Skip Navigation

BOYCOTT ALL TRAVEL TO SINGAPORE

Travel Forums Off Topic BOYCOTT ALL TRAVEL TO SINGAPORE

Page 1 ... ...

Last Post

91. Posted by Brendan (Respected Member 1824 posts) 10y

Ah yes, let us revert back to a feudalistic notion of human rights. I certainly wouldn't want to be wrongly accused. Beyond that however, an eye for an eye doesn't work.

92. Posted by james (Travel Guru 4136 posts) 10y

Quoting Brendan

Ah yes, let us revert back to a feudalistic notion of human rights. I certainly wouldn't want to be wrongly accused. Beyond that however, an eye for an eye doesn't work.

Depends on how you define "work". Maybe in simply taking the eye, justice has been served.

93. Posted by Brendan (Respected Member 1824 posts) 10y

Depends on how you define "justice". Maybe in simply having justice you don't actually try to fix the problem.

94. Posted by vegasmike6 (Travel Guru 3562 posts) 10y

Quoting CupCake

I like the " Revert back to conditions in third world countries and the middle ages? " that sounds perfect to me...because if you break the law...or infringe on another's rights, you don't deserve any (rights)
Extreme? Maybe...but it is how I feel.

History shows that when any group does not respect the human rights of another person or group, oppression is the results. Five easy examples are; the Inquisition in the middle ages; Germany under Hitler; Russia ruled by Stalin; Cambodia ruled by Pol Pot; Uganda under Idi Amin Dada. When there is no judical system, no respect for individual human rights, populations get tortured, raped and slaughtered. You do not have to go very far back for additional examples. The slaughter in Rwanda and Dem. Republic of the Congo are just a few years ago. Repressive regimes w/o an effective judiciary are a recipe for genocide.

You make this statement sitting in the US with many protections afforded each citizen. In the middle ages, just being accused of heresy often was a death sentence. As depicted in the movie, "Braveheart", your choice once in the hands of Inquisitors was; torture and death or a quick death. Of course most 'confessed' to crimes, real or imagined. Anything to stop the torture. These excesses lead to developing a judical system where one could answer charges brought against them. If you or a family member was accused of a crime they did not commit, you would be very thankful that you had a right to an attorney, bail, and the right to face your accuser before being sentenced. I do not think the US, Britain and the other Western democracies are going to step back to the bad old days of history. Go spend a bit of time in some of the less enlighten countries in Africa. Try Sierra Leone or Dem. Republic of the Congo, Mali. I think you will be happy to be able to leave and have the protections you now do as an American.

95. Posted by tway (Travel Guru 7273 posts) 10y

This debate reminds me of one of those TV Canadaian Heritage moments. Agnes Macphail was one of the first women elected to Parliament, and among of her achievements was advocating for the reform of the penal system. The result was the Archambeault Report , which shifted the system from punishment to rehabilitation.

Prisons were nasty, cruel places to be before the reforms. I'm not advocating giving prisoners special perks or privaleges, but I think we have to understand what reform means - access to education, therapy, job skills, and so on. I also think that if we advocate respect and human rights for all people, we have to accord that to prisoners as well. They've forfeited their right to freedom and to the priveleges of being a free citizen, but no one has the right to treat them as animals instead of people. That would make us just as bad as criminals.

Mind, don't ask me to advocate that if someone did something to my family. That's like asking a doctor to operate on his or her own child. There are guidelines to prevent emotional involvement.

96. Posted by Brendan (Respected Member 1824 posts) 10y

Quoting tway

Mind, don't ask me to advocate that if someone did something to my family.

That seems to be the root of the whole problem. Once people cease to be ambivalent and are willing to treat everyone the same, regardless if you yourself are involved.

97. Posted by tway (Travel Guru 7273 posts) 10y

Quoting Brendan

Quoting tway

Mind, don't ask me to advocate that if someone did something to my family.

That seems to be the root of the whole problem. Once people cease to be ambivalent and are willing to treat everyone the same, regardless if you yourself are involved.

I get what you're saying, B. I really do. I think it's only human, though, to feel that way - although many families of victims still vehemenantly oppose the death penalty (and who knows - maybe I would too...I hope I would). I don't think you could even hope to be 'in your right mind' if something horrible happened to a member of your family. That's why the laws take over. That's why lady justice wears her blindfold. I'm just saying I don't know how I'd feel. I can't pretend that I'd be ambivalent if it affected me directly.

98. Posted by Q' (Travel Guru 1987 posts) 10y

Quoting Brendan

Depends on how you define "justice". Maybe in simply having justice you don't actually try to fix the problem.

How do you "fix" a person's desire to kill ?

To me, all you can do is make somebody think very very very very hard before taking a life. Whether it is by the death penalty or long term incarceration, these laws "work" by making the consequences of murder something so horrible that it's just not worth taking another person's life over.

Quoting tway

Mind, don't ask me to advocate that if someone did something to my family. That's like asking a doctor to operate on his or her own child. There are guidelines to prevent emotional involvement.

As an aside, that can work the other way as well. As a professional who has influence over life and death situations, you're often told to imagine "if your child was in that position what would you do?" as a method of motivating people to achieve higher quality. We used to fly around in airplanes with our own engines. Luckily nobody screwed up!

99. Posted by james (Travel Guru 4136 posts) 10y

Quoting Brendan

Depends on how you define "justice". Maybe in simply having justice you don't actually try to fix the problem.

An eye for an eye = justice

100. Posted by tway (Travel Guru 7273 posts) 10y

Quoting Q_Zhang

As a professional who has influence over life and death situations, you're often told to imagine "if your child was in that position what would you do?" as a method of motivating people to achieve higher quality. We used to fly around in airplanes with our own engines. Luckily nobody screwed up!

Watching all those Law & Order shows, I was under the impression that you were suppoed to put aside such feelings and look at the facts - the law. The "what if it were your child" route seems like something a lawyer would say to pursuade the powers that be to his or her side. Laws are made to be rational, not emotional.

Likewise, people who flew with their own engines were being rational - they made something they believed worked, and put only themselves at risk. I meant something more along the lines of, say, a police officer having to arrest their spouse/child/parent for drunk driving. The laws are clear, but the emotional implications can too easily circumvent the law. In that case, someone with a more level head and no involvement should take over.

Page 1 ... ...

Last Post

This thread is closed