Barbaric

[ZiprHead]

In the land of Arizona, you have to pay to be in jail:

I think that is fair. In India, 500 people with death sentences and 71,632 people with life sentences. Why should tax payers support them? Send them to gallows.

Shouldn't we be better than those that we imprison? If, ethically, we say that killing for reasons other than self defence (immediate threat) is wrong, that killing is not a solution for our problems, why would it be right for us as a society to kill those who we feel are a problem?

You have to kill them to show them that killing people is wrong.

 

[aupmanyav]

why would it be right for us as a society to kill those who we feel are a problem?

Exactly for that reason. They have not followed the rules of law or society and harmed people in society, why should they be shown any mercy?
I am thinking about the the estimated 1,477 million + (as of Saturday, July 25, 2026) people in India today. How do a 100,000 matter?

You have to kill them to show them that killing people is wrong.

Killing them would deter other people in committing such crimes. At least, Indians understand that language well. Leniency does not help. It exacerbates the problem.

 

[Jarhyn]

Why should they be shown any mercy?!?

Because if you were accused of doing something such as that, you would demand mercy, even if you actually did it.

Everyone demands some level of mercy and the only way we will ever get it for ourselves in any measure of reliability is if we present it to others, because some day we may end up the "others" that today I say that we should extend mercy to.

That's why.

I think it would matter to you if it were even just one person, and that one person happened to be you.

 

[DBT]

why would it be right for us as a society to kill those who we feel are a problem?

Exactly for that reason. They have not followed the rules of law or society and harmed people in society, why should they be shown any mercy?
I am thinking about the the estimated 1,477 million + (as of Saturday, July 25, 2026) people in India today. How do a 100,000 matter?

You have to kill them to show them that killing people is wrong.

Killing them would deter other people in committing such crimes. At least, Indians understand that language well. Leniency does not help. It exacerbates the problem.

So to deter people from doing the wrong thing legally and morally, to kill because it serves the purpose of the killer, a civilised society is to do the very thing it regards as immoral and illegal?

If it's considered to be immoral to kill for any reason other than self defence, that governments reserve the right to execute people as an example or a deterrence doesn't make it moral or good to do so.

 

[DBT]

Plus in India there is a culture of non violence.

"Cultural emphasis on non-violence (rooted in historical and philosophical traditions) and different baseline patterns of public interaction contribute to lower rates of lethal interpersonal aggression compared to regions with high-crime gang cultures." - The Times of India.

 

[dendrast]

My mum had a jokey plan for when I was grown up and off her hands.

Commit some "victimless" crime that would get her 20 years. A financial crime would do it. "They" value money more than people. Go into jail, where food and lodging are provided. Read, when not working at some task.

Die before they kick you out.

I can see her logic if you can guarantee not getting shivved. Ideally, you work in the library.

That's funny, I've often thought the same thing... that jail could be a good retirement plan, if you're somewhat destitute. Commit some non-violent white collar crime when you're elderly and you've lost your zest for travel, wine, women and song but are content to live out a simple, routine life. Hopefully, you'll get into one of those cushy white collar "prisons" for non-violent offenders. What's not to like? Free food, free healthcare, place to sleep, TV, a job if you want one, excercise time out in the yard. Maybe they'll even give you a cat to hang out with!

Apparently lots of 'old lags' can't hack life on the outside and will commit a crime to get 'back inside' where they know and understand 'the rules' and they are sheltered and fed. Robertson Davies (a Canadian writer) created a character in his "Diary of Samuel Marchbanks named Chief Osceola Thunderbird who was an habitual criminal that would commit a crime every autumn when the days got short and the weather uncomfortable. Conveniently he never did anything so heinous that they wouldn't let him out the following Spring.
By the way, Spike, I believe that the preferred terminology these days is "shank" instead of "shiv". You have to at least try to fit in if you want to make it

My mum had a jokey plan for when I was grown up and off her hands.

Commit some "victimless" crime that would get her 20 years. A financial crime would do it. "They" value money more than people. Go into jail, where food and lodging are provided. Read, when not working at some task.

Die before they kick you out.

I can see her logic if you can guarantee not getting shivved. Ideally, you work in the library.

That's funny, I've often thought the same thing... that jail could be a good retirement plan, if you're somewhat destitute. Commit some non-violent white collar crime when you're elderly and you've lost your zest for travel, wine, women and song but are content to live out a simple, routine life. Hopefully, you'll get into one of those cushy white collar "prisons" for non-violent offenders. What's not to like? Free food, free healthcare, place to sleep, TV, a job if you want one, excercise time out in the yard. Maybe they'll even give you a cat to hang out with!

Only if you are a procuress to a pedophile ring.

 

[aupmanyav]

So to deter people from doing the wrong thing legally and morally, to kill because it serves the purpose of the killer, a civilised society is to do the very thing it regards as immoral and illegal?

If it's considered to be immoral to kill for any reason other than self defence, that governments reserve the right to execute people as an example or a deterrence doesn't make it moral or good to do so.

So, why even put them in jail? Ask the robbers, killers, rapists to attend a sermon at 11 am once a week and that should be enough.
Punishing a wrong-doer is not immoral or illegal. This is for the defense of the society.

 

[aupmanyav]

Plus in India there is a culture of non violence.

"Cultural emphasis on non-violence (rooted in historical and philosophical traditions) and different baseline patterns of public interaction contribute to lower rates of lethal interpersonal aggression compared to regions with high-crime gang cultures." - The Times of India.

Shove non-violence into someone's .. We are talking about safety of 1,477 million people.

Why, are there no gangs in India? Indian gangs now have international spread. They operate from Canada. US, Portugal, Dubai, Thailand and Bangkok. An Indian gangster in US can ask an Indian anywhere in the world for ransom or can order his killing very easily, and even claim it on internet (facebook or what'sap).

Fugitive Satinderjeet Singh, Also Known as Goldy Brar, Wanted for RICO Conspiracy, Targeted Killings, Extortion and Narcotics Offenses, Added to the FBI’s List of Ten Most Wanted Fugitives | Federal Bureau of Investigation

Satinderjeet Singh is wanted for his alleged involvement in the Lawrence Bishnoi Organized Crime Group, which is allegedly engaged in a variety of violent acts in Southern California and across the United States and Canada. These alleged acts include targeted assassinations—including of a...

www.fbi.gov

 

[Tigers!]

Most Americans literally do find that acceptable, and make light humor about it. Of course there are rotten prison systems in other countries, but this is the one I live in.

You live in the US prison system!?

 

[Tigers!]

In the land of Arizona, you have to pay to be in jail:

I think that is fair. In India, 500 people with death sentences and 71,632 people with life sentences. Why should tax payers support them? Send them to gallows.

Shouldn't we be better than those that we imprison? If, ethically, we say that killing for reasons other than self defence (immediate threat) is wrong, that killing is not a solution for our problems, why would it be right for us as a society to kill those who we feel are a problem?

You have to kill them to show them that killing people is wrong.

No. We execute them to protect society and its members from those who are predators upon society.

 

[Tigers!]

Why should they be shown any mercy?!?

Because if you were accused of doing something such as that, you would demand mercy, even if you actually did it.

Which shows just how perverse such people are. They demand mercy yet do not show it themselves.

Everyone demands some level of mercy and the only way we will ever get it for ourselves in any measure of reliability is if we present it to others, because some day we may end up the "others" that today I say that we should extend mercy to.

The term "mercy" implies it is given, not demanded. The guilty may be given mercy. It should not obligatory. If it becomes obligatory then it ceases to be mercy and becomes duty.
Criminals love duty. It protects them from the full consequences of their actions.
Victims dislike duty. They are denied full justice.
Note I made a distinction between the victim's mercy and the state's mercy.

That's why.

I think it would matter to you if it were even just one person, and that one person happened to be you.

Provided I keep my nose clean that is most unlikely to happen.

 

[bilby]

Provided I clean my nose clean that is most unlikely to happen.

Every wrongly executed person would have been just as correct as you to be confident of that.

Until, suddenly, they weren't.

 

[Tigers!]

Provided I clean my nose clean that is most unlikely to happen.

Every wrongly executed person would have been just as correct as you to be confident of that.

Until, suddenly, they weren't.

That's why I added the words "most unlikely to happen".
In a fallen, venal world absolute guarantees cannot be given by humans.

 

[DBT]

In the land of Arizona, you have to pay to be in jail:

I think that is fair. In India, 500 people with death sentences and 71,632 people with life sentences. Why should tax payers support them? Send them to gallows.

Shouldn't we be better than those that we imprison? If, ethically, we say that killing for reasons other than self defence (immediate threat) is wrong, that killing is not a solution for our problems, why would it be right for us as a society to kill those who we feel are a problem?

You have to kill them to show them that killing people is wrong.

No. We execute them to protect society and its members from those who are predators upon society.

We separate them from society. We build prisons to hold and house them. No longer posing a threat to society, there is no need to execute them. Killing them is not justified when there is no threat.

 

[DBT]

Plus in India there is a culture of non violence.

"Cultural emphasis on non-violence (rooted in historical and philosophical traditions) and different baseline patterns of public interaction contribute to lower rates of lethal interpersonal aggression compared to regions with high-crime gang cultures." - The Times of India.

Shove non-violence into someone's .. We are talking about safety of 1,477 million people.

Why, are there no gangs in India? Indian gangs now have international spread. They operate from Canada. US, Portugal, Dubai, Thailand and Bangkok. An Indian gangster in US can ask an Indian anywhere in the world for ransom or can order his killing very easily, and even claim it on internet (facebook or what'sap).

Fugitive Satinderjeet Singh, Also Known as Goldy Brar, Wanted for RICO Conspiracy, Targeted Killings, Extortion and Narcotics Offenses, Added to the FBI’s List of Ten Most Wanted Fugitives | Federal Bureau of Investigation

Satinderjeet Singh is wanted for his alleged involvement in the Lawrence Bishnoi Organized Crime Group, which is allegedly engaged in a variety of violent acts in Southern California and across the United States and Canada. These alleged acts include targeted assassinations—including of a...

www.fbi.gov

Those that break the law or pose a threat can be securely separated from society. Killing for convenience or expediency is the mark of a ruthless government, one that disregards the very moral standard that it wants its population to uphold.

 

[DBT]

So to deter people from doing the wrong thing legally and morally, to kill because it serves the purpose of the killer, a civilised society is to do the very thing it regards as immoral and illegal?

If it's considered to be immoral to kill for any reason other than self defence, that governments reserve the right to execute people as an example or a deterrence doesn't make it moral or good to do so.

So, why even put them in jail? Ask the robbers, killers, rapists to attend a sermon at 11 am once a week and that should be enough.
Punishing a wrong-doer is not immoral or illegal. This is for the defense of the society.

So according to your point of view the expedient thing to do is kill them all? No need for jails or rehabilitation programs, even for those who may be helped?

 

[spikepipsqueak]

Apparently lots of 'old lags' can't hack life on the outside and will commit a crime to get 'back inside' where they know and understand 'the rules' and they are sheltered and fed. Robertson Davies (a Canadian writer) created a character in his "Diary of Samuel Marchbanks named Chief Osceola Thunderbird who was an habitual criminal that would commit a crime every autumn when the days got short and the weather uncomfortable. Conveniently he never did anything so heinous that they wouldn't let him out the following Spring.
By the way, Spike, I believe that the preferred terminology these days is "shank" instead of "shiv". You have to at least try to fit in if you want to make it

Shank it is. : ).

BTW. I had forgotten about Robertson Davies. You have prompted another massive rereading binge. Thank you.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

It seems to me (on admittedly minimal information) that the countries with the most draconian notions of the rights of their citizens are the same ones whose citizens fail to respect each other's right to live.

I can't figure out which is the chicken and which the egg.

Suspect it is a dynamically developing situation.

 

[aupmanyav]

We separate them from society. We build prisons to hold and house them. No longer posing a threat to society, there is no need to execute them. Killing them is not justified when there is no threat.

Prisons, Prison Officers and upkeep of prisons and prisoners, people involved in serious crimes costs a huge amount of money. Why should that be paid from public funds which can otherwise be used for many useful purposes?
The number of prisoners in India in 2026 is around 600,000 (approximately, Duckduckgo has statistics up to 2023). The expense comes to about a billion USD per year (Wikipedia).

 

[aupmanyav]

So according to your point of view the expedient thing to do is kill them all? No need for jails or rehabilitation programs, even for those who may be helped?

Yeah, because they transgressed law. For other offenses, physical punishment is better than putting offenders in jails. Something like a daily dose of 20 lashes or electric shocks for 10 or 15 days (they can return to home every day). That way they would remember not to transgress law in future. Not necessary that this punishment be given by people, machines can be devised to do it.