Interesting how we can define moral laws as constantly changing when God himself says that neither his morals, nor his expectations of our morality changes.


But, I digress, since I hijacked this thread. :P

The only thing that I can say on this subject is that the government should NEVER be allowed to MENTION "moral law".
"Moral" is a matter of opinion, ONLY. Criminal law is designed to prevent physical and economic harm, and to protect CHILDREN from emotional harm, period. When the law begins to define "legal" as "moral", it is already well on it'* way toward religious totalitarianism.
ANYONE who believes that "morals" should be "law" is horribly, dangerously mis-guided.

Now, for my opinion on reducing crime, I am in much the same mind as Robert A. Heinlein; EVERYONE should be allowed to carry guns. Hell, make it a requirement that all U.*. citizens over the age of eighteen carry a handgun of no less than .30 calibre, in plain sight, at all times when outside the home. Excepting, of course, drinking establishments, brothels, and casinos.
Place a bounty to be paid to anyone who kills an offender in the acts of robbery, burglary, arson, rape, sexual abuse of a child, kidnapping, or assault/murder from ambush. Can you imagine the drop in violent crime, when all potential victims are either heavily armed, or are children with heavily armed adults watching over them? Make all but the first two offenses in the above list punishable by a mandatory death sentence.
Make dueling legal, but only if a justice of the peace deems that the conflict can't be resolved equitably, and agrees to witness the duel.

However, I don't share the opinion that prisoners have it "too soft". Anyone who does think this should spend a week in the Franklin County Jail in Columbus. The health department wouldn't allow condemned animals to be kept in conditions like that.

While I concur with your sentiments regarding moral versus legal law and authority, your position on gun control and punishment for crimes frankly scares me. This is a wholly destructive attitude, akin to saying that military build-up is the only solution for peace.

The primary flaw with yours and Mr. Heinlein'* logic is that it is too vague. A simple question, where do you draw the line? Which crimes become punishible under this "vigilante law" and which are not? Perhaps one would see an overall drop in violent crimes, but most certainly non-violent crime would increase, as the punishment would seem minor in comparison.

Now, I am no bleeding-heart liberal, however I do advocate human life as something sacred. Wheras the attitude you present seems to be similar to "shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out." Where would the bloodshed end? Where would this take our civilization? The ideas presented seem vaguely consistant with those of the early middle-ages (often reffered to as the "Dark Ages") and early feudalism. Would you suggest that we return to those (albeit simpler) times of bloodshed and depravity?

All in all, it disturbs me that any human being would even consider such an out-dated, neo-conservative "solution" to crime.

As I said before, crime is better dettered with CERTAIN and SWIFT punishment, not overly harsh punishment.

EDIT: I re-read your argument, and again it draws me to the example of international peace. Do you honestly believe that all nations should be fully "militarized"? And thus completly capable of becoming involved in whichever situation they see fit?As this is precisely what is exemplified in your argument and your "system" (I am aware this is not "your" system, but I will refer to it as such for clarity). Which brings me to another inherant (sp) flaw in the logic you present, enforcement.

With such a system, every death due to "justice" would have to be fully investigated, to ensure no foul play had taken place. Clearly this would present an incredible burden on already overwhelmed taxpayers (you can't tell me you enjoy paying taxes, assuming you have to). Look at the amount of time, effort, man power, and money that is involved in investigating a homicide. Now that would easily triple or quadruple under "your system", are YOU willing to foot such an expense?

I, for one, would most definatly not. In fact, if western-civilization progressed to such a level, I would most definatly find residence elsewhere. God help us if humanity succumbed to such brutality.

Since this is the topic at hand, I'll comment on this.

Have you ever been in prison? Or are you basing your views on sensationalistic media print?

I have been in prison. I was young and dumb. I can tell you from the standpoint of being on the inside, it is way too cush.

Prisoners do indeed have it "too soft".

Yes, prison and jail. The media doesn't even know HALF of what goes on in Ohio prisons, and doesn't CARE what happens in the jails. 2 1/2 years in prison wasn't as bad as I expected, but the 8 months I spent in the local jail almost killed me. No exaggeration, no prevarication, plain truth. BTW, after three years in prison, all charges against me were dismissed. The system DOES eventually work.

RYAN: I DO hold human life to be sacred. However, all of the crimes I listed under what you called my "vigilante law", neccessarily demonstrate that the perpetrator does NOT.
Those who do not value human life and the property and rights of others deserve none of these things for themselves.
In addition, under a sensibly regulated "vigilante law", the problem of crime becomes self-correcting. Those who commit crimes, die, leaving behind people who are more functional in a working society.

My apologies, sir, I never intended to imply that you did not value human life. However I still find argument with your position.

Essentially, the principle behind your proposed correction system is the old "eye for an eye." As Ghandi said "An eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind." Now, I regret having to use such a cliche, however it is applicable in this situation. Violence begets violence, all this system will do is increase the number of people killed each year, and any impact to the crime rate will be negligible (and in my opinion, not worth the cost of human life). Whilst I DO agree with your opinion that the persons guilty of such crimes are low, this does not justify the taking of their life. If we kill people based on their actions, are we really that much better than the criminals themselves?

As attractive as this "self-correcting" society sounds, it is purely utopian and fairly unrealistic. For example, Karl Marx proposed a similar theory. He believed that once socialism had reached "utopia," all the ills of capitalism would simply disappear. People would gladly work any occupation for nothing more than the joy of serving society. Now, clearly there are a couple problems intrinsic to this philosophy. Firstly, how do we measure this "utopia"? How do we know that such a reality would ever exist? There is simply no evidence that suggests so. Rather, the evidence (against socialism, at least) would seem to suggest otherwise. Clearly the Soviet Union reached no such "utopia," 'else we would all be currently living under the "glory of the hammer and sickle."

Show me evidence that such a utopian society would present itself upon implementation of your suggested correctional measures, and perhaps I will give the idea some increased degree of merit. Although it wil do nothing to assuage my fears of such a reality.

That provoked an interesting discussion.
Learn something new about our legal system.....and our members, every day.

Sorry for the thread jack, but this is very interesting convo.

As for the concept of 'moral law,' I don't think I was clear enough. The government does decide was is right and wrong, according to what the citizens decide on. WE decide what is right and wrong, whether it'* through a vote, or just implied. Obviously most of us think that murder and rape is morally wrong, and that is implied. Therefore, it is illegal according to the gov't to kill or rape another person. Where did we get the idea that killing is wrong? Human nature perhaps, because even the earliest civilizations we know of considered acts such as murder a crime. Religion doesn't always have a role in morals.

As for the 'eye for an eye' concept, it is being used today in the criminal justice system. It is just not used literally. Retribution is a style of corrections that is commonly used. This basically is known as "just desserts," or the punishment must justify the crime. It'* used all the time for a variety of crimes. However, when it comes to murder, sentencing a murderer to death is arguably not the best method out there. While it is the ideal definition of specific deterrence, some argue that there are better methods than the death penalty. If you look at the amount of murders that take place each year, and the amount of people put to death each year, you will find that many murders don't ever make it to death row. Statistically, and economically, it is not an effective solution. Putting an inmate in prison for life costs less than putting a killer to death. And not many are put to death to begin with.

As for the crime problem, giving everybody a weapon will just be a security blanket. Most violent crimes occur because of social or economic reasons. Yes, there are just plain crazy people out there, but most violence can be related to social structure issues (race, stigmas, socio-economic status) and economic issues (money, drugs, the underground economy). Fix the structure, fix crime.

Ah, not utopian, and not ideal, either, but in my opinion, better than the system we have now, where a man can be imprisoned for shooting an intruder in his own home.
I don't contend that the "vigilante law" would completely abolish all crime, or somehow miraculously create a perfect society. As I said though, I think violent crime would be greatly reduced, as it would take great skill or luck to survive as a violent criminal.

I do think, however, that the world would be a better place if people were forced to take responsibility for their own protection. Perhaps we would also appreciate our own lives a little more.

Nor do I advocate simply giving everyone guns. There would have to be a law in place requiring safety and marksmanship courses starting in the early teens. There would also need to be very harsh laws against allowing a child unsupervised access to weapons.

As for the act of "killing people based on their actions", please note that I specified that the bounty I proposed would be effective only in cases where the offender was shot WHILE COMMITTING THE ACT, a critical juncture, at which point the lives of all victims involved are endangered. Also note that the death sentence I proposed was specified for people who commit rape, child-molestation, kidnapping, arson, and assault or murder from ambush. All of these crimes show either a callous disregard for life or a psychotic abnormality, that is not rehabilitatable. I will, after thought, remove assault from ambush from the death sentence list.

I'm afraid that I would also, given my druthers, eliminate any distinction between murder and premeditated murder, as well as eliminate vehicular homicide. Why should a man get off any lighter becaue he killed someone with his car instead of a gun?

Keep in mind, this IS just hypothetical, as I doubt that any such law could ever be passed, but I can dream for the future right?
G'night.