|
Why does the US have such a major hard on for this particular belligerent middle-eastern nation anyway?
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 01:40 |
|
|
Being caught spying for a foreign power should probably be a death sentence honestly. I don't really see what good is served by imprisoning people for it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
I mean I don't generally see the point in prison or punitive sentencing but I think espionage is possibly the best case you can make for both. It's someone consciously and willingly undergoing extensive training in subverting the ordered functioning of a society for personal gain, or for the gain of an organisation which is actively hostile to that society and has no interest in improving it. It's difficult to really imagine any more anti-social crime that one could commit. Other than possibly running a bank.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Killing all the spies is one way to disrupt the commission of espionage in general.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 07:29
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:And what he did was wrong but he didn't do it yesterday. We should be ready to forgive people. He's done his penance. It would be the Christian thing to do. Forgiveness is only good when it's productive. In the case of people who are absolutely antisocial and are not driven to it by any sort of desperation or need, but simply greed, and whose existence causes political difficulties and serves as a rallying point for deranged nationalists, it is entirely reasonable to simply kill them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:The first part applies to ordinary common violent criminals and drug dealers but I think most people here would say that an armed robber or drug dealer should have an opportunity for parole if they have done their time, been a model prisoner, and participated in programs to rehabilitate themselves. The second part suggests that you're not willing to extend him the same courtesy because of politics. Yes Israel is terrible and nationalists are assholes but we have to look at the person first. Otherwise we are just being stubborn and contrary to nationalists like Republicans are to Obama. We should be consistent instead of changing our views to be contrary to someone we don't like. Justice is supposed to be blind to politics. Not really, espionage is one of the least justifiable crimes one can commit. It's moderately well off people who are well educated and well trained trying to make money off of attacking the inner workings of a society. They don't need to do it, they just want to. Violent crime and theft is predominantly crime of desperation and passion, people either aren't thinking or are in a position where they feel they have little alternative, so no amount of punishment is going to deter that, unless you provide a reasonable alternative. In the case of espionage there are plenty of reasonable alternative ways to live but the person consciously decides to behave antisocially to further their own goals. It isn't that they are in a desperate situation, it's that they are greedy to the point of showing a complete disregard for the wellbeing of others. In that instance I would consider it more expedient to simply shoot the fucker as an example to the rest. A single life is not so valuable and he doesn't seem inclined to work to undo the damage he's done, or tried to do. He is a net drain on the world and unlike with the vast majority of crime, just killing him won't contribute to a large trend of not actually addressing a major social problem. There is no social problem here, the dude is just a twat. Kill him and improve the world. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Jul 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:Then consider the wall street banks that are the wealthiest among us who completely collapsed the economy. We give them very short sentences or fines even if what they do is often as destructive as any spy. I would wholeheartedly suggest shooting the bankers as well, just on general principles honestly, don't think you even need a trial for that.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
While he may not be able to specifically commit espionage I would argue that if he does not grasp that what he did was wrong, he will probably try to commit other antisocial acts in the future, and thus probably shouldn't be inflicted on the general population.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:I'm really surprised, I thought most D&Ders were against the death penalty. I'm against the death penalty and prison for a great many crimes but that is because they are demonstrably unhelpful in dealing with them, and serve only to mask the social causes of the crimes and increase the amount of suffering those social problems cause, not only to the victims but also the perpetrators. However I have no particular objection to just killing people who are sufficiently aberrant as to attack wider society without any justifiable reason.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:This reasoning could be used to lock up a veritable shitload of people forever. It sucks. If you need to use it to lock up a shitload of people that is evidence that you need a better solution. If prison is failing to rehabilitate massive numbers of people who are driven to crime because of their situation, that shows prison does not remove their need to commit crime, because it doesn't put them in a situation where not committing crime is a practical way of life. However when the crime was committed by someone who had no need to commit it to begin with, and who did so purely out of greed, malice, or insanity, what other recourse do you have? I don't see anything wrong with the idea that some few people are simply beyond any reasonable ability we have to rehabilitate but equally are demonstrably antisocial enough to be unfit for reintroduction into society. At some point the cost-benefit analysis will produce a few people where the difficulty of rehabilitating them is not worth the benefit. There is an important difference between people who commit crime as a result of their environment and people who are under no pressure whatsoever to commit crime and choose to do it to gain even more personal power and wealth. You can't practically lock up a shitload of people forever, but you can practically lock up this particular rear end in a top hat forever. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Jul 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:You do you realize that it's entirely possible he doesn't show remorse because the prison system in the US isn't really built around getting people to feel remorse, right? And if you just kill them there'd be no way to know if they would ever feel sorry for what they did, not to mention there's no taking it back if it turns out they were innocent (not saying there's a chance of Pollard being innocent, but in general). And in general that is part of why I oppose the death penalty. But to my knowledge his case has been proven to an exceptional degree of surety. I also don't think, given who he is and what is crime was, that there is much chance of changing his mind even with a more reform-based prison system, which on the whole would be an excellent idea. He was an affluent and educated man who decided he wasn't wealthy enough and/or that he didn't have an obligation to society, and thus it was OK to attempt to destabilise and damage that society for personal gain. I would suggest the word "sociopath" may be accurately applied here. Whether he feels sorry is irrelevant, other than as a function of preventing him from causing further damage and extracting some constructive use from him. As he seems disinclined to work to repay his debt (which he hasn't paid simply by being in prison, he has accumulated more debt because he is costing society money by being in prison) and apparently sees nothing wrong with his actions to begin with, I would suggest that it is, at this point, entirely prudent to either not release him, or just kill him if that would be cheaper and spend the money you would have spent keeping him locked up forever on something more useful like social projects.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Plus it seems like we traded him for peace with Iran and not-war in the middle east. Seems like an good call. If that were so then that would be a good reason to hang onto him until now and also to release him. If he won't serve society of his own free will he can at least serve as currency. Zanzibar Ham posted:How do you define what's an 'exceptional degree of surety' (again, in general, not in Pollard's case)? How are you so sure a more rehabilitative system wouldn't have gotten Pollard to feel sorry? While I can accept keeping a person jailed until he shows that he's remorseful (which could be forever if he never rehabilitates depending on the severity of the crime), just killing them opens the gate to innocents getting wrongfully executed. And IIRC executing someone costs more than life in prison. Execution being very expensive is another good argument against the death penalty as it stands and I agree with it. I was more talking hypothetically. Frankly in general I would probably suggest not having a general legal basis for it. As you say it's something rather open to abuse, possibly something like a customary presidential order or something which has to be publicised so that people know when it happens and to discourage its frequent use. Conceivably if you're dealing with very small numbers of people you may be better off foregoing the death penalty and just accepting that some few assholes are going to spend their entire lives sponging off society. Mostly it just seems irritatingly inefficient, but it may possibly be less so than accepting the loss. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Jul 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Typo posted:So it basically comes down to I support the death penalty for people whom I think deserves the death penalty. I oppose the death penalty in all cases when it is counterproductive, which is the vast majority of them. I have no inherent objection to the death penalty. Deserve or not is rather irrelevant, what matters is whether particular responses to crime are useful in maintaining an orderly society within a reasonable degree of expense.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Typo posted:So you are pro-death penalty. No, I am situationally for and against the death penalty. If "pro death penalty" is accurate because I sometimes don't take issue with it then so is "anti death penalty" because I sometimes oppose it. Neither one is a very good descriptor of the position.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:What pro and anti-death penalty mean, in common language, is "Are you in favor of the death penalty being allowed in any circumstances"? Pro Life/Pro Choice. Boiling complex arguments down to slogans to enhance your position is stupid. Everyone is pro life and pro choice. Every sound minded person is opposed to the use of the death penalty, but some people may believe it is productive in some instances, despite it being abhorrent. Pithy names for things exist to try to homogenise the opposition. They're stupid and you should avoid using them. Saying I am pro death-penalty is completely useless unless you're trying to lump everyone who doesn't 100% oppose its use in all situations together as having the same viewpoint, which is manifestly incorrect.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:If you believe the death penalty should be used under some circumstances, you are not opposed to the use of the death penalty. I can be opposed to its use but more opposed to the alternative.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Typo posted:Or you know, the position of "the state should never be allowed to take a human life through the justice system" is a valid one which is shared by the majority of people in many countries and thus the label of anti-death is a useful one for that position. No, I think absolutism is silly. The idea that everyone can be reformed is manifestly untrue. We lack the capacity to reform everyone and in some cases the cost of doing so may outweigh the benefit. In the majority of cases reform is preferable and would arguably be pursued by the same methods that crime prevention would be: The improvement of conditions for those driven to crime by necessity, perceived or actual. Removing the incitement to crime would greatly reduce the prevalence of many crimes, and would be worth doing for the general sake of improving the lot of as many people as possible. However, in the case of people who have no environmental incitement to crime, who simply commit crime against society for personal gain, because they lack a sense of social obligation despite having benefited greatly from society, there is far less you can practically do to prevent such a person from commiting crime. They have obviously decided that they are not bound by the same obligations the rest of us are, and in the case of Pollard, he apparently has not changed that view. Such a person is completely antisocial, is a danger to those around them and cannot ethically be permitted access to society at large, so they must either be incarcerated indefinitely, or simply killed. Killing them would ideally be cheaper than incarcerating them and the money thus saved can be put to better use. Last Buffalo posted:Pollard is also not likely to be a huge danger to anyone. Not because he's repentant or any less of a degenerate shithead, but because he's going to be watched like a hawk. Removed the need to imprison and observe him post-release.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:How do you propose we ascertain with 100% certainty that a) a person cannot be redeemed at any point in the rest of their life and b) that new evidence will not appear to exonerate a person sentenced to death? Not having managed it after 30 years in prison for a crime they have very clearly committed might be a good starting point.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Last Buffalo posted:His point is that you're overly hungry for blood because it's Israel. Would you support the execution of a guy who sold Intel to the Iranians or the Chinese, or Cuba? The relevant point is that the crime was against his society, not who he sold the information to though that has human rights concerns if he sold it to say, apartheid South Africa and Israel also. But in the context of a purely domestic assessment of his crime what he did with the information afterwards is irrelevant, except in the case that he released it to the public on the basis that it was in the public interest.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2015 13:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 01:40 |
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Can you reconcile this view with the Edward Snowden case? Not terribly familiar with Snowden but he leaked information about the NSA's monitoring of US citizen's communication as I recall? And he leaked it to the public on (presumably) the basis that it was in the public interest? While it is certainly breaking the law, I would suggest that it would be a case where judicial discretion should be applied and his sentence reduced or potentially waived in light of the manifestly public-serving nature of his actions. He stood to gain rather less from it than society at large. It does not appear to be an action intent on damaging society for the betterment of the individual, rather it appears to be more the other way around, thus making it far less morally reprehensible.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2015 18:26
|
|