Death?

[Tony]

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,120301,00.html ..full article


ABU GHRAIB, Iraq — On the eve of the first court-martial in the Iraq prisoner abuse scandal, relatives of those still held at Abu Ghraib prison (search) said Tuesday the only suitable punishment would be death — illustrating the potential gap in expectations in the case.

"If they actually committed such offenses, they should be executed," said Odai Ibrahim, 55, as he waited in a line with hundreds of other Iraqis to visit relatives at the prison on the western outskirts of Baghdad — notorious as the site of executions and torture during Saddam Hussein's (search) regime.


Do the abusers deserve to die?

[Matabiri]

Maybe. Maybe they deserve to be tortured, hung, drawn and quartered. But we do not do these things, no matter the justification, for we consider ourselves civilised.

I think that's pretty much the argument against.

[Tmy]

To be fair, "Death" is the typical punishment for 85% of the crimes in Iraq.

Jay walking - DEATH!
Littering- DEATH!

[Tony]

Originally posted by Matabiri
Maybe. Maybe they deserve to be tortured, hung, drawn and quartered. But we do not do these things, no matter the justification, for we consider ourselves civilised.

I think that's pretty much the argument against.

That's not an argument, that's a non-answer. Executions and being civilized are not mutally exclusive.

Do these people deserve to die?

[Beancounter]

Originally posted by Matabiri
Maybe. Maybe they deserve to be tortured, hung, drawn and quartered. But we do not do these things, no matter the justification, for we consider ourselves civilised.

I think that's pretty much the argument against.

But the death penalty is still around in many states of the US so the option is not entirely removed. Admittedly a bit of torture/abuse doesn't usually attract the death penalty.

[KelvinG]

They definitely do not deserve to die.
Civilized countries don't execute people.

[c0rbin]

I believe TMy to be correct here.

In the lands of amputation, cruel and unusual may not have trickled into their "basic-human-rights" framework.

[Tony]

Originally posted by KelvinG
They definitely do not deserve to die.


Why not?

Civilized countries don't execute people.

Yes they do.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Tony

Yes they do.


No they don't.

[Tony]

Originally posted by KelvinG



No they don't.


I can see you're back to your dogma game. YES, CIVILIZED COUNTRIES EXECUTE PEOPLE. I can show you mounds of evidence to that fact. Do you deny that the US currently, and other civilized countries in the recent past, execute people?

[richardm]

If you advocate killing police officers (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29681&highlight=shoot+police) for arresting children, then it should be more than acceptable to kill people for torturing and abusing adults.

[Beancounter]

Clearly the definition of "civilized" is about to be debated.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Tony



I can see you're back to your dogma game. YES, CIVILIZED COUNTRIES EXECUTE PEOPLE. I can show you mounds of evidence to that fact. Do you deny that the US currently, and other civilized countries in the recent past, execute people?

I don't consider countries that execute people particularly civilized. So in that sense, civlized countries don't execute people.

[Tmy]

I think death is overkill (pun intended).

There are alot of people who think rape should be a capitol crime. I wonder of they think prison abuse/touture should be also, since its similar to a rape situation.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Tony
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,120301,00.html ..full article




Do the abusers deserve to die?

Do you really need an answer to this or are you just trolling for stupid answers?

[Tony]

Originally posted by KelvinG


I don't consider countries that execute people particularly civilized. So in that sense, civlized countries don't execute people.


More dogma?

Main Entry: civ·i·lize
Pronunciation: 'si-v&-"lIz
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -lized; -liz·ing
transitive senses
1 : to cause to develop out of a primitive state; especially : to bring to a technically advanced and rationally ordered stage of cultural development

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Beancounter
Clearly the definition of "civilized" is about to be debated.

Glad I brought it up.

Tee hee hee!

Executions are seldom well thought through and rationally based; they are generally about revenge, or the exercise of power and fear (tmy's example).

If you think that revenge is a good basis for a legal system, sure they deserve to be tortured or executed. If you think they pose an irredeemable threat to society, why not? But if they can still be of benefit to society, why treat them disposably?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Do you really need an answer to this or are you just trolling for stupid answers?

I'm seeing what people think. You obviously have a problem with that.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Tony



More dogma?

Main Entry: civ·i·lize
Pronunciation: 'si-v&-"lIz
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -lized; -liz·ing
transitive senses
1 : to cause to develop out of a primitive state; especially : to bring to a technically advanced and rationally ordered stage of cultural development

I stand by my definition of what is civilized. And countries that execute people, in my opinion, are not civilized.
And no it's not dogma, it's my opinion.
I'm so very sorry it doesn't jive with your's Tony, but to each his own as they say.;)

[Dancing David]

I believe that there are sanction under US law and international law for the abuse and torture of prisoners.

My question, will the people who encouraged the behavior stand trial?

[richardm]

Originally posted by Beancounter
Clearly the definition of "civilized" is about to be debated.

Merriam-Webster has as good a definition as any:

Main Entry: civilized
Function: adjective
: characteristic of a state of civilization <civilized society>; especially : characterized by taste, refinement, or restraint

That last element "restraint" is one that I would argue is lacking in a country using the death penalty.

[Beancounter]

To quote from the article:

"Some of the people inside have spent two years in prison and they are innocent," Ibrahim said. "The maximum sentence for the Americans is one year. Is that justice?"

What the hell has that got to do with the price of fish? Misquoted perhaps?

Again:

"This court will not bring justice," he said outside the prison. "It's nonsense. They should be tried by the Iraqis. According to Islamic law they should be executed."

Is this according to Islamic law? Are there some muslims out there who could clarify this? This being the same shariah muslim law that allegedly advocates stoning for adultery and dismemberment for stealing?

Whatever the situation, what these people did was not acceptable and they will be punished, but by death? Absolutely not. Why not? Because the death penalty (if accepted - another debate) is right at the top of the scale of punishments and what these people did is nowhere near the top of the misdemeanour pile. If, on the other hand, they had cut their heads off.....

[Tony]

Originally posted by KelvinG


I stand by my definition of what is civilized.

An unfounded definition.

And no it's not dogma, it's my opinion.

And, by definition, it's dogma:

Main Entry: dog·ma
Pronunciation: 'dog-m&, 'däg-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural dogmas also dog·ma·ta /-m&-t&/
Etymology: Latin dogmat-, dogma, from Greek, from dokein to seem -- more at DECENT
1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Tony


That's not an argument, that's a non-answer. Executions and being civilized are not mutally exclusive.

Do these people deserve to die?

I think it's reasonably clear that you probably do? Or do you? Pease let us know.

And if you do, why? Then tell us why that's "civilised".

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,120301,00.html ..full article




Do the abusers deserve to die?

I am against the death penalty in general, so the answer is pretty simple for me.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Tony


An unfounded definition.



And, by definition, it's dogma:

Main Entry: dog·ma
Pronunciation: 'dog-m&, 'däg-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural dogmas also dog·ma·ta /-m&-t&/
Etymology: Latin dogmat-, dogma, from Greek, from dokein to seem -- more at DECENT
1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds

Again, I stand by me definition. I don't care if you thinks it's dogma, or you disagree, or you throw out dictionary definitions. It is my opinion, and I stick by it.
Civilized countries don't execute people.
Deal with it.

[Tony]

Originally posted by richardm

That last element "restraint" is one that I would argue is lacking in a country using the death penalty.

And I would argue that it is lacking in a country with high taxes and paternalist social programs.

[Tony]

Originally posted by KelvinG


Again, I stand by me definition. I don't care if you thinks it's dogma, or you disagree, or you throw out dictionary definitions. It is my opinion, and I stick by it.


So not only are you dogmatic, you are a bigot too.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Tony


So not only are you dogmatic, you are a bigot too.

Nope, I'm neither.

[Beancounter]

Well, didn't take long for the name calling to creep in did it?

Tony, I appreciate that you are looking for peoples' views, but what are yours? Do they or do they not deserve the death penalty (and why?).

Let's get the discussion back on track.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Tony


I'm seeing what people think. You obviously have a problem with that.

Obviously? How so?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Matabiri


I think it's reasonably clear that you probably do? Or do you? Pease let us know.

And if you do, why? Then tell us why that's "civilised".


I asked your opinion, why can't you answer a simple question?




As for mine, no, I don't think these people deserve to die. Not because of some false idea of what it means to be "civilized", but because their actions do not warrant such a punishment.

As for my personal opinion on the death penalty in general, I'm ambivalent. I don't entirely trust the system or those who control it, mistakes (among other things) happen, innocent people could be wrongly convicted. One innocent person dying by execution, for me, is enough to seriously question to wisdom of the death penalty. I also think that argument could be extended to general punishment for other crimes.

However, I do think that there are crimes that warrant death, because, when I put myself in the position of someone who had a loved one murdered, that's what I would want for the killer. And why not? If I caught someone in the act of raping or killing my mom, I would kill that person.

[Tony]

Originally posted by KelvinG


Nope, I'm neither.

The english language and your behavior says otherwise. As I have demonstrated.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Tony
I asked your opinion, why can't you answer a simple question?

Because it's not a simple question, and depends entirely on the person answering it. A better question would be, "Should we execute the abusers?" or "Do the abusers deserve to be executed?" In which case I'd say no, because I don't think that's a civilised thing to do.

I'll get metaphysical on you, and say that it doesn't matter whether they deserve to die or not, because they assuredly will anyway eventually.

However, I do think that there are crimes that warrant death, because, when I put myself in the position of someone who had a loved one murdered, that's what I would want for the killer. And why not? If I caught someone in the act of raping or killing my mom, I would kill that person.

See? Revenge, pure and simple.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Tony


The english language and your behavior says otherwise. As I have demonstrated.

If it makes you feel better to believe that, go ahead. I just don't agree.
Cheers.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Matabiri


Because it's not a simple question, and depends entirely on the person answering it. A better question would be, "Should we execute the abusers?" or "Do the abusers deserve to be executed?" In which case I'd say no, because I don't think that's a civilised thing to do.


You don't think it's a civilzed thing to do, or a moral thing to do?

See? Revenge, pure and simple.

So? There's nothing wrong with revenge.

[Tony]

Originally posted by KelvinG


If it makes you feel better to believe that, go ahead.

I don't believe, I know it based on you behavior and the meaning of those words. In fact, I'd perfer to believe otherwise. Unfortunatly, you have not given me reason to.

I just don't agree.

I guess english is your second language.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Tony
You don't think it's a civilzed thing to do, or a moral thing to do?

I think the two are inextricably linked.

From your definition of "civilise":
1 : to cause to develop out of a primitive state; especially : to bring to a technically advanced and rationally ordered stage of cultural developmen

I would say that "rationally ordered" implies a moral code.


So? There's nothing wrong with revenge.

It's an emotional response rather than a rational one, and it places the individual's desires over the rule of law.

[Evolver]

While I do think the death penalty is appropriate in a few rare and extreme cases, it should never be up to the victim, his family or fiends, whether it should be applied.

That said, even if the soldiers involved are not being used as scapegoats (I'm starting to believe they are), I do not feel that what they did should be punishable by death.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Evolver
That said, even if the soldiers involved are not being used as scapegoats (I'm starting to believe they are)

If the soldiers did do what they are accused of doing, they deserve to be punished appropriately. If they were told to do it by someone else, that someone else needs to be punished as well. I'm not sure that "scapegoat" applies in this case.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Evolver
That said, even if the soldiers involved are not being used as scapegoats (I'm starting to believe they are), I do not feel that what they did should be punishable by death.

I think one of the major outcomes of the Nuremberg Trials (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/nuremberg.htm) was that the "just following orders" defence is inadmissible.

Of course you can argue that that was a kangaroo court, if you like, but I think it's a good principle to try and make soldiers consider their actions, however minimally.

For what it's worth though, I agree that those giving the orders are more culpable than those executing them. Pun intended.

[Tmy]

You cant leave it up to the victims. Theyd go overboard. Hell, Id want the death penalty if someone stole my car. We dont let people walk just caue the victim says its ok.

The justice system is all about revenge. We still send people in for victimless crimes. Or stuff they did while intoxicated. Crimes of passion. Crimes that happend years n years ago.

[Evolver]

Originally posted by richardm


If the soldiers did do what they are accused of doing, they deserve to be punished appropriately. If they were told to do it by someone else, that someone else needs to be punished as well. I'm not sure that "scapegoat" applies in this case.

While, yes, I agree they should be punished, I also believe that they were following orders. Although the claim has been made that other units rejected the orders, I find it hard to believe that there are no repercussions for doing so. I think the punishment for what they have done should be tempered by taking into consideration that they were told it was part of their job.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Matabiri


I think the two are inextricably linked.

From your definition of "civilise":
1 : to cause to develop out of a primitive state; especially : to bring to a technically advanced and rationally ordered stage of cultural developmen

I would say that "rationally ordered" implies a moral code.


It does, but not necessarily YOUR (or my) moral code. Just A moral code. The Bill of Rights would be an example america's moral code.

It's an emotional response rather than a rational one, and it places the individual's desires over the rule of law.

So? The law is rarely rational.

And I disagree that it puts the individual's desired over the rule of law. You might have a point if I was robbing a liquor store, but I'm not. And concerning the "rule of law" let me quote Mr. Manifesto (paraphrasing):

People have the right to disobey unjust laws

I'd say a law stipulating that it's illegal to kill or fight someone who is in the act of murdering or raping another person is an unjust law.

[Hutch]

Originally posted by Tony
If I caught someone in the act of raping or killing my mom, I would kill that person.

So, if a close family member of one of the Iraqi prisioners were to see him raped/killed (killings are not confirmed, but may yet be) by a US soldier, they would be justified in taking his life? :confused:

In regards to your question, I see one-repeat one-guy being quoted saying that in the entire article. Lots of unhappiness about what happened, and a couple saying we should go home, but hardly a consensus worthy of a long thread.

As to the quote, I seem to recall more than a few comments in the past for a quick and not necessarily painless death for some Americans for something less than murder (gross child abuse, i.e.) by some of the more overwrought members of civilized society. One loose-lipped hothead does not a consensus make.

[Evolver]

Originally posted by Matabiri


I think one of the major outcomes of the Nuremberg Trials (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/nuremberg.htm) was that the "just following orders" defence is inadmissible.

Of course you can argue that that was a kangaroo court, if you like, but I think it's a good principle to try and make soldiers consider their actions, however minimally.

For what it's worth though, I agree that those giving the orders are more culpable than those executing them. Pun intended.

"Just following orders" can be a relative thing. There is "I was just following orders when I sent those people into the gas chamber" and "I was just following orders when I took photos of us making fun of our prisoners". It's a bit easier to discern right and wrong in the first instance.

I am not completely absolving these people from blame , but I do feel that the punishment should not be as severe as if they personally did these things of their own volition.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Hutch


So, if a close family member of one of the Iraqi prisioners were to see him raped/killed (killings are not confirmed, but may yet be) by a US soldier, they would be justified in taking his life? :confused:


Different context. But I would say yes, if an Iraqi came home and found an American soldier raping or killing his wife, he would be justified in killing him.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Evolver


While, yes, I agree they should be punished, I also believe that they were following orders. Although the claim has been made that other units rejected the orders, I find it hard to believe that there are no repercussions for doing so. I think the punishment for what they have done should be tempered by taking into consideration that they were told it was part of their job.

An illegal order is an illegal order. Members of the US Army are trained to recognise and deal with them. Just to follow it because you're worried about the repercussions still leaves you culpable. If your boss told you to beat up a co-worker, and you did it because you were afraid you'd lose your job otherwise, what view would you expect the courts to take? Anyway - we're derailing this thread, perhaps we should continue in the "1st scapegoat" thread or somewhere...

[Hutch]

Well, Tony, I give you full marks on being consistent in your views, even when I disagree with them. :c2:

[richardm]

Originally posted by Hutch


As to the quote, I seem to recall more than a few comments in the past for a quick and not necessarily painless death for some Americans for something less than murder (gross child abuse, i.e.) by some of the more overwrought members of civilized society.

.. Or even just for arresting a child. (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29681)

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Tony
It does, but not necessarily YOUR (or my) moral code. Just A moral code. The Bill of Rights would be an example america's moral code.

True. But to get along in society, you have to buckle your moral code down to society's - in your case the Bill of Rights.

You asked "civilised or moral?" I'm trying to say that, hopefully, in a civilised society the overall moral code reflects the vast population's and is fairly enforced.

Of course it's possible that many people haven't actually thought their personal moral code and its possible consequences through properly. :D


So? The law is rarely rational.


I disagree. It's almost universally poorly implemented, but the underpinnings are usually well thought out and sensible. It's only when it gets as far as being compromised by a legislative body that it gets messy.

There's a history in the UK of cases getting to the Law Lords, who make a (possibly literally unlawful) utterly reasonable ruling, which then takes years of law students working to figure out how to reconcile it with the tottering edifice of statute.


People have the right to disobey unjust laws.


It's difficult to argue with the sentiment, but exercising that right requires a personal moral judgement of what is "just". You're lucky enough to have a written document underpinning moral judgements such as that, allowing sensible arguments. Over here, we're on slightly shakier ground.

I would also say, "protest" rather than "disobey". Although mass civil disobedience is a valid form of protest, and does send the message that the population are on your side.


I'd say a law stipulating that it's illegal to kill or fight someone who is in the act of murdering or raping another person is an unjust law.

Again, you're lucky enough to be able to argue that - after the fact - "constitutionally". The presence of a law does not actually stop you from carrying out an act you consider morally impelling.

Edit for punctuation

[Tony]

Originally posted by richardm


.. Or even just for arresting a child. (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29681)

"just" arresting a child? It's disturbing to know that you have such a blase' attitude towards the illegal arrest of an innocent and harmless child.

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by Tmy
You cant leave it up to the victims. Theyd go overboard. Hell, Id want the death penalty if someone stole my car.

Ya know, if the law supported this, there would probably be fewer stolen cars.


The justice system is all about revenge. We still send people in for victimless crimes.

This seems like a contradiction. If there is no victim, who is seeking revenge?

Besides, the existence of "victimless crimes" isn't particularly relevant to what should be done with those guilty of crimes where there is a victim, is it?


Or stuff they did while intoxicated. Crimes of passion. Crimes that happend years n years ago.

With regard to behavior that should be illegal, particularly where there has been a clear victim, are any of the factors you just cited a good reason to hold someone less accountable for their behavior?
:eek:

[richardm]

Originally posted by Tony


"just" arresting a child? It's disturbing to know that you have such a blase' attitude towards the illegal arrest of an innocent and harmless child.

Not half as disturbing as you suggesting that a person should be shot dead for over-reaching their responsibility.

Edited to add: Bearing in mind also that nobody was hurt in that instance, I can't help but wonder why it is that you think these charged personnel should not also be executed. They actually physically hurt people. By your standards, lethal force should be used against them. Why the inconsistency?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by DoubleStreamer


Ya know, if the law supported this, there would probably be fewer stolen cars.




This seems like a contradiction. If there is no victim, who is seeking revenge?

Besides, the existence of "victimless crimes" isn't particularly relevant to what should be done with those guilty of crimes where there is a victim, is it?




With regard to behavior that should be illegal, particularly where there has been a clear victim, are any of the factors you just cited a good reason to hold someone less accountable for their behavior?
:eek:


Wh Victimless crimes its the revenge of society.

Heres my revenge example: Every now and then you hear about soem 60's hippe that blew up a germ lab or somthing. Anyway theyve been on the run for like 30 years. During that time theyve lived an upstanding like. Wife kids, good citizen all around. Then they get caught.

They still have to face up to the crimes they did 30 years ago. WHY?? Just look at their squeaky clean life its obvious theyve been rehabilitated and are no danger. Why prosecute them? For revenge thats why.

[Tony]

Originally posted by richardm


Not half as disturbing as you suggesting that a person should be shot dead for over-reaching their responsibility.

That's a value judgement. Why do you care more about what I say than about police abuse?

Bearing in mind also that nobody was hurt in that instance, I can't help but wonder why it is that you think these charged personnel should not also be executed. They actually physically hurt people. By your standards, lethal force should be used against them. Why the inconsistency?

I've already addressed this. See Hutch's comments.

[TwoShanks]

Originally posted by Tmy

Heres my revenge example: Every now and then you hear about soem 60's hippe that blew up a germ lab or somthing. Anyway theyve been on the run for like 30 years. During that time theyve lived an upstanding like. Wife kids, good citizen all around. Then they get caught.


Luckily they get away again because the antibiotic bomb they used cured the security guard's eczema, allowing him to go on to become the chief of police in the town, so it all works out ok in the end.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Tony


That's a value judgement. Why do you care more about what I say than about police abuse?


Of course it's a value judgement. I happen to think that life is important enough not to toss it away over some matter like arresting a child. There are other ways of dealing with such things in a civilised (there's that word again) society.


I've already addressed this. See Hutch's comments.

With respect, I don't think you have. You said that it would be acceptable for an Iraqi to kill an American who was raping his wife.

Why is it acceptable for an Iraqi to kill an American who is committing an abuse, for an American to kill an American who has - in your opinion - arrested somebody wrongly, but not okay for an American to kill a American who has abused an Iraqi?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by TwoShanks


Luckily they get away again because the antibiotic bomb they used cured the security guard's eczema, allowing him to go on to become the chief of police in the town, so it all works out ok in the end.

Yes but what about all those precious germs!! They nevr hurt a fly! THey never had the chance!!! :p

And dont forget poor Mr. Burns.

[Tony]

Originally posted by richardm


Of course it's a value judgement. I happen to think that life is important enough not to toss it away over some matter like arresting a child. There are other ways of dealing with such things in a civilised (there's that word again) society.


I agree, and I can admit that I went overboard. I just think abuse of power is absolutly unacceptable in a civilized (yet again) society.

Why is it acceptable for an Iraqi to kill an American who is committing an abuse, for an American to kill an American who has - in your opinion - {it's not my opinion, arresting a child for a toy gun is unamerican and unconstitutional} arrested somebody wrongly, but not okay for an American to kill a American who has abused an Iraqi?

I see nothing wrong with an american to kill another american who was caught in the act of raping or murdering an iraqi.

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by Tmy
Wh Victimless crimes its the revenge of society.

You're still not making sense. If there is no "victim", which part of "society" is seeking revenge?


Heres my revenge example: Every now and then you hear about soem 60's hippe that blew up a germ lab or somthing. Anyway theyve been on the run for like 30 years. During that time theyve lived an upstanding like. Wife kids, good citizen all around. Then they get caught.

They still have to face up to the crimes they did 30 years ago. WHY?? Just look at their squeaky clean life its obvious theyve been rehabilitated and are no danger. Why prosecute them? For revenge thats why.

Actually, I can think of a much better reason. It just might send a message to anyone else thinking about blowing anything up that they shouldn't expect to escape accountability just by staying hidden for a long time, or by living a certain way, after committing such a crime.

And it's worth noting that your "revenge" example didn't help explain what I was asking about. In this case, there was a victim. At least, I'm sure whoever the germ lab belonged to would probably say there was.

[Tmy]

So whats the point of punishment then?? To make examples of people?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tmy
So whats the point of punishment then?? To make examples of people?

I'd say that's a main purpose of punishment. The state is using those people it punished as a way of demonstrating to the public that it finds "X" behavior "wrong" and will ruin your life if you engage in "X" behavior.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Tony


I agree, and I can admit that I went overboard. I just think abuse of power is absolutly unacceptable in a civilized (yet again) society.


Okay, fair enough.

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by Tmy
So whats the point of punishment then?? To make examples of people?

You say that as if it's a bad thing. But if the laws are what they should be in the first place, I don't see a problem with this. However, in addition to that purpose, I also see it as an effective way of removing the individuals in question from society.

[Bjorn]

In theory, the punishment of criminals has at least four different purposes:
Punishment (satisfaction for the victims and others)
Prevent this guy from doing it again (while he's locked up)
Prevent others from doing it (they see him being punished)
Rehabilitate the criminal to prevent him from committing new crimes once he's back on the street

I think death penalty for these soldiers/guards would be far too much - but I'm curious as to what we would say if they were Iraqi soldiers tried for the same crimes against American prisoners.

[Dancing David]

Death is rarely appropriate, given the sucsess record of even the best judicial system.

It is more humane than life imprisonment.

[patnray]

"Scapegoat" applies IF thier superiors explicitly ordered the behaviour and are not punished.

"Scapegoat" applies IF their superiors ordered them to treat the prisoners "harshly" without explicit directions, then turned a blind eye to how those orders were carried out, to avoid responsibility themselves, and they are not punished.

"Scapegoat" applies IF those in command knew this behaviour was occuring, did nothing to end it, and are not punished.

"Scapegoat" applies IF any soldier was disciplined for refusing to participate in the barbaric treatment of detainees.

"Scapegoat" applies anytime those at the highest level who had knowledge of the activity and failed to act on that knowledge are not held accountable.

They are not scapegoats simply for being held accountable for thier own behaviour.

While it is possible they acted completely independantly and no one above the rank of sargent knew what was happening when the brass wasn't watching, that seems unlikely. Only time will tell how high up the chain of command the evidence will lead.