Capital Punishment

[kdrier]

Who decides what is the greater good? For the greatest number? Careful, this could work out to be totally adverse to what you may be thinking.

It's not really something anyone in particuliar decides, It's kind of hard to explain. Look it up on google.

What if the instability can be cured and the person could become a positive model of society?

There is plenty of role models for society. Spending time and resources attempting to cure someone is pointless, especially when it could be unsuccessful.

People aren't thinking about the punishment when they commit abhorrent crimes, so there is no real deterent IMO. Anyway, why give them an easy way out. I say bring back hard labour. Make them struggle for the rest of their lives while they actually contribute to society.

Well, at the time they arn't. But a lot of time crime is premeditated to some degree. Maybe if they knew they were going to die for it they wouldn't plan on it. When it is not premeditated and out of anger or something, maybe then put them in prison for a while, or let the loved ones of the person they kill decide, not sure. Or kill them anyway and let god decide if you're christian.

 

[Sola'lor]

I don't believe people should be killed for crimes. They should be offered the option of unpaid labor or scientific experiments. If the choose unpaid labor they will build stuff or make clothes or whatever. They wont get paid and they are making contributions to society. If they choose scientific experiments. We let scientists go to work on them and the knowledge gained from that will help contribute to society. Killing someone just releases them from punishment.

 

[rojse]

It's not really something anyone in particuliar decides, It's kind of hard to explain. Look it up on google.

How much are you really for the greater good?

Here was an interesting moral conundrum that I encountered recently, which neatly ties in with your ideas of the greatest good:

You are a doctor working in a hospital. You have five patients that will die without an organ transplant. While in the waiting room you see a healthy man, and if you kill him, you could give the organs in this man to save five lives at the cost of the one life of the man.

Now, explain your decision, how you arrived at it, and how this fits into your ideas of the greatest good.

 

[kdrier]

You are a doctor working in a hospital. You have five patients that will die without an organ transplant. While in the waiting room you see a healthy man, and if you kill him, you could give the organs in this man to save five lives at the cost of the one life of the man.

Now, explain your decision, how you arrived at it, and how this fits into your ideas of the greatest good.

I like the scenario, hard to put my thumb on it. I'd let the 5 patients die. I have to think to myself, why are these people in dire need of an organ transplant? There is a good chance they are either naturally diseased, or it is self invoked (too much booze, eating unhealthy, etc.) either way, they either brought it upon themselves, or they don't have strong genetics. Plus an innocent healthy man who means no harms shouldn't killed. those people who would die are probably already dead to a lot of their relatives in some way or another, sadly it's kind of expected their going to die. If I kill an innocent man, his family, and all his friends are going to be severely suprised, sad, and vengeful, which would probably be anywhere from 10-100 people. There is a lot of parameters in this situation.

 

[McBell]

You are a doctor working in a hospital. You have five patients that will die without an organ transplant. While in the waiting room you see a healthy man, and if you kill him, you could give the organs in this man to save five lives at the cost of the one life of the man.

Now, explain your decision, how you arrived at it, and how this fits into your ideas of the greatest good.

I would flat out ask the man.
If he said he would rather live, then the five others die.
The hypocritic oath be damned.

 

[rojse]

I like the scenario, hard to put my thumb on it. I'd let the 5 patients die. I have to think to myself, why are these people in dire need of an organ transplant? There is a good chance they are either naturally diseased, or it is self invoked (too much booze, eating unhealthy, etc.) either way, they either brought it upon themselves, or they don't have strong genetics. Plus an innocent healthy man who means no harms shouldn't killed. those people who would die are probably already dead to a lot of their relatives in some way or another, sadly it's kind of expected their going to die. If I kill an innocent man, his family, and all his friends are going to be severely suprised, sad, and vengeful, which would probably be anywhere from 10-100 people. There is a lot of parameters in this situation.

Doesn't this contradict your ideas about the greatest good?

 

[PureX]

Whenever we humans start playing "God", terrible death and destruction is usually the result. The reason for this is that we are simply not equipped for that task, and so when we try to engage in it we screw everything up in a really big way.

This is why I do not believe that we humans should be employing capital punishment. It's not that I don't believe that some people deserve it, it's that I am CERTAIN that we are not capable of ever knowing for certain who does and who does not. And if we start killing people just because we THINK they deserve it, we will quickly become murderers, ourselves.

 

[kdrier]

Doesn't this contradict your ideas about the greatest good?

No, it does not, did you read my response and understand it?

If so, how do you feel it contradicts it?

 

[kdrier]

It's not that I don't believe that some people deserve it, it's that I am CERTAIN that we are not capable of ever knowing for certain who does and who does not. And if we start killing people just because we THINK they deserve it, we will quickly become murderers, ourselves.

I agree that sometimes we don't know for sure if someone absolutely did it, I'm saying kill off the people we know absolutely did it. For example, think about the jail system, think about how many murderers and rapists are in prison for life, in stalls next to guys who sold pot or stole a television. All I'm saying, is that if we plan on putting someone in prison for life, we mine as well just kill them and not beat around the bush. oh yea "make them suffer blah blah", that's not good for anyone.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

I don't believe people should be killed for crimes. They should be offered the option of unpaid labor or scientific experiments. If the choose unpaid labor they will build stuff or make clothes or whatever. They wont get paid and they are making contributions to society. If they choose scientific experiments. We let scientists go to work on them and the knowledge gained from that will help contribute to society. Killing someone just releases them from punishment.

Make use for them at least, good idea.

 

[rojse]

No, it does not, did you read my response and understand it?

If so, how do you feel it contradicts it?

Yes I did read it, understood it (and agreed with your answer on a personal, emotive level).

However, in an analysis of your answer in terms of quantity, you have said that you would not kill the five patients for the one healthy man. My question is, how is this idea of thinking of the single person over the group of patients relate to your beliefs of the greatest good? This would seem to be the exact opposite of that.

Not all people go to hospital because of disease and the like. Injuries, for example, can occur at work, or outside of that. This in no way means that the person that receives the injury is a lesser person because of the other. This might simply mean that the person enjoys manual labour, and had to go to hospital because of a colleague's incompetence.

 

[rojse]

II'm saying kill off the people we know absolutely did it.

How do we know, absolutely, that a person is guilty of a crime?

 

[kdrier]

However, in an analysis of your answer in terms of quantity, you have said that you would not kill the five patients for the one healthy man. My question is, how is this idea of thinking of the single person over the group of patients relate to your beliefs of the greatest good? This would seem to be the exact opposite of that.

Not all people go to hospital because of disease and the like. Injuries, for example, can occur at work, or outside of that. This in no way means that the person that receives the injury is a lesser person because of the other. This might simply mean that the person enjoys manual labour, and had to go to hospital because of a colleague's incompetence.

Alright, well either way. Most people getting an organ transplant either brought it onto themselves or they have bad genetics. Imagine If I went up to the patients and asked them, "There is the healthy guy waiting in the lobby waiting on his wife to deliver a baby, want me to kill him and steal his liver for ya?", what do you think the patients would say? If I had to kill someone to save five other people (with the far out assumption that they are all in there for work related injuries) this would probably make those 5 people feel extremely guilty for the rest of their lives, not to mention the entire family of the healthy guy would be emotionally torn apart. The families of the 5 people just look their injuries as fate or bad luck (if it's work related), sucks for them, but **** happens. Bottom line is, killing an innocent healthy man is never the right choice. I'm saying kill known criminals with twisted mentalities that are likely to cause more problems for those around them.

How do we know, absolutely, that a person is guilty of a crime?

Sometimes you just know, cameras, confessions, history of violence, things of that sort.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

How do we know, absolutely, that a person is guilty of a crime?

And the reasoning ought not to stop there, rojse. Not only should the convicted be certain that he or she is absolutely and without a doubt guilty of the crime, but that there is absolutely no hope for rehabilitation, that there is absolutely no measure society can take to use the person for labor while alive, that the person is absolutely not suffering from psychosis or mental trauma, and that putting the person to death is absolutely the most reasonable, ethical, and compassionate way to remedy the situation for the victim, the victim's family, the community, the convicted, and the convicted's family as well.

I am not convinced that all factors are met when applying capital punishment. There was a reason why I used all those absolutes , and it's because putting a person to death is the most absolute measure one can take with another.




Peace,
Mystic

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

However, in an analysis of your answer in terms of quantity, you have said that you would not kill the five patients for the one healthy man. My question is, how is this idea of thinking of the single person over the group of patients relate to your beliefs of the greatest good? This would seem to be the exact opposite of that.

- Is the "quantity of good" greater with the transplants than without? If the transplants allow the patients to live an extra five years each on average (for a total of 25 extra years), but killing the healthy man costs him 40 years of life, I'd say probably not.

- Does quality of life matter? If the transplant recipients spend most of their time in follow-up care before finally succumbing to whatever required them to need transplants in the first place, is that a fair trade for a normal life?

- In a real-world scenario, organ replacement surgery has major risks. Each patient has a significant chance that they will not actually survive to realize any benefit from the transplant. This needs to be factored into the decision; it's not a straight "five lives for one" trade.

- Also in the real world, there's more than one healthy person. The healthy man in the scenario is not the only source of organs. There's a significant chance that organs from some other donor will become available for the patients when he or she dies without assistance by the doctor.

 

[kdrier]

Not only should the convicted be certain that he or she is absolutely and without a doubt guilty of the crime, but that there is absolutely no hope for rehabilitation, that there is absolutely no measure society can take to use the person for labor while alive, that the person is absolutely not suffering from psychosis or mental trauma, and that putting the person to death is absolutely the most reasonable, ethical, and compassionate way to remedy the situation for the victim, the victim's family, the community, the convicted, and the convicted's family as well.

Like I said in the first post of the thread, I think peoples standard of life is way to high in a lot of situations.

but that there is absolutely no hope for rehabilitation

If someone kills someone, why waste time and resources trying to fix them? Just kill them off.

there is absolutely no measure society can take to use the person for labor while alive

Seems a bit selfish. There is plenty of people alive willing to work and do labor, to have to get a mentally unstable person to do it.

that the person is absolutely not suffering from psychosis or mental trauma, and that putting the person to death is absolutely the most reasonable, ethical, and compassionate way to remedy the situation for the victim, the victim's family, the community, the convicted, and the convicted's family as well.

If they are suffering from psychosis, we can just end their suffering so they don't cause others to suffer. My goal is to thread these people out of society. Maybe throw them in a mental institution if they are not violent. I think if everyone understood killing someone resulted in death, people's mentality would be a lot different on the subject.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Oh, I couldn't disagree with you more, kdrier. You are correct in that we're back to square one from our first exchange on page 1, which urges me to share Karen Pryor's book Don't Shoot the Dog! again.

Is this another example of "an eye for an eye......." mentality? Are you wishing for quick and easy solutions for such horrendous crimes? Maybe if I understood your perspective a little better, we might find some common ground.




Peace,
Mystic

 

[kdrier]

No Mystic, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this subject. I guess my main argument is known murderers and rapists should be killed instead of being imprisioned for life, and yes there is plenty of parameters involved.

Are you wishing for quick and easy solutions for such horrendous crimes?

You could say that. Anything instead of these long and inefficient solutions. The rate for these horrendous crimes is only going up, a quick fix may be the only fix.


Here is an analogy, not sure if it's accurate or not, just trying to find something to compare to.

Say there is a fly that keeps landing on you. It's really bothers you that this fly keeps landing on you. It's driving you crazy. Your first instinct is too shoo it away, maybe take a few careless swats at it and hope it gets the idea. this fly is relentless and set on it's ways though, it's going to land on you no matter what, so what do most people do? they kill it. We need to start killing the flys that keep bothering everyone instead of attempting to shoo them away.

 

[wednesday]

I'm all about doing things for the greater good. The greatest happiness for the greatest number. I think people have their standards of life too high, and it's burdening the rest of society. I think a form of capital punishment might help some of the problems our country has all around.
.

An eye for an eye. Why should a murderer lor a rapist be given a place to live for such a horrible crime? In some countries prisoners have great treatment, and even access to education. Honest people don't get that.
People who criticise the death penalty, would you accept 15 years prison if someone killed a family member?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

An eye for an eye. Why should a murderer lor a rapist be given a place to live for such a horrible crime? In some countries prisoners have great treatment, and even access to education. Honest people don't get that.

If they don't, they should.

Personally, I think that if a prisoner is destined for release at some point, we should make the odds that he or she will re-offend as low as possible. If that means educating a prisoner so he knows a trade other than stealing cars, I'm fine with that.

Paying a few thousand dollars now on college courses to save tens or hundreds of dollars on incarceration (in addition to the societal costs of the crime) down the road seems to me to be a good bargain.

People who criticise the death penalty, would you accept 15 years prison if someone killed a family member?

I'd like to think so, but I don't know for sure.

Still, the feelings of the victim's family are only one factor of many in criminal justice. There are other needs that have to be addressed as well.