I'm thinking Bernie Madoff and the like, like.
Printable View
I'm thinking Bernie Madoff and the like, like.
No one knows who he is?
He's ruined many, perhaps thousands of lives, and damaged many more by thieving their entire retirement/investment nest-eggs.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...dzw&refer=home
Did he kill anyone?
Better let's do it Iran style, let's take everything he has and make him homeless.
What would be the point in killing him though? What's your motivation?
By that arguement we'd have to execute just about all politicians too.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I'm in.
me too
IMO, death penalty never, for no crime, but I'm a European and the values are a little different here, so...
Just read something interesting in the paper today, that the death penalty (in the US, obviously), is about 10 times more expensive than sending said person away for life imprisonment...
Reason being, that after the sentence is given, a person on death-row in California waits an approx. 20 YEARS until he is finally executed, which costs the tax payer roughly 50 million USD per person.
So, maybe it's just best to change the system entirely, so that people who have been found definitely guilty of first-class murder, should be given the sentence by a larger panel of judges, and not have the opportunity to question the sentencing, so said person is executed immediately, while people who are found guilty for the same thing (yet with questionable evidence), or for other things like rape, second-class murder, etc. should be simply sent to life imprisonment? Would save a headache and the ridiculous time people wait for their sentence to be undertaken...
Is this a serious question? I mean, I have yet to form an opinion one way or the other on the death penalty, but certainly it should never be used for white collar crimes...
Also, interesting point about the cost tralalala - I never would have guessed it would be more expensive to execute someone than to imprison them for life. I still don't understand why, but I'll take your word for it.
I feel the same, to be honest i think letting people die is a kop out, think it be way more of a punishment for people stay in jail for the rest of their life.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Martinator
It is funny these holy rollers are against abortion, but they don't care about killing people when they are in jail, expecially minorities, you steal a pizza three times in some places, three strikes and you are out in jail for life, this one is funny.
yea i dont understand this 3 strikes rule like u said is it possible to go to life in prison for stealing 3 pizzas?? If so seems pretty pathetic 2 me.Quote:
Originally Posted by pentomato
It's pathetic, but, in some places such as California you do that stupid crime three times and you are out, well the idea started as a means to put as many minorities in jail as possible.
Yes, it's a serious question and why "never" for white collar crime?Quote:
Originally Posted by rytheguy
Focus for a minute on one of the principle arguments for the death penalty- deterrence.
Much has been made about how useless deterrence might be when considering the "average" criminal.
Acting in the heat of the moment or driven by compulsion (i.e., addiction), consequences are probably the last thing this type of criminal is thinking about.
On the other hand, Madoff- and his ilk...Ken Lay, the leaders of Tyco and Worldcom- are the very definition of "malice aforethought".
Their crimes are not spur of the moment but the result of long term planning (in Madoff's case, decades) with very specific intent.
Keep in mind that in death penalty states, "unintended consequences" apply.
In other words...you're the getaway driver in a liquor store robbery.
During the commission of said crime, your partner- the guy actually in the store- shoots and kills the clerk.
Both the shooter and the driver are held equally culpable and are both subject to the death penalty.
In the Madoff case there are already two suicides (that I'm aware of) directly tied to Madoff's actions and the future consequences will take a long time to be fully revealed.
Furthermore, unlike the uneducated, poor, socially deprived crack addict-type criminal, people like Madoff are completely capable of appreciating the consequences of their actions.
Thus, "deterrence" might actually be more applicable in their case(s) than usual.
Over the past few decades we've seen an increasing number of large scale financial crimes.
Enron, Tyco, Worldcom, Madoff...obviously, the penalties for such crimes lag behind the breadth and complexity involved.
So, why NOT apply extreme measures to white collar crime?
I just don't think it's fair to put someone to death for stealing, no matter how many people are affected or how much was stolen because money and other material possessions are replaceable. Additionally, I'm sure white collar criminals don't really care about the possible consequences of their actions anyway because they don't anticipate ever being caught. Making the penalties more severe isn't going to stop them if that's the case.
For financial crime, hit them where it hurts.
Make them destitute, homeless and tattoo their crime on their forehead so no one will give 'em a job.
Sorry to be so Liberal, like.
But I still think it would be kinder to execute politicians than pay them. They can't help what they are, but we shouldn't be financing their habit nor encouraging them to re-produce.
Oh?Quote:
Originally Posted by rytheguy
What if you're 75 and the stolen funds represent a lifetime of savings and work?
How do you replace that?
Given that logic, NO punishment is effective since I doubt any criminal anticipates getting caught.Quote:
Originally Posted by rytheguy
OK then.
Ignore the "deterrence" argument.
If you allow that there are any crimes that deserve the death penalty (bin Laden? Ted Bundy?), why not Madoff or Lay?
I have to agree with the notion that white collar crime is not punished harshly enough, since these white collar crimes can destroy 1000's of lives with one reckless act. But nonetheless i do not feel it should be punished by death, but just very long jail sentences with all their assets stripped.
But that's just it...it isn't "one reckless act", it's a premeditated scheme that can go on for years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Villalltheway
That's why the call it WHITE, a crime only done by white men and of course they get away with it, if a minority stole a quarter they would be in jail for a very long time.
Money walks and bullshit talks, ins't it like that?
yes i agree with u, maybe i was not too clear, that one reckless act can have many consequences thats why i also think it can be as a serious crime as none white colour crimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by clockerBut that's just it...it isn't "one reckless act", it's a premeditated scheme that can go on for years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Villalltheway
I'm for something slightly less final. Tar and feathers then a long stretch in prison, and not one of those minimum security ones either.
Do you also favor the tar-and-feathers regimen for murderers.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
This, for clarification of your general stance, you understand.
Congratulations on your improved spelling, sir; only two tiny mistakes.Quote:
Originally Posted by pentomato
Carry on.
Nope, death penaltyQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4Do you also favor the tar-and-feathers regimen for murderers.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
This, for clarification of your general stance, you understand.
Good man.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocateNope, death penaltyQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
State sanctioned murder.
I lose track of how many miscarriages of Justice are carried out that we find out about.
I'm sure there could be a pretty standard non mind changing debate about the moral issues and you are correct errors are made at trial.
But the question I was asked was what I want to do with murderers and not about the reliability of the trial process.
I believe murderers should be executed, not innocent people. I will add that I'm not for a mandatory death sentence. The circumstances leading to the murder and things like mental retardation etc. should be taken into account.
When will the USA join the civilised world; ever?
You mean, like the Netherlands?Quote:
Originally Posted by thewizeard
The Netherlands is the most developed Cilisation in the world... Probably.
How so, and who is second, third, fourth, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Do you subscribe to U.N. standards in your determinative process.
The Netherlands is not a civilised country. Don't listen to that Sunderland fellow.:angry:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4You mean, like the Netherlands?Quote:
Originally Posted by thewizeard
Alas, you dont get the Carlsberg Ads over there, so the joke was lost..Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4How so, and who is second, third, fourth, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Do you subscribe to U.N. standards in your determinative process.
Oh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat FacedAlas, you dont get the Carlsberg Ads over there, so the joke was lost..Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Well, let's see 'em.
I do want to get the joke, after all.
you're not really missing much, they just use the word probably to get away with lying: "Carlsberg - probably the best beer in the world". Its kinda like that thing of putting question marks after bullshit statements
I see.Quote:
Originally Posted by ilw
So...back to the premise:
Which countries are so civilized as to warrant consideration?
Define: "Civilised"
Every culture will have its own meaning to a subjective word.
eg:
Can any developed country without Universal Free Heathcare be classed as civilised? If this is the standard then Cuba is, You aren't. You do afterall come 29th or something at Child Mortality in the Developed Nations league about three quarters towards the bottom.
If its the Death Penalty, you'd also fail.
If its banning drugs, you pass and Holland doesn't.
Define what you mean, and maybe we can give an opinion.
As you point out, "civilized" is in the eye of the beholder.
Posters should indicate their own preferences - I have my own, certainly, but as you have also indicated (over the years), you much prefer your current milieu to mine, based on your (mis-)understanding of either/both, and the same goes for me.
I think the interesting parts would be those you regard as minuses that I would see the other way, and vice-versa.
Civilisation Plus: Benefits System aimed at those incapable of Looking Out for themselves, Free Religion, Free Speech, Free Association, Free Universal Health at point of Use, Universal Education for Children without "Political Interference", Right to Defend Self and Property, Minimum of Laws all of which should be justified in Terms of Protecting Citizens-Property-Nation (ie Stupid Laws that cannot be enforced shouldn't even be considered eg: How can you make illegal a substance anyone can grow in their Garden? Its unenforcable so allow the Darwin Effect to take care of it).. something you should like: Those that attack a Society (and that means by breaking those minimal laws etc unless they can show mitigating circumstances) do not deserve the Protection of that Society.
Minus: The opposite
Can't think of any Civilised Society.. Sorry. However Netherlands is probably the closest to one I can think of offhand. It provides Protection for its Citizens whilst still being laid back enough to allow personal freedom