The death penalty. Are you against it or for it?

[metis]

Yes, but you see, we've been killing people since we've been people -- and it hasn't stopped anything. This is called "observing the effects of past actions, to see what the result was."

Here in the States, the homicide rate per 100,000 is overall higher in states that have capital punishment than those who don't.

BTW, Michigan was the first state to eliminate it because the wrong person was executed.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Here in the States, the homicide rate per 100,000 is overall higher in states that have capital punishment than those who don't.

BTW, Michigan was the first state to eliminate it because the wrong person was executed.

In the U.S., 24 states still have the death penalty, while Canada has no death penalty anywhere. So, a couple of comparisons are in order (my stats are from the year 2000):

• Canada, 1.8 homicides per 100,000 ---- U.S. 5.5 per 100,000, or 3 times higher
• Canada, 61 sexual assaults per 100,000 ---- U.S. 135 per 100,000, or 2.2 times higher

I would say the evidence shows that harsher punishments don't have the effect that many people assume they do.

 

[Secret Chief]

 

[Koldo]

But then were are doing the same thing ourselves because there are other alternatives.

Not at all.
There is a distinction between killing evil people and killing people in general.

 

[Trailblazer]

Some confusion here. Kitab-i-Aqdas as written by your manfestation from Allah. How come Abdul-Baha tries to write a 'tablet' on it! Did the manifestation of Allah say something which was not clear / doubtful that Abdul-Baha had to explain it?

Abdu'l-Baha was one of the appointed interpreters of Baha'u'llah's writings and the Centre of His Covenant so he explained the writings of Baha'u'llah. That does not mean that what Baha'u'llah wrote was not clear.

 

[Trailblazer]

But then were are doing the same thing ourselves because there are other alternatives.

I was not suggesting that were remove all evil people who commit the crime of murder. I was saying that was the only 'surefire way' to get rid of them.... A better way would be for those evil people to choose not to murder.

 

[metis]

Not at all.
There is a distinction between killing evil people and killing people in general.

"Evil people" is not appropriate here as murder is often called a "crime of passion", namely that there are often other factors involved. However, that doesn't excuse murder, so please don't take it that way.

Either way, since there are other options, I prefer being "pro-life" over being "pro-death".

 

[metis]

I was not suggesting that were remove all evil people who commit the crime of murder. I was saying that was the only 'surefire way' to get rid of them.... A better way would be for those evil people to choose not to murder.

Thanks for the clarification, but I'm not fond of "getting rid of them"-- just my hang-up, I guess.

 

[Trailblazer]

Thanks for the clarification, but I'm not fond of "getting rid of them"-- just my hang-up, I guess.

I'm not I'm not fond of "getting rid of them" but I would like to get rid of the murders they commit.

 

[metis]

I'm not I'm not fond of "getting rid of them" but I would like to get rid of the murders they commit.

That would be nice, but I'm afraid that's not possible.

 

[Curious George]

We're talking about criminal law that applies to everyone, so you're apparently suggesting that everyone follow whatever philosophy you had in mind.

No, i am not.

Killing a murderer pays back a debt to the murderer?

If you want me to take this idea seriously, you'd have to explain how this would work.

Criminal courts deal with the harm against society. Stealing for instance. Sure you have taken something from someone, but you have also breached social agreements.

Criminals have the right to remedy the harm to society. Allowing for punishment allows for criminals to remedy this harm.

So what benefit does society get from this "payment"?

Order. Knowing that consequences exist for unlawful behavior builds trust that others will abide laws.

I know.


How is it "more pragmatic"?

And if "more pragmatic" doesn't translate to "better" in some way, why should we care?

Less energy, less worry, more convenience. Better is some way does not equal better.

 

[Trailblazer]

That would be nice, but I'm afraid that's not possible.

No, probably not any time soon.

 

[Kooky]

People on each side of wars have choices, are trained, given weapons, told what the war is about(even if its BS), told to kill or be killed, etc.

Then there is ...

A grown man and a young female child. He kidnaps her, molests her, rapes her, tortures her, kills her. She had no choice on anything. It was all forced upon her against her will for no reason.

Do you see a difference yet.

The overwhelming majority of the victims of warfare are civilians, in a lot of cases women and children, who tend to be killed in similarly gruesome ways by combatants as the hypothetical children you are alluding to.

 

[Kooky]

No, i am not.

Criminal courts deal with the harm against society. Stealing for instance. Sure you have taken something from someone, but you have also breached social agreements.

Criminals have the right to remedy the harm to society. Allowing for punishment allows for criminals to remedy this harm.
[...]

Sorry, but as a point of order - we do not "allow" for punishment in a state-organized society, the state forces it on the criminal without the requirement of anybody's consent.

 

[We Never Know]

The overwhelming majority of the victims of warfare are civilians, in a lot of cases women and children, who tend to be killed in similarly gruesome ways by combatants as the hypothetical children you are alluding to.

War does have innocent casualties. Casualties of war are quite different from casualties of underage molestation and rape by grown men.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

A better way would be for those evil people to choose not to murder.

A lot of murderers aren't bad people. They were in wrong places at wrong times. They were in moments where emotions and tensions were heightened. They blackout. They intend to hurt, but not kill.

 

[We Never Know]

"Evil people" is not appropriate here as murder is often called a "crime of passion", namely that there are often other factors involved. However, that doesn't excuse murder, so please don't take it that way.

Either way, since there are other options, I prefer being "pro-life" over being "pro-death".

Isn't it odd that.....
"pro-life" people are against the death penalty and for abortion
whereas
"pro-death" people are against abortion and for the death penalty

 

[Trailblazer]

A lot of murderers aren't bad people. They were in wrong places at wrong times. They were in moments where emotions and tensions were heightened. They blackout. They intend to hurt, but not kill.

Try telling that to the judge and jury.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Abdu'l-Baha was one of the appointed interpreters of Baha'u'llah's writings and the Centre of His Covenant so he explained the writings of Baha'u'llah. That does not mean that what Baha'u'llah wrote was not clear.

If what Bahaollah wrote was clear, then there was no need for Abdul-Baha to write a 'tablet' about it. What a funny use of the word 'tablet'. Did Abdul-Baha write it on a piece of clay like the Mesopotamians did? Why don't you people do away with farce? Chacer's English and tablets! Gibberish like getteth, giveth, bringeth, shrinketh.

 

[Curious George]

Sorry, but as a point of order - we do not "allow" for punishment in a state-organized society, the state forces it on the criminal without the requirement of anybody's consent.

I have also heard school children bemoan that education is forced upon them.

And by "the state," i assume you mean "we."