Capital Punishment

[MysticSang'ha]

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

Why limit the choice to either 15 years or a death sentence? And, as far as my personal feelings go, whatever sentiments of vengeance I may have is for me to work out in my own mind and to cope with that feeling that very well may come with the grief, not to apply to the masses. Two wrongs do not make a right.




Peace,
Mystic

 

[Mister_T]

Why limit the choice to either 15 years or a death sentence? And, as far as my personal feelings go, whatever sentiments of vengeance I may have is for me to work out in my own mind and to cope with that feeling that very well may come with the grief, not to apply to the masses. Two wrongs do not make a right.




Peace,
Mystic

That works both ways.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

That works both ways.

You're absolutely right, Nick. Forgiveness sucks.




Peace,
Mystic

 

[Mister_T]

You're absolutely right, Nick. Forgiveness sucks.




Peace,
Mystic

Not everybody wants forgiveness or feels remorseful for what they've done. We shouldn't expect everyone to find forgiveness for those type of people.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Not everybody wants forgiveness or feels remorseful for what they've done. We shouldn't expect everyone to find forgiveness for those type of people.

Of course. We should follow along with those types of people who have death wishes or who have skewed perspectives of humanity. I thought we were capable of being above that.




Peace,
Mystic

 

[Mister_T]

Of course. We should follow along with those types of people who have death wishes or who have skewed perspectives of humanity. I thought we were capable of being above that.




Peace,
Mystic

Vengance (capital punishment) and cold-blooded murder are not the same thing. :no: Somebody who gets his jollies from torturing and killing children is not deserving of life, let alone housing or three meals a day, IMO.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Vengance (capital punishment) and cold-blooded murder are not the same thing. :no: Somebody who gets his jollies from torturing and killing children is not deserving of life, let alone housing or three meals a day, IMO.

All sorts of alarm bells go off in my head whenever I hear anyone talk about basing public policy on what people "deserve", especially when what they "deserve" is something awful.

 

[Mister_T]

All sorts of alarm bells go off in my head whenever I hear anyone talk about basing public policy on what people "deserve", especially when what they "deserve" is something awful.

Society is always basing public policy on what people "deserve," whether it be jail time or capital punishment. And looking through the eyes of a victim's famliy member, nothing is too awful for someone who viciously murders their loved one in cold blood.

If showing compassion and understanding for someone who has suffered this kind of loss is viewed as "primative" and "inhuman," then so be it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Society is always basing public policy on what people "deserve," whether it be jail time or capital punishment.

In the one criminal law course that I took in school, the professor presented these four goals as the purpose of criminal law:

- specific deterrence (i.e. convince the criminal in question to not commit crimes again through threat of further punishment)
- general deterrence (i.e. convince the public at large to not commit crimes through the threat of punishment)
- rehabilitation (i.e. encourage the criminal to not commit crimes through a variety of positive means)
- inculcation (i.e. declare on behalf of society that a particular activity is wrong/unacceptable, as well as how wrong/unacceptable it is relative to other crimes)

I don't remember "giving the criminal what he/she deserves" to be in the normally accepted list of goals of criminal justice.

And looking through the eyes of a victim's famliy member, nothing is too awful for someone who viciously murders their loved one in cold blood.

I'd tend to agree. I think this is a good reason for not allowing victims' families to dictate how our justice system works. I think we should aim for maximum good, not maximum retribution.

If showing compassion and understanding for someone who has suffered this kind of loss is viewed as "primative" and "inhuman," then so be it.

I don't personally consider indulging someone's sense of vengeance to be compassion.

 

[Mister_T]

I don't remember "giving the criminal what he/she deserves" to be in the normally accepted list of goals of criminal justice.

Then maybe you should broaden your understanding of what "justice" means:

jus·tice

/ˈdʒʌs

tɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[juhs-tis] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1.the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause. 2.rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice. 3.the moral principle determining just conduct. 4.conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment. 5.the administering of deserved punishment or reward. 6.the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings: a court of justice. 7.judgment of persons or causes by judicial process: to administer justice in a community. 8.a judicial officer; a judge or magistrate. 9.(initial capital letter

) Also called Justice Department. the Department of Justice. —Idioms 10.bring to justice, to cause to come before a court for trial or to receive punishment for one's misdeeds: The murderer was brought to justice.

I'd tend to agree. I think this is a good reason for not allowing victims' families to dictate how our justice system works. I think we should aim for maximum good, not maximum retribution.

But what you view as" maxim retribution" some people view as "justice being served." Justice and doing what is "good" is not always pleasant.

I don't personally consider indulging someone's sense of vengeance to be compassion

I don't consider letting cold blooded murderers live with a roof over their heads and three square meals a day, good. Nor do I think that we should deny the victims family members maximum justice. They did not asked for their loved one to be murdered and they certainly did not derserve to be faced with such a loss. Anyone who commits the maximum crime should receive the maxiumum penalty.

 

[Mister_T]

I don't consider letting cold blooded murderers live with a roof over their heads and three square meals a day, good.

For the record, I am not opposed to life imprisonment for cold blooded murderers. If that is what society feels is the punishment that fits the crime, great I will not oppose it. But, If society also feels that that same cold blooded murderer should be put to death, I will not oppose that either. Nor will I celebrate their execution.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

For the record, I am not opposed to life imprisonment for cold blooded murderers. If that is what society feels is the punishment that fits the crime, great I will not oppose it. But, If society also feels that that same cold blooded murderer should be put to death, I will not oppose that either. Nor will I celebrate their execution.

Never thought that you would celebrate it, my dear.

And on the other end of the spectrum, I wouldn't hold up a banner saying "Congratulations!" for violent criminals and they're sense of accomplishments in crime. :foot:

The issue of capital punishment is a very good debate because all parties are essentially wanting to the same thing.......we want to protect people from violent crime, and if it does happen, we want to ensure that it doesn't happen again.

Life imprisonment for those that are not capable of being a part of society is fine with me, too. :highfive: <--------we actually agree on something!! lol




Peace,
Mystic

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But what you view as" maxim retribution" some people view as "justice being served." Justice and doing what is "good" is not always pleasant.

No, but the converse is not necessarily true: just because something is unpleasant does not make it right.

My personal view is that any taking of another person's life, except in defense of life, is abhorrent and fundamentally unjust. IMO, this is why we consider murder a crime. I think it's completely self-contradictory to declare on the one hand that taking of life is a crime, and on the other to uphold it as a valid means of justice.

While I understand why a person who has lost a loved one to murder would wish death on the murderer, I can't see any way to reconcile this wish with anything in my own sense of what is good, right or just, or with any practical rationale. Just as I don't consider it "helping" a person to aid them in carrying out a suicide, I don't consider it "justice" to help someone carry out their wish of murderous vengeance.

I don't consider letting cold blooded murderers live with a roof over their heads and three square meals a day, good. Nor do I think that we should deny the victims family members maximum justice. They did not asked for their loved one to be murdered and they certainly did not derserve to be faced with such a loss. Anyone who commits the maximum crime should receive the maxiumum penalty.

I don't believe that "maximum penalty" is generally the same thing as "maximum justice".

Out of curiosity, do your feelings on the matter go the other way as well? If a murder victim's loved ones don't want the murderer to be put to death, does the state have a duty to go along with this?

 

[Mister_T]

Never thought that you would celebrate it, my dear.

I didn't think anybody did. I just wanted to make myself clear just in case.

And on the other end of the spectrum, I wouldn't hold up a banner saying "Congratulations!" for violent criminals and they're sense of accomplishments in crime. :foot:

I never thought you would.

 

[Mister_T]

No, but the converse is not necessarily true: just because something is unpleasant does not make it right.

I never made the claim that unpleasantness = right.

My personal view is that any taking of another person's life, except in defense of life, is abhorrent and fundamentally unjust. IMO, this is why we consider murder a crime. I think it's completely self-contradictory to declare on the one hand that taking of life is a crime, and on the other to uphold it as a valid means of justice.

I'm seeing a double standard. Using your theology of "taking of life is a crime and on the other to uphold it as a valid means," I don't see the difference in killing for defense and killing for justice. Killing for justice is for killing in defence that was delayed.

If you consider murder a crime, then murdering in defense should not be a valid upholding. I'm not seeing the consistency there.

While I understand why a person who has lost a loved one to murder would wish death on the murderer, I can't see any way to reconcile this wish with anything in my own sense of what is good, right or just, or with any practical rationale. Just as I don't consider it "helping" a person to aid them in carrying out a suicide, I don't consider it "justice" to help someone carry out their wish of murderous vengeance.

Well then we will have to respectfully disagree. There is a difference between cold blooded murder and vengance. I do consider capital punishment for cold blooded murderers to be justice served.

I don't believe that "maximum penalty" is generally the same thing as "maximum justice".

It's an opinion that I disagree with, but I can respect.

Out of curiosity, do your feelings on the matter go the other way as well? If a murder victim's loved ones don't want the murderer to be put to death, does the state have a duty to go along with this?

If the victims family feels that justice will be served with life in prison, then great I'll go along with it. Does the state have to go along with that? No. The state does not have to go along with whatever the family feels would be compensation for their loss. Some people might feel that having one of the murderer's loved one be put to death would be justice served, but that would be wrong because the murderer's loved one is innocent....the murderer is not.

If you're under the impression that I'm for justice = anything and everything the family feels is deserving, then you misunderstood me. My thing is how people who oppose capital punishment are viewing and labeling those who want capital punishment for a murderer that killed a family's loved one: It is not "indulging" in vengance or giving in to some primative, archaic way of thinking or act of barbarism. It is a perfectly justified response in wanting justice to be served and I do not think we should be looking down upon those in favor of it (not to say that you are).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I never made the claim that unpleasantness = right.

I'm seeing a double standard. Using your theology of "taking of life is a crime and on the other to uphold it as a valid means," I don't see the difference in killing for defense and killing for justice. Killing for justice is for killing in defence that was delayed.

If you consider murder a crime, then murdering in defense should not be a valid upholding. I'm not seeing the consistency there.

Killing in defense is only jusified when it is absolutely necessary. If you kill someone as he's trying to kill you, you've prevented your own death. If you kill someone once they're in secure custody, you don't prevent any crime or harm whatsoever.

If killing in defence is delayed, it's no longer killing in defence. People have a right to defend their own lives and defend the lives of others, but once the attacker is imprisoned, that goal is acheived. From that point on, any punishment you inflict on the attacker has nothing to do with defense.

The goal of killing in defence is to minimize the taking of life: one person dies, because the alternative would be one (or more) people dying. The choice to use capital punishment does not minimize the taking of life - it doesn't even do anything to minimze the taking of innocent life: executing a criminal does not save the life of a single innocent person.

Well then we will have to respectfully disagree. There is a difference between cold blooded murder and vengance. I do consider capital punishment for cold blooded murderers to be justice served.

But what's the difference between cold-blooded murder and vigilante vengeance? What's the difference between vigilante vengeance and state-sanctioned vengeance? I think the lines are fairly blurry.

If the victims family feels that justice will be served with life in prison, then great I'll go along with it. Does the state have to go along with that? No. The state does not have to go along with whatever the family feels would be compensation for their loss. Some people might feel that having one of the murderer's loved one be put to death would be justice served, but that would be wrong because the murderer's loved one is innocent....the murderer is not.

If you're under the impression that I'm for justice = anything and everything the family feels is deserving, then you misunderstood me. My thing is how people who oppose capital punishment are viewing and labeling those who want capital punishment for a murderer that killed a family's loved one: It is not "indulging" in vengance or giving in to some primative, archaic way of thinking or act of barbarism. It is a perfectly justified response in wanting justice to be served and I do not think we should be looking down upon those in favor of it (not to say that you are).

I don't look down on those who favour it. I just strongly disagree with even the theoretical application of the practice.

And in practical terms, such as the situation we have in the United States today, where a significant number of wrongfully convicted people are executed, and the odds of receiving a death sentence are strongly skewed along racial and socio-economic lines, I'm even more strongly convinced that capital punishment as it is actually practiced is fundamentally unjust... even when the idea you brought up of "justice being served" is factored in.

 

[Mister_T]

Killing in defense is only jusified when it is absolutely necessary. If you kill someone as he's trying to kill you, you've prevented your own death. If you kill someone once they're in secure custody, you don't prevent any crime or harm whatsoever.

If killing in defence is delayed, it's no longer killing in defence. People have a right to defend their own lives and defend the lives of others, but once the attacker is imprisoned, that goal is acheived. From that point on, any punishment you inflict on the attacker has nothing to do with defense.

But killing is killing. Killing him in defense is killing him for a crime he is not guilty of commiting yet. Killing him after he commited the crime is correcting the mistake of him not being killed when he should have been. The end result is the same in either scenario: Killing a murderer whose intent is to cause great harm to you and others.

The goal of killing in defence is to minimize the taking of life: one person dies, because the alternative would be one (or more) people dying. The choice to use capital punishment does not minimize the taking of life - it doesn't even do anything to minimze the taking of innocent life: executing a criminal does not save the life of a single innocent person.

The main goal of killing in defense is to prevent harm to yourself and others, not minimize the amount of life lost. If five people are trying to kill me, I'm going to try and kill all five of them in defense. If we followed the logic that you gave, then I should allow myself to be killed in order to minimize the amount of life that is lost.

And the goal of capital punishment is not the to minimize the amount of life lost either. The goal is to have the punishment fit the crime and to prevent this person from taking anymore innocent lifes. If you really want to minimize the amount of life lost, then life in prison is not really a good choice either: The person is subceptable to killing other inmates or having other inmates kill him.

But what's the difference between cold-blooded murder and vigilante vengeance?

Cold blooded murderer = Someone who takes an innocent life for pleasure or personal gain. Vigilante vengance = Serving justice by applying the concept of eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth (punishing a guilty person).

What's the difference between vigilante vengeance and state-sanctioned vengeance?

None IMO. If a person is found guilty without any doubts, then it wouldn't matter to me if the state pulls the trigger or the victim's family pulls the trigger.

I think the lines are fairly blurry.

They seem pretty clear to me.

And in practical terms, such as the situation we have in the United States today, where a significant number of wrongfully convicted people are executed, and the odds of receiving a death sentence are strongly skewed along racial and socio-economic lines, I'm even more strongly convinced that capital punishment as it is actually practiced is fundamentally unjust... even when the idea you brought up of "justice being served" is factored in.

Wrongfully convicted people being executed is indeed a problem, but that's why we have innmates on "Death Row" and an appeals system. Show me one system of justice that is perfect though. And although I will not go out of my way to support or advocate capital punishment, I certainly don't see it as being fundamentally unjust. Seems reasonably justifiable to me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But killing is killing. Killing him in defense is killing him for a crime he is not guilty of commiting yet. Killing him after he commited the crime is correcting the mistake of him not being killed when he should have been. The end result is the same in either scenario: Killing a murderer whose intent is to cause great harm to you and others.

Killing in defense is not about justice, it's about protection and prevention. Killing a murderous attacker prevents one or more people from becoming victims. Killing a murderer after the fact does not.

The main goal of killing in defense is to prevent harm to yourself and others, not minimize the amount of life lost. If five people are trying to kill me, I'm going to try and kill all five of them in defense. If we followed the logic that you gave, then I should allow myself to be killed in order to minimize the amount of life that is lost.

This gets back to what I mentioned before: each of us has the right to protect our own life and the lives of others.

And the goal of capital punishment is not the to minimize the amount of life lost either. The goal is to have the punishment fit the crime and to prevent this person from taking anymore innocent lifes. If you really want to minimize the amount of life lost, then life in prison is not really a good choice either: The person is subceptable to killing other inmates or having other inmates kill him.

My point was just that while killing in defense and capital punishment both result in the death of a criminal, they are not the same thing.

And you can protect the lives of the other inmates by other means than killing their potential assailants.

Cold blooded murderer = Someone who takes an innocent life for pleasure or personal gain. Vigilante vengance = Serving justice by applying the concept of eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth (punishing a guilty person).

Does "revenge" count as pleasure or personal gain?

None IMO. If a person is found guilty without any doubts, then it wouldn't matter to me if the state pulls the trigger or the victim's family pulls the trigger.

So, then, should vigilantes not be punished as criminals?

Wrongfully convicted people being executed is indeed a problem, but that's why we have innmates on "Death Row" and an appeals system. Show me one system of justice that is perfect though. And although I will not go out of my way to support or advocate capital punishment, I certainly don't see it as being fundamentally unjust. Seems reasonably justifiable to me.

It's not a matter of being perfect, it's a matter of which alternative is better. In the case of capital punishment, I think the negatives vastly outweigh the positives.

 

[Mister_T]

Killing in defense is not about justice. it's about protection and prevention. Killing a murderous attacker prevents one or more people from becoming victims. Killing a murderer after the fact does not.

Nor did I say killing in defense was about justice. I was trying to point out an inconsistency: "Killing someone after they killed and invidual" being worse than "Killing someone who is trying to kill an indivual" doesn't seem logical or consistent. Attempted murder is less evil than actual murder? :no:

This gets back to what I mentioned before: each of us has the right to protect our own life and the lives of others.

Which brings me back to what I mentioned before: Capital punishment is not about minimizing the amount of lives lost and the victim's family has a right to have justice served through Capital Punishment.

My point was just that while killing in defense and capital punishment both result in the death of a criminal, they are not the same thing.

A point I will have to respectfully disagree with you on. To me, there is no difference.

And you can protect the lives of the other inmates by other means than killing their potential assailants.

I never said that you couldn't protect the lives of other inmates without killing a convicted murderer. But it is certainly a possibility and happens more often than people would like to think.

Does "revenge" count as pleasure or personal gain?

I'm sure in certain scenarios it could. But the difference between say, Jeffrey Dahmer and his victims is: One is an innocent victim who has commited no wrong or harm to their assailent, while the other is guilty murderer being served justice for casuing harm to individuals.

So, then, should vigilantes not be punished as criminals?

Depends on ther scenario.

It's not a matter of being perfect, it's a matter of which alternative is better. In the case of capital punishment, I think the negatives vastly outweigh the positives.

And in a lot of states, capital punishment is considered the better choice in regards to justice. The thing I have a problem with is people wanting their alternative to be applied to everyone. What you see as negatives, others see as positives and vice versa.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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.

The jails are full. The law system needs tons of finances to be supported at this level. These finances come from our tax dollars. If someone is a murderer or a rapist, kill them. If someone molests kids, kill them. These people are mentally unstable and have no place in our society, nor in a place where they leech off our tax dollars. If someone accidently kills someone in a car accident or something, throw them in jail for a while, let them see how their families feel, let them feel guilty for killing someone, if they are mentally stable, they will probably never do it again. If someone gets busted for harmlessly smoking marijuana, or taking unprescribed government pills, give them a fine, or maybe a warning at first. the greedy government is way to involved in things that don't matter much just so they make a quick buck.

Decriminalize things that don't harm others or have not harmed others, buckle down on things that do.

I'm glad that you're not in charge of anything significant.

Anyway, I pretty much agree with you, but this kind of "justice" can't be done in America. It is sort of done in places like South Korea and Iran. The best solution I think is not reform in America, especially what you have here, but police and judges simply looking the other way in the case of more discreet forms of retaliation and revenge from families of victims.