Social Swamp's Social Thread 3 - And now, the end is near, and so I face the final curtain...

[Cutie Gwen]

2. Death is far too good of a punishment for homicidal scum, anyway. Murderers and the like are better off locked in complete isolation (read: solitary cell) for the rest of their lives..

That's still too good, as they get fed, a place to sleep and more, I've met scum who's changed my life forever. I'm a rational woman when it comes to life and death. I truly think any and all death is tragic for at least someone. But that ****ing scumbag deserves nothing more than to no longer have a life. I may seem pissed here, but I have all the right to be considering what happened.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

Murderers and the like are better off locked in complete isolation (read: solitary cell) for the rest of their lives.

They get treated better than the homeless.

I am VERY opposed to that.

Moreover, I believe that some murderers simply have lost the right to live.

True evil exists and when it does, a jail cell doesn't do much.

 

[ChikoLad]

2. Death is far too good of a punishment for homicidal scum, anyway. Murderers and the like are better off locked in complete isolation (read: solitary cell) for the rest of their lives.

For the kind of people who are literally psychopathic and blood thirsty, being locked in solitary confinement really isn't a punishment to them at all. To them, it just means they'll kill again when they eventually get out somehow.

Your idea that it is a suitable punishment merely reflects how you yourself would not be able to stand being in solitary confinement. Not everyone is like that though. Some people will wait as long as they need to.

Legal "punishment" should not be based on a literal fetish for wanting to see criminals suffer. It should be based on what is best for everyone. In my opinion, the death penalty is suitable for terrorists and madmen because if you let them live, you are giving them a chance to terrorise civilians another day. You're wasting resources on feeding and taking care of a ticking time bomb.

IMO murder should only warrant the death penalty in cases where the criminal is clearly unhinged and insane. If the murder was out of irrational bloodlust. Something like a murder with an actual motivation behind it, is a more case by case thing IMO. Not everyone who commits a murder is an insane, irredeemable psycho. Soldiers are proof of that.

 

[FalKoopa]

I disagree with death penalty for two reasons:
1. What if someone was incriminated and the state executes a not-guilty party?
2. Death is far too good of a punishment for homicidal scum, anyway. Murderers and the like are better off locked in complete isolation (read: solitary cell) for the rest of their lives.

How come any legal system never thought of this is beyond me. I disagree with any country not having life sentence as much as I disagree with death penalty.

Death Penalty is often less torturous than Life Imprisonment, despite Death Penalties often being "reduced" to Life in prison.

And disagree on the 2nd point. Just ending their lives is much better than keeping them locked up. Money spent on them (they still need food, water, clothes, and other things) can be better spent elsewhere.

Not to mention that if their sentence is reduced later on and they are let free, there is nothing in the outside world for them. Society won't accept them, police will still be watching them, they have nowhere to go. It's worse than death, imo.

Making them suffer for years like that doesn't really benefit anyone, imo. It's not even a good scare tactic.

Though I do feel death sentences should be reserved for the rarest of the rare cases.

 

[Aetheri]

Ok...so I decided to see what all the fuss was about for Infinite Warfare (who's dislikes are well over 2 million at this point...lol)

While I'm not the biggest CoD aficionado...I guess people were a bit turned off by the whole space fighting bit...well 'a bit turned off' may have been a bit of an understatement...

 

[Swamp Sensei]

Soldiers are proof of that.

Soldiers do not commit murder.

They kill, they don't murder.

 

[Bananija]

I'm against death penalty and for life sentence because I think killing them is too kind. I would rather see them alone and isolated in ****ty conditions until death than just killing them.

 

[Cutie Gwen]

Soldiers do not commit murder.

They kill, they don't murder.

Before anyone asks what the difference is, murder is with a malicious intent, a soldier only kills to protect their country and stuff

 

[Swamp Sensei]

The people going for life imprisonment are doing it because they want to see people suffer...

Holy ****. At least do it because you think killing is wrong regardless of the circumstance.

 

[Frostwraith]

You are missing my point. I'm not talking about normal jail cells.

Those are honestly weak and have little security. I'm talking about solitary cells with no means to escape and no contact with any other human beings or anything like that, unlike most prison cells.

I literally mean locking the worst criminals like they're animals to be caged. Cut them from the outside world in a completely isolated and fortified cell. No windows to show the sunlight, feed them barely... Treat them like caged animals who are not to see the light of the day ever again in their lives and leave them to rot. Does this sound like torture, sure, but suffering is what they deserve more than the peace of death.

I understand the point of the death penalty, but when there's the possibility of the state killing someone innocent, I can't bring myself to condone it, as much as some people truly deserve it.

 

[ChikoLad]

Ok...so I decided to see what all the fuss was about for Infinite Warfare (who's dislikes are well over 2 million at this point...lol)

While I'm not the biggest CoD aficionado...I guess people were a bit turned off by the whole space fighting bit...well 'a bit turned off' may have been a bit of an understatement...

They're turned off by the fact that they are releasing a remaster of the original Modern Warfare (one of the most beloved games in the franchise) as part of a limited edition for Infinite Warfare.

It would be like if Nintendo made Galaxy 3 and released a HD remake of the original Galaxy with a limited edition, rather than as a standalone.

Soldiers do not commit murder.

They kill, they don't murder.

A murder is the act of killing someone, with the intent to kill them.

You can defend that it isn't murder all you like, but soldiers are trained to accept this fact going in, and it's the very reason why a soldiers first kill can be a traumatising experience. They know they just murdered someone, and feel they are that much closer to being like a terrorist or something.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm not saying "they're no better than terrorists" myself or anything. But the idea that soldiers "don't murder people" is flawed because no matter what, intentionally killing someone is always going to go against SOME country's law.

You are missing my point. I'm not talking about normal jail cells.

Those are honestly weak and have little security. I'm talking about solitary cells with no means to escape and no contact with any other human beings or anything like that, unlike most prison cells.

I literally mean locking the worst criminals like they're animals to be caged. Cut them from the outside world in a completely isolated and fortified cell. No windows to show the sunlight, feed them barely... Treat them like caged animals who are not to see the light of the day ever again in their lives and leave them to rot. Does this sound like torture, sure, but suffering is what they deserve more than the peace of death.

I understand the point of the death penalty, but when there's the possibility of the state killing someone innocent, I can't bring myself to condone it, as much as some people truly deserve it.

I'm aware you meant solitary cells, that doesn't change anything about what I said.

And I don't think the risk of wrongfully giving someone the death penalty is enough of a reason to not have it. There's a risk of letting a criminal out too if you lock them up.

 

[Bananija]

The people going for life imprisonment are doing it because they want to see people suffer...

Holy ****. At least do it because you think killing is wrong regardless of the circumstance.

I suppose I am the people in question.

To be clear, I think killing is wrong regardless of the circumstance. However, I also think that ending someone life is sometimes not enough to punish the horrible crime they did. I don't want this for sadism or anything like that, it's more about giving back what they gave.

 

[Yomi's Biggest Fan]

Funny how all this talk of wars is happening, I'm already feeling like I've incorporated too many real-life war parallels in my fanfiction (even down to a POW style execution scene).

I guess it's too late to remove it since it adds more to the realism. Especially when one character originates of Company of Heroes 2 (Yes, one of them is a Communist general) of all things.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

I suppose I am the people in question.

To be clear, I think killing is wrong regardless of the circumstance. However, I also think that ending someone life is sometimes not enough to punish the horrible crime they did. I don't want this for sadism or anything like that, it's more about giving back what they gave.

It wasn't just you.

It's just that its the attitude of eye for an eye, which is a very dangerous mindset to have.

A murder is the act of killing someone, with the intent to kill them.

Wrong.

Every definition of murder I can find is the unlawful premeditated killing of someone.

It's not murder.

I literally mean locking the worst criminals like they're animals to be caged. Cut them from the outside world in a completely isolated and fortified cell. No windows to show the sunlight, feed them barely... Treat them like caged animals who are not to see the light of the day ever again in their lives and leave them to rot. Does this sound like torture, sure, but suffering is what they deserve more than the peace of death.

If we give that much suffering, are we really better than them?

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

So, if there is no chance of death penalty, and only life in prison...

What if there living conditions are worse than prison

Wouldn't that encourage them to commit acts of violence to improve their living conditions?

 

[A Distant Demon]

Nintenzone


The place where the finer details of the Judicial system, the death penalty, and the difference between murder and killing can all be discussed.

 

[FalKoopa]

You are missing my point. I'm not talking about normal jail cells.

Those are honestly weak and have little security. I'm talking about solitary cells with no means to escape and no contact with any other human beings or anything like that, unlike most prison cells.

I literally mean locking the worst criminals like they're animals to be caged. Cut them from the outside world in a completely isolated and fortified cell. No windows to show the sunlight, feed them barely... Treat them like caged animals who are not to see the light of the day ever again in their lives and leave them to rot. Does this sound like torture, sure, but suffering is what they deserve more than the peace of death.

I understand the point of the death penalty, but when there's the possibility of the state killing someone innocent, I can't bring myself to condone it, as much as some people truly deserve it.

I don't think "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" should be taken that far.

Yes, they were being like savage beasts, but if you torture them like that, what makes you any better than them?

 

[Cyn]

A murder is the act of killing someone, with the intent to kill them.

You can defend that it isn't murder all you like, but soldiers are trained to accept this fact going in, and it's the very reason why a soldiers first kill can be a traumatising experience. They know they just murdered someone, and feel they are that much closer to being like a terrorist or something.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm not saying "they're no better than terrorists" myself or anything. But the idea that soldiers "don't murder people" is flawed because no matter what, intentionally killing someone is always going to go against SOME country's law.



I'm aware you meant solitary cells, that doesn't change anything about what I said.

And I don't think the risk of wrongfully giving someone the death penalty is enough of a reason to not have it. There's a risk of letting a criminal out too if you lock them up.

Murder is a legal term. Murder is the unlawful act of killing someone. The key is if both countries have declared war. If that is the case, the killing of either party in the conflict is not considered murder.

Of course there are other considerations as well. If a soldier is surrendering and is killed, that would be considered murder.

 

[ChikoLad]

It wasn't just you.

It's just that its the attitude of eye for an eye, which is a very dangerous mindset to have.


Wrong.

Every definition of murder I can find is the unlawful premeditated killing of someone.

It's not murder.


If we give that much suffering, are we really better than them?

And as I said, no matter what the situation, you are still breaking some country's law when you kill someone.

The American government may be OK with an American soldier killing the soldier of a another country on the battlefield, or even a civilian who was "getting in the way". But what about the country that soldier belonged to?

Killing with intent is always an act of murder.

Murder is a legal term. Murder is the unlawful act of killing someone. The key is if both countries have declared war. If that is the case, the killing of either party in the conflict is not considered murder.

And declaration of war generally happens when either side commits wrong against the other, or they both want possession of the same thing but can't agree on shares.

Saying "oh it's not murder anymore because my country says it's OK" is just a way to sugar coat war for civilians.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

Look at this prison in Norway for example

All you have to do to get this living condition could just be to kill someone

 

[Frostwraith]

I suppose I am the people in question.

To be clear, I think killing is wrong regardless of the circumstance. However, I also think that ending someone life is sometimes not enough to punish the horrible crime they did. I don't want this for sadism or anything like that, it's more about giving back what they gave.

Pretty much this.

When someone is killed by someone else, it's their family and friends of who will suffer.

The dead don't feel. The dead don't speak.

Causing suffering should be punished with suffering, not death.

If we give that much suffering, are we really better than them?

I don't think "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" should be taken that far.

Yes, they were being like savage beasts, but if you torture them like that, what makes you any better than them?

You know you could say the same about the act of killing someone...

Should the state lower itself to kill another, just like how criminals also kill?

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is exactly what describes the death penalty on someone who killed someone else.

 

[FalKoopa]

Look at this prison in Norway for example

All you have to do to get this living condition could just be to kill someone

Note that the average living condition there is much better than this. Yeah....

 

[Bananija]

It wasn't just you.

It's just that its the attitude of eye for an eye, which is a very dangerous mindset to have.

Ah ok.

I'm not talking about eye to eye, more like a fitting sentence for the crime. Example, I think a mass murderer should be punish with life sentence.

So, if there is no chance of death penalty, and only life in prison...

What if there living conditions are worse than prison

Wouldn't that encourage them to commit acts of violence to improve their living conditions?

If it's the case the govnerment should adjust it if it's not the case, preferably by raising the living conditions.

If not, yes.

 

[Champ Gold]

What the hell did I just walk into?

 

[Cutie Gwen]

feed them barely..

I know I seem biased but if I found out the ****ing piece of filth that I had to endure 8 years ago was being kept alive with food, I'd want to kill them myself. ****ing fraud, thief, abuser and most likely murderer too. That filth doesn't deserve a single atom of their body to be on this planet, let alone be fed

 

[FalKoopa]

Pretty much this.

When someone is killed by someone else, it's their family and friends of who will suffer.

The dead don't feel. The dead don't speak.

Causing suffering should be punished with suffering, not death.




You know you could say the same about the act of killing someone...

Should the state lower itself to kill another, just like how criminals also kill?

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is exactly what describes the death penalty on someone who killed someone else.

Then why would you choose the crueler of the two? What does society stand to gain by locking them up in isolation for years? Nothing.

Ending their life saves time, money and effort.

 

[Wario Bros.]

What the hell did I just walk into?

Basically me on this.

 

[Bananija]

What the hell did I just walk into?

Ethical and philosiphical questions about the rights justice have to judge and sentence things like death penalty or life sentence.

Also if soldiers murder or don't.

 

[ChikoLad]

You know you could say the same about the act of killing someone...

Should the state lower itself to kill another, just like how criminals also kill?

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is exactly what describes the death penalty on someone who killed someone else.

No it doesn't.

When a madman kills recklessly, they are doing it because it's fun.

When said madman is caught and then given the death penalty and killed, it's done for the protection of peace. And (ideally) is done painlessly.

It's not the same thing.

However, keeping them alive because you wanna see them suffer, is literally the same line of thinking as the average mad man.

 

[Curious Villager]

Well, this is certainly a more unique conversation we're having than usual....

 

[Swamp Sensei]

But what about the country that soldier belonged to?

Then its a casualty of war.

This isn't a moral thing.

It's a legal thing.

Should the state lower itself to kill another, just like how criminals also kill?

Should the state lower themselves to torture?

Because what you suggested is a form of torture.

And torture is the worst thing you can do to another human being.

 

[Bananija]

I know I seem biased but if I found out the ****ing piece of filth that I had to endure 8 years ago was being kept alive with food, I'd want to kill them myself. ****ing fraud, thief, abuser and most likely murderer too. That filth doesn't deserve a single atom of their body to be on this planet, let alone be fed

When I first saw your post, I thought you were going to complain about how they are barely fed.

How wrong was I!

 

[AwesomeAussie27]

Funny how all this talk of wars is happening, I'm already feeling like I've incorporated too many real-life war parallels in my fanfiction (even down to a POW style execution scene).

I guess it's too late to remove it since it adds more to the realism. Especially when one character originates of Company of Heroes 2 (Yes, one of them is a Communist general) of all things.

It can't be helped. You also have characters from a fantastical representation of World War II (Valkyria Chronicles), one who is based on the creator of the atomic bomb (Dr. Wily), the embodiment of the Vietnam War in the form of a robot (Napalm Man), a crazy mad scientist based on an old US president (Dr. Eggman), a 16th century feudal shogun (Total War: Shogun 2), and let's not forget the very obvious war references in Super Mario 3D World.

Just do what you do and ignore the possibilities of garnering controversy. Only two people would be truly offended by things like this: hippies and SJW's. Not going to involve liberals since I'd rather not start a political war (those never end well).

 

[Frostwraith]

Then why would you choose the crueler of the two? What does society stand to gain by locking them up in isolation for years? Nothing.

Ending their life saves time, money and effort.

Society may not gain anything, but when I think that many people are affected by the murder of someone, I think giving criminals a taste of suffering is suitable.

But I suppose there's no right answer to this, now is there?

We could debate all night, yet find no solution...

 

[Cutie Gwen]

When I first saw your post, I thought you were going to complain about how they are barely fed.

How wrong was I!

That filth doesn't deserve a single slice of bread

 

[Cyn]

And declaration of war generally happens when either side commits wrong against the other, or they both want possession of the same thing but can't agree on shares.

Saying "oh it's not murder anymore because my country says it's OK" is just a way to sugar coat war for civilians.

That does not change the fact that it is a legal term that states: "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought".

If the lawmakers in your country have sanctioned you as a soldier (or anyone for that matter) as being able to kill another human being, according to the law it is not murder. Am I saying I agree that war is good and that killing other people is ok? Of course not, but technically speaking it is not murder.

 

[n8han11]

This is getting uncomfortable.

 

[Bananija]

That filth doesn't deserve a single slice of bread

I'm not disagreeing or agreeing since I know nothing about this person.

I'm just pointing out how much you surprised me.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

Society may not gain anything, but when I think that many people are affected by the murder of someone, I think giving criminals a taste of suffering is suitable.

It's not the place of a government to decide that certain people are worth torturing even if they're madmen.

At least killing is done out of perceived necessity and order.

Torturing is just done to get back at someone.

It's revenge.

And revenge is what destroys people.

 

[ChikoLad]

Then its a casualty of war.

This isn't a moral thing.

It's a legal thing.

No, the entire thing exists just to protect people's moral integrity and sanity.

When someone is killed in war, someone still goes after that killer, even if only indirectly.

The actual course of action is the same as if you "unlawfully" killed someone. The only difference is that your own country won't be the one doing it.

I'm not saying I inherently have some problem with soldiers, far from it. I'm just putting it like it is. That "technicality" does not change the literal process of what is happening while someone is being killed on the battlefield, and what happens afterward. The "technicality" only exists to protect people's mental state. Which is fine, I'm just not falling for it myself.