3 ms·

So the talent can ignore all laws and murder any people they want?

freedomben 9y ago
Not sure if this is a troll or not, but I'll assume good faith. No I don't believe that to be the case at all. However the punishment or consequence(s) for violating a law (such as murder) should not involve incarceration. I am a big fan of restitution laws where the damages go to the victim, rather than the state. Obviously this isn't always applicable (such as murder where the victim is dead), and I do believe there truly are some people that are dangerous enough to warrant incarceration (although I reserve that for only the most severe cases). But we're way off balance IMHO.
- goialoq 9y ago
  So if a murderer shouldn't be incarcerated or pay restitution, then what?
- Sangermaine 9y ago
  > I am a big fan of restitution laws where the damages go to the victim, rather than the state. So people should be able to kill others and just have to pay a fine to the estates/heirs of the victims?
- crpatino 9y ago
  There are many things that are not right with current law enforcement and prision systems, but preventing murderers from roaming around is not one of them. I agree that the current state of affairs is far from perfect. Most often than not prisions are universities of crime where individuals of less than great ethics get to know and work with the truly dangerous fuckers, and it may be the case that they don't really have an option to say no. Furthermore, there are many victimless crimes that would not grant imprisonment in the first place, if we lived in a fair world. But there are limits to the rights of individuals, and those come when they vulnerate the rights of other individuals and of general society. We need to put that people behind bars, basically because they are still human beings and we cannot just execute them (which would be easier and cheaper). This, by the way, has nothing to do with how dreadful their crimes were; it is a function of how difficult costly is to prevent them from acting from the inside of the prision. If you strangle toodlers for fun, we can put you in a cell with big burly adults and 50 miles away from any population center and you are neutralized. If you own billions of dollars in illicit funds, and can command others to keep your empire in good health, it gets harder. If you prove that you can keep commiting crimes even from inside jail, it argues pretty badly for a lethal injection.

Not sure if this is a troll or not, but I'll assume good faith. No I don't believe that to be the case at all. However the punishment or consequence(s) for violating a law (such as murder) should not involve incarceration. I am a big fan of restitution laws where the damages go to the victim, rather than the state. Obviously this isn't always applicable (such as murder where the victim is dead), and I do believe there truly are some people that are dangerous enough to warrant incarceration (although I reserve that for only the most severe cases). But we're way off balance IMHO.

goialoq 9y ago
So if a murderer shouldn't be incarcerated or pay restitution, then what?
Sangermaine 9y ago
> I am a big fan of restitution laws where the damages go to the victim, rather than the state. So people should be able to kill others and just have to pay a fine to the estates/heirs of the victims?
crpatino 9y ago
There are many things that are not right with current law enforcement and prision systems, but preventing murderers from roaming around is not one of them. I agree that the current state of affairs is far from perfect. Most often than not prisions are universities of crime where individuals of less than great ethics get to know and work with the truly dangerous fuckers, and it may be the case that they don't really have an option to say no. Furthermore, there are many victimless crimes that would not grant imprisonment in the first place, if we lived in a fair world. But there are limits to the rights of individuals, and those come when they vulnerate the rights of other individuals and of general society. We need to put that people behind bars, basically because they are still human beings and we cannot just execute them (which would be easier and cheaper). This, by the way, has nothing to do with how dreadful their crimes were; it is a function of how difficult costly is to prevent them from acting from the inside of the prision. If you strangle toodlers for fun, we can put you in a cell with big burly adults and 50 miles away from any population center and you are neutralized. If you own billions of dollars in illicit funds, and can command others to keep your empire in good health, it gets harder. If you prove that you can keep commiting crimes even from inside jail, it argues pretty badly for a lethal injection.