Should your country punish people who are traitors?

[Mark Conley]

If you had a genuine traitor to your countrys beliefs and policy...what do you think a fair punishment for their crime to be?

Discuss what you think your country should practically do with a traitor. Give that person Death? life Imprisonment? How about Banishment? Would they try him in public? Or should they do nothing at all?

Discuss why you think your government would give that type punishment, if they would give punishment at all.


And easy on the gruesome stuff. We dont want to give anyone new ideas... :shock:

 

[Redneck]

I got me a new rawhide and there's a nice big ol' cottonwood out front, just drop your traitors off and we'll give 'em a big country welcome. :lol:


As far as the death penalty is concerned, my support for that depends entirely on the circumstances of the crime. If it resulted in (or had the potential to result in) the deaths of any of our citizens (servicemembers, government employees, or other civilians), then I say, hell yeah, let them do the deadman's jig on the end of a short rope. Otherwise, I'd go for life imprisonment. In hell. (just kidding )

 

[FutureRANGER]

I think being a traitor to your country is among the absolute worst crimes one can commit. Anyone who's read Dante's Inferno will remember the traitors are in the deepest level of Hell, in the Cacytus, the ninth level where Satan himself resides.

Especially treason against a free country, with a government who's provided so much in terms of freedoms and opportunity. A traitor is absolute scum and should be shown no mercy. If what he did caused or had the capacity to cause harm to another, I think the death penalty is justice. Not only that, but it should be well publicised as to serve as a deterent to other potential traitors.

 

[Tessa]

I don't believe in punishing them. Jail is more then welcome, but not punishing.

So I would say no, but since the poll only says one option on no I can vote. Because I don't agree with the option of saying no. If you get what I mean. :?

I say no, but don't vote no.

 

[Marksman]

If you find them for extreme traitors,well then i guess that they should be punished on certain way(due to civil rights),but the greatest punishment would be exile or public humiliation,idk.............."be inspired"

 

[Tessa]

What gives anyone right to punish another human being?

Punishment is never acceptable.

 

[Italian Guy]

What gives anyone right to punish another human being?

Punishment is never acceptable.

Oh Gosh SilverPhoenix baby you're so pretty that I can't help behaving, but first, punishment does not mean automatically death row, and second,
why is that that you talk like a priest ? So would you just leave all the criminals around until Armageddon comes to give everyone his just punishment ? :evil:

I come from a country where we unfortunately have lots of traitors: people who belonged to the Communist Parties who constantly kept taking money from the enemy, Moscow. Constantly trying to make business with what was then our worst foe. As a matter of fact, you cant always punish traitors because laws are seldom too clear, or traitors would simply be too many.
In my view, just punish them according to what the Constitution says.

 

[AlexKall]

I don't believe in punishing them. Jail is more then welcome, but not punishing.

So I would say no, but since the poll only says one option on no I can vote. Because I don't agree with the option of saying no. If you get what I mean. :?

I say no, but don't vote no.

As for the traitor that is now in life prisonment in Sweden
I still dont understand those people who say (mostly swedes) that Sweden does not have life in prison, that its only 12 years. Sweden do have life in prison sentences, and there are several that are serving these penelties as we speak. But its never talked about here in this country so most people dont know about it. :roll:

I agree, jail but not death as i dont belive in death penelty.

 

[Redneck]

Behave yourself ItalianGuy.

And SilverPhoenix, many things give a government the right to punish its citizens. It's part of the social contract, whereby one agrees that in exchange for giving up some freedoms to a governing body, they will enjoy the security and other benefits provided by that body. If they accept this contract (an automatic thing when a person chooses to live in any country) but fail to abide by the laws of that country, then they accept the fact that they will be punished for those transgressions.
As far as the death penalty goes, that's a whole other kettle of fish and I will stay away from it in this thread (there is another discussing that issue anyway) beyond saying that I am a strong supporter of it.

 

[Marksman]

Why dont u guys easy it up on Silver,she havs a right for an pacifistic opinion...... :?

 

[Redneck]

And we have the right to disagree with her, kind of the nature of a discussion. Now stay on-topic, only post if you have something to add to the discussion.

 

[Marksman]

Roger that.i guess so,well traitory in some countryies you get a bullet,on the other hand in some you get prision,it pretty much depends on goverment and structure of population and main "system"

 

[C/2nd Lt Robot]

if their a traitor string their ass up. if they just hate america let them float in international waters. And find a country that will take them.

 

[C/2nd Lt Robot]

Roger that.well this isue is american stricly,and its like that cuz i dunno the laws of traitory.In some countries you get shot for that,but since you dont have a death penalty in every state,it prety much depends on state laws

Then try them in a state that does have the death penalty.

 

[RnderSafe]

What gives anyone right to punish another human being?

Punishment is never acceptable.

You agree with imprisonment, correct? That is a form of punishment. If a traitor were made to pay a $200 fine, that would be punishment as well. Perhaps it is best to state what types of punishment you are against.

Main Entry: pun·ish·ment
Pronunciation: 'p&-nish-m&nt
Function: noun
1 : the act of punishing
2 a : suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution b : a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure3 : severe, rough, or disastrous treatment

 

[Darkmb101]

If the country was the United States of America, id give the traitor the death penalty.

If the country was :randomly chooses a country: North Korea i wouldnt know whether to shoot him or give him a medal.

 

[soilder79936]

i put it would depend on the thing they did but like the oklahoma they should give them the death penalty

 

[Italian Guy]

If the country was the United States of America, id give the traitor the death penalty.

If the country was :randomly chooses a country: North Korea i wouldnt know whether to shoot him or give him a medal.

Quite interesting thought. But lets simplify things by accepting the view that the topic refers to the way a country should treat ITS OWN traitors. Because of course North Korea's traitors ( or Saddam's Iraq traitors ) are seen as patriots or, as Reagan RIP put it, " Freedom Fighters " by us.
Let's just focus on how WE should trait OUR traitors. Let's not make it a global or universal issue ( my 2 cents ).

But Darkmb you did great reminding that we always have to think of how relative everything is.

 

[Tessa]

Main Entry: pun·ish·ment
Pronunciation: 'p&-nish-m&nt
Function: noun
1 : the act of punishing
2 a : suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution b : a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure3 : severe, rough, or disastrous treatment

My fault, and actually I don't know.

I think I mixed punishment with torture. :?

So ignore my before post. I will get back to this when I start thinking correctly. :lol:

 

[Sgt. Nick Fury]

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court


...that's all I have to say about that.