Are people in the Marvel Universe stupider and more violent?

[The Question]

That's called 'punishment'.





I don't think 95 % of major criminals (ie rapists and murders) can be redeemed, so I fully support the death penalty. In all honesty, I think someone like the Punisher would be fantastic in real life.

The thing is, there are people like the Punisher in real life. They're psychos who get people hurt. Personally, I don't see the reason for the death penalty. Put the person in jail, and they're not a threat to anyone, except maybe other inmates. I'd like to think that humans, as a society, have grown beyond the need for revenge.

 

[JackBauer]

that's been a pet peeve of mine for quite some time at Marvel. and it's one of the things that grabbed me to read Runaways in the first place. Vaughan touched upon this subject pretty well.

 

[Horrorfan]

The thing is, there are people like the Punisher in real life. They're psychos who get people hurt. Personally, I don't see the reason for the death penalty. Put the person in jail, and they're not a threat to anyone, except maybe other inmates. I'd like to think that humans, as a society, have grown beyond the need for revenge.

When they get out of prison, though, they are still very much a threat, and most offenders reoffend at some point.I have never seen anyone like the Punisher. A hunter of criminals? Awesome. Do you have any links? I would love to read about them (I assume you meant vigilantes and not just murderers).The death penalty is mainly reserved for those who are extremely violent prisoners who coldly and calculatingly planned vicious crimes. It's not like it's pulled out for everyone under the sun (although to be honest I wish it was used more). It's not revenge. It's punishment.My cousin went to prison for joy riding, and they all had pool tables, free gym (which me and you would have to pay for) and television, books, jobs, and my friends uncle went to prison and got an x box. That doesn't sound like prison to me. Hell my cousin described it as a holiday camp and said he wants to go back (and he is back at the moment). I don't see that as punishment, to be honest with you. Maybe prisons are different in the us than they are in the uk. But x boxes, ps2, free gym and stuff doesn't seem like punishment or a deterrent, but that's just me.

 

[The Question]

When they get out of prison, though, they are still very much a threat, and most offenders reoffend at some point.

You don't get out of jail for first degree murder. And rapists have alot of restrictions put on them when they get out. Also, rapists are at the bottom of the foodchain in prison. Out of anyone, they would never want to go back.

I have never seen anyone like the Punisher. A hunter of criminals? Awesome. Do you have any links? I would love to read about them

I don't have any. I just know that there have been ones.

(I assume you meant vigilantes and not just murderers).

If a vigilante kills someone, they're a murderer.

The death penalty is mainly reserved for those who are extremely violent prisoners who coldly and calculatingly planned vicious crimes. It's not like it's pulled out for everyone under the sun (although to be honest I wish it was used more).

But it's not necesairy. You put someone in jail, and they're not a threat to anyone anymore. If they commit more crimes when they get out, fine. But if they killed someone intentionally, they're probably not getting out.

It's not revenge. It's punishment.

No. It's revenge.

My cousin went to prison for joy riding, and they all had pool tables, free gym (which me and you would have to pay for) and television, books, jobs, and my friends uncle went to prison and got an x box. That doesn't sound like prison to me. Hell my cousin described it as a holiday camp and said he wants to go back (and he is back at the moment). I don't see that as punishment, to be honest with you. Maybe prisons are different in the us than they are in the uk. But x boxes, ps2, free gym and stuff doesn't seem like punishment or a deterrent, but that's just me.

So, don't give them X-boxes. You don't need to kill them.

 

[Horrorfan]

If a vigilante kills someone, they're a murderer.





So, don't give them X-boxes. You don't need to kill them.

If a vigilante kills a murderer, then that's cool with me. The person they killed had it coming, whereas a murderer who murders someone who has done nothing is different.

How comes a lot of rapists have been known to re-offend when they get out?

As for x boxes,I don't make the rules, guy. It's not like I hand them out.

If you want to call it revenge, fine. We aren't going to agree on it, but the fact is, I am glad it's there. I wont be crying any tears over crooks who get fried, thats for sure. And I don't have much time or respect for those that defend their rights, either.

But (and this is a fact) an executed murderer or rapist is 100% less likely to reoffend than someone who is released after a sentence

 

[The Question]

If a vigilante kills a murderer, then that's cool with me. The person they killed had it coming, whereas a murderer who murders someone who has done nothing is different.

So, you're saying if I murdered 50 people, it would be okay if they deserved it? I should just go on my merry way and not go to jail for it? What right does anyone have to decide who lives and who dies?

How comes a lot of rapists have been known to re-offend when they get out?

Because they're *******s. You think that gives anyone the right to kill them in cold blood?

As for x boxes,I don't make the rules, guy. It's not like I hand them out.

Never said you did. I just don't think we should compinsate for X-boxes with more murders.

If you want to call it revenge, fine. We aren't going to agree on it, but the fact is, I am glad it's there. I wont be crying any tears over crooks who get fried, thats for sure. And I don't have much time or respect for those that defend their rights, either.

I wouldn't be crying about it either. But I just don't think killing them's necesairy. Put them in jail, they're not a threat. If it isn't necesairy, I don't see why we do it. Besides, there's always a chance that someone will be wrongfully exicuted. If the system were perfect, I might not be bothered as much. But it isn't.

But (and this is a fact) an executed murderer or rapist is 100% less likely to reoffend than someone who is released after a sentence

Here's the thing: If it was first degree murder, they are not getting out of jail. Ever.

 

[Horrorfan]

So, you're saying if I murdered 50 people, it would be okay if they deserved it? I should just go on my merry way and not go to jail for it? What right does anyone have to decide who lives and who dies<.

In that case, what right does anyone have to decide who's guilty or not? who gives anyone the right to sentence someone to jail? why not scrap the system entirely and let anyone do whatever they felt like? That's got no weight. That's why we have things called JUDGES. If you murdered 50 people (say rapists and murderers themselves) then hell yes it should be ok. You should get a medal because you are doing it for the right reason. If you kill 50 people for insulting your mother, that's different altogether. But it doesn't matter. Awnser me this. If an inmate who is incarcerated say for rape gets out of jail, and another rapist is executed, which one has the better chance of reoffending?

 

[ang_hulk]

because thats a good way to stop an enraged guy dressed like a rhino.....

its not all of them,they all use there super powers wisely,if they dont have to hit anyone they probably wont.

 

[The Question]

In that case, what right does anyone have to decide who's guilty or not? who gives anyone the right to sentence someone to jail? why not scrap the system entirely and let anyone do whatever they felt like?

Not even remotely the same thing. Sending someone to jail doesn't kill them.

That's got no weight. That's why we have things called JUDGES. If you murdered 50 people (say rapists and murderers themselves) then hell yes it should be ok. You should get a medal because you are doing it for the right reason. If you kill 50 people for insulting your mother, that's different altogether.

It's not okay. Because that would be scrapping the system. That would be saying "I'll do what the **** I want". I wopuld still have ended 50 lives. 50 lives that could very well have gone on to ecompase terrible actions. Or, they could have grown. Learned. Become better people. But then, we'd have no way of knowing that, because their brains would be splattered over their parents' coffee table.

But it doesn't matter. Awnser me this. If an inmate who is incarcerated say for rape gets out of jail, and another rapist is executed, which one has the better chance of reoffending?

The living one, obviously. But then, which one has the better chance of learning from their mistakes and becoming a productive ember of society? The living one. You can't kill people for something they might do in the future. That's not right.

 

[Horrorfan]

Also I would like to add I would have liked to have thought we would have evovled beyond crime too at this point, but we haven't. It's in humanity's blood, as is the need for revenge if thats what you wanna call it. You will never ever erase it, like you will never erase greed, love, hate, envy or anything else inherent in our species.


My whole argument is this- an executed offender stands 100% less chance of reoffending than one who is in prison and who stands some sort of chance of being released (I don't fully believe that life ever means life- there is always some sort of chance they could get out through loopholes and whatnot). Do we agree on that at least?

 

[The Question]

I do agree. That's a fact. But they also stand a 100% chance of never reforming and becoming better people. Killing people because they might do something in the future is wrong.

 

[Horrorfan]

Not even remotely the same thing. Sending someone to jail doesn't kill them..


The living one, obviously. But then, which one has the better chance of learning from their mistakes and becoming a productive ember of society? The living one. You can't kill people for something they might do in the future. That's not right.

If you send someone to jail for life, it's the same as killing them, except the tax payer provides the bill for food and services for them (probably including x boxes).

Like I said, most offenders reoffend. So I would guess a good 80% can never be rehabbed and would be better off for society dead. Who the **** in their right mind would want to hire someone who was a rapist, pedophile or murderer? I sure as hell wouldn't.

And you aren't killing them for something they might do. You are killing them for somethign they DID do and are just ensuring they can never do it again.

Another idea; send them to the armed forces for good. Let them risk their lives in the defense of the country they have offended in. That sounds like justice and 'redemption' to me.

 

[Horrorfan]

I do agree. That's a fact. But they also stand a 100% chance of never reforming and becoming better people. Killing people because they might do something in the future is wrong.

Do you also agree most people on the death penalty have been killed because of something they have ALREADY done? So you aren't really killing them for what they will do, you are killing them for what they have done, right? Do you agree on that?



Also it's a FACT that a dead person won't reoffend. Is it a FACT that someone spared will learn and change? You tell me...

 

[The Question]

You know what? Let's drop this. I ain't in the mood.

 

[Horrorfan]

Your way would have a 50% (and thats being VERY generous) chance of stopping reoffences. Mine would have a 100% chance. That says it all to me really. I am not out to 'save' these pathetic loosers who think they are above the law...I am out to protect the people out there who actually chose not to rape a girl they found attractive or axe murdered their family. If you want to save them thats nobel and all, but I don't. I can't debate this any more. Im glad we managed to do this debate without arguing, but I cannot change your mind, you cannot change mine and really we are at a deadlock. Good debate though. nice to have a political discussion on the net that doesnt explode into name calling and sillyness

 

[The Question]

I don't wnat to protect them. I just don't think ending their lives in the apropriate answer. I really don't think anyone should have the right to decide who lives and who dies.

 

[Man-Thing]

It's only a comic

hey, don't you have to go play your guitar with your butt or something?

 

[Assassin]

lol on first read i thout you said are the ppl who read marvel univers stupider and more violent..yes because they still buy x men and yes violent as hell if you talk about spiderman..

but thats not what you asked

 

[GyLocke]

When they get out of prison, though, they are still very much a threat, and most offenders reoffend at some point.I have never seen anyone like the Punisher. A hunter of criminals? Awesome. Do you have any links? I would love to read about them (I assume you meant vigilantes and not just murderers).The death penalty is mainly reserved for those who are extremely violent prisoners who coldly and calculatingly planned vicious crimes. It's not like it's pulled out for everyone under the sun (although to be honest I wish it was used more). It's not revenge. It's punishment.My cousin went to prison for joy riding, and they all had pool tables, free gym (which me and you would have to pay for) and television, books, jobs, and my friends uncle went to prison and got an x box. That doesn't sound like prison to me. Hell my cousin described it as a holiday camp and said he wants to go back (and he is back at the moment). I don't see that as punishment, to be honest with you. Maybe prisons are different in the us than they are in the uk. But x boxes, ps2, free gym and stuff doesn't seem like punishment or a deterrent, but that's just me.

My friend was falsly imprisoned as a murderer. A few years later his name was cleared and they let him out.
Among other things, the guards made him orally satisfy one of the guard dogs. Then it`s his word against theirs.
Prison time in Hungary is awsome indeed.

 

[Fantasyartist]

I disagree. if the KGB and GRU can suborn Americans into working for them during the Cold War(Aldrich Ames, Robert HansseN), If the Mob can bribe policemen or judges, then is it beyond the capabilities of HYDRA, Doctor Doom or the Red Skull to entice native born Americans into doing their bidding?Besides, super heroes much like policemen cannot be everywhere, especially in a big city like New York, and some groups(the FF, Avengers) tend to leave "ordinary" criminals to individual heroes such as Spider-Man, Daredevil and Moon Knight. When you have to face Doctor Doom or Galactus who's really interested in a simple purse snatching?(Unless of copurse the owner of the purse in question is May Parker, aunt of Peter, better known as the wall crawlinf Spider Man)
As for the Punisher, being a mob boss is risky enough( being killed by your rivals, busted by the Feds and doing up to 25 years under the RICO statute) so whio worries about just one more risk, the fairly low one of being killed by the Punisher(he has so many targets, not just the old line Cosa Nostra, but the Colombians, the Jamaican "posses", the biker gangs like Hells Angels or Bandidos, the Mexican and Russian Mafias-don't even get me started on the prison based gangs like Aryan Brotherhood, Black Guerrilla Family, the street gangs like Crips, Bloods, El Rukns)?


I trust I make my point?

Terry

 

[UK_Stu]

I disagree. if the KGB and GRU can suborn Americans into working for them during the Cold War(Aldrich Ames, Robert HansseN), If the Mob can bribe policemen or judges, then is it beyond the capabilities of HYDRA, Doctor Doom or the Red Skull to entice native born Americans into doing their bidding?Besides, super heroes much like policemen cannot be everywhere, especially in a big city like New York, and some groups(the FF, Avengers) tend to leave "ordinary" criminals to individual heroes such as Spider-Man, Daredevil and Moon Knight. When you have to face Doctor Doom or Galactus who's really interested in a simple purse snatching?(Unless of copurse the owner of the purse in question is May Parker, aunt of Peter, better known as the wall crawlinf Spider Man)
As for the Punisher, being a mob boss is risky enough( being killed by your rivals, busted by the Feds and doing up to 25 years under the RICO statute) so whio worries about just one more risk, the fairly low one of being killed by the Punisher(he has so many targets, not just the old line Cosa Nostra, but the Colombians, the Jamaican "posses", the biker gangs like Hells Angels or Bandidos, the Mexican and Russian Mafias-don't even get me started on the prison based gangs like Aryan Brotherhood, Black Guerrilla Family, the street gangs like Crips, Bloods, El Rukns)?


I trust I make my point?

Terry

Thats true, but the KGB, the mobs etc only recruited a few people. I mean how many POlice officers in a force are on the take? 100 ? Whatever.

The point here is that AIM, Hydra etc etc literally recruit thousands into their ranks and they are Americans. Its not the same as the secret service recruiting some spies from the other side, or some coppers getting bribed.

The Austin powers movies had a good humourous take on this - how did Dr Evil recruit an army of henchmen? Pay them well, provide a good pension and health benfits?

and Cobra in GI Joe had a (sort of) expanation, Cobra Commander set up a business in a small town and brainwashed the whole town but his army from there, but he could create clones.

 

[Elijya]

and I at least read one GI Joe story where Cobra caused a disaster, then blocked aid to those afflicted, and went and provided aid themselves as a way of winning the people over into thinking maybe Cobra aren't the bad guys they'd been told they were

 

[deathshead2]

and I at least read one GI Joe story where Cobra caused a disaster, then blocked aid to those afflicted, and went and provided aid themselves as a way of winning the people over into thinking maybe Cobra aren't the bad guys they'd been told they were

Well thats a cool idea cobra had.

 

[Lorendiac]

Consider this: In real life, let's say that I try to rob a bank . . . and I get caught. I'm no expert on how our parole system works, but for the sake of argument, let's say that the judge gives me a sentence of "Twenty years - and you've got to serve eight before you are even eligible for a parole hearing."

What does that mean? It almost certainly means that I will spend at least eight years of my life inside a prison before I even have a chance to try to charm the parole board into turning me loose. Eight years is a huge chunk of my life. Even if I were inclined to rob a bank, I'd hesitate when I thought about how much time I was going to lose behind bars if one of my accomplices ratted me out to the cops.

If I'm a costumed character in the Marvel Universe, hearing that same sentence for my latest attempted bank robbery, what does it mean? Based on the record for costumed criminals in general, it means I may spend about one year behind bars before I somehow manage to break out of prison and try again! One year, balanced against the chance to make a couple of million bucks, might not be such a discouraging gamble!

 

[Wolverazio]

Then why do we have the Death Penalty?

Punishment. Herr Logan had a very well thought out response but it exists solely for punishment. Same reason prison sentences began, not to reform the criminals or act as a deterrant...just to punish.

Though I will leave my own views on the death penalty out of this.

And I can't even try to come up with a good reason why the crooks are so persistent. Sorry.

No, but he might not hate me nearly as much as he did the government in that story.

The thing is, I'd leave art and personal lifestyle choices (and that comment refers to actions, not desires, not that desires would be a priority for "correcting") mostly free of interference (exceptions include sex with minors, kiddie porn, and the like). I wouldn't be burning books and films and so forth just to get rid of "harmful" ideas of independence. It's only anything that actually leads to violence, disease and criminal neglect that I'd attack directly. Acting on irrational prejudices would be illegal, and rather than relying on a criminal justice system (which would be far more intrusive, honest and efficient under my control) to deter people from being hurtful @ssholes, the "new society" would be taught from childhood to be something better than that, for the right reasons. It's not enough to tell people to follow an order just because it's an order, or because some imaginary deity is watching out for them. They have to know the truth as soon as they're able to comprehend it.

People being nice to other people is "mutually assured destruction" (as Dr. Greg House put it) on a miniscule scale, although I don't consider it wholesale cowardice as that character does. The Golden Rule has nothing to do with religion or irrational rules at its core, it's just sensible. Teach everyone how and why they should follow that rule and leave them to their hobbies, dreams and distractions (the stuff they deemed contraband in 'V for Vendetta') when they're on their own time.

Violence would be outlawed in real-life situations but encouraged in virtual reality interaction and fiction. Probably also controlled settings like martial arts and such. Trying to get rid of the urge to be violent is useless, a waste of a lot of resources and therefore an amoral pursuit. Giving people an outlet for their basic natural urges, while teaching them (forcing them, when you really get down to it) how to channel and sublimate them is how to propogate a peaceful society without taking away imagination and humanity. You don't turn them into something other than people, you just raise them to be good people, which do exist in this world, at least to some degree. Hell, people have lived for centuries while being entertained by fiction that depicts dangerous acts that humans are either physically and technologically incapable of or very, very unlikely to engage in. Keep that the mindset and divert violent energy away from real people and toward safe targets (video games, punching bags, violent TV and movies, etc.) and you have a chance to stop the mindless bull$hit behind a good chunk of human suffering.

Rant over. For now...

The problem with a benevolent dictator is not the person's own motivations or ideas. But, if you were to accomplish all this..how can you guarantee that whatever filled the vacuum of power after your death would continue on with these "good happy safe" laws? Instead of just abusing the system for their own personal gain?