No you're absolutely right. To lead is be forced into decisions that others would balk at - a civilian has the luxury of morals, a leader only has to decide whether to kill ten to save a hundred to let all 110 die. It is a ghastly decision but a ncessary one.

Telan Desaria

Demos, my example of someone entering your house is quite real, and black and white because, I am not sure which, but in some of the Ami provinces you must withdraw and not fight - escape is the legal option. Legal yes but honourable? No, not at all.

No, Telan, it is not black and white. A man enters your house - that does not give you grounds to kill him. By simply entering your home he has committed a minor crime of break and enter. If you're in a position to stop him, do so, certainly, but if you can do so without killing him, then you should do so. Intentionally killing him by continuing to bear him once he's been incapacitated is murder. You do not need to kill them for them to be incapacitated. This is something you do not seem to grasp...

You say in the bell tower example what end does the killing of the criminal serve? What end? He has killed others so now he too must die. The manner in which he killed was not in the line of duty (as a police officer might) in combat (as a soldier might) by accident (which a doctor might) in a duel of honour (as a jilted might might) or in defense of home hearth and fellow man (as a bystander or homeowner might). Excepting these cases, the execution of the guilty party may very well serve no purpose but it does eliminate the cost of feeding him, it satiates blood lust, it placates the victims families, and it gives some measure of closure to the agreived.

Exactly! The only valid reason for killing the offender is to fulfill your need to see bloodshed. A desire to see blood spilled has no place in the courtroom. Bloodlust makes us do stupid things - it has no place in legal proceedings. As has been pointed out, it costs more to kill an offender then jail them. Even in your Bell Tower example the offender will make appeals endlessly, and by fed and clothed by the government in the meantime until the total bill is greater than simply keeping him alive... and by the time the offender is put to death, the families of the victims will likely have moved on and the bloodlust will have faded, making the execution fruitless. In the meantime, thousands of dollars and hours have been wasted appealing the sentence - money and time that could be better spent preventing crime, rather than reacting to it.

But again, greed was the motivation here, not the common good, not justice.

On the other hand, giving those jobs to the prisoners would take jobs away from hard-working, law-abiding Americans. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

If the land be yours do with it what you wish. Simple. If the city buys a downtown slab and wants to put in a prison then so be it, the cries of wah, my property value will drop must be dismissed by the wave of a mailed fist.

Well, it's a good thing you're not in control of the nation, since you understand neither law nor economics. Building a prison downtown would make businesses flee, which means lower tax revenue for the city, which means fewer services, which means everyone is worse off. And you'd never be reelected.

Punishment indeed.

But again, the world is not as simple as "death vs. the status quo". I think we can all agree that prison reform (and a reform of the whole legal system) would be greatly beneficial.

No you're absolutely right. To lead is be forced into decisions that others would balk at - a civilian has the luxury of morals, a leader only has to decide whether to kill ten to save a hundred to let all 110 die. It is a ghastly decision but a ncessary one.

Telan, this is the stupidest thing I've seen on TRF since Xilen was here last. We've been over this numerous times, and yet you continue to talk like this is a choice between killing ten murderers or letting them go free. If the murderers are not killed they are jailed, and either way no innocent 100 people die. The only case where innocent people die is your insane plan for executions to follow hard upon the footsteps of trial.

Again Demos you are right - the cost is great because the killer is allowed to appeal. For such cases appeals would be completed expeditiously and only on the grounds of innocent versus guilty, not whether some legal loophole has been found. If within a year the guilt is doubtless then he is executed immediately on the 366th day. Bloodlust remains fresh and Justice is swift. And if the crime is heinous then so should be the execution - no quick death for such men, let them be sealed in a vault and starved. Their death is then guarenteed.

So my example of in the middle of a city is exaggerated, but the concept is not. Far too often the uneducated and undevoted masses are given a say in things that are not their concern. The purpose of government is to protect and defend the people sometimes from themselves.

And Demos, those people displaced by prison industries would then be able to find other more productive jobs or in the first cases of acceptance to the plan would be offered governmental positions then. Everything works out.

Your Demos seem to be quite set on sparing the guilty from a gruesome fate. You are also opposed to my forced labor idea. What usggestion do you pose, then?

Zell

ROFL @ Kraker, I can't even take that comment seriously after some of the things you've said recently.

There is my good side and my bad side. They conflict with one another in some of the things that they say. It is almost like a split personality.

But I digress, back to the arguement at hand...

Bah park!

Horse, meet water. Now drink. DRINK DAMN YOU!

Okay Horse, you die.

Now, dead Horse, I beat you.

Beat! Beat! Beat!