Politician wants Schwarzenegger to lose citizenship

[Superman]

I'm a Californian, I helped vote him in, he gave me an autographed picture the other day, and that Austrian politician guy can blow me. Since when do we care what they have to say about our country?

[Master of Ossus]

which is not an insignificant factor in a country that locks up more of its own citizens than any other nation on the planet.

Bullshit. China has an estimated 20 million inmates. If you're talking percentage terms, an estimated 1% of North Korea's total population is currently serving time for political crimes.

Personally, I can't get past a simple philosophical objection to capital punishment. Is wilfully killing someone that you have completely at your mercy wrong? Yes, we say as a society ... that's always wrong, in fact it's usually first degree murder. Unless you're the state with a prisoner locked in a cell ... in which case it's okay?

I see you conveniently ignore the fact that this person has killed in the past, and been sentenced to death by a jury of his peers.

So killing is wrong always ... except when we do it through the power of the state.

1. Killing is not always wrong. In fact, our criminal codes are specifically meant to allow for killing others under certain circumstances.
2. The state can do things that a private citizen can't, fuckwad. If I threw someone in an 10*6 cell for ten years then I would be arrested for kidnapping them. I guess it must be ethically wrong to incarcerate criminals.

Then, an act which we consider heinous becomes acceptable.

Yes, fucktard. The state has powers that individual citizens do not possess. See above.

Moreover, the conditions under which the state can do this are very restrictive and clearly delineated.

But not for me. When we wilfully kill those we do not have to kill, through the power of the state, we are engaging in a very large conspiracy to commit murder, and I'd rather not be a part of that conspiracy.

Fair enough, but your argument against the death penalty makes NO sense.

[Rogue 9]

If justice meant a 1-for-1 in-kind trade off, then we wouldn't imprison car thieves, we'd steal their car .... equitable means 'just and impartial,' not an eye for an eye.

Yes, precisely, which is why our justice system's name is a misnomer, not that that's necessarily a bad thing.

[Lord Zentei]

Some nitpicks:

Life without possibility of parole satisfies deterrence, but not vengeance, and abandons rehabilitation. So does capital punishment, but at conceiveably lower monetary cost, which is not an insignificant factor in a country that locks up more of its own citizens than any other nation on the planet.

Trials where capital punishment is demanded tend to be monstrously expensive since so much is at stake. Also, defendants who are condemned to death tend to spend many years on death row in any case.

But not for me. When we wilfully kill those we do not have to kill, through the power of the state, we are engaging in a very large conspiracy to commit murder, and I'd rather not be a part of that conspiracy.

Murder is, of course, extrajudicial killing, not just any killing.

[Chmee]

which is not an insignificant factor in a country that locks up more of its own citizens than any other nation on the planet.

Bullshit. China has an estimated 20 million inmates. If you're talking percentage terms, an estimated 1% of North Korea's total population is currently serving time for political crimes.

Google it, we passed Russia and Krzygystan years ago to become Numero Uno in incarcerated citizens per 100,000 population. If it wasn't bad enough that we're No. 1, our rate is far and away higher than any other Western democratic nation.

As to the rest of your semi-rant, do you believe that government operates by a different morality than the citizenry that it represents in a democracy? I think that's a neat trick of sophistry if you think that killing a defenseless being is murder for you and me but not a democratic government that represents us as a whole, but I don't find it convincing.

Zentei, I specifically chose the word 'conceiveably' to modify less expensive, because it certainly is not 'actually' less expensive in current practice.

[Master of Ossus]

Google it, we passed Russia and Krzygystan years ago to become Numero Uno in incarcerated citizens per 100,000 population. If it wasn't bad enough that we're No. 1, our rate is far and away higher than any other Western democratic nation.

Five point six million Americans have served time in prison OR on probation/parole during their lifetimes. China has 20 million in prison RIGHT NOW. In percentage terms, the US incarcerates just over 1.8% of the population, but that's greatly inflated compared to other countries because it takes into account people on parole or on probation.

As to the rest of your semi-rant, do you believe that government operates by a different morality than the citizenry that it represents in a democracy?

Yes, I do. If I locked someone up in a 10*6 room for ten years I think that would be considered wrong. When the state does it, it's perfectly acceptable. How can you explain this without accepting a second moral standard for the state?

I think that's a neat trick of sophistry if you think that killing a defenseless being is murder for you and me but not a democratic government that represents us as a whole, but I don't find it convincing.

Alright, fucktard, then explain why it's wrong for me to lock someone up for 10 years but it's acceptable for the state to do the same thing.

[Julhelm]

If we didn't put so much effort into proving someone's innocence with DNA tests and constant appeals forcing them to spend time in prison, but rather execute them within an hour of a swift trial, it'd save money.

[Lord Zentei]

Zentei, I specifically chose the word 'conceiveably' to modify less expensive, because it certainly is not 'actually' less expensive in current practice.

OK, nitpick withdrawn.

[Iceberg]

If we didn't put so much effort into proving someone's innocence with DNA tests and constant appeals forcing them to spend time in prison, but rather execute them within an hour of a swift trial, it'd save money.

In case you haven't noticed, death is irrevocable. Knowing that more "false positives" result from capital murder cases than from any other, I would make goddamned sure that - if we must have capital punishment - that the condemned has every opportunity to prove his innocence before being executed, because you goddamn well can't dig up a corpse and say, "Oops."

[Master of Ossus]

If we didn't put so much effort into proving someone's innocence with DNA tests and constant appeals forcing them to spend time in prison, but rather execute them within an hour of a swift trial, it'd save money.

The real thing that makes life sentences less expensive is that "life" most generally means 20 years without parole. If we did actually have to pay for them for the rest of their lives then we would save money through lethal injection.

[Chmee]

King's College (London) provides a handy sortable table for incarceration rates (and other data) at the International Centre for Prison Studies:

Linkage

Nice try Belarus, but we rule you, 714 per 100K to 554 ... launch a war on drugs, maybe you can catch us!

[Master of Ossus]

King's College (London) provides a handy sortable table for incarceration rates (and other data) at the International Centre for Prison Studies:

Linkage

Nice try Belarus, but we rule you, 714 per 100K to 554 ... launch a war on drugs, maybe you can catch us!

I concede that, of countries that report their incarcerations, the US has the highest rate. However, I would contend that some countries that DON'T report their incarcerations have significantly higher rates than even the US.

Anyway, were you going to bother trying to explain why it's okay for the US government to shove someone in prison but it's not okay for me to do the same thing without resorting to two moral standards?

[Chmee]

King's College (London) provides a handy sortable table for incarceration rates (and other data) at the International Centre for Prison Studies:

Linkage

Nice try Belarus, but we rule you, 714 per 100K to 554 ... launch a war on drugs, maybe you can catch us!

I concede that, of countries that report their incarcerations, the US has the highest rate. However, I would contend that some countries that DON'T report their incarcerations have significantly higher rates than even the US.

Anyway, were you going to bother trying to explain why it's okay for the US government to shove someone in prison but it's not okay for me to do the same thing without resorting to two moral standards?

Actually it's perfectly legal for you to restrain someone when you reasonably believe that you need to do so to prevent harm to yourself or others ... by extension a prison sentence is exactly that, in moral terms.

[Master of Ossus]

Actually it's perfectly legal for you to restrain someone when you reasonably believe that you need to do so to prevent harm to yourself or others ... by extension a prison sentence is exactly that, in moral terms.

Not all prisoners in prison pose a danger to society (though many do). Try again.

[Chmee]

Actually it's perfectly legal for you to restrain someone when you reasonably believe that you need to do so to prevent harm to yourself or others ... by extension a prison sentence is exactly that, in moral terms.

Not all prisoners in prison pose a danger to society (though many do). Try again.

Did I use the word danger? Read again.

[Master of Ossus]

Actually it's perfectly legal for you to restrain someone when you reasonably believe that you need to do so to prevent harm to yourself or others ... by extension a prison sentence is exactly that, in moral terms.

Not all prisoners in prison pose a danger to society (though many do). Try again.

Did I use the word danger? Read again.

Only someone who is a danger to society could cause "harm to [me] or others." Your nitpick avails you nothing, fucktard, since the prison system does not exclusively hold people who can be reasonably believed to require restraint in order to prevent them from harming others, nor does it hold everyone whom the state has identified specifically as posing a danger to others.

[Chmee]

Not all prisoners in prison pose a danger to society (though many do). Try again.

Did I use the word danger? Read again.

Someone who is a danger to society could cause "harm to [me] or others." Your nitpick avails you nothing, fucktard, since the prison system does not exclusively hold people who can be reasonably believed to require restraint in order to prevent them from harming others, nor does it hold everyone whom the state has identified specifically as posing a danger to others.

You proceed on the false assumption that I agree with every other single aspect of the penal system except capital punishment.

[Master of Ossus]

You proceed on the false assumption that I agree with every other single aspect of the penal system except capital punishment.

Are you saying, then, that you don't feel that the state is morally correct when it imprisons people it's found guilty of felonies? If so, then the death penalty ought to be the least of your ethical concerns with the criminal justice system.

Moreover, incarcerating someone is by no means the moral equivalent of restraining them because it can be reasonably assumed they pose a danger to someone else, since restraint requires that I use the minimum possible force whereas many people only pose threats to very specific parts of society and could be rendered safe merely by keeping them out of such situations.

[Marksist]

That still does not give the opponents of capital punishment the right to pontificate to the families of murder victims what the acceptable frame of mind for the families of murder victims in fact is.

You are assuming that all families of murder victims want the murderer to receive the sentence of death. What about the families of murder victims that want the murderer to live the rest of his life in prison? Some people consider that to be a worse punishment.

[Marksist]

That still does not give the opponents of capital punishment the right to pontificate to the families of murder victims what the acceptable frame of mind for the families of murder victims in fact is.

You are assuming that all families of murder victims want the murderer to receive the sentence of death. What about the families of murder victims that want the murderer to live the rest of his life in prison? Some people consider that to be a worse punishment.

[Glocksman]

What the Austrians do with Arnie is their own business, though this does reinforce my long held belief that the Greens are total watermelon (Green on the outside, Red on the inside) whackjobs.
Just so long as Gaston Glock keeps on exporting his pistols, I don't care.

As far as capital punishment itself goes, I have no objection to it in principle but I do have reservations about how it is applied in a lot of cases as you can't bring an innocent person back to life.

However capital punishment is perfecty appropriate in cases like Donald Ray Wallace's, where guilt has been established beyond any doubt.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

What about guys like Gary Gilmore who specifically ask to be executed?

[Crown]

which is not an insignificant factor in a country that locks up more of its own citizens than any other nation on the planet.

Bullshit. China has an estimated 20 million inmates. If you're talking percentage terms, an estimated 1% of North Korea's total population is currently serving time for political crimes.

I'm sorry, this is a nitpick and the bloody bleadin' obvious, but I have to say it; you think that pointing to China and NK are cases which make the US look better? Two dictatorial regimes? Come on get real. Some states in the US allow execution of minors, can anybody else remember the list of countries which do the same? It's a real kicker.

My feelings on capatital punishment has been stated before; I'm against it. I don't believe it satisfies justice which Chmee defined perfectly as a triad of vengeance, rehabilitation and deterrence. And I don't believe the state should be allowed to kill people.

[Broomstick]

Not only that, many American states have abolished the death penalty, with minimal negative effects (if any effect at all) on the murder rate in those states.

Clarification - some states have never had the death penalty. Michigan, for instance, never has and still does not although there has been pressure from others for them to change that.

Wisconsin doesn't have the death penalty either - which is precisly why Jeff Dahmer made sure he did all his killing in Milwaukee and not Chicago, even though most of his victims were from Chicago. He convinced them follow him north voluntarially. Sick puppy.

Personally, I feel killing is justified only in self-defense, and while I may take a broad definition of "self-defense" at some times, if you can confine a dangerous person in a manner such that he can't threaten anyone else then I'm afraid I can't agree with killing him. Now, if he escapes you can shoot to kill - the rest of us need to be protected, after all - but delibrate execution I can't condone.

Family members of the victim(s) want blood? Too bad - you can have justice, but not vengence. Deal with it. Their need for "closure" does not trump someone else's right to life. If that was the real reason for executions the family would be throwing the switch or injecting the poison and that's not how we do things, is it?

As for the meddling Austrian... Arnie was elected to uphold the laws of California, NOT the laws of Austria. Clemency and pardon are supposed to be based evidence, not personal preference. No doubt this Austrian politician would be highly offended if the citizens of California suddenly started criticizing the laws of his province or country and insisting he conform to their standards, why does he feel justified in trying to impose his laws on them? The only reason I can see is that he feels morally superior to those unwashed colonials, which is the sort of European arrogance that the US has been getting from Europe for over three hundred years. We're still not terribly impressed. Why does Europe has this strange notion that we in the US want to be like them?

[AMX]

As for the meddling Austrian... Arnie was elected to uphold the laws of California, NOT the laws of Austria. Clemency and pardon are supposed to be based evidence, not personal preference. No doubt this Austrian politician would be highly offended if the citizens of California suddenly started criticizing the laws of his province or country and insisting he conform to their standards, why does he feel justified in trying to impose his laws on them? The only reason I can see is that he feels morally superior to those unwashed colonials, which is the sort of European arrogance that the US has been getting from Europe for over three hundred years. We're still not terribly impressed. Why does Europe has this strange notion that we in the US want to be like them?

You're overlooking the fact that Arnold is still an Austrian citizen.
Seeing how Austria abhors capital punishment, it is not entirely baseless to argue that he should not be.