Death penalty

[RETIREDTrapped]

I think the death should fit the crime.

What... so you mean that you would:

A) Rape a rapist to death
B) Rob a Burgular to death
C) Pick-Pocket a Pickpocket to death
D) Insurance-Fraud an Insurance Fraud to death
E) Hit and run a Hit-and-runner to death...

WTF..?? That's crazy. Lay of the crack-pipe for a while, it might do you some good.

 

[Sullen Jester]

When a government feels insecure, they must invent enemies for everyone to hate - they 'unite the people' against a common enemy, whether that enemy be 'international terrorism', 'communism', 'drug dealers', 'Saddam', 'Milosevic', or Hitler blaming 'The Jews' - it stops us pissants at ground level from suspecting the government.

In fact, the people the media and the government are telling us to be very scared of are actually not a threat in the slightest, if we analyse the big picture.

In the 1980's, we were ALL made to be terrified of 'international terrorism', which is what the government and media told us to fear. Clinton recently reincarnated THAT fear, and in , I think, 1996, he passed the 'Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act'.

Before that act was passed, the FBI issued a report on terrorism, in order to justify CLinton's new act. The government had to make sure there was a 'genuine threat' before they passed legislation to 'combat' that threat.

If you read the 1995 FBI report on terrorism, it seems to be conclusive. It basically tells us that international terrorism is on the increase, and therefore we must pass this act. Here I paraphrase its basic arguments:

"In 1994, terrorism significantly increased over the 1993 levels. The number of terrorist attacks on the USA increased markedly from 1993 to 1994. This situation is intolerabe, so we need legislation to combat terrorism by putting restrictions on foreigners' rights, and by tightening immigration and stepping up policing against subversives."

The basis for the argument seems fair - increasing terrorism against the USA means that the government and the people have to be more security conscious, and so to safeguard the public interest.

So the act made life harder for foreigners. Harder for people's appeals to be heard on death row. Harder for refugees.

Let's look at the data in the FBI report...

"In 1994, terrorism significantly increased over the 1993 levels"

Okay - here is a list of terrorist attacks on the USA in 1993:

NONE

Here is a list of terrorist attacks on the USA in 1994:

ONE - the federal building in Oklahoma City was destroyed by a terrorist bomb, with the loss of over 160 lives.

So you see, the report isn't telling lies when it says:

The number of terrorist attacks on the USA increased markedly from 1993 to 1994. That's right - an increase from zero to one is significant!

Now here's the evil bit - the US passed a whole bunch of legislation after this FBI report - because of course, even one terrorist attack is one too many. So who did the act affect most and worst? Foreigners, refugees and black people on death row.

Because of 'international terrorism', the state passed racially biased legislation.

Now, who's got their memory in gear? What fucking nationality was the perpetrator of the Oklahoma bombing?

Timothy McVeigh was a US citizen, ex-forces dude, US born and bred.

The FBI tacitly misled us in their report that the Oklahoma bombing was an act of 'international terrorism', so justifying the government's attack on black people, refugees, and foreigners.

So that is scapegoating in action. It is nasty and evil.

By the way, in the same year, the number of civilians the US Government killed through its foreign policy was in the tens of thousands.

So the retail acts of terror - Timothy McVeigh - pale into insignificance compared to the wholesale acts of terror carried out by the BIG gangsters - our govcernments.

International terrorism has never been as much of a threat to you as your government is.

SO when people start realizing the government is fucking with them, lying to them, killing in the name of 'the free market', they get a bit pissed. So the government starts trying to draw attention from 'the bad boys in power', and they then channel the attention of the public onto a convenient scapegoat.

So, teenagers get accused of all manner of lurid crimes, and the media is filled with stories of teenagers killing grannies, robbing and vandalising. They get scapegoated.

Single mothers get scapegoated - we read nasty little lies in the press about 'welfare scroungers' getting pregnant to get council houses, trying to rip us all off so they can live an easy life.

Black guys get hounded by the police for the same reason - the elite needs a scapegoat to make us fight each other instead of THEM...

Small time cannibis users get fucked by the law, when there are no victims of their activities, only grateful customers.

The unemployed - they are targeted as scroungers, workshy and lazy.

In actual fact, ask yourself - which of these types of people are the most likely to physically damage you:

1 Single Parents.
2 Cannibis Smokers.
3 Black Youths.
4 Teenagers.
5 The Unemployed.
6 Soldiers.
7 Policemen.
8 Politicians

Now, if you said that 1,2,3,4 or 5 were inherently dangerous, then go to the bottom of the class. They aren't, they are ordinary people going about their lives.

If you think 6,7 and 8 are the bigger threat than the other types, then you are 100% right. Politicians, policemen and soldiers have power. Their power rests entirely on the threat of violence.

They are the threat.

If you look at fascist regimes, you notice that they are ALL hate single parents, drug users, the unemployed, racial minorities and teenagers. Hitler's Germany was precisely this way. Blair's Britain is like this. So is Bush's America.

You can tell how civilised a regime is by the people it scapegoats.

(By the way, demographically speaking, the person most likely to commit a crime of violence in Britain today, is a white male, 25 years old, with four pints of lager inside him. What a surprise. Of course, he will still never be able to match the government for firepower and body count...)

 

[Sullen Jester]

I think the death should fit the crime.

Killing people isn't going to solve much, but will stop THAT person doing it again, IF they were guilty.

It's just going to send a message to all the people who aren't brainwashed in some sense of patriotism - "You're arse is grass if you don't fall into line."

 

[Sullen Jester]

....Don't tell me I've killed this thread too =P

 

[RETIREDTrapped]

yup.

Sentenced to the death penalty 'tis.

 

[Sullen Jester]

It would be very horrible to execute innocent person!

True!
That is a mistake you cannot take back.

 

[luke]

Attacks against the US don't neccesarily mean attacks on US soil. You didn't post any figures about Lebanon, Somalia or any other areas where "international terrorism" was perpetrated against the United States. 1993 was the first year that that an attack occured on US soil - the World Trade Center.
Jester how can you so easily draw a link between the 3rd Reich and modern day Britain and America? Please don't just quote off the One Minute Silence web page and expect us to believe that everyone is a facist.
There is no conspiracy, no Big Brother behind the scenes controlling it all. Government works the way it does because that is the way it naturally occurs. There are only slight variations on the theme after an "upshot" reformer shakes things up a bit - but it all settles back down the same old thing.
Haven't you noticed that whatever you call it by, or whatever face you see in office it's all pretty much the same? That's what government is.

 

[Wolff]

Originally posted by Sullen Jester
When a government feels insecure, they must invent enemies for everyone to hate - they 'unite the people' against a common enemy, whether that enemy be 'international terrorism', 'communism', 'drug dealers', 'Saddam', 'Milosevic', or Hitler blaming 'The Jews' - it stops us pissants at ground level from suspecting the government....


... and so on...

You actually didn't write this, did you?

 

[Sullen Jester]

Originally posted by luke
Attacks against the US don't neccesarily mean attacks on US soil. You didn't post any figures about Lebanon, Somalia or any other areas where "international terrorism" was perpetrated against the United States. 1993 was the first year that that an attack occured on US soil - the World Trade Center.

That's one part I did not cover..
Attacks against US in a lot of "warzones" are self-defence against US agressors. I'll do a little looking and get some more information/links to this.

Originally posted by luke
Jester how can you so easily draw a link between the 3rd Reich and modern day Britain and America?

In practice, it's the same. Different name, same approach.

A lot of bad shit is still happening, some new, some old.

• A lot of people are set up and persecuted for crimes they did not commit, and a lot of very 'light crimes' are punished to the magnitude of serious offenders.
• There is no "National Interest" - just personal/corporate interest. The people in charge are the ones pulling the strings, and getting the rewards.
  

Originally posted by luke
Haven't you noticed that whatever you call it by, or whatever face you see in office it's all pretty much the same? That's what government is.

I know, that's why I am an anarchist - no system with someone in office (with the rest standing outside) is fair, because that one person (or party) is elevated in "importance", thier wants and "needs" are considered above everyone elses.

"Protect the president."

Why? What's he doing? He sit's in an office deciding who to wage war against in order to gain capita.

You never hear "Protect the bum getting raped and mugged in the alley!" because it's not economically sound to go around and actually protect people and put on a good face. It's a business owned world, and that's the main priority of helping people - protect the ones who are most likely to reward you, the ones who are most powerful, the ones that will give you the best returns.

Uhh.. I think that's all..

 

[Sullen Jester]

Originally posted by Wolff



You actually didn't write this, did you?

Uhh...

Originally posted by luke
Please don't just quote off the One Minute Silence web page

Oopsies..

BUT, it's what I think, it's what I've been researching (Eddie Stratton is not the one person I run to for knowledge - I try to look around on the internet, in books, forums etc. .. it's that expression "You can learn more from 29 students than one teacher") and it was something I had deduced from a lot of sources before coming across Strattons thoughts.

I was too lazy to type it up myself..

 

[Wolff]

Sullen I'm willing to spend an hour or two debating with YOU on these issues, but you can't just copy and paste off the net. What's the point?

 

[Sullen Jester]

Originally posted by Wolff
Sullen I'm willing to spend an hour or two debating with YOU on these issues, but you can't just copy and paste off the net. What's the point?

Saves time =P


But seriously, you're right.
In doing this I am just carrying his thoughts, and you probably think that I am a brainwashed tool of his.

But, as I said, in this matter, his are basically my thoughts, and well, "the cheap exit".

I belive, that, the government (s allover the world) hold us in a giant mindfuck, and truly have us fighting ghosts.

A lot of prejudiced views are sprouting from propaganda, and we'll (Note: generalisation) see the political figure stepping in on this dividing factor as a saviour.

Even if they 'solve' the problems caused by said prejudiced actions, they still win.

• Still getting money.
• Still in charge.
• There will be sympathisers for the said Mr. Prejucice, and his 'cause' will be carried out over time, and causing more general distractions, thus, the government can still do a lot of bad shit.

But yes, I firmly believe in these things, and I would not post them if I thought otherwise. Mainly, when debating with a few friends, I use sites like oms.com and anarchist sites as reference, for little facts, not whole pages and essays.

(Wolff, thankyou for pointing that out in a civil way, and not in the likes of "Uh you're an idiot! You're and idiot and it's all bullshit" that is so prevalent in society..)

I welcome any opposing views. Maybe I can teach you something, maybe you will teach me.

 

[luke]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you think a lot people are happy to believe whatever they are currently being force fed by the mass media; that they actually don't want to "think outside the lines?"
You say that we are all the grip of a political "mindfuck," but doesn't it appear to you that most people are happy being there?

 

[Sullen Jester]

Originally posted by luke
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you think a lot people are happy to believe whatever they are currently being force fed by the mass media; that they actually don't want to "think outside the lines?"
You say that we are all the grip of a political "mindfuck," but doesn't it appear to you that most people are happy being there?

I'm probably evading the real question here (I'm not a great negotiator, am I? ) but "Life without liberties isn't life at all, it's a service".

When you're believing what someone else wants you to believe, and you're thinking what they want you to think, you may as well be not alive.

Technically, you're not.

You're 'living' a well-written script composed by someone you haven't met, someone you wouldn't want to meet.

But you're right, some people WILL be happier in this system, and not knowing what "they" (I love laughing when people use that.. not actually telling you who "they" are.. my turn now) are hiding from you.

This is probably a stupid thing for me to do, now, but anyway:

Think to The Matrix (If you've seen it, if not, skip this) think to when Cypher wants to go back into the Matrix, and remember nothing at all, because he claims its not really living, fighting the "evil robots" under Morpheus.

He'd rather live a virtual life, in a world that doesn't really exist (Well, in that time-frame) than fight for freedom, and start over again. He'd rather go back to the lies that protected him from the "evil robots".

I guess that's something that can be drawn from real life.. Not everyone will believe you (Me, most likely) when you run up and start shouting a-million-miles-a-minute about what the government has been up to. Some will be skeptical. They may never want to know, and they'd rather exist peacefully inside the system. No amount of convincing can change their mind, because their content.

Or they just think you're off your rocker

As a straight-forward answer to your question ("doesn't it appear to you that most people are happy being there?"), yes, it does appear to me that most of the people are happy here.

I'd say that these people are "misinformed", not "completely educated" in the state of human politics today (I don't think anyone is completely educated in this area), and that they don't really have much to believe apart from "Life on earth is good".

That's not really a straight-forward answer, is it?

 

[Wolff]

To answer the original question, I'm against the death penalty due to the following considerations:

-It's not about justice, it's about retribution.
-Innocent people have been put to death.
-It is morally appalling (institutionalized killing to show that killing is wrong)
-It is financially burdensome.
-It does NOT act as a deterrent to other people.
-Finally I believe people can change; death penalty negates any chance for reformation. Funny how we believe in education, and in death penalty at the same time.

 

[Wolff]

Originally posted by Sullen Jester

You're 'living' a well-written script composed by someone you haven't met, someone you wouldn't want to meet.

How so?

 

[HoserHellspawn]

I know, that's why I am an anarchist - no system with someone in office (with the rest standing outside) is fair, because that one person (or party) is elevated in "importance", thier wants and "needs" are considered above everyone elses.

Sullen Jester - on anarchy, I ask you this:

Is it possible?

You obviously have a long series of criticisms of government in general (I admit, I only skimmed this thread), but can the evolved human race live without government? Government is the inevitable creation of society. Society is the creation of an evolved species. For us to return to a state of anarchy, although certainly beneficial to the state of health of our little blue-green planet, is so far beyond us I'll come out and say it's impossible.

Do you honesty think that humans can simply decide to break off, go back to farming individual plots of land, and throwing out all technology and modern structure? Are you prepared to throw away the computer in front of you (a direct result of a governed society, and the mass corporations therein) and go live in a shack in the woods somewhere and hunt food? Even if you make this decision, what about the other 6 billion people on earth?

I pride myself on shunning ignorance and always choosing to possess whatever knowledge I can, whether I like it or not. (And, for reference, my favourite novel ever is George Orwell's 1984.) However, can it be that this government you so despise, even in all of it's ethically nauseating actions, is really the greatly preferable, if not to go so far as say "only", choice? Believe me, I find any hint of totalitarianism disgusting and I'm the first to shout out references to the 'thought police' or 'telescreens' when art is censored, or people want to put cameras in the streets. But where's the line?

Governments are comprised of people and those people had to be born, just like you and I. These people aren't put here by aliens - they're the members of our society who

A) Choose to wish to hold office, for whatever reason, and
B) Are chosen, by us, to hold office

Even with the argument "it's no choice - it's this politician pig or that politician pig" these people had to come to a place of political prominence on the choices of large groups of people. I'm sure many political positions are appointed, but still...

So, then, I believe that a governed society is the only remaining choice for humanity for as long as we remain in our present form.

The only thing left to decide, is what form of government we choose to organize our society. Seeing as anarchy is, by my reasoning, impossible, your best option would be to promote a form of government capable of maintaining our society, but without all of the distasteful, propagandist, mind-controling aspects thereof (I will not even argue the degree to which they exist, for my case here I concede this point).

So... does such form of government exist?

 

[Sullen Jester]

Originally posted by Wolff


How so?

Eek.. moreso belonging to a "Christianity" thread..


Here we go...

Censorhip and propaganda

First and foremost, a common belief, also one that I hold:

What we learn in history class is useless. It is just a spin of the facts told by the victors of the past.

Alright, going through ALL of recorded history and discerning what is 'right' and 'wrong' is a bullshit task. It would require a lot of valid first and second hand accounts, and up until the last hundred or so years, it is impossible. A lot of texts are faked to make one side look like the 'passive victims' (a la the American state on September 11th.. no I do not think the people in the towers deserved to die..). This is one reason why I'm always looking through history books and the such...

A lot of it is bullshit to the current topic, but some of it makes the ruling classes today look valid. If we discount this, some will begin to think "How the fuck did these people get in charge? I never signed my life over.. Why do they have claim over it?". This is a very hard task.

A lot of 'valid' things, and things that dont peacefully co-exist with doctored histories, are censored. That makes this task impossible (Yes, I know I'm a dickhead, and I'm probably running in circles, but, gimme a chance!) and this is a "battle they've already won".

A lot of anti-fascist protests, humanitarian/animal-liberalist demonstrations never make it to the daily news. Censorship. The less people that know about it, the less people that can oppose it.

And when you're not opposing thier actions, you're doing what the governing party wants you to do. You're living in their world that they want to create for you, a "crime-free" one with tax.

All the opposition is screened out of awareness, through means of mass-media and education systems, and this is something that cannot be fought in the open. You cannot beat the propaganda that marches into your daily lives directly. The cries against it are covered up, erased, and disappear.

Laws

Don't get me wrong, I am not against every law . Some laws are vital, especially those against:

• Murder
• Robbery/theft
• Rape

etcetera..

Laws against marijuana, coke and the like, prevent you from overdosing (legally acquired) and going nuts; disrupting their order they have created. People will eventually think "I wonder what its like high" (Look back to Misanthrope's "Theres no such thing as bad publicity" post in the "Sullen Jester" thread) and will try it out.

Yes, I know it happens a lot now, but it will increase with the drugs legalized. Companies will commercially test these drugs (They do all the time, just without face) and improve them, making a 'better product' for all (longer "high" time, whatever) and charge more. And it would all be legal.

BUT, it's illegal, it "cannot happen", and all the drug-users are viewed by more "sensible" people as stupid, foolish etc. and the sensible people are kept in line. Drug-users are viewed as criminals, and are, in some cases, treated that way, especially when it comes to conviction.

By outlawing things people use as leisure (And can effect us mentally, making us do strange and wonderful things) it keeps us a little inline (and also provides another scapegoat).

A HELL of a lot of the "sensible" people are either:

• People who actually would never try drugs in their life.
• People who are undecided about drug use, and may/may not use them.
• People who would use them, just don't know how to aquire them, and are too afraid to be caught with them to use them.

Without drug-laws, more people would be using drugs, more openly, without fear of being caught and convicted.

With more people on drugs, some of the "order" created would be in decline would not be economically sound.

The 'order' is these series of laws (including the bullshit ones) guiding 'law-abiding citizens' inline, giving them a good public image (good for the tourist trade - more tax money) less over-all crime against authorities.

Also, without money generated from fines, bribes etc. another source of income is hindered.

I know this is a SMALL look into each subject, but it's an example of the control the governing power can exert over us, to lead us to the tune they are singing.

The more in line, the less quarrels, the easier it becomes.

Without oppostion, they are unhindered, and they rule us effortlessly.


(I think that's right!?!?)

 

[Sullen Jester]

Originally posted by HoserHellspawn


Sullen Jester - on anarchy, I ask you this:

Is it possible?

You obviously have a long series of criticisms of government in general (I admit, I only skimmed this thread), but can the evolved human race live without government? Government is the inevitable creation of society. Society is the creation of an evolved species. For us to return to a state of anarchy, although certainly beneficial to the state of health of our little blue-green planet, is so far beyond us I'll come out and say it's impossible.

Do you honesty think that humans can simply decide to break off, go back to farming individual plots of land, and throwing out all technology and modern structure? Are you prepared to throw away the computer in front of you (a direct result of a governed society, and the mass corporations therein) and go live in a shack in the woods somewhere and hunt food? Even if you make this decision, what about the other 6 billion people on earth?

I pride myself on shunning ignorance and always choosing to possess whatever knowledge I can, whether I like it or not. (And, for reference, my favourite novel ever is George Orwell's 1984.) However, can it be that this government you so despise, even in all of it's ethically nauseating actions, is really the greatly preferable, if not to go so far as say "only", choice? Believe me, I find any hint of totalitarianism disgusting and I'm the first to shout out references to the 'thought police' or 'telescreens' when art is censored, or people want to put cameras in the streets. But where's the line?

Governments are comprised of people and those people had to be born, just like you and I. These people aren't put here by aliens - they're the members of our society who

A) Choose to wish to hold office, for whatever reason, and
B) Are chosen, by us, to hold office

Even with the argument "it's no choice - it's this politician pig or that politician pig" these people had to come to a place of political prominence on the choices of large groups of people. I'm sure many political positions are appointed, but still...

So, then, I believe that a governed society is the only remaining choice for humanity for as long as we remain in our present form.

The only thing left to decide, is what form of government we choose to organize our society. Seeing as anarchy is, by my reasoning, impossible, your best option would be to promote a form of government capable of maintaining our society, but without all of the distasteful, propagandist, mind-controling aspects thereof (I will not even argue the degree to which they exist, for my case here I concede this point).

So... does such form of government exist?

As a short answer (A longer one is promised, later), in our current state, I do not think it would be possible.

First and foremost, to end a common misunderstanding:

The meaning of the word Anarchy.

If you look in most dictionary's, you'll get something like this:

an·ar·chy (nr-k)
n. pl. an·ar·chies

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

That's what you'll most likely learn in school (I did, for one.)

When you take the word Anarchy itself, and know its actual meaning, it's different.

New Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhi, from anarkhos, without a ruler : an-, without; see a-1 + arkhos, ruler; see -arch[/b]

We have grown too dependant on someone governing our actiosn (albeit to their own ends), but some people are satisfied with it, and knowing that too. Some people will not be able to think for themselves, and it's thought that society is too far gone to support itself without massive education campaigns, teaching us to move forward in the hopes of advancing MANKIND, not MAN.

As I said, a longer answer later..


(For that meaning, go to http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=anarchy . It tells you the dictionary meaning, and right underneath it, the actual meaning. That was silly!)

 

[HoserHellspawn]

Oh yeah, and on the death penalty (heh, that whole "topic of the thread" thing...):

All studies show it fails as a deterrent and the costs are higher to execute someone. Although a significant emotional/moral part of me is actually in favour of it, intellectually/logically I know it is the poorer choice. The real problem (I've especially noted here in Canada) is that the term "life imprisonment" is a joke, and the Young Offender's Act (although essential on many terms) goes too far to protect the convicted, not the victims.

It's an endless debate, though, and not one I really feel stongly enough about (anymore) to ramble on too long.

Just remember: Justice is revenge that has been subjectively interpreted as morally acceptable.