As LJ so nicely pointed out, Jail is where the accused are held, so the prisons (which I am talking about specifically) is holding the convicted only
Than Guantanamo is also a jail.
What is a person in jail called?
I dont know, ask El Jefe
Than Guantanamo is also a jail.
granted, but even still, i dont think the conditions there are too harsh, or undue.
F_alk, we still have yet to hear of your exact objections to Camp X-Ray. Please list exactly what is so inhumane.
AFAIR the camp X-Raz has been dissolved into some other camps, now listed by letters. THe things that i accused have been mentioned by TG Moses, thus i will not go into that further.
And i have one more problem:
D:S, could you please find me information about the “jail”-camp in Afghanistan and the one on Diego Garcia? You won’t find much information on that, which means i can claim whatever i want and you won"t be able to prove me wrong. Of course, you could do the same thing, saying that it is all good there. … Well, the german people were not told what happened in the KZs either.
If you commit a murder, you should be shot. If you commit a rape, you should be shot, if you commit various other crimes (genocide, torture, etc) you should be shot. below that, you should be put into a jail of conditions so harsh, that when you come out, you would be mortally afraid of committing another crime. with conditions so harsh, the terms would likely not have to be as long, so they could probably be shortened.
If you commit a murder, you should be shot. If you commit a rape, you should be shot, if you commit various other crimes (genocide, torture, etc) you should be shot. below that, you should be put into a jail of conditions so harsh, that when you come out, you would be mortally afraid of committing another crime. with conditions so harsh, the terms would likely not have to be as long, so they could probably be shortened.
yes, but how many of us will admit to committing a murder, or will be determined to have done so beyond a shadow of a doubt? Beyond reasonable doubt is just not good enough - yet this is what kills hundreds of Americans.
well thats is your opinion. and im not voltaire, i usually wont defend your right to say it, but i can actually see the opposite side in this case, though i staunchly disagree with it. nevertheless, as youve already heard me say, im not directly opposed to some innocents losing their lives from being convicted, if it means getting rid of the guilty.
well thats is your opinion. and im not voltaire, i usually wont defend your right to say it, but i can actually see the opposite side in this case, though i staunchly disagree with it. nevertheless, as youve already heard me say, im not directly opposed to some innocents losing their lives from being convicted, if it means getting rid of the guilty.
You like omelets, don’t you? :wink:
yes, but how many of us will admit to committing a murder, or will be determined to have done so beyond a shadow of a doubt? Beyond reasonable doubt is just not good enough - yet this is what kills hundreds of Americans.
So then what do you propose? The only reason I would go along with what Janus says is because it’s the only way I can see to decrease prison populations. I do want to know what the definition of harsh conditions is.
…nevertheless, as youve already heard me say, im not directly opposed to some innocents losing their lives from being convicted, if it means getting rid of the guilty.
Wait a second….
these innocent that are killed then of course are not “unnecessary lives” that are lost…
I see where you are standing, Janus: In Germany we call that Fascist (as has been noticed by others in these fora).
:wink: not quite guest, but along those lines. Of course, understand that i do not advocate knowingly executing the innocent. not at all. I simply think its acceptable for an innocent to have been wrongly convicted, and summarily executed. no system is perfect, and it is bound to happen. and if people see you are willing to do so, without issuing ample apologies, and settlements to the “victims” family, they may think twice about commiting a crime.
:wink: not quite guest, but along those lines. Of course, understand that i do not advocate knowingly executing the innocent. not at all. I simply think its acceptable for an innocent to have been wrongly convicted, and summarily executed. no system is perfect, and it is bound to happen. and if people see you are willing to do so, without issuing ample apologies, and settlements to the “victims” family, they may think twice about commiting a crime.
Do you advocate any change in the judicial system then? Because I agree with the death penalty, but only in capital cases where it can be proven to the jury that the crime was committed. An innocent person or two, well, where do you draw the line? Eventually, we may just start randomly picking out people and having them shot.
well, mike might not object to that, i have slightly more compassion. I strongly disagree with the current legal system, you can read my views in another thread in this forum, i may post them again later if you ask, im too tired right now.
The guest above was me. Sorry for that, it said i was logged on…
Anyway, i don"t think you had any troubles in identifying what was written by me… happended with two other posts as well.
BTW, Janus, would you mind to get shot? Or even better, would you mind to have your loev shot, or your later kids… would you sacrifice them?
Especially for the kids: you might say yes today, but i bet you won’t once you have any.
same way id have taken the argument falk, but it doesnt faze me.
- i would never commit a murder, rape, etc.
- if my children/loved one did i might shoot them myself
Well, you take into account that innocents will die, so of course commiting a crime only raises your chances to get killed by the gov’t. Following you, you yourself should be welcoming to die by gov’t hands even as a total innocent, as long as at least two guilties are caught and killed for that.
- …however, as i have stated before … i can know … that an idea is a good one, yet disagree with it when it is my a**. … under my plan, id get a term in a harsh prison. i wouldnt like that at all, yet i would still believe the system is good. do you understand what i mean? rereading it, it seems a little unclear.
Actually, according to your plan you don’t necessarily get a term in a harsh prison . You might as well be accused of murder, found guilty and killed. End of story, even if you are as innocent as possible.
Well, you take into account that innocents will die, so of course commiting a crime only raises your chances to get killed by the gov’t. Following you, you yourself should be welcoming to die by gov’t hands even as a total innocent, as long as at least two guilties are caught and killed for that.
your logic is not logical
Actually, according to your plan you don’t necessarily get a term in a harsh prison . You might as well be accused of murder, found guilty and killed. End of story, even if you are as innocent as possible.
no falk, you are wrong.
just because you dont agree with a system, you should not make up false circumstances to discredit it. argue the truth
Janus, you yourself said on top of this page:
@Janus1:
…nevertheless, as youve already heard me say, im not directly opposed to some innocents losing their lives from being convicted, if it means getting rid of the guilty.
so, you take into account that innocents will die. You also said that you want the death penalty for some crimes also.
But how does that go with
that you would exaggerate to such an extent simply because you do not agree with my position.
i am not exaggerating, i am just going into which holes your system has, and ask wether you would like to be the one who suffers from that misdesign.
Again you:
there still needs to be evidence that someone committed a crime. changing the penaltys does not mean that suddenly someone can be accused of murder and summarily executed without proof. it simply means that if someone is convicted of murder, rape, etc, they shall be killed.
It seems to me that you have missed one vital point in my arguing.
You said you (at the moment) might deserve a prison term in your system. I said that what you deserve is irrelevant, as you take into account that innocents will be charged and penalized. Now the point you seemed to have missed: These innocents can include you. You can be killed, no matter wether you have done a crime or not.
Look at the very above quote from you.
So, before you claim i am not logical, read again and think.
Falk, you are not logical, you ignore what is written, and simply decide to write what you think it says.
i am not exaggerating, i am just going into which holes your system has,
saying that one would be charged with murder, after being arrested for what is now considered a misdemeanor, or having no guilt at all, is exaggerating falk. you are not going into the holes of the system, you are trying to make it seem bad by making up implausible what-ifs.
AS I SAID BEFORE, there must still be evidence of guilt. changing the penalty system changes nothing else about the legal system, therefor, the trials would still work the same way. those who are in fact innocent have been falsely accused due to evidence suggesting there guilt. not someone “randomly being picked” and shot by the govt falk.
and ask wether you would like to be the one who suffers from that misdesign.
did you completely ignore when i addressed this earlier? ive already answered this question of yours.
Now the point you seemed to have missed: These innocents can include you. You can be killed, no matter wether you have done a crime or not.
now the points you seem to have missed: i already acknowledged these facts that you are talking about, and have discussed them earlier. you said that i “want the death penalty” you are wrong. the death penalty is a pathetic excuse for a system for executing people. people sit on death row for years, many die in prison, of natural causes. when i say they should be shot, i mean taken out behind the courthouse after they are convicted and shot, a bullet put in their head.
i am not exaggerating, i am just going into which holes your system has,
saying that one would be charged with murder, after being arrested for what is now considered a misdemeanor, or having no guilt at all, is exaggerating falk. you are not going into the holes of the system, you are trying to make it seem bad by making up implausible what-ifs.
See, you don’t want to understand me. I never said that the one being accused of murder should have done anything, not even a misdemeanor is needed.
Then how can it happen that innocents can be wrongly sentenced and killed?
AS I SAID BEFORE, there must still be evidence of guilt. …
those who are in fact innocent have been falsely accused due to evidence suggesting there guilt. not someone “randomly being picked” and shot by the govt falk.
Do i say anything like that anywhere? No, still you could have the bad luck of being at the wrong sport the wrong time. I never even proposed that the gov’t would go out and pick people randomly (though effectively it comes down to the same).
when i say they should be shot, i mean taken out behind the courthouse after they are convicted and shot, a bullet put in their head.
Yes, i now really hope that one day you cross the road, get arrested because the colour of your hair and the jacket you wear fit to the description of a murderer. Then you will be presented some more evidence, as unfortunately the murderer seems the same accent as yours. As you unfortunately have spent that day at home playing computer games on your own, you have no alibi…
Bad luck man, can happen to the best, but it’s only for the better, you understand?
See, you don’t want to understand me. I never said that the one being accused of murder should have done anything, not even a misdemeanor is needed.
reread the quote you took from my post. i included not having done anything.
Then how can it happen that innocents can be wrongly sentenced and killed?
the same way it happens now, and similar to how you described later in this post.
the evidence fits, and the the defense does not hold up. it happens, no system is flawless. the person could be innocent, yes. but if the evidence is strong enough to get a conviction, than the fault is not in the system.
Do i say anything like that anywhere?
i think you did in an earlier post, though it may have been someone else.
in any case:
I never even proposed that the gov’t would go out and pick people randomly (though effectively it comes down to the same).
that is the same effect as saying it.
Yes, i now really hope that one day you cross the road, get arrested because the colour of your hair and the jacket you wear fit to the description of a murderer. Then you will be presented some more evidence, as unfortunately the murderer seems the same accent as yours. As you unfortunately have spent that day at home playing computer games on your own, you have no alibi…
unfortunately, all of that is circumstantial evidence. that shouldnt be enough to get a conviction (though with the trial system the way it is, it could. you already know my opinion on jury system)
Bad luck man, can happen to the best, but it’s only for the better, you understand?
again Falk, you seem to like beating a dead horse. if i were in the situation, i wouldnt be happy, quite the opposite in fact. but that is irregardless. I dont have to like the system when im in that situation, yet i can still support it and know its a good system (think in your opinion)
