the death penalty... is it an effective way of deterring criminals

vikki

ok so here is where to air your views on the death penalty...

i will say at this point that since people tend to have very strong opions this subject and there will undoubtedly be conflict. This however is an interesting, debatable subject as a result of the many opinions people have on it so i thought it would be a good idea to set this thread up...

the idea is that people will:

(a) talk about whether the death penalty deterrs criminals
(b) say whether they think its a good or bad idea
(c) tell what crimes should/should not be given the death penalty


so basically the point is:

(a) that you can tell everyone your opinions
(b) that you can show off your knowledge on this subject etc.
(c) and most importantly you can fight!!!

but remember no bad language!!!

Vikki*

Ps. remember that people have the right to their own opinions so try not critisise even if you dont agree!!!:p

It wasn't me!

Well, you can be sure it means they won't be doing whatever it was they were doing again!:D

It's a good idea for some people who would commit the same crimes again but if it's a once-off then obviously they can be rehabilitated.

malecO

I know this is off topic but right now for some reason I'm thinking about what I was like when I was younger. I used to have very strong opinions on things like foreign policy, religion, and this a couple of years ago. I used to think that I was right and that everyone else was wrong and I would try to talk over people.
I dunno. I just felt like saying that. I'm kinda bored right now so...

Anyway I had better say something on topic so, the death penalty. Hmmm. Well, in my opinion, the death penalty should be enforced in certain ways. I don't believe that it should be enforced in a very mathematical way (ie. if you do this then you get this punishment) and that the reasons and history behind the offence should be examined very closely and that certain exceptions would be allowed (ie. guy kills mother but mother would have killed 2 kids if she was not killed. Something like this). But I don't know if this would work with our legal system and then again, I haven't a clue how the death penalty works so I can't say much.

Havelock

I don't think the death penealty is a deterent but I think it is the only option with some crimes. Rapists and their kind, corrupt politico's and alot of white collar crimes, murder, drug peddling, and others.

Its also cheaper. Life imprisionment cost to state in excess of 35,000 per annum could come to more than 1,750,000 for a criminal who lives 50 years. A bullet in the back of the head and a shallow grave that convict digs themselves, about 9-10 cents one time payment, with the cost of the gun distrubited over time.

Yes I admit they are hugh "moral" arguements, sucha s the innocent. One could use it only in a clear case, like admitmission or irfuitable evidence, any doubt would need to be resolved.

Spenguin

Hmm, the death penalty? sure why not. Killing is wrong and all, but if you're told which crimes deserve the death penalty and you commit one of them, you have it coming. This is a little insensitive of me, but still. I mean, it doesn't deter criminals, but its like... well lets say the criminals are an infestation of annoying little bugs whose nest you can't see, and the death penalty is some bug spray. The bug spray will kill the bugs you see, but won't get rid of all of them. You don't know where they're coming from, and sometimes they get away from you and then you can't find them again. The bugs are a little stupid. They see what happens to the other bugs but they walk out where you are anyway. Not too great an example, but I think you get the picture.

vikki

ok so what crimes deserve the death penalty???
i know that it is not part of the irish legal system but maybe it should be brought in. As a deterrant... a life sentance would be fairly off putting so im not sure about its effect in that perspective. Life sentences in ireland only last for on average 12 years (according to some article or other) so i dont see how people can be sentences for life but serve 12 years or whatever... does that not defeat the point of the sentencing??? And it is a fact that a substantial amount of crimes are drug related so if "druggies" are freed (it is also another fact that most re-offend) and they commit another crime whatever it may be and an innocent person is killed... Are we not (meaning the muppets who allow prisoners walk free) aiding the criminal in his crimes??? because after all if the criminal was behing bars they wouldnt have the opportunity to kill etc.

maybe that doesnt make much sense but its my logic so it isnt expected to...

ok so here is a question to everyone:

if you were about to commit a serious crime (enough for death sentence) which would make you think about the consequences more the death penalty or life imprisonment (taking into account that you would probably serve approximatly 12 years)???

Vikki*:cool:

Dont worry
Be hippy...:p

Spenguin

I'm going to replace the word 'bug' with butterfly in me last post. Now I'm not judging! Yeah, I'll be able to think plenty 'bout what I've done when I'm dead, so I guess life imprisonment. But at the same time, that wouldn't work either.

Squeee

These may or may not be my own opinions, I'm just arguing for argument's sake.
If you think that the death penalty is a good idea..... you'd really need to make sure that the evidence proved 100% that the person was guilty. And even then, if they've been intentionally framed and the culprit has done a decent job, it might seem like they are guilty.
It wouldn't deter suicidal criminals or those who thought that the crime was worth it.
Criminals cost the governments millions each year....can you put a price on a human (perhaps murdering, but still human) life? If so, couldn't criminals just give money to the families of those that they harmed?
Do two wrongs make a right? And other random, generic arguments.
It might deter criminals.....but if so, why does America still have such a high rate of crime?! (I'm aware guns are legal there and that sort of thing)
If you think that the death penalty is a bad idea.......criminals do cost governments ridiculous amounts (I don't know the exact figures) of money each year.
When these people get out, they may very well be reformed, but then again, they may not be and may do it all all over again.
You may be against the idea of killing someone for crimes that they commit. But think about it. If someone kills someone, someone who was close to you, in a horrible way, chances are you're gonna want that f*cker to pay, and if you're really really angry over it, them going to prison will hardly seem equal to what they have done.
It might deter criminals. And so on....

Barry Aldwell

I believe that if you deny someone of their basic rights without due reason, it's die time for you. Kill someone...that's death. Rape someone...that's death. Hurt a child in any way...you'd better believe that's death.

And when I say death I mean execution by lethal injection, with an example being made of the person to show people that if they do something wrong, they will be punished severely. Also, lethal injection should be the only option. Firing squad is too dignified, electric chair is too liable to fault, and hanging is extremely complicated, and too fast a way to go.

Havelock

A bullet in the back of the head is neither dignafied or complicated. Injectiona re too "humain" for my liking.

Rapists would be physically castrated before anythign else, preferably with sheers. Thsi whole chemical nonsense is not a deterint. Big rusty blunt shears are.

Barry PM me.

Crash

Actually it may still be on the statute books here. cant remember if it was repealed last referendum. anyhoo i believe that the ultimate justice in the world comes in cases where you find the person who may have been sentenced to death has been killed prior by the family. there are umpteen cases of such happenings. i'm not saying its right or wrong, but it is the truest form of justice. Personally after seeing death up close, its too good for those who would be sentenced to it. while it may cost the state a lot to have them rotting away in a true Prison - not a state run place of happy happy land where they get everything but a TRUE prison is the other form of justice i tend to enjoy. but then i'm a bitter bastard at times.

vikki

I just found out today that some a**ehole chose to die via the electric chair... insanity or what

by the by if you have seen the green mile you will have some idea of the process of death by electric chair... dont forget to wet the sponge (or maybe leave it dry... if you are evil) it is truly horrific though!!!:D

in america many states have the death penalty and in texas most are killed

did anybody hear of the young lad (age 14) who was killed in laois yesterday... another guy (age 15) wanted his picture phone so hit the lad over the head six times with a hammer to get it... the victim died! When a person is 15 they should know that killing people for a f**king mobile phone is wrong. That b*****d should be sentenced to death for that (young and all as he is) so bring in the law and hang him (or dispose of him by some other form of killing) he isnt worth the air he breathes

Vikki*

Dont Worry
Be Hippy:p

Squeee

This is really strange. I would have expected a whole pile of "Just coz they killed someone, doesn't give us the right to kill them, two wrongs don't make a right" sort of answers, the type that most people give coz it makes them look oh-so forgiving and high and mighty, but really it just makes me think that they are not empathising (I no spell) or even trying to coz they can't see what it would be like if they were close to the victim. Then again, maybe some people are that forgiving. But on the other hand, I suppose it's really easy for all of us to say "YAY! Death Penalty" coz most of us know that we will never kill or rape someone us and hope that no-one we know will either. Meh.

Liquorice

Hmm....

The death penalty is hypocrisy..."Right, you killed her, that's inhumane, it's just plain wrong so...we're going to kill you".
But....you really have to put yourself in the shoes of someone whose spouse/sibling/parent/best friend has been murdered. You have to think of how you yourself would feel. Would you forgive the person, or would you rather they die. Myself, I would enjoy seeing them tortured. Physically, mentally, emotionally. I wouldn't want them killed...oh, no, just put through severe pain.
On a side note, a lot of murders are spur-of-the-moment, unplanned things, but those that are planned are not correctly thought out. Y'see, what would torment a person more...to be killed and that be the end of them(or go to an afterlife of sorts, or be reincarnated etc., etc., etc.) OR have everyone they love and care for be killed off-family, friends etc.
Think about it.

Barry Aldwell

Originally posted by Scarlett
On a side note, a lot of murders are spur-of-the-moment, unplanned things

Murder = Preplanned killing
Manslaughter = Spur of the moment, unplanned killing

claire h

But....you really have to put yourself in the shoes of someone whose spouse/sibling/parent/best friend has been murdered. You have to think of how you yourself would feel.

I'd disagree with you there....the people who are close to a murder victim generally want revenge. What the legal system is - or should be - about is justice. You *need* people who are unbiased making the decisions, not the people who have an emotional investment in the case.

You can't give back a life. You can't turn around and say, "Y'know, I think that maybe that guy deserves a chance at redeeming himself" or "Oh crap, turns out he didn't do it after all..." because the guy - or girl - has been executed. And I don't think anyone deserves to have their life taken away from them - no matter what they've done.

ll=llannah

I tend to agree.
Granted, people have the right to want revenge for the loss of a loved one and it is true that it costs immensely more to keep many people in jail.
But, 'eye for an eye' isn't always the way to go. And it is so hypocritical when you think about it. People deserve another chance. Most people won't improve, but I think they deserve another chance in some cases. But I'm not saying we should let serial killers roam free and just say 'oh well, too bad' when they kill again. A better system needs to be found, but as to how we are going to come up with one, I have no idea. But way to many people are falsely accused and killed. And I thought that before I saw Dancer in the Dark.

Barry Aldwell

Originally posted by twix_girl
People deserve another chance.

The system is based around the idea that a person can change, or be forced to change, their behaviour patterns to exclude homicide from their daily routine, but there are those who simply cannot be changed, and there are those who are made worse by prison. Society needs to realise that someone who commits a murder, does time, then commits another murder just isn't going to change, no matter how many therapy sessions you force them to attend. Shoving them into a 6x6 cage for the rest of their lives is a massive drain on resources so, rather than feeding and clothing them for the rest of their lives at the expense of the taxpayer they should be either altered in some way to prevent them killing, or they should be culled. Alternatively, smack them all into a military organisation and use them as human shields.

/me reads above post
Dude, I sound like Hitler or something.

Havelock

No, Barry you don't. Hitler didn't use criminals as human shields. He jsut killed them and used the captured forces as human shields.

As for the justice system, I have a strong beief in true justice. A good (if not romanticised) ideal of how I'd love to live can be seen by watching The Boondock Saints. (PM me for an AVI disk of it.)
The courts exist to sort out things like burglery, fraud and other misdemenors. They don't do it very well to be honest, it needs an over haul, we could cut down expenses and crime by adopting the Turkish justice system. This whole humane treatment of prisoners is utter rot. A 6 X 6 cell, with one one toilet, two flat boards and an enterance slot for food can hold 6 men, no sports, no radios, nothing at all. See how amny people offend or re-offend with that in mind. But there is only one cure for serious crimes.

Death.

Torture is only for person revenge. Its sick if you do it for "justice", if its not personal, whats the point?

vikki

Ok so since I started this thread I thought it would be a good idea to get some facts and figures down… because its helpful I suppose…

the following is a list of states which have the death penalty:
Alabama Arizona
Arkansas California
Colorado Connecticut*
Delaware Florida
Georgia Idaho
Illinois Indiana
Kansas* Kentucky
Louisiana Maryland
Mississippi Missouri
Montana Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire*
New Jersey* New Mexico
New York* North Carolina
Ohio Oklahoma
Oregon Pennsylvania
South Carolina South Dakota*
Tennessee Texas
Utah Virginia
Washington Wyoming
*indicates jurisdictions with no executions since 1976
(valid as of April 1 2001)

There are currently 82 death row inmates all male (who says males are superior eh???)sentenced as juveniles constituting approximately 2.33% of the total death row population (as of January 2003)
In the U.S. 22 men have been executed for crimes committed as juveniles since 1976. The U.S. supreme court has approved the execution of 16 and 17 year olds (mind you they are in my opinion old enough to know what is wrong and right by then) 143 American "children" (a child is defined as anyone below the age of 18) have been sentenced to death since 1973. Since 1990 the only other countries in the world that have executed "children" for crimes are Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

The following is a list of execution methods and numbers of people killed by this method (in the USA):
Electrocution 151 (don’t forget to wet the sponge)
firing squad 2 (too much of an honour really)
gas chamber 11 (poison gas… effective *cough*)
hanging 3 (a little primitive)
lethal injection 709 (too kind but almost guaranteed
to work)

from January 1st 2003 to September 12th 2003, 56 people have been executed in the USA. All but one were killed by lethal injection… the muppet I mentioned in an earlier post who chose (YES CHOSE!!!) to die via the electric chair… lovely!!! By the way the nutter was from Virginia
Most were executed in:
Texas 21
Oklahoma 14
Ohio 3
Florida 3
Arkansas 3
North Carolina 3

one point id also like to add well two:

the victims familys should be able to choose the sentence (obviously within reason... like we cant kill somebody for robbing a television... like death sentence or life imprisonment etc.) they should also be able to choose form of death rather than the prisoner... gas them all...(only messin')

and two what "scarlett" said about killing off their family members one by one... it would be amazingly effective for suicide bombers (they also die for the glory etc in their family plus the family would kill the suicide bomber before he/she had the chance to blow him/herself up...think about it) that is such a good idea... but for death row inmates it isnt really fair.

and three (yes i know i said two points) why do prisoners in mount joy etc (reportedly) have sky tv, take aways and so on when we the ordinary people have to pay for it... is this not ridiculous when sky tv costs about E60 a month... think of all the tax-payers money... its not right...

Vikki*

Dont Worry
Be Hippy:) ...such a long message....

mentalimplosion

the death penalty should ONLY be used in certain situations and when there is NO reasonable doubt as to whether or not the rapist/murderer (these are the only crimes which should warrant the death penalty). and it should NOT be a matter of, oh, i'm a rich wall street banker so i'll rape Mrs x and my rich lawyer will get me off (hehe, sounds funny). lawyers should be distributed evenly among all.... i've forgotten where i'm going with this.


and rapists shouldn't be murdered. castrated instead. using a rusty blade

malecO

Originally posted by mentalimplosion
and rapists shouldn't be murdered. castrated instead. using a rusty blade

YESSSS!!!!!!

It wasn't me!

Sounding a bit enthusiastic there Alex. But it should be with a rusty spoon! Or a big dirty hammer! Jesus that'd hurt!

Aliminator

/glad u guys aren't a part of the legal governing system. not that i'm a rapist or anything.

In a 'democracy' there can't really be the death penalty as we're supposed to be morally evolved enough to allow for the revolving door system: a criminal is heaved before the system, punished etc. serves time, and is then rehabilitated for return to soceity.
once time is served, in theory it's forgive and forget.
that is why the names of paedophiles in britain and here aren't published. a whole load of bollox if u ask me. i say castrate etc. THOSE fukas.

so in summation, in this morally evolved soceity we can not have the death penalty.

america has the death penalty, cos they don't have a revolving door system. once u do anything, ur fukd for life.

demanufactured

yes they should bring back the death penalty

if some dude rapes a girl he should be shot in the face

same goes for murderers

Capt'n Midnight

RE:Murder = Preplanned killing
Manslaughter = Spur of the moment, unplanned killing

The unlawful, but unintended killing of a person. Can be voluntary, like when someone is killed unlawfully under circumstances that don't include a premeditated intent to kill. Or involuntary, like when someone is killed unintentionally as a result of someone else performing another unlawful act or negligently performing a lawful act
I'm with the French on this one - prosecute motorists involved in fatal "accidents" and those (ir)resopnsible for the blood tranfusion deaths..

Havelock: re your suggestion of it being cheaper to kill people - under the US system the appeals cost more than keeping locked up - whereas in the Chineese system the family get sent a bill for the bullet.

The aims of prison system should be to reform people and if they can't be reformed then protect the public from them.

====================

But look at the records of miscarrages of justice on both sides of the pond - have a look at yer man up north.. The death sentence can't be imposed because of the risk of killing the wrong person (case closed so the killer can kill again perhaps...)

Anyway the death sentence is too lenient - there is always the possibility of reincarnation...

vikki

in reference to capt'n midnight's post which stated that the chinese send the family the bill for the bullet
the chinese have the right idea why should tax-payers pay for the lethal injection...

and why should rapists, murderers etcetra be let loose into society its not as if any of us want them...

admittedly the death penalty does have numerous drawbacks
eg. if an innocent person is killed it isnt exactly brilliant is it???

if they want family members should be allowed to administer the lethal injection

but people who commit pre-meditated murders should not live

and its (in my opinion) an extremely weak argument to say that we shouldnt play god
partly because i am athiest and partly because if god was decent enough we wouldnt have to kill them.. he would have done it for us (that is if i am mistaken and god does exist)

anyway... tis only my opinion so no offence to anyone

Vikki*
Dont Worry
Be Hippy

theymademedoit

i dont think it is a good deterant(sp?), because, in my opinion, if you're willing to kill, you're willing to die.

nothing that can be worth killing over is not worth dying over.

but what gives these people who hide behind propaganda and democracy the right to kill people, i dont know.

Awayindahils

No one has the right to kill any 1 but thats not about to stop people.The death penalty is effective as it just exterminates the problem but its all rather fast.Torture could be used if u really want to punish people but that then mkes the torturer worse than the perpetrator.Also by the state killing someone the blood is no longer on the hands of the indiviual but on the whole population.People should have the right to chose whether they are party to that so it would posibly be even better if the person who wanted the individual dead just went off and killed them and so on and so forth.However this could possibly lead to eventually the complete inialtion of the human race though it would take a very very long time or secondly people will stop caring nd killing will stop- unlikely.The botom line is humans should never have evloved so much that we invented ways to kill each other with more than our bare hands but as we did so we should be evolving past it but the human race appears to be stuck, and before i get anymore off the point thats it and the end of my rambling.

vikki

I personally cannot understand why anybody would want to kill anybody in the first place it all seems ridiculous. Pulsi dont know how anyone could live knowing that they had killed someone who was (maybe) a good person not trying to harm anyone...

But thts the way life is and there is no way of escaping the fact that innocent poeple going about their daily lives are killed needlessly... its a shame the world is like it is...

tis a pity the legal system is there for justice rather than revenge maybe it would be more effective that way

But i dont know what would stop killing any ideas anyone???

Vikki*

tibilt

what gives anyone the right to decide a person deserves to die?

theymademedoit

its not right, no one deserves to die, be it the victim or the murderer.

how can a government decide wether someone should live or die?

no one should ever have governance over someone elses life.

the death penalty is nothing but murder, pure and simple.

tibilt

indeed it is. and since nothing can justify murder, the only thing we are doing by carrying it out is encouraging the notion that murder can be justyfied, which needlessly undermines law itself.

theymademedoit

more proof, if ever it was needed, that the system doesnt work.

Havelock

When the case of someone depriving an innocent of their life is brought to trail the punishment sould meet the crime, the criminal should be deprived of their life. Incarsiration does not deprive life, just limits it and is costly to the state. Unless you want to lock the criminal in a cave so the providence of the gods is responcable for them their is no other way than to punish them in a fitting manner than death.

The law should not be of legalities, but of justice. -Alex Chavanne

tibilt

nobody has the right to stop existence, innocent or otherwise. the law is about justice for all, alex chavanne. the death penalty is not a punishment, it is murder. and if no one has the right to commit murder, then why should the law?

Spenguin

Well if you know that the death penalty is the punishment for the crime you are about to commit and you do it anyway, you're asking for it. Its going to be a horrible crime that would have to be your fault e.g. rape and mass murder. You don't do these by accident so you have to be willing to accept the consequences. I for one think there's nothing wrong with removing the filthy people from our world. Unless of course they are not in their right state of mind, they have some sort of revenge reason and the person they killed killed their family or they did it by accident. Hmm... well, I think that the death penalty should be there, but only for the most extreme cases unless they change the life sentence to a sentence that lasts all your life.

tibilt

but what gives you the right to decide someone deserves to die, spenguin?what gives anyone the right?

Spenguin

Hmm, i see your point. Well, I suppose they should let the people that they did the crime to decide, as they have been effected by it most, or in the case of murder, a family member of whoever died should decide. if they can forgive them they do not get the death penalty. if not they do. That could make things a bit complicated though...

tibilt

there is a problem with that. a faimliy that has just lost one of its own is going to want revenge, not justice. there simply is no valid reason for murder, by state or by crime.no one has the right to decide.

vikki

suppose we did allow family members to decide the criminals sentence would they not want the harshest punishment possible imposed?
i should think yes they would.
however if this was limited as in if someone steals your tv you shouldnt be allowed give them the death penalty... obviously as that is unreasonable
if family could choose between life or the death penalty
i think that if when given life it meant life (not 12 years etc) then there is no need for the death penalty but by letting criminals out for good behaviour is ridiculous if they were well behaved they would not have been in jail in the first place... i dont think anybody can argue with that! the death penalty is effective to a certain extent...
i still think they have the right idea in saudi arabia and the like because if you steal you get your hand cut off... and if you didnt know... the crime rate is practically nothing... so maybe we should do that... after all it works... although it isnt a nice idea... the point is that after a little while people will realise that it isnt worth stealing and will no longer do it... rather than the idea that for all eternity people will be losing their hands for robbery:p

Vikki*

tibilt

so it's worth doing wrong to stop others doing wrong?

Awayindahils

Its more like its impossible to stop or punish 'wrong' without doing more 'wrong'.Its a really nasty catch 22.

tibilt

well the line between right and wrong is hazy at best, certainly, but this thread is about the death penalty.and the death penalty is murder.and surely murder is a...level? of wrong that is not worth attaining?

Awayindahils

Yeah im not disaging im oppossed to the death penalty but usually for the death sentence to be handed down a muder if nott several have been commited so if u think about it even though im am against it ur already at the level of murder and by killing some1 through lethal injection r watever u sorta obtain a parrleness as in ur no worse than the murderer and also ur victim definetly wasnt innocent.This probably dosnt make much sense but it made sense in my head.

tibilt

so muder can only be assuaged by more murder?and if the crime is murder, then murder is warranted?that just doesnt seem right

Awayindahils

i know it dosnt seem right but its another way of looking at it. its a way people involved could clear their conioncous. It works on the eye for an eye thing they cancel each other and a twisted equilibrium is reached.

tibilt

a world of vicious cycles. why does virtue have to be such a minefield?

article6

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." - Gandhi or Martin Luther King. I can't remember now.


Virtue is a minefield because we do not have ultimate knowledge of every person's qualities and vices. Therefore pure justice is impossible - in this world at least.

My problem with the death penalty is that the "eye for an eye" dictum is too decisive - that which is taken cannot be given back.

Take the case of a society without capital punishment. If a man is wrongly accused of murder, and fifteen years later the judgement is reversed, he can be released. He has lost fifteen years of freedom, but nevertheless. (I'm thinking of the Birmigham Six or Guildford Four here.) Perhaps he can be compensated. In any case, his liberty is returned to him.

In a country where murder is punishable by death, that man has probably been dead for years when the reversal comes and the only compensation possible is an apology to the family. His life, sadly, cannot be returned.

"[Gollum] deserves death!" - Frodo
"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement." - Gandalf, The Fellowship of the Ring, Book 1

tibilt

why must you quote the views of others? you beliefs are strong enough on their own. i was using rhetoric when i spoke of virtue, i know of societies flaws. but is the death penalty really efeective in deterring others?isnt that the question this thread is about?

Crash

Tibilt your ideas are the ultimate in justice. however they're not the ultimate in applicable justice. simple fact is democracy or republic etc. all governments exist in a state of compromise - which is the better to do? pay the jail fees for the rest of the murderers life and leave the family wanting revenge or go for the zero tolerance policy. and it all depends on what the people of said country want.

here we're against it (though personally i have a very firm idea that jails are much too cushy on jail conditions, as for prison to be effective it is not denial of rights but minimum of rights, which is not carried out here).

But the question is tibilt that if there was a case in the papers tomorrow of a mother who killed the person who broke into their house and killed her son/husband/daughter upon breaking in, would you be all for her getting a life sentence?

even more interesting, if you were put in the position, would you do the same?

perspective is grand in minor cases but cant be applied to governments though, so ignore that