NationStates Jolt Archive

Whats a Country that you wouldnt want to live in?

Iran or Sudan.

Zimbabwe.

Depends on my mood. Sometimes America, sometimes Spain, usually Mexico. Just depends.

I know one thing I wouldnt live in The Middle East or in cold places

All of them except Australia :D

Specifically though, Iran, because I don't think I could handle having to listen to Queen all the time

Oh and that whole theocracy thing too, but mostly just the Queen thing.

France or Sierra Leone.

Any African country, most Asian and South American countries.

Middle Earth.



Damn nasty place.

hmm... Any country beginning with E, Q, W, Z, J, C, k, Ir, and Ib.

blah ha ha, now you have to think about it for the answer.


:mp5: :sniper: :mp5:
The Armed Republic Of Cruel Tyrany

China. Click this link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=438764) to see why.

Nazi Germany. That would suck.

Middle Earth.



Damn nasty place.

I'd love to own a nice little burrow in the Shire.

Antartica Alaska Yukon, Northwest territorys, nunivut greenland, iceland pretty much anywhere frekishly hot or cold... or where the people would kill me of put me into slave labor

I'm a quite homesick person, so living in any other country would be hard for me. But the worst places would be: Israel (no. I'm not anti-semitic. I just don't like being blown up on my way to a supermarket), Iran, Sudan, North Korea, Cuba, USA, Belarus...


Edit: Add: I'd avoid all battlefields, all hunger, thirst, corruption, oppression and fanatism.

I'd love to own a nice little burrow in the Shire.

I'd live in Baradur...teach those elvish bastards a lesson. I hated them.

Nobody said northern canada yet hmm

Predictably I answer, "Uhh-murrikuh".

I'd live in Baradur...teach those elvish bastards a lesson. I hated them.
See, there's just too much animosity between ethnic groups :(

Antartica Alaska Yukon, Northwest territorys, nunivut greenland, iceland pretty much anywhere frekishly hot or cold... or where the people would kill me of put me into slave labor

Iceland is warm. They have lots of hot springs, and are part of Europe. Plus, they have one of the highest life expedencies in the world.

As for me:
Japan (Insanely expensive)
China (Poor)
East Timor (Terrorism)
Iran (Islam)
Saudi Arabia (Islam)
Jordan (Islam)
Egypt (Terrorism)
Algeria (Poor)
Niger (Poor)
Angola (Poor)
Gabon (Poor)
Nigeria (Poor)
Benin (Poor)
Gambia (Poor)
Reunion (Poor)
Botswana (Poor)
Ghana (Poor)
Rwanda (Poor)
Burkina Faso (Poor)
Guinea (Poor)
Sao Tome & Principe (Poor)
Burundi (Poor)
Guinea-Bissaau (Poor)
Senegal (Poor)
Cameroon (Poor)
Kenya (Poor)
Lesotho (Poor)
Sierra Leone (Poor)
Central African Republic (Poor)
Liberia (Poor)
Somalia (Poor)
Chad (Poor)
Libya (Poor)
South Africa (Poor)
Comoros (Poor)
Sudan (Poor)
Both Congos (Poor)
Malawi (Poor)
Swaziland (Poor)
Mali (Poor)
Tanzania (Poor)
Cote d'Ivoire (Poor)
Mauritania (Poor)
Togo (Poor)
Djibouti (Poor)
Tunisia (Poor)
Morocco (Islam)
Uganda (Poor)
Equatorial Guinea (Poor)
Mozambique (Poor)
Eritrea (Poor)
Namibia (Poor)
Zambia (Poor)
Ethiopia (Poor)
Zimbabwe (Poor)
China (Communist)
France (Totalitarian)
Australia (Totalitarian)
Indonesia (Terrorism)
North Korea (Poor)
Vietnam (Jungle)
Cambodia (Jungle)
Nepal (Jungle)
India (People)
Pakistan (Islam)
Afganistan (Terrorism)
Brazil (Safety)
Columbia (Safety)
Venezuela (Safety)
Jamaica (Safety)

Although if you think about it the cash you have now would go a lot further in the poor countries

I'm surprised more people didn't say Mexico. It seems like most of the people who are born there would rather be in the USA.

[QUOTE=The Great Sixth Reich]
France (Totalitarian)


France totalitarian?? :confused: explain!

BTW I want to put Switzerland onto my list. Can't understand their language, their culture, ... (to all Swiss people in here: no offense - we're just not made for each other)

BTW I want to put Switzerland onto my list. Can't understand their language, their culture, ... (to all Swiss people in here: no offense - we're just not made for each other)
If you're having trouble with language in Switzerland, you're probably having trouble with Italian, German, and French, aside from Romansh...

They've got four official languages, PH. Just a heads-up for you there.

Any country further south than Ireland.

I'm very picky about where I'd live.

Any country I would consider living in needs:

Access to the ocean.
Tolerable weather.
Cable television.
Mud.
An average life expectancy greater than 50 years.

So there are actually few countries I'd want to live in.

If you're having trouble with language in Switzerland, you're probably having trouble with Italian, German, and French, aside from Romansh...

They've got four official languages, PH. Just a heads-up for you there.

:D thanks for this lesson. My native language is German (and I'm quite good at it although I do sometimes have my problems with it, too)and yet I'm not able to understand the dialect of the German-speaking (or so-called "German-speaking") Swiss. And my French is to limited to help me out. :rolleyes:

North Korea. While I enjoy role-playing a psychotic dictator, I'd really rather not live in a country ruled by one.

Russia. Ditto, except it's more of a corrupt dictatorship at the moment.

Monaco. Any place where I can walk in any direction for five minutes and hit the border is just too damned small.

:p

I'd hate to live a quite a bit of places:

Africa, Asia, the USA, and the drug-trafficking contries of America.

Basically, that leaves Europe, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, and Mexico.

One exception: San Francisco, California, US. I love it there........

---
C.H.F.

I think it should be... "What ones would I want to live in?"

Besides Canada, which I love...

The Netherlands - c'mon! It's got legalised weed!
France - I like the language and the country is nice
Austrilia - sure what the hell

But in answer to the question that wa asked...

I would really hate to live in America - too Christian and Republican for me...

Iran, or any other Islamic state.

China, N.korea and any communist countries. Nothing against communism in principle, but they always get rid of civil liberties for some reason.

The Bible belt of America, and the deep south. Any part thats not LA or Newyork really.

Africa, cos theyve got dictators and an AIDS epidemic, which most people there dont even think is related to the HIV virus, dumbasses.

Australia, they banned san andreas, and censorship is the first step towards the kind of shit we're seeing in north korea.

And any country that opposes gay marriage. I'm not gay myself, and dont feel particularly strongly about the issue, but its a good test of a countries civil rights.

oooh and israel. Although theyve toned down their invading tendencies lately.

North Korea, and this is assuming that I were a local...

North Korea

Iran, or any other Islamic state.

China, N.korea and any communist countries. Nothing against communism in principle, but they always get rid of civil liberties for some reason.

The Bible belt of America, and the deep south. Any part thats not LA or Newyork really.

Africa, cos theyve got dictators and an AIDS epidemic, which most people there dont even think is related to the HIV virus, dumbasses.

Australia, they banned san andreas, and censorship is the first step towards the kind of shit we're seeing in north korea.

And any country that opposes gay marriage. I'm not gay myself, and dont feel particularly strongly about the issue, but its a good test of a countries civil rights.

oooh and israel. Although theyve toned down their invading tendencies lately.
Uh dude China isn't Communist their sociolist.....
And hmmmmmmmm lets see I don't want to live in a nation that opposes gay marraiges too because those nations are just using the bible as an excuse to take out civil rights
And I don't want to live in...hmmm oh yes I don't want to live in Britian because I would be embarrassed by the stupid royal family their and I wouldn't want to live in France because the food their would kill me....
Actually I would like to live in Germany their the only nation that has the balls to admit they did something wrong even too the point of making a law against saying it didn't happen....I wouldn't want to live in Japan.... Bushido scares me

I wouldn't want to live in:

Ireland (too many people after me pot of gold)
France (need I go any further)
Poland (too many polish jokes)
anywhere in the Mediterranean (....lame)
Scandinavia (too many Vikings, netto and ikea)
Africa (too many things trying to eat me!)
Luxemburg (break dance capital of the world my arse)
India (too much water)
Atlantis (to many fish)
China (what's this )
Thailand (what’s the capital of Thailand?)
America (on a map can you find me America?)
South America (I like drugs but Jesus Christ not that much)
Eastern Europe (wait your not a woman!)
Middle East (Bush is out to get me!!!!)
N Korea (too many happy people)
Uzbekistan (spell Uzbekistan?)
Hawaii (too many gays)
Russia (I have heard of painting the town red but jeez)
Vietnam (where's my dog?)
Afghanistan (looks like tatoowein )
Iraq (beware the Bushes there all after you!)

North Korea. Cause I'm Christian, and if you speak freely about Christianity, they shoot you right out of your home.

They really shoot you out of your own house? Wow thats some weird government

North Korea. Cause I'm Christian, and if you speak freely about Christianity, they shoot you right out of your home.

Or put you to work until death, or send you to some prison to starve, or any other kind of punishment for "dissenters".

Lol thats over eggagerating they won't shot you but they'll give you the glare
They got pissed off at Christians ever since a christian president went into power their and shot buddist monks and burned them alive
Sigh pity everyone one has to love them and their give me money or I'll make missles attitude lol

As someone has mentioned NAzi Germany, I want to add another long-gone place: the Roman Empire. I'm blond - would have been a slave there... :( :eek: :D

Either North Korea or Sudan. I'd shoot myself if I were in either one, especially both at the same time.

Australia, they banned san andreas, and censorship is the first step towards the kind of shit we're seeing in north korea.


Uh.... no they didn't. I can testify to that quite honestly. We have some silly censorship laws, but they're so full of loopholes, that nobody gives a crap.


Australia (Totalitarian)


Huh? I'd like to hear a good explanation for that. I'm sorry to go off-topic in a nationalistic frenzy, but I would like to hear the justification for calling us a totalitarianism.

Oh yeah forgot to add ancient greece sparta
I would never last being short for my age heeheh

They really shoot you out of your own house? Wow thats some weird governmentThat's not so weird. Communists have made a religion out of "Religion is the opiate of the masses" quote by Marx. Poland is one of the few exceptions where that didn't work.
Weird is that they collected all the cell phones when they discovered how hard it is to prevent communication and weird is that men and women weren't allowed to use bicycles on the empty streets (I mean who besides the military and party members really owns a car?). I presume this was to prevent any communication by going somewhere else and finding how people thought about things in other towns. They changed the law for men though, but women still "cause too many accidents" (on empty streets!? Yeah right!).

Lol thats over eggagerating they won't shot you but they'll give you the glare
They got pissed off at Christians ever since a christian president went into power their and shot buddist monks and burned them alive
Sigh pity everyone one has to love them and their give me money or I'll make missles attitude lol
Actually they do. My uncle was a victim. They do it because many Christian teachings contradict with their style of government, and they shoot people out of their houses so their neighbors will "learn a lesson."

Lol thats over eggagerating they won't shot you but they'll give you the glare
They got pissed off at Christians ever since a christian president went into power their and shot buddist monks and burned them alive
Sigh pity everyone one has to love them and their give me money or I'll make missles attitude lolAnd I thought it was because Marx disliked religion... Shows how wrong I was...[/sarcasm]

Since we are all doing ancient countries, I'd say a nomadic group. Most nomads were little better than barbarians. For a proper country, however, it'd have to be the Q'ing Empire. No wonder that didn't last long.

I'll be the one to include the obligatory France.

I'll be the one to include the obligatory France.

Vive la France! :p :D C'mon, they're not THAT bad ;)

[QUOTE=The Great Sixth Reich]
France (Totalitarian)


France totalitarian?? :confused: explain!

http://www.humanrights-france.org/official/nwsltr_1/pg05.htm

Although I strongly hate the group that made that report, I do actually agree with them for once.

I'll be the one to include the obligatory France.
Nope. Some people already beat you, like me. :p

Huh? I'd like to hear a good explanation for that. I'm sorry to go off-topic in a nationalistic frenzy, but I would like to hear the justification for calling us a totalitarianism.
Ironically, you just replied to the reason I wrote that: They banned GTA: San Andreas. Which is NOT pornographic.

Any country that doesn't gives me freedom, is oppressive, and/or can't defend itself... or France.

That's why I love America!

Any country that doesn't gives me freedom, is oppressive, and/or can't defend itself... or France.

That's why I love America!


I think France falls under all of those categories >.>

[QUOTE=PersonalHappiness]

http://www.humanrights-france.org/official/nwsltr_1/pg05.htm



It's nothing new that the French are no fans of religion. I don't know any western country that has never been accused of not upholding human rights. If breaking the human rights makes a nation totalitarian, the USA is totalitarian, too (just think of the way some "terrorists" are treated in Cuba - they don't even get a trial). :rolleyes:

I think France falls under all of those categories >.>

Is this " >.>" supposed to be a smiley?

I think France falls under all of those categories >.>

I know, I just really wouldn't want to live in France, more so then any other.

Is this " >.>" supposed to be a smiley?



Eyes glancing off in another direction.

I'll be the one to include the obligatory France.Does this mean you'd rather live in North Korea than in France? :D

Does this mean you'd rather live in North Korea than in France? :D



That's a tough one.....a slow death by disgust/annoyance, or a quick death by the secret police.....gah, I can't decide :p

Eyes glancing off in another direction.

Thanks.

I think France falls under all of those categories >.>Then our definitions of "oppressive" and "freedoms" might differ a tad...

Does this mean you'd rather live in North Korea than in France? :D

At least North Korea would try to defend itself.

Antartica Alaska Yukon, Northwest territorys, nunivut greenland, iceland pretty much anywhere frekishly hot or cold... or where the people would kill me of put me into slave labor


Antarctica isn't a country. It's a continent.

France is a nuclear power. I would not mess with them. :rolleyes:

If you don't think that the French defend theirselves, you should just go to a Paris bistro and order "Freedom fries" :D

Then our definitions of "oppressive" and "freedoms" might differ a tad...



They're very anti-religious. Now, I'm not a Muslim, but I think that banning headscarves for those who are Muslims was going too far! They need to be held accountable for it.

[QUOTE=The Great Sixth Reich]

It's nothing new that the French are no fans of religion. I don't know any western country that has never been accused of not upholding human rights. If breaking the human rights makes a nation totalitarian, the USA is totalitarian, too (just think of the way some "terrorists" are treated in Cuba - they don't even get a trial). :rolleyes:
The enemy combants are treated in good conditions in Cuba (they can even read popular novels in Arabic). And they ARE tried before a military tribunal, and the innocent are released (several have been released by this method).

For a specific piece of evidence:

Each detainee's cell has a sink installed low to the ground, "to make it easier for the detainees to wash their feet" before Muslim prayer, Saar reports. Detainees get "two hot halal, or religiously correct, meals" a day in addition to an MRE (meal ready to eat). Loudspeakers broadcast the Muslims' call to prayer five times a day.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/printmm20050601.shtml

On the other hand, an international investigation has been ordered into French religous harassment.

North Korea. Starvation doesn't seem like fun.

That's a tough one.....a slow death by disgust/annoyance, or a quick death by the secret police.....gah, I can't decide :pI'd go for the slow death if I were you. They might find a cure... (I'm ashamed of myself for saying that already :( )

France is a nuclear power. I would not mess with them. :rolleyes: :D
Who isn't a nuclear power nowadays (don't answer, it's rhetorical)
If you don't think that the French defend theirselves, you should just go to a Paris bistro and order "Freedom fries"
(cough) World War II. Nope, we Americans will never forget that.

[QUOTE=PersonalHappiness]
The terrorists are treated in good conditions in Cuba (they can even read popular novels in Arabic). And they ARE tried before a military tribunal, and the innocent are released.

Are you sure? :confused: never heard of any trials. Fair trials.
But this was just an example to show that the USA does not uphold human rights either. No country does.

There's an article in the declaration of human rights saying that everyone has the right to have a job. --> Every country with unemployment is legally breaking human rights... :rolleyes:

(cough) World War II. Nope, we Americans will never forget that.


They did defend themselves. They just failed. That does not necessarily mean that they were cowards or something. Probably, Americans shouldn't forget that there was a strong resistance within France after the Nazi occupation.

They did defend themselves. They just failed. That does not necessarily mean that they were cowards or something. Probably, Americans shouldn't forget that there was a strong resistance within France after the Nazi occupation.

Germany was having economic problems and France wasn't!

[QUOTE=The Great Sixth Reich]

Are you sure? :confused: never heard of any trials. Fair trials.
But this was just an example to show that the USA does not uphold human rights either. No country does.

There's an article in the declaration of human rights saying that everyone has the right to have a job. --> Every country with unemployment is legally breaking human rights... :rolleyes:

I don't think you're understanding me. The US does not tolerate torture, or violations of human rights. When one is found, there is an uproar, and it is investigated and changed. I haven't heard of any French investigation into religious discrimation (although I admit there may be one, if you can show me).

As for that comment about "the right to have a job", it's actually that. Everybody has the right to have a job. That is only violated if a person isn't allowed a job, not if they are unemployed.

[QUOTE=PersonalHappiness]
Ironically, you just replied to the reason I wrote that: They banned GTA: San Andreas. Which is NOT pornographic.

As I said

Uh.... no they didn't. I can testify to that quite honestly. We have some silly censorship laws, but they're so full of loopholes, that nobody gives a crap.

San Andreas was not banned. Its freely available. There was controversy over the fact that the most restrictive rating we have is the MA 15+ rating, and that San Andreas was unsuitable for it. This happens with every violent video game that comes out, and they all still wind up passing. While I would like an R rating, simply so I can enjoy my violent video games without this uproar, they do not censor games like San Andreas here.

You are talking out your arse.

If you'd like, I can take a photo of all the boxes displayed prominantly at the front of every EB store in my area on Monday.

Actually you should rewrite that statement the US citizens don't tolerate torture but the military defintely does, you know one general in Iraq told an enemy general he was going to see his son and they brought him to his son... His son was in a cage half skeleton and shivering. Five minutes later the enemy general broke down and we got information that saved the lives of serveral troops

Germany was having economic problems and France wasn't!

Economy might be important in wars, but it's not everything.

anywhere in south america (except brazil - it effing rocks)

Economy might be important in wars, but it's not everything.

We are talking about a war aren't we?

Actually you should rewrite that statement the US citizens don't tolerate torture but the military defintely does, you know one general in Iraq told an enemy general he was going to see his son and they brought him to his son... His son was in a cage half skeleton and shivering. Five minutes later the enemy general broke down and we got information that saved the lives of serveral troops
Where did you hear that? Al-Jazeera?

[QUOTE=PersonalHappiness]

I don't think you're understanding me. The US does not tolerate torture, or violations of human rights. When one is found, there is an uproar, and it is investigated and changed. I haven't heard of any French investigation into religious discrimation (although I admit there may be one, if you can show me).

Why does the USA commit state-endorsed murder then? Slight human rights violation in my book.

USA is pretty near the top of the execution league table with those other well known guardians of democracy and human rights, Saudi Arabia and PR China.

Why does the USA commit state-endorsed murder then? Slight human rights violation in my book.

USA is pretty near the top of the execution league table with those other well known guardians of democracy and human rights, Saudi Arabia and PR China.

Yeah. Sums it up pretty well.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/printmm20050601.shtml

On the other hand, an international investigation has been ordered into French religous harassment.Curr... I question any source that starts its supporting paragraphs with "Here's the story the islamists and their supporters don't want to hear..."
Makes me feel misunderstood, and when they've failed to research that human rights activists don't necessarily support islamists par definition, I doubt they did enough objective research.

San Andreas was not banned. Its freely available. There was controversy over the fact that the most restrictive rating we have is the MA 15+ rating, and that San Andreas was unsuitable for it. This happens with every violent video game that comes out, and they all still wind up passing. While I would like an R rating, simply so I can enjoy my violent video games without this uproar, they do not censor games like San Andreas here.

You are talking out your arse.

If you'd like, I can take a photo of all the boxes displayed prominantly at the front of every EB store in my area on Monday.

http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/gta4/news_6130025.html

I don't think you're understanding me. The US does not tolerate torture, or violations of human rights. When one is found, there is an uproar, and it is investigated and changed. I haven't heard of any French investigation into religious discrimation (although I admit there may be one, if you can show me).

As for that comment about "the right to have a job", it's actually that. Everybody has the right to have a job. That is only violated if a person isn't allowed a job, not if they are unemployed.


I'm sorry but I'm not able to give you any special sources about protests against this discrimination in France. But in our French lesson, we watched French evening news: thousands on the streets protesting against religious discirmination and many many students refusing to go to school/college as long as their muslim friends are discriminated against. It was a big deal in France. But I fear I can't show you any evidence for what I've seen.

"The right to have a job" would make it illegal to fire people. And the right to live is obviously against Capital Punishment, isn't it?

[QUOTE=The Great Sixth Reich]
Why does the USA commit state-endorsed murder then? Slight human rights violation in my book.

USA is pretty near the top of the execution league table with those other well known guardians of democracy and human rights, Saudi Arabia and PR China.
The USA does not commit state-endorsed murder. What are you talking about? Is this some anti-death penalty arguement or something?

[QUOTE=The Great Sixth Reich]
Why does the USA commit state-endorsed murder then? Slight human rights violation in my book.

USA is pretty near the top of the execution league table with those other well known guardians of democracy and human rights, Saudi Arabia and PR China.



Criminals relinquish their rights upon conviction. Therefore, it's not a human rights violation.

Now that everybody is starting to team up to fight me, I'm leaving. :)

They're very anti-religious. Now, I'm not a Muslim, but I think that banning headscarves for those who are Muslims was going too far! They need to be held accountable for it.They didn't ban headscarves, they banned headscarves in public schools, ALONG WITH ALL OTHER RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS, because they felt it was important not to endorse any religion in school (I think it should be restricted to teachers, and not students, since they are servants of the state). A private muslim school can perfectly legally allow headscarves. Turkey, btw, which is a bit more muslim than France, has much stricter rules concerning headscarves, banning them outright I heard from some people, though I think you can get away with it in rural areas because those laws aren't enforced. So technically, Turkey would be higher on your list than France if that's what was important to you (and North Korea is a bit more anti-religious than either of them, considering that none of the other two regard religion as an "opiate").

[QUOTE=Borgoa]



Criminals relinquish their rights upon conviction. Therefore, it's not a human rights violation.


Human rights are something special because nobody can take them away from you. No matter what you do.(there's a special name for that, but I don't know the english word. Probably Laerod could help me out: "unveräusserlich") So even if you're a mass murderer, you have human rights. And you have the right to live. Therefore, capital punishment is a serious violation of human rights.

Now that everybody is starting to team up to fight me, I'm leaving. :)Don't go! It sucks debating with people that agree with you...:(

[QUOTE=Borgoa]
The USA does not commit state-endorsed murder. What are you talking about? Is this some anti-death penalty arguement or something?

I am merely stating that to claim there is an outcry about human rights abuses in the USA by Americans when they detect such things occuring when the authorities are mudering their own citizens is slightly strange.

United States is position number 4 in per capita use of executions. In the minds of most Europeans, this is a serious breach of human rights. The other countries in the top 5 are PR China, Iran, Vietnam and Saudi Arabia. It must be nice to be in such good company as a country that claims to be the world's leading democracy and force for good etc.

Myanmar... :(

[QUOTE=Borgoa]



Criminals relinquish their rights upon conviction. Therefore, it's not a human rights violation.

So, if I arrest you for a crime it's ok for me to torture and kill you? Strange argument.

Human rights are for everyone. The right to life is a core human right. Of course, murder is wrong, but to punish it by murdering doesn't really do much in conveying the original 'murder is wrong' message! In fact, it seems to show that the state endorses murder and the infringement of the right to life.

[QUOTE=Borgoa]Criminals relinquish their rights upon conviction. Therefore, it's not a human rights violation.May I add that plenty of the inmates haven't received a conviction and that they will be denied a "trial by their peers" and instead be tried by the very people that arrested them in the first place?
I respect the military, but in the end they are as prone to bias as you or me.

Actually you should rewrite that statement the US citizens don't tolerate torture but the military defintely does, you know one general in Iraq told an enemy general he was going to see his son and they brought him to his son... His son was in a cage half skeleton and shivering. Five minutes later the enemy general broke down and we got information that saved the lives of serveral troops
*cough*bullshit*cough*

[QUOTE=Neo Rogolia]


Human rights are something special because nobody can take them away from you. No matter what you do.(there's a special name for that, but I don't know the english word. Probably Laerod could help me out: "unveräusserlich") So even if you're a mass murderer, you have human rights. And you have the right to live. Therefore, capital punishment is a serious violation of human rights.



No, human rights are retained as long as you do not violate the rights of others. Upon being convicted of a crime, you are no longer deserving of any rights. Any nation that equates mass-murderers with law-abiding citizens falls under my category of "backwards."

*cough*bullshit*cough*
I'm not Bullshiting this thing really happened of course we pretty much kicked the guy's ass when the public found out but in truth it just shows the difference in opinions between the people and the military

[QUOTE=PersonalHappiness]



No, human rights are retained as long as you do not violate the rights of others. Upon being convicted of a crime, you are no longer deserving of any rights. Any nation that equates mass-murderers with law-abiding citizens falls under my category of "backwards."

I don't know of any nations that do this in regards to their ordinary citizens at least. Using your argument one could see that someone like George Bush Jnr is guilty of mass murder in allowing so many executions to occur during his time as Governor in Texas state.

I tend to find any country that endorses murder as a policy slightly underdeveloped in the moral values department.

[QUOTE=Neo Rogolia]

So, if I arrest you for a crime it's ok for me to torture and kill you? Strange argument.

Human rights are for everyone. The right to life is a core human right. Of course, murder is wrong, but to punish it by murdering doesn't really do much in conveying the original 'murder is wrong' message! In fact, it seems to show that the state endorses murder and the infringement of the right to life.



The punishment must be proportional to the crime, while not involving torture. Also, as the pro-choice group loves to say to me all the time, it's not murder unless it is illegal killing. As I've stated about three times now, criminals lose rights, correlating with the severity of their crime.

No, human rights are retained as long as you do not violate the rights of others. Upon being convicted of a crime, you are no longer deserving of any rights. Any nation that equates mass-murderers with law-abiding citizens falls under my category of "backwards."

I don't often find myself in agreement with Neo Rogolia... but on this one, I'm right alongside.

[QUOTE=Neo Rogolia]

I don't know of any nations that do this in regards to their ordinary citizens at least. Using your argument one could see that someone like George Bush Jnr is guilty of mass murder in allowing so many executions to occur during his time as Governor in Texas state.

I tend to find any country that endorses murder as a policy slightly underdeveloped in the moral values department.



No, execution is not "murder." It is a legitimate aspect of the criminal justice system, and an excellent deterrant to further crime. How many times do I have to say it?

No, human rights are retained as long as you do not violate the rights of others. Upon being convicted of a crime, you are no longer deserving of any rights.Brrp. WRONG!
Human rights are things you are entitled to no matter what.
You can be stripped of your freedom of movement for committing a crime, but you do not relinquish anything. Those rights can get violated but never taken away.
Let me direct your attention to the first sentence you wrote. Either take it back or admit that someone that violates someone elses human rights (such as for instance a prison warden taking pictures of naked inmates in humiliating poses) loses the right to any form of human kindness and should be treated with worse than only a few years in jail and a dishonorable discharge.

[QUOTE=Borgoa]



The punishment must be proportional to the crime, while not involving torture. Also, as the pro-choice group loves to say to me all the time, it's not murder unless it is illegal killing. As I've stated about three times now, criminals lose rights, correlating with the severity of their crime.

Criminals do not lose their core human rights, no one can or should. Murder is wrong, the state shouldn't endorse it. You seem to be suggesting that in order to punish a criminal you have to do the same thing back to them... how does that teach them / wider society what they have done is wrong? It just legitimises their actions.

No, execution is not "murder." It is a legitimate aspect of the criminal justice system, and an excellent deterrant to further crime. How many times do I have to say it?Certain parts of that statement were opinions, and you are side tracking by taking his bait.

[QUOTE=PersonalHappiness]



No, human rights are retained as long as you do not violate the rights of others. Upon being convicted of a crime, you are no longer deserving of any rights. Any nation that equates mass-murderers with law-abiding citizens falls under my category of "backwards."

If you were right, the person who carries out the execution would lose his human rights, too.

But the fact is that no person, no organisation, no country, no government, no human judge or jury has the right to take your personal human rights away. Never Ever. Just imagine: Hitler could simply have declared Jews as people without human rights and he would have been internationally allowed to kill them?! :headbang:

[QUOTE=Borgoa]



No, execution is not "murder." It is a legitimate aspect of the criminal justice system, and an excellent deterrant to further crime. How many times do I have to say it?
OK, fair enough, I shall reword it for you.
Execution is the direct infringement of the basic human right to life. If the authorities infringe the right to life in an official structured mannor (e.g. a justice system), then they appear to be legitimising this human rights infrigement as acceptable practice.

Brrp. WRONG!
Human rights are things you are entitled to no matter what.
You can be stripped of your freedom of movement for committing a crime, but you do not relinquish anything. Those rights can get violated but never taken away.
Let me direct your attention to the first sentence you wrote. Either take it back or admit that someone that violates someone elses human rights (such as for instance a prison warden taking pictures of naked inmates in humiliating poses) loses the right to any form of human kindness and should be treated with worse than only a few years in jail and a dishonorable discharge.

Human Rights are a fantasy.

There are NO fundamental human rights, except those which our societies CHOOSE to allow, and to recognise.

You have a right to life AS LONG as your society chooses to sustain that right to life.

Try arguing your right to life with the tiger...

[QUOTE=Neo Rogolia]

Criminals do not lose their core human rights, no one can or should. Murder is wrong, the state shouldn't endorse it. You seem to be suggesting that in order to punish a criminal you have to do the same thing back to them... how does that teach them / wider society what they have done is wrong? It just legitimises their actions.



By going easy on murderers, they are indirectly endorsing murder. The state reserves the right to defend its law-abiding citizens from harm, and mete out justice to those who violate the rights of others in a criminal manner. If you remove this right, then the state no longer functions as our protector.

I would never live in any African Country at all

I wouldn't call life-long imprisonment "going easy on murderers". It can be even more painful (psychologically seen. I hope, they are not physically tortured) for the murderer to have to think about what he has done.

[QUOTE=Borgoa]



By going easy on murderers, they are indirectly endorsing murder. The state reserves the right to defend its law-abiding citizens from harm, and mete out justice to those who violate the rights of others in a criminal manner. If you remove this right, then the state no longer functions as our protector.
Who is suggesting 'going easy' on murderers? Punishment is not forbidden. IT should however be in line with human rights practices.

I am sorry, I think actually commiting murder is a rather stronger endorsement of the act.

But, Laerod is correct, murder is an opinion and emotionally charged term. Let us stick with 'the intentional infringement of the right to life' or similar.

Human Rights are a fantasy.

There are NO fundamental human rights, except those which our societies CHOOSE to allow, and to recognise.

You have a right to life AS LONG as your society chooses to sustain that right to life.

Try arguing your right to life with the tiger...Gives a reason for the angry villagers for punishing the tiger though...
Human rights are not fantasy. They can be denied, but never revoked. Denying human rights will never be acceptable, and any nation that does so deserves the title "backward".

[QUOTE=Neo Rogolia]
OK, fair enough, I shall reword it for you.
Execution is the direct infringement of the basic human right to life. If the authorities infringe the right to life in an official structured mannor (e.g. a justice system), then they appear to be legitimising this human rights infrigement as acceptable practice.



When the state executes someone through legal means, it is not a human rights infringement.

[QUOTE=Neo Rogolia]
Who is suggesting 'going easy' on murderers? Punishment is not forbidden. IT should however be in line with human rights practices.

I am sorry, I think actually commiting murder is a rather stronger endorsement of the act.

But, Laerod is correct, murder is an opinion and emotionally charged term. Let us stick with 'the intentional infringement of the right to life' or similar.



Individuals convicted of a crime which incurs capital punishment abdicate their right to life. Therefore, no matter how much you like to say it is, executing them is not murder, rather, it is justice.

http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/gta4/news_6130025.html

As I said, silly censorship laws, but ultimatly ineffective. When Duke Nukem 3D came out, there was outrage. The game was eventually released without the naked women dancing in the strip clubs, and then about a month after the release, the regular version was sold in games stores everywhere. Carmageddon had the same thing. It took about three months untill retailers began stocking the non-zombie version.

Rockstar have already began recoding the game, removing the "offensive" code that sparked this controversy, and will release it worldwide long before the government manages to go through the process of passing the nessecary laws, and enforcing them, and in the meantime, sales of the game will soar while people get copies where they can simulate having sex with some extremely ugly looking polygons.

Its essentially a nod and wink system to keep the moral fanatics happy, while allowing consumers their freedom. Here, the government is smart enough to pander to everyone, hence the reason why a country with predominantly liberal social attitudes has elected a conservative government (called the Liberals, go figure) for the last twelve years.

I feel fortunate to live in a country that isn't under the stranglehold of a Christian Moral Majority (Ha, CMM). Anyone who demanded that creationism be taught in schools would be laughed out of town, despite 60 percent of Australians being Christian. We've elected two athiest Prime Ministers, and one Agnostic. People who are anti-abortion don't bomb clinics, they have rational debates, and our hippies don't throw blood on peoples fur coats, they sit in trees on the sites of shopping centres. Gay Marriage isn't legal, but a Gay Defacto couple have all the same rights as a married couple, even upto property division in the case of a split. The only argument left is about the semantics of the word "marriage" and whether that should be applied to gay couples or not.

There are probably some European countries that are freer places to live than Australia, but I don't want to learn a new language, and Canada is too cold.

To everyone else, I apologize for the nationalistic rant

When the state executes someone through legal means, it is not a human rights infringement.


Executing someone means taking his life away. But if he has the right to live, the person who takes away his life has violated this human right. In the declaration of human rights there's nothing like "every man has the right to live except criminals". It says "every man has the right to live.".

[QUOTE=Borgoa]



When the state executes someone through legal means, it is not a human rights infringement.

I do not see that you can make an abuse of the human right to life 'legal'. That is very strange. Any country that does so clearly has not yet evolved into a society with respect for human rights. We saw this in Europe, for many centuries we savegly endorsed murder by committing executions. Happily, we have now arrived at a more morally mature stage in our respective nations' evolutions.

It's very telling to look at the list of countries with the highest execution rates. Not countries I'd want to be associated with, especially if I was claiming to be a beacon of freedom.

This will be my last post until the morning (it's already morning... but you know what I mean!). Good night.

mur·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.
A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock1.

By going easy on murderers, they are indirectly endorsing murder. The state reserves the right to defend its law-abiding citizens from harm, and mete out justice to those who violate the rights of others in a criminal manner. If you remove this right, then the state no longer functions as our protector.I hope you're not saying that states that don't use the death penalty are endorsing murder. States that kill people in the name of the law are endorsing murder directly, though they call it differently. There are other ways of defending society from criminals and murderers. To suppose otherwise is grossly misguided. I feel more threatened by some corporate clown that closes down jobs in my home than a murderer, seeing as shutting down buisinesses happens more often.

[QUOTE=Neo Rogolia]

I do not see that you can make an abuse of the human right to life 'legal'. That is very strange. Any country that does so clearly has not yet evolved into a society with respect for human rights yet. We saw this in Europe, for many centuries we savegly endorsed murder by committing executions. Happily, we have now arrived at a more morally mature stage in our respective nations' evolutions.

It's very telling to look at the list of countries with the highest execution rates. Not countries I'd want to be associated with, especially if I was claiming to be a beacon of freedom.



Any country with respect for human rights will preserve the rights of its lawful citizens. By not carrying out justice, those citizens are having their rights violated. Therefore, morality lies in those states which do not seek to protect outlaws at the expense of the citizenry. The states which are immoral are the ones who cannot get past their sense of self-righteousness and do not provide victims and victims' families with justice.

Spain- the poor man's Italy, wot?

mur·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.
A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock1.


:D Who says that dictionaries are right? Call it murder, call it killing, call it cleansing, call it asdhkjwef- all the same: the victim is dead. Don't play on words.

mur·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.
A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock1.involuntary manslaughter
: manslaughter resulting from the failure to perform a legal duty expressly required to safeguard human life, from the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony, or from the commission of a lawful act involving a risk of injury or death that is done in an unlawful, reckless, or grossly negligent manner

Note the "or" in the last bolded part. Executing an innocent is involontary manslaughter, which, oh gosh!, is a criminal offense.
In that case, any judge or jury guilty of sentencing an innocent to death (negligence) should receive some sort of punishment. This is unfeasible even though it would be just.
I'd rather be rid of the death penalty.

:D Who says that dictionaries are right? Call it murder, call it killing, call it cleansing, call it asdhkjwef- all the same: the victim is dead. Don't play on words.



You must learn to discern between murder and killing:

Murder is unjust, it is the inherently sinful killing of the innocent

Killing has no intrinsic moral alignment, it simply is an action.

[QUOTE=Borgoa]


Any country with respect for human rights will preserve the rights of its lawful citizens. By not carrying out justice, those citizens are having their rights violated. Therefore, morality lies in those states which do not seek to protect outlaws at the expense of the citizenry. The states which are immoral are the ones who cannot get past their sense of self-righteousness and do not provide victims and victims' families with justice.


A state's duty is to protect ALL citizens. It has to protect the lawful ones by arresting those who break laws. AND it has to protect the outlaws from being lynched. Btw, this is another human right: you cannot take away someones nationality. So a US criminal is always a US citizen and therefore has to be protected by his government, no matter what he has done.
Don't forget: justice and revenge are not the same.

I think we can all agree, the worst place in the world to live would be the US.

When the state executes someone through legal means, it is not a human rights infringement.You could have saved yourself the silly arguements we had by saying that in the beginning. The death penalty is deplorable, but I don't think arguing the human rights issue on that is the best way to discuss it.
As far as I remember, we were talking about why you hated a catholic nation more than North Korea...

involuntary manslaughter
: manslaughter resulting from the failure to perform a legal duty expressly required to safeguard human life, from the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony, or from the commission of a lawful act involving a risk of injury or death that is done in an unlawful, reckless, or grossly negligent manner

Note the "or" in the last bolded part. Executing an innocent is involontary manslaughter, which, oh gosh!, is a criminal offense.
In that case, any judge or jury guilty of sentencing an innocent to death (negligence) should receive some sort of punishment. This is unfeasible even though it would be just.
I'd rather be rid of the death penalty.



But we're not discussing the execution of innocents, rather, we are discussing the execution of criminals.

You must learn to discern between murder and killing:

Murder is unjust, it is the inherently sinful killing of the innocent

Killing has no intrinsic moral alignment, it simply is an action.


No, I must not learn that. These definitions are only true in English-speaking countries. I must learn German definitions. So we can't discuss that, Neo Rogolia. What's the use of giving me english defintions? Do you want to hear German definitions? They don't change the fact that a person is dead after whatever you want to call the procedure.

I think we can all agree, the worst place in the world to live would be the US.You wouldn't get locked up for saying that in the US, while, if you said something equivalent to that in the DPRK, you would.

No, I must not learn that. These definitions are only true in English-speaking countries. I must learn German definitions. So we can't discuss that, Neo Rogolia. What's the use of giving me english defintions? Do you want to hear German definitions? They don't change the fact that a person is dead after whatever you want to call the procedure.



Following that logic, self-defense killing is immoral too...

Pretty much exclude the entire continents of South America, Africa, and Asia, and most of Europe. I also wouldn't want to live in Mexico. Canada I imagine I could stand, but not Mexico.

Although I really don't ever plan to leave the US :p Things will probably get better after the next elections when we'll no longer have a president from Texas xp

Nathan's house.

I think we can all agree, the worst place in the world to live would be the US.



That was sarcasm right? Please say it was. Oh well, I guess I'll get back to slaving in my concentration camp, and worshipping our Great and Glorious Leader as God on earth.

But we're not discussing the execution of innocents, rather, we are discussing the execution of criminals.Once you can guarantee me that no innocent is ever executed and I'll agree.

Following that logic, self-defense killing is immoral too...

Imho, it is. But everybody has to decide on his own wether morals are more important to him than his life.

Following that logic, self-defense killing is immoral too...How is someone that is locked away in a cell any direct danger to someone else?
Or:
How is killing someone strapped to a chair in any way self defense?

I think we can all agree, the worst place in the world to live would be the US.

Yes, being in one of the freest and most beautiful countries in the world is horrible, isn't it? ^.~

If nothing else, one thing you certainly can't argue is something I believe was already said - in the US you can say that the US is the worst country ever concieved and at an extreme worst get the finger. If you say bad things about a few other countries within their borders you're looking at prison or execution.

Murder is unjust, it is the inherently sinful killing of the innocentCurr... so executing an innocent isn't sinful?

That was sarcasm right? Please say it was. Oh well, I guess I'll get back to slaving in my concentration camp, and worshipping our Great and Glorious Leader as God on earth.I'll agree that the US is near the bottom of the list of countries I'd never want to live in, but I've been getting the impression that you are actually guilty of what I bolded...

I totally agree with Laerod. I bet, you all have seen my point of view. But I'd better go and get some sleep now. See you all! :fluffle:

Curr... so executing an innocent isn't sinful?



It is, the death penalty should be used with great discretion.

I'll agree that the US is near the bottom of the list of countries I'd never want to live in, but I've been getting the impression that you are actually guilty of what I bolded...



No, simply because I support him, it doesn't mean that I yield prostrate when in his holy presence ;)

How is someone that is locked away in a cell any direct danger to someone else?
Or:
How is killing someone strapped to a chair in any way self defense?



He stated that it's all wrong as long as someone ends up dead. Apparently, motives don't matter here.

Yes, being in one of the freest and most beautiful countries in the world is horrible, isn't it? ^.~

If nothing else, one thing you certainly can't argue is something I believe was already said - in the US you can say that the US is the worst country ever concieved and at an extreme worst get the finger. If you say bad things about a few other countries within their borders you're looking at prison or execution.

The US is the worst nation ever concieved! It has caused more death and suffering, not to mention pollution, than every other nation in the world combined!

Apparently, motives don't matter here. Death is death. It doesn't take sides.

The US is the worst nation ever concieved! It has caused more death and suffering, not to mention pollution, than every other nation in the world combined!



Hi, would you like to be the court jester for Neo Rogolia's presidential family? :p

I am fine where I am. Ireland. I would like a summer house in monaco or nice!!

Death is death. It doesn't take sides.



That's true, however the reasons for death do determine whether the death was just or not.

*snip* in the US you can say that the US is the worst country ever concieved and at an extreme worst get the finger.

I seriously doubt thats the worst anyone would do to me if I went around badmouthing the US, at least not on average. I'd be quite concerned about getting the living shit kicked out of me, but then again, thats just the truest form of democracy there is: Mob Justice.

I think the point you're trying to make is, if you go around bad-mouthing the US in the US, the people that are going to beat the crap out of you aren't going to be the police. Fair deal, common folk don't typically carry truncheons.

I would not like to live in Scotland. This is mainly because I've always had a morbid fear of sea monsters. :D

The US is the worst nation ever concieved! It has caused more death and suffering, not to mention pollution, than every other nation in the world combined!
Dear Anti-American,

US is a whole lot Cleaner in China there is horrible pollution people have to wear dust masks when they ride bikes through town because of the pollution.


show me the "more death and suffering" you say america is the reason for? the genocide in other african nations is due to Europeans with out them there wouldnt be rampant deseases in africa. the concintrated populations spread the deseases. personally i dont hate bush but i dont believe in his close relation of church and state.


Sincerely
Pro-American

Dear Anti-American,

US is a whole lot Cleaner in China there is horrible pollution people have to wear dust masks when they ride bikes through town because of the pollution.


show me the "more death and suffering" you say america is the reason for? the genocide in other african nations is due to Europeans with out them there wouldnt be rampant deseases in africa. the concintrated populations spread the deseases. personally i dont hate bush but i dont believe in his close relation of church and state.


Sincerely
Pro-American

Uh actually China is pretty clean right now because they use nuclear power and don't care what their citizens think
Nuclear power is one of the cleanest in the world
However China defintely had pollution problems and its still somewhat recovering
But America while it has one of the highest pollution rates since we have tree's and enviromental activists (AKA the smart people who should run the country) we'll be fine for at least a few years. This just opens up the idea that we should clean up our nation before it becomes unmanagable

Uh actually China is pretty clean right now because they use nuclear power and don't care what their citizens think
Nuclear power is one of the cleanest in the world
However China defintely had pollution problems and its still somewhat recovering
But America while it has one of the highest pollution rates since we have tree's and enviromental activists (AKA the smart people who should run the country) we'll be fine for at least a few years. This just opens up the idea that we should clean up our nation before it becomes unmanagable but you see Pro-Envormentalist Anit-American said combined i gave an example of pollution and i cant go around holding his hand and showing him everthing

Uh actually China is pretty clean right now because they use nuclear power and don't care what their citizens think
Nuclear power is one of the cleanest in the world
However China defintely had pollution problems and its still somewhat recovering
But America while it has one of the highest pollution rates since we have tree's and enviromental activists (AKA the smart people who should run the country) we'll be fine for at least a few years. This just opens up the idea that we should clean up our nation before it becomes unmanagable



China does not employ any enviromental safeguards, and they also contribute a great deal to pollution from industrial areas. Powerplants aren't the sole source of pollution.

China does not employ any enviromental safeguards, and they also contribute a great deal to pollution from industrial areas. Powerplants aren't the sole source of pollution.

True I'm not saying their the cleanest nation on earth I'm just saying their getting more aware and switching sources
Although funny enough US is pretty clean when it comes to factories because the environment pushes the gases to Canada..... there are currently big debates on it but Canada isn't too aggressive since America in turn helps ship out huge amounts of their goods and stuff

He stated that it's all wrong as long as someone ends up dead. Apparently, motives don't matter here.I don't wholly agree with his opinion, but it does lead to less people getting killed, so I find it a bit more moral.

It is, the death penalty should be used with great discretion.Which it currently isn't in the states. And we happen to have the man that used it with the most impunity for president.

I doubt you'll find this source (http://www.ccadp.org/serialpresident.htm) credible, but it does show how outraged people are with how "discrete" Bush has gone about with executing people. If anything, look up anything you might find questionable and refute it.

Uh actually China is pretty clean right now because they use nuclear power and don't care what their citizens think
Nuclear power is one of the cleanest in the world
However China defintely had pollution problems and its still somewhat recoveringI dunno. I study Environment and Resource Management and happen to know plenty of Chinese students at my University. I can assure you that "had" is wrong. The situation is worse than ever before because now people can afford to buy all sorts of things that get thrown away without being dealt with properly and China still relies on coal as it's primary fuel for power. China is not "clean right now".

China does not employ any enviromental safeguards, and they also contribute a great deal to pollution from industrial areas. Powerplants aren't the sole source of pollution.Actually, the cows used for fast food produce a hefty part of the greenhouse gasses.

Actually, the cows used for fast food produce a hefty part of the greenhouse gasses.

OOO lets kill mcdonalds

The thread seems to be getting off topic.

Cuba, under that paradise Island government
many of my fellow nations seem to defend
and excuse.

Cuba is governed by a
psychotic dictator personality
who outlaws just about everything,
while denying his brothers and sisters
all the rights and privileges
he bestows on foreigners,
while treating his brothers and sisters
as his little playthings,
while helping other nations
with educators and doctors
at the expense of his own
brothers and sisters
to fulfill his own ego.

La Habana Cuba

I now expect to be attacked like usual
for my post and no nation defend my post.

But I am kind of used to it.

Paradise Island is
reserved by a former nation
I checked just for the heck of it.

The middle east, I wouldn't really want to live in America either.

US is still better than most, at least people are dying because there's too much food rather than not enough. :D

I wouldn't want to live in countries that don't even have the basic neccessities of running water, food, clothing, house, political stability...Probably lots of poor countries of Africa & war countries (Iraq, Chechnya, etc.)

This one, any African country, most Asian ones, South American ones. Pretty much just continental Europe and North America...

In sweden! They suck!

I wouldn't want to live in anywhere else!!

Dear Anti-American,

--snip (already been addressed) ----


show me the "more death and suffering" you say america is the reason for? the genocide in other african nations is due to Europeans with out them there wouldnt be rampant deseases in africa. the concintrated populations spread the deseases. personally i dont hate bush but i dont believe in his close relation of church and state.


Sincerely
Pro-American

23589 Iraqi civilian casualties so far, not counting the endless amounts wounded since the invasion of Iraq: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Plus there is a little matter of a fair few of your big businesses supporting overseas sweatshops and paying minimum wage (which isn't nearly enough) to their local workers.

And Keanu Reeves and Tom Cruise has caused myself endless amounts of suffering :p

Note: I'm not saying America is the worst, but for the supposed "land of the free" your government is filled with hypocrites and liars. I have nothing against the people.

[QUOTE=The Great Sixth Reich]
Why does the USA commit state-endorsed murder then? Slight human rights violation in my book.

USA is pretty near the top of the execution league table with those other well known guardians of democracy and human rights, Saudi Arabia and PR China.

while i am ashamed that we still use the death penalty, our executions are the outcome of a fair trial (well, i suppose you could debate that but oh well) and at least to my knowledge aren't politically motivated. we try to make our executions humane, if murdering another human being can ever be considered "humane". we do use torture, as well, but our tactics tend to be a bit less harsh, and are again not politically motivated. our use is to extract information that can hopefully be used to bring down terrorist organizations, and so you can attempt to justify it by saying that your motive is to save civilian lives. while the U.S. is far from perfect, i for one will take its imperfections over any other country's in the world.

It might be quicker to write a list of countries I wouldn't object to living in...

1) Canada
2) UK
3) Aus
4) NZ
5) USA

Basically I wouldn't want to live somewhere without English as the native language, somewhere 3rd world, or somewhere undemocratic. Which leaves my list a little on the short side.

Neo-Regolia, have you ever visited France perchance? You seem to know an awful lot about how bad it is to live there.

mur·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.
A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock1.

It would seem your dictionary reflects your cultural prejudices towards murder and killing. My Swedish dictionary defines murder as "killing with intent". But as I said before, let's not dwell on the word murder. This is about the breaching of the human right to life.

It's interesting to note Alabama's murder rate is 7,9 persons per 100,000 population. Here it was 1,01 persons per 100,000 population. It's interesting to note that Sweden last executed someone 95 years ago in 1910.

It's interesting to read of all the problems and claims that defendants facing execution in Alabama have not received fair and just trials (e.g. representation etc). It's also interesting to read about the quite blatant racism and sexism in determining death vs prison as a punishment in USA.

The most astounding thing is that USA has only recently stopped executing children and still does execute mentally handicapped people. There are also many cases where foreign citizens have been executed without the rights under the Vienna Convention being upheld. Can you imagine the fuss USA would make if a US citizen was killed without getting access to American consular officials?

All of this, and the murder rate is still higher than most (probably all) western European countries (none of which execute - you can't even join the Council of Europe or the EU if you commit this human rights violation).

I find it really very difficult to understand a mentality that doesn't consider the activity of execution a serious breach of the most fundamental human right to life.

I'm glad that there are so many responses to this thread

Gives a reason for the angry villagers for punishing the tiger though...
Human rights are not fantasy. They can be denied, but never revoked. Denying human rights will never be acceptable, and any nation that does so deserves the title "backward".

What do you mean by punishment?

The killer who re-offends was 'punished' - and yet it didn't fix the problem - so punishment is obviously just an action to reward an evil act with a form of suffering.

If punishment serves no constructive purpose, it is just vengeance...

Human Rights ARE a fantasy... show me evidence for them?

There is no assurance of ANY 'rights'... there is nothing 'carved in stone'. You are confusing your image of how you WISH the world was, with the reality of how it really IS.

[QUOTE=Neo Rogolia]

I do not see that you can make an abuse of the human right to life 'legal'. That is very strange. Any country that does so clearly has not yet evolved into a society with respect for human rights. We saw this in Europe, for many centuries we savegly endorsed murder by committing executions. Happily, we have now arrived at a more morally mature stage in our respective nations' evolutions.

It's very telling to look at the list of countries with the highest execution rates. Not countries I'd want to be associated with, especially if I was claiming to be a beacon of freedom.

This will be my last post until the morning (it's already morning... but you know what I mean!). Good night.

There are no 'human rights to life'. We are lucky enough to be born in the first place, and, we keep living until we die... That's about it.

France, Iran, Sudan, Rowanda, North Korea

Once you can guarantee me that no innocent is ever executed and I'll agree.

Wouldn't you agree that it might be worth losing a few innocents to ENSURE the cessation of crimes by the truly evil?

I mean - sure, make the system as foolproof as possible, but the system shouldn't be discounted JUST because the occasional non-mass-murderer is unjustly punished?

How do you ratify that, when we KNOW that prison systems are finite, and that offenders ARE re-released into society, where they DO re-offend?

You are weighing the needs of one or two potential wrong-sentences, against the potential victims of re-offenders.

[QUOTE=Borgoa]

There are no 'human rights to life'. We are lucky enough to be born in the first place, and, we keep living until we die... That's about it.

That's the attitude of the less morally developed parts the world maybe. I am sure when those regions become morally mature they will follow the lead of those areas that have abolished the death penalty.

Protocal 13 of the ECHR forbids the death penalty in connection with the original 1960s article 2 (Everyone's right to life).

Wouldn't you agree that it might be worth losing a few innocents to ENSURE the cessation of crimes by the truly evil?No.
I mean - sure, make the system as foolproof as possible, but the system shouldn't be discounted JUST because the occasional non-mass-murderer is unjustly punished?That's not the only reason, but it most certainly is the best.
How do you ratify that, when we KNOW that prison systems are finite, and that offenders ARE re-released into society, where they DO re-offend?What's the point? Are you saying once people are punished, they deserve to be viewed as criminals for the rest of their lives? Why have prisons in the first place if no one can change for the better?
You are weighing the needs of one or two potential wrong-sentences, against the potential victims of re-offenders.One or two potential wrong sentences? Far as I've heard (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/11/illinois.death.row/), there were four death row inmates completely pardoned alone in Illinois.
Our capital system is haunted by the demon of error: error in determining guilt and error in determining who among the guilty deserves to die.

Canada, Cuba, the entire continent of Africa, Mexico, China, France, Spain and any middle-east nation.

How do you ratify that, when we KNOW that prison systems are finite, and that offenders ARE re-released into society, where they DO re-offend?

You are weighing the needs of one or two potential wrong-sentences, against the potential victims of re-offenders.


You can't just kill someone because you think that he might do something bad in the future.
Are judges fortune-tellers, able to see what the prisoner is going to do after 20 years of imprisonment?
Hey! You look evil. I'll kill you, because you could turn out to kill me in some decades! What kind of mentality is that?!

What kind of mentality is that?!

Numerous studies show that in America, violent criminals will repeat their acts upon release. When the chances are that damn high for another horrible crime, the only sensible thing is to keep violent criminals away from the public...permanently.

hmm... Any country beginning with E, Q, W, Z, J, C, k, Ir, and Ib.

blah ha ha, now you have to think about it for the answer.


:mp5: :sniper: :mp5:
The Armed Republic Of Cruel Tyrany


ahem.....

ahem

AHEMMMM!!! IR-eland here!!!!!

mutter mutter...


OK just to be nice I'll just list countries I've been to that I also wouldn't like to live in

Belgium Too densely populated - apart from that a cool place!
Canada The winters and the comparative lack of culture/history
England: The place compares unfavourably with home - overpopulated and rife with social problems, and that "keeping up with the Jones's attitude I can never understand"
(Wales and Scotland on the other hand are lovely!)
Egypt: Very homophobic, unsafe, too bloody hot! (I did like certain aspects of the place and would definitely revisit, but I'd never live there)
Estonia Interesting place, but I don't like the sound of the language and there's mother Russia next door.
Finland: The winter (and how dour the people get during it - they're nice in summer though). Pricy also.
France: Love the country, culture, cuisine and people, but don't like the people in charge
Germany: I will live here for a while in the future, but not forever I don't think cause like England the place is rife with social problems and is a political nightmare with huge social spending - I like the green energy thrust the current government has though!
ItalyLove the country, culture and cuisine. However a bit on the hot side for me, and stereotypical Italian male behaviour mildly aggravates me.
Netherlands: Love the legal pot and the gay marraige, but the place is so bloody flat - get some mountains please!!! ;) Also too densely populated!
Russia: Huge rich-poor divide, lots of corruption, unsafe, the rising fascist tendencies in Putin.
Switzerland Too many mountains - give some to the Netherlands, seriously though I just can't warm to the Swiss, is it the Northern European reserve, or the fact that I feel I'm being sized and measured within an inch of my worth everytime one looks at me.
US: The overwhleming use of demagogy and money in politics, and the super capitalist nature of the place (everything is "buy this" "buy that" and "can I help you sir?") but most importantly the lack of a culture/history. Everything is younger than the house I grew up in.

So that leaves me with some maybe for a little while countries
Germany and France
Scotland and Wales

and then there's Spain which rocks! But in general I'm not sure where I'd like to live - I'd like to try out Oz for a while if they get that git out of parliament, and maybe Chile.....

I wouldn't want to live in a country that ends with -stan

I would hate to live in the USA, China, North Korea, Uzbekistan, Colombia, Zimbabwe, Congo, Israel, Iraq and many other countries either with a right wing authoritarian government, civil war or extreme poverty.

EARTH!!!

Its full of people that cant stop hating SOMETHING. :headbang:

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]

That's the attitude of the less morally developed parts the world maybe. I am sure when those regions become morally mature they will follow the lead of those areas that have abolished the death penalty.

Protocal 13 of the ECHR forbids the death penalty in connection with the original 1960s article 2 (Everyone's right to life).

Rubbish. Which parts of the world are 'less morally mature' - and which are 'more'? It's all relative, my friend. A lot of people dislike Capital Punishment... that doesn't make the Capital Punishment choice 'less' morally ANYTHING... except to the view point of individuals.

And quoting ECHR protocols just reinforces my point... if you can have a set of man-made protocols, which are necessary to 'create' a set of 'Human Rights' then those rights are not naturally guaranteed... and are PURELY an artifact.

A country I wouldnt like to live in?

The USA.

I wouldn't like to go to Texas and be shot only for looking a menacing spaniard.
I wouldn't like to go to NY and not to look to the eyes of people.
Finally, I wouldn't like to take part in elections in the country who rules the world, but whose profits are only enjoyed in some places inside its frontiers.

You can't just kill someone because you think that he might do something bad in the future.
Are judges fortune-tellers, able to see what the prisoner is going to do after 20 years of imprisonment?
Hey! You look evil. I'll kill you, because you could turn out to kill me in some decades! What kind of mentality is that?!

I didn't say anything about killing "someone because you think that he might do something bad in the future". I talked about executing violent offenders, so that they CANNOT re-offend.

Why do you find the life of one (already tried, convicted, and sentenced) violent offender, over the potential lives of one or more innocents?

We aren't talking about knocking infants over the head, because they 'look shifty'... we are talking about removing an already PROVED threat.

No.


Well, then that is your personal moral quandry. If you think it's okay to let an 'evil' person kill indiscriminately, because you are too squeamish to face the responsibility of killing the NON-innocent, then you are the one who has to deal with the blood on your hands.


That's not the only reason, but it most certainly is the best.


It salves your conscience, perhaps, that another spills MORE innocent blood, so that you don't have to spill ANY blood.


What's the point? Are you saying once people are punished, they deserve to be viewed as criminals for the rest of their lives? Why have prisons in the first place if no one can change for the better?


Prisons were not my idea. And, you may not have noticed, but prisons have only recently been viewed as tools of rehabilitation, at all.

Prisons have historically been where you put criminals - to punish them, and to keep them from harming others.

Maintain prisons - they serve a purpose. Put the non-violent offenders in them... the blue-collar criminals. But execute ALL of the rapists and murderers.

One or two potential wrong sentences? Far as I've heard (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/11/illinois.death.row/), there were four death row inmates completely pardoned alone in Illinois.

A pardon is not the same as being innocent.

Whats a Country that you wouldnt want to live in?
A country of western civilization: USA. Used to be nice to visit (changed my opinion recently - no more visits). To live in? Hell no!

Other than that - hell, I'd rather stay in good ol' Europe's Germany :D

Well, then that is your personal moral quandry. If you think it's okay to let an 'evil' person kill indiscriminately, because you are too squeamish to face the responsibility of killing the NON-innocent, then you are the one who has to deal with the blood on your hands.
That is just sick: Committing a crime in the name of justice?!?

That is just sick: Committing a crime in the name of justice?!?

How is execution a crime? It is the legal solution to a crime.

Surely, you must also think prisons are sick? They remove so many freedoms from the poor offenders.

Why should they be forced to remain in one place, just because they 'accidentally' raped a baby, or killed and ate their neighbour?

Believe it or not, a quick, clean execution is actually much MORE 'civilised' and 'humane' than the majority of actions that I am arguing DESERVE that 'punishment'.

First of all- are most of you Spainards? because I hear from a lot of you saying that spain is great and i agree but i don´t like sometimes how the people act and i don´t like (with the rest of Europe) that people are always saying how bad it is to live in america if so much stuff that they enjoy comes from the us. The Us politics is scruwed ,yes, but so is Englands and Germanys, and a goverment does not define a people. Overall spain is a great country and i Would love to live their.

The only place i would not like to live in is Cuba because of communism there and Vatican City because its too small to even live in it (but if I was the Pope that would be a differnt story). :sniper:

I didn't say anything about killing "someone because you think that he might do something bad in the future". I talked about executing violent offenders, so that they CANNOT re-offend.

Why do you find the life of one (already tried, convicted, and sentenced) violent offender, over the potential lives of one or more innocents?

We aren't talking about knocking infants over the head, because they 'look shifty'... we are talking about removing an already PROVED threat.


1. You can keep criminals from commiting crimes again by lifelong imprisonment without parole. For God's sake, our prisons are safe enough that no-one is going to escape.

2. I think that nobody has the right to decide who is allowed to live and who has to die. No jury, no judge should have this power. It's just too dangerous and could be abused (as it has been abused in the past). And in my opinion, the life of every single human being, no matter what he has done, is too precious to be destroyed.

3. You can never really PROVE things. The convicted could easily be innocent. Or the crime (s)he has committed is not a real crime (may I remind you that in some fundamentalist countries, women are executed because of adultery?)

There are just too many cons concerning Death penalty and there's not really anything to say against lifelong imprisonment. Why not take the second, more humane method of punishment? :(

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]
Why should they be forced to remain in one place, just because they 'accidentally' raped a baby, or killed and ate their neighbour?
QUOTE]

I don't think that rape should be a capital offense. It's a horrible crime, but the victims can be healed - even if it takes a long time.

Those who rape babies or eat human beings are mentally ill. They are to be pitied. They need psychiatric care and not death row and a violent exectuion (I do not believe in the image of "hygienic, humane" killing).

1. You can keep criminals from commiting crimes again by lifelong imprisonment without parole. For God's sake, our prisons are safe enough that no-one is going to escape.


Every single time a single person escapes from custody, your argument becomes invalid. Would you care to wager on the statistics of escaping criminals?

And, I can't believe anyone would make sucha a comment, anyway... or do you honestly have such a rose-tinted view, that you believe no crimes occur WITHIN prisons?


2. I think that nobody has the right to decide who is allowed to live and who has to die. No jury, no judge should have this power. It's just too dangerous and could be abused (as it has been abused in the past). And in my opinion, the life of every single human being, no matter what he has done, is too precious to be destroyed.


I think the LAW should have the right to decide who lives, and who dies. Violent, repeat offenders do not deserve the 'right to life'. Thus, it should be revoked.

You say, that in your opinion every single human life is 'too precious to be destroyed'... and yet that doesn't bother you when it is someone else spilling the blood. There are violent criminals in our prisons, that have killed, that enjoy killing, and that WILL kill again.

You KNOW they will... statistics support the fact that violent criminals re-offend... and yet, you care more for the identified violent criminal, than for the innocents (women, children... maybe YOUR children) that could be the re-offend victims.


3. You can never really PROVE things. The convicted could easily be innocent. Or the crime (s)he has committed is not a real crime (may I remind you that in some fundamentalist countries, women are executed because of adultery?)


Maybe SOME small figure of innocents will be unjustly punished. However, I am not talking about executing people on hearsay... I am mainly talking about those who have been witnessed performing repeated, violent crimes.

You catch a guy actually RAPING someone... how is the jury going to find him 'not guilty'?

What the hell are you talking about with adultery? Where did I advocate executing adulterers?


There are just too many cons concerning Death penalty and there's not really anything to say against lifelong imprisonment. Why not take the second, more humane method of punishment? :(

How about the simple fact that the state, and the people, have to SUPPORT violent criminals? How about the fact that prisoners get three meals a day, when something akin to a quarter of the American population (and much greater numbers elsewhere in the world) cannot afford such luxury?

How about the fact that the life-prisoner serves NO societal benefit, ONLY drains the resources of those who DESERVE to live?

How about the fact that, as long as a violent repeat offender is in jail, there is ALWAYS the possibility that he/she can kill again?

What is inhumane about a lethal injection? The misery is over in a very short space of time. That has to be kinder than years in incarceration, surely?

what is the purpose of the death penalty? i'd like to see some reasons that can possibly be debated.

1. You can keep criminals from commiting crimes again by lifelong imprisonment without parole. For God's sake, our prisons are safe enough that no-one is going to escape.

2. I think that nobody has the right to decide who is allowed to live and who has to die. No jury, no judge should have this power. It's just too dangerous and could be abused (as it has been abused in the past). And in my opinion, the life of every single human being, no matter what he has done, is too precious to be destroyed.

3. You can never really PROVE things. The convicted could easily be innocent. Or the crime (s)he has committed is not a real crime (may I remind you that in some fundamentalist countries, women are executed because of adultery?)

There are just too many cons concerning Death penalty and there's not really anything to say against lifelong imprisonment. Why not take the second, more humane method of punishment? :(

Prisons are NOT 100% secure. There have been plenty of escapes from high-security prisons, FAR too many. God gave human goverments the power over life and death in serving justice, and I beleive it's a tool we must use for the worst criminals-rapists, murderers, career criminals, child molesters, traitors, and 3rd time bank theifs.

Of course, we could eleminate many prisons if we stopped handing out jail sentences and started publicly caning criminals.....IE Starship troopers style.

what is the purpose of the death penalty? i'd like to see some reasons that can possibly be debated.

Well, noone to my knowledge has ever been executed and come back to commit a crime, so I'm guessing it's effective...

If it works, keep it

Well, noone to my knowledge has ever been executed and come back to commit a crime, so I'm guessing it's effective...

If it works, keep it

well hell, let's expand it. how about we cut off the genatalia of rapists, the hands of thieves, the legs of carjackers. should be pretty effective. worked for hammurabi, right? we surely haven't progressed socially since then, have we. maximum security prisons are practically as effective. do you have any numbers that tell how many people who are serving life without parole have escaped? i'd imagine the number is miniscule. what are the numbers of people who have escaped from death row?

--> Every single time a single person escapes from custody, your argument becomes invalid. Would you care to wager on the statistics of escaping criminals?

- Every single time a single innocent is executed, your argument becomes invalid.


--> And, I can't believe anyone would make sucha a comment, anyway... or do you honestly have such a rose-tinted view, that you believe no crimes occur WITHIN prisons?

-I hope that our police is doing its best to keep an eye on the prisoners. And I don't plan ever to go there, so I won't find out if there are crimes happening within prisons.


--> I think the LAW should have the right to decide who lives, and who dies. Violent, repeat offenders do not deserve the 'right to life'. Thus, it should be revoked.

- And if the law of a country decides to kill all Jews / all blondes / all (wo)men / all (insert group), it is ok? Laws are made by human beings and therefore they're NOT always right!


--> You say, that in your opinion every single human life is 'too precious to be destroyed'... and yet that doesn't bother you when it is someone else spilling the blood.

- It does bother me.


--> There are violent criminals in our prisons, that have killed, that enjoy killing, and that WILL kill again.
You KNOW they will... statistics support the fact that violent criminals re-offend... and yet, you care more for the identified violent criminal, than for the innocents (women, children... maybe YOUR children) that could be the re-offend victims.

- They are not going to get out of prison any more. I'm not scared of runaway criminals, are you? In fact, it's more likely that you're hit by a lightening than murdered by an escaped serial killer.


--> You catch a guy actually RAPING someone... how is the jury going to find him 'not guilty'?

- They jury is going to find him guilty, because he is. And then, he'll go to jail. What's the problem?


About the financial issue:
Executing someone is far more expensive than keeping him alive for - let's say - 30 more years, because the condemned is going to have several trials, all those trials are expensive.... Paying the lawyers (and the state has to do that if the prisoner can't afford it, right?), the judges, the bureaucracy,...

And even IF lifelong imprisonment was more expensive: I'd rather pay my 2 € extra tax a yearknowing that no innocent person is executed than buy one more chewing gum and have to live with my bad conscience.



--> How about the fact that prisoners get three meals a day, when something akin to a quarter of the American population (and much greater numbers elsewhere in the world) cannot afford such luxury?

- If a quarter of Americans can't afford having three meals a day, you should really start to worry about the place you live in. Then you're on a lower level than some developping countries.



--> What is inhumane about a lethal injection? The misery is over in a very short space of time. That has to be kinder than years in incarceration, surely?

- 1. You have to wait for your lethal injection for years. 2. You don't know when you are going to be executed. Every week could be your last. You spend 7-10 years in agony every day for the rest of your life. 3. You can't plan anything anymore. Criminals who have lifelong imprisonment can spend their time writing books, painting, learning languages... whatever they feel like. But on death row, you can't even be sure that you're able to finish reading the book you've started. That's psychological terror! The misery is NOT over soon, because the misery starts at court!

To answer the original question (not having read the whole thread, though):

I'm open for most countries. I don't like hot countries too much, and would tend to stay in the extreme north or the extreme south rather than anywhere around the equator, but I wouldn't object to any country on account of it being poor. I might have second thoughts concerning personal safety now and then.
The only country that got excluded from my list of "Oh, I'd like to live there one day"-countries is the USA. Lots of different reasons, in short I just don't really agree with the overall culture. No offense.

well hell, let's expand it. how about we cut off the genatalia of rapists, the hands of thieves, the legs of carjackers. should be pretty effective. worked for hammurabi, right?


Curious... I spent many years studying Mesopotamian cultures, and I don't remember ANY references to carjackings...

[/QUOTE]


we surely haven't progressed socially since then, have we. maximum security prisons are practically as effective.


Rubbish. How many people got knifed to death by an EXECUTED prisoner? And yet, in prison violence is a fairly common occurence.


do you have any numbers that tell how many people who are serving life without parole have escaped? i'd imagine the number is miniscule. what are the numbers of people who have escaped from death row?

So - you have NO idea, but you 'imagine' something significant about the numbers?

--> Every single time a single person escapes from custody, your argument becomes invalid. Would you care to wager on the statistics of escaping criminals?

- Every single time a single innocent is executed, your argument becomes invalid.


Nonsense. That has nothing to do with MY argument... I said I was willing to accept a few innocent casualties to ENSURE that the truly guilty were removed.

Try at least READING the posts you respond to.

You, on the other hand, said that Capital Punishment is just as effective as incarceration, because prisoners never escape. Thus - if even ONE escapes... it makes a liar of you.



--> And, I can't believe anyone would make sucha a comment, anyway... or do you honestly have such a rose-tinted view, that you believe no crimes occur WITHIN prisons?

-I hope that our police is doing its best to keep an eye on the prisoners. And I don't plan ever to go there, so I won't find out if there are crimes happening within prisons.


So - you have no information? Again - you argue from ignorance. Just because you DON'T KNOW there is prison crime, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Try looking it up.


--> I think the LAW should have the right to decide who lives, and who dies. Violent, repeat offenders do not deserve the 'right to life'. Thus, it should be revoked.

- And if the law of a country decides to kill all Jews / all blondes / all (wo)men / all (insert group), it is ok? Laws are made by human beings and therefore they're NOT always right!


No, it's not okay. However, being 'Jewish' isn't something you choose to do, and doesn't involve the suffering and death of other people.

There is no parallel. I'm talking killers, you are making flippant 'ethnic' jokes.


--> You say, that in your opinion every single human life is 'too precious to be destroyed'... and yet that doesn't bother you when it is someone else spilling the blood.

- It does bother me.


Not according to your own words: "I don't plan ever to go there, so I won't find out if there are crimes happening within prisons"... seems pretty dismissive of suffering to me.


--> There are violent criminals in our prisons, that have killed, that enjoy killing, and that WILL kill again.
You KNOW they will... statistics support the fact that violent criminals re-offend... and yet, you care more for the identified violent criminal, than for the innocents (women, children... maybe YOUR children) that could be the re-offend victims.

- They are not going to get out of prison any more. I'm not scared of runaway criminals, are you? In fact, it's more likely that you're hit by a lightening than murdered by an escaped serial killer.


Again - you argue from a point of ignorance. Do you know how many prisoners escape from jails, around the world, every day? If not - what is your basis for arguing it doesn't happen?

I have lived in big cities. One of those cities I lived in was Leicester, in the UK. While I was living in Leicester, over a period of about a decade, there were SEVERAL separate 'escapes'. Since I have lived in the US, I have a personal friend who had a violent offender hide out in his garden after a prison break in Wisconsin. Since I moved to a town of about 100 people, in the Bible Belt, I have personally witnessed the flight of a pair of fugitives from imprisonment.

Just from my life. Just from anecdotal evidence. I KNOW you are wrong.


--> You catch a guy actually RAPING someone... how is the jury going to find him 'not guilty'?

- They jury is going to find him guilty, because he is. And then, he'll go to jail. What's the problem?


Those are the people I am talking about executing. The 'guilty'. You just agreed with me, in the hypothetical case above, the criminal was guilty. We just differ on how he should be punished.


About the financial issue:
Executing someone is far more expensive than keeping him alive for - let's say - 30 more years, because the condemned is going to have several trials, all those trials are expensive.... Paying the lawyers (and the state has to do that if the prisoner can't afford it, right?), the judges, the bureaucracy,...

And even IF lifelong imprisonment was more expensive: I'd rather pay my 2 € extra tax a yearknowing that no innocent person is executed than buy one more chewing gum and have to live with my bad conscience.


Executing someone takes a handful of cash. It's all the additional rigmarole that costs the money.

I see, however, the problem. You cannot stand to have one 'innocent' on your conscience. Well, why should justice be determined by your weak constituion?


--> How about the fact that prisoners get three meals a day, when something akin to a quarter of the American population (and much greater numbers elsewhere in the world) cannot afford such luxury?

- If a quarter of Americans can't afford having three meals a day, you should really start to worry about the place you live in. Then you're on a lower level than some developping countries.


And, that is relevent how? What, can we only fix one problem at a time, now?


--> What is inhumane about a lethal injection? The misery is over in a very short space of time. That has to be kinder than years in incarceration, surely?

- 1. You have to wait for your lethal injection for years. 2. You don't know when you are going to be executed. Every week could be your last. You spend 7-10 years in agony every day for the rest of your life. 3. You can't plan anything anymore. Criminals who have lifelong imprisonment can spend their time writing books, painting, learning languages... whatever they feel like. But on death row, you can't even be sure that you're able to finish reading the book you've started. That's psychological terror! The misery is NOT over soon, because the misery starts at court!

No. I don't see it. Give the guilty the lethal injection AS SOON as the trial is finished. Suffering, over.

Stop building strawmen to fight.