Do you believe in the death penalty?

[suncowiam]

On the contrary, I was merely illustrating that the "appeal to emotion" argument cuts (or rather fails) both ways - more than one supporter of the death penalty declaring that they would be happy to carry out or watch the execution - that's just another way of stating the argument in your second paragraph, which - under sober consideration must be as invalid as the argument you are attributing to me. I already indicated that my intent was not to bring emotion into it but to eliminate it as a valid argument. Judging by your response, I think I've done that.

So in summary - we have now eliminated financial cost, emotion (including revenge), rehabilitation (obviously), reparation (equally obviously) and "self-defense" (protection of society) as valid arguments for the death penalty. What is left? @Aupmanyav 's 'unavoidable' dharma (duty) to maintain 'order'? But is it really 'unavoidable' given that there are no other imperatives that favour death over life without parole?

Personally, I am left with doubt over only one possibility and that's @Madhuri 's "mercy killing" - I just don't know how we could know whether death really is preferable to life in a cage (unless we give the convicted murderer the option). I feel we should probably err on the side of caution and I'm guessing most death-rowers would probably agree.

I will have to admit that I was wrong about the economic factors. I misunderstood what you were previously implying with the overhead and legal costs.

After visiting several websites on the matter, the extra costs comes from placing inmates in death row as opposed to a more simple prison sentence. Death row inmates require almost twice as much cost due to mostly legal matters than non death row inmates.

The Cost of Life Without Parole

OK. I will have to consider this more before I continue. I still have no issues with murderers being killed for their actions, but if the cost to do so hurts the society concerning costs then I need to reconsider. Folks don't like to talk about money but money is really just an equivalence of resources. If we can save on any costs, which could be given to the less fortunate or even infrastructural things like education and health care, then we have to consider it.

Thanks

 

[Koldo]

And you consider revenge a justification.

If you had just read some more in the link...

"Retributive justice is a theory of justice which holds that the best response to a crime is a proportionate[1] punishment, inflicted for its own sake rather than to serve an extrinsic social purpose, such as deterrence or rehabilitation of the offender. Retributivists hold that when an offender breaks the law, justice requires that the criminal suffer in return. They maintain that retribution differs from revenge, in that retributive justice is only directed at wrongs, has inherent limits, is not personal, involves no pleasure at the suffering of others[2] and employs procedural standards.[3][4]"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you had just read some more in the link...

"Retributive justice is a theory of justice which holds that the best response to a crime is a proportionate[1] punishment, inflicted for its own sake rather than to serve an extrinsic social purpose, such as deterrence or rehabilitation of the offender. Retributivists hold that when an offender breaks the law, justice requires that the criminal suffer in return. They maintain that retribution differs from revenge, in that retributive justice is only directed at wrongs, has inherent limits, is not personal, involves no pleasure at the suffering of others[2] and employs procedural standards.[3][4]"

I read it; I disagree with it.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

If you had just read some more in the link...

"Retributive justice is a theory of justice which holds that the best response to a crime is a proportionate[1] punishment, inflicted for its own sake rather than to serve an extrinsic social purpose, such as deterrence or rehabilitation of the offender. Retributivists hold that when an offender breaks the law, justice requires that the criminal suffer in return. They maintain that retribution differs from revenge, in that retributive justice is only directed at wrongs, has inherent limits, is not personal, involves no pleasure at the suffering of others[2] and employs procedural standards.[3][4]"

I disagree with it too. Revenge is "the action of inflicting hurt or harm on someone for an injury or wrong suffered at their hands." and "inflict hurt or harm on someone for an injury or wrong done to (someone else)."
If a offender must suffer for the suffering they caused, that is by definition revenge. And it is far more personal than Restorative Justice, which focuses on correcting the damage done to the person or community. That is impersonal. Retributive Justice is focused on making the offender suffer. That is personal.

I also think Retributive justice sucks at abstraction (what's the proper punishment for accidental injury due to neglect according to Retributive justice? In Restorative justice it would be to have the offender cover the cost to restore them to prior injury. In Retributive justice they should suffer a subjective, even arbitrary, amount.) and creates escalated violence (i.e. a criminal kills a rape victim or witnesses to a murder because he loses nothing by doing so but may gain freedom if successful.).

 

[psychoslice]

Even Osho too have commented on reincarnation as a factual truth. Buddha talked about rebirth.

I know my past lives as well, and established the cause and effect sequence among events in my life along with my habitual inclinations from that in the past.

Reincarnation as a science had existed for many milleniums in the east and there are techniques to know past lives that have been developed over there.

In the ancient west, Socrates, Plato and Pythagoras held belief in reincarnation.

In the west, the likes of Dr. Brian Weiss and Dr. Michael Newton achieved it through hypnotic regression. However western psychology does not have the same duration of time as eastern psychology and hence it is just tapping into the secrets which the east had known for a long time.

The death penalty can destroy the physical body of the criminal, but not his unconscious psychological tendencies which force him to err, and which can reincarnate again.

Hence the death penalty is not a very effective way to deter crime. As stated before, a holistic education is needed for the cultivation of moral and sensitive minds which would refrain from crime, and eliminate all inner unconscious tendencies for crime.

Angulimala, a serial killer in ancient India who was reformed by the Buddha is a great example in this regard.

As Victor Hugo stated, "He who opens a school door, closes a prison"

The only thing that carries on is our pure Source or Consciousness, but no our identity or personality, that does not carry on for that isn't who we truly are.

 

[Koldo]

I disagree with it too. Revenge is "the action of inflicting hurt or harm on someone for an injury or wrong suffered at their hands." and "inflict hurt or harm on someone for an injury or wrong done to (someone else)."
If a offender must suffer for the suffering they caused, that is by definition revenge.

Dictionary definitions are often way too simplistic.
To show one example, I could simply mention that the following definition for 'harm' can be found on this dictionary : "Physical or psychological damage or injury", and that 'damage' has the following listed as on one of its definitions: "loss of something desirable".
Therefore, depriving someone of its freedom, or in other words putting someone in jail, is revenge.

So, I would be cautious on using the dictionary since it can easily fail to grasp the conotative meaning of the words.

And it is far more personal than Restorative Justice, which focuses on correcting the damage done to the person or community. That is impersonal. Retributive Justice is focused on making the offender suffer. That is personal.

I don't understand your use of the word 'personal' here. Can you elaborate ?

I also think Retributive justice sucks at abstraction (what's the proper punishment for accidental injury due to neglect according to Retributive justice? In Restorative justice it would be to have the offender cover the cost to restore them to prior injury. In Retributive justice they should suffer a subjective, even arbitrary, amount.)...

Not everything can be repaired though. How does restorative justice work on that case ?
If the criminal kills someone's dog, how can that be repaired ?

And if what must be repaired is either too hard to measure or can't be properly repaired by the criminal, what would restorative justice do ?
Think of someone that is now suffering from panic disorder after being kidnapped and finds himself now unable to work. The criminal might not have the means to pay for the treatment plus the loss of income. How are the job opportunities that might have been missed going to be factored in ?

... and creates escalated violence (i.e. a criminal kills a rape victim or witnesses to a murder because he loses nothing by doing so but may gain freedom if successful.).

The same applies to life imprisonment though.

 

[ajay0]

The only thing that carries on is our pure Source or Consciousness, but no our identity or personality, that does not carry on for that isn't who we truly are.

The impurities that carry on with this pure Source or Consciousness is our karmas , projecting as desires, likes and dislikes, cravings and aversions.

It is when these impurities are completely eliminated that nirvana or enlightenment occurs.

A good person, as distinguished from an evil person, is one in whom these impurities are of lesser intensity in comparison. This results in the likes and dislikes not being amplified into cravings and aversions, which in turn results in excessive lust, greed, anger, hatred, ego , jealousy which creates the basis for conflict and criminal tendencies.

 

[psychoslice]

The impurities that carry on with this pure Source or Consciousness is our karmas , projecting as desires, likes and dislikes, cravings and aversions.

It is when these impurities are completely eliminated that nirvana or enlightenment occurs.

A good person, as distinguished from an evil person, is one in whom these impurities are of lesser intensity in comparison. This results in the likes and dislikes not being amplified into cravings and aversions, which in turn results in excessive lust, greed, anger, hatred, ego , jealousy which creates the basis for conflict and criminal tendencies.

Thanks for your opinion but its not my truth, or experience, why would any part of our personality carry on, its not even who we truly are, to believe we are the personality is to believe in the illusion that we are the mind body organism, which in truth we are not, but it doesn't matter what w think because either way we will never know.

 

[ajay0]

Thanks for your opinion but its not my truth, or experience, why would any part of our personality carry on, its not even who we truly are, to believe we are the personality is to believe in the illusion that we are the mind body organism, which in truth we are not, but it doesn't matter what w think because either way we will never know.

I only gave my educated opinion as well. Without psychological insight and knowledge, one cannot give a precise and proper judgement on this issue.

 

[psychoslice]

I only gave my educated opinion as well. Without psychological insight and knowledge, one cannot give a precise and proper judgement on this issue.

True, but its fun to play with.

 

[IndigoStorm]

Do you?

You mean the old "eye for an eye" and "tooth for a tooth" as found in Exodus?

I am 100% in favor of the death penalty for murder, rape and child abuse.

We read so much about the rights of the perpetrators of these crimes.

What about the fact that the murderer, rapist or child abuser took away every right their victim had.

 

[savagewind]

I changed my vote to no. There are too many ways that the death penalty can be applied wrongly imo.

 

[metis]

I changed my vote to no. There are too many ways that the death penalty can be applied wrongly imo.

I don't know if the FBI estimate from several decades ago still holds true but they said that roughly 1/10 of the felony convictions they believe are erroneous. It's one thing to be falsely imprisoned, but it's quite another to be dead.

 

[savagewind]

I don't know if the FBI estimate from several decades ago still holds true but they said that roughly 1/10 of the felony convictions they believe are erroneous. It's one thing to be falsely imprisoned, but it's quite another to be dead.

I hear prison can be worse than death.

 

[metis]

I hear prison can be worse than death.

Why don't you try them and then come back and tell us.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Dictionary definitions are often way too simplistic.
To show one example, I could simply mention that the following definition for 'harm' can be found on this dictionary : "Physical or psychological damage or injury", and that 'damage' has the following listed as on one of its definitions: "loss of something desirable".
Therefore, depriving someone of its freedom, or in other words putting someone in jail, is revenge.

So, I would be cautious on using the dictionary since it can easily fail to grasp the conotative meaning of the words.

This seems like pretty classic cherry picking to me. If they're not using a lay definition of revenge what definition are they using? A legal one?

I don't understand your use of the word 'personal' here. Can you elaborate ?

Restorative justice is not about what's to be done to the criminal, it's what's to be done for society. It's not about the person (the criminal.) Retribution justice is focused on a person, namely the criminal.

Not everything can be repaired though. How does restorative justice work on that case ?
If the criminal kills someone's dog, how can that be repaired ?

I'm no judge, but probably in a more constructive way than 'you should kill the criminal's dog to show them killing dogs are wrong'.

And if what must be repaired is either too hard to measure or can't be properly repaired by the criminal, what would restorative justice do ?
Think of someone that is now suffering from panic disorder after being kidnapped and finds himself now unable to work

Restorative justice isn't about making the criminal pay, it's not focused on the criminal at all. It's focused on repairing the damage done to society and the victim, so monetary compensation for a determination of value lost, including work, is metted out regardless of if the criminal can pay for it. Sometimes it's through insurances, sometimes through state programs. Again, I'm not a judge or lawyer so I couldn't give you more details without further research.

The same applies to life imprisonment though.

Neverminding that life sentences aren't really, alive > not alive. And 'without possibility of parole' is incredibly rare.

What about the fact that the murderer, rapist or child abuser took away every right their victim had.

Two wrongs makes a right?
I'm a rape victim, and I certainly wouldn't have wanted my assailant killed. That wouldn't have helped me heal, just let me indulge in a revenge distraction. Plus, if execution was on the table he might have killed me to prevent me from talking. I'd rather be alive.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If a person is convicted of more than one murder and he goes to prison for life, but he escapes and kills again you might feel different about not executing him. No? What if the person he kills is you, your partner or your child?

What if you were the killer and it took you awhile before you grew into a change of heart to better your life? Would you want someone else other than god to dictate whether your heart has actually changed and for you to die, or would you like them to help you be less danger to society?

Murder isn't an isolated event from the regular everyday Joe Smoe. We are affected by other people's death. I have met murderers and I have met good friends I'd never consider to harm a fly. They are both human beings.

I'd never want someone to dictate whether I have a chance of heart just because of an action not what I believe and who I am as a person. If you've read The Count of Monte Cristo (not the movie) or the movie Shawshank Redemption, you can see how prison affects people. If you wish people who murder to have a harsh consequence, execution is a "cheap way out." The mind is a powerful thing. People have died mentally in front of me and that is worse than any execution. I know this from experience.

I like the Church's perspective on this. Many prison missionaries go to jails (as I went with them once) to teach people about Christ and scripture. It wouldn't be anyone but that person and god to know whether that prisoner's heart has been changed. We don't know. But killing him wouldn't make his healing process faster than my killing spring ants knowing they will come back next year.

If you were a prisoner, would you want someone to kill you for the murders you committed or would you like help to better your life in society not only with your god but with people as a whole?

 

[savagewind]

What if you were the killer and it took you awhile before you grew into a change of heart to better your life? Would you want someone else other than god to dictate whether your heart has actually changed and for you to die, or would you like them to help you be less danger to society?

If I have murdered with evil intent and then I had a change of heart and I felt sorry, it might be a kindness for God to cause the death of me or my conscience would nag me for the rest of my life.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If I have murdered with evil intent and then I had a change of heart and I felt sorry, it might be a kindness for God to cause the death of me or my conscience would nag me for the rest of my life.

You'd want death to be your punishment if you had the chance to change yourself in this life (if people let you instead of execute you)?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

If I have murdered with evil intent and then I had a change of heart and I felt sorry, it might be a kindness for God to cause the death of me or my conscience would nag me for the rest of my life.

Wouldn't your conscience nag you to make amends, do good works, etc in your repentance? Gives you the opportunity to do more than speak about how you're sorry.