US State department admits to lying.

Sand

Just Half Id have been in favour of shooting them tbh. Or waiting till they were 18 and then shooting them to keep the lefts "Be nice to murderers" brigade happy. My view is shared by a hell of a lot of people given that poll wanted to have the identies revealed.

Itd be cheaper than a gas chamber etc. And the people youd be shooting would be convicted murders, rapists and paedophiles- I dont think youll have a problem finding volunteers.

Natural monopolies are another economic term. Monopolies are overall bad for society, because a monopoly can charge pretty much what it wants. Hence governments should not get involved in these semi state companies etc. However there are certain cases where costs of entry are exceptionally high - take a water company, if there were two companies in competition theyd each have to build their own seperate water system, and then pass the costs of that onto their half of the population (market share) - effectively doubling the costs to individuals. This would be a case of Natural monopoly wheres its more effecient to have one company.

LOL- blame it on the weather:)

Typedef

Originally posted by Sand Just Half Id have been in favour of shooting them tbh. Or waiting till they were 18 and then shooting them to keep the lefts "Be nice to murderers" brigade happy. My view is shared by a hell of a lot of people given that poll wanted to have the identies revealed.

Hmm that's nice Sand, kind of stock solution for you isn't it? Shoot people in the back of the head, smoke em out, whatever.

Itd be cheaper than a gas chamber etc. And the people youd be shooting would be convicted murders, rapists and paedophiles- I dont think youll have a problem finding volunteers.

I doubt you'd be too hard up finding a few recruits of the Klu Klux Klan from some of the boards.ie members, but that doesn't necessarily make it an expiditous thing to do.

Typedef

Originally posted by Victor
Can we revert to serious discussion. and get a room guys.

<OT>
Oh and I have a room, with four walls and a door, no windows because I don't use windows, so why would I want to share one with JustHalf? He's a windows troll anyway, I woudn't mind but windoze sux.
</OT>

JustHalf

Originally posted by Sand
Just Half Id have been in favour of shooting them tbh. Or waiting till they were 18 and then shooting them to keep the lefts "Be nice to murderers" brigade happy. My view is shared by a hell of a lot of people given that poll wanted to have the identies revealed.

They did it when they were kids (8 I believe). Still so sure?

Sand

They were closer to 12. And if theyre old enough to kidnap and beat a toddler to death (A slow death - takes frankly unimaginable callousness to beat a screaming child to death) then theyre as guilty as any other murderer imo, and should face the same penalties. If you want to wait till theyre 18 before shooting them, fine.

tools

Originally posted by Sand
Itd be cheaper than a gas chamber etc. And the people youd be shooting would be convicted murders, rapists and paedophiles- I dont think youll have a problem finding volunteers.

Yeah it's not hard to find a bloodthirsty mob who are more interested in indulging their own violent fantasies than notions of justice or the elimination of the causes of crime.
Why did the Germans stop shooting and hanging jews and other "undesirables" and switch to using gas chambers in the death camps?

From the German perspective, the shootings exacted a psychological toll from the perpetrators often to a high degree. The perpetrators also found the process tedious, laborious, "messy" and offensive. The psychological stress to those doing the shootings was in most cases, immense and only the most drunken and brutal members of the squads could seem to accomplish the task with any zeal. Complaints from officers stated that the SS men were being ruined for the rest of their lives. It is hard enough to manually slaughter livestock day after day. However to slaughter people, to shoot hundreds of crying children and pleading mothers, begging for their lives...well this was even too much for the elite SS.

To me there is no moral difference between shooting a criminal in the head and shooting an innocent person in the head.

Sand, if you had your way, we'd have an 18th century justice system, where 10 year old boys would be exiled to some island somewhere for shoplifting and entertainment would consist of public executions and casual animal cruelty. Apparently at that time, throwing a bag full of cats onto a fire was considered entertainment.

This would be a case of Natural monopoly wheres its more efficient to have one company.

Yes EFFICIENCY rules. It's more EFFICIENT to have one leader, one party, one company isn't it? Democracy is NOT efficient.

LOL- blame it on the weather:)

Yea, maybe some of the medically minded people know more about this but isn't it a fact that lack of sunshine contributes to depression?

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
They were closer to 12.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1402000/1402527.stm
Friday, 22 June, 2001, 18:16 GMT 19:16 UK

Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, now aged 18, were only 10 when they abducted two-year-old James from a Liverpool shopping centre before torturing and killing him.

Hobbes

The Bulger case has been covered in great detail on another thread (see humanities forum).

As well as links to their medical interviews and other parts of the evidence. One of them clearly didn't have a concept of what was going on, but the other did.

Personally I don't think they should of been released, however they probably had a better chance of staying alive if they were in prison.

swiss

I've dug up this boards.ie link for the Bolger case. I'm not going to go into detail about my views in relation to this issue, but in a nutshell I feel that the correct decision was made to release them. I believe that they were not aware of the full consequences of their actions when they committed those horrendous acts, and with proper rehabilitation and treatment they can become happy and productive members of society.

*Ahem*
I think it's safe to say that this thread has spiralled somewhat beyond what the scope of the original topic of conversation. However, some interesting topics are mentioned.

Originally posted by tools
Yes EFFICIENCY rules. It's more EFFICIENT to have one leader, one party, one company isn't it? Democracy is NOT efficient.

This is what this thread appears to be now about. Expediency Vs Liberality. tools is quite correct when he tells us that democracy is inefficient. It takes substantial time and other resources to elect our representatives, resources that may be spent in the governance of our country. If we could trust a party or government to govern our country in the best manner possible, in conjuntion with the majority of the peoples wishes indefinitely, then a strong argument may be made for an autocratic government.

Similarly, why bother with the inconvenience of trials. After all, can we not trust that the person accused of the crime is guilty? Even if they are guilty, why should precious resources be used attempting to rehabilitate them that can be directed to law abiding members of society? Can we not trust the courts to make the best decision for all parties concerned without the substantial cost associated with the legal considerations associated with a trial?

The point is that we cannot fully trust either the institution of the Government or that of the courts fully, to name but two examples. The same can be said of many other aspects of society, but since these same institutions have (literally) the power of life and death over a populace then even a relatively small margin of error becomes extremely significant. This is why people (rightly IMO) revere their right to determine as a collective how they should live their lives by controlling these institutions in a manner that they themselves have decided upon in their constitution.

The same rationale applies to monopolies. Of course it can be far more efficient to have one company (semi-state or otherwise) monopolise and industry. The company, as was previously mentioned can benefit from the economies of scale afforded by large scale production. The only drawback is that we have to one again trust that the company in question will not abuse it's dominant position to furthur it's own profit position. I challenge somebody to name a monopoly company that has provided genuine value for money and has used it's position to ensure that consumers are not exploited.

Victor

Originally posted by swiss
The same rationale applies to monopolies. Of course it can be far more efficient to have one company (semi-state or otherwise) monopolise and industry. The company, as was previously mentioned can benefit from the economies of scale afforded by large scale production. The only drawback is that we have to one again trust that the company in question will not abuse it's dominant position to furthur it's own profit position. I challenge somebody to name a monopoly company that has provided genuine value for money and has used it's position to ensure that consumers are not exploited.

The ESB. Quite simply until deregulation forced higher prices, it was (a) charging the same prices as 5-10 years ago (b) providing additional discounts (c) was making a profit & (d) was reliant only on state guarantees (not state borrowing) to finance it's capital programme. I recognise however for environmental reasons changes were / are needed and also that the ESB could be 'fickle' when applying commercial connection charges.

http://www.cer.ie/cer01123.doc
www.esb.ie

Sand

Id imagine the Nazis went for gas chambers and other means of mass killing, because it was cheaper and quicker than shooting 6 million people individually. Im sure psychological trauma came into it as well - however it has to be said they had plenty of people willing to treat jews and other non conformists as subhuman.

Given that it is unlikley there will be 6 million people sentenced to death over a short period of time (3-4 years for the holocaust) in any given country, gas chambers might be a bit of a large fixed cost and under used. So a bullet to the back of the head of a murdering scumbag is cheaper. Got to admit I find it strange that you compare what I believe the just punishment of murders like the nazis should be, to the actions that merit the punishment. Please continue.

Sand, if you had your way, we'd have an 18th century justice system, where 10 year old boys would be exiled to some island somewhere for shoplifting and entertainment would consist of public executions and casual animal cruelty. Apparently at that time, throwing a bag full of cats onto a fire was considered entertainment.

Uh - huh. The punishment should fit the crime is my justification for the death penalty. How this applies to being exiled for shoplifting I dunno.

Yes EFFICIENCY rules. It's more EFFICIENT to have one leader, one party, one company isn't it? Democracy is NOT efficient.

Uh no, quite the opposite in fact. If you had actually read what I posted where I said monopolies were bad overall with a *few* exceptions where *costs of entry were high*. Anyone can have a political ideal and exspress it, so *costs of entry are low*. In fact competition is most effecient overall, so democracy which involves competion between differing views is the most efficient. You raise the interesting idea of evaluating forms of government as if they were market systems, but it would probably be a pretty short paper.

The threads gone off topic alright but its evolved into this state methinks. The fact people are still replying to it shows continued interest.

As for trials, One point that has been mentioned is that an innocent man may be sentenced to death. One Id say this shows a need to reform the court system because he will be unjustly punished anyway if he is innocent. However, were taking it for granted that the court system makes mistakes and the there are innocent people who have been convicted of crimes from murder, paedophilia, rape, all the way down to handbag snatching. We recognise the system is broken, yet we continue to use it and thus continue to punish innocent people. Not advocating the abolition of the legal system but it is a bit of a paradox. We accept a justice system that is unjust:)