Zero Policy Law: A better world?

Zero Policy Law is a concept that I've, within the last couple of minutes, come up with. (However, I'm sure that some form of either the name, or the concept, exists somewhere else.)

Zero Policy Law states that all are unfit to live in the society that we've created, are unfit to live. I.e.:

Murderers, rapists, pedophiles, (among the other acts in the same list as murder, rape, etc) do not enter our jails. Instead, they are held in a less expensive state, and within that time period, trials are held and court decisions are made to confirm one of two things:

1) They're innocent.
2) They're guilty.

If they are guilty, simply put, they are unfit to live. Therefore, they die.

*
Our world doesn't need murderers. We don't need rapists. We don't need pedophiles. They do no sort of progression for the greater good. They're simply there, serving as examples and costing us money.

FACT: For one 25-year sentence, yearly, a state within the U.S. will have paid approximately $260,000 to keep that prisoner in jail.

[*and those with a brain function too low to be considered a progressive unit of society.] <--
This is considered a very controversial topic. A lot of people, like myself, have had family/friends who weren't born with the proper level of brain function to function within society. As humans, they will never live; they will simply exist. What do you think should be done with these individuals?

And on a greater note, what is your opinion on the idea of 'Zero Policy Law'?

 

It would seem logical but its not. If things were that simple...

 

your policy is built upon the claim that money is more important than human life.

would be practical in a situation where there are limited resources

is not practical or moral in utilitarian terms in our current situation, as resources are not extremely limited

 

There is one huge whole in your concept! the fact that it actually costs more to put someone on death row then it does to keep them alife

Now with that being said I will say this I support a stricter law enforcement for example you rape/beat someone you shall be killed, you steal something they should cut off your hand. Yea my way may not be as politically correct but I know damn right that the crime rate in america would drop significantly.

and just to clarify your zero tolerance type of government was by no means your idea it's been thought of many times before and used to be practiced in many tribes

 

Sounds like you want to start a genocide.

 

What if they are proven guilty when, in fact, they were actually innocent? This has happened multiple times in the United States. Also, what if the person changes? I know there is a lot of controversey as to whether a person really changes in jail, but I like to believe they can.

 

I wish things were that simple.

In my opinion if someone isnt a productive member of society and are just living off the state and stuff they are just garbage... hopefully noone gets offended by that but thats my opinion

 

The "whole" in his concept is that the law system ( not the justice system ) is a fucked up piece of shit and has MADE it more expensive.


I agree with zero tolerance, seeing as their are too many people in the world, and those who are here to fuck things up need to be fucked up ( in a sense. )

 

No.

It's built upon the claim that society has no need for those who do not help in it's progression, AND aim to hurt it. (Murderers, pedophiles, etc.)

The fact that it'd save a shit load of money is only an addition. As well, what's the projections for how long it'd take us to become overpopulated to an unsustainable point? lol.

You've any idea of how much it cost to keep someone on death row for a year, as opposed to in jail for life sentences of the same calibre?

& yes. I had already said that I was sure the concept had been idealized before.

In theory, the concept of acting out this policy within a set period of time would by all means be considered genocide.

Uhm. People have also been executed wrongly?

The point of 'policy', and not, as WTP said, genocide, is to instill.

However, murderers escape from prison, as well as kill while in prison. Simply put, we have no need, nor room, for humans whose minds rationalize murder and pedophilia.

As well, there's always the variables of an act. That's why 1st, 2nd, 3rd degree, and manslaughter exist.

Someone convicted of manslaughter obviously wouldn't be put to death, as the act isn't that of someone whose mind has rationalized murder. Mistakes happen; we all know that.

 

Everyone is different.

 

so you would rather kill them than try to reprogram them or re purpose them

this is pretty much what the american legal system does now.

this is not humane nor is it moral in utilitarian terms.

your post is full of emotional appeals of how they shouldnt be able to live because of their horrible crimes and stuff like that

i just find it kind of sad how you would rather kill people who are considered bad to you in order to save money.

seriously, this reminds me of hitler and his ideas of eugenics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics

 

I had an earlier thread than proposed that instead of keeping prisoners locked away to sit and rot, while paying out tens of thousands of dollars a year to have them do so, they could perform simple, renewable tasks that progress society, such as hemp paper/oil production, the harvesting and collecting of cannabis seeds, etc, etc.

This concept is only targeting those who commit bare murder, pedophilia, etc. I'm not saying everyone who enters the jail be killed; I made that clear last post.

Sorry, but we as advanced beings no longer need to speculate on 'murder' and 'pedophilia', rationalizing bits and pieces of it's concept and applying subjective senses of validity to it's act. Both of these things done by individuals in the purest form of the act do NOTHING but hurt society, and once a mind rationalizes these things and acts upon them, it's not like they're put to use in the progression of society anyways?

-----------------------------------------------------

& lol. An old professor of mine thought I was crazy for crediting Hitler for his concepts.

Hitler had the right idea. He may have had the wrong variables, an emotion that only leads to chaos (hate), a mind pumped with Heroine and had his ideals filled with racism and prejudice, but he and I share one common goal:

The Golden Era of Humanity.

We are advanced beings! We have the potential to be so much better. And yet, we let simple things hold us back. The world is screaming for progression, and yet, denying every bit of it.

I wish I were in Hitlers shoes. I wish I could have been that powerful. I would have used my power without blinding variables like the immense prejudices he had; and if I couldn't, I only hope I would have been wise enough to give my power to someone who could.

 

your argument is fallicious

you argue that killing people DOES NOTHING but hurt society, yet you argue that, in order to help society progress, we need to kill people.


the world is not screaming for progression, the last progression we had was the nuke

look how much that helped us

who are you to say that your own prejudices would not effect who you see to be unproductive in society?

hitlers ideas of eugenics were despicable. just because you want to make a better human does not mean you should use this belief as justification for mass murder.

the ends do not justify the means


also, we are not as advanced as we think. jesus, some virus' are more dominant and advanced than us.

i can't wait until all the "progressive" movements towards making a sterile environment end up creating super virus' that kill us.

wouldn't that be ironic. something meant to progress us as a species ends up killing us.

 

You're looking at the concept from a general view. As well, a very close minded one.

If you and I both had the ability to kick people from a chat, and you started kicking random people, I'm going to kick you. Why? Because you do nothing but hurt the chat, by kicking random people. Sure, I did the EXACT same act as you, but I managed to progress the chat, by getting rid of a hindering factor.

Was I right?

No. The Nuke was not a progression. The Nuke was created for one concept: To fight. To wage war. To have the biggest gun. War is not needed in society, just as the nuke wasn't needed.

You're arguing for the sake of arguing.

Give me one progressive purpose that a pedophile gives to society.

I don't want to create a better human. I don't want to promote an Aryan race. That's where the racism and prejudice comes in. I'm not targeting people who could be beneficial to society, but that I don't like.

I'm targeting people who bring harm to society, with no value whatsoever.

Arguing for the sake of arguing. We're advanced enough to comprehend universal rights and wrongs.

 

The world will never be perfect. We are all imperfect creatures, and thus we'll never be able to achieve this 'perfect society' that you desire.

 

you need to change your first premise then from:

all murders do nothing to progress society to

most murders do nothing to progress society.

very very different claims

 

To get as close as possible, is to achieve to the highest degree.

Technically, I'd be considered a murderer for murdering those who I do target, but as a sensible debater, you should have implied that I wasn't including myself in the bunch that I aim to diminish.

 

no, you should hav eincluded yourself in your own argument.

you cannot claim that:

All A are B
but not when I do A

this is because all A is not B if there are any exceptions at all

A: murder
B: wrong

 

Your goal is noble, but your means are not. You have a soul, a life. Now who gave you the right to take the souls and lives of so many on a whim? Would you sacrifice millions of humans for the purpose of creating a utopia? But doesn't that also create an endless cycle of killing, as more murderers, rapists and pedophiles will be always be born?

I can agree with killing a serial murderer, but beyond that, no.

 

Again,

If you and I both had the ability to kick people from a chat, and you started kicking random people, I'm going to kick you. Why? Because you do nothing but hurt the chat, by kicking random people. Sure, I did the EXACT same act as you, but I managed to progress the chat, by getting rid of a hindering factor.

Was I right?

I would kill a million pedophiles and murderers, if it meant that a million pedophiles and murderers were no longer a problem.

Of course it would create an endless cycle of killing. However, once everyone got over the vocabulary game, and open your mind to the actual reality of what would happen..

You're taking a life.

You're taking the life of someone who has already taken the life of another, perhaps 2, perhaps 3, perhaps 4. With the potential to take more lives.

You can try to match the two concepts up by saying that they both 'kill', but essentially, they're not the same.

Edit: This isn't killing just the kill, btdubbs. Let's not forget that the greater good is trying to be established.