cutting off hands

[spacepower]

i seem to think that sometimes that the US should adopt middle eastern policy when it comes to thieves. let's cut their hand of for first offense and if they are stupid enought to commit a second offense, well, we'll recognize them first bc the won't have any hands......

yes this is a cruel late night though....

but if you had to steal to survive you would be willing to take the chance, but if you are stealling for pure greed, like a new tv or ps2 you might think twice...

there is a difference between stealing to survive...which can be excused.... and stealing for acquiring more material possesions

I know that there are many inequalities throughout the world..

some people are really in need and others aren't

i say cut off the hands of the greedy, rich and poor alike, but spare the hands of the truely needy

although i am not a proponent of violence, i am not a proponent of greed...

open the chopping block for enron

sorry i just felt like pushing buttons ;)

[3rdpath]

Originally posted by spacepower

i say cut off the hands of the greedy, rich and poor alike, but spare the hands of the truely needy

and let's start with the p2p file swappers.;)

[tazo]

Originally posted by spacepower

there is a difference between stealing to survive...which can be excused

No it cannot.

Stealing is a crime, no matter how you put it, stealing is a crime. Whether or not the individual needed the "tv" to survive is debatable, as is the criminal intent, however stealing being a crime is irrefragable.

[Zaid]

Of course we should remember that historically the cutting of hands in the ME was always suspended during periods of economic hardship such as food shortages, etc.

Stealing of food also normally merited a less harsh punishment (i.e none of your bits and bobs would be cut off)

All of this also existed within an environment where it was considered the duty of the state (and the wealthy) to provide food for the poor.

This was when the system worked properly.

Another thing to remember is that capital punishments ALWAYS carried an alternative non-capital punishment. The choice was made by a judge, taking the severity and nature of the crime into account. The victim could always request the lesser non-capital punishment (something that was seen as a great act of compassion by islam)

Of course in some places with corrupt rulers and judiciary the checks and balances fell by the way side.

[toontra]

Originally posted by tazo
No it cannot.

Stealing is a crime, no matter how you put it, stealing is a crime. Whether or not the individual needed the "tv" to survive is debatable, as is the criminal intent, however stealing being a crime is irrefragable.

Have you ever actually been starving? I somehow doubt that if you had you would have chosen to die rather than offend your morals.

[pseudobrit]

Do you get your hands back if they overturn your sentence?

Originally posted by tazo
No it cannot.

Stealing is a crime, no matter how you put it, stealing is a crime. Whether or not the individual needed the "tv" to survive is debatable, as is the criminal intent, however stealing being a crime is irrefragable.

Actually, the Catholic Church condones stealing in order to survive. It even encourages it if food/starvation is being as a tool by a corrupt system.

It may still be a crime legally, but morally, it's just peachy to take what you need to live.

We're not talking about stealing TVs, we're talking about stealing essentials that keep you alive. Like cable and music.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by spacepower
there is a difference between stealing to survive...which can be excused.... and stealing for acquiring more material possesions


There is??

Maybe all thieves should leave a note when they steal something reiterating that they are stealing to survive, instead of for acquiring material possessions.

(end_sarcasm)

[tazo]

Originally posted by toontra
Have you ever actually been starving? I somehow doubt that if you had you would have chosen to die rather than offend your morals.

I am not a rich kid bud. I have spent a few nights wishing I had something more to eat....

I am not trying to come off as cruel and uncaring, but the law is the law. "....I was in need of money so i robbed the bank and shot everyone...but i needed the money!..."
:o

It may still be a crime legally, but morally, it's just peachy to take what you need to live.

In the United States atleast, the government is not a theocracy (although it has been called a despotism ;)). If the US were a theocracy it would not be as much of a stress to cite 'moral laws' as a means to disregard the act of committing a crime, however as mentioned before, the US is not a theocracy.

I can certainly understand needing food to survive, I have been in that postition, but what cannot condone is committing a crime to do so.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by tazo

I can certainly understand needing food to survive, I have been in that postition, but what cannot condone is committing a crime to do so.

so all the mp3s on your hard drive are from music you bought? and you've never sent anyone an mp3?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
so all the mp3s on your hard drive are from music you bought? and you've never sent anyone an mp3?

I can say with all honesty... YES

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
I can say with all honesty... YES

commendable

[mactastic]

Ever gone faster than 70 mph?

[Durandal7]

I think it may be a better idea to distance ourselves from the judicial policies of certain Middle Eastern countries.

As long as we're cutting off hands are we going to start stoning people again? Oh, and we should let murderers off with a month in jail as long as the victim is a female family member.

[tazo]

Originally posted by zimv20
so all the mp3s on your hard drive are from music you bought? and you've never sent anyone an mp3?

How is this related to stealing food to survive?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Ever gone faster than 70 mph?

Yes. Speeding is in most states, considered an infraction, subject to a fee, and no jail time.

Actually, the most dangerous is a distracted driver, and this either via daydreaming, cell phone, intoxicating substances, jamming to the radio and irate mother-in-law. :D
The next is a speed differential between cars on the road.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by tazo
How is this related to stealing food to survive?

Originally posted by tazo

I am not trying to come off as cruel and uncaring, but the law is the law.

"the law is the law"

my mp3 question stands. and what about jaywalking? trespassing? slander? you're innocent of everything?

[XnavxeMiyyep]

I disagree with the cutting off of the hands. What if later they turn out to be innocent? They should do something less permanent, like smashing their hands with a hammer.

[tazo]

Originally posted by zimv20
"the law is the law"

my mp3 question stands. and what about jaywalking? trespassing? slander? you're innocent of everything?

I have done all of the above. Most of them stem from laziness, not from sheer need to survive :p

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by tazo
... but the law is the law.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to beg in the streets, steal bread, or sleep under a bridge" - Anatole France

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Sayhey
true. you can't make a law that allows poor people to still and get their wrists slapped, while people that steal without need lose their hands. that's very counteregalitarian.... slippery friggin slope.

letting the starving poor get away with crime is no way to raise their standard of living.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by shadowfax
true. you can't make a law that allows poor people to still and get their wrists slapped, while people that steal without need lose their hands. that's very counteregalitarian.... slippery friggin slope.

letting the starving poor get away with crime is no way to raise their standard of living.

I didn't take the original post seriously. No one in their right minds can really be suggesting cutting off hands as a legitimate method of punishment. That style of draconian punishment was abolished long ago for very good reason.

The Anatole France quote is not meant to propose the elimination of laws against theft. It does remind us that our laws must weigh both justice and compassion in its scales. Or do we all need to read Les Miserables again.

[Zaid]

Originally posted by tazo
I have done all of the above. Most of them stem from laziness, not from sheer need to survive :p

So in other words you've stolen (music) and broken other laws

Sure the law is the law, but in the real world (where the rest of us live) not everything is clear cut. Things tend to be shades of grey rather than black or white.

For instance you kill someone, you've broken the law. Murder is murder right? Then why do we see fit to grade murder? Murder 1, ... , Manslaughter, ... , self defence. Its a spectrum coz we realise that some of them are worse than others, and some hardly deserve punishment.

Getting back to your theft example, surely you see that theft due to laziness is a lot worse than theft of food in order to survive. (though not as bad as say theft for profit)

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Yes. Speeding is in most states, considered an infraction, subject to a fee, and no jail time.

Actually, the most dangerous is a distracted driver, and this either via daydreaming, cell phone, intoxicating substances, jamming to the radio and irate mother-in-law. :D
The next is a speed differential between cars on the road.

Infraction, misdemeanor, felony... what's the difference from a morality standpoint? They are all wrong, aren't they? I thought the argument was that breaking the law was a black-and-white kind of thing. Or are there times when it is ok to flaunt the law?;)

I don't care about distracted drivers in this context. That is simply an attempt to distract from the original issue.

[toontra]

Originally posted by mactastic
I don't care about distracted drivers in this context. That is simply an attempt to distract from the original issue.

Reminds me of macfan in his heyday!

BTW, where is macfan?

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by toontra
BTW, where is macfan?

He hasn't posted for over a month. Guess we lost him.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Sayhey
He hasn't posted for over a month. Guess we lost him.

maybe he enlisted.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by zimv20
maybe he enlisted.

I could be wrong, but I got the impression he was a little to old for that. More likely he is back at Victoria Falls enjoying a safari. Either that or he got fed up arguing with the rest of us. Nah!

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by toontra
Reminds me of macfan in his heyday!

BTW, where is macfan?

Maybe macfan got tired of it.