   

> Нравится нам это или нет, но если мы желаем жить в правовом обществе, мы обязаны соблюдать права даже таких преступников.

 А что, если в обществе принята смертная казнь как мера наказания особо опасных преступников, такое общество автоматически перестаёт быть правовым?    

> А идея с деньгами уже в качестве эксперимента реализована в одной из женских тюрем

 Так ради бога, ведь не идёт же речь о заключённых, совершивших менее тяжкие преступления. Такие эксперименты можно только приветствовать, но статья статье рознь. Мы же сейчас говорим об исключительной мере наказания за особо-тяжкие преступления, а не о реформах петенциарной системы.   

> Честно, Рамиль, не думала, что верующий человек может так рассуждать.

 Ну, знаешь ли, я не из тех, кто подставляет вторую щеку. К тому же, мои религиозные убеждения не в полной мере соответствуют христианским догматам. "Не убий" - да, но не убий человека. А по моему глубокому убеждению, которое я уже высказывал, далеко не все двуногие прямоходящие являются людьми.

----------


## Crocodile

> Вот речь как раз и о том, что пытаясь застраховаться от ошибок, наше общество превращается хрен пойми во что. Всего-то мы боимся. "Насилие - ни-ни! Все мы белые и пушистые, это не наши методы, бла... бла... бла".
> А я считаю - по хребтине лопатой мерзавца и нет проблем. Насилие - неотъемлемая часть жизнедеятельности человека. От этой "темной стороны" нам не уйти, как бы мы не старались. Поэтому не надо говорить, что убийство преступника - аморально.

 Эхх.. две мировые войны, революция, коллективизация, гражданская война.. ничему-то ты не научился. До сих пор полон решимости бороться за правду?

----------


## Звездочёт

Вот именно этого-то я и боюсь больше всего. «Вначале было Слово». И я боюсь, что слово «нелюди» закрепится в массовом сознании. Это означает, что мы начнём делить людей на бесправных и тех, кто права имеет. Сначала мы начнём делать исключения по отношению к особо зверским преступникам. Потом на волне истерии начнём принимать чудовищные законы о принудительной кастрации педофилов (они же не люди, как можно к ним гуманные законы применять?!). Слово «нелюль» укоренится в сознании прочно, и чем прочнее, тем легче будет делать всё новые и новые исключения. Дальше ничто не мешает нам планочку-то понизить, отделим от «правых» секс-меньшинства, например, они ведь тоже против природы человеческой, общество их не любит, отторгает. Ну а когда такой метод станет нормой, вертя словом «нелюдь» на телевизионных экранах, можно будет оправдать почти любой аморальный закон. Хотим жить в правовом обществе? Никаких делений на «белых» и «чёрных» быть не должно в принципе! 
Никто не говорит, что применение силы, в том числе убийство, — это всегда плохо. Есть ситуации, когда оно не просто уместно, но необходимо, чтобы выжить. Однако смертная казнь не есть необходимость. Преступник уже в руках закона, он изолирован, отторгнут обществом. Он не является больше угрозой для жизни, а наказание его суровое, даже более суровое, чем смертная казнь. 
Так что давайте будем честны с собой: желание смертной казни — это не необходимость, но банальное человеческое желание мести (даже если мы это назовём «верой в правосудие»). И узаконить смертную казнь, значит узаконить месть, оставить в сердце месту желанию убивать. Ну, человечество же через этот урок прошло уже много раз. Вот в христианстве, например, существует формальный запрет на месть, на злобу и т.д., потому что «возлюби ближнего своего». Так что бы ручки не марать, всю свою злобу христианин перекладывает на бога (который, согласно теологии, милосерден и справедлив, кстати), превращая его в демона: вот страшный суд-то придёт, вот тогда-то мы и покажем вам кузькину мать, будете гореть в аду, бог вас накажет, грешники! «Откровение» насквозь полно ненавистью, и реки крови льются там на каждой странице. Желание мести и жажда убийства должны быть осознаны и отринуты, а не завуалированы законом о смертной казни, страшным судом и адской микроволновкой, в которой всех нас разогреют. До тех пор, пока существуют такие вот «откровения», люди не изменятся и будут продолжать убивать, потому что где-то на горизонте сознания всегда будет маячить: «если очень хочется, то можно».

----------


## Zubr

> И я боюсь, что слово «нелюди» закрепится в массовом сознании. Это означает, что мы начнём делить людей на бесправных и тех, кто права имеет.

 Во Франции говорят (ну, вроде, не умею переводить пословицы): кто хочет утопить собаку, обвиняет её в водобоязни (потому что при этой болезни собаки становятся бешеными, и нечего сделать, остаётся только и убить). Оказывается, кто хочет убить человека, зовёт его «нечеловеком».

----------


## Ramil

> Эхх.. две мировые войны, революция, коллективизация, гражданская война.. ничему-то ты не научился. До сих пор полон решимости бороться за правду?

 При чём здесь борьба за правду? Просто стремление называть вещи своими именами. Просто желание закрепить де-юре ситуацию, которая сложилась де-факто. Ведь когда ФСБ "мочила в сортире" боевиков без суда и следствия, проводя "спецоперации", целью которых была ликвидация тех или иных лиц (без суда, прошу заметить), никто что-то не возражал. Если обществу нужна смертная казнь, она будет. Только будет вот такая - завуалированная под "спецоперации" или ещё что-нибудь. Спрос есть, будет и предложение.

----------


## Оля

> Оказывается, кто хочет убить человека, зовёт его «нечеловеком».

 Нет, в русском мы говорим "нелюдь" (ударение на первом слоге).

----------


## Ramil

> Вот именно этого-то я и боюсь больше всего. «Вначале было Слово». И я боюсь, что слово «нелюди» закрепится в массовом сознании. Это означает, что мы начнём делить людей на бесправных и тех, кто права имеет.

 Тем не менее, нелюди объективно существуют. Что делать с этим?

----------


## Crocodile

> При чём здесь борьба за правду?

 При том, что ты считаешь правильным организованно и не торопясь убивать [не]людей за правду. Ты догадываешься, что у каждого своя правда? Я вот считаю, что компания дяди Васи с тётей Валей не всегда хорошо это понимают.

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  При чём здесь борьба за правду?   При том, что ты считаешь правильным организованно и не торопясь убивать [не]людей за правду. Ты догадываешься, что у каждого своя правда? Я вот считаю, что компания дяди Васи с тётей Валей не всегда хорошо это понимают.

 Немного ты передёргиваешь. Я считаю, что высшая мера наказания для лиц, совершивших тяжкие преступления, допустима, а какую такую "правду" ты имеешь ввиду, я так и не понял, если честно. "Правда" написана черным по белому в Уголовном Кодексе.

----------


## Crocodile

> Немного ты передёргиваешь. [...] "Правда" написана черным по белому в Уголовном Кодексе.

 И кто из нас, интересно, передёргивает? Это как? В УК написано маньяк ли дядя Володя, сидящий на скамье подсудимых или нет? А вдруг правоохренительные органы ему вкололи что надо, так он и на следственном эксперименте себя "правильно" повёл и всю "правду" как на духу рассказал суду присяжных? А присяжных вообще надёргали неизвестно откуда. Они первый час ещё как-то пытались слушать и вникать, а потом просто скучали с важным видом. А в напутственной речи судья им рассказывает какое именно решение они должны принять. Повторяет им "факты" и "просит обратить особое внимание". Они послушно кивают и послушно голосуют. Вот тебе и вся правда, написанная в УК. Ты именно так пытаешься своих "нелюдей" искать?

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  Немного ты передёргиваешь. [...] "Правда" написана черным по белому в Уголовном Кодексе.   И кто из нас, интересно, передёргивает? Это как? В УК написано маньяк ли дядя Володя, сидящий на скамье подсудимых или нет?

 Это решают в институте Сербского вполне компетентные органы, виновен или невиновен решают присяжные, а меру наказания определяет судья, в соответствии с мерой наказания, определённой в Уголовном кодексе. Твои "дядя Вася" и "тетей Валей" здесь к чему? И про какую "правду" ты писал?   

> А вдруг правоохренительные органы ему вкололи что надо, так он и на следственном эксперименте себя "правильно" повёл и всю "правду" как на духу рассказал суду присяжных? А присяжных вообще надёргали неизвестно откуда. Они первый час ещё как-то пытались слушать и вникать, а потом просто скучали с важным видом. А в напутственной речи судья им рассказывает какое именно решение они должны принять.

 Хорошо, ты не веришь в объективность и беспристрастность суда, тогда в третий раз повторяю вопрос, на который никто не удосужился мне ответить: зачем нам вообще тогда система правосудия? Если всё так - тогда её надо упразднить за ненадобностью.   

> Повторяет им "факты" и "просит обратить особое внимание". Они послушно кивают и послушно голосуют. Вот тебе и вся правда, написанная в УК. Ты именно так пытаешься своих "нелюдей" искать?

 См. выше. Если судебная система не устраивает, может тогда вообще мораторий установить ещё и на лишение свободы? Вдруг кого по ошибке посадят? Нельзя быть чуть-чуть беременной. Мои тезисы следующие: 
1. Существуют преступления и преступники, заслуживающие смертной казни в качестве наказания.
2. Судебная система должна определять степень вины и степень наказания.
3. Если судебной системе не доверяют, тогда нафиг она вообще такая нужна.
4. А власть, если потребуется, всегда найдёт способ устранить неугодного человека и так, без суда, так что аргумент о "приговорах по звонку" для меня не состоятелен. Неугодные будут устранены в любом случае.

----------


## BappaBa

Сложный вопрос. Говорят, что перед тем как был пойман Чекатило, за его преступления успели расстрелять несколько человек.

----------


## Crocodile

> Хорошо, ты не веришь в объективность и беспристрастность суда, тогда в третий раз повторяю вопрос, на который никто не удосужился мне ответить: зачем нам вообще тогда система правосудия? Если всё так - тогда её надо упразднить за ненадобностью. [...] Если судебная система не устраивает, может тогда вообще мораторий установить ещё и на лишение свободы? Вдруг кого по ошибке посадят? Нельзя быть чуть-чуть беременной.

 Нельзя быть чуть-чуть беременной, но можно быть чуть-чуть нездоровой. Это мне очень напоминает одного моего знакомого, который искренне считает, что религиозность может быть только ортодоксальной. И мотивирует это той же "чуть-чуть беременностью".    ::   
Мои тезисы следующие:   ::   
1. Судебные ошибки неоднократно случались. Статистику привести не могу по очевидным причинам.
2. Судебная система не устраивает, но пока лучшей альтернативы не имеется.
3. Выпустить человека из тюрьмы можно, а воскресить - нет.
4. Борьба за восстановление справедливости не может выходить в область убийства. (Исходя из чувства самосохранения человечества как биологического вида при всё больших возможностях для убийства.) Чем больше уверенности в собственной правоте - тем больше убитых вокруг. На данном этапе развития сознания, требуется культивировать терпимость даже в ущерб здравому смыслу (напр. "политкорректность"). 
5. Придавать людям статус "нелюдей" - обман своей совести. Кроме того, после твоего утверждения: "А власть, если потребуется, всегда найдёт способ устранить неугодного человека и так, без суда", тогда получается, что и упоминаемая тобой "власть" - тоже "нелюди". (По твоему же собственному определению.) Кто же ими займётся? 
ПС. Давай договоримся взаимно больше не употреблять слово "передёргивание". Ибо, в принципе, это слово лишено смысловой нагрузки в контексте беседы. Разговор - это обмен мыслями, их крутят и так и эдак в попытке уложить кусочки-идеи в осмысленную (или бессмысленную) мозаичную картину. Это нормально. Беседа - это не карточная игра, где расклад карт определяется удачей, а потому незыблем.   ::   ::

----------


## Ramil

Объединяю 1 и 3  

> 1. Судебные ошибки неоднократно случались. Статистику привести не могу по очевидным причинам.
> 3. Выпустить человека из тюрьмы можно, а воскресить - нет.

 Вот поэтому, приговорённые к смерти ждут своего приговора годами - чтобы исключить ошибки. Но если имеются неопровержимые доказательства - почему нет?   

> 2. Судебная система не устраивает, но пока лучшей альтернативы не имеется.

 А её и не будет. И не надо добавлять этого оптимистичного "пока". И чем больше ограничений будет накладываться на судебную систему тем менее эффективной она будет становиться. То есть, устраивать она будет всё меньше и меньше. Устремляя тенденцию на неопределённый срок в будущее, можно получить точку, когда суд не способен будет решить ни одного мало-мальского вопроса.   

> 4. Борьба за восстановление справедливости не может выходить в область убийства. (Исходя из чувства самосохранения человечества как биологического вида при всё больших возможностях для убийства.)

 Весьма и весьма спорное утверждение. С чего бы то? Я не согласен, короче.   ::     

> Чем больше уверенности в собственной правоте - тем больше убитых вокруг.

 Пошла фантастика. Ну с чего бы тогда было вводить суды присяжных, где судьбу человека решают 12 человек, если бы уверенность в собственной правоте росла?   

> На данном этапе развития сознания, требуется культивировать терпимость даже в ущерб здравому смыслу (напр. "политкорректность").

 Ещё дальше!   ::   То, что делается в ущерб здравому смыслу должно быть прекращено. Про политкорректность я вообще комментировать не буду, боюсь скачусь до нецензурной лексики. Кому "требуется"?    

> 5. Придавать людям статус "нелюдей" - обман своей совести.

 Повторяю, то что я писал про "нелюдей" лишь вопрос моего личного отношения к некоторым особям. И уже говорил, что пока отсутствуют возможности для отличения одних от других, ни к каким действиям я не призываю, хотя по-прежнему убеждён, что называть всех двуногих-прямоходящих на этой планете людьми - тоже весьма опрометчивый поступок. Как бы высокопарно это не звучало - "Человек - это звучит гордо" (с) М. Горький. Высокое звание человека надо ещё заслужить.   

> Кроме того, после твоего утверждения: "А власть, если потребуется, всегда найдёт способ устранить неугодного человека и так, без суда", тогда получается, что и упоминаемая тобой "власть" - тоже "нелюди". (По твоему же собственному определению.) Кто же ими займётся?

 Когда наши танки войдут в город...   ::   ::   ::

----------


## Crocodile

> Кроме того, после твоего утверждения: "А власть, если потребуется, всегда найдёт способ устранить неугодного человека и так, без суда", тогда получается, что и упоминаемая тобой "власть" - тоже "нелюди". (По твоему же собственному определению.) Кто же ими займётся?
> 			
> 		  Когда наши танки войдут в город...

 А можно поподробнее, пожалуйста?

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil     
> 			
> 				 Кроме того, после твоего утверждения: "А власть, если потребуется, всегда найдёт способ устранить неугодного человека и так, без суда", тогда получается, что и упоминаемая тобой "власть" - тоже "нелюди". (По твоему же собственному определению.) Кто же ими займётся?
> 			
> 		  Когда наши танки войдут в город...       А можно поподробнее, пожалуйста?

 АПВС?   ::

----------


## Crocodile

> АПВС?

 Мне правда интересно. Вот ты за последовательность + справедливость и против "нелюдей". Ты предлагаешь узаконить (т.е. дать полное одобрение обществом) убийство одними "нелюдьми" других "нелюдей". Лично я вижу явное противоречие в твоей позиции.

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  АПВС?     Мне правда интересно. Вот ты за последовательность + справедливость и против "нелюдей". Ты предлагаешь узаконить (т.е. дать полное одобрение обществом) убийство одними "нелюдьми" других "нелюдей". Лично я вижу явное противоречие в твоей позиции.

 Из трёх серьезных моих высказываний ты процитировал единственное несерьёзное и попросил подробности. 
В качестве ответа, я хочу привести "маленький" рассказик. К сожалению, не знаю автора, но он очень удачно иллюстрирует мою точку зрения:   

> *УВАЖЕНИЕ КУЛЬТУРНЫХ ТРАДИЦИЙ* 
>  Челнок пришвартовался к звездолету, и пассажиры расселись по местам, ожидая высадки на планету. Джаммар, стараясь сохранять, как и положено мужчине, равнодушное и непроницаемое выражение лица, прошел по рядам и наконец нашел свое кресло. Его соседкой справа оказалась пожилая женщина.  
>    -- В первый раз высаживаетесь на новую планету, молодой человек? -- спросила она его, улыбаясь.  
>    Джаммар, раздосадованный тем, что его неопытность так легко заметить, молча кивнул и отвернулся, показывая, что не желает продолжать разговор. "Как не стыдно! -- подумал он. -- Пожилая женщина, а пользуется косметикой и даже не покрыла голову платком! Как какая-нибудь шлюха!"  
>    Прошло вот уже более десяти лет, как люди со звезд пришли на землю Мирджала, но никто из свободных так и не смог привыкнуть к их низким обычаям. Проклятые торгаши, не знающие чести! Видано ли, что эти трусливые бараны купаются в роскоши, а истинные воины пребывают в бедности, вынужденные распродавать свою землю и то, что в земле, чтобы покупать всякие бесовские штучки со звезд. Но все еще переменится, и он, Джаммар, этому поможет! Правильно говорил его дядя, что в звездных людях мужества меньше, чем в бабах. Имей мужчины племени Джаммара такое же оружие, как звездные люди, разве стали бы они унижать себя торговлей? Что может быть достойнее, чем получить свое по праву воина или с доблестью погибнуть в бою и в раю слушать доносящиеся с земли песни, славящие твою храбрость? Но такого же оружия у племени не было. А теперь есть! И три летающие лодки, и трубки, убивающие светом и жалящие железом. Они купили их за те деньги, которые им, как милостыню, швырнули звездные для покупки еды рабам, чтобы те не дохли с голоду. А кто виноват, что расплодилось столько рабов, что земля не может их прокормить? Кто своей проклятой магией со звезд добился того, что смерть не забирает у рабов лишних детей? А теперь рабов стало намного больше, чем вольных. И эти животные все время хотят жрать! Некоторые даже осмеливаются втихаря роптать! Перебить бы лишних -- и все, но эти твари с небес угрожают, что тогда больше не дадут денег! Но ничего! Осталось ему, Джаммару, добыть питье для летающих лодок, и тогда трусливые небесные жители заплатят за все. А ведь воевать они не умеют. Разве может хорошо воевать тот, кто боится смерти? И что значит оружие в руках воина, который боится его применить! Это тогда не воин, а баба. Среди вольных воинами становятся с двенадцати лет. А все слышали, что на звездных лежит проклятье -- нельзя им убивать воинов, что младше восемнадцати, и баб. И потому не посмеют они стрелять по летающим лодкам, если там будут воины, не достигшие восемнадцатой весны. И баб надо бы на всякий случай с собой взять побольше и помоложе, чтоб проклятье звездным поперек горла встало. А если и посмеют стрелять, то что с того -- рай открыт для всех воинов, независимо от возраста.  
>    Дядя Джаммара Бгамир знал обычаи людей со звезд лучше всех. Он прожил среди них семь лет. Год даже провел там в тюрьме. Он, смеясь, вспоминал это время.  
>    -- Представляете, -- рассказывал он, -- попортил какую-то девку во время гулянки. Красивая девка была, но шлюха -- вся одежда просвечивает и телом так и вилась под музыку. Ну, я ее схватил за волосы и потащил с собой, а тут этот дохляк со звезд подбегает, и давай кричать на меня на своем птичьем языке. Я его и придушил слегка. А на суде сказали, что, мол, обычаи наши и им, крысам, понятны, и они их уважают, но у них обычаи другие. И, хотя положено мне восемь лет тюрьмы за девку и за то, что кадык ее хозяину перебил, дадут всего три, поскольку не я виноват, а бедность нашей земли. Выходит, даже эти звездные жабы постеснялись за шлюху слишком вступаться, хоть и приходил ко мне там один и все разъяснял, что по их правилам она не шлюха, а честная женщина. А я и не спорил с ним, что с них дураков звездных взять, которые честную женщину от шлюхи отличить не могут? А в тюрьме у них жизнь лучше, чем в нашем родовом замке. И еда богаче и вообще... И работать не нужно. И они меня этим испугать хотели после того, как я в плену у Такшира был в яме земляной? Через год пришел ко мне один из звездных. Понял ли я, что был неправ, спрашивает. Я и соврал, что понял. Тут меня на два года раньше выпустили и денег с собой дали столько, сколько три дома рабов на земле за полгода приносят.  
>    Тут все слушавшие дядю удивлялись и начинали смеяться над глупостью людей со звезд, так как ведь известно, что за изнасилование честной женщины положено сажать на кол, а уж если то чужая рабыня, то за ее изнасилование надо платить половину ее стоимости. А стоят красивые рабыни дорого... Задумавшись, Джаммар даже не заметил, как челнок приземлился. Увидев, что люди выходят, он поспешно встал и пошел вслед за ними.  
>    Космопорт был огромен. Его величие сначала подавило Джаммара, но он напомнил себе, что многие империи рушились под копытами лошадей его предков, и гордо пошел к автобусу.  
> ...

----------


## Crocodile

> Из трёх серьезных моих высказываний ты процитировал единственное несерьёзное и попросил подробности.

 Не удивляйся. Ведь и ты несерьёзно ответил на мой серьёзный вопрос. За рассказик спасибо, очень понравилось.   ::

----------


## Cocos

> Originally Posted by Ramil  На урановые рудники.  Опять лживость и лицемерие современной морали. Пусть мол сдохнут сами, чего об них руки марать.             Просто пара вопросов... А кто *сейчас* работает на таких рудниках? А вы знакомы с тем, в *каком именно режиме* проходит работа там? Нормы РБ никто не отменял пока.
>           Самое интересное, что Crocodile вообще никаких прилагательных со словом "рудники" не употреблял. Так откуда же взялись именно урановые рудники? Получается как-то странно, вы сами же придумали наихудший вариант развития идеи работ для заключённых, однако обвинили в этом не себя, но некую "лицемерную мораль". А ведь никто не говорит, что заключённых следует превратить в рабов. Речь идёт лишь о том, что бы они сами обеспечивали своё содержание. Более того. Даже нет необходимости принуждать заключённых к таким работам, напротив, их вполне можно мотивировать, платя за работу кое-какие деньги. Много меньшие, чем деньги, которые бы заработал правопорядочный гражданин. Разница же в оплате труда пошла бы на оплату содержания под стражей.
>           Я неслучайно спросил о мести. Большинство людей рассматриват правосудие как некую "гумманую" месть. Однако это НИКОГДА не решало проблему преступности. Следует не мстить, но прилагать максимум усилий, чтобы снижались преступность и рецедивы.

 Скажите честно, вы сталинист?    ::

----------


## Cocos

> Вот именно этого-то я и боюсь больше всего. «Вначале было Слово». И я боюсь, что слово «нелюди» закрепится в массовом сознании.

 Выходит в США, где можно сесть на электрический стул, слово "нелюдь" уже закрепилось?   

> Это означает, что мы начнём делить людей на бесправных и тех, кто права имеет. Сначала мы начнём делать исключения по отношению к особо зверским преступникам. Потом на волне истерии начнём принимать чудовищные законы о принудительной кастрации педофилов (они же не люди, как можно к ним гуманные законы применять?!). Слово «нелюдь» укоренится в сознании прочно, и чем прочнее, тем легче будет делать всё новые и новые исключения. Дальше ничто не мешает нам планочку-то понизить, отделим от «правых» секс-меньшинства, например, они ведь тоже против природы человеческой, общество их не любит, отторгает. Ну а когда такой метод станет нормой, вертя словом «нелюдь» на телевизионных экранах, можно будет оправдать почти любой аморальный закон. Хотим жить в правовом обществе? Никаких делений на «белых» и «чёрных» быть не должно в принципе!

 Если у власти стоят либералы, то так и будет.   

> Никто не говорит, что применение силы, в том числе убийство, — это всегда плохо. Есть ситуации, когда оно не просто уместно, но необходимо, чтобы выжить. Однако смертная казнь не есть необходимость. Преступник уже в руках закона, он изолирован, отторгнут обществом. Он не является больше угрозой для жизни, а наказание его суровое, даже более суровое, чем смертная казнь.

 А потом к власти приходит "благодетель" типа Хрущёва или Горбачёва и, под вопли о позорном прошлом, всех выпускает на свободу.   ::

----------


## Hanna

I don't understand most of what people have written, but I hate the death penalty. It's revolting.  
In my opinion nobody has the right to kill another human being. 
So how do you think that these poor people should be killed then?  
With electrical chair,   gas,   lethal injection? (that's what the USA uses  ::   ::   :: ) 
Or just shoot them?

----------


## starrysky

I'm with Johanna on this one. Let those people who committed specially atrocious crimes work for a lifetime - with no GULAG I s'pose we need hands. Death is horrible in and of itself. Violent death even more so. And although I'm not religious, I'm tempted to say "Все под богом ходим" or "Все там будем". Read Tolstoy, guys. Remember the scene where Bolkonsky is lying lethally wounded in the tent and Anatole, whom Bolkonsky wanted to kill just a few hours ago, is lying next to him on another bed and his leg is being cut off. In the new screen adaptation, the one with Clemence Poesy, this scene is tremendously powerful. 
Er... where was I? Yes, on the one hand, the Russian justice system (?) is very mellow now. But all in all I think it's for the better - each case gets individual treatment and the focus is on deciding whether the person will be dangerous for the society in future or whether he/she can reform. Judging not by the letter but by the spirit of the law. I have had dealings with our system - not me personally   ::  - my relatives had, and I was actually astonished at how human it is and how people are so understanding. I'll be for ever grateful to some of those people.    
I do think it's awful that some people who've committed terrible crimes - like child-molesters or maniacs - somehow manage to get out of prison and are then free to go kill more people. Instead of prison, they're sent to psychiatric clinics where they spend a few years after which they are allowed to go home. This is unacceptable. Or something like this case here, from "Izvestia" http://www.izvestia.ru/obshestvo/article3134572/    

> Педофил признал свою вину. И сбежал
> Сергей Тепляков (Республика Алтай)  
> В Республике Алтай на днях осудили Валентина Толкалина (имена и фамилии действующих лиц этой истории изменены). За сексуальные домогательства к малолетней девочке он получил всего полтора года колонии общего режима. Однако будет ли Толкалин отбывать срок, неизвестно - на оглашение приговора он не явился и теперь находится неизвестно где. 
> Толкалин, которому сейчас под пятьдесят, появился в поселке Турочак несколько лет назад и жил с Ниной Озеровой, у которой под опекунством находилась Жанна. Кроме нее, у Озеровой еще двое детей (девочка, ей сейчас 16 лет, и мальчик, который только что пошел в первый класс). Но Толкалин сосредоточил все внимание на Жанне, когда ей было всего 10 лет. Каждый раз после ночных приставаний спрашивал: "Нравится?" Если девочка говорила - нет, Толкалин ее наказывал, правда, без фанатизма, - мог не пустить днем гулять. Если молчала - покупал ей мороженое. Так продолжалось три года. 
> - Жанна дружит с моей дочерью, - рассказала "Известиям" Елена Жаркова, которая теперь опекает Жанну. - Я не подумала бы никогда, что у нее есть в жизни что-то ужасное. Но однажды прибегает дочь, говорит: "Жанна грозится себе вены перерезать"... 
> Оказалось, по дороге из школы Жанна рассказала все подруге, добавив: "Терпения нет, хочу умереть". Жаркова бросилась к Озеровой, с которой тогда они были в подругах. 
> - Озерова сначала выгнала его, а потом, когда Жанна рассказала, как все было, сказала: "А что здесь особенного?" И уже на другой день Толкалин снова был принят в семью... - рассказывает Жаркова. - В селе многие так реагируют: "Не изнасиловал же". 
> Даже после возбуждения уголовного дела Толкалин говорил, что ему дадут условно. Нина Озерова в Турочакском суде заведует канцелярией, так что местные жители не удивились бы, если бы приговор оказался именно таким. Заместитель районного прокурора Аржан Бачишев потребовал для подсудимого два года лишения свободы. 
> Во время следствия и суда Толкалин оставался на свободе. Он признал свою вину и попросил у Жанны прощения. А на вынесение приговора уже не пришел и исчез. Суд приговорил его к полутора годам колонии общего режима. "Но если он не объявится, то может попасть за решетку на больший срок", - сказали "Известиям" в районном суде.

 I honestly don't think there is any way - including improper upbringing - to excuse a 50 year old man repeatedly raping a 10 year old girl.   
On the other hand, the USSR system was too harsh. I know about cases when 16 year old teenagers were sent to prison for 3 years for some really petty breach of law - like stealing something. Prison changes the person completely. How is he to integrate into the society when he comes out covered in tattoos from head to foot, addicted to drugs and a complete cynic? These days such boys get off - they don't get sent to prison immediately and so they have a chance to escape the troublesome teenage years unscared and re-think their attitudes.

----------


## Звездочёт

> Скажите честно, вы сталинист?

 Нет, это был ответ на вопрос Рамиля, возможный вариант решения экономической стороны вопроса отмены смертной казни без лицемерной морали (в данном случае труд не принудительный, но добровольный, заключённый точно знает за что он работает и получает некоторое количество свобод и поблажек за свой труд).   

> Выходит в США, где можно сесть на электрический стул, слово "нелюдь" уже закрепилось?

 Нет, не выходит; моё утверждение работает только в одну сторону. То есть из того, что где-то есть смертная казнь, не следует, что там делят людей на людей и «нелюдей»,  ведь смертная казнь может быть принята не только к особо зверским преступникам, но и, например, к неким «врагам народа», «предателям» и т. п. (где вообще проходит та граница, за пересечение которой смертная казнь может быть введена?). 
Однако рассуждать о чём-либо в отрыве от контекста, вне каких бы то ни было рамок  — дело опасное бесцельностью. Поэтому в дискуссии важно отталкиваться от каких-то определений, тезисов и т. п. Рамиль говорил о казни «нелюдей», поэтому я стараюсь рассматривать смертную казнь именно в этом контексте.

----------


## Звездочёт

На самом деле вопрос о смертной казни — это, в основном, вопрос о том, кем мы хотим быть. Хотим ли мы стать нравственно выше и понимать, что отвечать по закону «око за око», значит опуститься до уровня тех, кто «сам первый начал», или не хотим? Ответ на этот вопрос однозначно решает наш спор.

----------


## Ramil

> I don't understand most of what people have written, but I hate the death penalty. It's revolting.

  

> In my opinion nobody has the right to kill another human being.

 Yes, we were speaking exactly about it. Does anyone who has human appearance have the right to be called human being? There are times I seriously doubt that.   

> So how do you think that these poor people should be killed then?

 I would not decide that. But I can post another set of photographs that would call up for quite different emotions.  
(Taken from here: http://karisable.com/victch.htm) _ Jessica Lunsford -- The nine year old from Florida who was taken from her bed and found murdered after a pedophile in the neighborhood confessed to burying her alive._  _ JonBenét was born in Atlanta GA in 1990 and the Ramseys lived in the Atlanta suburb of Dunwoody for several years before moving to Colorado in 1991. JonBenét Ramsey -- Early December 26, 1996, Patsy Paugh Ramsey called 911 to report JonBenét, her daughter six year-old daughter, missing from her bed and a three-page ransom note she found downstairs demanding $118,000. Hours later, with law enforcement in the home, JonBenét's father, John B. Ramsey, found her battered, strangled body in the basement of their Boulder home. John and Patsy insist an intruder killed their daughter. Boulder police and Colorado Governor Bill Owens kept them under an ''umbrella of suspicion.'' CNN_  _Ashley Pond, 12, a seventh-grader at Gardiner Middle School, left her South Beavercreek Road apartment complex in Oregon City, OR about 8 a.m. on Jan. 9, 2002, for the school bus stop. Ashley did not make it to school. It had been a rough year for Ashley and she carried around more pain in her short life than any child should. On January 5, 2001, just over a year before Ashley disappeared, her biological father, Wesley Roettger, Jr., was indicted on 40 counts of raping and sexually abusing her for over 4 years. The following March, Ashley told a friend that two men were molesting her. 
Two months after Ashley's disappearance, on March 8, 2002, 13-year-old Miranda Diane Gaddis, an eighth grader, another friend of Mallori's, disappeared after she left her apartment at 8 a.m. on her way to the school bus stop, sparking a nationwide FBI search. Massive searches turned up no clues. 
Between August 24 and 25 2002, searchers found Ashley under the concrete slab in a barrel, and Miranda in a box in tool shed both on Weaver's property._ 
Shall I continue?

----------


## Ramil

> На самом деле вопрос о смертной казни — это, в основном, вопрос о том, кем мы хотим быть. Хотим ли мы стать нравственно выше и понимать, что отвечать по закону «око за око», значит опуститься до уровня тех, кто «сам первый начал», или не хотим? Ответ на этот вопрос однозначно решает наш спор.

 Уважаемый Звездочёт. Мы никогда не станем "нравственно выше", пока в нашем обществе остаются люди, заслуживающие смертной казни. Такими словами принято разглагольствовать по телевизору в передачах о "нравственности". Но не дай вам бог оказаться в такой ситуации, когда вам придется поступиться этой самой чистотой нравов и возжелать принципа "око за око". К сожалению, никто из нас не застрахован от подобных ситуаций и никто не может дать гарантий в этакой непоколебимости ваших высокоморальных и, безусловно - заслуживающих уважения, принципах.

----------


## mishau_

Нам смертная казнь может и не нужна. Осужденные сами накладывают на себя руки после такого.  http://zeki.su/novosti/2009/10/16193515.html

----------


## Оля

> Shall I continue?

 Когда я читаю или слышу про такие вещи, у меня всегда возникает вопрос: почему бог (если он есть) допускает такое?
Вот именно потому, что он допускает такие (и многие другие) вещи, я в него и не верю. 
А насчет того, что это - не люди, у меня тоже вопрос: вот маньяк, он с самого начала своей жизни был маньяком, нравственным чудовищем, не достойным считаться человеком? С самого первого дня своего рождения? Или он постепенно превратился в монстра? Как это произошло?

----------


## Crocodile

> Когда я читаю или слышу про такие вещи, у меня всегда возникает вопрос: почему бог (если он есть) допускает такое?
> Вот именно потому, что он допускает такие (и многие другие) вещи, я в него и не верю.

 Я правильно понимаю, что признак отсутствия у бога гуманизма приводит тебя к выводу об отсутствии бога? (сорри за офтоп)   ::

----------


## Звездочёт

> Мы никогда не станем "нравственно выше", пока в нашем обществе остаются люди, заслуживающие смертной казни. <...> Не дай вам бог оказаться в такой ситуации, когда вам придется поступиться этой самой чистотой нравов и возжелать принципа "око за око".

 Как учит греческий миф об Афине, богине мудрости, и Оресте, справедливый суд начал существовать лишь тогда, когда Эринии (принцип "око за око") были обузданы. Можно сколько угодно ждать у моря погоды, говоря, дескать наше общество никогда не будет лучше, пока в нём существуют такие-то люди. Но коварная ловушка именно в том, что такие люди были, есть и будут. Так что же нам оставаться из-за них варварами,  оправдывая свою жажду мести? Благородным человек является не благодаря, а вопреки. 
Там где месть, нет места суду. Не мы давали Жизнь, не нам её и забирать без веской причины. Жажда мести -- не веская причина, это -- эмоции. Да, я согласен, эмоции очень сильные. Будучи в них тяжело что-то предпринимать против них. И тем не менее они должны быть обузданы.

----------


## Ramil

А я вот не считаю, что будущее за холодным и расчётливым разумом. Эмоции тоже даны нам неспроста. А также свободная воля распоряжаться своим разумом и эмоциями. Дело, кстати, не в мести. Чтобы не быть бесхребетным скотом, человек иногда должен брать на себя ответственность в том числе и за то, что по убеждению многих находится в компетенции высшей силы. Иначе мы не были бы людьми.

----------


## Звездочёт

> Я правильно понимаю, что признак отсутствия у бога гуманизма приводит тебя к выводу об отсутствии бога? (сорри за офтоп)

 Согласно христианской теологической апологетике, бог справедлив и благ. Это постулаты, на которых зиждится христианство и понимание христианского бога. 
Не знаю, сработает ли ссылка, но тут написано кое-что на эту тему. Вообще, сам pdf-ник лежит тут: http://www.missionarychurchofgrace.org/ ... izn_05.pdf 
Нельзя, конечно, сказать, что Ориген -- авторитет в христианстве. Но Ориген сравнивал "несправедливость" бога с лечением нарывов. Апологет говорил, что, когда бог не вмешивается в несправедливость, он просто ждёт, когда нарыв "созреет" и гной вытечет. Вмешаться прежде -- значит не изличить болезнь. 
P.S. Нужно ли говорить, что кроме христианского воззрения существуют и другие представления о боге? Ах да, буть бы тут священник, он давно бы назвал меня каким-нибудь дьяволопоклонником или ещё чем-нибудь страшным.  ::

----------


## Звездочёт

> Чтобы не быть бесхребетным скотом, человек иногда должен брать на себя ответственность в том числе и за то, что по убеждению многих находится в компетенции высшей силы. Иначе мы не были бы людьми.

 А чем человек руководствуется в такие моменты? Законом, разумом, вдохновением -- чем?

----------


## Оля

> Я правильно понимаю, что признак отсутствия у бога гуманизма приводит тебя к выводу об отсутствии бога? (сорри за офтоп)

 Ну не совсем. Но если он и есть, то он не добрый и не милосердный. А тогда какой же он "бог"? Они там, наверху, экспериментаторы, скорее всего...

----------


## Звездочёт

Оля, а когда ты говорила  _"А тогда какой же он "бог"? "_, ты что имела в виду?
1) Да кокой же он бог после этого; вовсе не бог.
2) Тогда какой именно он бог: злой, всемогущий и т. п.

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  Shall I continue?   Когда я читаю или слышу про такие вещи, у меня всегда возникает вопрос: почему бог (если он есть) допускает такое?
> Вот именно потому, что он допускает такие (и многие другие) вещи, я в него и не верю.

 Это довольно стандартный парадокс, на который указывают атеисты.
Я могу привести как минимум три "официальных" ответа от церковных светил, могу дать свой вариант, но это надолго. Заставить поверить нельзя.  
Ты хочешь услышать проповедь, логическое объяснение или погуглить свой вопрос сама?   

> А насчет того, что это - не люди, у меня тоже вопрос: вот маньяк, он с самого начала своей жизни был маньяком, нравственным чудовищем, не достойным считаться человеком? С самого первого дня своего рождения? Или он постепенно превратился в монстра? Как это произошло?

 Душу продал. (Между прочим, это случается сплошь и рядом). Телесная оболочка обычно достаётся дьяволу.   

> Originally Posted by Ramil  Чтобы не быть бесхребетным скотом, человек иногда должен брать на себя ответственность в том числе и за то, что по убеждению многих находится в компетенции высшей силы. Иначе мы не были бы людьми.   А чем человек руководствуется в такие моменты? Законом, разумом, вдохновением -- чем?

 Да чем когда. В принципе, религиозный человек может даже счесть что стал инструментом божьего промысла. Ведь если всё в руках Его, то даже наши поступки были бы продиктованы его промыслом. С другой стороны, как же свобода воли? В том-то и дело, что чем бы ни руководствовался человек, пусть даже убивая, он ответит за свои деяния ТАМ. И далеко не факт, что ему будет уготована геенна огненная пусть даже и за смертные грехи. Вспомните тех же преступников, которых казнили вместе с Христом.
Важно не что ты сделал, а почему ты это сделал, а также что ты чувствуешь после содеянного. При этом необходимо помнить, чем вымощена дорога в ад. Прав ты был или нет - узнать можно только постфактум. Заповеди - это путеводитель в рай, но кто сказал, что туда попадают только одним путём? 
Другое дело, что есть человек, который не желает использовать самое ценное, что дал ему бог - свободу воли?

----------


## Оля

> Оля, а когда ты говорила  _"А тогда какой же он "бог"? "_, ты что имела в виду?
> 1) Да какой же он бог после этого; вовсе не бог.
> 2) Тогда какой именно он бог: злой, всемогущий и т. п.

 Первое.   

> Originally Posted by Оля        Originally Posted by Ramil  Shall I continue?   Когда я читаю или слышу про такие вещи, у меня всегда возникает вопрос: почему бог (если он есть) допускает такое?
> Вот именно потому, что он допускает такие (и многие другие) вещи, я в него и не верю.   Это довольно стандартный парадокс, на который указывают атеисты.
> Я могу привести как минимум три "официальных" ответа от церковных светил, могу дать свой вариант, но это надолго. Заставить поверить нельзя.  
> Ты хочешь услышать проповедь, логическое объяснение или погуглить свой вопрос сама?

 Я знаю, что это стандартный вопрос. Я и раньше о нем знала, и... так сказать, немного свысока смотрела на тех, кто его задает. А вот когда в какой-то момент его по-настоящему себе задаешь... Заставить поверить нельзя, а вот заставить разувериться можно. 
Те объяснения, которые дает церковь - они меня не убедят.

----------


## Звездочёт

Рамиль, я попробую задать вопрос по-другому. Вот если мне вздумается убить человека, потому что у меня настроение плохое, могу ли я после этого сказать, что это был тот случай, когда я был не "бесхребетной скотиной", но тем, кто взял "на себя ответственность, в том числе и за то, что по убеждению многих находится в компетенции высшей силы"?   

> Важно не что ты сделал, а почему ты это сделал, а также что ты чувствуешь после содеянного.

 А если после такого убийства я буду чувствовать, что спас мир от плохого человека, например, от коммуниста/либерала/националиста/другое (нужное подчеркнуть), значит ли это, что ТАМ мой поступок будет одобрен? Террорист-смертник, фанатично верующий в награду, убивающий во имя Аллаха, значит-таки попадёт в рай? Но он ведь чувствует, что он прав!   ::

----------


## Ramil

А что, я похож на того, кто может на данный вопрос ответить? Знаю только то, что некоторые из тех, кто "брал ответственность" стали сами по себе весьма заметными вехами в развитии человечества. А уж к добру или к худу - не знаю. Частью стада мне лично быть не нравится. Может и из-за гордыни. Если бы ответы на эти вопросы существовали, мы бы все уже стали давно "гармонично-духовными". Из миллиона ошибающихся один будет прав. И кто это - никто не сможет сказать заранее. Стоит этот один верный шаг миллиона ошибок или нет? Я не знаю.

----------


## Звездочёт

> А что, я похож на того, кто может на данный вопрос ответить? Знаю только то, что некоторые из тех, кто "брал ответственность" стали сами по себе весьма заметными вехами в развитии человечества. А уж к добру или к худу - не знаю. <...> Стоит этот один верный шаг миллиона ошибок или нет? Я не знаю.

 Хм… Интересно. Однако когда речь шла о смертной казни, отнимать жизнь у другого было проще.  ::  
По сути, моя позиция проста. Наказывая кого-то за «бесчеловечность», имеем ли мы право сами становиться бесчеловечными? Не будет ли в этом некого лицемерия? Как мы можем требовать от кого-то соблюдения закона, если сами находим причины нарушать эти законы, пусть и под «благовидными» предлогами? 
P.S. И всё-таки, я верю в Разум. Чувства и эмоции… Ох, как они обманчивы, как слепы, но  как же сладок их губительный яд!  ::

----------


## Ramil

> По сути, моя позиция проста.  
> 1. Наказывая кого-то за «бесчеловечность», имеем ли мы право сами становиться бесчеловечными? 
> 2. Не будет ли в этом некого лицемерия? 
> 3. Как мы можем требовать от кого-то соблюдения закона, если сами находим причины нарушать эти законы, пусть и под «благовидными» предлогами? 
> 4. P.S. И всё-таки, я верю в Разум. Чувства и эмоции… Ох, как они обманчивы, как слепы, но  как же сладок их губительный яд!

 1. Становимся ли мы бесчеловечными, казня преступника?
2. Не является ли лицемерием говорить о "духовности", "морали", "человечности" применимо к обществу в целом?
3. О каком законе речь - о "высшем"? Или о "земном"? Про земной вопросов нет. А о высшем - я писал. 
4. И, наконец, мне стоит приводить примеры того, когда вера в "Разум" становилась причиной больших трагедий? И примеры того, когда обманчивые эмоции являлись спасительными? 
И что называть "Разумом"? Жесточайший естественный отбор в природе лишен всяких эмоций - все четко и логично. Не логика ли и разум подсказывали отцам евгеники способы улучшения человеческой расы не так давно? И не эмоции ли и чувства людей избавили нас от этого?

----------


## Звездочёт

Похоже, у меня сегодня вечер зависания на форуме. ::  
1) Бесспорно. Мы опускаемся до уровня того, кто совершил убийство. В этом-то и ловушка. «Несимметричный» ответ выглядит более мудрой стратегией. Чем пожизненное заключение не адекватная мера? Только тем, что не удовлетворена наша жажда крови? Так чем мы лучше безумных Эринний, которым движет лишь одна жажда убивать? 
2) А что здесь лицемерного? Какие низменные мотивы здесь скрываются под маской мотивов высоких? 
3) О земном законе. Высший закон только один: «Делай, что Изволишь — таков да будет  весь Закон».  ::  
4) Ну, это примечание только опциональное. Просто я точно знаю по себе, что если разум настойчиво будет говорить одно, а сердце — другое, то как бы больно не было, у разума шансов больше. Не всегда такое решение даётся легко и сразу, но всё же оно часто (в моём случае) оказывается более верным.

----------


## Hanna

Oh.. I had stopped following this thread because I couldn't understand what people were saying... But I just saw that Ramil posted something in English so here is a response:  
I know these kids are cute and totally innocent. But such abductions and killings are extremely rare! * Or are such cases more common in Russia?*  
Perhaps if murder abductions and violent rapes were very common - maybe then then death penalty could be justified for a short while. *Do you think that the situation with criminality in Russia is so serious that it justifies the death penalty? *  
I don't personally have experience of living in a country where it's common for people to get killed, raped and abducted. Perhaps I'd have a different opinion if I had that experience... Difficult to guess. But *I believe in trying to reform the criminals if possible, or locking them away if they are too dangerous.*  
I know that there was a lot of violence and serious crime in Russia in the 1990s - but that has got better, hasn't it? *Or do you think that Russia is more violent / criminal than Europe and needs harsher punishments as a deterrent?* Or are you in favour of death penalty on principle, like Republican Americans?  
Most violent criminality is caused by poverty and committed by people from the bottom of society. In societies that take care of those at the bottom there is less violent crime.  People who are perverts, mentally disturbed and have evil twisted minds will commit crimes despite the risk of death penalty. 
Look at America which is using death penalty - it's still a VERY violent country - more so than Europe which isn't using death penalty! I don't know what they think they are gaining from using the death penalty there. 
Maybe I just feel this way because it's what I have been brought up to believe in (=countries that use the death penalty are barbaric)... It also seems grossly unfair. Apparently in America those that are executed are almost exclusively black men who dropped out of school.  
Also – I don't think it's Christian to execute people when there are other alternatives. Jesus wouldn't want it...   ::  Of course this argument is irrelevant for those who don't believe in God at all..  
If Russians feel that criminals must be severely punished - isn't a long sentence of hard labour in Siberia a pretty grim sentence that would satisfy the public, and deter the criminals? After 10 - 15 years of that the criminal is probably "reformed".  Plus he has done something good for society by building a road, mining coal etc. 
In the Dostoyevsky book "Crime and Punishment", did not Raskolnikoff get reformed in the end, despite being a very heartless character?  (as far as I remember, he was.... but I don't remember the details)  According to your view he should have been killed immediately since he was a cold blooded murderer!  But even in those days, justice gave him a chance!

----------


## Ramil

> Похоже, у меня сегодня вечер зависания на форуме. 
> 1) Бесспорно.

 Как раз спорно, но это один из тех вечных неразрешимых споров.   

> 2) А что здесь лицемерного? Какие низменные мотивы здесь скрываются под маской мотивов высоких?

 А если брать общество в целом, которое при всём желании я не могу назвать ни моральным, ни духовным, ни даже гуманным, то о каких высоких мотивах идёт речь? Считая так мы всего лишь выдаём желаемое за действительное. Безусловно, много людей, взятых по-отдельности, заслуживают уважения и являются достойными примерами, но мы-то говорим об обществе в целом, которое настолько гуманно, насколько гуманен среднестатестический его представитель.   

> 3) О земном законе. Высший закон только один: «Делай, что Изволишь — таков да будет  весь Закон».

 Про земной закон - законно всё то, что предусмотрено законом. Если законом предусмотрена исключительная мера наказания, то приведение приговора в исполнение незаконным являться не будет. А про высший закон - ну, может для некоторых дела обстоят так, как вы написали, но тогда см. п. 2. Всё-таки, у меня он другой.   

> 4) Ну, это примечание только опциональное. Просто я точно знаю по себе, что если разум настойчиво будет говорить одно, а сердце — другое, то как бы больно не было, у разума шансов больше. Не всегда такое решение даётся легко и сразу, но всё же оно часто (в моём случае) оказывается более верным.

 В бытовых случаях, да и то... не всегда. Ну а когда разум будет подсказывать пристрелить раненного, чтобы легче было идти, а чувства говорили бы вам, что так делать нельзя, потому что... (впишите сами). Таких примеров можно приводить тысячами. Я вот считаю, что человека отличает от животного именно эмоции, а не разум.

----------


## Ramil

> I know these kids are cute and totally innocent. But such abductions and killings are extremely rare!

 Well, what do we have to do with such rare criminals?   

> Do you think that the situation with criminality in Russia is so serious that it justifies the death penalty?

 Death penalty has nothing to do with the criminality or the lack of it. It's about 'justice'. We're talking about the principle 'eye for an eye'. Whether it is justified or not. I know it's hard to imagine, but what would you feel about the convict who did something to someone who is very dear to you? Not just abstract talks about death penalty in principle but when things got personal?   

> I know that there was a lot of violence and serious crime in Russia in the 1990s - but that has got better, hasn't it? *Or do you think that Russia is more violent / criminal than Europe and needs harsher punishments as a deterrent?* Or are you in favour of death penalty on principle, like Republican Americans?

 Well, I think that punishment for certain crimes (namely: murder and rape with certain set of aggravating factors, acts of terror with resulting deaths, plane hijacking with resulting deaths, taking hostage with resulting deaths, mass murder, genocide) has to have certain provisions that would permit executing of the convicts.    

> Most violent criminality is caused by poverty and committed by people from the bottom of society.

 I *had* friends who were hostages in the theater on Dubrovka street (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_the ... age_crisis).    

> People who are perverts, mentally disturbed and have evil twisted minds will commit crimes despite the risk of death penalty.

 If one out of a hundred perverts or mentally disturbed people would not commit a crime thinking of death penalty then it is justified.   

> Look at America which is using death penalty - it's still a VERY violent country - more so than Europe which isn't using death penalty!

 Russia is not America. We have the traditions of our own. Unfortunately.   

> Jesus wouldn't want it...

 OK. Jesus. Here's what he said:  *Matthew 10:34*
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.  *Luke 19:27*
But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them — bring them here and kill them in front of me. 
You see? I can prove ANYTHING with quotes from the Bible.    

> If Russians feel that criminals must be severely punished - isn't a long sentence of hard labour in Siberia a pretty grim sentence that would satisfy the public, and deter the criminals? After 10 - 15 years of that the criminal is probably "reformed".  Plus he has done something good for society by building a road, mining coal etc.

 Uranium mines would suit them I think (we've discussed this in Russian).   

> In the Dostoyevsky book "Crime and Punishment", did not Raskolnikoff get reformed in the end, despite being a very heartless character?  (as far as I remember, he was.... but I don't remember the details)  According to your view he should have been killed immediately since he was a cold blooded murderer!  But even in those days, justice gave him a chance!

 Strange it may be, but those times were much more humane that the present in Russia. Besides, Raskolnikoff is almost an ideal murderer filled with remorse. No such people exists and no such people existed even then I think.

----------


## starrysky

> If Russians feel that criminals must be severely punished - isn't a long sentence of hard labour in Siberia a pretty grim sentence that would satisfy the public, and deter the criminals? After 10 - 15 years of that the criminal is probably "reformed".  Plus he has done something good for society by building a road, mining coal etc.

 Wouldn't the European human rights activists rush in and say we can't use the labour of convicts? You know, I'm starting to have second thoughts... Because if those people don't work then it's the tax-payer's money that is spent on maintaining their worthless lives! I am talking here about people who have committed specially atrocious crimes - murdered a lot of people, etc. Do you know about Chikatilo? He murdered about 50 people, here's a link to the wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Chikatilo No matter how human I am, I don't think he deserved to live or could reform. Therefore, it would appear that death penalty should be available but only in the cases of utmost necessity.

----------


## Hanna

> Wouldn't the European human rights activists rush in and say we can't use the labour of convicts?

 Re European human rights activists: 
Yes... Haha..... They probably would complain about it....  But then Russia could tell them:  _"These criminals are fed, clothed and do not get beaten up. We are not going to kill them unless they try to escape.... Why don't you go and report about Saudi Arabia or the US instead?"_ 
European human rights activists worry about people like Michael Khodorkovsky or Anna Politkovskaya *while they are on the beach in Thailand* (which has a corrupt and gruesome justice system) or while they are *shopping in Singapore or Dubai* _(which have exceptionally tough justice, including death penalty for things like drug offenses. Also not democracies)._  *
Their views seems rather hippocritical and artificial! *  Sooner or later the European view on Russia will catch up with reality... Remember, most people who are adults today grew up during the cold war in Europe...  It takes time to change perceptions. British people, for example, are practically "hardwired" to be paranoid and negative about "Russians" when they grow up --- it's almost in their blood. Anything that Russia does is "suspicious"... Likewise they are hardwired not to worry about anything that "the Land of the free and the brave" gets up to...  
As long as people aren't actually executed in Russia. I can't see that there is a lot of VALID cause for serious complaints by human rights activists. Many UK prisons make the prisoners work whle they are in prison. Just not in a mine our by building a road.   *I know it's not my business if Russia has death penalty or not....* I just hate the thought of it!   But I hate it equally much regardless of where it takes place. Whether it is Thailand, USA or Iran.  
Regarding "taxpayers money":   Actually, the death penalty is probably more expensive than prison. There would have to be a lot of instances to appeal to... In the USA the trials go on for a decade before the person is actually executed. The solicitor is paid by the state (taxes). And just think how much it costs to keep the person in a high-security prison while he is not working!  
I goess the Stalin era of executions weren't expensive because they had no lengthy trials, no serious appeal process and etc... But I don't think that's what anybody is proposing!  I guess you must be talking about a system that it similar to the other advanced nations that are using the death penalty. 
I would still like Russia regardless of the death penalty, but I would consider it a REAL SHAME if it was brought back...  
Uranium mine seems like a good place for a violent murder or sex offender. In Scandinavia the person would be offered psychotherapy, a university education (if he wanted) and get a "prison cell" full of books, TV and radio. They can even use the internet.    *Haha Ramil* -- good response! We just have a different "feeling" about the death penalty, that's all...  I am not saying that anything that you say is wrong.  And yeah, of course I know that the Bible can be used to support almost anything...  It was worth a try though!   The truth is of course, we can't know for sure what Jesus would say about it. I personally think he would not want it. But on the other hand, some of his comments were quite pro-state-power (which would probably include the right of the state to execute people...)

----------


## mishau_

> In Scandinavia the person would be offered psychotherapy, a university education (if he wanted) and get a "prison cell" full of books, TV and radio. They can even use the internet.

 Did I show you what policemen do in Russian prisons when they find a cellarphone or a track-costume? 
Don't watch it, actually, it's too brutal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOmCdMcZz80

----------


## Crocodile

> Но если он и есть, то он не добрый и не милосердный. А тогда какой же он "бог"? Они там, наверху, экспериментаторы, скорее всего...

 Ну, скажем, это доказывает только то, что он не вседобрый и всемилосердный. Но это и ежу понятно. Как одновременно быть добрым и к желаниям маньяка и его жертвы? Ведь и маньяку очень хочется, и он несчастный человек с несчастной судьбой. Тут, как ни кинь, придётся выбрать. А значит, "удобрить" и "умилосердить" желания всех нереально. Ну, или придётся найти новое определение для добра и милосердия (чем, собственно, официальная церковь и занималась во все времена).  
Ну а насчёт эксперимента... Есть такой классический комментарий на первую строку книги Бытия - якобы Бог сотворил наш мир из остатка предыдущего. И что до нашего было несколько неудачных миров. А про наш мир сказано: "И увидел Бог, что это хорошо". При желании, при такой трактовке тут несложно и квантовую сингулярность за уши притянуть...   ::

----------


## Hanna

Mischa - the prison video is really terrible. *The prison guards are totally out of order. What they are doing is surely illegal, right?* They ought to be sacked. I wonder who managed to film it - seems risky.   
If anybody got beaten by the guards in a European prison and media found out: 
---The prisoners would get compensation for "suffering". 
---The guards would be suspended and sent on "sensitivity training"
---A prisoner would write a best-seller book about his experiences...  
Crime and punishment is such a tough area - how do you strike the right balance? 
The objectives have to be:  
--Deter people from committing crimes in the first place
--Reform those who can be reformed, so that they become honest citizens.. 
--Protect society from violent and unscrupulous people and prevent them from hurting honest people. 
--Give the public a sense of justice.  
For this reason I think that labour camps are quite a good idea. That way society can get nasty jobs done, that normal people don't want to do...  Some people DO get reformed and deterred through hard labour...  They "pay" for their crimes by doing something useful...  Plus while they are in a labour camp they can't kill innocent civilians.   *The trouble in most of Western Europe right now is that nobody is very scared of prison.* Criminals know it's quite comfortable and that they don't have to serve for very long anyway - unless they kill somebody.  
Recently an Estonian gangster said in an interview that his time in a Swedish prison was among the nicest periods in his life - he just regretted being released, because he couldn't finish the courses that he started. Sigh.....  His crime was that he had robbed a money transport. *He'll probably do it again now that he knows how nice the prisons are...*  
We have some cold and nasty mines in Sweden too --- would have been a much better place for this scumbag, I think....

----------


## Звездочёт

> [общество] настолько гуманно, насколько гуманен среднестатестический его представитель.

 А давно у нас среднестатистический представитель общества -- "нелюдь" или дикарь? Что, вокруг нас больше "нелюдей" и дикарей? Может быть средне-статистический член нашего общества не самый образованный, не самый идеальный человек, но он, однако, достаточно гуманен и достаточно вменяем, чтобы воспринять ценности "высокого" общества (пример Советского Союза вполне продемонстрировал это наглядно). То, что эти ценности в обществе теперь не транслируются постоянно, говорит лишь о том, что кому-то такое положение вещей крайне выгодно. Кому-то выгодно держать общество во "тьме".   

> Про земной закон - законно всё то, что предусмотрено законом. Если законом предусмотрена исключительная мера наказания, то приведение приговора в исполнение незаконным являться не будет. А про высший закон - ну, может для некоторых дела обстоят так, как вы написали, но тогда см. п. 2. Всё-таки, у меня он другой.

 "Делай, что Изволишь", не значит "делай, что тебе вздумается". Воля -- понятие метафизическое и очень непростое, чтобы его можно было описать в двух-трёх словах. Скажу только, что в определённых ситуациях очень приммитивно Волю можно перевести как Предначертание. 
Что касается закона, то тнужно сделать пояснение. В данном случае вернее говорить руководящий принцип, а не закон, который издаётся законадательной властью. Как бы смехотворно это не звучало в реалиях наших дней, но принцип гумманизма и прав человека на сеголняшний день -- руководящий принцип/закон нашей земной жизни. То, что у нас очень плохо получается ему следовать, не повод говорить "Раз не получается, значит можно и наплевать". Напротив, это повод прикладывать ещё больше усилий, повод стремиться к реализации этого принципа, а не ждать, когда само собой общество поумнеет и станет лучше/чище. Не хотим ничего делать, но хотим, чтобы всё у нас было.  ::    

> Ну а когда разум будет подсказывать пристрелить раненного, чтобы легче было идти, а чувства говорили бы вам, что так делать нельзя, потому что... (впишите сами).

 В этом случае мы должны спросить свой разум, какова наша высшая цель, и какую плату мы готовы принести за свой выбор. Готовы ли мы умереть за то, чтобы спасти жизнь раненого? Если готовы, то мы несём раненого до конца. В таком случае наш выбор будет осознанным и взвешанным (_"Если ты ведаешь, что творишь, ты блажен, но если ты не ведаешь этого, ты проклят и преступник закона"_. Ницше.). Но если мы принимаем закон на волне истерии, подогретой массовыми средствами информации, -- мы безумцы.

----------


## Crocodile

> If one out of a hundred perverts or mentally disturbed people would not commit a crime thinking of death penalty then it is justified.

 I think ВарраВа has already mentioned that before Chikatillo was found several other people were executed for his actions. You haven't replied to that yet ...

----------


## Hanna

> Originally Posted by Ramil  If one out of a hundred perverts or mentally disturbed people would not commit a crime thinking of death penalty then it is justified.   I think ВарраВа has already mentioned that before Chikatillo was found several other people were executed for his actions. You haven't replied to that yet ...

 OMG   ::   ::  
Are you sure?  That's terrible.  
How is it different whether Chikatilo is in a mine in Magadan with some other beasts like him, or dead? 
Perhaps the fact that he's alive is disturbing to some  of the families of the victims...  
There are several such British killers who have been in prison since the 1960s. Some become religious, some kill themselves, some deny that they are guilty.

----------


## rockzmom

Hey all... ya know I don't usually jump in on politics threads... but on this one... as today we are going to have an execution here in Virginia and it is one that MANY people, even those normally against execution, are saying should be carried out... I thought I would post about it... It is pretty much all anyone is talking about around here today... When the shootings were taking place, and some of them happen right in my neighborhood, at a gas station where I get gas, at a middle school where I grew up... it was just a terrifying time...   

> *The D.C. Sniper Should Die. But Not Like This.
> I’ll be glad to see John Allen Muhammad go for his murderous rampage. But the death penalty is still wrong.*  http://www.theroot.com/views/dc-sniper-should-die-not 
> I don’t believe in capital punishment, but I will be glad if John Allen Muhammad is executed tonight. I wish someone had shot him down in the street before he and his witless teenage accomplice, Lee Boyd Malvo, went on their murderous spree, killing 10, wounding others and terrorizing the entire populations of Washington, D.C., Maryland and Virginia.  
> Muhammad is the sort of soulless killer who puts death penalty opponents like me in a moral bind. We don’t believe in the state putting anybody to death, including irredeemable thugs like Muhammad, but we—or at least I—wish they were dead. I resent expending millions of tax dollars to support a wretch like Muhammad as his appeal winds through the courts. I detest the notion that as long as he lives, he can still hope for a delay of his rendezvous with lethal injection. It troubles me that our legal system affords him mercy that he denied his victims and their families. 
> Like everyone who lived in Washington at the time of the Beltway sniper rampage, I have indelible memories. One of his victims, 72-year-old Pascal Charlot, was gunned down only a few blocks from the house in which I was living. My then 10-year-old daughter’s soccer team was forced to practice inside, running zig-zag to the door of the gym like pint-sized GIs evading enemy fire, because the sniper had threatened to target children. The hair on the back of my neck stood up every time I saw a white van, the sort of vehicle the police were looking for until they learned that the sniper actually drove a dark Chevy. 
> And yet I know that as much as I hate John Allen Muhammad for killing all those people and for frightening me and my kid, as glad as I’ll be when he’s finally gone, it’s wrong for the state to execute him. My belief is rooted in the conviction that the deliberate taking of life is always wrong, no matter who does it, no matter how heinous the criminal act that led to a death sentence. If anyone ever deserved to die for his crimes, it’s John Allen Muhammad. He deserves to die.

----------


## Hanna

Very interesting Rockzmom.
I am against death penalty on principle, even in this case. However,  I guess the death of this man is not exactly a loss to the world... And I assume he has been tried all the way through the legal system and found guilty in all instances. But if it was down to me, I'd send him to a mine in Alaska for the rest of his life.

----------


## alexB

*"I’m against but I am for."*
 Super!

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  [общество] настолько гуманно, насколько гуманен среднестатестический его представитель.   А давно у нас среднестатистический представитель общества -- "нелюдь" или дикарь?

 Этого я не заявлял.    

> Что, вокруг нас больше "нелюдей" и дикарей? Может быть средне-статистический член нашего общества не самый образованный, не самый идеальный человек, но он, однако, достаточно гуманен и достаточно вменяем, чтобы воспринять ценности "высокого" общества (пример Советского Союза вполне продемонстрировал это наглядно).

 Не вижу, в чём это было продемонстрировано опытом Советского Союза. Но даже если мне что-то не очевидно для СССР, сравнивать современную Россию и СССР как-то некорректно. А поддерживает ли наше общество насилие или нет - так давайте вспомним 1999 год. Приход Путина и его бешеная популярность, которая только росла как только в Чечне началось "мочилово в сортире". После теракта на Дубровке, общество с одобрением восприняло фактический расстрел на месте всех террористов (даже тех, кто в момент захвата был уже без сознания от газа и не представлял угрозы, к тому же женщин). (Я, кстати, тоже отнесся к этому с одобрением). Как Дума (парламент страны!) после этого принял закон о невыдаче тел террористов близким и даже рассматривал возможность захоронения их, зашитыми в свиную кожу. Многие социологические опросы (хоть я в их репрезентативность и не верю) показывают, что большинство поддерживает смертную казнь.   

> I think ВарраВа has already mentioned that before Chikatillo was found several other people were executed for his actions. You haven't replied to that yet ...

 Jury can handle that. I believe that unanimous verdict guarantees that. Appeals, etc. all the necessary paperwork. I don't think it's correct to compare Chikatillo's case with the present situation. 
Remember the Dubrovka case - the government HAS the option. Always had. Attempted flight and armed resistance during arrest. If I was a dictator, by handling these two instruments well I could feel perfectly content without any death penalty in my criminal code. There are also sudden heart attacks in the cell and generally - accidents happen. I don't have any illusions about our government (neither do I have doubts about any other perfectly democratic governments - remember Slobodan Milošević). 
If our society does not believe in the arm of law then why do we maintain three branches of power? People will never have justice in Russia if they don't believe in the law.  
P.S. You know my political views. I don't care about the democracy anyway, I don't care about the law either so generally I don't care how the criminals would be disposed of (with or without a formal trial). I'm trying to think about those who care about formalities.

----------


## Звездочёт

> Многие социологические опросы (хоть я в их репрезентативность и не верю) показывают, что большинство поддерживает смертную казнь.

 Если мы сейчас проведём опрос населения, желает ли оно повышения зарплаты или снижения налогов, то результат такого опроса известен заранее. Значит ли это, что налоги следует отменить, зарплату всем повысить (через миним. оплату труда, например), увеличить количество выходных дней в году и т.п.? Очевидно, принимая о чём-то решение, следует руководствоваться здравым смыслом и теми ценностями, которые поставлены во главу угла. 
Поэтому массовая поддержка смертной казни — только эмоции, причём эмоции необдуманные, не взвешенные. Когда говорят: «Таким не место среди живых», хочется спросить: «А сами-то вы чем заслужили право на жизнь?» Если мы хотим (опять же, и это очень важно, если хотим!!!) жить в цивилизованном обществе, то мы обязаны соблюдать принципы и приоритеты того, что считается цивилизованным. 
Стоит только сказать: «Нет, мы не желаем жить по нормам цивилизованного общества, права человека для нас — пустой звук», вопрос отпадёт сам собой. Ведь единственным аргументом в пользу или против смертной казни является исключительно ценностный базис, а не какие-то экономические или судебно-карательные обоснования.

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  Многие социологические опросы (хоть я в их репрезентативность и не верю) показывают, что большинство поддерживает смертную казнь.   Если мы сейчас проведём опрос населения, желает ли оно повышения зарплаты или снижения налогов, то результат такого опроса известен заранее. Значит ли это, что налоги следует отменить, зарплату всем повысить (через миним. оплату труда, например), увеличить количество выходных дней в году и т.п.? Очевидно, принимая о чём-то решение, следует руководствоваться здравым смыслом и теми ценностями, которые поставлены во главу угла. 
> Поэтому массовая поддержка смертной казни — только эмоции, причём эмоции необдуманные, не взвешенные. Когда говорят: «Таким не место среди живых», хочется спросить: «А сами-то вы чем заслужили право на жизнь?» Если мы хотим (опять же, и это очень важно, если хотим!!!) жить в цивилизованном обществе, то мы обязаны соблюдать принципы и приоритеты того, что считается цивилизованным. 
> Стоит только сказать: «Нет, мы не желаем жить по нормам цивилизованного общества, права человека для нас — пустой звук», вопрос отпадёт сам собой. Ведь единственным аргументом в пользу или против смертной казни является исключительно ценностный базис, а не какие-то экономические или судебно-карательные обоснования.

 Ваши слова лишь подтверждают мое мнение о нашем обществе. Нет здесь ни духовности, ни цивилизованности, ни морали. Люди делают бездумные решения, повинуясь не совсем понятным мотивам.

----------


## mishau_

> Originally Posted by Crocodile  I think ВарраВа has already mentioned that before Chikatillo was found several other people were executed for his actions. You haven't replied to that yet ...   OMG    
> Are you sure?  That's terrible.

 Yes, a party boss or minister wanted to obtain quick career, so he had to do something outstanding and he decided find a serial murderer as soon as possible.

----------


## Оля

> Originally Posted by Оля  А насчет того, что это - не люди, у меня тоже вопрос: вот маньяк, он с самого начала своей жизни был маньяком, нравственным чудовищем, не достойным считаться человеком? С самого первого дня своего рождения? Или он постепенно превратился в монстра? Как это произошло?   Душу продал. (Между прочим, это случается сплошь и рядом). Телесная оболочка обычно достаётся дьяволу.

 А можно, кстати, про продажу поподробнее?

----------


## mishau_

> Mischa - the prison video is really terrible. *The prison guards are totally out of order. What they are doing is surely illegal, right?* They ought to be sacked. I wonder who managed to film it - seems risky.

 From what I know, the video was made by the press-cutting service of the prisoner camp for a purpose of intimadation and mamagement of the popullation. Then the video was given to Sokolov (head of a regional organization "Правовая основа") by one of the policemen and after that a well-known Russian human right activist L.Panamarev with a lawyer Robert Amsterdam started spreading the film. Amsterdam  put the film on youtube where it was first censored, and restored shortly later for the sake of not hiding facts of human rights abuse in Russia (or something like that). Lev Panamarev also wrote a special article where he called Kalinin (head of that camp) the author of a new sadistic system of prisoner management for what police inspired proceedings against Ponomarev blaming him in honor abuse.       

> If anybody got beaten by the guards in a European prison and media found out: 
> ---The prisoners would get compensation for "suffering". 
> ---The guards would be suspended and sent on "sensitivity training"
> ---A prisoner would write a best-seller book about his experiences...

 As for Russia, we can read that police didn't see any crimes in beating prisoners as shown in videomaterials.   
In fact there's no protection against sadistic guards and policemen in Russia. By defending such policemen the system encourages sadists to continue violence.

----------


## Звездочёт

> Ваши слова лишь подтверждают мое мнение о нашем обществе. Нет здесь ни духовности, ни цивилизованности, ни морали. Люди делают бездумные решения, повинуясь не совсем понятным мотивам.

 Не очень понимаю, как именно следует понять эти слова. 
1) На основе социологических исследований (Гери, Вагнер, Кетле) доказано, что количество преступлений не является величиной случайной, но является результатом неизбежных причин, коренящихся как в природе человеческого психе, так и в природе  самого общества. Эти исследования полностью опровергают казалось бы очевидное утверждение о том, что устрашение меры наказания способно снизить количество совершаемых преступлений. Кроме того, повсеместный опыт внедрения запрета на смертную казнь в Европе подтвердил эти теоретические изыскания. 
Не следует так же забывать, что подавляющее большинство преступлений совершается в состоянии «псевдо аффекта». То есть сначала человек совершает преступление под воздействием каких-либо факторов (эмоциональных, например), и лишь потом начинает задумываться над тем, что же он натворил. Процент таких преступлений, в которых преступник заранее просчитывает все риски и возможные прибыли ничтожен, что полностью развенчивает миф борцов за смертную казнь о неком расчётливом преступнике, например, взяточнике, который полагает, что, выйдя через пять лет на свободу, он сможет воспользоваться своим имуществом. А как в образ расчётливого убийцы вставить маньяков, я вообще не представляю. 
Таким образом, распространённое эмоциональное мнению общественности, что смертная казнь нас спасёт, уменьшив количество преступлений, — глубоко невежественное заблуждение. Любые обращения к этому аргументу заведомо ошибочны, и потому не могут быть приняты нами в расчёт. 
2) Экономическая сторона вопроса. Каков бюджет всех тюрем и зон по сравнению с бюджетом всей страны? А какова доля этого бюджета, идущая на содержание «смертников»? Какова реальная цена вопроса? Неужели можно полагать, что содержание тюрем на фоне всех прочих расходов страны обходится нам слишком дорого? 
Таким образом, рациональных доводов «за» смертную казнь не существует. И этот вопрос полностью переносится в плоскость морально-этическую. То есть, принимая решение о смертной казни, мы можем руководствоваться лишь аргументами из этой области, поскольку только они что-то значат. 
Взглянем на историю развития человеческой культуры. Важнейшее открытие, которое мы сделаем, будет заключаться в том, что постепенно ценность жизни отдельного человека стала значительно более весомой. В Древнем мире это было не так, что очень хорошо видно на основе анализа религиозных и мистико-оккультных воззрений на природу человека. В Древнем мире только цари имели индивидуальную судьбу и волю, в то время как простые люди были «людьми маленькими», не только не равными в правах с правителями, но даже не равными перед богами. Это вообще был так сказать другой вид разумных прямоходящих существ. Так в Древнем Египте до кризиса VIII — XI династий, говорить всерьёз о том, что кто-то кроме фараона мог иметь божественную душу не приходится. Важной вехой в развитии человеческой мысли на этом пути стало христианство, которое уравняло всех перед лицом бога, и утвердило существование бессмертной души у КАЖДОГО человека. 
Если даже мы забудем гностические учения об эонах, а будем оставаться в области рациональных «земных» суждений, то мы будем вынуждены признать, что в природе человека существует некая, имманентная потребность, требующая признания каждой жизни, каждого сознания значимым, не зависимо от социального статуса человека  (принцип: «Каждый мужчина и каждая женщина — это звезда!»). Проигнорировать эту потребность, значит нанести огромный ущерб самим себе. Не менее ужасный, как если мы проигнорируем любые другие более очевидные физиологические потребности. Таким образом, права человека — это логическое завершение процесса, который начался ещё во времена XI династии фараонов. Простой, «среднестатистический человек» вполне может игнорировать этот факт, ввиду своей недальновидности, но принимающий важные решения человек не может позволить себе такой неосведомлённости. Он должен смотреть на несколько шагов вперёд. Введение смертной казни — это откат назад от принципов прав человека, за которые было отдано так много человечеством (пример с Америкой не корректен, поскольку не она является полноценным законодателем в этой области, чтобы нам не пытались внушить о счастливой и свободной American life). 
P.S.  

> Ваши слова

 Ко мне множно на ты.  ::

----------


## Ленивец

Punishment should work, that's the criteria whether it's to be used or not. 
1. Use of execution for a single crime should be limited to sentences with first-class proof. The other should prison terms, including the life-long one.
2. Professional criminals (who're convicted three times for acquisitive crimes and did two terms in prison) should be executed no matter the crimes were as minor as pick-pocketing. Because they have given exhaustive prove they're worthless members of society.

----------


## Ramil

That's it. There will be no crimes pubishable by death in Russia.  http://rian.ru/constitutional_court/200 ... 74346.html 
МОСКВА, 19 ноя - РИА Новости. Конституционный суд (КС) РФ запретил применять смертную казнь в России и после 1 января 2010 года, когда истекает введенный в стране мораторий на применение высшей меры наказания. Соответствующее определение КС огласил в четверг. 
"Настоящее определение окончательное и обжалованию не подлежит", - сказал председатель КС Валерий Зорькин. 
Согласно определению Конституционного суда, введение с 1 января 2010 года судов присяжных на всей территории РФ не создает возможность назначения смертной казни, заявил судья. 
Мораторий на смертную казнь был введен десять лет назад до того времени, пока на всей территории России не начнут работать суды присяжных. Сейчас только в одном регионе России - в Чеченской Республике - нет суда присяжных. Здесь его планируется ввести с 1 января 2010 года. 
"В течение 10 лет в РФ действует комплексный мораторий на смертную казнь. За это время сформировались устойчивые гарантии права не быть подвергнутым смертной казни и сложился легитимный конституционно-правовой режим, в рамках которого - с учетом международно-правовой тенденции и обязательств, взятых на себя Россией, - происходит необратимый процесс, направленный на отмену смертной казни как исключительной меры наказания, носящей временный характер и рассчитанной лишь на некоторый переходный период", - говорится в определении Конституционного суда.

----------


## Hanna

Well Ramil, I know you didn't want this outcome and I thought you were arguing it well even if I didn't agree with your standpoint, on principle.  
So who actually took the decision? A judge after considering the legal issues?  
I couldn't  really understand the above, but it seems that BOTH the death penalty and jury trials are going to disappear?  
Personally I have never understood why Jury trials are supposed to be so great... I know the UK and US think it's more fair.. But as long as the Judges are honest and everybody has legal representation it might be better not to have a jury that is easily manipulated...  
Anyway - if Russia wasn't so big you could have had a REFERENDUM on the death penalty - i.e. all adults get the chance to give their vote on that specific issue.

----------


## Ramil

> So who actually took the decision? A judge after considering the legal issues?

 The Constitutional Court. There is a provision in the Constitution that this type punishment is temporary and will be eventually banned. That's it, i think.   

> I couldn't  really understand the above, but it seems that BOTH the death penalty and jury trials are going to disappear?

 No, Jury trials will remain.    

> But as long as the Judges are honest...

   ::   ::   ::   Yeah! Honest! That's the problem!   

> Anyway - if Russia wasn't so big you could have had a REFERENDUM on the death penalty - i.e. all adults get the chance to give their vote on that specific issue.

 Yeltsin has written the Constitution in such a way that holding out a referendum became an extremely difficult task. Even amending the Constitution is very difficult (even though you don't need a referendum for that, you need one only if you want to change the fundamental articles)

----------


## starrysky

Barshevsky is against death penalty.   http://top.rbc.ru/politics/16/02/2002/47731.shtml  http://www.treli.ru/newstext.mhtml?Part=20&PubID=13509 
A few weeks ago I heard on the news that a poll was conducted according to which more than half of those polled were "for" death penalty (that's to say, if I didn't mix it up with "for" the moratorium... but I don't think I did) 
I'm still undecided. I'm pretty sure that if one of my close relatives were killed (not as a result of medical mistake or negligence, but murdered) I wouldn't want the murderer to continue living...

----------


## Hanna

> [quote:1ym9hssa]But as long as the Judges are honest...

   ::   ::   ::   Yeah! Honest! That's the problem![/quote:1ym9hssa]   ::   ::  ok... 
When did the problem with corrupt judges start? Do you think that they were generally corrupt during the Soviet era as well? Or did the problem start in the 1990s?  
Do you think that almost ALL judges are corrupt now, or just some? 
I guess there are two forms of corruption of judges:  
1) Economic corruption (financial gains for the judge, personally)
2) Political corruption (the judge is in a situation where he "must" make a certain decision in order not to hurt his career).  
Do you think that both cases are applicable right now, or just one?

----------


## Hanna

Starrysky --- I think that on an issue like death penalty you have support one side or the other based on principle. Meaning; regardless of whether you have been personally affected or not. 
Say for example you had two brothers:  
1) Brother "A" got killed by violent hooligans in a robbery (the hooligans got caught....) Do you insist on the death penalty for the killer?  
but at the same time..  
2) Your other brother "B" got involved with some bad people, got drawn into criminality and ended up in a situation were somebody innocent got killed.  The relatives of the killed person insists on the death penalty for your brother...  
In such a scenario you couldn't say that you wanted the killer of "A" to get the death sentence, but that "B" should be spared...  
The only principled position would be to accept that "A"'s killer would live on... (in prison)   OR that "B" would have to face the consequences of his actions...

----------


## starrysky

Principles are all fine as long as it doesn't get personal. I think you can only say that your principles are firm enough only after you've been in a similar situation yourself. That's why I'm not certain how I feel on this subject. I am not advocating death penalty in all sorts of cases. But when the person was found guilty of pre-meditated murder, pleads guilty, and there are absolutely no extenuating circumstances...      

> 1) Brother "A" got killed by violent hooligans in a robbery (the hooligans got caught....) Do you insist on the death penalty for the killer?  
> but at the same time..  
> 2) Your other brother "B" got involved with some bad people, got drawn into criminality and ended up in a situation were somebody innocent got killed.  The relatives of the killed person insists on the death penalty for your brother...

 These situations are way too vague, because the degree of involvement of "brother B" and "hooligans" is not clear. What does it mean "got killed"? Does it mean that the robbed person just sort of fell and took a blow to the head which proved fatal while the robbers didn't actually mean to kill? No, such a case doen't seem to warrant death penalty. Or was he beaten to death by a gang or senseless, crazed animals? If my brother actually personally murdered somebody and it wasn't self-defence, then, you know... If he's of age, he must bear the full responsibility for his actions. What does it mean -- "got involved with some bad people"? Doesn't he have a mind of his own? It all depends, you see. I am only "for" letting teenagers escape prison in the case of petty crimes, like, stealing, when nobody was seriously hurt.  
What I'm talking about is deliberate, pre-meditated murder. My grandmother was strangled with a rope in her own flat by a would-be tenant. Apparently he was just looking for money. He hasn't been found and never will be found now because many years have passed. I wasn't very close to her, she lives in another city and I've only came to stay with her about 2 times in my life, but even so I don't think that person deserves to live. What if it was my _mother_? 
A 12 year-old girl was killed a few years ago in my district. She was coming from school and her mother saw her entering the hall (подъезд -- don't know what it's called in English   ::   They lived in an appartment block). This maniac was waiting for her on a landing. She never came to her flat. Her father found her seconds after bleeding to death. The murderer was seen by a lot of people running out onto the street, covered in blood. He hasn't been found. I don't think he deserves to live either.

----------


## Hanna

подъезд = Staircase (I think)... Stairs or staircase is the expression that is used for the common entrance to blocks of flats. I think that's what you mean?  
Anyway, that's a terrible story.. If you think the killer of the girl should get the death penalty, then that means that you are really FOR the death penalty.   
I agree that my example was vague. But to be clear, let's say instead that your brother was with some friends, got very drunk or stoned and actually DID kill someone.... Let's say it was an old woman or a priest... Something that really shocked people.  *
Would you accept that he was sentenced to death?*   My own brother got in terrible trouble once, in Singapore, which has very strict laws. Our father lived there for a while, and we went to visit over the summer.  While we were there, my brother and two other boys shoplifted at a "mall" and got caught by the security guards.  
Singapore's standard penalty for shoplifting is to WHIP the person and then send them to prison for two years. They don't take bribes either. 
We seriously thought he would have to go to prison in Singapore. Luckily he got off on a technicality, thanks to a good solicitor, and perhaps intentionally because they didn't want to punish a European boy in this way.  
Before this happened, I had thought that Singapore had effective laws for dealing with hooliganism (the result  is that there is hardly no crime or public drinking at all there).  But that was before I had to face the prospect of my own brother being subject to their justice!  
(They also have automatic death penalty for drug smuggling!)

----------


## Ramil

> We seriously thought he would have to go to prison in Singapore. Luckily he got off on a technicality, thanks to a good solicitor, and perhaps intentionally because they didn't want to punish a European boy in this way.

 Well, all his guilt was stupitidy and nobody got harmed. But let's slighty modify the argument and throw it back at you. Would you object the death sentence for your brother if you've heard once that your brother had stopped a car on a highway and deliberately shot the driver, his wife and their two children just for the sake of $700?     

> (They also have automatic death penalty for drug smuggling!)

   ::   Good for them. I bet there's minimum drug trafficking there.

----------


## Crocodile

> (They also have automatic death penalty for drug smuggling!)
> 			
> 		     Good for them. I bet there's minimum drug trafficking there.

 Harsh laws do not stop the drug traffic. I would say the drugs would be VERY expensive there, that's all. And the trade is probably fully controlled by the corrupt officials who'd benefit from that situation in two ways: first, the profit margins are really high, and second, their monopoly is protected by the taxpayer's money. 
Also, how many robberies it would take for an addict to get their dose? And what would they inject into themselves if they don't get it?  ::

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil     
> 			
> 				(They also have automatic death penalty for drug smuggling!)
> 			
> 		     Good for them. I bet there's minimum drug trafficking there.   Harsh laws do not stop the drug traffic. I would say the drugs would be VERY expensive there, that's all. And the trade is probably fully controlled by the corrupt officials who'd benefit from that situation in two ways: first, the profit margins are really high, and second, their monopoly is protected by the taxpayer's money. 
> Also, how many robberies it would take for an addict to get their dose? And what would they inject into themselves if they don't get it?

 Do you have any comparative figures of drug addicts in Singapore and other countries?

----------


## Crocodile

> Do you have any comparative figures of drug addicts in Singapore and other countries?

 Unfortunately, I don't. Do you?   ::

----------


## Hanna

Well I have spent a fair bit of time there and I like it.  The policies do work very well. It's a very small country, but nevertheless, practically no serious crimes are committed by native Singaporeans. They have a good standard of living and it's just not worth the risk for them.  
They DO catch smugglers sometimes though - Philippino, Indonesian and Chinese people. I don't know the figures.  
But there is absolutely no drug selling visible, no drunk people, no hooligans ETC. It's completely clean everywhere, no graffiti etc. 100% safe after dark. Nobody even crosses the street unless the "green man" shows - even when there are no cars.  
When you fly in to Singapore, they hand out a little card with a skull symbol on it, to explain the anti-drug policy in several languages -- to warn the smugglers. That way, if anybody "didn't know" about the policy, they can still back out - all they need to do is leave thedrugs on the airport and not try to bring them through customs.   
It IS a dictatorship for sure, but the people like it because it works very well and the government is not corrupt.  The newspapers don't "attack" the government or strongly critisise it but they do write about problems.  
Most of the people there are super-proud to be Singaporean and they get annoyed if anybody criticises their country. A popular Singapore song, some cute kids.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXhxMj4fFgY 
People there think that they need tough laws to prevent racism, bad hygien, drugs and other problems that were common there before the current government.

----------


## Crocodile

> Nobody even crosses the street unless the "green man" shows - even when there are no cars.

 A police state, huh?     

> It IS a dictatorship for sure, but the people like it because it works very well and the government is not corrupt.

   ::

----------


## Hanna

Well if you mention to the average Singaporean that it's silly to make chewing gum illegal and fine people $500 for not flushing the toilet.... then they get angry! They think that their strict laws are the reason they are more successful than all other countries in the area. Singapore is definitely a rich country - they have achieved enormous economic success. It's not an annoying or intrusive dictatorship and normal people don't feel oppressed.  
It's absolutely PACKED with Europeans and American expats there... Nobody sees the policies as problematic unless you are a drug addict or like to spit on the street or litter...  
Plus you can joke about it -- and protest the death penalty (below). So there is freedom of expression apart from explicit agitation against the government. Corrupt politicians get sentenced to really long prison terms so there is not a lot of corruption.  Sstory about a teenager who is about to be executed for drugs crimes. http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking...4.html?vgnmr=1 
The executed an Australian one time when I was there though, for smuggling...    
A Singaporean poster (it's an English-speaking country)

----------


## Ramil

The more I read about Singapore the more I like this country.

----------


## Hanna

Well I have had some very good times in Singapore - I like it. 
There are no beggars, no crime, no very poor people, no drugs, no prostitution. Just a very sunny place where people think that shopping is a hobby and where people leave their wallets on the table at McDonald's to mark their seat.  
It's got a slightly surreal feeling to it though, like a little miniature "perfect city". Indonesia which is quite poor, is close by - big contrast. Every other family has a maid from the Phillipines. Hm...  
The man who kicked off modern Singapore is called Lee Kuan Yew; he is basically a "super-bureacrat". He seems in interviews like a modest, educated and decent person although obviously there is more to him than what meets the eye. He had the good sense to step down before he got senile or too old to run the country efficiently.  
The interesting thing is that the whol country was a DUMP in 1965 or so - abandoned by Britain, and with people from all over the world who had nothing in common. It was dirty, dangerous and unpleasant.  
Now it's one of the richest countries in the world with good standards of living for everyone and quite a patriotic population. The "price" that they have paid is that the government is rather autocratic. Lately the pro-democracy movement there has started growing though.  
I suppose there might be people who might say that Russia actually doesn't necessarily NEED a Western democracy right now. They might think that it really needs a government that can put a stop to corruption, criminality etc.

----------


## Ramil

> I suppose there might be people who might say that Russia actually doesn't necessarily NEED a Western democracy right now. They might think that it really needs a government that can put a stop to corruption, criminality etc.

 1. Russia does not need democracy (Western or not).
2. A government can't stop corruption because it the source of corruption.

----------


## Hanna

But how can you be positive about a strong government in a place like Singapore and be against it in Russia?  
It IS  possible for a government not to be corrupt. I guarantee that the Scandinavian governments aren't. The worst scandal for a decade was when one politician was found to have bought snacks at a petrol station with her government credit card, and another had used a nanny who was paid cash-in hand and not declared - only for a month.  
Of course, there could be scandals going on that I don't know of: But all the top politicians live in normal neighbourhoods, next door to regular people like electricians and teachers... They don't get rich from being a politician.  
The only other thing that I think they do which is a bit "underhand" is making countries that recieve financial aid use it to buy Swedish products. But this has only happened in a few cases.

----------


## Wowik

> I guarantee that the Scandinavian governments aren't.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statoil_corruption_case
А правительство со спецслужбами ничегошеньки не знали?

----------


## Hanna

Oops that's Norway... We (Sweden) should never have let them go... 
Now they are too rich with their oil... I guess that's corrupted them. 
Frankly I didn't know about that since I have lived in the UK for a while. 
But this kind of thing is very much the exception though.  
Because there is no real corruption, media blows up the instances that they can find to gigantic proportions. Like the woman who bought snacks at a petrol station.. That story ran for MONTHS and was covered from every imaginable angle. She has since resigned.

----------


## Wowik

> Now they are too rich with their oil... I guess that's corrupted them.

 There is a popular reference in Karl Marx "Capital" vol.1 http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... 31.htm#n15  

> With adequate profit, capital is very bold....
> 300 per cent., and there is not a crime at which it will scruple, nor a risk it will not run, even to the chance of its owner being hanged

----------


## Ramil

> But how can you be positive about a strong government in a place like Singapore and be against it in Russia?

 I don't mind strict laws if EVERYONE obeys them. But as it was once said 'the severity of Russian laws  is mitigated by their non-observance'.
Thousand years of history proved the fact. It might be that in Singapore they can guarantee total law obedience but this just wouldn't work in Russia.    

> It IS  possible for a government not to be corrupt. I guarantee that the Scandinavian governments aren't.

  ::  I am SO GLAD to hear that. Your words are reassuring for some reason.  ::  
Power is a crime. Take the North Stream project for example. I can practically guarantee that there were bribes of some sort.    

> Of course, there could be scandals going on that I don't know of: But all the top politicians live in normal neighbourhoods, next door to regular people like electricians and teachers... They don't get rich from being a politician.

 How do you know? Greed is a universal vice and I doubt Scandinavian politicians are immune to that.

----------


## Звездочёт

> Russia does not need democracy (Western or not).

 So, be a slave!
A wine of slavery is sweeter than bitter poison of the Freedom, isn't it?!  :: 
I just can't belive in it. Where is your pride? Do not forget: only internal weakness searches for an external strength!

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  Russia does not need democracy (Western or not).   So, be a slave!
> A wine of slavery is sweeter than bitter poison of the Freedom, isn't it?! 
> I just can't belive in it. Where is your pride? Do not forget: only internal weakness searches for an external strength!

 Your mind cannot comprehend any other alternative to democracy? Is it going to be slave or a free man? I'll tell you that I AM A SLAVE NOW JUST LIKE YOU ARE. Democracy is a vilest form of slavery when slaves think they are free.

----------


## Звездочёт

Oh, yes, I know this "demagogy". However, please, say me, what's your slavery? And do not forget, slave does not have the speech freedom like you.

----------


## Wowik

> Russia does not need democracy (Western or not).

 Only sovereign!   ::

----------


## Звездочёт

> Originally Posted by Ramil  Russia does not need democracy (Western or not).   Only sovereign!

  What for?

----------


## Ramil

> Oh, yes, I know this "demagogy". However, please, say me, what's your slavery? And do not forget, slave does not have the speech freedom like you.

 Those were ancient slaves. The modern ones can tallk the s.it out of their minds but nobody really cares. 90% of our population works for food. What 'rights' are you talking about? Who would be really interested in your opinion about any major political issue? Who will win if you sue the Moscow mayor?  ::  What exactly are you free to do? Really?

----------


## Crocodile

> 90% of our population works for food. What 'rights' are you talking about? [...] What exactly are you free to do?

 This subject is purely philosophic. You can just equally say a person who has nothing has a real freedom.  :"":

----------


## Звездочёт

First of all. You confuse slavery and injustice. 
You said _"Those were ancient slaves"_. _"Ancient?"_ -- I ask you. But what will you say about this:  

> По оценкам Международной Организации Труда (International Labor Organization), жертвами *принудительного труда, труда по долговым обязательствам, принудительного детского труда и сексуальной эксплуатации* в любой момент времени являются 12.3 млн. человек; по другим оценкам, их насчитывается от 4 млн. до 27 млн. 
> Из примерно 600-800 тыс. человек, которые каждый год становятся жертвами международных *торговцев людьми*, 80% составляют женщины и девочки и до 50% - несовершеннолетние. Большинство из них становятся жертвами индустрии коммерческого секса. Эти цифры не включают в себя миллионы людей во всем мире, которые становятся объектом торговли внутри стран их проживания.  *Понятие "современное рабство" имеет три основных признака. Во-первых, деятельность человека контролируется с помощью насилия или угрозы применения такого насилия. Во-вторых, человек находится в данном месте и занимается данным видом деятельности против своей воли и не может изменить ситуацию по собственному желанию. В-третьих, за свою работу он получает минимальную оплату, либо вообще ее не получает. Современное рабовладение неизбежно сопровождается насилием, убийствами, изнасилованиями, похищениями, нелегальным переходом границ, подделкой документов и т.д.*

 This is slavery. Do you whant say me, that your "slavery" situation obeys these three signs?

----------


## Ramil

> This subject is purely philosophic.

 Indeed! We are talking philosophy here.  ::  
Звездочет, I don't quite understand what your point is. You did say (well, implied): either we have democracy or we will be slaves (at least this was how I understood your point). I mentioned that present 'democratic' living standards went not too far away from the ones the slaves were in 2000 years ago. There's more, some slaves in Rome lived in quite comfortable conditions - some were even better than ours (not everyone, of course, but there were some). 
I still remain at the point that democracy is an hypocritic and evil form of government. Any soft 'authoritorian' form of government is better than this Western democratic model.

----------


## Crocodile

> Indeed! We are talking philosophy here.

 Philosophically speaking, one could say that the only freedom a person has is to choose a form of his slavery.  :"":  
Luckily, we don't have to resort to the casuistic reasoning as the slavery has a decisive test: CAN YOU LEAVE IT OR NOT?   ::   
Think about it: a person who escaped a "correctional working facility" and dies in taiga alone would die feeling free. (And it's true that for the fact the person is still enslaved by the force of gravity, for example.   ::  ) 
So, the USSR of the past would not allow its citizens to leave at their will, and modern Russia would. Therefore, the USSR was effectively a slavery and Russia is not. Period. No speculations. Feel free to apply that rule to any "soft authoritarian form of government".  ::

----------


## Ramil

My problem lies with the 'kratía' part of the term dēmokratía. This term is hypocrisy all by itself. I could agree with the notion that the only freedom we have is to choose whom to obey, but why call it peoples' rule? 
In reality people don't rule, their voting is just a show and does not decide anything. Besides, as it is known, the majority just can't be right because as a mass any number of people are as dumb as the dumbest of them. (Remember that 95% of population are idiots   ::   ::   ::   ). Why submit to the will of criminals or idiots?

----------


## Crocodile

> I could agree with the notion that the only freedom we have is to choose whom to obey, but why call it peoples' rule?

 I think what's more important is the substance and not the way you name it. The USSR proclaimed that the factories belonged to the workers and the land belonged to the farmers, but was it true for the fact? There are all kind of "blue pills" in the world, so that people's conscience is freed to live their own lives and deal with their own affairs. Don't take it too harshly.   ::     

> Why submit to the will of criminals or idiots?

 The idiots are only repeating what the criminals said, so it's the rule of the criminals only. In any form of the "cratia" only the criminals can survive at the top. (I think we had a mutual agreement on that.)  ::

----------


## Ramil

Yes, and that's why I have stated that 'Russia does not need democracy (Western or not).' 
Democracy is a tool to make idiots feel important.

----------


## Crocodile

> Yes, and that's why I have stated that 'Russia does not need democracy (Western or not).' 
> Democracy is a tool to make idiots feel important.

 Perhaps, but that also has an implied notion of the government is trying to present itself respecting its citizens. And that has some very practically useful implications (for the citizens).   ::

----------


## Hanna

> Of course, there could be scandals going on that I don't know of: But all the top politicians live in normal neighbourhoods, next door to regular people like electricians and teachers... They don't get rich from being a politician.
> 			
> 		  How do you know? Greed is a universal vice and I doubt Scandinavian politicians are immune to that.

 Actually, this "equality" thing is the "big thing" about Scandinavia (particularly Sweden) and our rather red brand of Social Democracy.  In Sweden it's almost impossible to get very rich - and also to be very poor.  Because of redistribution of wealth through taxes. You could become "a little" richer than other people, but not much. Most regular people and media too despise rich people.  
For the last 50 years probably, it's been completely unacceptable for our politicians to be snobbish or have a higher standard of living than "regular people".  
Remember Olof Palme? He had been prime minister for 15 years and was internationally well-known. He got shot when he was about to take the metro home from the cinema! He travelled by metro and bus quite a lot.  
Media runs stories on them - what their house looks like inside etc. If they have anything extravagant, they've got problems...  Politicians seem to always be talking about how they share the housework with their wife (the wife works and they don't have a maid). Even the present prime minister was talking about how he finds hoovering good for clearing his mind and said that he does it every weekend.  
They might have a summer cottage (dacha) but it's usually a small place - the more modest, the more "image points" for the politician. Ideally he should fix it up himself to look good to people. So the neighbours can see him climbing around on the roof or something like that.  
There is also a law which makes all the financial dealings of the state public. Anyone can see the information about every penny that was used and what it was spent on. It's fairly unique in the world. They can't hide corruption behind bureaucracy of secrecy. 
There are many silly and irritating things about Scandinavian politics but this is not one of them.  
Plus in a small country, if you live in the capital - everyone knows everyone else....  If politicians were corrupt, people would find out. I can't even remember a case of a politician who was seriously corrupt and got exposed.  
Of course, there have been some minor things exposed though, such as once a scandal of cheating with allocation of nice state-owned flats to relatives and such... But nothing even CLOSE to the kind of things that seem to be almost "normal" in Russia. 
So most people think that the politicians are more or less honest although they might dislike them for other reasons.

----------


## Звездочёт

> Звездочет, I don't quite understand what your point is.

 «A word creates what it asserts» (Eliphas Levi). 
When you say, that we are slaves, even if we live in democracy, you are mistaken! You are not slave, you still have a choice: to be a virtual slave (to live like you live now), or to be someone else. True slave does not have this possibility. 
Jus show me, where you rights and possibilities are restricted by someone. Show me who exploit you, rape you and compel you to do what you do not wish. Just show me.

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  Звездочет, I don't quite understand what your point is.   «A word creates what it asserts» (Eliphas Levi). 
> When you say, that we are slaves, even if we live in democracy, you are mistaken! You are not slave, you still have a choice: to be a virtual slave (to live like you live now), or to be someone else. True slave does not have this possibility. 
> Jus show me, where you rights and possibilities are restricted by someone. Show me who exploit you, rape you and compel you to do what you do not wish. Just show me.

 My bank rapes me and my boss and my wife compel me to do what I do not wish.
And when you tell we live in democracy it is you who is mistaken!

----------


## Crocodile

> My bank rapes me and my boss and my wife compel me to do what I do not wish.

 Right, and the force of gravity does not let you fly. What an oppressive world..   ::

----------


## it-ogo

> My bank rapes me and my boss and my wife compel me to do what I do not wish.

 Free sex porno xxx BDSM submissive slave Ramil raped and compelled to do what he not wish by the bank, boss and wife at once.   

> Знаешь, а ведь твой Мир - одно из самых страшных мест во Вселенной, гость! Он оплетает своей паутиной всех, кто там родился, и никому не удается ускользнуть... Но хуже всего, что вы сами учитесь у своего Мира этому искусству: с первых же дней жизни каждый начинает плести свою паутину, стараясь заманить в нее всех, кто окажется поблизости - и вам это нравится! Нам кажется, что во всех вас есть что-то неуловимо отвратительное - такими вас делает ваш жуткий Мир... Если посмотреть на твою родину нашими глазами, можно содрогнуться: миллиарды живых существ, навсегда увязшие в липкой паутине, продолжают старательно плести ее до последнего дня своей короткой жизни. Вы тратите слишком много сил на то, чтобы сплести свои собственные сети, и на то, чтобы вырваться из чужих, но паутина устроена таким образом, что все попытки освободиться приводят к тому, что вы увязаете глубже и глубже...

----------


## Crocodile

> Free sex porno xxx BDSM submissive slave Ramil raped and compelled to do what he not wish by the bank, boss and wife at once.

  ::   ::   ::   ::   ::   ::   ::   ::   ::

----------


## Ramil

::   
What a fascinating subject... Thanks god you didn't post any pictures  ::

----------


## it-ogo

I forgot to put the reference: [s:1bt3u5tq]http://www.RussianMaster.net[/s:1bt3u5tq] http://www.MasterRussian.net

----------


## Crocodile

> I forgot to put the reference: [s:w3puzlzf]http://www.RussianMaster.net[/s:w3puzlzf] http://www.MasterRussian.net

 Wow! it-ogo, you're good!   ::

----------


## Звездочёт

> And when you tell we live in democracy it is you who is mistaken!

 So, how could you criticize a democracy, and say: _"Russia does not need democracy"_, if you even don't live in it?   

> My wife compel me to do what I do not wish.

 en: _The word of Sin is Restriction. O man! refuse not thy wife, if she will! O lover, if thou wilt, depart! There is no bond that can unite the divided but love: all else is a curse. Accursèd! Accursèd be it to the æons! Hell. (Liber AL, I:41)_
ru: _Слово Греха - Ограничение. О муж! Не откажи жене своей, если она хочет! О любовник, если на то воля твоя, уходи! Нет уз, способных соединить разделённое, кроме любви: всё остальное есть проклятие. Проклято! Будь проклято оно на веки вечные! В ад. (Liber AL, I:41)_   

> My boss [rapes me].

 Who does hold you? Depart!   

> My bank rapes me.

 Who is guilty of that? It was your wish. 
You are free. A man makes his choice: to be happy or not! We can't do anythig, but we can do much. Our "vitual" slavery lives only in our faded will. _Брожу по дому со свечой.
В груди теснит, тоскливо, душно
И демон праздности -- сверчок
Пиликаньем изводит душу._

----------


## Ramil

Read above - our freedom is merely a freedom to choose whom to obey.

----------


## Hanna

Yeah, yeah... He  made one unfocussed comment and everyone is jumping on it.  Enough sexy stories about Ramil now   ::   ::   ::   ::   ::    But iti-ogo's comment was funny!  *  The banks DO rape you - although in an economic sense.* 
I accidentally went over my overdraft limit with £12. For this, the bank charged me £25... Happened twice in 6 months because I was  a bit sloppy.  
It costs them NOTHING to process a rejected payment - it's done in the computer system without human interaction (I know, because I've worked on programming a system like that).  
I normally keep an average of £2-3000 on that account which they make lots of money from (invested..). So how the *&(%&* can they motivate charging me a ridiculous sum for a completely harmless mistake!  
I would change banks.... but they are all the same.   ::  Really, they stink.  ::   
It's revolting to think how they mismanaged their own businesses, and then the UK government BAILS OUT these PRIVATELY OWNED banks with the taxpayers' money. That money should be used for the people, not for saving some fat-cat's neck. Hospitals etc need more money, but the government spends it on saving banks!   
It makes me sick. 
and reminds me of some old pics from school history. Like:   
Plus some other good ones...

----------


## Звездочёт

> Read above - our freedom is merely a freedom to choose whom to obey.

   ::  
How interesting! Do you realy belive in that?
Just listen your self. Who does compel you to obey, who does compel you make this choice: a fear, a habit, your mind or somthing else? Democracy (and other "political" systems) have nothing to do with that. We oppress our self, and nobody else.

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  Read above - our freedom is merely a freedom to choose whom to obey.     
> How interesting! Do you realy belive in that?
> Just listen your self. Who does compel you to obey, who does compel you make this choice: a fear, a habit, your mind or somthing else? Democracy (and other "political" systems) have nothing to do with that.

 This state, any state compels us to obey its laws. Any power is based on a threat of physical violence to everyone who disobeys if you get to the bottom of this.  And democracy is not an exception.   

> We oppress our self, and nobody else.

 Who 'we'? I do not oppress anyone, including myself. As I already said in this thread - what we call democracy is not 'a rule of the people'. In theory - yes, but practice shows it's the same utopia as communism was. We are ruled by the gang of high-ranked criminals and our votes doesn't mean anything. Elections are held just for show... and to keep the people in misconception that they can do something to influence on the situation. Moreover, the money we pay as taxes are used to secure their positions. Do you live in some fairyland? Do you really believe we have democracy here? Or perhaps you write these messages from your estate in Barvikha - well then we live in different countries.

----------


## sperk

Этот тварь заслуживает жить? 
"Подсудимый Гречушкин раздел усыновленного ребенка Александра, связал ему руки сзади туловища, в районе живота скотчем привязал аккумуляторную батарею, затем поместил его в хозяйственную сумку, отвез к мосту через реку Пехорка и сбросил с моста в реку". 
Grechushkin undressed his adopted son (3 yrs. old) Alexander, tied his hands behind his back, scotch taped a car battery to his stomach, put the boy in a bag and threw him off a bridge into the river.

----------


## Ленивец

If the reported is true, that man deserved his death sentence. Probably, fast death is too good for such people. Life imprisonment served in the way so it's a lifelong torture suits the case better.

----------


## Оля

> Эта тварь заслуживает жить?

 He got imprisonment for life which probably is not better than death. I'd prefer him to recall all his life what he did and think about that.
However, if he would be killed, it couldn't bring back to life the boy. 
I've heard on TV that he and his wife belonged to a religious sect.

----------


## Ramil

I don't believe in redemption of such people. I have already told that I deny such people a right to be called 'human beings'. And him sitting in prison recalling all his sins... I don't believe he would. Instead he would appeal for softening the sentence. 9g of lead and the case would be closed. Of course this won't return the boy to life, but still this will be a right thing to do.

----------


## Crocodile

> Grechushkin undressed [...]

 Let's pause right here. WHO told you that was Grechushkin? He himself (after some dose of special medication)? Or perhaps someone else (after the similar dose)?  
WHAT MAKES YOU 100% CONFIDENT Grechushkin really had done all those things?  
If you made a mistake you can release a prisoner, but you can't resurrect anyone. Period.  
However, let's think about the justice a bit more. So, Ramil is saying his "9gr of lead" thing. Ok... but, wait a minute! Is that a just thing to do? Let's assume Grechushkin had really done that awful stuff. Then the only just thing to do would be to do exactly the same thing to him!! Wouldn't it? Why to advocate the 9gm of lead approach? Let's tie his hands behind his back, scotch tape a car battery to his stomach ... etc. Why don't we?

----------


## Ramil

The goal is to execute the prisoner, not to make him regret it. He wouldn't. Just like a white blood cell kills a virus and then disposes of it. It's a sanitation sort of thing.

----------


## Crocodile

> The goal is to execute the prisoner, not to make him regret it. He wouldn't. Just like a white blood cell kills a virus and then disposes of it. It's a sanitation sort of thing.

 If so then why the 9gr of lead? Why not the euthanasia? 
By the way, I hate the "sanitation" sort of explanation. Some people thought it's right to sanitize the world and make it free from the certain under-human individuals (Untermensch). I can't accept that.

----------


## Ramil

Euthanasia is more expensive. There's also rope, but ropes tear. A bullet is the most effective, quickest and at the same time cheap way to execute a criminal.

----------


## Crocodile

> Euthanasia is more expensive. There's also rope, but ropes tear. A bullet is the most effective, quickest and at the same time cheap way to execute a criminal.

 Don't forget, you have to factor in the building and maintenance of a designated execution chamber with enough water and drainage to clean the splashes of blood. On the other hand, you could administer the euthanasia right in the prison cell. Also, according to http://www.animallaw.com/Humaneeuthanasia.htm Sodium Pentobarbital, which is the most cost-effective and overall least expensive of all euthanasia techniques, costs $2.88 including the cost of lethal injection, materials and labor. Is that cheap enough for your "sanitization?"

----------


## Ramil

Perhaps then you're right. Injection is better.

----------


## Crocodile

> Perhaps then you're right. Injection is better.

 Since you probably wouldn't want to waste a cemetery land on the "not humans" you would cremate them, did I get you right? If yes, I have a suggestion for you. In order to save money, why not to burn them alive?

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  Perhaps then you're right. Injection is better.   Since you probably wouldn't want to waste a cemetery land on the "not humans" you would cremate them, did I get you right? If yes, I have a suggestion for you. In order to save money, why not to burn them alive?

 This would make people who do the job very nerous. Cries etc. and the smell...

----------


## Crocodile

> This would make people who do the job very nerous. Cries etc. and the smell...

 There are ways to stop the cries and there should be no difference in smell when burning the live or dead bodies. About the nervousness ... well... it always takes some guts to kill. Also when it comes to the "9gr of the lead". But rest assured, each "non-human" would carry a "not a human" badge, so it should be easier, shouldn't it?

----------


## Ленивец

> "Подсудимый Гречушкин раздел усыновленного ребенка Александра, связал ему руки сзади туловища, в районе живота скотчем привязал аккумуляторную батарею, затем поместил его в хозяйственную сумку, отвез к мосту через реку Пехорка и сбросил с моста в реку". 
> Grechushkin undressed his adopted son (3 yrs. old) Alexander, tied his hands behind his back, scotch taped a car battery to his stomach, put the boy in a bag and threw him off a bridge into the river.

 I'd do the translation like this: 
Подсудимый Гречушкин раздел своего трёхлетнего пасынка Сашу, связал ему руки сзади, примотал скотчем к животу автомобильный аккумулятор, затем поместил его в сумку, отвёз к мосту через Пехорку и сбросил в реку. 
пасынок = adopted son (падчерица = adopted daughter)
Саша vs Александр - a short name is better in Russian when we speak about children. 
связал руки сзади (set expression)
мотать vs связать the first is used most frequently when we speak about fixing smth with scotch-tape
аккумулятор = a rechargeable battery
сумка vs хозяйственная сумка. The latter is usually a bag one uses for everyday shopping. It's likely too small for one could put a 3 y.o child inside.

----------


## Ленивец

> Originally Posted by Ramil  The goal is to execute the prisoner, not to make him regret it. He wouldn't. 
> By the way, I hate the "sanitation" sort of explanation. Some people thought it's right to sanitize the world and make it free from the certain under-human individuals (Untermensch). I can't accept that.

 The attribute 'under-human' suits nicely the people who are capable to do what the report is about.

----------


## Ленивец

> Perhaps then you're right. Injection is better.

 Some criminals may be healthy, so the society could make use of their organs. We cannot waste them. Execute 'em by taking out their hearts.

----------


## Crocodile

> The attribute 'under-human' suits nicely the people who are capable to do what the report is about.

 Ok, so would that attribute also apply to the police officers who had actually done what the report was about, and then put the blame on the adopting father? Can you really say 100% that hadn't happened?

----------


## Ленивец

> Originally Posted by Ленивец  The attribute 'under-human' suits nicely the people who are capable to do what the report is about.   Ok, so would that attribute also apply to the police officers who had actually done what the report was about, and then put the blame on the adopting father? Can you really say 100% that hadn't happened?

 1. I mean such crimes in general, not exactly the Grechushkin's case.  He's still waiting for his justice.
2. If there were such officers I would be ok with calling them under-human too.

----------


## Crocodile

> I mean such crimes in general, not exactly the Grechushkin's case.

 That's the whole problem. It will be real Grechushkins who you suggest to deprive of their organs. Not some abstract "criminals" or "non-humans". And those real people would remain humans until a legal process would rename them to the "under-humans". And should the legal process be 100% effective without leaving any doubt, I might agree with the executions. However, there's no way the 12 various people would be able to gain the supernatural powers so it's 100% clear what happened. Therefore, a room for the judicial mistake always remains. Wouldn't you think it's a good idea not to kill when in doubt?  
Think about it this way. Say, you have a gun and you see someone dropping his adopted child into waters. Will you shoot him? Probably yes, because it's 100% clear. But, if you don't know what's in the bag (maybe it's a mannequin and a tape recording with screaming), you probably won't. Right?

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ленивец  The attribute 'under-human' suits nicely the people who are capable to do what the report is about.   Ok, so would that attribute also apply to the police officers who had actually done what the report was about, and then put the blame on the adopting father? Can you really say 100% that hadn't happened?

 No, but that doesn't matter. 
There's no 100% of anything in this life. A man cannot guarantee that he won't fall down from the stairs within the next 5 minutes or he won't eat something bad at dinner so what can we say about some more serious things? We are really helpless and powerless beings. Cattle that leaves justice on some higher being. Nevertheless, there are risks that must be taken. Say, some delay before the sentence is actually carried out (may be even up to several years) would be a compromise. There's an additional moment to the punishment since the anticipation of death is worse than death itself.   
Besides, you keep repeating that stuff about 'judical errors' and I could agree that in some cases there's not enough evidence to be sure. This is why we have jury. They must be convinced in order to get the 'Guilty' verdict. But there are cases when the evidence is clear and there's your '100%'. Why should we spare these? 
P.S. I won't shoot a man with a bag (even if it's crying). I'll try to stop him or jump after the bag. Then (if I'm sure) I'll kill the bastard.

----------


## starrysky

> The attribute 'under-human' suits nicely the people who are capable to do what the report is about.

 'Subhuman' is the correct English translation for 'untermensch'.

----------


## Crocodile

> Besides, you keep repeating that stuff about 'judical errors' [...]

 The teaching of Crocodile is omnipotent because it is correct.   ::     

> This is why we have jury. They must be convinced in order to get the 'Guilty' verdict. But there are cases when the evidence is clear and there's your '100%'. Why should we spare these?

 Can you give me an example where the "100%" is there? Also, get real, the arbitrary 12 jury-duty people would be sleeping through the most of the hearings. They would take the advice of the judge before they go to form their verdict and that's all. Also, I highly doubt there would be much legal defense in case of Grechushkin.

----------


## Ленивец

> Originally Posted by Ленивец  The attribute 'under-human' suits nicely the people who are capable to do what the report is about.   'Subhuman' is the correct English translation for 'untermensch'.

 Thank you - I stay corrected.

----------


## Ленивец

> Originally Posted by Ramil  Besides, you keep repeating that stuff about 'judical errors' [...]   The teaching of Crocodile is omnipotent because it is correct.

 How many divisions does Crocodile have?  

> Also, I highly doubt there would be much legal defense in case of Grechushkin.

 We don't have enough information to make a judgement on this.

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  Can you give me an example where the "100%" is there?

 The president of Georgia pops in mind. ))) 
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.

----------


## Crocodile

> How many divisions does Crocodile have?

 Umm.. can you elaborate? I'm not sure I get it.   

> Originally Posted by Crocodile  Also, I highly doubt there would be much legal defense in case of Grechushkin.   We don't have enough information to make a judgement on this.

 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.

----------


## Crocodile

> If we listen to you we can assume that prisons are full of innocents now.

 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: 
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.

----------


## Hanna

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...

----------


## Crocodile

> 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.

 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.

----------


## Hanna

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.

----------


## Crocodile

> But I don't want any killing done in my name, as a citizen.

 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).  
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.

----------


## Ramil

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.

----------


## Crocodile

> 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.

 Based on what grounds?

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  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.   Based on what grounds?

 Read above.

----------


## Crocodile

> Originally Posted by Crocodile        Originally Posted by Ramil  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.   Based on what grounds?   Read above.

 Justice? (Your "sub-humans" theory doesn't speak to me.)

----------


## Crocodile



----------


## it-ogo

> 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.

 There is no objective definition of 'human beings' in its non-biological context.   

> if you take a life then we will take yours. Period.

 Then lives of those "we" should also be taken. This logic can only be justified with the immediate suicide of the judge.  
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.

----------


## Ramil

> Justice? (Your "sub-humans" theory doesn't speak to me.)

 Yes, the jury verdict in the official court. 
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.

----------


## Hanna

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  ::   _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.

----------


## Ramil

> 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.

 How would you feel if you release a prisoner giving him the 'benefit of doubt' and hear he kills another ten people afterwards?   

> when the person could perhaps be completely rehabilitated through therapy etc

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,1296676,00.html
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

----------


## it-ogo

> 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.

 Yep, you rely on the state punitive machine (jury is a part of that machine anyway). A strange thing for an anarchist.  ::  
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?

----------


## Ленивец

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.

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  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.   Yep, you rely on the state punitive machine (jury is a part of that machine anyway). A strange thing for an anarchist.

 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.   

> 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.

 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.    

> To make the society safe. This is OK. Will the life imprisonment be less safe for the society than killing?

 Yes. A life imprisonment sentence can be reviewed, altered or softened.

----------


## starrysky

> _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._

 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.   _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:  

> 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.

 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. 
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.   ::  
A link to the discussion in "Литературная газета" -- http://www.lgz.ru/article/10959/

----------


## Ленивец

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.

----------


## Hanna

[quote=Ленивец] 

> Originally Posted by "Ленивец":2wzh29va  The attribute 'under-human' suits nicely the people who are capable to do what the report is about.   'Subhuman' is the correct English translation for 'untermensch'.

 Thank you - I stay corrected.[/quote:2wzh29va] 
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.

----------


## it-ogo

> No. To instill fear of possible punishment to potential criminals.

 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.   

> 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.

 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.

----------


## Hanna

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.

----------


## Ramil

> I don't believe that the threat of death would stop the one who is not stopped by the threat of life imprisonment.

 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.   

> This machine is more dangerous than all subhumans together and needs much caution, exact objective and non-emotional rules to function.

 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?

----------


## Hanna

> 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.   *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.

----------


## Crocodile

> This is a mockery of justice, I think.

 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.

----------


## Ленивец

Croc:  

> 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.

 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. 
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.

----------


## Crocodile

> The Golden Rule is formulated "do to others what you would like to be done to you".

 It exists in two forms, the positive and the negative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden ... 8ethics%29   

> I think that one's conscience could demand death for oneself in such case. That looks natural.

 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.

----------


## Ленивец

> It exists in two forms, the positive and the negative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden ... 8ethics%29

 What comes of it?  

> 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.

 Why should justice come in "an eye for an eye" form?

----------


## Ramil

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.

----------


## Crocodile

> Originally Posted by Crocodile  It exists in two forms, the positive and the negative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden ... 8ethics%29   What comes of it?

 The universal principle of justice mixed with the co-existence.    

> Why should justice come in "an eye for an eye" form?

 "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.

----------


## Crocodile

> And Crocodile, your sermon is full of sophistry again.

 I actually think what I'm saying is rather simple. If you have anything you don't understand, feel free to ask.   

> 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.

 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.

----------


## it-ogo

> Originally Posted by it-ogo  I don't believe that the threat of death would stop the one who is not stopped by the threat of life imprisonment.   You may not believe it but it does work.

 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?

----------


## starrysky

> 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...

 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.    

> 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... ?

 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 "*Barbar*ossa"...  
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.

----------


## starrysky

> 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."

 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.

  

> 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/Evolutionary_psychology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...table_strategy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_dilemma   

> 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!!

 Are you joking?   ::  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.

----------


## Crocodile

> 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!!
> 			
> 		  Are you joking?   Death is enough.

 I will probably steal Ramil's thunder if I quote the story he mentioned earlier:  

> -- Выпустят меня когда? -- повторил Джаммар. 
> -- Сразу после того, как отрубят вам руки и отрежут уши и нос за избиение вольного и дружинника, по вашей терминологии, а также за воровство, -- ответил уполномоченный, потупив глаза. 
> -- Как -- руки?! -- заорал Джаммар -- Да вы что?! Вы не можете! Я точно знаю, что на вас зарок и проклятие лежат! "Тарлиратность" и "кхуманисм" называются! Мне дядя мой рассказывал, а он врать не будет! И кто -- вольный?! Слуга в кабаке -- вольный?! И что я украл? Куртку?! Но я ж ее в тюрьме забрал уже! 
> -- Д-дело в том, -- запинаясь, ответил вошедший, -- что рациональное уважение культурных традиций в нашем законодательстве означает, что к негражданам в случае совершения ими преступлений на нашей территории принятое на нашей территории наказание замещает наказание, традиционное для страны прибывшего -- при условии, что таковое прописано в законодательстве той страны и не является более мягким по сравнению с установленным у нас. Вот, собственно, этот параграф, -- и он быстро раскрыв портфель, достал папку и торопливо зачитал: 
> -- "Поскольку мы считаем, что все нации равны и одинаково разумны независимо от своего материального благосостояния и традиций, то, следовательно, криминальное законодательство и законы и обычаи ведения войны, принятые этими нациями заслуживают уважения, как сознательно ими избранные. И поэтому, уважая культурные традиции этих наций, мы будем по обстоятельствам (то есть, в том случае, если наказание за подобные проступки у данной нации имеется и является более строгим) следовать их законам и обычаям в обращении с преступниками или во время ведения войны с этими нациями". 
> Уполномоченный захлопнул папку. 
> -- Этот закон был принят на Мирре после восстания иммигрантов в столице. Тогда иммигранты с Аршара, прежде чем их остановила полиция, перебили в городе более тысячи человек за то, что в час их священной ежегодной молитвы нудисты устроили маскарад и они, сыны Аршара, посчитали это оскорблением их святого отца. А потом еще и сам Аршар объявил Мирре войну -- и начал ее с уничтожения государственного круизного космического лайнера Мирры, на борту которого проходила детская олимпиада. Я, собственно, пришел сделать вам предложение. Дело в том, что ваша страна напала на одну из наших торговых космических баз, поэтому мы были бы вам очень признательны, если бы вы согласились -- под контролем детектора лжи -- рассказать о том, как обычно ведет войну ваше племя. Как обходятся ваши воины с пленными, с мирным населением и так далее? Нам бы хотелось избежать недоразумений и... 
> Звериный вой прервал речь уполномоченного. Джаммар дико выл и бился головой о стенку камеры. Он знал обычаи своего племени слишком хорошо.

----------


## starrysky

> I will probably steal Ramil's thunder if I quote the story he mentioned earlier:

 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...

----------


## Crocodile

> Отрубление рук и носов никоим образом не является справедливым наказанием за кражу...

 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.

----------


## Hanna

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).

----------


## starrysky

Да здравствует наш суд, самый гуманный суд в мире?   ::     

> *За убийство сотрудника ИЯФа обвиняемые получили менее пяти лет* 
> 14 декабря Искитимский районный суд Новосибирской области вынес приговор в деле об убийстве сотрудника Института ядерной физики Линара Маркина на базе «Разлив» в августе 2008 года. Трое молодых людей обвинялись в жестоком избиении человека. Суд назначил двоим 4 года и 10 месяцев лишения свободы, одному – 160 часов исправительных работ. 
> Напомним, трагедия произошла в ночь на 11 августа 2008 года. Линар Маркин, сотрудник второго экспериментального производства ИЯФ СО РАН, приехал на базу отдыха «Разлив», расположенную недалеко от села Бурмистрово (Искитимский район), по путевке от профкома. Среди прочих отдыхающих была компания молодых людей (жители Новосибирска, двое несовершеннолетних – 15 и 16 лет и 20-летний молодой человек), которые вели себя вызывающе: нецензурно выражались, злоупотребляли спиртным и пр. По свидетельствам очевидцев, Линар Гарифулович сделал шумной компании корректное замечание и попросил не мешать отдыхать другим. 
> Ночью тело 47-летнего Линара Маркина с множественными ранами головы и туловища было обнаружено на берегу Обского водохранилища совершавшими обход охранниками. Преступление было раскрыто «по горячим следам»: молодых людей задержали. 
> Было возбуждено уголовное дело по ч. 4 ст. 111 УК РФ (Умышленное причинение тяжкого вреда здоровью, повлекшее смерть потерпевшего). Наказание по этой статье предусматривает от 5 до 15 лет лишения свободы. 
> В итоге, подсудимые 1991 и 1994 г.р. получили по 4 года 10 месяцев, подсудимый 1988 г.р. 160 часов работ. Суду не смогли доказать, что молодой человек 1988 г.р. избивал Маркина, защита настаивала, что он разнимал драку.  
> Заметим, что первое заседание суда должно было состояться в феврале 2009 года, но слушания постоянно откладывались из-за болезни подсудимых и их адвокатов. 
> Вынесенный приговор вызвал удивление у сотрудников ИЯФ СО РАН. Наталья Алексеева, возглавляющая профсоюзную ячейку второго экспериментального производства, считает, что приговор необоснованно мягок: «Недавно показывали сюжет в новостях, так за мошенничество 5 лет дали». Наталья Алексеева сообщила, что вместе с родственниками Линара Маркина будет добиваться пересмотра приговора. 
> Председатель исполкома ОКП ННЦ СО РАН Евгений Ковалев поддержал точку зрения Натальи Алексеевой. «Это возмутительно, я хорошо знал Линара, это был мягкий, непьющий, отзывчивый человек, душа компаний. Вы бы видели, что они (подсудимые), что с ним с ним сделали!» – возмущался профсоюзный лидер. И заявил, что профсоюзная организация приложит все усилия для пересмотра дела. 
> Алена Правдина, Ерлан Байжанов

 Source -- http://academ.info/node/12629
discussion -- http://forum.academ.org/index.php?s=...2&st=0&start=0 
In English -- in August last year a researcher from one of our local science institutions was beaten to death by three young imbeciles while on vacation in a local sanatorium. All he did was make a remark to them that they should behave themselves -- they were using foul language and being rowdy. Two of them got about 5 years apiece, the third -- 160 hours of correctional labour. The killed man was 47 years old. A kind responsible man by the accounts of his co-workers. I don't know what I'd feel if it was _my father_!  
And another recent case:   

> *За убийство таджика четверым из пяти скинхедов дали условные сроки *  
> Вчера Новосибирский областной суд, руководствуясь обвинительным вердиктом присяжных, вынес приговор по делу об убийстве 24-летнего гастарбайтера осенью 2008 года. Четверо из пяти обвиняемых получили условные сроки, и лишь зачинщик драки, скинхед Алексей Носков по кличке Барс, получил 13 лет лишения свободы в колонии строгого режима. 
> Двоих его приятелей, Алексея Казакова и Анатолия Гладышева, суд приговорил к 1 году лишения свободы условно с испытательным сроком на 2 года. В течение этого времени им запрещено появляться в общественных местах в нетрезвом виде. 
> Еще двое преступников были освобождены от наказания, поскольку не достигли совершеннолетия. Суд, правда, назначил им исправительные работы, но тут же снял наказание: истек срок давности привлечения к уголовной ответственности. 
> 24-летний уроженец Таджикистана Абдулатип Турсунов, возвращавшийся вечером 19 октября 2008 года с Центрального рынка домой, был забит насмерть группой скинхедов. Следствие установило, что зачинщиком драки был Алексей Носков – именно он ударил парня ножом. Свидетели избиения вызвали «скорую помощь», но Абдулатип Турсунов скончался по дороге в больницу.

 Source -- http://academ.info/node/12622
discussion -- http://forum.academ.org/index.php?s=...7&st=0&start=0 
In English -- 5 skinheads killed a Tajik. 4 of them were released on probation and only the ringleader got 13 year in a strict regime colony. Of course, we don't know all the particulars -- perhaps those other hoodlums are sorry now for what they've done, they're teenagers yet...

----------


## Оля

> по делу об убийстве 24-летнего гастарбайтера *осенью 2008 года*. 
> Суд, правда, назначил им исправительные работы, но тут же снял наказание: *истек срок давности* привлечения к уголовной ответственности.

 Простите... я не поняла - какой в данном случае срок давности?   ::

----------


## starrysky

> Простите... я не поняла - какой в данном случае срок давности?

 Да мне тоже это показалось странным... Вон Демьянюка судят 50 лет спустя после Холокоста, уже седым старцем, а тут какой-то год прошёл... Ну да я не юрист. Конечно, в данном случае сложно определить какое именно наказание было бы хотя бы более-менее приемлемым, но 5 лет выглядит как-то уж очень мягко... Наш суд действительно гораздо снисходительней, чем американский, например. Что с одной стороны хорошо. С другой, иногда странно.  
Вот ещё вычитала, что оказывается, если в СССР состояние алкогольного опьянения было отягчающим обстоятельством, теперь все наоборот. Не знаю, правда ли нет... 
"Ага, ну то есть алкогольное опьянение сыграло в роли смягчающего фактора, вроде бы как отсутствие злобного умысла... Так что наматывайте граждане на ус. Круче только, когда человек просто подходит к случайно подвернувшемуся прохожему и пристреливает его так, без всякого умысла, просто потому что захотелось и подвернулась возможность".  
"Может быть, сами того не подозревая, Вы высказали замечательную мысль: надо обязательно вернуть пункт УК РСФСР, где чётко и ясно было прописано - "состояние опьянения является ОТЯГЧАЮЩИМ обстоятельством". Точка! В нынешнем УК РФ этого, к сожалению, нет".

----------


## it-ogo

> Originally Posted by starrysky  по делу об убийстве 24-летнего гастарбайтера *осенью 2008 года*. 
> Суд, правда, назначил им исправительные работы, но тут же снял наказание: *истек срок давности* привлечения к уголовной ответственности.   Простите... я не поняла - какой в данном случае срок давности?

 Надо полагать, по той статье, по которой получены исправительные работы.

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  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.   I think I explained the relationship rather simple. If you think those are different concepts, bring on your explanation.

 Is your 'Golden Rule' concept written anywhere in the law? Probably not. It's a philosophical or religious concept. 
Matthew 7:1 "Judge not, that ye be not judged." Basing on this can we disband all courts, judges and lawers?
Basing on the assumption that there may be a judical error can we stop judging criminals? Imprisonment can ruin a man's life with almost equal efficiency in some cases. The mere fact of being alive doesn't change much, you know. 
In spite of everything courts will continue their work and criminals will continue to commit crimes. What connection has your principle of relations between two people with the case when one of them is dead and the third one has to decide what to do with the first one? According to you the third one should leave the case alone and don't interfere.   

> 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.

 Sub-human thing is just a tool for pacifying assorted liberals. Since there are so called 'human rights' and if we want to keem the liberals happy (I would have preferred to send all liberals to mine uranium by hand /joking/) the solution seems pretty obvious - denying some beings the right to be called humans.  
I want to illustrate my point with an example. I read a sci-fi story some time ago. Unfortunately I remember neither the author nor the title. But I'll try to give you a summary: 
As we know Isaac Asimov has defined three robot laws and one of them was something like 'Thou shall not kill or harm a human being'. And as the story went on, we saw a squad of soldiers in some point of the future having a robot in their ranks. Following the Asimov's law I've mentioned earlier this robot could only defend the soldiers and help them in various tasks. He couldn't shoot at humans. The commander of the squad was a cruel man and after storming some god forgotten village he started committing atrocities. After some argument with one of his officers he tried to make this poor robot to execute some native but the robot shielded the man with his body and shot the commander instead. This was a SHOCK. A robot killed a man! This incident became known and technicians disassembled the robot and tried to find the reason for this 'malfunction'. They failed. They couldn't explain the robot's behavior. They checked and re-checked the programming and hardware and confirmed that the robot could only kill animals and simply COULD NOT KILL A HUMAN BEING. The story ends here. 
But what makes us human? Genes only?   

> Originally Posted by Ramil  You may not believe it but it does work.   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?

 If you investigate further, you'll eventually understand that all research that proved otherwise was conducted by the British scientists. 
Statistics is the vilest of lies. When you give me the results of any statistical research I'll ask you: 'Who paid for it?' 
Whe you actually pay some real amounts of money to some people to conduct a statistical research you don't need actual results. You need the results that confirm your point of view.

----------


## Crocodile

> Is your 'Golden Rule' concept written anywhere in the law? Probably not. It's a philosophical or religious concept.

 That's the best definition (=everyone agrees) for the justice. So, if you had bothered to read what I said earlier, you might have noticed that I said our judicial system has nothing to do with that. That meant to refute your usage of the term "deserves" which you tend to use in a wrong context to justify the capital punishment. So, from the judicial point of view, there's no "deserves" (=no justice), there are other concerns that the law addresses.  
The pros and cons of the capital punishment is always a hotly debated issue, and there are many sincere and open-minded participating people who have solid background in law, ethics, and history.  
I do not intent to address the rest of your "sub-human" theory.

----------


## Ramil

My 'deserves' thing was my own. It was my feeling. It was you who suggested to rape and shoot a criminal several times for his doing the same. But the main point of law (IMHO) is the provision that everybody follows it. And the main point of justice is seeing to obeying the law. From the formal point of view justice is blind. And to me justice is a very formal thing.  ::  Its only function is compelling everyone to obey the law.
The law, from the other hand, is a product of Man's will. Here we can debate and argue about whether killing murderers and rapists is moral or not. And if I say that according to my views on this world executing a murderer is moral and the bastard 'deserves' it - it's just my opinion. Morality, by the way, is also is a very flexible thing and tend to change with time. 
Thus, on the seven pages of this thread I disclosed my view on this subject. I think I said enough to be understood. Not agreed with, but understood at least. And judging by the poll results I'm not alone in my views. I am willing to respect 'cultural traditions of others' since they, being 'humans', have accepted them willingly and I respect their choice.

----------


## it-ogo

> If you investigate further, you'll eventually understand that all research that proved otherwise was conducted by the British scientists. 
> Statistics is the vilest of lies. When you give me the results of any statistical research I'll ask you: 'Who paid for it?' 
> Whe you actually pay some real amounts of money to some people to conduct a statistical research you don't need actual results. You need the results that confirm your point of view.

 Yep, everything is bought and sold. Still we have our own heads which can be applied to check the logic and input data of any research. Sometimes statistical science is not so complicated. That's why I asked for the reference. 
How can be checked if "it works" or doesn't. Say, in Canada death penalty was prohibited in 1975. Let's take number of murders per unit population per unit time before and after. If "it works", the burst of violence is unavoidable. Let's see... No burst, number of murders is slowly going down. Conclusion: in Canada it did not work. Logic is simple, input data are official data of Canadian government. I don't believe that Canadian government falsified data to make some pleasure to British scientists TM. (Will you say that it did, no matter of what I believe?  ::  )

----------


## Ramil

> How can be checked if "it works" or doesn't. Say, in Canada death penalty was prohibited in 1975. Let's take number of murders per unit population per unit time before and after. If "it works", the burst of violence is unavoidable. Let's see... No burst, number of murders is slowly going down. Conclusion: in Canada it did not work.

 My opinion about statistical researches are given in my second quote (below). Here I only want to ask: has anybody cared to consider other factors that might have played a role in lowering the crime level? Surely your law enforcement machine does many other things that help to reduce the crime level? No, the British scientists (TM) just compared the number of crimes 'before' and 'after'. And they made the conclusion basing upon this?   ::   You're not serious. Has anyone of them bothered to read at least this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_and_dependence.
Well, if they did prove that the correlation existed mathematically and they have conducted a multi-factor variance analysis and actually proved anything and also conducted a psychological research at the same time on a large number of criminals (not 100 as it is usually the case) I would respect them and may even listen to them. Otherwise - it doesn't prove anything. 
From the other hand, I know that nothing works better on a man than a threat of physical violence. That's why I maintain that death penalty threat should work.    

> Logic is simple, input data are official data of Canadian government. I don't believe that Canadian government falsified data to make some pleasure to British scientists TM. (Will you say that it did, no matter of what I believe?  )

 I just mentioned my attitude towards statistical researches in general. I've studied general statistics theory, math statistics, probability theory and applied statistics for 3 years after all and I think I know about it a little bit more than just how to calculate an average value. And I think that you can't cross-relate two factors with so many additional 'noise' factors and get some meaningful result out of it if you speculating upon such a vague thing as human psychology. You can use a crystall ball with better efficiency.

----------


## Hanna

I for one accepts Ramil's different opinion. Although I don't share it, his argument make a lot of sense. This is not a completely black and white issue. 
My reasons for being against it have to do with my upbringing in a country where death penalty has been unthinkable for over 100 years. This is an unusual situation in Europe. My views are also influenced by Christian values (against death penalty) and fear of miscarriage of justice.  
I think countries that participated in the wars of the 20th century developed a different view on death penalty - at least partly - due to the need to deal with traitors in the harshest possible way (execution), and also because of the amount of unfair death and destruction that took place in the war. It probably hardened peoples views.   
Like I said; I have a lot of respect for Singapore, which happens to use the death penalty. Ramil's theory is applicable in their case. Thanks to tough laws (mainly) Singapore developed from a poor third world nation to very successful modern welfare state in under 25 years. It could never have happened if the state had not had the power to put a stop to drug smuggling, Chinese triads and other serious problems that were going on there.  
This said, I am very glad that death penalty is not used in Europe. I view it as a temporary solution that might be needed in a situation where lawlessness in a particular country is out of control. I think that was probably true for ex-USSR in the 1990s but lately it seems that things are slowly improving. I have split feelings about extremely dangerous and violent people.  
I doubt very much that anybody is going to be convinced to change their minds here, but it's been interesting to read the comments.

----------


## Lampada

It's a known fact that in American prisons convicted child murderers and molesters do not survive for long.    ::   _"  ... Warnings
...
* Do not admit or discuss any crime against a minor. Child molesters, abusers, and murderers are considered the lowest forms of life in prison and subject to frequent attacks. If you are convicted of a crime against a child, insist on being placed in Protective Custody immediately. You will not be able to hide the nature of your crime in a general population prison for long. You risk your life when (not if) other prisoners find out. 
..._ http://www.wikihow.com/Deal-with-Being-in-Prison

----------


## Ramil

> It's a known fact that in American prisons convicted child murderers and molesters do not survive for long.

 The same with former cops.

----------


## it-ogo

> Here I only want to ask: has anybody cared to consider other factors that might have played a role in lowering the crime level? Surely your law enforcement machine does many other things that help to reduce the crime level?

 You think there were some magic means to reduce crime drastically which somewhy had not been applied before the death penalty prohibition?    

> Has anyone of them bothered to read at least this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_and_dependence.

 The real problem of BS TM is that they do not apply more fundamental principles like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor or, say, http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Принцип_актуализма (English link is wrong there). This makes any other knowledge vain.   

> Well, if they did prove that the correlation existed mathematically and they have conducted a multi-factor variance analysis and actually proved anything

 Now this is the way to make statistics lie (see below). Congratulations! You are ready to take exams for BS!  ::    

> From the other hand, I know that nothing works better on a man than a threat of physical violence. That's why I maintain that death penalty threat should work.

 You have lost a keyword: "threat of *immediate* physical violence".   

> I've studied general statistics theory, math statistics, probability theory and applied statistics for 3 years after all and I think I know about it a little bit more

 Then you should know that the complexity of mathematical model applied should correspond the volume of essential data under analysis. Otherwise it becomes metaphysics and as such is widely used by BS TM. Here we have just ONE essential event (death penalty prohibition), or just a few (in several countries) so anyone who applies here more complex mathematics than simple logic is obviously a BS. 
(About myself: I spent several years interpreting experimental results in physics. To do it in a sane way one should feel statistics with whole body and using all senses.  ::  )   

> and also conducted a psychological research at the same time...

 Here is another obvious way to make statistics lie. If you need objective results avoid Psychological Research TM by all means. Either with 100 criminals or with 1e6.   

> than just how to calculate an average value. And I think that you can't cross-relate two factors with so many additional 'noise' factors and get some meaningful result out of it if you speculating upon such a vague thing as human psychology. You can use a crystall ball with better efficiency.

 Conclusion: when processing statistics don't speculate upon psychology. Only after you obtain the result.

----------


## Ramil

it-ogo, that was a strange post. It confirmed everything I stated previously, but somehow argued with it at the same time.  ::  
You state that: we had stopped executing criminals (fact A) in 1975 and the number of murders did not increase, but has been slowly going down (fact B). Are you saying that there is a connection between A and B? 
P.S.  

> Принцип актуализма — в науке — презумпция, состоящая в том, что в прошлом действовали те же самые законы *природы*, что и в настоящее время.

 И как этот принцип относится к социологии? Я уже сказал, что понятия о морали меняются со временем. Также изменяется условия жизни, техническое оснащение и пр. Я не соглашусь с тем, что 30 лет назад и сейчас полиция применяла одни и те же методы профилактики преступности. Да и криминогенные условия также могли меняться со временем.

----------


## Crocodile

> Originally Posted by Ramil  From the other hand, I know that nothing works better on a man than a threat of physical violence. That's why I maintain that death penalty threat should work.   You have lost a keyword: "threat of *immediate* physical violence".

 +1
More specifically, a threat of *inevitable not distant* physical violence. If the serial killers would know they would be caught *for sure* in a year, they might be more sober about their actions.

----------


## Crocodile

> And judging by the poll results I'm not alone in my views.

 There's a lie, a big lie, the statistics, and the interpretation. As of today, there are 7 people who think like you, and 13 who do not. So, YES, technically you're not alone...    ::     

> I am willing to respect 'cultural traditions of others' since they, being 'humans', have accepted them willingly and I respect their choice.

 Nice words. But what do they practically mean? For you, it would probably justify the 9gr-of-lead, for me, the ability to deal with the humans the way they had done to their human victims. At some point you mentioned sophistry (=subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation), didn't you?   ::   
PS. If I had been "trolling you for lulz", I would have said that (judging by the results) your poll had been sponsored by the liberals who advocate the abolition of the capital punishment.    ::

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by it-ogo        Originally Posted by Ramil  From the other hand, I know that nothing works better on a man than a threat of physical violence. That's why I maintain that death penalty threat should work.   You have lost a keyword: "threat of *immediate* physical violence".   +1
> More specifically, a threat of *inevitable not distant* physical violence. If the serial killers would know they would be caught *for sure* in a year, they might be more sober about their actions.

 Crimes are committed for not to be caught. Nobody wants to spend the rest of his life in prison either but nevertheless criminals exist.  I would agree with 'inevitable' part, but object with 'immediate'. If a serial killer knows that he can play crazy and go to asylum instead of execution chamber or else he knows that even a lifetime sentence can be objected I doubt this would make him to reconsider. Compare it to the 'no other option than death' concept. What threat will play its role better -death or imprisonment for life? (If they both fail then why do we need courts and justice?)  If a street robber knows that if things would turn to worse he'd get 9-15 years in prison for murder and they'll let him out for good behavior long before that term is expired or he knows that he'd be executed if caught - what option would be stronger? There are risks and there are RISKS.

----------


## Crocodile

> What threat will play its role better death or imprisonment for life?

 That's subjective. Even the opinions on this thread were different. Some said the life sentence (depending on the conditions, of course) is tougher than an easy death.   

> If they both fail then why do we need courts and justice?

 IMHO, it's much more important to have good detectives who would be able to collect enough evidence. The courts are interpreting the law with respect to the evidence presented, so the judicial errors in the most cases are rooted in the courts.

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  What threat will play its role better death or imprisonment for life?   That's subjective. Even the opinions on this thread were different. Some said the life sentence (depending on the conditions, of course) is tougher than an easy death.

 What would you prefer? Even in cell life can be sweet compared with the prospect of imminent death. Generally people are afraid of death (I say 'generally', but I suspect that the law is universal even though someone may think he's not afraid). And people tend not to lose hope even in severest conditions. Everything can change while you're alive but everything is finished for you once you're dead.  
P.S. In many countries 'imprisonment for life' doesn't really mean that the man will be locked forever. In certain situations they may let them free after some time.

----------


## Crocodile

> In many countries 'imprisonment for life' doesn't really mean that the man will be locked forever. In certain situations they may let them free after some time.

 So, THAT should be unacceptable in cases where the person deserves the death penalty, which was substituted by life imprisonment. However, if the new evidence pops up (e.g. the serial killings continue in the similar way) there's a door open back.

----------


## Crocodile

> Originally Posted by Crocodile        Originally Posted by Ramil  What threat will play its role better death or imprisonment for life?   That's subjective. Even the opinions on this thread were different. Some said the life sentence (depending on the conditions, of course) is tougher than an easy death.   What would you prefer?

 My preference is subjective to me. I think we're going in circles. Whatever is subjective is not a reliable foundation to make the universal conclusion.

----------


## Ramil

> My preference is subjective to me. I think we're going in circles. Whatever is subjective is not a reliable foundation to make the universal conclusion.

 We're not going to make any universal conclusion here. Moreover, what concerns me - I didn't even intend to make some conclusions here. We're simply chatting about the given subject here and I'm interested in your personal subjective preferrence. Tell me at least, what do you think about fear of death? Is it universal or only peculiar to some people?

----------


## Crocodile

> Moreover, what concerns me - I didn't even intend to make some conclusions here. We're simply chatting about the given subject here and I'm interested in your personal subjective preferrence. Tell me at least, what do you think about fear of death? Is it universal or only peculiar to some people?

 Ok, it seemed to me from your earlier posts that you had reached a conclusion in your mind about the subject and you even tried to convince others (as part of the chatting experience).   ::   
But, never mind. Personally, I have fear of both the death and the life imprisonment. And neither of those is the reason why I'm not a serial killer. Also, spending some time in the army, I kind of got used to the '9gr-of-lead' threat. And to me, personally, the thought of spending my life in prison and living there by the prison laws, is worse than the death. If you think I'm over-dramatizing, think of the people who tried to kill themselves in prison, and of those who were successful in doing that.  
On the other hand, there are lots of people whose daily living conditions are perhaps just a bit better than what they'd experience in prison. For those, the life imprisonment is pretty much nothing to be feared about. So, they would rather fear of the death.  
And in the end, there are phycos who just have the immediate strong urge of doing their evil things. They wouldn't care of any threat as long as it's not immediate.  
And that's how much subjective that is.    ::   
So, what is your preference? The death or the life imprisonment?  
And now's the biggest part. Let's say tomorrow is the public vote on the subject. So your purely 'personal' opinion may have some people 'universally' wrongfully killed. Wouldn't you think twice? You _are_ a human after all...

----------


## it-ogo

> it-ogo, that was a strange post. It confirmed everything I stated previously, but somehow argued with it at the same time.

 I argued that statistics still CAN be a source of facts to speak about. If carried and checked in proper way: without unnecessary complications. Ultimately it is the only source of facts in sociology.    ::     

> You state that: we had stopped executing criminals (fact A) in 1975 and the number of murders did not increase, but has been slowly going down (fact B). Are you saying that there is a connection between A and B?

 I state that there is no.   ::  No measurable correlation between death penalty and level of murders (if those statistics is true).    

> Принцип актуализма — в науке — презумпция, состоящая в том, что в прошлом действовали те же самые законы *природы*, что и в настоящее время.

 Дай напомню ход дискуссии: я говорю, что сразу после отмены смертной казни всплеска насилия не произошло. Ты говоришь, что это все несерьезно, пока не учтены еще всякие-разные-какие-то-там факторы. Я говорю, что (принцип актуализма) прочие факторы следует считать неизменными, пока не доказано обратное. Вотъ. Т.е. по-твоему получается, что всплеск насилия мог быть погашен какими-то посторонними влияниями, внезапно возникшими в то же время в той же стране, поэтому все фигня и бойкот британским ученым. Нет? Я с таким подходом, типа, не согласился.

----------


## sperk

В Китае они строгие:
28-летняя У Ин приговорена к расстрелу за создание финансовой пирамиды, в которой растворились 56 миллионов долларов.
Как сказано в приговоре, люди охотно несли деньги под обещание высоких процентов, поверив в удачу У Ин в бизнесе. 
They don't fool around in China:
28 year old Chinese woman will be executed (shot) for running a pyramid scheme that cost investors $56 million.

----------


## Ramil

> Ok, it seemed to me from your earlier posts that you had reached a conclusion in your mind about the subject and you even tried to convince others (as part of the chatting experience).

 I  can hardly call that a conclusion. The original purpose of this thread was not a consensus, but argument.   

> If you think I'm over-dramatizing, think of the people who tried to kill themselves in prison, and of those who were successful in doing that.

 I think this is not due to the imprisonment itself but rather due to some 'misunderstandings' with the cellmates or third-kind circumstances that make them do that.    

> On the other hand, there are lots of people whose daily living conditions are perhaps just a bit better than what they'd experience in prison. For those, the life imprisonment is pretty much nothing to be feared about. So, they would rather fear of the death.

 And this layer is the most criminalized one. Some vagabonds even want to be imprisoned and commit some insignificant crimes and thus to live through the winter.   

> And in the end, there are phycos who just have the immediate strong urge of doing their evil things. They wouldn't care of any threat as long as it's not immediate.

 And why the society need such people? Why we hold them in asylums and feed them?   

> So, what is your preference? The death or the life imprisonment?

 I think it's imprisonment (if there are only two options). It's hard to imagine oneself in such a situation, but I would prefer death only if there wouldn't be anything left for me worth living. Otherwise I'd choose imprisonment and even if it's for a lifetime I would try very hard to escape.   

> And now's the biggest part. Let's say tomorrow is the public vote on the subject. So your purely 'personal' opinion may have some people 'universally' wrongfully killed. Wouldn't you think twice? You _are_ a human after all...

 I don't quite understand what do you mean. If you mean a general question like the one I used for the poll in this thread I would vote the same way I voted here. If you mean some particular case then of course I would think twice or even more, but if the arguments of the prosecutor would convince me then yes, I would vote 'guilty'. Of course I wouldn't vote for a 'wrongful' (to my opinion) execution.

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil        Originally Posted by wikipedia  Принцип актуализма — в науке — презумпция, состоящая в том, что в прошлом действовали те же самые законы *природы*, что и в настоящее время.   И как этот принцип относится к социологии? Я уже сказал, что понятия о морали меняются со временем. Также изменяется условия жизни, техническое оснащение и пр. Я не соглашусь с тем, что 30 лет назад и сейчас полиция применяла одни и те же методы профилактики преступности. Да и криминогенные условия также могли меняться со временем.   Дай напомню ход дискуссии: я говорю, что сразу после отмены смертной казни всплеска насилия не произошло.

 Да это понятно, непонятно другое - почему он должен был произойти? Ты предположил (или даже приписал это предположение мне), что если бы мои доводы были верны, то должен был произойти всплеск. Я же такого не утверждал. Сам факт отсутствия высшей меры в уголовном законодательстве не провоцирует преступление. Я всего лишь утверждал обратное, что установленная высшая мера за некоторые преступления может заставить некоторых потенциальных преступников отказаться от своих планов.
Повторюсь, что высшая мера необходима в первую очередь даже не для психов или маньяков, а для лиц, совершающих убийства с целью личной наживы.   

> Ты говоришь, что это все несерьезно, пока не учтены еще всякие-разные-какие-то-там факторы. Я говорю, что (принцип актуализма) прочие факторы следует считать неизменными, пока не доказано обратное. Вотъ. Т.е. по-твоему получается, что всплеск насилия мог быть погашен какими-то посторонними влияниями, внезапно возникшими в то же время в той же стране, поэтому все фигня и бойкот британским ученым. Нет? Я с таким подходом, типа, не согласился.

 Не совсем так. См. выше - теория о некоем всплеске преступности после отмены смертной казни - это твоя теория, не моя. А я лишь говорил, что факт снижения количества преступлений не может быть объяснен отменой высшей меры - за истекшее время изменилась сама криминогенная ситуация в обществе, полиция постоянно совершенствует методы профилактики преступлений, раскрываемость преступлений также растёт, что опять же - снижает желание совершать преступления, совершенствуются технические средства и оснащение, что также ведёт к снижению уровня преступности. Основная мысль - отмена высшей меры не спровоцирует новых преступлений, но наличие высшей меры может заставить некоторых преступников передумать.

----------


## it-ogo

Тут я вообще перестал понимать твою логику.   

> Да это понятно, непонятно другое - почему он должен был произойти? Ты предположил (или даже приписал это предположение мне), что если бы мои доводы были верны, то должен был произойти всплеск. Я же такого не утверждал. Сам факт отсутствия высшей меры в уголовном законодательстве не провоцирует преступление. Я всего лишь утверждал обратное, что установленная высшая мера за некоторые преступления может заставить некоторых потенциальных преступников отказаться от своих планов..

 В переводе на язык статистики "преступник может отказаться" = "некоторый процент преступников отказывается". А если наличие фактора А влияет на величину Б(т), то при исчезновении А в момент времени т0 на графике Б(т) должен образоваться разрыв первого рода. А если не образуется, то значит влияния нет, или оно пренебрежимо мало. Что не так? 
Или ты имел в виду, что здесь и сейчас-то преступники не отказываются, а где-нибудь когда-нибудь что-нибудь может случиться, что они станут отказываться? Так на это опять-таки есть принцип актуализма.   

> А я лишь говорил, что факт снижения количества преступлений не может быть объяснен отменой высшей меры

 Ну, это я не отрицал. долгосрочное снижение я упомянул чисто из добросовестности.  ::   ::

----------


## Ramil

> В переводе на язык статистики "преступник может отказаться" = "некоторый процент преступников отказывается". А если наличие фактора А влияет на величину Б(т), то при исчезновении А в момент времени т0 на графике Б(т) должен образоваться разрыв первого рода. А если не образуется, то значит влияния нет, или оно пренебрежимо мало. Что не так?

 Так. А ты график-то этот видел? Я - нет. И никто не видел. О чём и речь. Его и не выводил никто. А так - может и был бы разрыв, кто его знает. Просто это стандартный аргумент "Вот в стране х есть смертная казнь, а количество убийств растёт, а вот зато в стране y  смертной казни нет и ничего страшного." - В огороде бузина, а в Киеве - дядька. 
Аргументов в пользу смертной казни я привел, пусть они для кого-то неубедительны. А вот аргументов против, кроме того, что это аморально и не по-христиански - фактически нет.

----------


## Crocodile

> The original purpose of this thread was not a consensus, but argument.

 What a pity. I was looking for the consensus.   ::

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  The original purpose of this thread was not a consensus, but argument.   What a pity. I was looking for the consensus.

 Do you really believe consensus is possible upon a subject like this one?

----------


## Hanna

Yeah I agree with Croc that this is mostly discussion for discussions sake. I mean, the decision in the Russian parliament is already taken, right?  
Even though I am reasonably clear on my own position in the matter of death penalty, I DO sympathise with those affected by extreme examples that have been given here; people whose relatives were killed under cruel and violent circumstances understandably want "revenge".  
The need for society to have an extremely strong deterrent for certain types of crimes also has a lot of merit as an argument,  although I have to reject this in order to stand by my personal conviction about this...  
I thought the line of reasoning that some people are "sub humans" who don't deserve to live was rather disturbing, but so did almost most everyone else and I think Ramil was just toying with different ideas when he wrote that. In reality we all know that people can't be classified in this way in a modern decent state. 
I keep checking this thread because it's interesting, but I have already said everything I can possibly say about it (and some more). So I think that's it from me on this topic.

----------


## Crocodile

> Do you really believe consensus is possible upon a subject like this one?

 Well... in certain cultures / religions the capital punishment is/was highly recommended in other cases, as in: "Thou Shalt Not Suffer a Witch to Live." And no one happened to cancel that saying in the Bible. However, at some point, a consensus was reached that it's not that smart an idea after all...   ::

----------


## starrysky

> I thought the line of reasoning that some people are "sub humans" who don't deserve to live was rather disturbing

 I don't know... I have no trouble whatsoever calling for example Hitler "subhuman" or "monster", if you will. Suppose he didn't commit suicide, what would you do with him after WWII if death penalty was absolutely prohibited? Bearing in mind footage from concentration camps? 
Humans belong to the animal kingdom and only a veneer of culture and civilized behavior makes us different from them. Actually language is probably the most important characteristic that belongs solely to humans -- but it is socially determined; if a child is separated from all human contact, like Maugli children, he will never learn to speak. In the same way, if an adult person commits "crimes _against_ humanity" I'm not sure he deserves to be called human. The robot story was spot-on.    
I seem unable to shut up in this thread.  ::

----------


## Ramil

> The robot story was spot-on.

 Found it: 
Люди и не-люди 
Пропущенные мины были на совести сапера. Он шел впереди и не обратил внимания на присыпанные землей жестянки из-под кока-колы. Впрочем, трудно его винить – кто же знал, что шлепы научились делать настоящие мины…
А Чарли не пропустил. Я шел рядом с сержантом, всматриваясь в заросли по правую сторону тропинки, когда между нами с гулом пронеслась серая тень. Чарли раскинул руки и в немыслимой позе застыл над минами. Чудовищная карикатура на человека, одетого смеха ради в комбинезон десантника… Сержант взглянул на жестянки – и сразу все понял. Ленивой походочкой подошел к саперу и съездил ему по морде. Тот даже не возмутился, стоял, размазывая по лицу красные слюни.
– Погляди на этого кретина, парень, – обращаясь ко мне, произнес сержант. – Хорошенько посмотри, в следующий рейд пойдем с другим. Скотина…
Он поправил автомат, обошел мины и зашагал по тропинке дальше первым. Сапер посмотрел на меня, словно ища сочувствия. Не нашел. Взлететь на воздух в первом же рейде из-за того, что сапер никуда не годится…
Чарли нам всучили на базе, перед самым выходом в джунгли. Парни из центральной лаборатории уже с ума сходили – никто не хотел брать с собой стокилограммовую железяку, вдобавок стоящую семь миллионов. Чарли безмолвно стоял у стены, похожий на манекен из магазина одежды. Кто-то сунул ему в «рот» сигарету, другой остряк прицепил табличку: «Ищу работу». Смешно, правда? У нас на базе все ребята не промах… Так вот, стоял этот Чарли, и стоять бы ему еще до скончания века, если бы не наш сержант. Походил вокруг, спросил:
– Ну и что он умеет?
Сопровождающие оживились:
– Это универсальный защитный робот. Последняя модель…
– С автоматом обращаться умеет?
Те переглянулись:
– Конечно, нет. Вы же знаете первый закон робототехники: «Робот не может причинить вреда человеку…»
– Слыхал что-то.
Сержант толкнул Чарли в то место, которое у людей называется плечом. Робот даже не дрогнул. И сержант кивнул:
– Хорошо. Возьму я вашу машину. Проверим в деле.
…И Чарли не подвел. Трижды находил отравленные источники, помог навести переправу через горную речку. Тащил половину всего снаряжения. Только говорить не умел – а так десантник хоть куда. Теперь еще и мины…
Шлепы не строят больших селений. И в этом было всего три хижины. Мы пролежали в засаде до утра, не двигаясь, не отгоняя комаров, распухшие, злые и голодные. Я с завистью поглядывал на Чарли. В этих местах быть железным совсем не плохо… Правда, есть риск заржаветь… В джунглях царила мертвая тишина, над хижинами дрожал влажный горячий воздух. Может, там и нет никого? Но сержант ждал. И вот в одной из хижин послышался шум. Циновка с двери откинулась, и показался шлеповский мальчишка. Огляделся и пошел к ручью, размахивая тыквенным кувшином. Я посмотрел на сержанта, но его на месте уже не было. Мы с сапером ждали. Наконец еле слышно хрустнула ветка, появился сержант с шлепом через плечо. Бросил его на землю, присел, спросил что-то по-шлеповски. Пацан тихонько забормотал в ответ. Шлеп-шлеп… Дикари, одним словом. Что с них возьмешь, даже говорить толком не научились. Сержант, больше не таясь, встал, потянулся:
– Пошли, ребята. Партизан там нет.
– А если соврал? – не выдержал я.
– Они врать не умеют. Или молчат, или шлепают всю правду.
Но оружие с предохранителя он все-таки снял. Следом за ним мы пошли к хижинам.
Из первой развалюхи сержант вытащил двух шлеповских девчонок. Довольно смазливых… Ладно, не до них сейчас. Во второй хижине никого не было. А в третьей целая орава – женщины, дети, дряхлый старик. Мы построили их в шеренгу, сапер сел перед шлепами с автоматом, а сержант все шарил по хижинам. Я достал разговорник, прочитал по-шлеповски: «Есть ли партизаны?» Они затараторили, я едва понял: «Нет». Перевернув страницу, я хотел было объяснить, что мы хотим есть и пить. Но тут сержант вынырнул из хижины. В руке он держал грязные листки бумаги с блеклым шрифтом.
– Обезьяны… Листовки Фронта прячете? Значит, и партизанам помогаете. Где бандиты? Где?
Он секунду всматривался в лица шлепов, затем схватил одну из женщин за руку, вытащил из ряда. Шлепы загалдели. У женщины под платьем выступал огромный живот, и я вспомнил, как они относятся к детям. Целая религия. Наш сержант знает, чем шлепов прищучить…
– Где партизаны? – очень спокойным голосом спросил сержант.
Женщина молчала.
– Так… – Он отступил на шаг и вдруг изо всех сил ударил женщину по лицу. Та беззвучно осела на землю. Шлепы завизжали.
Сапер побледнел, запинаясь, попросил:
– Пойдем отсюда, сержант. Ничего они не знают.
– Знают… – Сержант отвел ногу, словно собираясь пнуть женщину. Она скорчилась, закрыла руками живот. Сержант рассмеялся. – А не знают, так им хуже…
– Оставь, а то еще родит.
– Пускай. Знаешь, как смешно шлепы рожают? Молча, ни звука. Дикари… Где партизаны?
Женщина на земле даже не двигалась. Сержант выругался и снял автомат с плеча:
– Хорошо…
Мне стало не по себе, и я отвернулся. И тут же загрохотал автомат. Но странно загрохотал, словно пули бились о железную стену. Я обернулся.
Чарли стоял между сержантом и шлепкой, пули дырявили его комбинезон и рикошетировали в сторону. Сержант опустил автомат, обалдело повертел головой:
– Ах ты, болван железный… Они же не люди! Отойди!
Чарли не двигался. Стальная маска, заменяющая ему лицо, была, как всегда, бесстрастна. Сержант беспомощно огляделся:
– Вот дубина… Ладно.
Он неторопливо прицелился в остальных шлепов. Дети подняли крик.
– Всех не закроешь. Болван железный…
«Робот не может причинить вреда человеку или допустить такой вред своим бездействием». Если бы мы знали, что Чарли намерен применить к шлепам обе половины Первого закона. Если бы знали, что он снабжен лазерной пушкой…
Что-то щелкнуло, что-то вспыхнуло. Сержант повалился на траву, а автомат впервые выпал из его рук. Он хрипел, на губах у него пузырилась пена, а мы с сапером стояли как вкопанные. Чужое голубоватое солнце жарило в небе, и шлепы разбегались в разные стороны.
Обратно мы бы без Чарли не дошли. Он запомнил маршрут и теперь вел нас на базу. Находил источники, наводил переправы…
На базе техники разобрали его до последнего винтика. А потом клялись, что лазерный излучатель предназначен для уничтожения хищных зверей, что робот в полном порядке и не может, ну просто никак не может убить человека…

----------


## Crocodile

> [...] что робот в полном порядке и не может, ну просто никак не может убить человека…

 And, as usual in such cases, the "simple" answers are cut out of the context. Try to expand the context, e.g. start the story from when the sergeant was a kid and "shleps" killed his parents but spared him (as they had their child-safety religion)... Then when he has seen his best friends die because the "peaceful" shlep villagers let them in friendly and silently called the partisans who "religiously" slowly cut his friends apiece and maintained their lives so they would suffer longer and satisfy their gods... And so on. As a result, you will think the robot really needed the "military" version. What should the robot do when the "non-humans" fight the "non-humans?"

----------


## Ramil

But that would be a totally different story. This one is good as it is. And the point is quite clear... I think.

----------


## Crocodile

> But that would be a totally different story. This one is good as it is. And the point is quite clear... I think.

 Yes, and no. So you read the story. Please explain why the sergeant was so desperate to find the partisans? Had he been just an evil "non-human", why wouldn't he just killed everyone? But, no, it seems from the story that he was using the cruelty as the means to achieve his goals. Which makes this story ambiguous, in my opinion. So, I'd say the story as-is is an excellent compassion exercise for the youth (which is great!), but the mature thinking is different.

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  But that would be a totally different story. This one is good as it is. And the point is quite clear... I think.   Yes, and no. So you read the story. Please explain why the sergeant was so desperate to find the partisans? Had he been just an evil "non-human", why wouldn't he just killed everyone? But, no, it seems from the story that he was using the cruelty as the means to achieve his goals. Which makes this story ambiguous, in my opinion. So, I'd say the story as-is is an excellent compassion exercise for the youth (which is great!), but the mature thinking is different.

 So you find executing of old men, pregnant women and children acceptable at war? Even if they are hiding the partisans? Even if these mysterious partisans had tortured to death all poor sergeant's family this still wouldn't justify his actions here. Or do you think otherwise? Let me point out that he did pull the trigger so he wasn't merely threating to execute the woman he was actually trying to do that.

----------


## Crocodile

> So you find executing of old men, pregnant women and children acceptable at war? Even if they are hiding the partisans? Even if these mysterious partisans had tortured to death all poor sergeant's family this still wouldn't justify his actions here. Or do you think otherwise?

 Ah, nice try.  ::  What you had just mentioned is considered to be a war crime, so the answer is no.   ::  And if you've ever been with a group that goes into the enemy territory for long time and you were able to avoid those things, my hat sincerely goes off to you.   ::   
But my point actually was that the story is no good at justifying your point. That's all.  ::

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  So you find executing of old men, pregnant women and children acceptable at war? Even if they are hiding the partisans? Even if these mysterious partisans had tortured to death all poor sergeant's family this still wouldn't justify his actions here. Or do you think otherwise?   Ah, nice try.  What you had just mentioned is considered to be a war crime, so the answer is no.   And if you've ever been with a group that goes into the enemy territory for long time and you were able to avoid those things, my hat sincerely goes off to you.

 Luckily I don't have such experience, but still I don't think that even a seasoned soldier would act like this. Senses go numb, of course, but I doubt that all military men are blood-thirsty maniacs. Besides, we are speaking of peace time here, at war different rules apply but even then some principles should be respected.   

> But my point actually was that the story is no good at justifying your point. That's all.

 Maybe it was only I who understood this story this way. But in my opinion the sergeant failed to satifsy the criteria of being human in robot's mind.

----------


## Crocodile

> Luckily I don't have such experience, but still I don't think that even a seasoned soldier would act like this. Senses go numb, of course, but I doubt that all military men are blood-thirsty maniacs.

 I'm really not enjoying talking about that f**** crap, so I would only mention one obvious thing and I would prefer to discuss this no more. You see, if the peaceful villagers have contacts with partisans, once you leave the village, the partisans would very soon know you were there. And they would follow you. And attack at the moment you expect the least. That is one of the f***** rules of that f***** crap. So, from the moment you leave you should expect that to happen. Do you have the guts?   

> Maybe it was only I who understood this story this way. But in my opinion the sergeant failed to satifsy the criteria of being human in robot's mind.

 Yes, I agree with your interpretation of the story. Provided as-is it leaves a lot of room for the reader to perceive the shleps as pure victims. But what I said was the reality is often different. The one-side interpretation is adequate when the story is open-ended (from both sides).

----------


## Hanna

Crocodile I must compliment you on your English which is sounding 100% native at the moment. Perhaps it's the effect that a few Christmas drinks had?  ::    _(Just back from the pub... had a few myself... spending the xmas with some acquantances. Not my idea of a good way of spending xmas but it will have to do this year.. my own fault... )_ 
Anyway - Your comment sounds exactly like British army officers speak who've been to war zones. Now I'm curious. Were you in some war?

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  Luckily I don't have such experience, but still I don't think that even a seasoned soldier would act like this. Senses go numb, of course, but I doubt that all military men are blood-thirsty maniacs.   I'm really not enjoying talking about that f**** cr@p, so I would only mention one obvious thing and I would prefer to discuss this no more. You see, if the peaceful villagers have contacts with partisans, once you leave the village, the partisans would very soon know you were there. And they would follow you. And attack at the moment you expect the least. That is one of the rule of that f***** cr@p. So, from the moment you leave you should expect that to happen. Do you have the guts?

 Let me check if I got this right: BEFORE you enter the village where there may be 'partisans' you KNOW all that you've just said. You know that once you've entered there will be no other choice than either to find these 'partisans' or exterminate all population. Let's suppose that you wouldn't find partisans (they're off somewhere... raiding your HQ for example). You kill everyone in the village, but this won't hide the fact that you've been there and you should expect a retaliation attempt anyway. It appears that the only possible 'human' and 'tactical' choice would be not to enter the village but lay an ambush nearby and wait for the real enemy. Of course if such means are necessary then why bother with formalities? Why not call an airstrike and level the village to the ground?    

> Originally Posted by Ramil  Maybe it was only I who understood this story this way. But in my opinion the sergeant failed to satifsy the criteria of being human in robot's mind.   Yes, I agree with your interpretation of the story. Provided as-is it leaves a lot of room for the reader to perceive the shleps as pure victims. But what I said was the reality is often different. The one-side interpretation is adequate when the story is open-ended (from both sides).

 The author leaves it as it is. Maybe he thought it would be enough or his fantasy had failed him or there was something else, who knows. But I assume that everything that needed to be said is said in the story and the rest is irrelevant.

----------


## Crocodile

> Let me check if I got this right: BEFORE you enter the village where there may be 'partisans' you KNOW all that you've just said. You know that once you've entered there will be no other choice than either to find these 'partisans' or exterminate all population. Let's suppose that you wouldn't find partisans (they're off somewhere... raiding your HQ for example). You kill everyone in the village, but this won't hide the fact that you've been there and you should expect a retaliation attempt anyway. It appears that the only possible 'human' and 'tactical' choice would be not to enter the village but lay an ambush nearby and wait for the real enemy. Of course if such means are necessary then why bother with formalities? Why not call an airstrike and level the village to the ground?

 When you've been sent to eliminate the insurgency (зачистка территории от бандформирований), it doesn't make sense to trot the jungle in search of the partisan bands. That will take forever. Instead, you would trace the partisans by their supply chain. So, you have to go village by village and see if the village is collaborating with the partisans. 
1. If the village is not collaborating -> leave the village and go to the other one (that's usually the majority of cases) 
2. If the village is currently harbouring partisans -> eliminate the resistance (call the airborne help if necessary) 
3. If the village is collaborating but is not currently harbouring partisans -> interrogate the peaceful villagers (by terrorizing them or by the other means) -> locate the insurgency bases and eliminate them (again, call the airborne help if necessary) 
There's no need to exterminate all village population as you said. However, the fierce insurgency resistance might have that consequence.  
Laying an ambush is tactically possible, but (because it might take long time) is usually impractical as you don't know who is ambushing whom after a while. What if the partisans are currently watching your back while you have your weapon pointing the other way?

----------


## Crocodile

> Crocodile I must compliment you on your English which is sounding 100% native at the moment.

 Nah, you're kidding. I spice up my speech with a couple of the "F" words and all of a sudden I sound like a native speaker?   ::     

> Anyway - Your comment sounds exactly like British army officers speak who've been to war zones. Now I'm curious. Were you in some war?

 And how do you know the way the British army officers speak? Have you been dating one recently?   ::

----------


## starrysky

> And, as usual in such cases, the "simple" answers are cut out of the context. Try to expand the context, e.g. start the story from when the sergeant was a kid and "shleps" killed his parents but spared him (as they had their child-safety religion)... Then when he has seen his best friends die because the "peaceful" shlep villagers let them in friendly and silently called the partisans who "religiously" slowly cut his friends apiece and maintained their lives so they would suffer longer and satisfy their gods... And so on. As a result, you will think the robot really needed the "military" version. What should the robot do when the "non-humans" fight the "non-humans?"

 This is sophistry.   ::  The point of the story is that *innocent civilians* are killed. _They_ do not fight and do not start wars. *Stop.* The sergeant has no right to vent his grief on people who are innocent of crimes that happened in his childhood.    

> 3. If the village is collaborating but is not currently harbouring partisans -> interrogate the peaceful villagers (by terrorizing them or by the other means)

 Could you specify what it means -- terrorizing? Mmm, torture, beatings, hangings? Maybe reprisals for collaboration? Burning whole villages alive so that the others would know better?   

> There's no need to exterminate all village population as you said.

 Oh. Why, thank you ever so much. So, mmm, a dozen would do?

----------


## Crocodile

> The point of the story is that *innocent civilians* are killed. _They_ do not fight and do not start wars. *Stop.* The sergeant has no right to vent his grief on people who are innocent of crimes that happened in his childhood.

 Alright, it's time for the consensus. I agree with your statement. He has no right. My main question was did _the robot_ have the right to kill the sergeant? After all, we're discussing the "non-humans" and what they deserve, aren't we? Is that sophistry? (By the way, if the _innocent_ civilians collaborate with the insurgents, they basically supply (=add to) the killings the partisans do. Have you ever thought of that?) What I was trying to say was that during the war, it's very hard to measure who deserves what and who is a non-human. That was my point. So, the story (however nice) IMHO is not directly applicable in our discussion about the sub-humans whom Ramil insists we'd execute in the well-planned manner.

----------


## Crocodile

> Would you specify what it means -- terrorizing? Mmm, torture, beatings, hangings? Maybe reprisals for collaboration? Burning whole villages alive so that the others would know better?

 Civil War, Belorussia, УПА, Vietnam, Afganistan, Chechnya, Afganistan again...   ::

----------


## Hanna

> And how do you know the way the British army officers speak? Have you been dating one recently?

 Yes, as a matter of fact, although he had just left the army. But I certainly don't recommend it and I will not do it again. But you are answering a question with a question..... ?

----------


## starrysky

> Alright, it's time for the consensus. I agree with your statement. He has no right. My main question was did _the robot_ have the right to kill the sergeant? After all, we're discussing the "non-humans" and what they deserve, aren't we? Is that sophistry? (By the way, if the _innocent_ civilians collaborate with the insurgents, they basically supply (=add to) the killings the partisans do. Have you ever thought of that?) What I was trying to say was that during the war, it's very hard to measure who deserves what and who is a non-human. That was my point. So, the story (however nice) IMHO is not directly applicable in our discussion about the sub-humans whom Ramil insists we'd execute in the well-planned manner.

 Local civilians may have no choice but to collaborate because the partisans have frightened them into it. In which case the poor wretches are caught between a rock and a hard place. Of course, it is very difficult to decide about what's to be done in war time but I just hate that rhetoric about "necessary" and "unavoidable" civilian casulaties. It's so cynical. That was the reasoning behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki and many people still seem to endorse this view.  
Regarding the consensus -- I agree that the opportunity to administer death penalty _may_ theoretically make it possible for someone to abuse it... But this is where I'll leave it at the moment or my brain will short-circuit thinking about all the "how"s and "why"s...

----------


## Hanna

Well rules on death penalty are different for war times though, aren't they? 
I mean, collaborators, spies, traitors can usually be sentenced to death and executed fairly immediately.. If the treacherous actions of one countryman can jeopardise the entire country, and if you are killing the enemy in the battlefield anyway.... then there doesn't seem to be much logic in sparing somebody who has collaborated with the enemy.  
However I for one hope that war-time laws will never againt be needed in Europe - hopefully it's a strictly hypothetical question.

----------


## Ramil

We're not speaking of war-time. I was merely illustrating my point that not all 'bipedal speaking creatures' can be considered human.

----------


## starrysky

Well, even if it is war time, human laws should still apply...   

> I mean, collaborators, spies, traitors can usually be sentenced to death and executed fairly immediately.. If the treacherous actions of one countryman can jeopardise the entire country, and if you are killing the enemy in the battlefield anyway.... then there doesn't seem to be much logic in sparing somebody who has collaborated with the enemy.

 The thing is, when I think of partisans I usually imagine WWII. When the Germans occupied part of Russia, many people went into forests and became partisans. They were not traitors in the eyes of Russians but heroes because they continued to fight. And the Germans couldn't call them traitors either -- they didn't owe any allegiance to them. The locals were likely to help them of course, for which whole villages would be executed as a reprisal. Aweful death awaited partisans if they were captured -- they would be tortured and hanged in the main street as a warning. 
You can read this artcle, for example, about the so-called "Young Guard" -- there's a famous book and a film about them.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_G...et_resistance)  
Photos http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/2558?page=1 
Even if we are not talking about that particular war -- let's say Americans in Aghanistan (or Soviets -- we were there for ten years too) -- how can these soldiers execute Afghans who, say, collaborate with their countrymen -- even if those countrymen are terrorists/extremists? Afghan people don't owe allegiance either to Americans or Russians, they can't be called traitors.    

> However I for one hope that war-time laws will never againt be needed in Europe - hopefully it's a strictly hypothetical question.

 You hope that. I don't have all that much faith in humanity. History shows that we learn nothing fom history. You would've thought the middle of the 20th century was not Middle Ages -- yet WWII happens to be the bloodiest war ever.

----------


## Crocodile

> We're not speaking of war-time. I was merely illustrating my point that not all 'bipedal speaking creatures' can be considered human.

 Do you remember a scene from the District 9 where humans burnt the alien eggs? That was not in a war and the action was perfectly legal. How do you classify that?

----------


## Crocodile

> Of course, it is very difficult to decide about what's to be done in war time but I just hate that rhetoric about "necessary" and "unavoidable" civilian casulaties. It's so cynical.

 I hate that too.   ::  I guess every normal person would hate that. Do you remember Lukyanenko's Principles of Regressors? (If Ramil would consider also translating those books, I would applaud him.) When you're hard-pressed to make tough choices and you want to remain sane, you just start thinking differently.

----------


## Hanna

In response to Starrysky's post --- I probably wasn't clear. I meant people who collaborate with the enemy during wartime.   *For example*: If NATO attacked Russia _(God forbid!!)_ and some Russian person collaborated with the NATO troops...  Imagine that he told them the locations of secret weapon caches, secret codes and where the weak points in the Russian defense was...  
If you found out about this,  and you knew that innocent people had died as a result of his actions, would you want to convict him as a traitor and: 
a) *shoot him*, OR
b) just *put him in prison*?  _I agree with your definition of partisans and I know about the Soviet partisans (although not much!). Perhaps in Russia the word is only used for the partisans from WW2?  As far as I know, it's also used for left-wing freedom fighters around the world. Not only WW2 and Eastern Europe, also Spain, Italy, Central America etc. And they wrote some very catchy songs.._ 
The "Young Guard" sounds interesting. Somebody mentioned the film in the film thread. I'd quite like to see it, but I will wait until I am able to understand Russian better. 
Gasp!   ::   

> Most members of the Young Guard, about 80 people, were tortured and then executed

 This is a good example of the point. Would you shoot the person who betrayed them, or put him in prison?

----------


## starrysky

> If you found out about this, and you knew that innocent people had died as a result of his actions, would you want to convict him as a traitor and: 
> a) *shoot him*, OR
> b) just *put him in prison*?

 What would _you_ do?  
Now I don't understand you.   ::  You were very clear and straightforward that criminals should not be put to death --  even if they killed a lot of people, and there is incontrovertible evidence that they are guilty -- they plead guilty, they show the place(s) where they buried their victim(s), etc. You said that it was a matter of principle, like Crocodile says, we have no right to kill humans. So why would there be any excuse to judge and kill people in war time? Where's the difference? They're still human beings, supposedly. And war could start any minute -- I mean wars are being waged all the time, just not in Europe at the moment.  
I *would* say that war is actually *an excuse*, a mitigating circumstance -- in peace time you can be "good" easily -- in war time your country asks you to sacrifice your life, to be a hero on a daily basis -- not everyone can do it. During WWII the Soviet soldiers captured by the Germans were considered traitors, so that even if they survived the inhuman conditions of concentration camps they might come home to be labelled a "traitor" and go staright to another camp. There was another directive/order of Stalin that said any soldier who failed to go into attack -- even if it meant going against tanks with your bare hands and imminent death -- could be shot on the spot. And the families of the "traitors" could be prosecuted too. 
So, anyway, I don't understand your logic. Here I am, trying to come round to your understanding that we should be oh so human and spare the lives of those who failed to follow human laws and who don't care a fig about other people's lives. And you say in war it doesn't apply. Do we stop being humans just because crackpot leaders of our countries decided to go to war? How moral is it to kill the enemy? Those soldiers are humans too. And much less culpable because they may be sent to war against their will -- in Russia conscription is still mandatory for all young men. Why should the enemy be killed? 
I have to say I'm totally puzzled. If your main gripe with death penalty is the possibility of mistake or even wilful abuse then I can understand it -- though nothing is more certain in war, on the contrary, there is more commotion and less time.

----------


## Hanna

*Oh I think we've all argued this issue so far that we are almost beginning to confuses ourselves.... Including me!*  
Actually Starrysky, in principle, everything you say seems logical. 
I have never before given any thought at all to death penalty in war times, so I do not have any strong or well-developed idea about it.  
I might have just confused myself and everyone else by starting to talk about it. I don't think I have the knowledge or passion about the issue of death penalty in war times to debate about it.  
The thing that made me think about it is that *wars are so terrible that normal moral almost cease to exist*. Plus, they trigger the situation of *"would you kill one person now, to prevent the death of a thousand in the future"*  
I've heard this question and similar ones used a lot for ethical/philosophical debates. The reason is that it trips up people who say that they are categorically against death penalty - like me. 
I think that what you are saying about a human life being a human life no matter what the situation is TRUE. 
Yet, if you are facing an aggressive enemy who has no regard for life.... Luckily there is no immediate risk of that happening.   *Frankly, this is the stuff of philosophy, and it is quesions that religion deals with.* I will definitely not claim that I know any easy answers to this.  
People within several traditions in Christianity refuse to participate in any wars, under any circumstances, for example. If everyone believed like they do... then wars could not happen because there'd be nobody to fight them. I have a lot of respect for such people. 
But I have to admit, that if I faced a person who i KNEW was about to consciously do something that would kill 100 innocent people and I could stop it by killing him... Then I think I'd do it. 
But it's such a simplified situation.  
The only realistic situation I can imagine where something like that would happen would be a war situation. That, and the talk about the partisans was what made me start thinking of war times laws.  
I know that most countries have special laws that apply only in war time; changes to the constitution, the status of the government and the punishments for certain crimes.  
I want to avoid the issues of war altogether, and I think it is possible. War between the states in Europe is unthinkable right now. People in Europe are going to their old enemy-countries on holiday and business, and chatting with people from there online. The insane cold war is over too and I want as close relations with Russia as we can possibly have.  
I am STRONGLY against wars and ANY kind of aggressive military policies. That's one of the reasons I don't like US foreign policy. Over and over the US has started wars in areas where it has no business and it also increases tension by meddling in the internal business of other countries. I don't think that a modern civilised and supposedly democratic country has any excuse to behave in this way. Its actions have lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands this decade alone.  
For the future of Europe, I want the same as some of the pan-European supporters in Brussels. Basically; US bases out of Europe. Then I want the EU to have a peaceful joint DEFENSE force for future threats that we cannot predict right now.

----------


## starrysky

> *Oh I think we've all argued this issue so far that we are almost beginning to confuses ourselves.... Including me!*

 This is very true.   ::  To be quite honest, I don't really enjoy it when people start splitting hairs in forum discussions and just being very boring, which I see a lot on my local forum but not on MasterRussian. But I hope we are not being so very boring.   ::   
The morality of war should definitely be discussed in a totally different thread. I just thought that if you rejected death penalty on religious grounds -- like the preciousness of human life -- then you would have the same firm position on any issue regarding killing and murder and so on. 
Well, never mind.   ::

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  We're not speaking of war-time. I was merely illustrating my point that not all 'bipedal speaking creatures' can be considered human.   Do you remember a scene from the District 9 where humans burnt the alien eggs? That was not in a war and the action was perfectly legal. How do you classify that?

 Birth control.
A. The alien's breed rate was much higher than one of human, so if they don't do that Earth would soon be overrun by the other species.
B. They are not natives of this planet and they were allowed to settle under condition that they control their breeding themselves. Apparently they didn't observe this condition.
C. I can see where you are drawing parallels but I don't think that this episode can be a valid example for our discussion here. The aliens were not humans to begin with.

----------


## Hanna

China is just about to execute a British citizen according to the BBC. (Tuesday morning).  ::   ::   ::   ::   ::   
Note the word "citizen". It seems that he is in fact more or less Pakistani - Britain has millions of immigrants from there. He was living in Poland for quite a while too.  
He went to China with 4 kg (!!!!!) heroin in his bags and got caught by Chinese police. British authorities have tried to get the Chinese to pardon him, but it has not yet been successful.  
I think it's almost unheard of for British citizens to be executed abroad. If this man had been a "regular" Briton people would be in arms, totally furious at China. His relatives say that he is innocent due to psychological problems that he's been having. 
I really don't approve of them executing him. 10 years in a Chinese prison would be more than sufficient punishment for anyone. 
============================================ *Story here:   http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8432351.stm*
============================================

----------


## Crocodile

> Birth control.
> A. The alien's breed rate was much higher than one of human, so if they don't do that Earth would soon be overrun by the other species.
> B. They are not natives of this planet and they were allowed to settle under condition that they control their breeding themselves. Apparently they didn't observe this condition.
> C. I can see where you are drawing parallels but I don't think that this episode can be a valid example for our discussion here. The aliens were not humans to begin with.

 So, your are rather anthropocentric, aren't you? Anyways, do you think the aforementioned robot would intervene when accompanying the birth control squad? (After all, the robot doesn't know the big picture you explained (=the broader context), and burning the innocent eggs for the sapient aliens would be classified as rather a horrible act, won't you think? Do you think the bipedal beings absolutely legally doing birth control *that way* deserve to be called humans?

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  Birth control.
> A. The alien's breed rate was much higher than one of human, so if they don't do that Earth would soon be overrun by the other species.
> B. They are not natives of this planet and they were allowed to settle under condition that they control their breeding themselves. Apparently they didn't observe this condition.
> C. I can see where you are drawing parallels but I don't think that this episode can be a valid example for our discussion here. The aliens were not humans to begin with.   So, your are rather anthropocentric, aren't you? Anyways, do you think the aforementioned robot would intervene when accompanying the birth control squad? (After all, the robot doesn't know the big picture you explained (=the broader context), and burning the innocent eggs for the sapient aliens would be classified as rather a horrible act, won't you think? Do you think the bipedal beings absolutely legally doing birth control *that way* deserve to be called humans?

 We're deviating. That would depend exclusively on robot's programming. If alien's eggs would be recognized as 'human children' which seems unlikely then the answer to your question is 'yes' the robot would interfere. 
And yes, you may call me that - anthropocentric if you like. I don't see anything bad in in since humans are the only sentinent species I know of.

----------


## Crocodile

> And yes, you may call me that - anthropocentric if you like. I don't see anything bad in in since humans are the only sentinent species I know of.

 Yeah, I got it. The xenopsychology is not for you.   ::

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  And yes, you may call me that - anthropocentric if you like. I don't see anything bad in in since humans are the only sentinent species I know of.   Yeah, I got it. The xenopsychology is not for you.

 I used to be a great fan of UFO:Enemy Unknown and Master of Orion.  ::  I was the fan of Aliens (the movie). What did you expect?  ::

----------


## Basil77

> I used to be a great fan of UFO:Enemy Unknown and Master of Orion.

 A great fan you say? Have you won in MoO at "HUGE", "IMPOSSIBLE"? I bet no!  ::    ::

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  I used to be a great fan of UFO:Enemy Unknown and Master of Orion.    A great fan you say? Have you won in MoO at "HUGE", "IMPOSSIBLE"? I bet no!

 Hah. Ever tried to win IMPOSSIBLE on SMALL galaxy? It's much bigger a challenge (with 8 opponents).

----------


## Hanna

> And yes, you may call me that - anthropocentric if you like. I don't see anything bad in in since humans are the only sentinent species I know of.

 Ramil your English just shifted up a gear.
I can hardly follow your advanced vocabulary and you are are not making any grammatical mistakes.  
This crazy debate about the death penalty has been great for everyones English but ithe actual arguments are getting increasingly wackier...

----------


## Crocodile

> Originally Posted by Ramil  And yes, you may call me that - anthropocentric if you like. I don't see anything bad in in since humans are the only sentinent species I know of.   I can hardly follow your advanced vocabulary and you are are *not making any* grammatical mistakes.

 Johanna, come on ....    ::   ::   
sentinent => sentient   ::   ::

----------


## Crocodile

> I used to be a great fan of UFO:Enemy Unknown and Master of Orion.  I was the fan of Aliens (the movie). What did you expect?

 I would have thought you were more like the SC kind of person ...   ::  
But, that's not all to it, really. There's that "paleocontact" stuff too... But, never mind. We're deviating indeed.

----------


## starrysky

I suspect someone has been watching "Avatar".   ::   
But let's come back to planet Earth and more mundane things, shall we? What about Denis Yevsyukov whose case is being tried now and which has caused big resonance? He is a police major who went on a shooting spree in a supermarket in Moscow, killing three people and injuring six (though I have seen other figures -- 2 and 7, don't know which is true). He shot a female cashier in the face instantly killing her. There's a video of him calmly reloading his gun and shooting everyone he came across in the shop. After which he didn't even have the decency to shoot himself (like the Columbina guys, for example). Once again, I'm trying to figure out -- is it fair that he should continue living when those innocent people are dead? That cashier girl -- she probably had children or was the only daughter... Or  else she didn't have any children which is probably even worse.  
Life in prison is still life -- you get food, sleep, maybe books. There is hope of an amnesty or "УДО" (условно-досрочное освобождение -- being released for good behavior before your term ends; a lot of people get out this way, even those who committed murders -- prisons are overcrowded so it's necessary to vacate places for new inmates). If his wife doesn't leave him they'll have a chance to spend together 1-2 days each year -- there is a special rendezvous for convicts and their relatives when they spend a couple of days together in a room in prison 'hotel'. So theoretically he can father children. Whereas the killed cashier will never have any children. 
He is said to have quarrelled with his wife before the incident -- absolutely no excuse, in my opinion. He is also said to have been drunk. No excuse either. 
The story: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/a...lt/396915.html

----------


## Ramil

Being drunk is considered an aggravating factor, by the way.
Yes, I'm thinking that 20 years of prison is too mild a punishment for this.  @Cocodile: SC is for kids, I played Dune 2

----------


## Crocodile

> @Cocodile: SC is for kids, I played Dune 2

 We might need a separate thread to discuss that. I would say that MoO is for kids as I prefer Galactic Civilizations.

----------


## Crocodile

> I suspect someone has been watching "Avatar".

 Yeah, one of the biggest lessons of xenology is not to see ourselves when we watch the stars...    ::  
PS. I'm sorry I didn't post anything on the subject, as I think we're going in circles.   ::

----------


## Ramil

I decided to resurrect this thread because of the latest tragedy in Moscow. People who ordered this must be denied of all human rights including the right to live. I seriously hope that our cloak&dagger guys will not be very enthusiastic about taking them alive. Of course I wish them all the luck in the world in this.

----------


## Crocodile

> I decided to resurrect this thread because of the latest tragedy in Moscow. People who ordered this must be denied of all human rights including the right to live. I seriously hope that our cloak&dagger guys will not be very enthusiastic about taking them alive. Of course I wish them all the luck in the world in this.

 And who will guard the [s:3qlshwvj]guardians[/s:3qlshwvj] "cloak & dagger knights?"

----------


## sperk

> Originally Posted by Ramil  I decided to resurrect this thread because of the latest tragedy in Moscow. People who ordered this must be denied of all human rights including the right to live. I seriously hope that our cloak&dagger guys will not be very enthusiastic about taking them alive. Of course I wish them all the luck in the world in this.   And who will guard the [s:36vlbwyp]guardians[/s:36vlbwyp] "cloak & dagger knights?"

 Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?   ::

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  I decided to resurrect this thread because of the latest tragedy in Moscow. People who ordered this must be denied of all human rights including the right to live. I seriously hope that our cloak&dagger guys will not be very enthusiastic about taking them alive. Of course I wish them all the luck in the world in this.   And who will guard the [s:fa7av6x6]guardians[/s:fa7av6x6] "cloak & dagger knights?"

 Oh, that, I dunno.   ::   Somebody has to, but I only wanted to state that there *ARE* indeed species that look like human but not human at all.

----------


## Hanna

It's terrible that you should AGAIN become victims of terrorism.  
These people are out of control for sure..! And what's their problem, they are practically autonomous and Moscow is pouring money over them! Anyway, there seems to be a lot more terrorism in Russia right now compared with Europe and certainly the US.
So sorry for you, this is terrible.   
But Ramil, the terrorists blew themselves up though, so threatening them with death penalty isn't going to put them off since they want to be "martyrs" anyway! They WANT to die!   _[although it beats me what these female terrorists are going to do with the "99 virgins" that are waiting for them in paradise according to their faith...]_ 
Was anyone here travelling on the metro when it happened?  
BTW -- it was good to see that the Evening Standard (biggest London paper) wrote a great story about it which I read on my way home. The tone was exactly the same as it would have done if this had happened in France or Italy etc... none of the usual predictable dissing of Russia.  Everyone is shocked and their thoughts are with the Muscovites! Terrible thing to have to be scared while travelling to work. I know the feeling too.

----------


## sperk

> But Ramil, the terrorists blew themselves up though, so threatening them with death penalty isn't going to put them off since they want to be "martyrs" anyway! They WANT to die!

 people believed to be accomplices were spotted with the bombers at the stations.
PS - they're are male virgins too. (and lesbian terrorists.)  ::

----------


## Ramil

> But Ramil, the terrorists blew themselves up though, so threatening them with death penalty isn't going to put them off since they want to be "martyrs" anyway! They WANT to die!

 I'm not speaking about these girls who were probably drugged and psychologically 'treated' to do so, I'm speaking about those who told them to go and blow themselves up in the middle of the crowd. Those who paid for this. I can't even blame some misguided puppet who actually triggered the bombs. I can even spare some pity for them, but not for those who financed, planned and organized these attacks.

----------


## Ramil

Isn't it interesting about how the problem with moratorium for death penalties gets solved by our president.   Дмитрий Медведев пообещал, что организаторы взрывов будут найдены и уничтожены.  
I did say - if someone needs to be eliminated there's no need to bring him to court for this. What concerns this particular case I fully agree with our president:   

> МЕДВЕДЕВ: Эти люди, хотя их и людьми-то нормальными назвать нельзя, это просто звери. Безотносительно к тому, какими мотивами они руководствуются, то, что они делают, является преступлением по любому праву и исходя из любой морали. Вы знаете, у меня никаких сомнений нет: мы их найдем и всех уничтожим, так как мы уничтожили всех, кто организовал взрыв «Невского экпресса», недавно всех уничтожили, дотла.

----------


## Hanna

I see what you mean...  But the people behind it are sooo hard to get! 
And the harder the nations try, the more fanatical the terrorists get.  
Not even the mighty US + allies with all resources etc can find Osama bin Laden or stop these people.  Perhaps its easier to find people in the Caucasus though... Or maybe they left the country immediately and are hiding out with the rest of the terrorists in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.  
In the UK people can hardly believe that "the Troubles" (as they are called) in Northern Ireland are really over and that there really are no more attacks. But the IRA usually warned police before the bombs exploded and they USUALLY only wanted to destroy property, not kill people...  Chechnya seems like "Russia's Northern Ireland" but bigger, scarier and even more impossible to solve..... 
What would happen if Russia kicked out Chechnya from the federation, would that stop the attacks in Moscow?

----------


## Ramil

> What would happen if Russia kicked out Chechnya from the federation, would that stop the attacks in Moscow?

 Even if this was possible things would be far worse than they are now. Who told you that this attack was organized by the Chechenians, by the way? Nothing is still really known about it save some clues. And Chechnya de-facto was independent during 1996-1999 - nothing good came out of it - independent islamic foothold in Caucasus means all kind of thugs will seek refugee there, this means drug traffic, arms trade, kidnappings and murders. This means unprotected South and more important for you - better chances to smuggle anything and anyone to EU.

----------


## Basil77

> I decided to resurrect this thread because of the latest tragedy in Moscow. People who ordered this must be denied of all human rights including the right to live. I seriously hope that our cloak&dagger guys will not be very enthusiastic about taking them alive. Of course I wish them all the luck in the world in this.

 I don't quite agree. They are fanatics, even the thugs who planned this, and so the death from the special forces' bullet may be considered heroical by them. I'd prefer some kind of more moral take-down punishment for them, like spending the rest of their life in some cage. Just remember how insolent and proud of himself Salman Raduev was and how pathetic he became after he got caught (the last seconds in the vid):  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZK3smViQnc

----------


## Crocodile

> Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

 Yep. And who would tell if 'the knights of cloak-n-dagger' would actually find the right guys to blame-n-kill? They could find just about anyone they want. How could we (the ordinary folks) tell the difference? They announce they killed someone out there in the mountains who was among the organizers of the plot XYZ. Cool enough to believe, isn't it? Like, the other knights of the similar outfit happen to 'prove' Iraq had the WMD. I can't believe Bush & Blair weren't convinced by their respective 'knights' it was true to bet their reputation on it. So, what's on the news from "the knights' TV" this time?   ::

----------


## Crocodile

> PS - they're are male virgins too. (and lesbian terrorists.)

 I'm not a pro in those things, but I think the male virgins are not as good as the experienced males.   ::  
So, that leaves us with the only remaining option...   ::

----------

