Wednesday, December 21, 2011

The Crime of the Century


[AIDS orphans - thanks a lot sodomy advocates!]

The Gay Liberation Front was organized in New York City in the summer of 1969. Afterwards states began repealing sodomy laws.

Having recently achieved equal rights for blacks (which Jews have nothing against by the way; the modern Western concept of "race" is unknown in the Talmud), atheists needed a new cause célèbre to make them feel good about themselves. Homosexual rights fit the bill. Furthermore, the gay rights movement had, for atheists, the added bonus of making traditional monotheists appear to be "racist" since they could now be portrayed as irrational persecutors of a helpless, pathetic "sexual minority".

The first cases of AIDS were reported in New York and California in 1981. It usually takes 10 years or more for an HIV infection to turn into AIDS. Therefore these homosexual men apparently became infected with HIV about 1971.   

In  1984, AIDS was reported in Africa. (Just for the sake of comparison, AIDS was first reported in Brazil and England in 1982, in China in 1985 and in India in 1987. Thanks to modern jet travel, the plague spread quickly worldwide.)

In the 1990s, life expectancy in many parts of Africa dropped by about 10 years due to AIDS.

Today about 15 million children in Africa are AIDS orphans.

I just have a small question to ask gay rights activists: Was it worthwhile to cause this immense suffering, which far outweighs the Nazi Holocaust, for the sake of a few million American men being able to fully indulge themselves sexually? Or would it not have been far wiser and kinder to continue to outlaw sodomy, as the Torah commands? Rather than condemning the Torah's strict prohibition of sodomy as being "homophobic" and "genocidal" shouldn't it now be recognized as a remarkable sign of divine wisdom?

Have any gay rights activists even bothered to apologize? Or are such psychopaths incapable of regret?

53 comments:

Alex said...

I'm surprised that you didn't even bother to preempt the argument someone gave on a recent post of yours. The one about many religious folks being anti-condom.

Alex said...

"Having recently achieved equal rights for blacks (which Jews have nothing against by the way; the modern Western concept of "race" is unknown in the Talmud)"

Is that the best you can say for us Jews, that we have "nothing against" equal rights for blacks? Talk about damning with faint praise. Since you love links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damn_with_faint_praise

Alex said...

The following is a major cause of death in Africa: AIDS denialism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism See especially the section titled: "The AIDS denialist community". Note, I'm conservative, and the slam on conservatives is probably true.

jewish philosopher said...

The main thing which interests me is that while I am often called by atheists a "mass murder" for advocating a death penalty for sodomy, on the other hand I have never heard an atheist attempt to apologize to the 15 million destitute African orphans whose lives he has ruined. I wonder why not.

ah-pee-chorus said...

what appears to interest you is asking questions based on dishonest premises. as i pointed out in the other thread, the many millions who died from aids, which as you know is primarily transmitted through hetero sex in africa, are victims of your fellow theists. the church wouldnt distribute the condoms which could have saved most. like you, they know what god wants and god prefers dead people to living ones who wear condoms.

further, to illustrate your dishonesty and disdain for truth, you imply that gay sex is the cause of aids. so i ask again,
can you link to a scientific article which shows that gay sex CAUSES AIDS? because if the issue is just transmission, and the majority of that transmission in africa is thru hetero sex, then following your reasoning anyone who advocates straight sex is responsible for those millions of orphans. you better start repenting.

jewish philosopher said...

Blacks have been very susceptible to HIV\AIDS, not only in Africa however elsewhere as well, far more so than any other heterosexual population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Africa#Overview

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Haiti

http://www.avert.org/hiv-african-americans.htm

The reasons for this are still unclear and controversial. 

However what is a not controversial to my knowledge is that the 1970's American gay liberation movement was the catalyst which caused the black holocaust of the 1990s and beyond.

Pretty ironic right - liberals liberated the blacks in the 50s and 60s, then killed them off in the 90s!

Regarding the Catholic Church's ban on condoms, I don't see what that has to do with me any more than the Spanish Inquisition or Crusades have something to do with me.

jewish philosopher said...

This list is interesting. The top 42 are all primarily black countries, not necessarily African, with the exception of Thailand (#38). 

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2155rank.html

But the epidemic started with the American gay community.

jewish philosopher said...

There is some evidence that blacks are genetically more susceptible to HIV

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/managing-your-healthcare/genetics/articles/2008/07/16/genetic-trait-boosts-aids-risks-in-blacks

Contact of sub-Saharan Africans with newly liberated American homosexuals may be comparable to the contact of Native Americans with Europeans several centuries before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_smallpox#Epidemics_in_the_Americas

So to argue that "HIV is not a male homosexual disease, HIV is a black heterosexual disease" is not really very accurate. It's like saying "smallpox is a Native American disease". Not exactly, although it became that too.

Also, as far as I can tell, no one in Africa seems to be throwing out condoms because the Pope said to.

http://www.avert.org/hiv-aids-africa.htm#contentTable2

So the argument "gay liberation didn't cause the AIDS epidemic, the Pope did" is apparently nonsense, but nice try to pass the blame to the clergy. 

Ironmistress said...

Blacks indeed are genetically more susceptible to HIV than Europeans; Scandinavians are most resistant. See here.

In Scandinavia, HIV has never been a problem of homosexual men, but that of drug addicts. Almost all Finnish HIV positives have caught the virus from intravenous drug use.

The legitimization of gay pseudo-marriages, "offician cohabitation" has remarkably decreased promiscuity amongst the gay community in Finland. The promiscuous lifestyle is the worst single factor of transmitting HIV, not the sexual orientation per se. Female homosexuals - lesbians - present almost zero HIV statistics.

jewish philosopher said...

I don't know very much about Finland, which technically does not have gay marriage,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registered_partnership_in_Finland

however the Netherlands was the first country to legalize gay marriage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_Netherlands

and HIV rates are still rising

http://www.rnw.nl/english/bulletin/hiv-infection-rate-rises-among-dutch-gay-men

ksil said...

crime of the century? not anymore than the black plague was in its generation

jewish philosopher said...

As of three years ago, 25 million had died of AIDS with a couple of million more dying each year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6646317/Aids-deaths-hit-25-million-but-infections-slow.html

I would therefore rank the gay liberation movement in the United States to be one of the greatest crimes in world history.

The Holocaust killed a modest 11 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust

Only Mao's Great Leap Forward is in the same league with gay liberation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward

Ironmistress said...

JP, promiscuity is promiscuity, regardless of sexual orientation.

The vast majority of AIDS victim are heterosexuals. The epidemy originally began in Africa by bushmeat hunters. AIDS was a problem in Africa long before it spred to Western hemisphere.

It is far more likely to get the virus from drug injection than sexual intercourse. The Dutch HIV rates reflect this. Most new cases are not gays, but junkies.

Eli said...

why do you advocate a death penalty for sodomy? the biblical prohibition of Sodomy is primarily for Jews, and although death penalties were given for its practice, no Jewish body has had the right to administer the death penalty since the second temple was destroyed.

jewish philosopher said...

"The epidemy originally began in Africa by bushmeat hunters."

AIDS was reported first in the United States among homosexual men in 1981.

http://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/03/us/rare-cancer-seen-in-41-homosexuals.html

It was not reported in Africa until 1984.

http://movies.nytimes.com/library/national/science/aids/041784sci-aids.html

Subsaharan life expectancy was generally climbing until 1988.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Comparison_subsaharan_life_expectancy.svg

"Most new cases are not gays, but junkies."

HIV infection rate is rising among Dutch gay men.

http://www.rnw.nl/english/bulletin/hiv-infection-rate-rises-among-dutch-gay-men

So apparently gay marriage hasn't really helped.

"why do you advocate a death penalty for sodomy?"

Male to male sex is prohibited by the Torah to all humans and even today gentiles are obligated to put to death other gentiles for this crime. 

Ironmistress said...

"Most new cases are not gays, but junkies."

HIV infection rate is rising among Dutch gay men.


And even more so amongst drug users.

So apparently gay marriage hasn't really helped.

How much would the infection rates have risen without it?

"why do you advocate a death penalty for sodomy?"

Male to male sex is prohibited by the Torah to all humans and even today gentiles are obligated to put to death other gentiles for this crime.


Use of common sense is not prohibited - even on interpreting Torah.

Homosexuality is a victimless crime. There is no wrongdoing whatsoever, as nobody's judicial goods are violated. Death penalty for it is an overkill - the punishment is far more severe than the crime.

Draconian legislature fails in the respect that brutal and injust punishments demoralize. They deteriorate the respect of law - the society appears only as a brutal and ruthless tyrant. If homosexuality is a capital crime, why not then commit murders as well because the punishment is the same?

How about sex with minors? Kethuvoth 11 seems to condone it, while the secular law has very poor sense of humour on paedophiliacs. If men screwing men is treif, are pre-pubescent boys kosher?

jewish philosopher said...

"How much would the infection rates have risen without it?"

Probably a piece of paper makes no difference either way.

"Homosexuality is a victimless crime."

There have been about 30 million victims so far who have died of AIDS as result of the United States abolishing sodomy laws in the 1970's.

"How about sex with minors?"

Judaism sometimes allows it. It never killed anyone.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2010/07/pedophilia-and-talmud.html 

Alex said...

"Judaism sometimes allows it. It never killed anyone."

How about serious injury?

Have you ever talked to a nurse about either of these two possibilities?

Eli said...

"Male to male sex is prohibited by the Torah to all humans and even today gentiles are obligated to put to death other gentiles for this crime."

Please read my whole post, when did I ever say sodomy is not prohibited by the Torah?! and according to whom are gentiles obligated to put to death other gentiles for this crime?!

jewish philosopher said...

"How about serious injury?"

Sexual assault may cause injury, 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse#Injury

however I don't believe Judaism would condone that.

"according to whom are gentiles obligated to put to death other gentiles for this crime?! "

The question of capital punishment under the Noahide code was discussed in the Talmud.[6] It was decided that all seven Noahide laws are capital crimes.[7] Under Noahide law one may be executed based on the testimony of one witness or a confession, and without a prior warning.[8] According to one opinion, a criminal might be executed under Noahide law based upon circumstantial evidence.[9] According to Maimonides, non-Jews are required to establish a judicial system and apply the Noahide law, including the imposition of capital punishment.[10] It would appear, then, that American courts might be required under Noahide law to impose capital punishment for the violation of any one of the seven Noahide laws based upon one-witness testimony, circumstantial evidence or a defendant's confession.

http://www.wikinoah.org/index.php/Capital_Punishment_in_Noahide_law#Rabbi_Moshe_Feinstein

Ironmistress said...

"How much would the infection rates have risen without it?"

Probably a piece of paper makes no difference either way.


Probably it makes a lot. When there is an uptrend, restricting the grade of the rise makes just as much effect than restricting the cases themselves.

"Homosexuality is a victimless crime."

There have been about 30 million victims so far who have died of AIDS


Those are not victims of homosexuality, those are victims of a venereal disease! Do syphilis, gonorrhea or chlamydia incriminate heterosexuality? You presented a red herring and you know it by yourself as well.

"How about sex with minors?"

Judaism sometimes allows it. It never killed anyone.


Squick!

This must be one of the most vile and repulsive discussions I've ever been to. As a mother I find that answer utterly deprave.

Do you have any brains of your own or do you repeat like parrot what you read in Torah or Talmud?

Have you ever thought seriously: this does not make sense! Have you ever thought that modern secular law - especially Romano-Germanic jurisdiction - would make more sense than Bronze Age legislature? Have you ever thought that secular legislature would be more humane, more effective and produce better results than a religious law? Do you insist sharia is a good idea? Sharia is very similar as Mosaic law.

We all know of the child molesting scandals of the Catholic church. God only knows what happens in the back rooms and mikvas of the synagogues after the services.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2010/07/pedophilia-and-talmud.html

jewish philosopher said...

"Probably it makes a lot."

Who says?

"Those are not victims of homosexuality"

Sure they are. Had there been no American gay liberation in the 1970s there would have been no black holocaust in the 1990s.

"This must be one of the most vile and repulsive discussions I've ever been to."

Those are merely your personal emotions There is no scientific evidence that sex is harmful for children 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al._controversy

and many societies have and still do permit it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_of_Valois 

"God only knows what happens in the back rooms and mikvas of the synagogues after the services."

Unfortunately we all know about the kind of abuse children of single mothers suffer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinderella_effect

Something very rare in the orthodox Jewish community, were unwed motherhood is almost unheard of and divorce is uncommon.

Alex said...

"Sexual assault may cause injury,
however I don't believe Judaism would condone that."

You don't THINK Judaism would condone that?!!
Also, you don't think that sex with a minor, of the non-assault variety, is also likely to cause injury? Did you ask a doctor or nurse about this, or not?

jewish philosopher said...

Sure, I'm going to call up my local pediatrician and ask him "If the man is really gentle, will having sex with an eight year old girl cause any harm to her?" and based on his vast experience with adult men married to third grade girls, he's going to give me some helpful tips.

Aren't we getting a little into trolling territory here?

Eli said...

"The question of capital punishment under the Noahide code was discussed in the Talmud.[6] It was decided that all seven Noahide laws are capital crimes.[7] Under Noahide law one may be executed based on the testimony of one witness or a confession, and without a prior warning.[8] According to one opinion, a criminal might be executed under Noahide law based upon circumstantial evidence.[9] According to Maimonides, non-Jews are required to establish a judicial system and apply the Noahide law, including the imposition of capital punishment.[10] It would appear, then, that American courts might be required under Noahide law to impose capital punishment for the violation of any one of the seven Noahide laws based upon one-witness testimony, circumstantial evidence or a defendant's confession."

The Talmud was referring to a period when Jews have total control over the Land of Israel. When else would a Jewish court put a gentile to death, as it is stated?! (sanhedrin 57a-b). Please tell me where exactly Maimonidies mentions that. And even what you claim according to RAMBAM, Just because there can be capital punishment like he says does not mean there must be. Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon said (Mishnah, Makkot 1:10) "Had we been in the Sanhedrin none would ever have been put to death." RASHBAG says: "they would have multiplied shedders of blood in Israel." Clearly, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon are right, since history proves that the death penalty is not a deterrent like RASHBAG claimed. Furthermore, "A Sanhedrin that puts a man to death once in seven years is called destructive. Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah says: a Sanhedrin that puts a man to death even once in seventy years is called destructive". AND YOU ARE WILLING TO PUT TO DEATH EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE WORLD WHO PRACTICES SODOMY?!

Mr. Cohen said...

I once read a newspaper article which claimed that blood analysis of people who died from unknown causes revealed that Americans died from AIDS in the 1930s (but back then is was death by an unknown cause that had no name).

Eli said...

Also, since you bring in Maimonidies:

Maimonides stated that "It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death." Maimonides argued that executing a defendant on anything less than absolute certainty would lead to a slippery slope of decreasing burdens of proof, until we would be convicting merely "according to the judge's caprice."

And you still, according to Maimonidies, want to bring a death penalty for sodomy in TEXAS?! where people are executed based on CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, do you know how many innocent people will be put to death?!

jewish philosopher said...

"where people are executed based on CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, do you know how many innocent people will be put to death?!"

A lot less than die now of AIDS.

Anyhow check the references in the link I included for sources. The are not available however in english translation.

Eli said...

Yes, I see the source, it seems to be RAMBAM shoftim 9:14, please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Also, when did I ever say more people will die from this than from AIDS?! the fact is that the laws against sodomy are very weak in the USA, but that does not mean this is a black and white case of either administering a death penalty or not doing anything and accepting the death of million due to AIDS. A more reasonable change is perhaps instituting more severe punishments for this practice (I am not a law expert so I can't really say what would be the optimal punishment).

You still seem to claim that the death penalty is a deterrent, which according to Rabbi Akiva and a close study of history proves it is most certainly not. It's OK, I can understand the source just fine without an English translation. However, even according to that source, the parameters by which gentiles are to execute other gentiles is unfortunately not met in states such as Texas today.

going a bit off topic here, but I have a strong problem with RAMBAM, who seems to say that gentiles should behead other gentiles for stealing property and abortion (crimes which have relatively light consequences according to many other Jewish sources). Can you help me understand this problem?

jewish philosopher said...

Apparently, this is how God wants it to be done.

jewish philosopher said...

In Saudi Arabia sodomy is a death penalty and there are apparently occasional executions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia#Criminal_code

About 1,300 Saudi citizens have been diagnosed as HIV positive

http://www.sauditothecore.com/2010/12/aids-in-saudi-arabia-and-world-day-2010.html

or about 1 in 20,000.

By contrast, in the United States, about a million people have been diagnosed with AIDS since 1981 and a million are currently living with HIV 

http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm

or about one in 150.

So apparently as a result of putting to death a few sodomists, Saudi Arabia has reduced HIV by 99%. That seems like a fair bargain. 

Eli said...

Unfortunately all this proves is that HIV is less common in SA than USA. However, I wouldn't trust any SA source, and even according to your source its very unclear whether or not SA has actually put a significant amount of sodomists to death.

Your case seems to be that giving the death penalty for Sodomy will decrease HIV rates. This is of course true, but in the same way that putting thieves to death will decrease theft rates. The death penalty is NOT a fitting punishment for a sodomist in the USA at this time period, as I explained earlier.

On another note, I still don't understand your explanation of the RAMBAM.

Sammalkieli said...

1. How do you explain the fact that HIV prevalence is so high in Africa yet majority of Africans really hate "sodomy". In many African countries homosexuality is still a serious crime. Gays are put to prison or even executed.

Some African gay men have even immigrated to western countries because they are so harassed in Africa.

But in Africa HIV prevalence is high especially among heterosexuals. How is this possible if there is a link between gay rights and HIV prevalence?

But for example in Finland there are no sanctions of being gay. HIV prevalence is much lower than in many other western countries.

In Russia gays are harassed, and HIV prevalence is higher there than in Finland or in USA.

You are simply wrong or a liar. There is absolutely no relation between gay rights and HIV prevalence among heterosexuals.

And how could there be? Gays are after all a very small minority. They have no influence to the heterosexual majority. It is the promiscuity among the heterosexuals that is a problem.

AIDS orphans come only from heterosexual relationships. So there is no relationship between gay men and AIDS orphans either.

You see, gay men fuck each other and there can be no offspring from that kind of activity.

So choose: Are you a liar or simply a little stupid?


2. Sexually transmitted HIV is typically contracted from anal sex.

Why do heterosexuals participate in anal sex?

I got a hypothesis: It is bacause of porn industry.

So perhaps the owners of porn industry must be held responsible for AIDS epidemic. They must be punished.

If any jews own porn industry, we can blame all jews for creating AIDS epidemic. [I use here exactly same logic that you are using in your main text]

Perhaps we the Good Citizens should demand capital punishment for all jewish people, if and since they are really the primus motor behind the AIDS epidemic.

Best regards,

Sammalkieli, Marxist Philosopher from Finland.

Jeff said...

"So apparently as a result of putting to death a few sodomists, Saudi Arabia has reduced HIV by 99%. That seems like a fair bargain."

Let's see. If, in the US, we execute a few black welfare moms and crack head dads now, we can prevent thousands of future welfare kids and drug addicts from being born later and causing lots of suffering.

Or is there another way?

jewish philosopher said...

"1. How do you explain the fact that HIV prevalence is so high in Africa yet majority of Africans really hate "sodomy""

That is still poorly understood, however in all black communities including in the US HIV rates are relatively high. This may be due to a genetic lack of immunity to HIV in blacks, similar to the Native American lack of immunity to small pox.

"Sexually transmitted HIV is typically contracted from anal sex."

Right. And in the homosexual community people who receive anal intercourse then do anal intercourse to others and gay men also tend to be promiscuous. Through this unhygienic life style, HIV was incubated as have other somewhat less dangerous diseases.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/health/15infe.html

http://www.ehow.com/about_6695142_treatment-gonorrhea-gay-men.html

"Let's see. If, in the US, we execute a few black welfare moms and crack head dads now, we can prevent thousands of future welfare kids and drug addicts from being born later and causing lots of suffering."

Write to your congressman. That's up to you.

My point is that first of all, sodomists are not a racial minority. They are people who have a filthy habit which the Torah prohibits. Secondly, the Torah's death penalty for sodomy is not genocide. It would in fact probably save the lives of thousands of people in the United States each year. Thirdly, had there been no American gay liberation movement in the 1970s there would have been no AIDS holocaust among blacks in the 1990s.

My question is: when are gay rights activists going to first of all apologize to Jews for calling the Torah evil, racist and genocidal and acknowledge the Torah's remarkable wisdom and secondly when are they going to apologize to the black community for the tens of millions who have died of AIDS? 

Ironmistress said...

JP, I presume you and Rev. Fred Phelps (Westboro Baptist Church fame) would understand fairly well each other.

Unfortunately.

In my eyes a philosophy which condones pedophilia and condemns consensual sex between two adults is simply vile and depraved. No explanations needed.

I have once pondered that if there was some ultra-Orthodox Judaism in a time capsule still left, it would be very similar to Islam. You have proven my thoughts right.

jewish philosopher said...

Most people thoughtlessly follow whatever their parents, teachers and neighbors tell them. It's easy to follow the herd and not think. However. that doesn't make you innocent if millions die as a result.

jewish philosopher said...

I don't care how much atheists choose to hammer away on this, sodomists are not a heroic racial minority and sodomy is not a fundamental human right. Sodomy is a disgusting, unhygienic practice and a heinous sin while people who practice is die on the average about 20 years sooner than those who don't.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2005/jun/05060606

Eli said...

Dear JP, there is no question that gentile sodomists should be put to death. However, the legal system in the US is SHIT and too many innocent people will die. The fact that less people will die from AIDS if there is a death penalty only applies to sodomists who are related to HIV.

Sodomy and HIV are closely related but aren't the exact same thing, in that if 2 people practice sodomy and neither of them are infected with HIV, neither of them will have the virus afterwards.

With that being said, I agree with you about the death penalty for sodomists who also have HIV, it will definitely bring down HIV rates.

However, giving a death penalty for just Sodomy will not lower HIV rates in the same way, since if no one has HIV, no one will have it afterwards. This is a case where theoretically, the death penalty should be administered (according to Maimonidies and other scholars) but realistically the US legal system is SHIT.

But then again, Maimonidies also claims that gentiles should behead other gentiles for relatively lowly crimes such as stealing property and abortion.....

jewish philosopher said...

Mainly, the penalty is a deterrent. It seems to work for the Saudis.

Ironmistress said...

Death penalty is like making sausage.

You really do not want yourself to participate in the process nor handle the stuff itself. If you yourself were to put the noose on or swing the axe, you really would not be that bloodthirsty.

We are goddammit speaking about HUMAN LIVES and improperly Draconian punishments. The punishment is in absolutely no relation to the severity of the crime itself. Punishments which are considered injust by the populace only decrease the respect of law.

That is the reason why we do not stone aduterers anymore.

jewish philosopher said...

You have to consider costs and benefits: cost - a few sexual deviants dying. Benefits - thousands of lives saved. Makes sense to me.

Eli said...

In the Torah, the death penalty mainly serves as a deterrent, because seriously, who would commit a crime in front of 2 witnesses who gave him prior warning that if he goes through with it, he will die. Rarely did people get executed, that is why we can say that the death penalty served mainly as a deterrent.

However, In Texas, people are executed much more frequently (200 per year if I remember rightly), and even based on circumstantial evidence. Here, the death penalty is clearly not a deterrent and will continue not to be if Texas starts to give out death penalties for sodomy.

As I said earlier, SA is much different than the USA. For one thing, sodomy will always just be much less common there simply due to its location. For another, I wouldn't trust any sources from there. It's possible, but very hard to compare SA to the USA.

What I know is that historically in many parts of the world, including the USA, the death penalty has not served as a deterrent, and has not lowered crime rates. The biggest proof of this is: Murder rates in the South are twice that of the North despite there not being a death penalty in the North. (Yes I know this is murder and not sodomy, but this is the best way to compare).

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

jewish philosopher said...

It's a little hard to grasp why credibly threatening a violent death in the near future would not usually deter people from doing something, considering that most people have an instinct for self preservation.

Eli said...

Yes, this is a very difficult question sir. But the numbers still show that it isn't a deterrent. I guess people like you and I won't murder no matter what the punishment were to be. It is very hard to understand the true intentions of murderers, they will usually murder becuase of some problem they have (drinking, family, social, psychological, etc....) I think they will continue to murder no matter what the penalty is and I think the best solution is to try to educate everybody/improve their lives in areas they lack while still maintaining a severe punishment for murder (but not the death penalty) so as to bring awareness to their brains regarding the atrocity of murder...

Ironmistress said...

JP, you simply do not understand human psychology. Moreover, you do not understand criminology. Death penalty is almost universally considered to produce more harm than any good - it has brutalizing effect on society.

If the society has the right to murder its own members, all bets are off. Only the law-abiding citizens are intimidated - not the criminals, who consider it as a challenge on murdering and not getting caught.

Humans are not deterred from punishment. They are deterred from getting caught. Most violent crimes are committed by psychopaths, who do not think about self preservation, but the excitement of the crime itself. And most criminals fear more getting life than getting death.

In all European Union countries, the death penalty has been abolished. The crime rates are far lower than in US. You do the math.

Ironmistress said...

Eli, my country (Finland) abolished death penalty de facto 1944 and de jure 1972. The last people executed in Finland were Mauno Laiho (from high treason, espionage and sabotage) and three Soviet infiltrators, who were shot 2 Sept 1944.

The crime rates have been decreasing since the peak of 1948.

Death penalty works against its intended purpose. It has only a brutalizing effect on the society. Draconian and unjust punishments overall deteriorate the respect of law.

jewish philosopher said...

Why not abolish prisons too? That should logically really stop crime.

The Saudi crime rates seem pretty low

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/sa-saudi-arabia/cri-crime

Their AIDS rates are low too

http://www.sauditothecore.com/2010/12/aids-in-saudi-arabia-and-world-day-2010.html

so whatever they are doing seems to work.

jewish philosopher said...

In any case, my point is simply that just a few executions would apparently save thousands from AIDS. I think that's reasonable.

Ironmistress said...

Why not abolish prisons too? That should logically really stop crime.

That is a straw man, and you know it too.

The Saudi crime rates seem pretty low

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/sa-saudi-arabia/cri-crime


Reported crime. Bronze Age society is not usually considered a nice place to live, regardless of crime or not.

Their AIDS rates are low too

http://www.sauditothecore.com/2010/12/aids-in-saudi-arabia-and-world-day-2010.html


So is their median living standards and civil liberties. And your point is..?

so whatever they are doing seems to work.

So you condone despotism and dictatorship and disdain liberty?

If you'd really like to live in a Bronze Age theocratic despotism, your choice. Not mine.

jewish philosopher said...

Well let's do a little reality check.

Atheism originated in England in 1859 and quickly took hold throughout Europe. 

Between 1914 and 1954, Europeans embarked on a campaign of homicide against each other probably unprecedented in human history. The most blood thirsty Neolithic cannibal from New Guinea would have been horrified could he have witnessed it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Theatre_of_World_War_II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust

By the late 1950s, the enlightened and sophisticated Europeans apparently tired of  murdering each other plus the relatively backward and old fashioned Americans decided to station a huge number of troops in Europe to stop the insanity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Europe#Staff_and_Formations

Since then however Europeans have stopped reproducing at a replacement level

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_fertility_rate

which of course will ultimately lead to extinction. 

I personally prefer the wise and peaceful divine teachings of Judaism.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/09/orthodox-jewish-crime.html

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/02/massacre-of-midianites.html

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/06/gods-wisdom.html  

Ironmistress said...

Well let's do a little reality check.

Atheism originated in England in 1859 and quickly took hold throughout Europe.


No, it didnt, See History of Atheism. See also Psalm 14:1-3 - already the ancient Hebrews knew the concept of Atheism.

Between 1914 and 1954, Europeans embarked on a campaign of homicide against each other probably unprecedented in human history.

Europeans are the only people who have really learnt of their atrocities and where they lead.

[I doubt the Assyrians or Mongols never learnt of their own.]

The most blood thirsty Neolithic cannibal from New Guinea would have been horrified could he have witnessed it.

No. Just ask your nearest Assyrian.

By the late 1950s, the enlightened and sophisticated Europeans apparently tired of murdering each other plus the relatively backward and old fashioned Americans decided to station a huge number of troops in Europe to stop the insanity.

No. It was because of the threat of Communism.

My own country has never suffered from either Soviet totalitarism or American plutocracy. as had no foreign troops on her soil since 1944. We have kept both the Communists and Plutocrats successfully off our country.

Since then however Europeans have stopped reproducing at a replacement level

Perhaps the point where the limit population density for sustenance has already been crossed?

It is better to limit the population to sustenance level voluntarily than by wars, genocides, pestilences, poverty and squalor.

It is uncomfortable in crowd.

I personally prefer the wise and peaceful divine teachings of Judaism.

Reading the Books of Joshua and Judges do not give neither a peaceful nor divine image of Judaism in practise - and the policies of the modern day Israel seem to reflect the return to Bronze Age teachings. Islam is scary enough.

jewish philosopher said...

"No, it didnt"

Prior to 1859, atheists were very rare and the word was used almost exclusively as an insult directed at others.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1563692/Soviet-plan-for-WW3-nuclear-attack-unearthed.html

"No. Just ask your nearest Assyrian."

The carnage in Europe, including slaughter of civilian children, mass starvation and enslavement of a nation's own citizens, etc would have shocked the most savage stone age peoples.

"No. It was because of the threat of Communism."

We first sent troops over in 1918 and stopped World War I, then we went home. We came back in 1942 and if we hadn't stayed for decades afterward the slaughter would have continued to new levels.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1563692/Soviet-plan-for-WW3-nuclear-attack-unearthed.html

"Perhaps the point where the limit population density for sustenance has already been crossed?"

No, it's just that godless hedonists don't like kids.

"Reading the Books of Joshua and Judges do not give neither a peaceful nor divine image of Judaism"

As I explain in detail, ultra-orthodox Jews are basically pacifists.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/02/massacre-of-midianites.html