Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Because when a criminal knows that he is facing the death penalty, he tries not to leave the victims and witnesses alive. Because of this, the number of serious crimes increases. For many criminals, death is less of a problem than life imprisonment or forced medical treatment, because it is painful for them to live harming themselves and others, so death for such people is more like release than punishment.
A long time ago, the answer was given – the state did not give a person life and therefore has no right to take it away. Besides, what is the point of such a legal murder? Others won't be bothered? Of course not.
Because when you shoot a killer, you become a killer.�
It's a very strange logic to convict someone of murder and still do the same thing yourself.
This topic has been raised many times. In general, if you Google it, there are many scientific studies based on statistics, saying that crime from this type of punishment does not decrease even once, and sometimes even increases. Plus, as already mentioned, judicial and investigative errors, and the corruption of the apparatus. But if you imagine that everything is perfect, then the question arises of a worthy punishment…. Death is a deliverance for such people. Of course, no one says that political correctness is needed ala “Breivik killed 77 people sit in a suite with a computer and write a book” (although this is rather the fault of the fact that Breivik is out of the general crowd of criminals and the system was not ready to punish him in essence, and for some reason they did not want to make an exception) But the fact that Norwegian justice is the “dark” side of humanity is not canceled. But why not send such people to heavy and hard work in the style of kapai “uranium” mine? And let him work out his allowance and let him pay at least something to the families of the victims.
And there is also the question of what is considered an incorrigible member of society? If you approve of this practice, then you will have to set the brains of a huge part of the world's population that professes Islam for the sake of “higher” justice. For them, stoning people to death on business is like eating breakfast on Sunday morning.
For example: in Somalia, 10 years ago, a 13-year-old girl was executed in accordance with the norms of Sharia Islam law, who was arrested while contacting the police. She went there because she was raped by three people. Instead of sympathy, she was jailed ,accused of cheating on her husband/debauchery. After that, 50 people threw stones at her in the main square of the city, in front of 1000 people….. And according to Islamists, she is completely guilty…. So before solving such issues on the principle of Talion, let's deal with the sanity of those who want to apply it….
Well, personally, I just think that it is possible.
I'm not interested, as a member of society, in seeing a serial killer released in 20 years.
about the identity rights of the killer… it seems to me that a person's rights as a member of society end as soon as the fact of his grave harm to this very society is proved.
he damn well proved by killing 10 people, for example, that he cannot and does not want to be a member of this society.
Well ,ок and approx. he didn't give up on society either.
This is the question of “humanism”.
another thing is that how to avoid mistakes during the investigation…. here I can't say anything.
but I have outlined the moral aspect)
Perhaps the kills will decrease (by 20%), but this does not mean that they will not be, everything will remain as it was. Well, murder is as usual a lack of money, drugs, mental disorders, domestic quarrels. People are not animals and kill for the sake of getting euphoria, it's like skydiving, then you want more and more. And all these fantastic films about the fact that there are no murders in the world, well, this is simply impossible to realize in reality, he is a person as he is and he will kill
The question is almost solved competently and in detail. But there is another aspect. First, it is not worth killing anyone at all, unless it is an extreme case – war (not somewhere in the middle of nowhere, but in our own country and we were literally attacked). Second-stubborn materialists-jump off, then you are not interested and your head will hurt.
So, the released consciousness continues to act and feel by inertia. And he feels nothing good but hatred, but he can't do anything until the end of his cycle. that is, to improve, to somehow realize, to work THERE is already much less chance, because there is no application. Therefore, by killing, we fill the space with such flawed, restless creatures. And there are already quite a lot of them in the atmosphere. It is this accumulation that produces a condensed, dreary environment, despondency, drunkenness, and irritation. In addition to the ecology of air and food, there is an ecology of the space of thought. It is this painful environment that everyone remembers after the big wars.
If some materialist (although I am also a materialist and can prove it) has finished reading this nonsense, let him ask a neurophysiologist or the creator of AI and neural networks if they understand what consciousness is and where it is located.
The article's logic is perverse. Next time, you will say that you can't keep a maniac in prison: he won't want to go there and will kill the victim so that they won't put him in jail. The second mistake is that for a maniac, murder is not a means of self-defense, but an end in itself. for example, saltychikha did not kill out of fear of punishment. Third, we will not execute anyone today anyway: we have a moratorium. And what, there are fewer maniacs?
.
In the conditions of atomization of society, many people are functionally inferior and cannot realize their aspirations in a legal way. But there is no patriarchal society where there was someone to compensate for the shortcomings of fellow tribesmen, Where you could trust and get help without lawyers and thousand-page contracts! Plus, a change in the mode of production, leaving millions without the usual guidelines and moral values. it's not like you'll become a maniac, but you'll have to wait for suicides to increase.
.
The real way to deal with maniacs as a socio-biological phenomenon is to look for criteria for their identification and eliminate them from society preemptively. Don't put them in jail. and create easier living conditions. So that they do not face unbearable difficulties for them. And normal people also need help. Reduce the degree of tension in society, so that the mind does not boil outraged by the abuse of officials. To facilitate the possibility of sexual satisfaction: if we can't give every man an obedient woman, then let's give at least a rubber one. And let's not laugh at old farts who have no other way to avoid becoming maniacs. Well, and so on, up to legal prostitution.
.
as you can see, the real reason for the appearance of maniacs and pedophiles is not their inherent depravity, but, on the contrary, their weakness. Moralizers and irreconcilable struggles for morality drive these people into a trap, from where the exit is either in a loop or in maniacs. It is anti-harassment fighters, sanctimonious and narrow-minded idealists who are the reason for 90% of the world's maniacs.
I believe that serial killers and other incorrigible criminals should be handed over for organs! At least some benefit to others will be. Corneas, kidneys, liver, after all, just skin… Someone is vital… Why would scum who have killed so many people live out their worthless lives at the expense of the state?� Let them help with their organs!
Civilization has always evolved through social selection. The most aggressive were killed in wars, and the most sexually disturbed were hit on the head on the principle of “blood for blood”. With universal tolerance and humanity, we get the opposite effect: those who are bolder, stronger, and who can kill climb up. At the bottom is the one who is unable to act cruelly. Think about what society will look like in a hundred years. Perverts raising perverts. Sadists raising sadists. The animal principle in us is stronger, it is primordial. And the human shell is too thin and unreliable. Do you really want to see who wins: the humanist or the sadist?
Regarding the mistakes of the investigation: they just arise from the fact that people with limited intelligence and low desires go to the punitive authorities (to get stars, promotions and bonuses at any cost). Negative selection is the main problem.
For death there must also be death. That's fair enough. Otherwise, they will kill without fear of punishment. And the fact that witnesses are being killed is not news. Witnesses are killed in any case, regardless of the penalty for the crime. After all, no one wants to sit in prison. That's why they kill. There was a case with me. So I was almost killed for a silver chain. They got away with it. After all, I was knocked out and very cruelly. Thank God he was still alive.
what are you talking about talk to the criminals they say before you bring a knife you will remember the inmates who have a forehead smeared with green paint and it was scary to kill now one volnul �and I will be free at the same time the whole family about six people I will go to where they feed water and suddenly they will also release these are the words of a convict with 5 sentences in his house prison.We spend 1,000,000 rubles a year on them, but think about whether it is more expensive to spend on the treatment of our children.
It's all blah blah. I've seen people turn vegetables. They sit and sit. I saw how after the conviction they worked so that someone would pay a smaller salary to the employees. Such people should be executed. And it is necessary to execute them one of the victims or their relatives. As they say here. Those who have known me since childhood are even afraid to think something bad about my loved ones. And they certainly won't do it. My opinion is this. If you can't fix it, you need to get rid of it. If someone does something terrible to my loved ones, they will die a thousand times over. If there is a pedophile and a fucking law says that no matter what he does not fix we will leave him alive. The way they're going to pay for an army that will guard my children in case he makes an escape. Remember this. No man no problem.
A moratorium on the death penalty is in effect. It is not allowed in the Russian Federation, there are countries where it is possible.
Why was the moratorium imposed
First, there may be a miscarriage of justice, as a result of which an innocent person will suffer.�
In addition, the death penalty, as a type of punishment, contradicts the principle of humanism. Despite the fact that the criminal law itself under this principle reveals only the prevention of causing physical suffering and humiliation of human dignity as the goal of punishment, the importance of the principle of humanism, including in determining punishment and its “magnitude”, is still broader. By the way, it is interesting that some criminals who were sentenced to death and received a commutation of their sentence to life imprisonment in connection with its abolition in 1997 were not at all happy about this and tried to challenge this decision, referring, among other things, to the fact that execution would be much more humane for them (you can partly understand them – ask about the conditions of life stay of prisoners in our colonies). �
The second reason (the main and main one) is that in 1996 the Russian Federation joined the Council of Europe, where, simply put, no one would have accepted it with such a norm in criminal legislation, because the latter contradicts the principles and norms of international law, and so on, so a moratorium was introduced in 1977.
In addition, due to the development of these principles and norms, it is also natural to abandon the once dominant function of retribution in criminal punishment, from the banal “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”.
Any criminal before he goes to the wet, thinks, and what will he get for it? And if the death penalty is not introduced, then in addition to killers, we will have other specialties in taking lives: it is enough just to have money, a lawyer and the support of the upper authorities.
Because no one has the right to decide who lives and who dies: neither a maniac, nor a judge. Therefore, there is a possibility of a miscarriage of justice, and death, unlike imprisonment, can not be compensated. Because it is difficult for rulers who have the right to decide life and death issues to avoid the temptation to usurp power, declaring all competitors outlawed even to the point of death.
But self-defense is good. However, any tyrant pretends to play from the defense.
For the sake of justice, they should be made to suffer the same way. And not even in the same way as their victims-add to the emotional spectrum the suffering of people who are experiencing the loss of loved ones. After all, the victim is eventually waiting for death and relief, and their relatives and friends – a heavy burden of many years of pain of loss, and sometimes this pain does not go away and is not forgotten. So shooting a serial killer is too easy a price to pay.�
About the fact that they are sick and need to be treated…. Debatable. Since it is not provable in 100% of cases.
In general, I think that everyone should be given what they deserve. For good – good, for suffering-equivalent suffering.
If you kill �killer, he �machine �moving sins �to �one who �made �him �a sentence of the death penalty. Turns out �that �death penalty �frees �from liability soul �criminal �which �straight �in PARADISE �go �after the execution.
Why is it necessary to execute serial killers? Purely for reasons of humanity and saving the lives of innocent people that a serial incorrigible criminal can kill (at least hypothetically) while he lives in the world. I have repeatedly read about the murders of normal, good people by a serial killer who, for some reason, was released on PAROLE after serving part of his sentence. In these deaths of innocent victims, there is also the fault of the state, which, out of a misinterpreted humanity, left the killer alive. And it is not true that the death penalty is a blessing for such people compared to life imprisonment. Such serial killers, easily taking other people's lives, stubbornly do not want to give up their own, although they assure correspondents that the shooting would be better for them. But for some reason, they very rarely commit suicide in a cell or colony. And recently, information was published about a case where a serial killer sentenced to life in prison was released to full freedom and is now wandering somewhere, possibly in search of his new victim.
And then what is the point of killing him, if he does not know that he has lost the freedom that is so dear to him, but there is no way back . The death penalty, which lasts for 1 second, is the same as a pardon for a convicted person . Clearly, he went to all the crimes not from a good life . Taking the life of a convicted person will not benefit anyone. �
Also, convicts are felling wood there , they work in factories there , some kind of labor force 🙂
There are two at least somewhat weighty arguments here:
1. Possibility of an error.
2. The possibility of using such a system for self-serving purposes (similar to 1, but there is intent and a corrupt system).
But are these serious arguments to rid the world of those who cannot adapt to it?