These stories should be plastered in schools everywhere.

[Lewkowski]

I can't help but wonder how you can square this outlook with your faith. Doesn't a large part of Christian dogma revolve around forgiveness of sin and redemption? Do you believe that the sinners should be able to repent of their sins and receive forgiveness? Do you believe that God has a rating scale for sin? If not, what about these sins make those that would commit them the scum of the Earth, while leaving your sins as eminently pardonable? Was the Biblical punishment for theft death?

I don't believe we should base our laws on morality.

Forgiveness is required - that doesn't change the fact that even Christians would celebrate Hitler's death. Furthermore beyond personal forgiveness you can look at what the net cost or benefit to society is and consider an outcome as having a positive or negative event on society.

I don't consider all sins equal. (Though all would eternally separate us from God without the sacrifice of Jesus)

I'm uncertain why you think we should use biblical law for determining punishments. I don't take you as one who would advocate for theocracy.

I also don't believe in an Eye for an Eye. That's absurd - why would you be fearful of the law if it only punished you as far as you did something? If you steal a $100 should your punishment be the loss of a $100? Insanity! Since not all criminals are caught it would be a net benefit for the criminal element!

No I believe in laws that protect society. I don't care about justice per say, an equitable punishment is not what I want. I want a punishment that puts FEAR in the hearts of would be criminals. This FEAR would create less crime, leading to less people getting hurt and/or dying.

[Enoch the Red]

I don't believe we should base our laws on morality.

What are you basing your belief that death is an acceptable punishment for theft on? Is it because you believe it will act as a deterrent? If that's the case, then why not use death as a punishment for all crimes?

I don't consider all sins equal. (Though all would eternally separate us from God without the sacrifice of Jesus)

Does your understanding of God's laws factor into the severity with which you believe crimes should be punished? Would you support a secular punishment that violated God's laws for a crime?

I'm uncertain why you think we should use biblical law for determining punishments. I don't take you as one who would advocate for theocracy.

I don't advocate a theocracy, but I would assume that if you are a Christian then you value the word of God. If God didn't believe death was an appropriate punishment for theft, why do you? Are you a better judge of man and his nature than God is?

I also don't believe in an Eye for an Eye. That's absurd - why would you be fearful of the law if it only punished you as far as you did something? If you steal a $100 should your punishment be the loss of a $100? Insanity! Since not all criminals are caught it would be a net benefit for the criminal element!

Then you are no doubt aware that the biblical punishment for theft wasn't an eye for an eye, it was the value of the item stolen plus twenty percent. Do you think God valued the life of the sinner more than the value of the goods they stole?

No I believe in laws that protect society. I don't care about justice per say, an equitable punishment is not what I want. I want a punishment that puts FEAR in the hearts of would be criminals. This FEAR would create less crime, leading to less people getting hurt and/or dying.

Then why not make people afraid by making death the default punishment for all infractions? Better yet, death by rape. Better still, forcing them to watch as their loved ones get raped to death, and then slowly disemboweling them. Fear is one way of governing, but a better way is to write the law on the heart of man.

[Lewkowski]

What are you basing your belief that death is an acceptable punishment for theft on? Is it because you believe it will act as a deterrent? If that's the case, then why not use death as a punishment for all crimes?



Does your understanding of God's laws factor into the severity with which you believe crimes should be punished? Would you support a secular punishment that violated God's laws for a crime?



I don't advocate a theocracy, but I would assume that if you are a Christian then you value the word of God. If God didn't believe death was an appropriate punishment for theft, why do you? Are you a better judge of man and his nature than God is?



Then you are no doubt aware that the biblical punishment for theft wasn't an eye for an eye, it was the value of the item stolen plus twenty percent. Do you think God valued the life of the sinner more than the value of the goods they stole?



Then why not make people afraid by making death the default punishment for all infractions? Better yet, death by rape. Better still, forcing them to watch as their loved ones get raped to death, and then slowly disemboweling them. Fear is one way of governing, but a better way is to write the law on the heart of man.

In this particular thread I haven't advocated for the death penalty for theft. I've advocated celebrating those who defend their property or their employers property. In the past I've advocated 'frying' thieves but in reality I know that having capital punishment for it would never be politically feasible.

Secular punishment is secular punishment. I find it strange since I think you have libertarian tendencies want more religious discussion in our legal code. I also see some potential hypocrisy here - do you also tell religious folks who believe in a political view that you support that they may not be aligned with their beliefs? Somehow I don't think so.

A recurring theme is value/justice/weight of things. That's silly. Deterrence is the value I'm promoting. A life isn't worth a DVD but a life lost that leads to 100s of people not stealing and not going into a life of crime and potentially not becoming murders themselves is very very much worth it.

[Enoch the Red]

In this particular thread I haven't advocated for the death penalty for theft. I've advocated celebrating those who defend their property or their employers property. In the past I've advocated 'frying' thieves but in reality I know that having capital punishment for it would never be politically feasible.

We aren't talking about political feasibility, we are talking about your moral compass and what you judge as right or wrong.

Secular punishment is secular punishment. I find it strange since I think you have libertarian tendencies want more religious discussion in our legal code. I also see some potential hypocrisy here - do you also tell religious folks who believe in a political view that you support that they may not be aligned with their beliefs? Somehow I don't think so.

I haven't said what I want with regard to our legal code, what I have done is ask you what you want out of it. A question that you've dodged. I'll ask it again. Do you believe that a secular punishment should violate God's law?

A recurring theme is value/justice/weight of things. That's silly. Deterrence is the value I'm promoting. A life isn't worth a DVD but a life lost that leads to 100s of people not stealing and not going into a life of crime and potentially not becoming murders themselves is very very much worth it.

So you are saying there is a calculus to the value of human life? Would you kill every thousandth person who drove under the influence to potentially act as a deterrent to others? Every ten thousandth person who jay-walked? Every hundred thousandth person who cheated on their taxes? Is that really something you are comfortable with?

Also we aren't talking about judicial punishment here. We are talking about employees being slightly over zealous in their job. Its doubtful they were TRYING to kill the thief. But by celebrating their aggressive and brave actions we can do some good. If these types of stories gained more publicity we could see less crime.

I think the reverse is actually true. I don't know the specifics in this case, and whether or not what happened could be justifiable, but I do believe the more cavalierly we treat life the more violent crime we will see.

[Timbuk2]

Also we aren't talking about judicial punishment here. We are talking about employees being slightly over zealous in their job. Its doubtful they were TRYING to kill the thief. But by celebrating their aggressive and brave actions we can do some good. If these types of stories gained more publicity we could see less crime.

I think the reverse is actually true. I don't know the specifics in this case, and whether or not what happened could be justifiable, but I do believe the more cavalierly we treat life the more violent crime we will see.

I would agree.

[RandBlade]

No I believe in laws that protect society. I don't care about justice per say, an equitable punishment is not what I want. I want a punishment that puts FEAR in the hearts of would be criminals. This FEAR would create less crime, leading to less people getting hurt and/or dying.

This ignorance makes me so angry I can't put it into words.

You're such a loudmouth keyboard warrior on these issues, but do you actually work in a retail environment where this is applicable? Have you experienced being on the receiving end of theft? What about being the victim of armed robberies? I've been involved on the receiving end of both. And I can tell you that armed robberies are far more traumatic and horrific than regular theft.

Regular theft is a nuisance, an irritant. It certainly pisses you off. It is not a life or death issue though, it is actually by any sensible businessman known as a cost of business in retail that you work to minimise in the same way as you need to control your labour costs to survive. An armed robbery puts lives in danger and leaves people traumatised afterwards.

If a thief gets the same punishment as an armed robber, or even worse as you seem to suggest the same punishment as a murderer then what reason does a thief have to show restraint? Our laws punish thieves less than armed robbers who are punished less than murderers. If you punish them all the same then a thief may as well kill all witnesses and leave no survivors leading to MORE people dying.

Any sensible individual or organisation tries to keep people calm in the event of a robbery to minimise risk to life, not cause FEAR to those involved.

EDIT: PS in my experience most theft from retail is committed by employees. In your twisted world if I catch an employee stealing then rather than dismiss them and call the cops should I beat my colleague to death instead?

[Lewkowski]

This ignorance makes me so angry I can't put it into words.

You're such a loudmouth keyboard warrior on these issues, but do you actually work in a retail environment where this is applicable? Have you experienced being on the receiving end of theft? What about being the victim of armed robberies? I've been involved on the receiving end of both. And I can tell you that armed robberies are far more traumatic and horrific than regular theft.

Regular theft is a nuisance, an irritant. It certainly pisses you off. It is not a life or death issue though, it is actually by any sensible businessman known as a cost of business in retail that you work to minimise in the same way as you need to control your labour costs to survive. An armed robbery puts lives in danger and leaves people traumatised afterwards.

If a thief gets the same punishment as an armed robber, or even worse as you seem to suggest the same punishment as a murderer then what reason does a thief have to show restraint? Our laws punish thieves less than armed robbers who are punished less than murderers. If you punish them all the same then a thief may as well kill all witnesses and leave no survivors leading to MORE people dying.

Any sensible individual or organisation tries to keep people calm in the event of a robbery to minimise risk to life, not cause FEAR to those involved.

EDIT: PS in my experience most theft from retail is committed by employees. In your twisted world if I catch an employee stealing then rather than dismiss them and call the cops should I beat my colleague to death instead?

It sounds like you've had some traumatic instances involving theft and robbery. Wouldn't it have been much better if the people who stole were scared shitless by seeing video after video of thieves gunned down? Tackled and then killed? We would live in a better world with less thieves and robbers. My approach is to celebrate the people who kill them creating an environment of fear for would be criminals.

Also we aren't talking about judicial punishment here. We are talking about employees being slightly over zealous in their job. Its doubtful they were TRYING to kill the thief. But by celebrating their aggressive and brave actions we can do some good. If these types of stories gained more publicity we could see less crime.

[Steely Glint]

It sounds like you've had some traumatic instances involving theft and robbery. Wouldn't it have been much better if the people who stole were scared shitless by seeing video after video of thieves gunned down? Tackled and then killed? We would live in a better world with less thieves and robbers. My approach is to celebrate the people who kill them creating an environment of fear for would be criminals.

Your Grand Moff Tarkin bullshit shows no appreciation for how people actually respond to either genuine fear or, worse, failed attempts to intimidate them.

[Lewkowski]

Your Grand Moff Tarkin bullshit shows no appreciation for how people actually respond to either genuine fear or, worse, failed attempts to intimidate them.

The attempt of liberals to ignore basic human psychology is amazing. We seek pleasure and fear pain. Increase the amount of pain and the likelihood (extremely important btw, currently DP not very effective as a detterent because its used so rarely) of pain and you will have people try to avoid doing those activities. This isn't rocket science.

[Steely Glint]

The attempt of liberals to ignore basic human psychology is amazing. We seek pleasure and fear pain. Increase the amount of pain and the likelihood (extremely important btw, currently DP not very effective as a detterent because its used so rarely) of pain and you will have people try to avoid doing those activities. This isn't rocket science.

So why do people join the army, then?

[Timbuk2]

This ignorance makes me so angry I can't put it into words.

You're such a loudmouth keyboard warrior on these issues, but do you actually work in a retail environment where this is applicable? Have you experienced being on the receiving end of theft? What about being the victim of armed robberies? I've been involved on the receiving end of both. And I can tell you that armed robberies are far more traumatic and horrific than regular theft.

Regular theft is a nuisance, an irritant. It certainly pisses you off. It is not a life or death issue though, it is actually by any sensible businessman known as a cost of business in retail that you work to minimise in the same way as you need to control your labour costs to survive. An armed robbery puts lives in danger and leaves people traumatised afterwards.

If a thief gets the same punishment as an armed robber, or even worse as you seem to suggest the same punishment as a murderer then what reason does a thief have to show restraint? Our laws punish thieves less than armed robbers who are punished less than murderers. If you punish them all the same then a thief may as well kill all witnesses and leave no survivors leading to MORE people dying.

Any sensible individual or organisation tries to keep people calm in the event of a robbery to minimise risk to life, not cause FEAR to those involved.

EDIT: PS in my experience most theft from retail is committed by employees. In your twisted world if I catch an employee stealing then rather than dismiss them and call the cops should I beat my colleague to death instead?

This is well said.