The right to punish debunked.

The specific claims made by society as to why it can punish criminals refuted.

This page will also reveal and debunk some of the faults, lies, myths, and contradictions in the current criminal justice system, concentrating here on the nonsense claim by the nonsense claim by society that there is a basis of reason for it's perverse and malevolent policy of punishing criminals. I will quote the so-called reasons expressed by society, and then explain why these reasons do not and cannot constitute reason, sanity or honesty. This Truth holds regardless of legal culpability (guilty or not) nor the crime act undertaken by the individual.

It is also the home of a new philosophy challenge against Ben Dupre, and Stephen Law as issued on YouTube in Seer Travis' Truth TV Episode 14. This challenge is to defend the justice system, society's warped decree on what constitutes justice, and the deranged and malevolent societal decree that criminals should be punished.

If you have not already done so, you will need to read the main page first, and the child abuse and first crime essay in order to appreciate the Forbidden Truths revealed herein.

Let's get started. In defense of Ben Dupre, though, he does entitle the chapter 48 "Theories of punishment". However, even this is not good enough. And the content is written as if the arguments for punishments are sound, when they are ranting nonsense. Just because some so-called philosophers argue for the ultra-diseased justice system and the punishment of criminals, does not mean that they should be treated as rational and reasonable suggestions. They should be debunked and ridiculed.

From Ben Dupre's book "50 philosophy ideas" article 48 Theories of punishment : "The mark of a civilized society, many would say, is it's capacity to defend the rights of it's citizens; to protect them from arbitrary treatment and harm from the state or other individuals....". This opening statement is utterly perverse, insane, lie-based and malevolent. It does not represent Truth.

Firstly, society is not "civilized" at all. Since the beginning of humans society, it has directly caused more torture, pain, death, suffering, insanity, boredom etc etc etc etc etc than existed beforehand. Second, legal rights are invalid and have no Truth-based legitimacy. These "rights" are designed to deprive the indivdual of justice, to subject them to injustice. They are designed to oppress. Third, society itself subjects citizen-slaves to the most harm, and the punishments and dictates of society are arbitrary.

Now lets take a look at the arguments commonly used by society, and those so-called philosophers who choose to defend society and the justice system. It is always important to bear in mind society has the burden of proof on it's claims, and it's supposed justifications/reasons etc for its claims must be provided and stand to rational analysis. We will start with the easiest examples.

1. Criminals "deserve" to be punished and/or the punishment should fit the crime.

The idea that criminals deserve punishment is utterly baseless. All this argument does is repeat the original claim in a slighty different form, which is just no reason at all. For example, If I was to ask "Why are you washing your car so late at night?" and was answered "Because its late and so I am cleaning it.", I have nothing more than was asked for. This just begs the question as to why. It cannot answer it.

The basis in pro-society philosophy is actually the hebrew bible, which is just an insane rant that has no rational basis or legitimacy to it. Also notice that they select out which delusional suggestions they want to argue for, and reject others.

The societal notion that "people should suffer for thier bad behaviour" is really the same thing. Why should they suffer? Suffering here is just being used to replace the word punishment. We shall see below that behaviour cannot be a selector either, because society behaves the exact same way as criminals do.

2. Society says that criminals must be punished.

This again does not answer the question or give any information or reason at all. It simply states who or what group makes said claim.

3. The "innocent" argument.

This argument is based on denial tactics. It simply refuses to face reality by honestly looking at the facts. It then resorts to circular justification to attempt to escape this. This argument is possibly worse than the "god told us so" argument.

Lets take an example. Now, if you have read the crime essay, you would know that society does all the crime actions itself. One of these actions is the perverse "death penalty", which is simply a popularized form of societally-sponsored murder on behalf of the enraged citizen-slaves. If your society does not committ this atrocity, war, abortion, assassinations, police use of deadly force etc will substitute just fine.

Now, here he see society committing the act of murder. We can now argue that is has contradicted itself, and shown great hypocrisy. If murder is wrong, it cannot be selective.

To attempt to de-fuse this horrible fault in their attempts at justification, defenders of society will simply invent a de-humanising label, just as they do with abortion, the nazi's with the jews, the "enemy" in wars and so on. They, in this case, apply this unsound and malevolent lie in reverse. The citizen-slaves are labelled "innocent" and anyone they want to make exception to to suit their warped and lie-based views is refused this label.

In this way, they are trying to be selective. However, exactly what is innocence? Lets take a look at this invention of malevolence and fantasy :

1. There is no such property of a human being as "innocence". You can be tall, heavy, black, female, male, shy, agressive, feeling angry, athletic, fat, and so on. But there is no such attribute to a human being as innocent. That has just been invented by those beholden to society and thus addicted to lies. This is just a delusional view of another person that makes no sense, not an attribute of the subject.

2. Since innocence cannot be detected, and does not exist, who can say who is innocent and who is not? How could they know they are right even if there was such thing as innocence?

3. In order to attempt to get out of this web of malevolent lies, societal leaders and societal slaves will argue that the committing of the crime act strips one of innocence. Of course, they never had any such thing to begin with. But even worse, they are calling on innocence only because they cannot explain why the crime act and the exact same actions (death penalty murder) are supposed to be different. It is again circular reasoning. It also simply makes no sense. Besides, they just made it up, just as they made up the god creature to try and bolster their insanely depraved and malevolent policies.

4. "Eye for an eye" or retribution.

Here we see special pleading, where one side accepts an explanation or excuse, but hypocritically condemns it in the opposition. Society does this millions of times every day. As those who are sane and recognize the simple Forbidden Truths in My crime essay know, criminals are tortured victim creations of their malevolent lie-based society. Society commits all the crime actions itself on a scale millions of times greater than any criminal ever possibly could.

Therefore, why can't the criminal (who has less resources than the state, and unlike the state has desires, can be in immediate danger or need) call upon this very same principal to rightly claim his justice? He has been wronged, abused, attacked with lies myths and brainwashings etc - so he must therefore have a right to strike back in vengeance at society. There is no legitimate and sane reason how society can claim this argument as an excuse for itself and deny it to the criminals.

Of course, due to True Reality and other arguments in the crime essay, the criminal can use this to justify him or herself, but society cannot.

That aside, it is still hypocritical and deranged to suggest a certain action is wrong, should not be done, or is somehow bad because it brings no good about, and then for society to immediately do equal (or any) harm to the "criminal" victim. Again, if harming others is wrong, it cannot be selective in how society applies it.

5. The punishment is "good" for the criminal.

This argument is just simply insane. No other word fits. How is it good, or beneficial, for anyone to be harmed? It just makes no sense at all. It completely deranged and sick. If it is so good, why isn't everyone lining up and demanding to be punished? If retribution and retailiation is sought, if they are angry at the criminals, why would they want to do good to him? Of course, they know fell well that it is not for his benefit, for any good to the criminal. Punishment is designed to be a malevolent and sadistic unjust act.

Take the death penalty. This is a punishment. Is being burnt to death by the electric chair good for the criminal? Of course it is not. This argument is simply retarded and ludicrous. Ben Dupre claims that it is just an "intuition". Well, anyone agreeing with that argument has faulty intuition, that clearly does not stand against My above de-bunking of that argument. It just sounds right to victim Ben Dupre because he is so indoctrinated by his lie-based society.

6. Debt to society.

Again we see these big liars just beg the question. Why should there be a debt to society for doing certain actions? Why should any debt have to be paid for by suffering? Why does societ ynot have to pay the debt when it does the exact same crime actions. It makes no sense. Any suggestion such as "he pays a debt because he committed a crime" just begs the whole question at hand again.

The Forbidden Truth is that all punishment and moral blame put on criminals is profoundly immoral, insane, unjust, illegitimate and malevolent. The reason that societal leaders punish criminals is simply to threaten and terrorise all human beings in its influence to obey it's toxic and lie-based decrees. society opresses, brutalizes and breaks it's citizen-slaves deliberately. It then makes said threats to terrorize them into accepting the injustice it has foisted upon them. That is the Truth.

A personal case of total injustice :
As readers of My website know, I also have been subjected to gross injustices by australian society via the legal courts . In fact, I am the #1 known political prisoner in australia during the 2000-2010 period. Click here to read more about this case.

Click here to return.