Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

PURPLE

0 (0%)

ALERT

0 (0%)

(I need suggestions is what I'm saying.)

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 0

[Fenrir]

One might question whether one could say that a country is uncivilized simply because it is the birthplace of a particular breed of pornography.

[Trapezohedron]

One might question whether one could say that a country is uncivilized simply because it is the birthplace of a particular breed of pornography.

Ironically, Japan has a low birth rate than other countries. It makes me wonder why they seem to keep that kind of business up.

On topic: People in prison should keep their status regardless if they changed or not. Those convicted to death row, let them stay there. Those who aren't, well, let them stay there. It would be unfair for the other prisoners, since the changed man is treated like VIP in that case.

[G-Flex]

He's not "treated like a VIP". You might as well say that someone is "treated like a VIP" for being proven innocent while in prison, or for being declared psychiatrically unfit for trial. It would only be unfair if you didn't give the other prisoners the same treatment had they undergone the same course of events.

[Reelyanoob]

Ignoring the fact that civilized countries don't have the death penalty, and that civilized countries DEFINITELY don't have the death penalty for non-first-degree-murder, it calls for an entirely new body of law.

So Japan, the USA, and India are not civilized countries to you?

Don't get me wrong, the death penalty shouldn't be practiced anywhere, but that's demonstrably false.

Hentai, bible belt, caste system.

I've heard some pretty damning stuff about the cops in Japan, about 97% of convictions are based on confessions gathered through "unusual means" that the cops do not want to be filmed, recorded or investigated by the government. They use "psychological torture" methods (according to new york times, see below). Because of this police culture they lack the experience in what other nations would consider normal forensic procedures.

it started to unravel due to people "confessing" to crimes which had never actually occurred. Hopefully this has improved in the ~5 years since I read about that. I'll try and find some relevant articles. Oh here's the nytimes on a case I had in mind:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/11/world/asia/11japan.html

One small blessing is that Japan has a 99.8% conviction rate - because they only take cases to trial if they're certain they can win. And with the incompetence of the Japanese police at anything but interrogation, if you can withstand the 23 days of interrogation without charge the system allows, without confessing, you have a very good chance of going free. So if arrested in Japan, just hold out for 3 weeks and you're fine.

[Trapezohedron]

Ignoring the fact that civilized countries don't have the death penalty, and that civilized countries DEFINITELY don't have the death penalty for non-first-degree-murder, it calls for an entirely new body of law.

So Japan, the USA, and India are not civilized countries to you?

Don't get me wrong, the death penalty shouldn't be practiced anywhere, but that's demonstrably false.

Hentai, bible belt, caste system.

I've heard some pretty damning stuff about the cops in Japan, about 97% of convictions are based on confessions gathered through "unusual means" that the cops do not want to be filmed, recorded or investigated by the government. They use "psychological torture" methods (according to new york times, see below). Because of this police culture they lack the experience in what other nations would consider normal forensic procedures.

it started to unravel due to people "confessing" to crimes which had never actually occurred. Hopefully this has improved in the ~5 years since I read about that. I'll try and find some relevant articles. Oh here's the nytimes on a case I had in mind:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/11/world/asia/11japan.html

One small blessing is that Japan has a 99.8% conviction rate - because they only take cases to trial if they're certain they can win. And with the incompetence of the Japanese police at anything but interrogation, if you can withstand the 23 days of interrogation without charge the system allows, without confessing, you have a very good chance of going free. So if arrested in Japan, just hold out for 3 weeks and you're fine.

Yeah. The Ace Attorney series was based on the incompetence of the lawyers over there. If your case is a tough nut to crack, chances are that they intentionally avoid it.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Spoiler: Personality Loss Results (click to show/hide)

What should be done in this situation?

The man should be left on death row and executed.
 15 (27.8%)
The man should be removed from death row, but remain in prison for the rest of his life.
 7 (13%)
The man should be removed from death row, but serve a reduced sentence.
 16 (29.6%)
The man should be immediately released from prison.
 9 (16.7%)
Another option.
 3 (5.5%)
Don't know.
 4 (7.4%)
Total Members Voted: 54

Next Dilemma: How Far Would You Go To Save Someone You Love? (Title shamelessly taken from Heavy Rain.)

Think of a person you deeply care about. This loved one of yours is in dire medical straights. They require a massive bone marrow transplant, or they will most likely die. There is a very unhealthy man in the same hospital for heart surgery, and by sheer luck, he is a viable match to give a bone marrow transplant for your loved one. You and the doctors ask the man to consent to a transplant, and he laughs you off, saying that you're on your own and he doesn't care about what happens to someone he doesn't know. That night, you come to visit your loved one on what may be one of their last living days, and you pass by the man's room.....the door is unlocked and open, just a crack. He's inside, having just finished his surgery and on artifical respiration. Given the hazardous nature of his surgery, he's not very resilant at this point.

If something....unfortunate...was to happen to this man, you could probably negotiate that they take his bone marrow posthumously. His respirator is plugged into the wall, unguarded. He's unconscious and will probably remain so for the next few hours. The hospital is all but deserted at this late hour, and no one is in view. All you have to do is pull that plug and walk away, and it'll likely trigger a fatal heart attack in someone with such a degraded heart. Kill him, and your loved one will live. Don't, and they'll almost certainly die.

Would you murder this man to save your loved one?

[Angel Of Death]

I don't think I could. For a start, I could not live with (metaphorical) blood on my hands and secondly, it's too risky.

[scriver]

Couldn't murder anyone like that.

As for the moral part, he has exactly as much right to live as my loved one, and I have no right to take his life for selfsish reasons. Oh and yeah, as he's somebody elses loved one, I would just make somebody else suffer (as I would have) for my own gain as well, as if murdering for my own pleasure wasn't bad enough to begin with.

[Jackrabbit]

Out of interest, MSH, did you remove my vote for "Other Option" and put it in "Reduced Sentence"? Because I never did manage to re-assign my vote to that.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Out of interest, MSH, did you remove my vote for "Other Option" and put it in "Reduced Sentence"? Because I never did manage to re-assign my vote to that.

No, but I will now that the votes are in text form. I don't pretend to understand the strange quirks of the forum software, especially not after (Awaiting Approval), so I'm still not sure why it suddenly prevented you from re-assigning your vote.

[Jackrabbit]

Great, thanks. I saw the tie-breaker and went "hmmmm".

[RedKing]

Sorely tempting, as the guy's obviously an asshole. I honestly don't know. I might do it. There are certainly a whole other range of circumstances under which I would readily kill to save/protect my wife or children.

But most of those scenarios involve someone making the fatal mistake of threatening my family. Then again, in a very indirect way, refusing to even consider a transplant *is* threatening the person who needs it.

I'm sticking with "I don't know" for now, but leaning towards "unplug the asshole and harvest his tasty marrow". It would be a more ethically difficult situation if the person were sympathetic, but refusing the transplant on religious grounds or something.

[scriver]

Why, RedKing? Are you free to murder any people you like just because they're assholes towards you?

[RedKing]

Why, RedKing? Are you free to murder any people you like just because they're assholes towards you?

From a rational standpoint, no. From a human standpoint...let's face it, we'd all find it easier to kill someone we don't like than someone that we do like.

EDIT: Edited for clarity. I wasn't suggesting that I like to kill people who displease me. The rivers would run red if that were the case (or more likely, I'd be on death row after 1-2 murders).

[Angel Of Death]

Why, RedKing? Are you free to murder any people you like just because they're assholes towards you?

we'd all find it easier to kill someone we don't like.

I wouldn't. Threats that don't sound empty can get arseholes out of your life just fine.