Retirement Age in the Honorverse

ldwechsler wrote:There are many possible solutions. Piaracy seems to always bring a death penalty. Other crimes get punished in different ways depending on the culture. And, yes, really long term punishments are really cruel. But would you let a serial killer out after 100 years knowing he would probably kill again?

There is that. Letting a killer out after a long sentence in the real world and, well, they're old now, and probably won't kill again just because of that. Still physically young and healthy could be a very different story.

ldwechsler wrote:There are many possible solutions. Piaracy seems to always bring a death penalty. Other crimes get punished in different ways depending on the culture. And, yes, really long term punishments are really cruel. But would you let a serial killer out after 100 years knowing he would probably kill again?

drothgery wrote:There is that. Letting a killer out after a long sentence in the real world and, well, they're old now, and probably won't kill again just because of that. Still physically young and healthy could be a very different story.

Depending on intent, there can be a real difference between someone who kills one person and someone who kills several. The only argument that I find good against capital punishment is the possibility of executing an innocent person. Where there is certainty that someone has killed others, then there is no reason to sentence to life. Perhaps if they only killed one, then there might be extenuating reasons to think that they may not kill again and could someday be released into society.

PS: Did clock not change for Daylight Saving?

ldwechsler wrote:There are many possible solutions. Piaracy seems to always bring a death penalty. Other crimes get punished in different ways depending on the culture. And, yes, really long term punishments are really cruel. But would you let a serial killer out after 100 years knowing he would probably kill again?

drothgery wrote:There is that. Letting a killer out after a long sentence in the real world and, well, they're old now, and probably won't kill again just because of that. Still physically young and healthy could be a very different story.

tlb wrote:Depending on intent, there can be a real difference between someone who kills one person and someone who kills several. The only argument that I find good against capital punishment is the possibility of executing an innocent person. Where there is certainty that someone has killed others, then there is no reason to sentence to life. Perhaps if they only killed one, then there might be extenuating reasons to think that they may not kill again and could someday be released into society.

PS: Did clock not change for Daylight Saving?

It couldn't have been said any better, tlb. I think many people object to Corporal punishment because of the chance of killing an innocent man. Anytime I consider the possibility and put myself in the shoes of an innocent man about to be put to death tears me apart. Innocent, and no one believes him. This is a serious moral issue, compounded with the religious issue that life is not for man to take.

tlb wrote:

ldwechsler wrote:There are many possible solutions. Piaracy seems to always bring a death penalty. Other crimes get punished in different ways depending on the culture. And, yes, really long term punishments are really cruel. But would you let a serial killer out after 100 years knowing he would probably kill again?

drothgery wrote:There is that. Letting a killer out after a long sentence in the real world and, well, they're old now, and probably won't kill again just because of that. Still physically young and healthy could be a very different story.

Depending on intent, there can be a real difference between someone who kills one person and someone who kills several. The only argument that I find good against capital punishment is the possibility of executing an innocent person. Where there is certainty that someone has killed others, then there is no reason to sentence to life. Perhaps if they only killed one, then there might be extenuating reasons to think that they may not kill again and could someday be released into society.

PS: Did clock not change for Daylight Saving?

I can certainly appreciate the possibility that someone who has killed only once should generally be considered for parole, but certainly weighing each circumstance.

At any rate, killing only one person definitely being indicative of rehab material certainly isn't written in stone. I'd say it would depend on the particulars of that one kill. If someone shows an aversion to sick depravity like what's found in Silence of the Lambs and butchered an infant to small child and was caught eating it, or did something like stabbed a 7 yr-old girl over 250 times, then do proceed to build the prison atop him.

cthia wrote:

ldwechsler wrote:There are many possible solutions. Piaracy seems to always bring a death penalty. Other crimes get punished in different ways depending on the culture. And, yes, really long term punishments are really cruel. But would you let a serial killer out after 100 years knowing he would probably kill again?

drothgery wrote:There is that. Letting a killer out after a long sentence in the real world and, well, they're old now, and probably won't kill again just because of that. Still physically young and healthy could be a very different story.

tlb wrote:Depending on intent, there can be a real difference between someone who kills one person and someone who kills several. The only argument that I find good against capital punishment is the possibility of executing an innocent person. Where there is certainty that someone has killed others, then there is no reason to sentence to life. Perhaps if they only killed one, then there might be extenuating reasons to think that they may not kill again and could someday be released into society.

PS: Did clock not change for Daylight Saving?

It couldn't have been said any better, tlb. I think many people object to Corporal punishment because of the chance of killing an innocent man. Anytime I consider the possibility and put myself in the shoes of an innocent man about to be put to death tears me apart. Innocent, and no one believes him. This is a serious moral issue, compounded with the religious issue that life is not for man to take.

Death by Corporal Punishment?

Spanking someone to death?

The probable reason why in the RMN Slaving and Piracy are immediate capital offences are because usually the evidence is immediate and overwhelming.

Oh,we've caught Mr. Slaver, he has violated the equipment clause or has a few hundred or thousand really, really pissed off witness for the prosecution.
Pirates are probably the same way.

saber964 wrote:The probable reason why in the RMN Slaving and Piracy are immediate capital offences are because usually the evidence is immediate and overwhelming.

Oh,we've caught Mr. Slaver, he has violated the equipment clause or has a few hundred or thousand really, really pissed off witness for the prosecution.
Pirates are probably the same way.

And because Slaving and Piracy are the most disgusting and morally bankrupt crimes.

cthia wrote:

saber964 wrote:The probable reason why in the RMN Slaving and Piracy are immediate capital offences are because usually the evidence is immediate and overwhelming.

Oh,we've caught Mr. Slaver, he has violated the equipment clause or has a few hundred or thousand really, really pissed off witness for the prosecution.
Pirates are probably the same way.

And because Slaving and Piracy are the most disgusting and morally bankrupt crimes.

Yeah it really doesn't get any worse than that.

cthia wrote:

ldwechsler wrote:There are many possible solutions. Piaracy seems to always bring a death penalty. Other crimes get punished in different ways depending on the culture. And, yes, really long term punishments are really cruel. But would you let a serial killer out after 100 years knowing he would probably kill again?

drothgery wrote:There is that. Letting a killer out after a long sentence in the real world and, well, they're old now, and probably won't kill again just because of that. Still physically young and healthy could be a very different story.

tlb wrote:Depending on intent, there can be a real difference between someone who kills one person and someone who kills several. The only argument that I find good against capital punishment is the possibility of executing an innocent person. Where there is certainty that someone has killed others, then there is no reason to sentence to life. Perhaps if they only killed one, then there might be extenuating reasons to think that they may not kill again and could someday be released into society.

PS: Did clock not change for Daylight Saving?

It couldn't have been said any better, tlb. I think many people object to Corporal punishment because of the chance of killing an innocent man. Anytime I consider the possibility and put myself in the shoes of an innocent man about to be put to death tears me apart. Innocent, and no one believes him. This is a serious moral issue, compounded with the religious issue that life is not for man to take.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Death by Corporal Punishment?

Spanking someone to death?

OOPS! This is an example of one of my real life conversations bleeding into the forum. What form of Freudian slip does this slip refer to, Freud?

Ah, corporal punishment in the '60s and '70s was one belt lick away from homicide. They were called "killings" back then for a reason . . .

"Oh man, I'm gonna get a killing when I get home."

cthia wrote:

tlb wrote:

Depending on intent, there can be a real difference between someone who kills one person and someone who kills several. The only argument that I find good against capital punishment is the possibility of executing an innocent person. Where there is certainty that someone has killed others, then there is no reason to sentence to life. Perhaps if they only killed one, then there might be extenuating reasons to think that they may not kill again and could someday be released into society.

PS: Did clock not change for Daylight Saving?

I can certainly appreciate the possibility that someone who has killed only once should generally be considered for parole, but certainly weighing each circumstance.

At any rate, killing only one person definitely being indicative of rehab material certainly isn't written in stone. I'd say it would depend on the particulars of that one kill. If someone shows an aversion to sick depravity like what's found in Silence of the Lambs and butchered an infant to small child and was caught eating it, or did something like stabbed a 7 yr-old girl over 250 times, then do proceed to build the prison atop him.

You do realize that the biggest killers of young children (under 12) are their mothers?