[Zhukov]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Except that, like you mentioned, they have a culture of men owning women and being able to do whatever to them and get away with it. In case it's not clear what that's an exception to, it's an exception to: 1) they don't use rational thought (rationally, in their minds, they can do whatever they want to women.) 2) that it won't be a deterrent; in reality, now people will realize that women are protected by the law.

Well, we're getting into Iran specific territory now, which is ok I suppose. I think that people would only see it as a government initiative to protect women's rights if it was a particular law against hurting women - which it isn't. It's a law based around revenge, and those laws usually turn against the benefit of the woman in most circumstances anyway (or at least the circumstances that are piped into my western TV box). Still, if it were the case, and it was showing Iranian chauvinists that women are now protected by the law, then a prison sentence could do that too.

By the same argument you could say that, when you lock people up in prison, society learns how to deal with its problems by kidnapping, taking away rights and freedoms, and ignoring problems.
Besides, locking somebody up in prison for life is as much/more heinous than just executing them humanely.

That could be true, but prison time and killing are two vastly different things in the eyes of most people. Children know that prison is where you go if you are bad, and killing is wrong. Plus, it's like it's the best we can do - I'm not saying that prison time is the solution to humanity's problems, and I will say that I can't think up anything better.

And again, it doesn't keep the violence from circulating in society: 1) they can get out of prison.
2) violence still circulates in the prisons; people who are in those prisons for non-murder related convictions will get out, after having been exposed to that violent atmosphere (which, according to your argument will have some kind of an effect on that person); those peopel will then get out and circulate further violence in society (because they were not in their for murder). Plus prison employees will be exposed to it, which again, by your argument, will have some kind of affect on them, and they will be circulating around in society.

also the atmosphere of violence within a prison has to be far worse than in actual society. So decent people could easily be totally corrupted by it.

Yeah, I concede that killing someone certainly stops THAT person from ever doing anything bad (or good) ever again, and while time in prison is most definitely a bad influence on otherwise petty criminals who are reasonably well adjusted, I think that's more of an argument against current prison systems, and placing high risk prisoners amongst low risk, rather than an argument about cruel and unusual punishment - or the lack of it.

You know I will just ask you: What is the point of keeping somebody alive who you don't want to/cant have anything to do with society? that's like saying you shouldn't pull the plug on terry shiavo because it creates a society thats solves problems with violence

It's usually a good indication of how well a society is progressing by looking at how they treat the lowest echelons of said society. Whether they be the disabled, unemployed, the elderly or prisoners or others. That's a point to think about by not my argument. I also don't want to go down the "if we kill them then we become them" road too much, although it's certainly another fair call, to an extent, I think.

Both points lead into what I had said before that you do what is best for society - and I am thinking here in the long run, and you can call that wrong if you like - but the elimination of high level criminals creates a culture of violence (which isn't comparable to prison time, or euthanasia) which becomes so much the norm in society that people might not even think about it. Obviously executing prisoners isn't the sole perp here, nor the biggest. I just think it's one of the reasons.

I don't think locking people up is hiding a problem, quite the opposite. In an ideal prison (which doesn't exist, but there are certainly model prisons out there that aim for such ideals) it wouldn't be about locking people up to keep them away - it would be about locking them up to reform them. Call me a dreamer, whatever.

It's not about living up to their values. It's about living up to your own values: treating other people with respect and decency. In this case, it just happens to mean blinding someone with acid.

Well that sounds about right anyway. My arguments lead to a lot of ifs and buts. If the prison was better.... if people were more forgiving... This man could get acid into his eyes and it would have little negative effect on Iranian people, and it would be fair as well - eye for an eye. I am still against it though because I think him NOT getting this punishment, or anyone in the future getting this punishment, would have a slight positive effect.

oh yea and why should people pay to keep other worthless fuckers alive who will never contribute anything to society... oh wait never mind you're a communist. ;/
But if you're a communist and doing things for the common good maybe you should just execute the fuck out of them to save money and such.

The obvious and cliche answer is you keep them in prison to build your railways and to dig quarries, or if in the USA to be 50% of your manufacturing base. The correct answer is that in a communist world there wouldn't be any money to waste on them, and they would most likely not have any harsh punishments.

While people being in prison in the US is big business, and them making flak jackets and electric kettles for 25c an hour is the reason they are currently not just being executed, my statements about treating people decently for the betterment of mankind blah blah blah is the reason they SHOULDN'T just execute the motherfuckers.

I understand if you don't want to read or reply to all that. Sorry.