The Death Penalty

[Storm]

Yes, I do,

Same question as Nepenthe, then: why?

and I'd much rather save the victim from having to go through the crime by recognizing someone with those tendencies and intervening BEFORE some poor little girl finds out first hand.

Absolutely, yes! I'm just far, FAR from convinced that it's possible.

Crime Times- linking brain dysfunction to disordered/ criminal/ psychopathic behavior

There are many cases like the one above.

It's food for thought. to be sure, but how do you know how common it is? Just my instinct talking, but I'd be willing to bet such cases are a staggering minority.

Furthermore, the threat of penalty only encourages such a person to hide his problem, whereas the chance for help would draw them many of them out of the woodwork.

Now, that's a good argument. I'll chew it over a bit, but my knee jerk reaction is that I just don't have that much faith in humanity.

We know that many of them feel remorse.

I know I'm biased, but I think most of them feign remorse for parole boards.

 

[MSizer]

Same question as Nepenthe, then: why?

Absolutely, yes! I'm just far, FAR from convinced that it's possible.


It's food for thought. to be sure, but how do you know how common it is? Just my instinct talking, but I'd be willing to bet such cases are a staggering minority.


Now, that's a good argument. I'll chew it over a bit, but my knee jerk reaction is that I just don't have that much faith in humanity.


I know I'm biased, but I think most of them feign remorse for parole boards.

I understand your incredulity, but I feel that it's my responsibility as someone who is gifted with a decent life to pursue means for improving the lives of others. I've done a lot of (admittedly armchair) research and thought, and I'm of the opinion that our sense of morality is becomming outdated in some ways, and in order to improve living conditions for humans on a whole, we need to start considering some options we didn't have in the past (brain science being one of them, as well as environmental respect). There are many people who disagree with me, and that's fine, but I do what I feel is right, and so do they. I am hopeful for humanity, and I think humanity, like all creatures, are equally deserving of happiness by virtue of existence, so I'm trying to refine my understanding of what I can do promotes "improved" lives for humanity as a whole. I don't expect a mother of a child raped and murdered to agree with me, nor even find it in herslef to like me, but I hope that I can contribute in a small part to the eventual non-existence of rape victims altogther.

 

[Storm]

I understand your incredulity, but I feel that it's my responsibility as someone who is gifted with a decent life to pursue means for improving the lives of others. I've done a lot of (admittedly armchair) research and thought, and I'm of the opinion that our sense of morality is becomming outdated in some ways, and in order to improve living conditions for humans on a whole, we need to start considering some options we didn't have in the past (brain science being one of them, as well as environmental respect). There are many people who disagree with me, and that's fine, but I do what I feel is right, and so do they. I am hopeful for humanity, and I think humanity, like all creatures, are equally deserving of happiness by virtue of existence, so I'm trying to refine my understanding of what I can do promotes "improved" lives for humanity as a whole. I don't expect a mother of a child raped and murdered to agree with me, nor even find it in herslef to like me, but I hope that I can contribute in a small part to the eventual non-existence of rape victims altogther.

Well, as you said, I'm incredulous about your theories, but I certainly agree with your goal.

 

[monta]

Maybe it's an effective deterrent and maybe it isn't. I don't know, and tbh, I care very little. It strikes me that prison isn't much of a deterrent, either. At any rate, it serves at least one practical purpose: threat of the death penalty often spurs criminals to accept plea bargains of life without possibility of parole. This spares the state the expense of prosecution, and more importantly, spares the victims/ families the emotional roller coaster of a lengthy trial and the possibility (however slim) of a monster going free.

If it isn't a detterent then it is just an act of revenge or an attempt to quell fear, neither of these emotions can reasonably be included in any law.

But it's not about that. It's about drawing a line in the sand. About taking a stand on things that we simply will. not. tolerate. That some things are simply unforgiveable. It's not so much about the darkness as how far we're willing to go to fight it.

It just isn't that important to me what a murderer or a rapist thinks after he or she has committed the crime, I firmly believe any money used for punitive measures is wasted and would serve society, better when used to educate and prevent future crimes.

I often wonder, though, how heavily my stance on this is influenced by other factors. I have no fear of death, and indeed, would prefer it to incarceration. Then there's the theological angle: I believe that the "souls" of such people are suffering, and that death will release them. I also have an admittedly rather primitive understanding of justice: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. UU spurs me to seek a better way, but when the ideal falls to ugly reality, my instincts are rather harsh. And finally, this is all very personal to me. As you may recall, I was horrifically abused as a child. I've made my own kind of peace with that, and I'm obviously not unbiased, but I truly believe that my abusers are beyond redemption, and the only way to stop them is death.

I know your own situation was absolutely horrible, and I know it is not isolated, but revenge for the child who has been assaulted, while understandable has little to do with justice in my opinion.

Put all that together, and perhaps I accept the idea of capital punishment a little too readily, but that's where I stand.

My stance is this, I don't expect someone to do what I would not do myself, I would not participate in an execution, I think the doctors that do so are in violation of the hippocratic oath and should be struck off. Killing another person is an abhorrent act to me, no matter what that person has done.

If someone brutalised or killed someone I loved I might want them dead, I might even kill them myself, who knows, but I would expect the law to punish me in the same way as any other murderer.

 

[Enoch07]

I understand your incredulity, but I feel that it's my responsibility as someone who is gifted with a decent life to pursue means for improving the lives of others. I've done a lot of (admittedly armchair) research and thought, and I'm of the opinion that our sense of morality is becomming outdated in some ways, and in order to improve living conditions for humans on a whole, we need to start considering some options we didn't have in the past (brain science being one of them, as well as environmental respect). There are many people who disagree with me, and that's fine, but I do what I feel is right, and so do they. I am hopeful for humanity, and I think humanity, like all creatures, are equally deserving of happiness by virtue of existence, so I'm trying to refine my understanding of what I can do promotes "improved" lives for humanity as a whole. I don't expect a mother of a child raped and murdered to agree with me, nor even find it in herslef to like me, but I hope that I can contribute in a small part to the eventual non-existence of rape victims altogther.

I wonder if it was your child that was raped and murdered, would you still be so indifferent to rapist and murderers? I would hope not.

 

[MSizer]

I wonder if it was your child that was raped and murdered, would you still be so indifferent to rapist and murderers? I would hope not.

Then you've missed my point completely. How am I indifferent? Do you think I'm suggesting we ignore the problem and let them continue what they do unchecked? Of course not.

How angry a victim gets (which is completely understandable) is not what determines good vs. bad. Of course my heart goes out to those people, but that doesn't make them automaticly wise or authorities on ethics. In fact if anything, it would most likely create a great bias in them.

 

[MSizer]

Well, as you said, I'm incredulous about your theories, but I certainly agree with your goal.

For the record, I don't actually claim to have the answers myself, I just think that they are attainable, and I admit that your doubt is not unreasonable.

 

[Storm]

If it isn't a detterent then it is just an act of revenge or an attempt to quell fear, neither of these emotions can reasonably be included in any law.

See, I don't think so.

It just isn't that important to me what a murderer or a rapist thinks after he or she has committed the crime, I firmly believe any money used for punitive measures is wasted and would serve society, better when used to educate and prevent future crimes.

I don't seem to've communicated clearly. It's not about what the criminal thinks, it's about US. Taking a stand, sending a message.

It's basically the flip side of the BSG "you can't rape a machine" debate. All that matters is our response.

I know your own situation was absolutely horrible, and I know it is not isolated, but revenge for the child who has been assaulted, while understandable has little to do with justice in my opinion.

How are you defining justice and revenge?

To me, justice is harsh, yes, but simply a necessary removal of a threat, like putting down a rabid dog. Revenge is escalation, or at least taking pleasure in the punishment.

My stance is this, I don't expect someone to do what I would not do myself, I would not participate in an execution, I think the doctors that do so are in violation of the hippocratic oath and should be struck off.

I don't think doctors should be used myself, due to the conflict. I wouldn't go so far as to disbar them, though.

Killing another person is an abhorrent act to me, no matter what that person has done.

I don't, and I think this is the crux of the matter.

If someone brutalised or killed someone I loved I might want them dead, I might even kill them myself, who knows, but I would expect the law to punish me in the same way as any other murderer.

Now see, I would consider that revenge. That's what vigilanteism is. The individual, especially the victim, cannot be trusted to enact justice, because they're too close to see clearly.

 

[sandandfoam]

Then you've missed my point completely. How angry a person gets (which is completely understandable) is not what determines good vs. bad. Of course my heart goes out to those people, but that doesn't make them automaticly wise or authorities on ethics. In fact if anything, it would most likely create a great bias in them.

Spot on.
If anyone put a hand on my child no law would hold me. But I would be wrong.
Whatever way you dress it up the death penalty is barbaric. You will have it in the USA if you want, As will China, Saudi Arabia etc.
Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and the death penalty show a harsh face to the world.

I think this demonstrates a coarseness and barbarity in your countries. I will argue against it but at the end of the day if a country decides to behave in a brutal manner towards it's own citizens I can't stop it.

 

[Storm]

For the record, I don't actually claim to have the answers myself, I just think that they are attainable, and I admit that your doubt is not unreasonable.

Fair enough.

So, what if the answers aren't attainable? What do we do then? Hell, what do we do in the interim?

 

[Storm]

Spot on.
If anyone put a hand on my child no law would hold me. But I would be wrong.
Whatever way you dress it up the death penalty is barbaric. You will have it in the USA if you want, As will China, Saudi Arabia etc.
Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and the death penalty show a harsh face to the world.

I think this demonstrates a coarseness and barbarity in your countries.

Obviously, this is a very emotional issue for many people on both sides. I've done my best to explain my feelings, will you do the same?

 

[sandandfoam]

Obviously, this is a very emotional issue for many people on both sides. I've done my best to explain my feelings, will you do the same?

Of course. You mean regarding the barbarity?

 

[Storm]

Of course. You mean regarding the barbarity?

And your general opposition.

 

[monta]

I don't seem to've communicated clearly. It's not about what the criminal thinks, it's about US. Taking a stand, sending a message.

It's basically the flip side of the BSG "you can't rape a machine" debate. All that matters is our response.
quote]

To whom are you sending a message, this is what I don't understand.

I also fail to see the difference between killing someone yourself and expecting the state to do it for you. They both seem like the acts of a vigilante to me.

 

[MSizer]

If it isn't a detterent then it is just an act of revenge or an attempt to quell fear, neither of these emotions can reasonably be included in any law.

It just isn't that important to me what a murderer or a rapist thinks after he or she has committed the crime, I firmly believe any money used for punitive measures is wasted and would serve society, better when used to educate and prevent future crimes.

I agree that the act of capital punishment (or any punishment for that matter) may in fact be rooted in our primal desires for revenge, but at the same time we can't ignore the benefit of punishment in maintaining social order. I agree very much with you on the idea of searching for ways to prevent rather than to punish after the fact, but we also have to strike a balance, because we can't deny that solutions toward "prevention" are only in their very beginning stages, and far from effective yet in most cases. That's why I think neurology is so important. I think it will unlock solutions to things that for now we only can deal with after they've occured (which isn't much use really if you ask me). I think neurology has the promise of significantly improving our ability to prevent many problems have today.

 

[Storm]

To whom are you sending a message, this is what I don't understand.

To everyone, ourselves included.

I also fail to see the difference between killing someone yourself and expecting the state to do it for you. They both seem like the acts of a vigilante to me.

Do you see a difference between locking someone in your basement for 20 years and sending them to prison?

 

[sandandfoam]

And your general opposition.

I hate killing.
I don't eat meat. I try not even squash flies if I can help it.
I believe life is sacred. No one is entitled to take it. Not in any circumstances. I do not believe that a government that takes life respects it.

 

[Storm]

OK, then. Thank you.

 

[Nepenthe]

I'm hardly an expert. What are the problems you see with the appeals process?

Oh I'm no expert either, not even an "internet expert" (), but my concern would be that speeding up an admittedly expensive and prolonged appeals process would open the doors to false convictions and other miscarriages of justice.

Would you mind elaborating on this?

My basic opposition to capital punishment is that I think it's immoral and a violation of basic human rights. Government should be responsible for feeding, housing, health care, defense, etc.- besides the obvious national defense I think defense against crime is a given as well, but the death penalty is a punishment, not a defense. The execution of a convicted murderer oversteps the boundaries of what I expect my government to be capable of deciding; when it comes to such an irreversible decision I think it's best to err in favor of life in prison.

Excluding self defense, crimes of passion, insanity, etc.... why? I honestly don't get it.

I probably answered in the response above, but I think it's profoundly immoral to kill someone outside of self defense, etc. Killing a criminal who has been apprehended is immoral imo. I'm not going to cry any tears over a scumbag like, say, Richard Allen Davis if he's ever executed, but I can't morally justify the decision to execute.

I see no moral distinction between conviction of innocents due to penalty. Yes, an incarcerated innocent can be freed, but they'll still live with all the consequences of incarceration.

I do see a distinction: an incarcerated innocent convict can better themselves, work towards a degree, file appeals to exonerate themselves, etc. Death is final.

 

[pastor dave]

i am very much in favour of the death penalty, but i have absolutely no faith in this system to be unbiased enough to carry out justice without harming the innocent.