New Zealand Police - setting fine examples! - Page 3

xor · 27th August 2010, 14:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saladin

So in order to reduce crime, we just need to make the minority native population tremendously wealthy? Hone Harawira's going to love that one

Put it this way. Any labourers that are lucky to work in the UAE know not to commit crime. Because if they do they know they'll get chucked in some nasty as prison cell beaten about by a sadistic Palestinian prison guard before being deported back to whatever hell hole they came from.

Pro as country

fixed_truth · 27th August 2010, 14:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by xor

I believe in the death penalty. I don't think some should get the luxury of being alive. E.g. Graham Burton

Would it be ok for someone to kill you if they didn't think that you should get the luxury of being alive?

xor · 27th August 2010, 14:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Would it be ok for someone to kill you if they didn't think that you should get the luxury of being alive?

Yeah if I was a homicidal maniac with 0 chance of rehabilitation. What would be the point of keeping me alive?

fixed_truth · 27th August 2010, 15:00

I said "if they didn't think that you should get the luxury of being alive". Not if they shared your subjective standard for justified killing.

ChaosWulf · 27th August 2010, 15:00

So who gets to decide who is beyond rehab?

xor · 27th August 2010, 15:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

I said "if they didn't think that you should get the luxury of being alive". Not if they shared your subjective standard for justified killing.

Who are 'they'?

fixed_truth · 27th August 2010, 15:05

The person(s) who think that you shouldn't get the luxury of being alive.

xor · 27th August 2010, 15:06

Yeah sweet. Can you stop this rhetorical question bs and make your point already?

fixed_truth · 27th August 2010, 15:10

My point is that just because you think someone doesn't deserve to be alive is not a justification to kill them.

Lightspeed · 27th August 2010, 15:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaosWulf

So who gets to decide who is beyond rehab?

xor, clearly.

Also, being a psychopath is anything but luxury.

xor · 27th August 2010, 15:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

My point is that just because you think someone doesn't deserve to be alive is not a justification to kill them.

The courts decide whether someone can be in society or not. So why not death?

I just don't see the big deal in executing someone like Graham Burton. I mean, what's the point in keeping him alive? There are some people that are just bad motherfuckers who will do nasty shit if given half the chance. So why give them that opportunity?

Lightspeed · 27th August 2010, 15:48

Well, for one it means the individual takes 100% responsibility for their actions, that their actions were in no way influenced by their environment or other factors outside of their control.

It's a very utilitarian way of looking at things. NZ isn't very utilitarian I don't think.

Endymion · 27th August 2010, 17:56

The problem with capital punishment is that most of the prison population are illiterate, addicted to drugs and affected by mental illness. Killing them offers no insight into preventing their crimes from being repeated over and over by others, but the current 'rehabilitation' programs seem to do little either.

Any human is more valuable alive than dead, but they are no good if they don't get the treatment they need.

mpx · 27th August 2010, 17:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by xor

The courts decide whether someone can be in society or not. So why not death?

Well that's not entirely true, it could be a Jury. I wouldn't want my literal life in the hands of 12 Joe Bloggs, especially if the police got the wrong person.

Cynos · 27th August 2010, 18:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by xor

The courts decide whether someone can be in society or not. So why not death?

Because courts are *gasp* human and make bad decisions, and capital punishment is irreversible.

So yeah. For every Graeme Burton you execute there's a chance of executing an Arthur Allan Thomas. If you're comfortable with that, you're severely lacking in empathy.

xor · 27th August 2010, 18:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynos

Because courts are *gasp* human and make bad decisions, and capital punishment is irreversible.

So yeah. For every Graeme Burton you execute there's a chance of executing an Arthur Allan Thomas. If you're comfortable with that, you're severely lacking in empathy.

Yes there are flaws, but that is a different discussion isn't it fuckhead?

To put it in a better perspective for you. If there was overwhelming evidence of someone committing murder then yes I would like to see an executioner sitting out back with a glock waiting to pop one in the back of his skull followed by a bill for the bullet sent to the convicts whanau.

Cynos · 27th August 2010, 18:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by xor

Yes there are flaws, but that is a different discussion isn't it fuckhead?

To put it in a better perspective for you. If there was overwhelming evidence of someone committing murder then yes I would like to see an executioner sitting out back with a glock waiting to pop one in the back of his skull followed by a bill for the bullet sent to the convicts whanau.

Define overwhelming. Doodoopants.

cyc · 27th August 2010, 18:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by xor

I just don't see the big deal in executing someone like Graham Burton. I mean, what's the point in keeping him alive? There are some people that are just bad motherfuckers who will do nasty shit if given half the chance. So why give them that opportunity?

You don't see it as a big deal but an overwhelming majority of states in this world that occupy the upper echelon of all objective rankings for social development, desirability-as-a-place-to-live-in, and are generally seen as good examples for all normal governments to aspire to disagree. See a problem? You are rather unlikely to be wiser than all of the collective wisdom.

How many murderers actually kill again? Don't get all emotional and start referencing only extreme cases like Graham Burton.

Edit: Just saw even more idiocy from Xor. Making a murderer's family pay for a murderer's execution? Fuck me, you're stupider than pig shit. At least try and stay consistent -- if someone deserves to be executed because there's some "overhwleming" evidence of guilt, why punish others who weren't actually involved in the act? Thanks for undermining the very foundation of the criminal justice system, you fucking twat.

xor · 27th August 2010, 18:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyc

You don't see it as a big deal but an overwhelming majority of states in this world that occupy the upper echelon of all objective rankings for social development, desirability-as-a-place-to-live-in, and are generally seen as good examples for all normal governments to aspire to disagree. See a problem?

No problems over here. I just don't see the point in keeping crazy motherfuckers with no chance of rehabilitation that commit heinous atrocities alive. Why would you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyc

You are rather unlikely to be wiser than all of the collective wisdom.

I wasn't trying to come across like I was wiser than anyone o_O

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyc

Edit: Just saw even more idiocy from Xor. Making a murderer's family pay for a murderer's execution? Fuck me, you're stupider than pig shit. At least try and stay consistent -- if someone deserves to be executed because there's some "overhwleming" evidence of guilt, why punish others who weren't actually involved in the act? Thanks for undermining the very foundation of the criminal justice system, you fucking twat.

No, I don't actually think that should happen. I also don't think they should be lined up directly after the verdict and shot without due process either. I put it there for shock and awe and got a response

fixed_truth · 27th August 2010, 18:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by xor

If there was overwhelming evidence of someone committing murder then yes I would like to see an executioner sitting out back with a glock waiting to pop one in the back of his skull followed by a bill for the bullet sent to the convicts whanau.

Ya might not wanna be so hasty their tough guy.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/inno...reed-death-row

xor · 27th August 2010, 19:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Ya might not wanna be so hasty their tough guy.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/inno...reed-death-row

Quote:

Originally Posted by xor

Yes there are flaws, but that is a different discussion isn't it fuckhead?

Lightspeed · 27th August 2010, 19:01

So you're saying that the death penalty is a reasonable punishment, but the reasons why it's not a reasonable punishment is a different conversation?

ilk · 27th August 2010, 20:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Endymion

Any human is more valuable alive than dead, but they are no good if they don't get the treatment they need.

But what if the organs of the executed felon are used to save multiple lives - wouldn't that make them more valuable dead than alive? /Niven

DrTiTus · 28th August 2010, 00:32

Death penalty should be a suspended sentence. So, you commit a crime worthy of punishment by death, and you go to jail as per usual for say 18 years or whatever it is, and if you come out and commit another crime punishable by death, you die.

That way, if you're mistakenly convicted, cool, you just serve jail time, and come out and prove how saintly you really are. Fantastic.

However if you're still an asshole after serving time, you die.

Still any holes?

fixed_truth · 28th August 2010, 10:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrTiTus

Still any holes?

Well yeah. I don't agree to surrender my humanity just because someone has lost theirs.

Lightspeed · 28th August 2010, 12:21

Ooh, that's a good one.

?>Superman · 28th August 2010, 12:24

This thread needs more Cinclant tbh

Ab · 28th August 2010, 13:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Well, for one it means the individual takes 100% responsibility for their actions, that their actions were in no way influenced by their environment or other factors outside of their control.

It's a very utilitarian way of looking at things.

That ain't no form of utilitarianism I ever heard of.

Lightspeed · 28th August 2010, 14:06

What I mean is the classical school of criminology, which is considered utilitarian. I.e. it assumes crime stems from rational thought and action, with no factoring for unconscious thoughts and drives.

I'm not an expert of criminology, but I think this is correct usage.

DrTiTus · 28th August 2010, 15:15

DRINK!

Lightspeed · 28th August 2010, 15:19

Grow up.

DrTiTus · 28th August 2010, 15:28

I don't agree to surrender my immaturity just because someone has lost theirs!

Lightspeed · 28th August 2010, 15:44

Hahahah.

?>Superman · 28th August 2010, 15:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrTiTus

I don't agree to surrender my immaturity just because someone has lost theirs!

^lol

Trigger · 28th August 2010, 16:12

cyc · 28th August 2010, 17:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ab

That ain't no form of utilitarianism I ever heard of.

Exactly.

Lightspeed · 28th August 2010, 17:45

*shrug* I must have misread.

Anyways, if we want to do something about crime, we need to start thinking about why so many people need help (particularly women), and why so many don't receive help when they seek it?

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/nation...ed-women-study

Pimp-X · 28th August 2010, 21:49

What an expert guy.

xor · 28th August 2010, 23:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

*shrug* I must have misread.

Anyways, if we want to do something about crime, we need to start thinking about why so many people need help (particularly women), and why so many don't receive help when they seek it?

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/nation...ed-women-study

Shoot them and all will be good. For the glory of Rome.

Drank.

DrTiTus · 29th August 2010, 01:51

*high grammar fives x0r*

It's all about practicality, and the glory of Rome.

Villa est villa romana.

Gotchorback!

28th August 2010, 00:32	#104
DrTiTus HENCE WHY FOREVER ALONE	Death penalty should be a suspended sentence. So, you commit a crime worthy of punishment by death, and you go to jail as per usual for say 18 years or whatever it is, and if you come out and commit another crime punishable by death, you die. That way, if you're mistakenly convicted, cool, you just serve jail time, and come out and prove how saintly you really are. Fantastic. However if you're still an asshole after serving time, you die. Still any holes? __________________ Finger rolling rhythm, ride the horse one hand...

28th August 2010, 15:15	#110
DrTiTus HENCE WHY FOREVER ALONE	DRINK! __________________ Finger rolling rhythm, ride the horse one hand...

28th August 2010, 15:28	#112
DrTiTus HENCE WHY FOREVER ALONE	I don't agree to surrender my immaturity just because someone has lost theirs! __________________ Finger rolling rhythm, ride the horse one hand...

28th August 2010, 16:12	#115
Trigger Laserman	__________________ Are you slow? The alleged lie that you might have heard, me saying, allagedly moments ago... That's a parasite that lives in my neck. Last edited by Trigger : 28th August 2010 at 16:14.

28th August 2010, 21:49	#118
Pimp-X Drunken Annoying Superhero Bastard	What an expert guy. __________________ If there is one movement I could get behind in this world, it would be the discrimination and abuse of fucking idiots.

27th August 2010, 15:00	#84
fixed_truth	I said "if they didn't think that you should get the luxury of being alive". Not if they shared your subjective standard for justified killing. __________________ Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.

27th August 2010, 15:00	#85
ChaosWulf Don't worry, be harpy	So who gets to decide who is beyond rehab?

27th August 2010, 15:05	#87
fixed_truth	The person(s) who think that you shouldn't get the luxury of being alive. __________________ Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.

27th August 2010, 15:06	#88
xor	Yeah sweet. Can you stop this rhetorical question bs and make your point already?

27th August 2010, 15:10	#89
fixed_truth	My point is that just because you think someone doesn't deserve to be alive is not a justification to kill them. __________________ Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.

27th August 2010, 15:48	#92
Lightspeed	Well, for one it means the individual takes 100% responsibility for their actions, that their actions were in no way influenced by their environment or other factors outside of their control. It's a very utilitarian way of looking at things. NZ isn't very utilitarian I don't think. __________________ Stay shook. No sook.

27th August 2010, 17:56	#93
Endymion	The problem with capital punishment is that most of the prison population are illiterate, addicted to drugs and affected by mental illness. Killing them offers no insight into preventing their crimes from being repeated over and over by others, but the current 'rehabilitation' programs seem to do little either. Any human is more valuable alive than dead, but they are no good if they don't get the treatment they need. __________________ "Universal truth is not measured in mass appeal." - Felipe Coronel

27th August 2010, 19:01	#102
Lightspeed	So you're saying that the death penalty is a reasonable punishment, but the reasons why it's not a reasonable punishment is a different conversation? __________________ Stay shook. No sook.

28th August 2010, 12:21	#106
Lightspeed	Ooh, that's a good one. __________________ Stay shook. No sook.

28th August 2010, 12:24	#107
?>Superman	This thread needs more Cinclant tbh

28th August 2010, 14:06	#109
Lightspeed	What I mean is the classical school of criminology, which is considered utilitarian. I.e. it assumes crime stems from rational thought and action, with no factoring for unconscious thoughts and drives. I'm not an expert of criminology, but I think this is correct usage. __________________ Stay shook. No sook.

28th August 2010, 15:19	#111
Lightspeed	Grow up. __________________ Stay shook. No sook.

28th August 2010, 15:44	#113
Lightspeed	Hahahah. __________________ Stay shook. No sook.

28th August 2010, 17:45	#117
Lightspeed	shrug I must have misread. Anyways, if we want to do something about crime, we need to start thinking about why so many people need help (particularly women), and why so many don't receive help when they seek it? http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/nation...ed-women-study __________________ Stay shook. No sook.

29th August 2010, 01:51	#120
DrTiTus HENCE WHY FOREVER ALONE	high grammar fives x0r It's all about practicality, and the glory of Rome. Villa est villa romana. Gotchorback! __________________ Finger rolling rhythm, ride the horse one hand...