Mexico captures #1 drug kingpin Joaquin "Shorty" Guzman leader of Sinaloa Cartel

[NewYorkExpress]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/22/us-usa-mexico-kingpin-idUSBREA1L0RE20140222

A huge victory for Mexico in their long-running fight against the cartels...

[Vega]

Indeed; this is good to hear.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

So that's what "El Chapo" means. Huh.

[politicus]

So that's what "El Chapo" means. Huh.

Yup.

[Cory]

Execute him. Send a message.

It's time to take off the white gloves.

[ag]

Execute him. Send a message.

It's time to take off the white gloves.

Mexico has no death penalty. If he is extradited, it will, almost certainly, be conditioned on prosecutors NOT seeking death.

[Cory]

Mexico has no death penalty. If he is extradited, it will, almost certainly, be conditioned on prosecutors NOT seeking death.

I'm not saying what I think will be done, but what should be done.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Mexico has no death penalty. If he is extradited, it will, almost certainly, be conditioned on prosecutors NOT seeking death.

I'm not saying what I think will be done, but what should be done.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Cory]

I don't see how what you just quoted contradicts my statement. The Cartel leader will have more anguish then his victims because he knows his death is certain (which I doubt anyways considering their use of torture)? Good. These are literally some of the worst people in the world.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don't see how what you just quoted contradicts my statement.

I'm not surprised that Dostoyevsky's deathless prose takes a while to sink in for a 'liberal eugenicist' like yourself, so here's the conclusion again, pared down and divorced from context because maybe that will help:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Cartel leader will have more anguish then his victims because he knows his death is certain (which I doubt anyways considering their use of torture)? Good.

What you're describing is some combination or other of emotional catharsis--which has its place and its uses--and state-sponsored revenge, not justice, which is reconciliatory when it can be and concerned with the prevention or deterrence of future injustice when it can't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which means they're the people over whom we're supposed to have some sort of moral high ground.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Highly doubt he's extradited, not only given the death penalty issue but because Mexico has plenty to prosecute him on.

[Nhoj]

Highly doubt he's extradited, not only given the death penalty issue but because Mexico has plenty to prosecute him on.

The reason he would be extradited is if they fear he will escape again. Mexican prisons might be a little better these days though.

[Cory]

I'm not surprised that Dostoyevsky's deathless prose takes a while to sink in for a 'liberal eugenicist' like yourself, so here's the conclusion again, pared down and divorced from context because maybe that will help:

No! no! no! No man should be treated so, no man, no man!

No I know what you meant (you smug prick), I just don't agree. I think it's good that this person suffer. Not everybody deserves to live.

What you're describing is some combination or other of emotional catharsis--which has its place and its uses--and state-sponsored revenge, not justice, which is reconciliatory when it can be and concerned with the prevention or deterrence of future injustice when it can't.

No, what I'm describing is a policy to prevent future "recruitment" for the Cartels. If people learn that the wages of joining the enemy is death, and suffering for their families, then they will perhaps reconsider. The policies used by the Italians against the Sicilian mafia in the 1920's and 30's could be replicated with effectiveness in Mexico, I think.

Also, revenge isn't always a bad thing.

Which means they're the people over whom we're supposed to have some sort of moral high ground.

Pfft. It's not about "moral high ground". It's about winning the war against the Cartels. "Moral High Ground" is for victims.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm not surprised that Dostoyevsky's deathless prose takes a while to sink in for a 'liberal eugenicist' like yourself, so here's the conclusion again, pared down and divorced from context because maybe that will help:

No! no! no! No man should be treated so, no man, no man!

No I know what you meant (you smug prick),

You claimed not to.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you have any sense of morality at all that isn't entirely contingent on your own preferences, prejudices, interests, or whims? Do you just quack out this cartoonish and profoundly depressing nonsense as some sort of stealth straw-manning of the positions you purport to hold? I have a hard time believing that any actual supporter of capital punishment, who had any idea at all what they were talking about and anything resembling a conscience, would willingly make it sound this perverse and bloodthirsty. angus doesn't make it sound like this. Not even Vosem makes it sound like this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, what I'm describing is a policy to prevent future "recruitment" for the Cartels. If people learn that the wages of joining the enemy is death, and suffering for their families, then they will perhaps reconsider. The policies used by the Italians against the Sicilian mafia in the 1920's and 30's could be replicated with effectiveness in Mexico, I think.[/quote]

1. You are aware of who formed the government of Italy in the 1920s and 30s, and of the reputation that you have already garnered on this forum, yes?
2. If the claim that you wanted to make was that the death penalty is an effective deterrent, then you should have just said so.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not an appropriate rationale for use of the state's police power, and when it comes to the point of life and death it absolutely is always a bad thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pfft. It's not about "moral high ground". It's about winning the war against the Cartels. "Moral High Ground" is for victims.
[/quote]

Why, in that case, is the war against the cartels one that ought to be won? Be sincere, please. If this is just an us-vs.-them thing for you then please just say so, because I'm having a difficult time seeing how you can possibly use any kind of ethical claim to dig your way out of this one if moral high ground is irrelevant and it therefore doesn't matter how each side actually behaves.

[Edu]

Maybe it's a stupid question but don't the people who actually join the drug cartels know that there is a chance they could die at any time? I mean, these people must know that at any point they can be killed by a rival gang member, a member of their own gang, in a confrontation with the police, etc.
If they chose to join despite of this, I don't see how the death penalty if they are caught would have much of a deterrent.

And I'm talking more about the mentality of someone that would even consider this. I would guess the dangers of actually being a member of a cartel are more of a deterrent for people than the thought that they will get the death penalty if they are even caught and convicted.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yeah it's a...strange line of reasoning even in a staid, non-Coryfied form.

[MaxQue]

I had a philosophy teacher claiming than involving in violent and risky things like gangs were suicidal people, but not able to kill themselves, so they put themselves in a position to be killed.

Before, those people joined the Army (when death on the field was much more frequent).

If that line of thought in true, I do not think than death penalty is a deterrant, since it's sort of their goal.