Dangers of getting to much into RPG games

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

And i never got why it's ok for the goverment to kill someone when it's not in self defense.

Killing murderers is self defense of society.

They deserve no human treating,no leasure time,only the worst conditions and hardest and most hazardous jobs.

I agree that they should be required to work very hard instead of watching TV or playing all day on the recreation yards which is the current standard for most prisons.

Rehabilitation does not work because the person who is to be rehabilitated must want to rehabilitate. In order to want to rehabilitate the person has to come to see that he is not a good person first.

And killing him helps... and you just said that the recidivism went up regardless of the death penalty?

No one said theere shouldn't be punishment, but the death penalty.... more dead ppl.

No I said back when prisons were a place of punishment instead of a country club there were fewer people who got out of prison returning to prison for comminting more crimes.

The death penalty works. That person will never murder another innocent perosn again. Murderers are the ultimate human preditors and should pay the ultimate price instead of being allowed to live and potentially kill more innocent people...non violent convicts, prison guards, and the innocent public should they escape.

Not being dicks would be more then enough for creating an utopia. Or you could go with the this:
Only two laws are needed to change the entire universe: Never use initiatory force, and never cheat.

Only one law is needed, which is can be stated as "love your neighbor as yourself" or "do to others as you would have them do to you." If everyone followed this perfectly we would have no worry of crime.

If an innocent person is found guilty, and then killed, what are we supposed to do then (when it later comes to light he was indeed innocent).

As for the rich vs. poor,make the monetary punishments scale.

We will never have a 100% perfect legal system because people are not all seeing and all knowing.

I agree with fines being a percentage of your income rather than fixed. The rich can essentially thumb their nose at any regulation that only imposes a monitary punishment now.

GOW

[ThunderTitan]

Killing murderers is self defense of society.

But if i take a guy weapon from him after he tried to kill me or killed someone else, break his leags and arms, then procede to kill him while defenseless i get charged with murder. Nice double standard. I love it how discorporate entities can do things a person can't.

No I said back when prisons were a place of punishment instead of a country club there were fewer people who got out of prison returning to prison for comminting more crimes.

And that has to do what with the death penalty? I'm pretty sure dead people weren't released into society. Didn't I already said that there should be punishment, i just don't see the death penalty as a really beneficial thing.

The death penalty works. That person will never murder another innocent person again.

Neither will he if he spends the rest of his life in prison. The only difference is how much money you save.

Only one law is needed, which is can be stated as "love your neighbor as yourself" or "do to others as you would have them do to you." If everyone followed this perfectly we would have no worry of crime.

You never heard of masochists?! And not all ppl love themselves. I'm gonna stick with "Don't be a dick"...

I agree with fines being a percentage of your income rather than fixed. The rich can essentially thumb their nose at any regulation that only imposes a monitary punishment now.

GOW

How do you fine ppl that are supported by others and aren't minors anymore?! Then again it would be better then the current system.


And i'd like to state that i don't really have any fixed opinions on this, i'm just pointing out the flaws in yours.

[asandir]

As for the rich vs. poor,make the monetary punishments scale.Meaning if you earn 100$ a month,your speading ticket is 1$,but if you earn 100000$,your ticket would be 1000$.Furthermore,replacing live judges with machines would also do the trick.You cannot intimidate a machine,nor bribe it.A lie detector would be nice with current technology,and a bit advanced AI later.

that's not really ideal either, cause the poor guy is left with only $99 but the rich one is left with $99,000 .... is he really gonna care??

[ThunderTitan]

that's not really ideal either, cause the poor guy is left with only $99 but the rich one is left with $99,000 .... is he really gonna care??

Rich ppl are cheap as hell...

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

Killing murderers is self defense of society.

But if i take a guy weapon from him after he tried to kill me or killed someone else, break his leags and arms, then procede to kill him while defenseless i get charged with murder. Nice double standard. I love it how discorporate entities can do things a person can't.

If you kill a person who is trying to kill you you are justified in doing so. Now in the instance you give you say that you incapacitated the person before killing him. Then you would probably not be legally justified in killing him. As far as my personal belief goes, if someone tries to kill you you are justified in doing whatever you see fit to do to that individual.

[

The death penalty works. That person will never murder another innocent person again.

Neither will he if he spends the rest of his life in prison. The only difference is how much money you save.

Not so. People kill in prison too. Prison guards who are trying to make a living for their families and to protect society get killed every year in prisons. Non murderer convicts are also killed by convicted murderers every year too.

It is really quite easy to make a weapon out of virtually anything. You can also strangle someone with your bare hands.

That convicted murderer can alo potentially escape and if he does the odds are great that he will kill the first person that he thinks he can get transportation from.

GOW

[DaemianLucifer]

If you kill a person who is trying to kill you you are justified in doing so. Now in the instance you give you say that you incapacitated the person before killing him. Then you would probably not be legally justified in killing him.

But isnt that what goverment can do now?

As for the prison sistem,there should be a big difference between criminals and their sentences.For example,if someone grew up in a gang heavy neighborhood,joined a gang,and killed a person in the opposite gang when he was 15,there is a chance for rehabilitating him.So this person should be severed from contact with other convicts,and while serving his time come in contact only with friendly social workers that would teach him good moral values and educate him.Those that would show progress in this stage should be allowed contact with others that showed progress as well,and those that show progress in this second stage should be allowed out,but not back in the same neighborhood.However,if someone was a rapist,or tortured someone to death out of pleasure,there is no chance for rehabilitation and this person should be treated as a slave,doing some hard work until he dies out of exhaustion,and being mercilessly shot if he just tries to escape.

[Caradoc]

I can't bring myself to say all murderers should be put to death. I want to see some percentage as people who are mentally defective, who found themselves in a desperate situation, or whose emotions got out of control. I'm not quite ready to give up on all of them.

Beyond that, I can't overlook the virtual certainty that not all people convicted of murder have actually committed the crime. There is no way of compensating the dead for a miscarriage of justice. Barry Scheck's Innocence Project has revealed that a disturbing number of innocents have been mistakenly put to death, and are still on death row despite incontrovertable proof of their innocence.

GOW is correct that dead murderers do not murder again. But neither do those who are properly incarcerated. Society is safe, whether the prisoners watch TV or not. The desire to see them truly suffer for their crimes is a base human instinct -- the same instinct that drives some people to revenge killings. I think we need to rise above that. Or else put the executions on TV so everyone can enjoy them.

[DaemianLucifer]

GOW is correct that dead murderers do not murder again. But neither do those who are properly incarcerated. Society is safe, whether the prisoners watch TV or not.

And how much does each of those cozy cells cost?How many homeless and starving people are there?Do we really want a society where being a criminal pays of?

[Caradoc]

GOW is correct that dead murderers do not murder again. But neither do those who are properly incarcerated. Society is safe, whether the prisoners watch TV or not.

And how much does each of those cozy cells cost?How many homeless and starving people are there?Do we really want a society where being a criminal pays of?

If it was better to be in jail than homeless, the homeless would be committing crimes and turning themselves in, wouldn't they?

It turns out that executing people is less expensive than incarcerating them. If it's a question of money, we might consider legalizing drugs, which would free up about half of what we are spending.

And can you put a cost on executing innocent people?

[DaemianLucifer]

If it was better to be in jail than homeless, the homeless would be committing crimes and turning themselves in, wouldn't they?

Some actually do that,fyi.

It turns out that executing people is less expensive than incarcerating them. If it's a question of money, we might consider legalizing drugs, which would free up about half of what we are spending.

Legalizing drugs would not only free up about half of the spending,but would forward much of the money big narco bosses have to the state treasury,thus benefiting the state a lot.I have always been for this,and always will.Plus,the amount of corruption would decrease significantly.

And can you put a cost on executing innocent people?

Yes I can.If we are to have a trully free market,giving price to human life is advisable.And Im not joking here,in case you may think this.I actually am for setting prices for everything and having the state collect taxes from that.

[ThunderTitan]

Now in the instance you give you say that you incapacitated the person before killing him. Then you would probably not be legally justified in killing him.

My point exactly.

As far as my personal belief goes, if someone tries to kill you you are justified in doing whatever you see fit to do to that individual.

How does that make you any better then the other guy?! Would you really agree with me slowly torturing him to death? What kind of person would that make me?

Not so. People kill in prison too. Prison guards who are trying to make a living for their families and to protect society get killed every year in prisons. Non murderer convicts are also killed by convicted murderers every year too.

It is really quite easy to make a weapon out of virtually anything. You can also strangle someone with your bare hands.

That convicted murderer can alo potentially escape and if he does the odds are great that he will kill the first person that he thinks he can get transportation from.

GOW

Like i said, a better prison system is needed. The death penalty is only the easiest way, and the one that doesn't really deal with the root of the problem. Murder is still around, even if in the past the death penalty wasn't even questioned.


@DL
Legalising drugs would actualy cripple a few economies... not to mention all those agencies that fight terrorism.

[Corelanis]

Yea legalize drugs thats brilliant we can cut some spending. While were at it why dont we legalize beating women and children maybe drunk driving too just to save time, money, and cut down on corruption.

[DaemianLucifer]

Yea legalize drugs thats brilliant we can cut some spending. While were at it why dont we legalize beating women and children maybe drunk driving too just to save time, money, and cut down on corruption.

Um,what would that achieve for the state?Besides,cigarettes are legal,and how many people are dying because of them?Alchohol is legal,and how many people die because of that?Drug consumption would only decrease if it were legalized,plus all the money would go towards state economy and not in the pockets of big narco bosses that cannot even be touched by the law.As for beating chealdren:(maybe a bit too crude,but the idea is correct).

[Corelanis]

Yea sarcasm doesnt work well in forums. I dont want drugs, alchohol, or cigarettes legal. I dont think we should beat children that was also sarcasm I have no problem smacking them when theyre being bad though. As for the narco bosses well we dont seem to have a problem taking over a country to take out someone we dont like I fail to see the problem here. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

[DaemianLucifer]

I dont want drugs, alchohol, or cigarettes legal.

And why not?Just because you dont like it,doesnt mean others dont as well.If I dont like fish,am I allowed to ask for it to be banned?Or coffee?Or chocholate?In fact MDs do recommend a glass of wine or beer as a good thing.Its overusing that is bad,not the product itself.

I dont think we should beat children that was also sarcasm I have no problem smacking them when theyre being bad though.

Beaten no,but ocasional slap is ok imo.I find the fact that many western countries are against this pretty funny.

As for the narco bosses well we dont seem to have a problem taking over a country to take out someone we dont like I fail to see the problem here.

The problem is money.You cannot fight someone that holds half your country on the payrole.

[Corelanis]

Its not just the fact that I dont like them its that they kill those around them cigarettes specifically or they can cause some on to lose the ability to think properly(with alchohol only in excess). I dont remember any sane person eating a fish sandwhich, a chocolate bar, and a cup of coffee thinking they can fly and jumping off a building. Yes that dont hit kids ever is funny and just goes to show how arrogant we are. As for fighting drug lords there are ways, killing them is one that I like.

[DaemianLucifer]

Its not just the fact that I dont like them its that they kill those around them cigarettes specifically or they can cause some on to lose the ability to think properly(with alchohol only in excess).

Exhaust from cars and factories kills a lot of people,but those are perfectly legal.And not to mention that guns are perfectly legal as well.And no one even dares raising a question about those.

I dont remember any sane person eating a fish sandwhich, a chocolate bar, and a cup of coffee thinking they can fly and jumping off a building.

Eating large quantities of chocolate equals getting drunk,so dont be suprised.Same goes for coffee,but in even lesser quantities than chocolate.

As for fighting drug lords there are ways, killing them is one that I like.

Ah,but you cant kill an innocent man,and they are all innocent until proven otherwise

[Corelanis]

Yes but cars and factories do something else the smoke is a side effect. Guns can be used to help people as well as alchohol, but drugs and cigarettes do not help anything ever. And in large enough quantities anything is bad. Innocent people are hurt and killed all the time especially by those that are supposed to protect them. I also never said do no research I didnt say napalm columbia. First you find out if they are doing anything wrong, then you gather proof, the you send them a court summons so they can defend themselves (you send many summons so they get the point) then you make your case. If they are proven guilty and didnt show at court you take a team and take them by force. You can consider it the same way the US does terrorists only they kill people slower and with fewer explosions.

[DaemianLucifer]

Yes but cars and factories do something else the smoke is a side effect. Guns can be used to help people as well as alchohol, but drugs and cigarettes do not help anything ever.

See,thats wrong.Painkillers are drugs,for example.And human body needs a certain(though very small)amount of nicotine to function.Smokers need more though.So drugs and cigarettes help people just as weapons.

I also never said do no research I didnt say napalm columbia. First you find out if they are doing anything wrong, then you gather proof, the you send them a court summons so they can defend themselves (you send many summons so they get the point) then you make your case. If they are proven guilty and didnt show at court you take a team and take them by force. You can consider it the same way the US does terrorists only they kill people slower and with fewer explosions.

Yes,and what makes you think youll find proof?If there really was any,and if there were no bribes,they would have been dealt long ago.

[Corelanis]

I apparantly I mustve made my point unclear I know that there are painkillers and I also know some of whats in them Im not talking about those Im talking about the ones sold ilegally. Are you saying you believe cigarettes are good for you? As for proof it doesnt take much really, ever hear of Iraq Im really sure you have. It doesnt take much or sometimes any proof at all to get a conviction in the US you just have to make it sound like they are guilty (not that thats a good thing). For finding it I have no clue im not a detective. And yes bribes would stop the whole thing with out fail. My personal opinions aside you are right.