Maybe if drug users and dealers were released it would free up some room for murderers and rapists. The war on drugs is the biggest waste of manpower and money I've ever seen.
As for those who choose to harm other human beings, I say work their asses off 12 hours a day until they die or serve their sentence.
If the state kills a killer, isn't the state then a killer too? More to the point, if the state kills an innocent person in error, then following your reasoning, surely by destroying the state we can then prevent them from killing another innocent victim?
Not at all.
There are to be exceptions to any rules, the state benefit from this exception, a cops WHILE working benefit from this exception unless XYZ. A rule without exceptions is unapplicable.
The State would have an efficiency rating...if the State has an efficiency of 50%, it is actually improving society a LOT, as you remove a dangerous threat to society half the time while they represent merely a fraction of society, in the long run you will eventually remove them all from society, from the genetic pool (assuming no new creations, which would also happen, however, by removing mistakes steadily, you do indeed improve the final product). However, I am pretty sure the State would have an efficiency of 95%+.
As I said, this isn't very human. This is logical. I don't expect anyone to support it. Peoples would cry for the few cases where the State made a mistake, forgetting all the good moves which indeed improve society.
I would think that Australia was pretty good evidence that your gene pool theory doesn't hold much water. Some people may have a disposition towards violent crime, but depending on circumstances, we're all capable of all kinds of horrors.
I still don't understand how a state who kill (murder/man-slaughter - however we define it) any innocent people at all can be considered any safer or better for society that any other killer. Even if we're talking 1 in 100 mistaken executions, that would be considerably more than most serial killers. By trying to remove a dangerous threat, you create another dangerous threat.
I guess as nobody else has pointed it out yet, I will mention that currently in the USA, it usually works out to be more expensive to execute than it is to give life imprisonment and statistics tend to show a rise in violent crime when there's a death penalty.
I agree with Modjoe, drug criminals shouldn't be taking up space in prisons ahead of violent criminals, and those who are in prison should be earning their keep, if not creating wealth in order to reduce taxes.
We should legalize all drugs. Increase the penalties for violent crime and illegal guns and gun crime drastically and pretty much everything else. Legalize prostitution.
Originally posted by EggFtegg I still don't understand how a state who kill (murder/man-slaughter - however we define it) any innocent people at all can be considered any safer or better for society that any other killer. Even if we're talking 1 in 100 mistaken executions, that would be considerably more than most serial killers. By trying to remove a dangerous threat, you create another dangerous threat.
thankfully none of my relatives have been affected by joe nutbag ending their existence with a sawn-off..maybe we'd think differently if they had..i know i wouldn't.
The problem is that some one like, the OP, as a victim or offender will be in big trouble. As an offender, he probably does not have resources or connections to evade prosecution. As a victim, he pretty much need a lawyer as a victim.
Three guys, an Englishman, a Frenchman and an American are out walking along the beach together one day. They come across a lantern and a genie pops out of it. "I will give you each one wish, " says the genie. The American says, "I am a farmer, my dad was a farmer, and my son will also farm. I want the land to be forever fertile in America." With a blink of the genie's eye, 'FOOM' - the land in America was forever made fertile for farming. The Frenchman was amazed, so he said, "I want a wall around France, so that no one can come into our precious country." Again, with a blink of the Genie's eye, 'POOF' - there was a huge wall around France. The Englishman asks, "I'm very curious. Please tell me more about this wall. The Genie explains, "Well, it's about 150 feet high, 50 feet thick and nothing can get in or out." The Englishman says, "Fill it up with water."
I do think something needs to be done, and I am not against killing a person that I think deserves it, IE murders and rapists, but I think we can think of a more effective way of dealing with these offenders, once they are dead they are no longer a problem, but they did cost money.
This may not even be that practical but, if we increase manditory minimum sentencing and convert prisons into labor camps that make goods cheaply, we could have a form of sweat shop, the only cost would be the facility, food, and personel, at least then we could take in some money from the criminals, so they wouldn't be a complete drain on us, and not to mention less shankings.
Oh and like the point made above, legalizing some drugs and prostitution would cut down on the load of prisoners.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
Comments
Maybe if drug users and dealers were released it would free up some room for murderers and rapists. The war on drugs is the biggest waste of manpower and money I've ever seen.
As for those who choose to harm other human beings, I say work their asses off 12 hours a day until they die or serve their sentence.
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
Not at all.There are to be exceptions to any rules, the state benefit from this exception, a cops WHILE working benefit from this exception unless XYZ. A rule without exceptions is unapplicable.
The State would have an efficiency rating...if the State has an efficiency of 50%, it is actually improving society a LOT, as you remove a dangerous threat to society half the time while they represent merely a fraction of society, in the long run you will eventually remove them all from society, from the genetic pool (assuming no new creations, which would also happen, however, by removing mistakes steadily, you do indeed improve the final product). However, I am pretty sure the State would have an efficiency of 95%+.
As I said, this isn't very human. This is logical. I don't expect anyone to support it. Peoples would cry for the few cases where the State made a mistake, forgetting all the good moves which indeed improve society.
I would think that Australia was pretty good evidence that your gene pool theory doesn't hold much water. Some people may have a disposition towards violent crime, but depending on circumstances, we're all capable of all kinds of horrors.
I still don't understand how a state who kill (murder/man-slaughter - however we define it) any innocent people at all can be considered any safer or better for society that any other killer. Even if we're talking 1 in 100 mistaken executions, that would be considerably more than most serial killers. By trying to remove a dangerous threat, you create another dangerous threat.
I guess as nobody else has pointed it out yet, I will mention that currently in the USA, it usually works out to be more expensive to execute than it is to give life imprisonment and statistics tend to show a rise in violent crime when there's a death penalty.
I agree with Modjoe, drug criminals shouldn't be taking up space in prisons ahead of violent criminals, and those who are in prison should be earning their keep, if not creating wealth in order to reduce taxes.
We should legalize all drugs. Increase the penalties for violent crime and illegal guns and gun crime drastically and pretty much everything else. Legalize prostitution.
I know it all sounds crazy.
----ITS A TRAP!!!----
Three guys, an Englishman, a Frenchman and an American are out walking along the beach together one day. They come across a lantern and a genie pops out of it. "I will give you each one wish, " says the genie. The American says, "I am a farmer, my dad was a farmer, and my son will also farm. I want the land to be forever fertile in America." With a blink of the genie's eye, 'FOOM' - the land in America was forever made fertile for farming. The Frenchman was amazed, so he said, "I want a wall around France, so that no one can come into our precious country." Again, with a blink of the Genie's eye, 'POOF' - there was a huge wall around France. The Englishman asks, "I'm very curious. Please tell me more about this wall. The Genie explains, "Well, it's about 150 feet high, 50 feet thick and nothing can get in or out." The Englishman says, "Fill it up with water."
I do think something needs to be done, and I am not against killing a person that I think deserves it, IE murders and rapists, but I think we can think of a more effective way of dealing with these offenders, once they are dead they are no longer a problem, but they did cost money.
This may not even be that practical but, if we increase manditory minimum sentencing and convert prisons into labor camps that make goods cheaply, we could have a form of sweat shop, the only cost would be the facility, food, and personel, at least then we could take in some money from the criminals, so they wouldn't be a complete drain on us, and not to mention less shankings.
Oh and like the point made above, legalizing some drugs and prostitution would cut down on the load of prisoners.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit