Who was in the wrong here?

t. philosophylet

>Could torture be a good deterrent?
Not really, most people who commit crimes do not think they're getting sentenced, after some point adding to the punishment has no more effect other than for justice itself. That's why in stopping crime, it's actually more important to improve punishment's inevitability than harshness (within limits of course, if rape often doesn't land you in jail, then something's wrong in your justice system for example). But even that won't stop psychos, here only security measures work, but you can't really get it perfect either without enslaving humanity. So in short, tortures only really makes sense for extracting information or if a crime is so severe it's believed to be appropiate.

Maybe... But he can't feel the pain of his own nerves being burned into lava more than once which was what I heard actually happened to victims.

the issue is someone would have to carry out the torture which would damage them mentally

Capital punishment is probably part of the reason Europe did so well during the reneisance. Under fuedalsim in western Europe over 1% of the most violent people were being culled from the gene pool annually.

Why is no capital punishment was advocating to those yakuza kids which were torturing junko for weeks?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Junko_Furuta
fucking corporate slaves.

The real problem here is that you can't just torture that one guy who has totally deserved it without bringing torture as a legitimate part of the justice system which is pretty fucked up.

Lava is comprised of molten rock, there are no rocks in the human body to be melted into lava. Even if there were, the temperature and pressure weren't anywhere high enough to be able to melt rock.

>yakuza kids
I wonder...

Just kill him. Torture is for savages

Nice shop you underage faggot

You can just build torture bot to do the dirty work.

I'd sooner force them into a life of servitude than kill them.
Killing someone is denying them their right to live, so you may as well deny their freedom instead and get free/cheap labor out or them.

>torturing
There is no point. Just kill dangerous subject and move on.

35

I am sure once is enough. Also you don't have to burn him that deeply.

It's immensely cathartic, hence can be justified on utilitarian grounds.

He already set himself on fire

The point of the carceral system is at least fourfold. In no particular order:
1. Deter crime
2. Reform criminals
3. Punish
4. Separate criminals from the rest of society

Number 3 isn't a negligible point senpai; it's not THAT ridiculous to suggest that the government has a role in administering punishment to people who do illegal things (insofar as the law, at least in the case of murder and violent crime, tracks at least approximately with morality).

I think you're trying to demonize the other side of argument. It's called "justice system" and not "crime prevention system" for a reason. People who want criminals to get their just desserts generally don't want it because they like to watch people suffer, they do so because they believe in the concept of justice, that crime begets the punishment, and good deeds a reward. That's why they'll get agitated when they hear that some Nazi avoided any punishment and lived peacefully for decades after the war or that some "rightful among the nations" died gruesomely to get some WWII examples. You can't just present one philosophical stance and pretend every other is for literal perverts, it's retarded.

In the modern age slavery is a lot less efficient than even paying a regular employee (because they put value back in to the market), let alone automation.

The issue is pretty much everyone would agree torturing him but they won't admit it openly

It's wrong to kill the arsonist. Not because of muh human life but because death is too light of a punishment for a cunt like him.

Prove me wrong. You can't.

>Who was in the wrong here?
You, because you started this shit thread.

You're kind is not welcome here, nigger wojackposter.

the only punishment he should get is recognition for service to the country. kyoanus is majorly responsible for the current sorry state of anime; surviving on fat otaku bux from kon dakis doesn't mean the studio was good.

Pure utilitarianism is a joke anyways.

Not denying that, I sometimes enjoy it as well, but I question it regardless.
Completely with you on the govt's right to punish criminals, it's their job to protect citizens.
I agree that punishment should be dealt, but it should be for the purposes of deterring crime and reforming criminal, and we shouldn't punish them for punishment's sake.
Good point on Number 4, I didn't consider that.

Kant believed that the main point of punishment must be, well, punishment, and aiming for the other consequences would be violating the "not using people as the means" rule.

allowing mob mentality can't be good for a civilized society in the long run

You're no better than him... unhironically.

>Could torture be a good deterrent?
Why do you think most mass shooters off themselves? You can't be punished if you are dead.

I don't think people are wrong for believing in that kind of justice, nor am I against punishment in general. The punishment should fit the crime. People should be content with a criminal being fairly punished, and not overly punished. They should be content with seeing a criminal punished because it means the justice system is functioning to deter crimes, reform criminals, separate criminals from everyone else, etc.

Just leave him in the cell and let him die without any food or human interaction. Don't make it complicated.

What's the "not using people as a means" rule?
I've never read Kant, and I don't think just stating what he believed without providing his reasoning is meaningful.
You can just present his argument without using his name as an authority.

That's reasonable, but surely it'd be more beneficial to put prisoners to labor instead of just keeping them confined. I know there are some inmate labor programs already, I just think it should be standard.

Pure justice is an impossible feat to render onto people because there will always be disagreements about the definition of pure justice. The closest we can ever achieve is done through the application of a legal system establish through precedent and rigorously scrutinized by experts who dedicate their lives to the system.

Pragmatically, torturing someone won't undo the harm they've caused or create something of benefit to anyone.The general consensus is for violent and dangerous criminals to be removed from society for the rest of their lives.

It depends on the type of criminal they are, their background and the aim of the legal system. Some work, like breaking rocks or cleaning public facilities is used just to tire out inmates. But prisons also offer skill building work like cooking and craftwork.

That's good to hear, then.
I also think we should do that with immigrants. They're not citizens, so we don't have to grant them the same basic rights. Could get a lot done with that kind of labor.

It's like you're completely failing to grasp the concept here, honestly. One of the major purposes of punishment is the punishment itself, at least for most people. I don't think there's a big difference in deterrence value between 10 years and 15 years, and I don't think reform prospects change in this time, at least not positively. But judges will still sometimes choose one or the other, and they will sentence based on severity of the crime first and foremost. And what "overly punished" means is debatable. Some people will say capital punishment is always wrong, but most will disagree with the statement.

They're dead anons. No amount of pain afflicted to him will bring anyone back. Grow up children.
Also, those women didn't say that. This just a YouTube Eceleb asking Japanese women how badly they want white cock.

Kant claims that the only proper justification of punishment is guilt for a crime. He doesn't limit the usefulness of punishment to retributivist matters. Punishment can have as its justification only the guilt of the criminal. All other uses of punishment, such as rehabilitation (the alleged good of the criminal) or deterrence (alleged good to society) uses the criminal merely as a means. Once guilt is determined though, Kant doesn't deny that use cannot be derived from punishment. In the Feyerabend lectures on Natural Right, Kant is clear that the sovereign “must punish in order to obtain security”, and even while using the law of retribution, “in such a way the best security is obtained”. The state is authorized to use coercive force to defend freedom against limitations to freedom; more particularly, since right does not entail that citizens must limit their own freedom but only that “freedom is limited” by conditions of right, it is right for another, i.e. the state, to actively limit citizens’ freedom in accord with right. The state is authorized to use force to defend property rights . Kant’s view is that punishment of a particular individual may serve deterrent functions even when the punishment may not be based solely on deterrence as its justification.

Kill ‘em all, fuck mercy

this. Put him in isolation until he dies. Literally the worst thing ever apparently

Funny thing is, immigrants aren't granted the same status as citizens made prisoners. Taxes raised to contribute to the upkeep and running of prisons are considered for citizens only, illegal immigrants are prioritized for removal from the country as swiftly as possible. Training them would be considered a waste.

I agree. Based Shinji managed to get at least 35 of them. It's up to the rest of society to get the remaining survivors.

t. enlightened humanitarian who just wants the murderer locked up until he's "cured" (either indefinitely or until he's successfully brainwashed)

>Pure justice is an impossible feat
Most of the things states set out to do are impossible to achieve in full. Including crime prevention.
>Pragmatically, torturing someone won't undo the harm they've caused or create something of benefit to anyone.
But the whole point is that's not what people are doing it for. Not everyone operates on utilitarianism and honestly, utilitarian considerations should logically include people's desires to see criminals punished too. It is also part of their utility functions, they can get mad knowing it's not happening.
>The general consensus is for violent and dangerous criminals to be removed from society for the rest of their lives.
I wouldn't overstate it. Even many countries barring capital punishment most people will support it. And of course many countries still uphold it.

>One of the major purposes of punishment is the punishment itself
What does "punishment itself" mean?
What is directly achieved by punishing someone who committed crime?
I understand the need for punishment to achieve certain aforementioned goals. However, I really don't understand the reasoning for punishment for punishment's sake.

>n-no we shouldn't punish people because they deserve it
>we just want to reform and deter
cs lewis called this bullshit out decades ago

>wojack
Off yourself retard

Let's use the following analogy. You live in a village, and there is a giant living with you. He is generally useful and helps with various tasks and order-keeping. One day he catches a brutal murderer. As a common villager, what would you prefer: the giant tearing the murderer apart and then eating him? Or just bringing the murderer to a faraway uninhabited island and leaving him there?

Interesting read, I can get behind all those points. Thanks.

>Training them would be considered a waste.
Says who? I'm sure there's a clever solution to extract value from them.

"Bread & Circuses"

Attached: Leftism.png (609x717, 188K)

NOOOOOO THAT'S NOT HUMANE. WE AS CIVILIZED PEOPLE SHOULD PURSUE REHABILITATION, NOT PUNISHMENT. WE'RE NOT BARBARIAN.
JUST LOOK AT THIS ROOM OF A MASS KILLER OF 77 PEOPLE. IF EVERY PRISON CELL ISN'T LIKE THIS, THEN YOUR COUNTRY IS A SHITHOLE!

Attached: AAd5Wu6.img.jpg (1200x630, 65K)

Eating is justice.

The basic idea that crime begets punishment. Why do you think people want to see the bad guys beaten in their movies? It's illustration of this basic principle. Someone who did something bad should have something bad happen to them, same with good things, otherwise world seems to be lacking justice.

The murderer and the helpful giant should team up to destroy what remains of KyoAni.

As much as I hate criminals, yeah, I'd rather see them reformed if possible. Not brainwashed, but you could argue any form of coercion is brainwashing.
If a criminal can change their ways and be able to live in and contribute to society, then great. If not, they forfeit that right and should choose between leaving society completely, or somewhere in between.

Jail was a costly mistake for Humanity.

that you hate criminals a lot is obvious from your h*m*n*t*r**n views

>some guy made an argument against this, therefore I'm right
Present the argument or fuck off

Makes me wonder how people would've reacted if he ended up dying from his burns

>Could torture be a good deterrent?
>But you'd have to prove that it works as a deterrent

Singapore is well known for using caning against drug users.

As a consequence you get this
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annual_cannabis_use_by_country

Last fucking place.

People who oppose physical punishment against criminal are the kind of absolute retarded who refuse to see humans as animals and believe in bullshit like free will and dualism. That's why they constantly talk about MUH HUMANITY, a meaningless emotionally-charged word.

The liberal doctrine that dominate the modern western world is built on the ideas of centuries-old people who didn't even know about the existence of genes or what exactly the brain was there for.

Not him, but you failed to answer the question. What is the reasoning behind the "not using people as a means" rule? Why shouldn't I be allowed to use my personal connections in order to accomplish whatever goal I have in mind? Am I not allowed to ask my sibling for help with my studies, because I would be using him/her to get a better grade? Must I do everything on my own?

You suck at analogies, just stick to waifuposting.

What is so bad about brainwashing anyway? Why should it even matter if you changed your ways supposedly by using your won free will which isn't even proven to exist in the first place?

Attached: danganronpa-11-19-monokuma-despair.jpg (680x383, 42K)

There is a class of people so stupid they can't do even a cursory search (taking them a few seconds) and instead want "the argument" presented, presumably so they can ask for "the studies" and "point out the fallacies"

I'm with you that those notions are ingrained within society, I can't help but believe in them to an extent, too.
What I'm questioning is why that's the case, and what is/should be the goal of punishment.
Most people don't consider this and just accept it. That's why it was ingrained in society, so people wouldn't question the system of criminals being punished, which is necessary for society to function.

japanese prison doesn't look like this

NOOO MY BONE CHILLING SLOW BURN CHARACTER DRIVEN EMOTIONALLY IMPACTFUL JAPANESE ARSONIST!!!!

Torture doesn't even work at making people tell the truth. They just say anything to stop the pain. Completely support capital punishment, but I don't support torture. Why would I want some "torturer" employed? Someone trained to hurt people and does it over and over and the mental effect on that person. How likely will it be for that person to do it to someone innocent and become a murderer himself?

>move to scandinavian country
>get life sentence
>feel the benefits of institutionalisation

>Torture doesn't even work at making people tell the truth.
nobody is trying to make him tell the truth?

>who refuse to see humans as animals
You may as well look humans as a pile of chemicals, and then disband every science except chemistry. After all that's what they are.

> LETS WASTE MONEY TO TORTURE A GUY WHO IS ALREADY JAILED INSTEAD OF INVESTIGATION OF UNKNOWN CRIMINALS SAND PREVENTION OF NEW CRIME XD

I'm just point out that torture is pointless and only for sickos and evil people who want "confessions"

>its another you become your enemy episode

Show me your analogues critic diploma first.

He's not wrong though

Attached: Trudeau.jpg (600x338, 43K)

So... What are they trying to do?

>IF EVERY PRISON CELL ISN'T LIKE THIS, THEN YOUR COUNTRY IS A SHITHOLE!
No, but the shitholeness of the country usually correlates with their prison quality.

Torture would possible make the reform more harder. At worst it could cause PTSD and other mental issues for the subject making reform impossible

The less things this mass murderer has in his room, the more I think this is a conspiracy. It's too conspicuously clean, as if he was hired by someone else to do the deed.

Shit like this makes me want to move to Denmark and kill people so I can retire.

>What is so bad about brainwashing anyway?
A good question. I've been thinking about it for years and haven't come up with a satisfying answer. Especially when you consider how much could be considered brainwashing. Is a child being told that hurting people is wrong brainwashing? Probably not.
Is a POW being tortured for months until they turn coat and divulge information and join the enemy brainwashing? Probably.
But where's the line drawn?
And when that line is drawn then you can start asking if it's right or wrong.
>Why should it even matter if you changed your ways supposedly by using your won free will
If it's of your own free will (assuming it exists) then it's probably fine. I'm under the assumption brainwashing is not of one's free will.

...

Yeah because criminal carefully weigh the pros and cons of commiting crimes before they act amirite guys?

>this user believes they torture for the solely fact of getting the truth
How cute you are.

In cases where capital punishment may not be possible, people want him to get the next best thing.

>You may as well look humans as a pile of chemicals, and then disband every science except chemistry
And physics. Chemistry is built on physics.

>go to jail for robbery of panties
>come out and then commit arson years later
I don't think nip jail's going to fix him regardless

This but unironically. Dude burned people alive for his own sadistic pleasure as revenge for some kind of perceived injustice.

Now other people want to burn him alive for their own sadistic pleasure as revenge for some kind of perceived injustice to prove that he was right all along.

Attached: 1557310356.2625_y8EVa2_n.jpg (480x480, 54K)

let's torture drug users to death
hell why stop here? Why don't we also go for tabacco users?
And everyone who doesn't recycle?
and everyone who doesn't do commuity service?

>Yea Forums - Judicial Ethics & Punishment Theory

Ok, this comes from the position Kant had that an individual has rights and freedoms to do what they consent to and that to force someone to do something actively harmful is to dehumanize. Criminals and prisoners fit into a kind of compromised area: they're actively harmful to the state, but still have rights as humans, so in his view it would be dehumanizing to exploit their confinement for others' gain. Kant's view was that punishment must fit the crime accordingly. Of course you're free to disagree with this. I can get into a more detailed outline of Kant's proposals on the social contract if you'd like, but it could take a while.

OP for making a worthless post

punishment went to shit the moment people let scientists anywhere near it, suddenly ethics is "unscientific" and we just need to think about how to sufficiently brainwash the criminal and/or the population

>hell why stop here? Why don't we also go for tabacco users?
This. Fuck smokers.

Literal crazies don't, but the professinal criminals usually do.

Might as well make the final jump, go full quantum and treat humans as quarks and stuff.

The world would be a better place if we did that all.

That's still physics, dummy.

People do consider it and laws of punishment have changed drastically over time. Capital punishment is restricted in most countries and torture itself is illegal. This is entirely different to views on punishment from a century ago.

That would be cruel and will create many additional problems, but it will surely reduce the drugs/tobacco/recycling problems. The "if you punish people for X, then they will do more X" argument is pretty ridiculous.

Science gave us medicine, planes, and anime.
What did ethics give us besides a hundred-page long list of dos and dont's that they gave me when I got hired?

t. retard

Successful ones get other people to commit the crimes for them, idiots get caught early .

The reality is a simulaton, let's reduce everything to coding.

Why punish people for smoking and drugs? Torture is clearly more dangerous than good old weed for your health.

>People do consider it
The average person, or just those in psotion to make such changes? I'd assume the average person rarely stops to think about this stuff, and even less frequently changes their viewpoint.

Drug addicts are scum, meth addicts, extremely obese eaters, anorexic ones, nicotine addicts. They deserve a harsh treatment, for the sake of their lives and for becoming a nuance to themselves and their families. Also to be reminded they are not poor brave victims.

If you kill him you will be just like him

Build a robot. Put it on TV. That's a pay-per-view right there.

Ethics is what stops me from murdering retards like you, you should be grateful for ethics

Just addressing the "punishment does not work" argument.

Yeah you go ahead and talk big on the internet, fag, I'll out you in the fucking ground. I bet you don't even suck cock, tough guy.

> extremely obese eaters
Who would torture them is all USA would be tortured?

Minors.Monsters, but still minors.

>ethics
No, what stops you is your fear of punishment and your cowardice of doing something outside your routine. For you, ethics works as a brainwashing system.

It's the punishment threat from the state which does. Also the fact that your life is generally OK due to the progress, so you don't have enough vitriol to go beside the Yea Forums quarreling.

Justice.
Modern justice is kind of a joke. The Romans most famously put it very simply and correctly. An eye for an eye.
Of course taking that literally is the usual brainlet response to the principle. No you don't kill someone's son if they killed yours, that's retribution, not justice.
Justice is to have the punishment be proportional to the crime. So multiple homicide, should be punished by an equally horrific act. Thus the balance is restored, people can live in comfort that they live in a just society and go on with their lives. It's the function of any civilized society, to establish clear and simple rules and have them be enforced to the letter.
In the case where justice is not served, discontent and apathy will fester and bring on even more injustice.

pop science and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race
>no science gave us XYZgood while notscience gave us UVWbad

Just execute him. Problem solved. Torture is not necessary.

Attached: 11.jpg (869x1329, 317K)

Did anyone ITT actually read OP?

I hate that trope but Giorno is right here.
Death sentence, technically, is to remove a dangerous element from society that was considered too far gone to reform or committed a crime way too serious to pay only with jail time, it's not a form of entertainment for the living.

That doesn't make any sense. In my example my sibling consents to helping me study and I am in no way forcing him/her to do anything that might be considered harmful. Yet I am still using him/her as a means to an end. I do not see how the "rule" is derived from those assumptions/propositions since I am clearly not breaking any of those, but I am still breaking the rule of not using a person as a means to an end.

>An eye for an eye.
makes the whole world blind

Attached: vash.jpg (286x176, 11K)

Would you care to read a little bit before making such statement? I mean, this is one of the reasons why capital punishment is forbidden in a lot of countries, because an uncultured idiot like you would give death penalty to every single inmate based on what you read in Twitter or Facebook or what a random who told you about them.

I will be more comfortable in a state with comfortable prisons than in a state with exquisite torture chambers.

Mostly those in a position to make meaningful change to the law. But those people can come from any part of society. And at certain points, all of society will take an active interest in legal changes, although this is mostly when it comes to tax legislation, not the death penalty.

> have been a disaster for the human race
Such as?

Get off the internet, Ted.
There's barely-useful science like making iPhones for 12 year olds and most consumer technology, then there's actually useful science that pushes humanity further along into conquering reality: medicine, space travel, materials science, etc.

Well if you're a criminal yes.

Let the punishment suit the crime. Sentence him to life as an animator.

How exactly you are supposed to torture him?

>Mostly those in a position to make meaningful change to the law. But those people can come from any part of society.
Fair point.
>And at certain points, all of society will take an active interest in legal changes, although this is mostly when it comes to tax legislation, not the death penalty.
Another fair point, it's not feasible to try and understand every single thing and determine if it's truly the right course of action. It'd be like spending minutes contemplating the complete ramifications and justifications every time you take a step. It's reasonable to take some things for granted because society has deemed them appropriate.

No, if I am a simple citizen.

Forcing him to write LNs and then stealing their ideas.

people don't think about going to jail because jail to them isn't that bad
if you make jail actually bad I think they'll start thinking about it

Is a waste of time and money, and putting people in an unethical position. He deserves capital punishment, but he also deserves the right to understand what he did and why is wrong, giving a criminal awareness is the only compassionate thing society can offer.

Oh yes the romans who are the greatest degenerates and evil in the world.
Raping everything in sight, destroying persia, indo-aryans, nordics.
So bad that muslims were ironically better and won.

It's not about the punishment, its the likelyhood of getting caught

Took them a millenia or so.

Didn't the idiot set hinself on fire too? He already felt the same pain as his victims. The mental torture of having him caged and not knowing when he'll die is better.

Yeah. But make it Netflix original anime.

How are your recidivism rates compared to these countries?

Consent is the crux of the argument. And helping you study isn't exactly a punishment. But let's get into it.

Retributivist theory holds not only that criminal guilt is required for punishment, but that the appropriate type and amount of punishment is also determined by the crime itself. Traditionally this is the heart of the ancient injunction “an eye for an eye”. Kant supports this measurement for punishment because all other measurements bring into consideration elements besides strict justice, such as the psychological states of others that would measure the effectiveness of various possible punishments on deterrence. As a principle, retribution grounds but does not specify the exact punishment. Kant recognizes that “like for like” is not always possible to the letter, but believes that justice requires that it be used as the principle for specific judgments of punishment.

You only say that because you're not personally affected and lack the empathy to imagine what victims go through. Given a personal tragedy you would be the first to cry vengeance.
Either that or you have some kind of brain defect, or maybe I'm out of touch with the current generation and people are content to be slaughtered like cattle. If so then I guess justice really has no place in modern society.
If you're not a Roman citizen you don't benefit from Roman law. Also what the fuck, Islam didn't even exist until Rome was but a shell of its original self.

so what?
Is the goal to inflict as much pain on him as possible?

Jail being harsh probably has no effect against "i am sure will no be caught" type of retards. Proper security is king of crime prevention.

Alright, so listen to this. 100% surveillance state with different levels of torture for different crimes.
Could this finally be the crime-free utopia?

There's a fine line between empathy and an emotionally charged decision. It's why the legal system is extremely careful to try to prevent biased individuals weighing in on criminal cases.

Fake subs.
You fail, OP.

The state is basically jail at this point with 100% crime rate.

>You only say that because you're not personally affected and lack the empathy to imagine what victims go through. Given a personal tragedy you would be the first to cry vengeance.
Yes, that's good that one can think about state questions without strong emotions, but using the reason.
>Either that or you have some kind of brain defect, or maybe I'm out of touch with the current generation and people are content to be slaughtered like cattle.
Since modern times (and developed countries) give you the lowest chance to be slaughtered, something must be wrong with your reasoning.

Will they make him work as a ghost writter so he can learn compassion and understand the terrible things he did?

Empathy is not sympathy. And harsh punishment does not preclude careful consideration.

Yeah 100% guilty of being a good citizen. Only the criminals get tortured senpai.

Naturally the poster never once considered why he thought these things were good or what actually lead to their development, just that the scientific method was (presumably but in several cases not actually) involved and therefore we should all be believers in scientism and the universal and ultimate power of science.
There are people today pursuing FTL travel. If they are successful, they will be added to "the glorious list of scientific achievement". If they are unsuccessful, they will be relegated to the awful list of unscientific nonsense that wasted people's time and money.

Hope he recovers again and visit kyoani

Sick fucks, just like the arsonist.

I'll be waiting for that proof that the safety of modern society is directly related to lenience and lax criminal justice.

a wojak poster is unironically more intelligent than most of Yea Forums

>crime-free utopia
implying that isn't contradictory

it's not even a matter of being a moral fag with "an eye for an eye" but it would just be a waste of time and money. just go for the most efficient method of capital punishment and be done with it. It's the most pragmatic thing to do with cunts who can't be reformed.
I remember a chick I used to talk to crying when debating about death punishment and how everyone can be helped and reformed

>tortures only really makes sense for extracting information
Torture never was an efficient method of interrogation, whoever is getting tortured is more likely to spew whatever bullshit/admit to any crime the "interrogator" want to hear just so his suffering will stop.

>there's no point
I disagree. There's nothing more satisfying than watching a piece of shit cry for his mommy.

If you want a strict mathematical proof, then you will not get one. If you want to see a strong link between the state lack of cruelty and its well-being, then just look at the well-known data.

FACT

Every dime spent on torture can be better spent on crime prevention.

Comparing recidivism in a homogeneous nation of only 5 million people to a country with 300m+ people with deep rooted racial issues is fucking stupid.

It's not Norway's prison model which keeps recidivism rates low, it's the country itself. If Norway actually had a significant population or actually entered the world scale and did ANYTHING significant, you'd see how flawed the fucking system is.

Imagine trying to justify comforting a mass murderer of over 70 people. You're a fucking idiot.

Do you really think Romans were the only ones who raped everything in sight?

> Romans destroyed Persia
u fucking wot m8. That statement is so colossally ignorant and wrong on so many levels that I will assume you are an American and not even try to dumb it down for you.

What even are "Persians" in this context? Parthians? Achaemenids? Seleucids?

Why bring Persia up specifically?

> Muslims won over Romans
They are literally not even in the same time period, what the ever loving fuck. Did you learn history from a picture book or something?

And if you meant Byzantium, say Byzantium, which is considered a separate entity from Rome for a variety of historical and scholarly reasons even if they styled themselves the Eastern Roman Empire. But even if you go by that retarded logic, the Western Roman Empire absolutely won over the Muslims in the 18th century onwards.

what if it acts as a deterrent you 0 IQ mongrel
i'm not even a sole believer in this shit but how can you say something this fucking stupid?

And those dimes can be spent paying a hobo to make an axe to execute the heavy sinners.

Not if you televise it.

>all those self-righteous cunts ITT
I wonder if your loved one got brutally killed you'd wouldn't want to rip the culprit to pieces.

> safety of modern society
Such a joke. The ancient world was much safer. We basically live in a police state and ancient people... They never even heard of police. Because there was no need for it. Such crime-free was the life of the past.

>Imagine trying to justify comforting a mass murderer of over 70 people.
The Norway is the justification.

FACT
Every dime spent on crime prevention could be better spent on gladiatorial arenas and televised deathmatches.

Cope

> muh deterrent
He was literally a single person in Japan who even considered trying that shit. Who else you want to deter?

Ah my mistake. Crime-free utopia is tautology.
It should just be utopia.

Eh, I just see those unable to be reformed as being unfortunate souls who drew the "shit human straw". It makes fee less icky to quarantine them in a jail or something but I definitely see the point of executing them.
My only fear with rampant executions is that innocents will get caught in it and then we'll have no way to revive them.

In this case, the crime has already occured. Therefore, your "Fact" is irrelevant to the case at hand.

"Oh yeah we use up like 100% of our judicial system budget on crime prevention, it works wonders, we rarely have any crimes"

"Sweet, what about this guy who murdered all these people horribly?"

"Oh, nothing. We can't spend money on torturing or encarcerating him, because that money is better off in crime prevention"

Absolutely retarded.

what the fuck kind of low IQ post is this?

Biased question. What if your loved was one who burned anime studio?

With what? The fact that my taxes aren't going to purchasing video games and other electronics for a mass murderer? I'll cope with that.

>We can't spend money on torturing or encarcerating him
What is that country you are talking about? Is it some isekai?

classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ResJud/1954/30.pdf

Have you considered that there may already be powerful deterrents and that if the harshness of Japanese prison abated then maybe there wouldn't be so few of him? In the second place, obviously anyone who tries to do anything like this again. Just saying your post was incredibly stupid.

this
most of the anons here are hypocrites who try to be righteous if it was the person they cared most about they would also want torture and a more severe punishment.

but they come on here acting righteous but they don't share how they would act and what they would want if he killed the closest person to them in their life.

Attached: 1560727481022.jpg (641x876, 98K)

Your taxes go to supporting the highest incarceration level in the world instead.

> classic.autism
Nice source. Not gonna read that.

Roma?

Attached: 1503870827504.png (918x1200, 658K)

Based. Libtards hate this for "cruelty" and cuckservatives hate this for "government spending".
This is rad as shit and we should literally have this today.

It's not retarded. Just execute them and use the torture funds for crime prevention.

>when you meme muh veil of ignorance so hard that you're self inserting as someone who loves a criminal
maybe you should be punished for falling in love with a sicko, sicko?

Better solution. Ban gasoline.

>Anonymous, Yea Forums(nel)
Nice source, not gonna read that.

Attached: 1500443907386.png (443x382, 358K)

Maybe you should be punished for a lack of posting quality then.

If family I would advocate for them to be released, but I would not be morally outraged at people wanting them brutally executed.

Don't care how many people there are in jail. My taxed income % is only a fraction of what it would be in a Scandinavian country.

Biased. What if you were the one making low quality posts.

You're probably right. We also don't base society's rules around our base emotions.
Because I fucking want that hamburger for free and yet society won't give it to me.

> if it was the person they cared most about
Maybe. But people on the streets are okay with torture even if it is about random nobodies. That is not okay and hypocritical as fuck.

>We also don't base society's rules around our base emotions.
but we do base it around emotion, or we did until things really started getting bad - fascism, communism, liberalism, the list goes on - the more you think about your system for ruling people, the worse it gets

Punish both then, that way no one will escape the punishment.

>capitalistic society cuck
>doesn't want true justice just wants an easy life until someone comes and kills them or someone they love
>lets the system bend them over backwards and fuck them in the ass but doesn't complain because it's the system

Attached: 1560749597499.jpg (635x474, 20K)

Enjoy your gulag.

Just ban kyoani

I bet they all hypocrites who wouldn't torture a guy if you offered them an opportunity. If you wouldn't personally torture him you shouldn't force someone else to do enact your revenge fantasies.

This is usually not a problem for people who are not socially retarded.
It's easy to put yourself in the shoes of those who experience tragedy and feel the very logical need for action to be taken.

>if you wouldn't personally change your piping, you deserve no sanitation

>People would think twice about committing crime
We literally threaten people with death and murders still happen, Anonymous. People aren't thinking when they commit heinous crimes. Or at the very least, they're not thinking they'll be caught.

Attached: 1563740011693.png (143x140, 11K)

this is like you skipped the entire post apart from the single word "capitalistic"
the communists were probably very good at deterring and reforming yet it wasn't a very nice place to live

Where do I sign up?

Happily the feels are not the main argument in a modern justice.

>implying

>We literally threaten people with death and murders still happen, Anonymous.
aren't you basically saying you don't believe there's anything worth dying for? why should a fag like you get to decide how society is run?

That's just their sadness speaking. They know better.

Why did I ever even bother to enter this troll thread.

Then modern justice is dead for me.

>NO NO YOU CANT PUNISH PEOPLE BECAUSE IT FEELS WRONG
>WHERE ARE YOU FEELINGS FOR HUMANITY ANONYMOUS??

Attached: 1565761796810.jpg (1280x720, 121K)

was the premium stake and wine worth it?
because i hear the current capitalistic system likes to wine and dine people before it fucks them!

Attached: 1551819682073.png (417x480, 326K)

>why should a fag like you get to decide how society is run?
It's not that anyone ITT has much say in that question.

the prevalence of murder-suicide totally refutes your argument

>crime of passion
>premeditated crime
>moment of insanity
Yes you're right feels are not an argument in modern justice.

Attached: 1561396002653.jpg (1026x685, 60K)

If you don't do crimes, then you are free to ignore it.

I quite like the liberty parts of liberalism, despite liberalism having a shitstained reputation these days. Shit like needing trials and need for evidence. Having been the subject of mob justice, that shit ain't fun when you're the "criminal".
But yes, I see your point that a system completely detached from emotions is worse than mob justice.

>main argument
Come on now son. Reading comprehension.

really is a shame you decided not to read that short article

Eating good food is better than eating bad food, or no food at all.

Stop moving goalposts you shameless little fuck.

Trials and evidence only obscure justice and let corrupt ones out of the hook. The wisdom of mass >>>> The decision of so-called "judge".

I agree that SOME liberalness is ok, but liberalism is bad. Maybe it's better than fascism or communism, but still not ideal.
>needing trials and need for evidence. Having been the subject of mob justice...
It's a mistake to attribute these to liberalism, in fact more modern descendants of liberal thought like progressivism have basically abandoned these, and even within liberalism they're based on pre-existing ideas that are illiberal, i'd recommend reading .

Maybe if jap society and environnment wasn't so shit, less people would be ready to throw their lives away on a whim.

There is a person who decided it is worth dying because supposedly someone stole his ideas. Should he decide how the society is run?

Capital punishment isn't practical. People who get off on torture or execution are shameful.

not if it means getting fucked over in the end, by an unpassionate uncaring system that sees you as a cheap pump and dump flesh light or sock

Attached: 1560750275788.jpg (367x465, 180K)

>advocating for elitism and basically feudalism
Wow bold move bobster.

Kill them all

Attached: 1506482370644.gif (251x251, 797K)

Since Japan is probably the best country to live, that's not an argument.

>Wan Ich Das Schwert thue Auffheben - So Wünsche Ich Dem Sünder Das Ewige Leben
>When this sword I do lift - I wish the sinner the eternal life as gift.
>t. executioner's blade

Feudalsim with Shinji Aoba as a king would be quite a curious sight, but too surreal to watch.

> still not ideal
No ideology ever is going to be ideal because the whole purpose of any is to simplify complex issues under one umbrella brand of though until they can be expressed in a language of meaningless slogans.

Better to be walked home gently than not-so-gently.

yeah i agree, i didn't mean an ideal ideology
you might like oakeshott
web.archive.org/web/20170726073040/http://www.conservativeforum.org/EssaysForm.asp?ID=6102
(change the 2 on the end to 3 for the last bit)

Doesn't japan execute you out of nowhere with no warning? That can kinda fuck with you. It's not torture, but it is a mindfuck.

Ghost writers get paid. I don’t understand from where comes the idea that ghost writers work for free, if you are an idiot then you don’t get a good amount, that’s all.

> it is worth dying because supposedly someone stole his ideas
You would do that to is the work of your life would be used by someone else. Your mortal life is momentary compared immortality of your ideas. But if your ideas are stolen... It is like you never even lived in the first place. Worse crime than the murder itself.

How is it better than knowing the exact date months ahead?

Knowing read, thanks.

You can mentally prepare for the worst.

>bnhafags

Would you care then if you will get just hanged or hanged, drawn and quartered after that?

I'd rather be drawn and quartered. Feels like they put more effort into it.

i'm not even a communist but capatalist society has over stayed it's welcome and treats it's people like shit working them to death, giving them shit wages which they slave over, shit health care in most capitalist societies while the rich all have private doctors and don't worry about their health while they go in for their fourth Botox next door to some poor kid dying of cancer.

we need to evolve past capatalism and stop just accepting because its the way things have always been as far as you know because it's seriously broken now.

why do you think people meme about being a wage cuck it's to show the satire in capitalism.

I'd prefer the society where the singular robocatgirls work for you instead.

I partially agree with you there. Massive books of law can hide corruption and injustice in plain sight. As for judges decisions being shit, I do tend to prefer jury trials generally. Detached from the defendant but of a similar social standing.

I admit evidence and trials aren't a liberal thing. I guess I lumped them together because liberal democracies are really the only place where I saw them being practiced to a high standard. Thank you for the text. Great read.
Also fuck progressivism as it exists in the mainstream today.

If the robotcatgirls do all the work for you is it really still a human society or a robotcatgirl society?

From what this is from?

I agree that capitalism has its massive flaws but let's not get carried away here. Replacing it has always fucked the poor even more.
Maybe reducing trade with people that shit on human rights is a good start.

...

go work in japan weeb
then tell me about it

>this family is the happiest family around
>why won't you get adopted into it then?

>3DPD thread with 300 replies
good job mods

What would Lelouch do to him?

Attached: 9b1ca5f2de51a1bcb9761c81a808712d.png (640x448, 251K)

Read what? The victims of the fatso in this case only got a peaceful death by CO suffocation. They literally got an eternal sleep while Junko was tortured for months by not just those five yakuzas but more than a hundreds of their friends, many were adults. And yet no one called for their death.

>until he's successfully brainwashed
There is actually no thing wrong with brainwashing if it turns criminals into good, law abiding citizens.

you mean correct, ideology sharing citizens

No, the exact opposite has been shown repeatedly. If you try and make prison draconian and terrible, offenders dig in and double down. If you make it more light touch and mostly just a way to separate potential troublemakers with a clear path back into mainstream society you get massively reduced recidivism which in turn, reduces the number of people recruiting other people into crime, reducing crime.

It's better to share the views of people around you for a successful life. At least to the point of not being aggressive.

>They just say anything to stop the pain.
It means you do it wrong. The point of torture isn't to make the criminal scared enough to tell the truth. It is to completely break his will and turn him into a mindless drone that will do anything the torturer wants, including telling everything he knows.
>Why would I want some "torturer" employed?
Because there are always dudes who need to be tortured?
>How likely will it be for that person to do it to someone innocent and become a murderer himself?
Very unlikely if that person is a professional that can separate his work and his life, and the state always watch him to make sure he uses his talent on the right targets.

There is nothing wrong with citizens of a country to share the same ideology.

I'd say it's better to understand your views and society's views and figure out how you can live the life you want and be compatible with society.
Because if you ignore society and just do what you want, society may stop you and then you won't be able to live your life how you want to at all.

NPC

Yes, unironically.
A society's level of civilization is determined by how it treats its most vulnerable. Including those stripped off their rights in its prisons.

That's why you starve them and addict them to drugs.
Prison is a slave camp, you can not repent even if you want too.

Kill all Trump voters too.

Or just do it in the States and if done right, you can be given sainthood.

There are no player characters in our world, unless of course you believe in some religion.

aside from me and the people i like

>her friends looking at her like she's insane
can't just come out and say that stuff lmao

Attached: 0GF999PJ.gif (275x248, 2.33M)

>An eye for an eye.

Attached: eye-for-eye.jpg (700x350, 39K)

All fake you idiots.

That's what a lot of us believe. That is the redpilled state. Better than bluepillers thinking everyone is a player. The final pill is accepting we're all NPCs.
>tfw blackpilled
>tfw okay with it

>for a variety of historical and scholarly reasons even if they styled themselves the Eastern Roman Empire

LITERALLY THE DIRECT CONTINUATION OF THE GOVERNMENT.

The east cut the west off because the west was worthless.

>Could this finally be the crime-free utopia?
Yes. Just read 1984.

speak for yourself retard

I agree. Prison is an inhumane torture, especially "life" sentences. A human should be allowed to preserve their dignity and be released from this world to spare them such barbarism.

Homicide's illegal and death is the penalty. What justifies the homicide, when he dies?

But it literally had a huge amount of crime (both thoughtcrime and the usual crime).

You almost always have an option to leave it if you want.

Punishment of those who have hurt you is cathartic. It's completely normal to feel good about it.

Punishing criminals si just as much about providing closure to the victims as it is to removing the offender from society.

Without it, people would engage in vigilante actions to provide them with satisfaction.

I wanna point out, a good deal of 1984 was about how they literally don't even bother watching most people.

>Homicide's illegal
No, murder is illegal

>Imagine trying to justify comforting a mass murderer of over 70 people
One man's mass murderer is another man's hero. It's just a matter of perspective.

I've always hated that quote. It's stupid.
An eye for an eye doesn't leave the world blind. You can't take grievance for punishment against your own grievances.

Eye for an eye leaves criminals blind. Only criminals. The only person who would advocate against it is a criminal himself.

Doesn't matter if the government can easily turn those criminals back into good people.

What's the fucking point of quoting a guy partially using another quote?

what if they're already good people

>homogeneous nation of only 5 million people to a country with 300m+ people with deep rooted racial issues is fucking stupid.

Scandinavia is either all brown and tearing apart at the seems or not, you guys keep flipping it depending on what's more convenient for your current narrative.

Also what about all the times people get put in prison wrongly?

the moment a person conciously violates the rights of other people, they should be stripped of their rights themselves. honestly you people disgust me, you're the reason somebody can go out and murder 50 people in cold blood, and then spend their time in prison where they can play video games and live better life than some people who put effort into living honestly. people like you are also the reason why sun-ken rock ending was shit, and that's even more disgusting

>Punishment of those who have hurt you is cathartic. It's completely normal to feel good about it.
So are drugs. Feeling good about something doesn't make it acceptable, even it's natural.
>Punishing criminals si just as much about providing closure to the victims as it is to removing the offender from society.
Knowing that a fair punishment is administered should be enough closure. Going further and torturing someone to appease the victims is sadistic.

FACT: Low recidivism rates only occur in 90+% homogeneous countries. There literally isn't a single multicultural nation on earth where this applies.

The problem is when you decide to extra retribution on your perceived criminal, you become a criminal in his and his loved ones' eyes. Then they will seek retribution on you. It will become a vicious spiral without end.

It took them quite an amount of work to turn MC into the good Big Brother loving citizen.

What good people would commit crimes against the state?

also i'd like to see your merciful bullshit talk when a person you care about gets killed, you only say bullshit like this because you're not involved. honestly u disgust me and all of u should go back to redit

Japan is ~126 millions or so, and it has vastly lower both incarceration and crime rate.

>his loved ones' eyes.
those fucks probably abandoned him at this point
It's all about emotional state vs objectivity.

forget i said anything comrade

>He was literally a single person in Japan who even considered trying that shit.
Aum Shinrikyo's a thing.

Certainly not the Japanese people.

>ITT white progressive westerners tell a better country that they're doing things wrong

This could work if collateral damage didn't exist. When you take the criminal's eye, you're also taking someone's dad's/brothers's/friend's eye. And then they'll want revenge.

No such people. Ignore the previous poster.
He's probably a criminal.

there's no objectivity in this because morality is a social construct, not something objective.

Are you not familiar with the concept of "turning the other cheek"?

I'd like to see your merciful bullshit talk when your ideas are stolen... wait.

And whites are also defending the Japs's stances. I see no problem with discussions.
Now if Trump were to threaten Japan with nukes to stop the execution, I'd be against that despite not supporting death penalties and torture.

people like you should be beaten up

It's really not that bad. It's the ultimate form of expression.

Attached: pretty good.jpg (1280x720, 56K)

>those fucks probably abandoned him at this point
What if they won't and will try to avenge him if he receives any excessive punishment?

That is true

Then they'll do that then and it all depends on how the law will consider things

What the fuck does this got to do with anime.

Go to /pol/

I mean I fap to guro, too, but I recognize it as wrong.

I do believe we call that "non-arguments".

Attached: serveimage.jpg (750x400, 30K)

That's just turning the whole society into a crime against humanity

>CTRL+F "gladiator"
>1 result
You're a fucking disappointment, Yea Forums

Relates to the KyoAni arsonist and GER's punishment of Diavolo.

Japan has deep rooted issues with police not taking note of crimes to make their numbers look better. But that's mostly petty crime. For SERIOUS crime. Japan is actually fucking itself with it's new policies. The policies that took it from being only a little behind the US in the 50s and early 60s were. To use a translated proverb "Condemn the crime, not the criminal." but popular punishment has crept in and the rates are getting increasingly worse.

- Crime and criminal justice in modern Japan:
From re-integrative shaming to popular punitivism

100% surveillance state is inevitable, so it's in our best interests to have a kind state which incarcerates murderers into comfy cells, and ignores a lot of small crimes.

I hope someone murders your whole family

We aren't all miserable sons of bitches ready to hurt anyone as long as it's permitted, even if we aren't all saints.

>Maybe it's better than fascism or communism
It's not. Liberalism is the degeneracy that corrupts the country from the within and eventually collapses it or weakens it enough so that foreign enemies can destroy it. Both alternatives are much better.

Yeah but no more criminals though. That's like amazing.

GER makes torture look like a nice vacation.

i've been through far worse shit than "getting my ideas stolen" and yet i haven't killed or beaten anyone oher than in self defense. honestly if you think having you "idea" stolen (btw there's hardly anything like a fresh idea unless you are an inventor) justifies killing 35 people in cold blood, then you should probably get off the high horse and look at yourself objectively for once in your life
nice argument, go to back to plebbit maybe they will at least give you upvotes for making a clown out of yourself

There is that isekai with Putin, so maybe we should discuss Russian politics too.

kill yourself jojonigger

You ever get angry and do something stupid, then regret it?
It's almost like you make better decisions when your in a calm state of mind.

Why not blame the society/ideology that led to the birth of liberalism? Something that births something as cancerous as liberalism must be worth eradicating.

This is some old testament tit for toot bullshit. It isn't going to help anyone when grief is twisted into that sickly sweet feeling of vengeance. That will only serve as a vehicle to bring out people's shittiest qualities.

Then the loved ones of his loved ones will seek justice for them.

I'll kill criminals with a rock for free. Hell, I'll PAY YOU to kill criminals with a rock. Every penny spent on treating criminals could be earned twicefold if you sold them to be killed

That punishment does not fit my crime.

I'd prefer to live in a society where I have the least chances of being killed. I'd also prefer a tiny chance of crazie rampage to the government cruelty. That's why I'm interested in government preventing crime and catching perpetrators, but then focusing mainly on isolating them, even if they are monsters.

And then you kill an innocent man by accident. Great job. Because there will ALWAYS be innocent people wrongly imprisoned.

I will make the following comparison:
The problem of the sanctity of life and it's relevance with the death penalty is the same as the integration and measure problem in Real Analysis

IE you have to accept that life isn't sanctioned in and of itself but rather the potential of said life. If someone through his actions shows that he is too Far gone and dangerous to be reformed then he has to be executed. Publicly by hanging imo

That sounds nice. Also terrifying, but nice.

>Replacing it has always fucked the poor even more.
How? You only need to take the wealth from the riches and give it to the poor who need it more. No way that won't make things better for them.

t. 12 year old

>too Far gone and dangerous to be reformed
Sure. I'll be the one to decide when someone is past this point.

Then they will do that.
If it causes change, then that's great for them

If the total amount of wealth decreases during that, then it may go bad even for the poor.

It's not the society or even an ideology that gave birth to liberalism. It's a evil invention of a handful group of very wealthy financiers hell bent on using it to control the world.

Historically this has worked out, but the narrative in the west was always set by the people who fled. I.e. in the Cuban revolution the narrative got set in the US by people who were fleeing because they would be executed for collaborating. In the USSR you had landowners, in venezeula the rich white people.

There's a reason the poor defend and defended these regimes. Even today you have droves of people who will defend fucking Maduro. And he's been a useless wet noodle.

Want to write that again without sounding like a little bitch?

Liberalism was invented to provide a justification for the dissolution of monarchical power; and as such to come up with a new way to divvy up the countries. Liberalism and Capitalism are the same thing.

>If the total amount of wealth decreases during that,
It won't. It's just a zero sum game where wealth goes from those who don't need it to those who do.

based Japanese women

It's to do with the number of people making decisions. In countries trying to apply socialism, a small amount of people make most of the decisions. And when they fuck up, everyone suffers hard.
In capitalism, lots of people fuck up but the damage is limited due to less centralisation of power.

Okay.
1. Why the fuck did you capitalize the word far?
> If someone through his actions shows that he is
2. Only people with wieners deserve to be executed.

The world is almost never a zero-sum game, because the sum can be extremely negative or positive. Having a civil war usually does not contribute positively into that.

There's a ton of research on it, and it turns out that no punishment serves as a good deterrent. Criminals just convince themselves they'll get away with it. The only proven effective deterrent is getting everyone to believe that if they commit a crime, they will 100% get caught.

Wrong. While the modern banking system is a Jewish machine of debt slavery this doesnt legitimise outright property appropriation in most cases

Innocent people being possibly imprisoned seems like the basis of privacy to me. The only way to prevent it is to have absolute surveillance or data collection.
While the death of innocents is a tragedy, the death of privacy is a far greater tragedy IMO. But I also agree with the notion that any system that actively kills prisoners will fail and be abused sooner than later. There is no ideal solution, but if living in a 20th or 21st century surveillance state is anything to go by then living in a surveillance state in the 22nd century will reach nightmarish proportions.

You're on an anime message board. Who the fuck are you trying to impress?

goverment will not go on crazy rampage, and even if it does whether or not you stand for allowing killing/torturing serious offenders doesn't matter. the people have so little control of the goverment that any idea of influencing it is laughable. going to prison as a punishment for deliberate taking of other person's life (not in self defense) is not much of a punishment - it's such a little detterent that a good chunk of the people who get released end up getting incarcerated again - not only does it end up hurting more people, it costs a lot of money too.

What does your second point mean? Only men deserve to be executed?

If every crime was punishable by death, we would have a very polite society.

That fucker is a gigantic hypocrite for saying these things. He killed many people's family. Was he ever prepared if someone murdered his imouto?

According to user's framing, yes.

You still have individuals making decisions on site, even in the USSR, the entire problem it had was inefficiency in communicating between the various levels. Leonid Kantorovich had a solution to this; it boiled down to "make the internet" which he proposed how to do it at every step of the way.

The government balked at the cost and didn't do it: then the economy failed 2 decades later.

Hell in the early USSR there was a lot of power delegated to local soviet secretariats — Lenin era: Stalin effectively killed much of that, however local soviets still had some power, but the decentralised dream was dead.

>Was he ever prepared if someone murdered his imouto?
Prepared to wipe them off the Earth.

No you wouldnt have a society at all. Proportionality is important

You do realize that's how feudalism died, right?

An overwhelming majority of people have broken at least one law by the time they're done with their commute in the morning. There are a LOT of laws.

>Having a civil war usually does not contribute positively into that.
It's just temporary setback. Once the people controls the power of the state and the means of production, they can manufacture goods even more effectively since they make them for themselves and don't need to care about those petty business schemes.

Fudalism died because of the really specific interplay between the nobility of England post 1066 got a significant number of rights, the king got to fight his wars, etc; eventually reaching the point the king tried to roll them away because they were inconvenient and they kicked him out. After that they had to come up with something new to replace the common lands, etc. Everything after followed that basic model.

Honestly if you're going to kill a man, just make it a humane, detatched death with no public spectacle

>move to Dankmark
>kill some faggots
>gets deported

>An overwhelming majority of people have broken at least one law by the time they're done with their commute in the morning.
Well maybe if these assholes didn't LEAVE THEIR BABY IN THE MIDDLEN OF MY DRIVEWAY this wouldn't happen.

>don't need to care about those petty business schemes.

You kinda need to follow a plan. This is very realistic in the modern day which is why technosocialism is an increasingly large concept.

>Because if you ignore society and just do what you want, society may stop you and then you won't be able to live your life how you want to at all.
Can't you just overthrow such society and shape it to your own image?

Oh fuck I didn't mean to start a thesis duel. Mine isn't even about feudalism.

It's hilarious that people that claim to do things for the greater good invariably want to kill thousands of not millions and frame it being par for the course

>There's a reason the poor defend and defended these regimes.
They defend them because without the support of those regimes they had virtually no economic infrastructure. It's not a matter of communism being being better than capitalism, but that the collapse of the regimes was so devastating that they had absolutely nothing to fall back to.

Communism has deprived those communities of any ability to be self-sufficient with its absence.

>be innocent
>gets on jail anyways (by corruption or any other mean)
>get tortured by no fucking reason

That's a third option.
Extremely high risk, high reward. If done intelligently and depending on what you're trying to change, then probably worth it. It may be a life-long dedication, and it may take a lot of sacrifice.

Fascinating stuff. Thank you user, I'll read more around it.
Makes a good contrast for communist states dying as overcentralised states.

How about improving the education system to teach people that revenge is a bad thing and taking pleasure in others' suffering is a sin? And that you should tolerate people for their past misdeeds while helping them to better themselves?

In my opinion, he should be locked up for life, assuming he is not considered insane, and if he is considered insane then he should be locked up in a mental institution for life instead.

But he should be locked up in a prison with very advanced utilities and a good quality of life, atleast as far as prisons go. Something like the Halden prison in Norway, for example.

Attached: 59b0785b1400002900fa85a8.jpg (700x700, 72K)

>The wisdom of mass >>>> The decision of so-called "judge".
The wisdom of the mass is just as easily manipulated as structured justice systems. It's why the Kavanaugh fiasco happened and had so much attention drawn to it despite not even going through courts.

That would be a nice start. Many of these problems' solutions require society to have a different mindset.

Instead of worry about appropriate punishments and the death penalty, wouldn’t it be far more effective to better prison system where each inmate produces more (economically) to society than it costs to keep them imprisoned? Surely this has to be doable without harvesting their organs or something similar.

You surrender your rights when you try to violate someone else's. Why should a murder get to live when they've killed someone else? Why is a murderer's life more important than the victim's?

>somebody can go out and murder 50 people in cold blood, and then spend their time in prison where they can play video games
That guy has a point and an ideology that he believes. He did that because he thought he was saving his people. That alone puts him above Aoba.

That would be dodging the questions of reform/closure, but it's an economical idea and I support it.

>my rooms looks worse
Christ I gotta move or become a criminal.

It's okay, neither was mine. Mine was on x3 non-linearities at self-focusing interfaces.

I just have read way too much on the developmental changes that pivoted on the English Civil War and later the glorious revolution and I've found myself agreeing with it.

You really need to look up what things were like in Cuba/Venezuela etc for the poor. The mafia were running actual slave operations in Cuba and treated it like their fiefdom under Batista. It's not that different from Venezeula.

Soviet history is really interesting. Reading accounts from the civil war is fascinating too. The soviets didn't want people working on the weekend but people in the Moscow and Petrograd soviets were volunteering to work to help produce ammo and guns to fight the whites. Without asking for anything else out of it. They just really wanted the monarchists gone.

>You surrender your rights when you try to violate someone else's.
Fair.
>Why should a murder get to live when they've killed someone else?
Because we can extract economic value from their living body. If you're that hell-bent on killing them, fine, just don't forget to harvest their organs.
>Why is a murderer's life more important than the victim's?
I never said nor implied that.

If you punish your criminals they win.

>it has vastly lower both incarceration and crime rate.
Because most of their crimes didn't even get to be investigated and in case they did, the criminals managed to escape. Like in

>Japan
>better country

Japan just doesn't care and let's rapists and murderers go for free all the time. Not even attempting to really solve the cases sometimes

In Singapore they publicly beat lowlevel criminals and they have the safest public housing in the world.

>Random weeb projecting inferiority
Kys

Singapore is a defacto dictatorship

Judging by their rape and murder starts that works well.

Fucking this.

I just implied that actual crime rates are higher and they are just covering it up or are looking the other way around

Pointing at the crime which happened ~30 years ago doesn't exactly prove your point. The "if current laws are too forgiving, let's change them retroactively" isn't a great idea either.

Everytime I think of that, I can't believe for the life of me that all the people responsible are most likely walking around scott free right now, just they did all these past years ever since that happened. What the hell.

Socialism isn't incompatible with democracy. You can always make a socialist democracy.

We may theorize that real Japan has Venezuela-tier murder rate, but we may theorize that about any other country.

Nobody said it's Venezuela nor Brazil tier but it isn't a peaceful utopia or almost like that. They are still humans you know

Japan's murder rate ignores gotosatsujin and gokanchisi

Sure, every place on earth is awful in a some way, it's just that some are less awful than others.

While technically correct this doesn't mean that he shouldn't suffer. Also he was just a low level writer or something not the next Miyazaki or something comparable

Democracies can still have centralised power. I don't doubt that a democratic socialist country with decentralised decision making is possible but it seems unlikely. Power hungry people will try to take the place as those making decisions and allocating resources.

They were babbies when they did crime.
Also yakuza strong.

>I don't doubt that a democratic socialist country with decentralised decision making is possible but it seems unlikely.

If Lenin had lasted another few years that's likely what the USSR would have looked like.

Japan does not conduct systematic victimization surveys on the scale or with the regularity of other jurisdictions and there is thus little objective evidence with which to compare and contrast the official crime count with patterns of public reporting and police recording behaviour.

Once democracy is restored in those countries, the international community will provide help to them to rebuild themselves, which is a much better scenario than a slow death under tyrannical regimes.

>user, beaten to a bloody pulp: um aktually that's not a rational argument according to my owner sargon

>Kavanaugh fiasco
At least only libtards believe it.

Funny how communist regimes are never tyrannical yet most victims of tyranny in the 20th century were chinks and other Asians as well as some spics

>each inmate produces more (economically) to society than it costs to keep them imprisoned? S
Slave camps are illegal under international laws.

>you guys
Fuck off this website is not as homogeneous as you think. Not everyone here says Scandinavia is all "non--whites".

Places where US propped up dictators.

Yeah I recall all the Communists the us propped up. Brainlet

No. All lives are equal, that's the point. Killing the criminal just creates another death and solves nothing. Making him repent and use the rest of his live to atone his crime is better.

That room is nicer than the one I pay for.

Fuck my life.

Every place where there was a communist revolution in the Americas had a US propped up dictatorship before, and several after it.

Same in SEA, a lot of commie guerillas were fighting to get away from NATO enforced tyranny.

it solves there being a murderer on the loose

You can take your guns, go to Japan and fix that. Don't forget to post it here, we will call you a hero.

Don't forget raped. She was tortured AND raped.

Wrong seeSo chinks and ruskies spreading their tyranny in Africa or Asia is fine but when the us steps in they are evil

Yeah we scandis have a wierd way of handling our prisoners, I belive brevik got a room like that

Attached: 1514921998192.jpg (1200x628, 98K)

But saying Japan is safer than the West is ridiculous.

If the murderer is in jail, he's not on the loose. Shooting him dead will however solve the problem of keeping him fed and clothed.

How do you know he wouldn't otherwise?

An unrepentant mass murderer left alive is just a pointless cost

>if the murderer is in jail, he's not on the loose
t. manager of a prison full of dead inmates

>It's bad when they do it

This isn't a realistic argument. Most people are within one or two variation intervals of the mean

The only ones deserving of the death sentence are those that worship moloch/satan and kill children.

>So chinks and ruskies spreading their tyranny in Africa or Asia is fine but when the us steps in they are evil

Considering that they by and large didn't do that, they supported "national liberation". It was an attempt to weaken NATO. They were still explicitly supporting popular movements in those local countries and NATO rolled back in with the oppression.

>Power hungry people will try to take the place as those making decisions and allocating resources.
You can make a strict constitution and a well-armed citizenry to prevent that.

I didn't say it's bad, but it comes with a great societal cost. Most Europeans would rather not live in such overbearing city States

Yakuza is the japanese government.

This.
>people actually want to give government the ability of legal torture
lmao

Ah yes, I recall the attempts to slaughter whitie in Rhodesia. I also recall the attempts to destroy and make Vietnam a defacto outpost of chinks and ruskies

There's a reason why real world can't have an Impel Down style of prison

What is that?

If the justice system is unable to make a man repent for what that system considered a crime, there is something wrong with it. It fails to make the man understand what he did was unacceptable to begin with.

That is a very interesting thought. A communist state with some very american concepts.
I wonder what that would look like.

Bullshit. Some people are niggers by birth or choice

But it generally is?

Considering communism is very materialistic and a true libertarian constitution requires willful citizens it's impossible

it's structurally infeasible

>I wonder what that would look like.
I fear we may find out in our lifetime.

Vietnam literally approached the US first, then the US wouldn't so they went to the soviets. And yes, because it's almost as if the colonists were occupying their land.

How? When you yakuzas can kill you or sell you into slavery whenever they want and no one will bother to investigate?

So again, it's fine if it was Communists. Look let's just agree to disagree

That's why compulsory education is so important, it's to make sure everyone has the necessary mindset to become a functioning citizen.

>There's a reason why real world can't have an Impel Down style of prison
Brazilian Prison is much worse than Impel Down.

How can a man be do wrong? Compulsory education is compulsory waste of time and compulsory mediocrity

That isekai Japan sounds really bad, bu so does the isekai West where you replace your claim with mafia.

People can't be willingly materialistic?

No, Torture doesn't provide an adequate deterrent. Even execution doesn't provide an adequate deterrent. The best deterrent against initial criminal offense that's been tried so far is that once you've been branded a criminal, meaningful legitimate participation in society becomes essentially impossible. Even then, that only leaves illegitimate participation for extant criminals, so it's six of one, half a dozen of the other.

There is a difference between state enforced and personal choice

>Capital punishment is probably part of the reason Europe did so well during the reneisance.
Capital punishment was also practised in other regions - in particular the Islamic world - so that's probably not the case.

It's not that the US wouldn't. It's Truman. Roosevelt used to order the CIA to help them.

What a fucking fag argument, i dare you to tell that any family that was ruined because of crazy fucks that they should help the guy instead of having him pay in someway that isnt just sending him to prison aka vacations that they will have to pay through taxes. Get off your fucking high horse

as old as humanity

Mafias don't run Western governments.

Except in Italy.

>i dare you to tell that to any writer whose ideas were stolen!

What if people willingly agree with the state's will?

To be honest the Jews aren't really that good either

You don't even have to go to the prison. Brazil is shit

Many Jews did forgive Dr.Mengele...

The point of the state is that by definition it exercises kratos and violence. Unless it's extremely minimalistic it's better not to make it a controller of social life. You don't want to live in China with some Anglo Saxon elements believe me

Every government is essentially a mafia/pirates who ruled for a long time and gained some tradition/refinement

What does this mean? I honestly don't get it?

>Could torture be a good deterrent?
no, since people commit crimes even in countries with a death penalty, you see if someone thought he is going to get caught he wouldnt commit a crime in the first place. Besides, getting wrongly imprisonned is bad enough, but tortured?

>Except in Italy
Italian Mafias nowadays are just a bunch of fratboys, they don't run shit.
The real shit is the mexican cartels.

I don't see a problem, as long as people agree with the state's use of violence.

That there already was someone who acted on his emotions, and nothing good came out of it.

Was it as systematic? The Islamic world was much more tribal and clannic than north-western Euro, so enforcing capital punishment would have been much more difficult when you had to deal with hundred of guys likely armed protecting their cousin. You could compare capital punishment rate to place outside the Hajnal line, like in thr Balkans or Corsica or Sardinia, and see if there are anything in common. While the elimination of the entirety of the most violent portion of the population each generation would have likely have significant eugenic and social effect, it isn't the sole factor.

Has there been enough evidence of work stolen or is that just ramblings of an insane murderer?

Fuck off jojofag

Not the same. He violated society and his punishment is cathartic not random act of violence based on feels

fpbp

Communist regimes don't have good track records in that regard is the crux

Oligarchs and various interest groups aren't much different from Mafioso. I guess they are less likely to replace your shoes with cement, but they also engage in unpleasant practice from time to time.

Leaving people in a cage for the rest of their life is torture as well, it's just out of sight.

>It's immensely cathartic, hence can be justified on utilitarian grounds.
I don't think you have any idea what utilitarianism means

>Number 3 isn't a negligible point senpai;
It actually is tautological:
>the point of a punishment is to punish
It has no meaningful content.

Most likely ramblings. Although now I'd be curious to read his work, if only for an insight into crazies.

>for the rest of their life
>implying

>All lives are equal, that's the point.
Fact check: false

Even if he had some point and say some ideas were stolen he isn't a top lvl scientist working on important contributions to mankind. His actions were disproportionate relative to possible imagined losses

There are some misconceptions ITT, so I'll remind that judging by the similar cases the fate of the arsonist is to hang in a jail for a decade or two and then hang on a gallow, not being out or getting old in a comfy cell.

It's possible but jews don't want underwater structures made.
Remember all the hype about building cities underwater? you hear nothing these days except for above water floating cities.
They hate underwater cities because you have to get along with each other or the city floods immediately.

And what exactly is their problem with that personally

>enforcing capital punishment would have been much more difficult when you had to deal with hundred of guys likely armed protecting their cousin
The same was the case in Europe for most of the middle ages. The executioner's office became mostly a thing that started in the late middle ages in the cities, when vagrancy became more common. Also, executions weren't really all that common. For minor offences they usually chopped off ears. Not to mention that killing a man in his 20s does not mean that he didn't already have children. I am rather sceptical when it comes to the eugenic effect of executions.

The point is that "X should have terribly retribution because imagine yourself suffering X you unempathetic monster" sentiment may have some truth in it, but may also fail badly.

this, all prison sentence should be replace with public beating/pilori, a fine/communal work, exile, or death sentence

The point is he acted on his emotions. If anons here who fantasize about revenge get their way, they won't be any better than him, since emotions are very biased.

What? Who said anything about killing him? We'll just make him do like 400 hours of community service or something.

From his POV, he was probably a lone avenger who was abandoned by society and forced to take matters into his own hands. Not that he was right, but he likely believe he does.

For less than minimum wage!

It isn't about revenge it's about functional justice

How can you do evil things in a tight knit underwater community? you will easily get killed if the city's underwater functions is ruined by degeneracy and crime.

iep.utm.edu/punishme/#SH1a
Maybe you should read up.

>In countries trying to apply socialism, a small amount of people make most of the decisions.
Except socialism is literally all about giving decisional power to as many people as possible.

>Socialism isn't incompatible with democracy.
Of course not. Socialism literally means democracy, only applied to economi
You couls rename "socialism" as "economic democracy" or alternatively, "democracy" as "politic socialism"

Singapore is also a country of 1 million people. You know how easy it is to erradicate cannabis there?
Now try that in a bigger country and see what happens. Retard.

How is that any different from a typical country or city