My ideal justice system would be focused upon preserving the rights of the majority. The justice system must be responsible to citizens alone, and not be at all concerned with foreigners. Our goal must be to separate the sick from the well, to attempt to rehabilitate only those who will in turn help the state. We must not be concerned with the rights of rapists and murderers, but rather with the right of the majority not to be raped or murdered.

As I have said on many occasions, the rights of the majority come before the rights of the individual. However, the suspension of individual liberties to protect the interests of the whole must not serve as a precedent, and must not lead to even greater suspensions. The government must consider the situation, and decide whether or not the prospect of suspending the rights of the individual is beneficial to the whole. And logically, this may apply in the other direction; the leaders of the state may decide that it is in the best interest of the majority to give individuals even more civil rights. The primary goal of the state must always be to preserve the rights of the majority of its citizens, not the positions of the majority of its leaders.

If such a situation arises where a criminal act occurs between a citizen and a non-citizen, the citizen must always be favoured. If the citizen is the victim, the foreigner should not have the right to a trial, but instead be executed immediately. If, on the other hand, the citizen is the attacker, then the state must decide whether the citizen is of risk to other citizens, or is merely a threat to foreigners. If the latter is the case, then it is of no consequence. Non-citizens are not subjects of the state, and thus whatever rights they may have in other nations should not be protected. If the citizen is found to be mentally ill, then the state must look to punish the offending citizen as if he or she had committed a crime against another citizen and not against a foreigner.

The death penalty will serve as an integral part of the justice system, both as a deterrent and as a tool used to quickly dispose of an unwanted. Among the citizens, a tough justice system not afraid of using the death penalty will serve as more of a deterrent than any propaganda. The thought of making individual mistakes is not of great concern. It is my firm belief that the occasional mistake will be more than compensated by the number of real murderers and rapists we eliminate. Apart from formal justice, the death penalty should be used against those who would undermine the state, and such inferior pests such as [chosen people with large noses] and [tramps who live in carts]. In all cases, especially in the latter, a quick shooting is preferable to monstrous jail time or grotesquely expensive [albeit humane] executions such as we see in the United States today.

One disturbing fact is that the abusers of young boys and girls often receive far lighter sentences than someone who defrauds a large corporation. [Ignore this example on of the chosen people is involved, and Clinton is in the White House.] One thing that should be made clear is that the material is not of more importance than the family; currency does not come before children. And so rapists and child-molesters must be dealt with so sternly that no one dares to follow in their path. Of course, the elimination of the homosexual will serve to minimize such offences, as homosexuals commit more than 33% of all reported child molestations in the United States.

What is your ideal justice system, and what are your comments on mine?

What a joke..

What is even more of a joke is the utter inadequacy of your retort.

Originally posted by Patrick Bateman
What is even more of a joke is the utter inadequacy of your retort.


No what is the real joke is your line of thinking, how do you think we should "eliminate" Homosexuals?

If you don't have anything worthwhile to contribute to the conversation, you can always go sit in the corner.

Patrick, I think that system is in use in use the middle east already. It left them in the stone age and it really sucks as a vacation spot.

I prefer the American justice per the US Constitution in which the protection of the individual from the majority is important. I would suggest trial by jury is not a bad justice system as long as the judge does not override the decision.

Originally posted by Patrick Bateman
If you don't have anything worthwhile to contribute to the conversation, you can always go sit in the corner. Or the gas chamber. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Patrick Bateman
If you don't have anything worthwhile to contribute to the conversation, you can always go sit in the corner.


Edit:


I see Maniac is back under a new name..


Go play on the freeway..

The thought of making individual mistakes is not of great concern. It is my firm belief that the occasional mistake will be more than compensated by the number of real murderers and rapists we eliminate. Apart from formal justice, the death penalty should be used against those who would undermine the state, and such inferior pests such as [chosen people with large noses]

I disagree..


We should have eliminated all the Nazis a long long time ago..

>>I think that system is in use in use the middle east already.

I am not proposing that we implement some sort of perverse Islamic justice system, but rather we should reconstruct our current one so that it becomes better suited to serve the needs of the majority. Islamic law dictates that a raped woman should be punished for adultery. This gives you a good idea of the calibre of the Islamic system and should serve to accentuate the differences between the two.

>>It left them in the stone age and it really sucks as a vacation spot.

Although I agree with you in part, I do not believe that the current Middle Eastern situation is the product of an Islamic justice system. A more logical explanation would be their lack of resources, the backward nature of the Muslim culture, and their limited intellectual capacity. But that's a topic for another day.

>>I prefer the American justice per the US Constitution in which the protection of the individual from the majority is important.

The American justice system is supposedly based upon the notion that it is better for one hundred guilty men to go free than risk convicting one innocent man. I find that statement completely ridiculous, as it ignores the rights of the majority. I believe that it is better for one innocent man to be convicted than risk hundreds of murders because dangerous killers were set free. We must look at the net consequences of our justice system, rather than be so concerned with the individual that we forget about the rights of the majority.

By the way, I am not a Nazi, so you can stop using derogatory terms.

Originally posted by Patrick Bateman
By the way, I am not a Nazi, so you can stop using derogatory terms. you mean like "chosen people with big noses"?

If I can control myself, surely you can do the same.

Originally posted by Patrick Bateman
I am not proposing that we implement some sort of perverse Islamic justice system, but rather we should reconstruct our current one so that it becomes better suited to serve the needs of the majority.

But what you wake up one day and the majority are such inferior pests such as [chosen people with large noses] as you call them?

Originally posted by Patrick Bateman
The American justice system is supposedly based upon the notion that it is better for one hundred guilty men to go free than risk convicting one innocent man. I find that statement completely ridiculous, as it ignores the rights of the majority.

But what you wake up one day and the majority are such inferior pests such as [chosen people with large noses] as you call them?

The justice system you invision Patrick with your emphasis on a so-called "majority" sounds like an injustice system. A shot rang out April 30, 1945 that should have ended that type of thinking.

>>But what you wake up one day and the majority are such inferior pests such as chosen people with large noses?

If that was the case, then the chosen people would obviously be in the position to determine what would be right for themselves. My system would have as much relevance to them as it does to us, because it is based on the logical principle of putting your own people before foreigners—the majority before the individual.

>>The justice system you envision Patrick with your emphasis on a so-called majority sounds like an injustice system.

Clichés do not help prove to improve your case. Please go through my proposal point by point, and prove me wrong.

Originally posted by Patrick Bateman Clichés do not help prove to improve your case. Please go through my proposal point by point, and prove me wrong. [/B]



amen to that! (in general that is)


sorry, :topic: , backing out of the thread now

Originally posted by Patrick Bateman
If that was the case, then the chosen people would obviously be in the position to determine what would be right for themselves.

What if they were using your system and it came back to backfire on you as they determined to eliminate their enemies and individuals in the minority which would be you in that case. Because if they are the majority they could do that. However, if a system was in place to protect you such as the US Constitution, you would not have to worry about being an individual because it protects against the mob of the majority.

Originally posted by Patrick Bateman
Clichés do not help prove to improve your case. Please go through my proposal point by point, and prove me wrong.

You are the one who must prove the case, but I again refer you to the obvious lessons of history regarding totalitarian regimes of death such as those developed by Stalin and Hitler.

Ironically, what you are suggesting sounds a lot like passages from the Babylonian Talmud. If the death penalty had been used on all the Taliban prisoners, there would be less chance of gaining any intelligence information regarding past and future terrorist plans.

We do not attack other members here.

Thread Closed.