Laws of the island

So far we've got:

Age of consent is 13.

Religion is to be kept personal.

Marijuana is legalized.

This will be added to as law are discussed

Isn't 13 a little too young, kids that age don't fully understand sex. Plus getting knocked up at that age would really interfere with schooling...

Voyd wrote:

Isn't 13 a little too young, kids that age don't fully understand sex. Plus getting knocked up at that age would really interfere with schooling...

Historically, 13 has been the age at which children have been considered responsible for themselves, including for making their own decisions about sex. This issue of education is a perennial one, it seems, so I guess I'll post something about that. The short answer is that education exists as a socialized daycare that teaches children nothing. Plus, birth control methods and abortion.

45324534534

That raft idea is pretty horrible. First off, it's virtually a death sentence and they'd hypothetically just land that raft back on the island ASAP as there is no punishment greater than death. I think there are three tiers of justice. Compensation, banishment, and death. Death has to be an option, albeit an extreme one for murder and torture and rape, and I have suggested one live round and several blanks distributed to a firing squad as the means to do that if the case arose.

For most offenses that arise, compensation will be the normal method. If someone exceeds what compensation can rectify, or they are a continual nuisance, they should be banished. For murder, the penalty can be no less than death.

57645674576457476

>What if they're innocent and they got it wrong?

That's what trials are for. And dying a slow horrible death on the open seas is worse than a bullet in the back of the head. Assuming the Pitcairns as the starting point, there is no chance of them making it anywhere else. The raft idea serves absolutely no point. We will have boats. They will be dumped off at Tahiti or Easter Island if they need be banished. And if the need for justice is greater, then we'll drop their corpse in the ocean with holes drilled through his lungs and let him sink to the bottom to be carrion for sharks.

32452342342341

I totally disagree with "Religion is to be kept personal"

We should actually prohibit religion

Prohibit religion? That's one of the worst ideas ever. Prohibition of violence based on religious beliefs, sure. Prohibition of being a general asshole about your religion, maybe. But flat-out prohibition of religion? At that point you're telling your citizens what to believe and how to think. Every single person alive holds beliefs for which they have no proof. That is to say that regardless of what you call it, you yourself have beliefs that could technically be classified as religion.

tl;dr: leave religion where it belongs, in the minds of its followers. Don't get it all mixed up in legislation. That would be a pointless expense for any government.

Headrush wrote:

Prohibit religion? That's one of the worst ideas ever. Prohibition of violence based on religious beliefs, sure. Prohibition of being a general asshole about your religion, maybe. But flat-out prohibition of religion? At that point you're telling your citizens what to believe and how to think. Every single person alive holds beliefs for which they have no proof. That is to say that regardless of what you call it, you yourself have beliefs that could technically be classified as religion.

tl;dr: leave religion where it belongs, in the minds of its followers. Don't get it all mixed up in legislation. That would be a pointless expense for any government.

Agreed. We're all atheist and agnostic fags anyway. The goal should be education to create a scientifically literate populous which will naturally be highly atheistic. We shall not be thought police. Free expression is paramount.

The death penalty is generally a bad idea. Aside from the moral issues, theres some technical aspects to consider. If we start killing people, what do we do with the corpses? We have somewhat limited land in which to bury them, and it would be a drain of resources to send them to sea. Even a basic raft would use wood that for an island nation is quite a valuable resource and to send a crewed vessel out to sea to dispose of them is still a drain on time and resources, which are things we want to avoid, at least in the beginning. If we absolutely MUST kill people, burning is probably our most efficient method of corpse disposal. It may still use wood, but not as much as a raft might.

When thinking up our legislation, it is important to consider the practical aspects of it.

516516546

traitor_ wrote:

The death penalty is generally a bad idea. Aside from the moral issues, there are some technical aspects to consider. If we start killing people, what do we do with the corpses? We have somewhat limited land in which to bury them, and it would be a drain of resources to send them to sea. Even a basic raft would use wood that for an island nation is quite a valuable resource and to send a crewed vessel out to sea to dispose of them is still a drain on time and resources, which are things we want to avoid, at least in the beginning. If we absolutely MUST kill people, burning is probably our most efficient method of corpse disposal. It may still use wood, but not as much as a raft might.

When thinking up our legislation, it is important to consider the practical aspects of it.

We could easily bury millions of people on an island the size of Henderson, but personally I don't believe in burial. I believe cremation is the best, and I would suggest that in our case bodies be committed to the sea with holes in their lungs so they sink and don't wash up anywhere. I don't believe we should use the lumber of the island for any purpose. And we don't have to.

I do not believe there is a moral issue with the death penalty. It has to be an option for us; it's arguable for large nations, but for a small island community it must be known that murder and torture and treason be met with capital punishment. Maybe not other crimes, but certainly those three.

The only justice is an eye for an eye. If you kill me by accident I still want you to die. I'm a better man and my life was worth far more than yours. Everyone's life is priceless to their own self. Whether or not a criminal can be reformed is irrelevant, the price must be paid for what he broke. If he killed me, the only price he can pay is with his own life, and it should be paid.

Tell me if you think justice is served when the 'ring leaders' of genocide are jailed for life for killing hundreds of thousands. It's an abortion. Every hand that wielded a machete should be put to death if justice is to be done. Anything else is plainly absurd.

Suppose said person who accidentally kills you also happens to be say, a doctor, capable of saving lives. does that mean because for whatever reason, or however, he killed you, all that potential should be just thrown away?

I'm all for justice and paying an equal price for your crime, but the simple fact is that its not always a good idea. And as for saying whether or not the criminal can be reformed is irrelevant, that's simply the same as telling the other side in an argument "your solution/option/opinion is irrelevant" because the whole point of not killing criminals is the idea that they may reform. hell, even if they don't reform they can still be of use as penal workers. So, "we should kill murderers/rapists etc" somehow magically renders alternatives completely irrelevant?

Rather than thinking of the best way to get even with them, I'd be thinking of the best way for them to be useful. Even a chained man is (usually) more helpful than a dead one.

However, the subject of a death penalty is perhaps not the best one to get bogged down on, since people have been debating it for years and there's still no unanimous decision, so maybe we should just agree to disagree?

traitor_dice wrote:

Suppose said person who accidentally kills you also happens to be say, a doctor, capable of saving lives. does that mean because for whatever reason, or however, he killed you, all that potential should be just thrown away?

Yes, he should die if he is at fault for my death. Simple as that. That logic is putting 'the group' before the individual. It's stealing justice from me for your own selfish benefit. Doing things for 'the group' is really doing things for the controller(s) of that 'group.' It leads to tyranny, because it's a cousin of the despot's logic, that 'the ends justify the means.' The means have never been justified by the ends, and the end of preserving the life of someone who is valuable to you through the means of stealing justice from those he has victimized is illegitimate and wicked. Justice should be blind, and not take into account what benefit the criminal has to play for any group, not even 'society.'

Another way to say it is that fascist Plato's (and before him Aristotle and Socrates) 'the greatest good for the greatest number.' Just read The Republic and see if that's a world you'd want to live in. It's a fascist and corrupt world, but you see how these arguments keep coming back to nurture the seeds of fascism.

Quote :

I'm all for justice and paying an equal price for your crime, but the simple fact is that its not always a good idea. And as for saying whether or not the criminal can be reformed is irrelevant, that's simply the same as telling the other side in an argument "your solution/option/opinion is irrelevant" because the whole point of not killing criminals is the idea that they may reform. hell, even if they don't reform they can still be of use as penal workers. So, "we should kill murderers/rapists etc" somehow magically renders alternatives completely irrelevant?

Whether they can be reformed IS irrelevant, if justice is subverted by trying to reform them. Where is justice for the victim if society's answer to every monster is to try to repair him, spending resources on him? Society is to blame for every monster it creates, and the reform should go to the children to make fewer and fewer monsters until they don't exist anymore, not to the monsters that already do exist.

And as a side note, rape shouldn't be punished with death, because then they have no reason to keep their victims alive, since the penalty is the same for murder and rape.

If you're so correct, why are there so many developed and successful nations that don't have the death penalty.

41 (21%) maintain the death penalty in both law and practice.
95 (49%) have abolished it.
8 (4%) retain it for crimes committed in exceptional circumstances (such as in time of war).
49 (25%) permit its use for ordinary crimes, but have not used it for at least 10 years and are believed to have a policy or established practice of not carrying out executions, or it is under a moratorium.

You seem more interested in selfish justice for the individual than the benefit of the society. Simple fact of the matter is, doing things for the group is doing things for more people than just you. By what you're saying, any group that has controllers is therefore also a tyranny, so any group with a leader/leaders (It seems this is synonymous with controller) is a tyranny? damn, seems most of the world is a tyranny.

"The means have never been justified by the ends, and the end of preserving the life of someone who is valuable to you through the means of stealing justice from those he has victimized is illegitimate and wicked."

Whether or not the person is valuable to ME is irrelevant, I am speaking of the society/group in general. If someone who killed a person has the potential to save say, 3 other people, then I'm not going to kill him out of "justice". If the group doesn't come before the individual, then society just doesn't work because the whole Idea of society is to benefit what? That's right, the group.

for further explanation: "Purpose of Society

One of the primary purposes of society is the formation of an organized group of individuals, who can support each other in various ways. It is in those difficult times that you realize the importance of being a part of society. It is the members of your social group who come forward to render all the help you need. The support given by society can be of the physical, emotional, financial or medical form."

So, here's an idea, the doctor kills someone. don't worry about the fact that he could, within the hypothetical society, be the only medical professional, we'll just kill him off anyway, because that one guy who is now worm food anyway is obviously worth far more than our chances of survival.

"Justice should be blind, and not take into account what benefit the criminal has to play for any group, not even 'society.'"

That's fine, if the individual is replaceable, but if you have a finite amount of people qualified in a certain profession, it would be stupid to start killing them off, just "because its justice."

"Another way to say it is that fascist Plato's (and before him Aristotle and Socrates) 'the greatest good for the greatest number.' Just read The Republic and see if that's a world you'd want to live in. It's a fascist and corrupt world, but you see how these arguments keep coming back to nurture the seeds of fascism."

Welcome to the real world, it is in fact corrupt, you do live in it and sometimes, it just ain't fair. have a nice day.

"Society is to blame for every monster it creates, and the reform should go to the children to make fewer and fewer monsters until they don't exist anymore, not to the monsters that already do exist."

In that case, society is by extension guilty of every crime by every criminal, lets kill society.

"And as a side note, rape shouldn't be punished with death, because then they have no reason to keep their victims alive, since the penalty is the same for murder and rape."

And just because someone wants to rape someone, they OBVIOUSLY want to kill them too, and the ONLY thing stopping them from killing said victim is obviously the threat of death.

Death penalties, while ultimately fair, don't work particularly well. Why do you think most countries in the world have alternatives to just killing everyone who pisses them off? Death is a final resort, not something you jump to because you're mad someone killed someone. Hell, even if you don't feed them after they're convicted, you still gain more by working them to death rather than just killing them.

>Why are there so many successful nations that don't have the death penalty?

Argument of popularity, and countered by the fact that by your own statistics, exactly 50% still reserve the use of the death penalty.

>I'm more interested in the individual than society.

You're god damned right about that. Society has zero right to trample the rights and justice of the individual as you are so keen to do.

>>Welcome to the real world, life's unfair, get over it.

If you're so keen to commit this new society to injustice and groupthink, why not just stay within the fatherstates and nannystates that exist in great abundance in the world and let those who would make a just society to their own devices. The world has no great need of any more injustice, nor of people like you who claim that if the world is imperfect it should remain so; that just because injustice and unfairness exists it should continue exist.

We do NOT need another state that puts the rights of the group before the rights of its citizens. I don't care if a million die as a result of punishing a wicked man, justice shall be done. It is the fault of the million for relying so absurdly upon the one man to make your extreme and unlikely scenario a reality. Of course these hypothetical people never would be so dependent upon a single man. No one is as important as they imagine themselves to be, and NO ONE is above the law. You can fuck yourself for saying otherwise.

>The world is full of tyranny.

What have I ever said to make you think I feel it is otherwise? It is very much true what you say in sarcasm. The world is full of tyrants and fascists. The love of liberty is a rare trait treated with mockery and scorn by those who are too simple to understand it.

>Agree to disagree

Sure, we can do that. But I'll be sure to have an armed militia to make sure that justice is always done one way or the other. If the government we establish will not provide it, it will be time to make a new government. Far better to in the first place establish a just and satisfactory government for all those who we would have ratify it, rather than guarantee bloodshed down the line. Mob rule is some of the worst possible rule. You just keep in mind the nature of voluntarism. If a government is created that the people don't want, that government will cease to exist. And when no government exists, no one can predict what kind of government will replace it. It is very often a worse one.

One of the reasons its popular is because it works.

What you propose will just result in a constant fight for power in a "who's dick is bigger" of armed militias. That's why even after a revolution things settle into something resembling a society, which coincidentally is exactly what you seem to be opposed to, because if you have a large number of people living together NOT being a society, or some form of organised group, it generally devolves into a giant shitstorm.

As for trampling the individual rights of others, returning to the doctor example, I'd be making damn sure he didn't get killed, regardless of what he did if he's the only doctor around. What happens see, is a group of individuals get together, find out they have a common goal, and work toward it. Hence you get society.

These people for example, will probably want the services of said doctor, and if he's one of the few around, I doubt they're going to go killing him off. If they happen to be the majority, or at least the most powerful group, that's what happens. Funnily enough, the same thing will happen in your militia, they'll have a common goal, and act towards it. Individuals inevitably get trampled either way because there's inevitably individuals who don't agree with the majority, or, in your example, the militia. What you're trying to create is an environment filled with individuals, with possibly contradicting goals, that all get along and play nice, which simply doesn't work. In the end the strongest group wins, be it through numbers, or through physical might. You're demonstrating exactly that here with your militia.

All I'm saying, is that if it was me, and I was hypothetically representing the opinion of said majority, I would sure as hell be finding a better use for criminals than simply killing them off. If they kill someone, and then you kill them without at least getting something of value from them, its just a cumulative loss.

">Why are there so many successful nations that don't have the death penalty?

Argument of popularity, and countered by the fact that by your own statistics, exactly 50% still reserve the use of the death penalty."

and

"49 (25%) permit its use for ordinary crimes, but have not used it for at least 10 years and are believed to have a policy or established practice of not carrying out executions, or it is under a moratorium."

perhaps you didn't read this, or just don't know what it means.

"mor·a·to·ri·um (môr-tôr-m, -tr-, mr-)
n. pl. mor·a·to·ri·ums or mor·a·to·ri·a (-tôr-, -tr-)
1. Law
a. An authorization to a debtor, such as a bank or nation, permitting temporary suspension of payments.
b. An authorized period of delay in the performance of an obligation.
2. A suspension of an ongoing or planned activity: a moratorium on the deployment of a new weapon."

In other words, its there, but its not used, or hasn't been in a long time.

"NO ONE is above the law. You can fuck yourself for saying otherwise."

Good in theory, but like a lot of things simply isn't true in practice.
I would truly like to believe things such as this but there's this problem I have called "being a realist" that stops me.

EDIT: In fact, there's a very simple way of putting this. You're trying to change a system that has been in place for pretty much the entire history of mankind, but to do so you use that very system. Good luck on achieving that. Go fuck myself? Sounds like you're mad bro.

>u mad, bro?

Oh, yes. Always mad, nigger. Always. U fag? By the way, TL;DR.

Yeah I figured you might have burnt out to many brain cells already and not be bothered reading, hence I summarised it at the bottom of the post.

Nope, not fag, just trying to point out that defeating might makes right with might makes right does not in fact defeat might makes right.

Your story is cool, etc. Whose brain is fried is for the fence sitters to decide, and I believe the arguments speak for themselves.

Fair enough man.

What about instead of having set punishments for every crime, why not have a sort of council of island inhabitants that hear the crime and gather evidence, and determine a fitting punishment. They could be picked at random just like how we pick people for jury duty. but no judges or lawyers, or detectives. This group of people will investigate the crimes at hand and talk to all the suspects and work together to determine if the person is guilty. And once determined THEY decide a fitting punishment.