McBell
Unbound
My apologies.
That comment was not directed at you personally.
It is just that your post is what made me think of it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Death Penalty
- Thread starter Mr Spinkles
- Start date
That comment was not directed at you personally.
It is just that your post is what made me think of it.
kai
ragamuffin
there's nothing like a few instances of man's inhumanity to man to make the "civilised" clinical killing of another human being seem acceptable.
how about the don't do as i do, do as i say angle? like hey! its wrong to kill someone so we are going to kill you. for doing so.
you cant really tidy it up, its ugly, smelly, and dehumanising for all concerned, we like to think we are better than murderers , more human in some way, that they are somehow inhuman.
That those things that happen in other countries is because they are "backward" or something, but that's only because we can do it in relative privacy with modern methods. We are more civilised with our killing, we can even do it by remote control.
I don't care what anyone says to be involved in the death of another person has an effect on you, maybe even years later. and i would be a little wary of anyone who wanted the job.
how about the don't do as i do, do as i say angle? like hey! its wrong to kill someone so we are going to kill you. for doing so.
you cant really tidy it up, its ugly, smelly, and dehumanising for all concerned, we like to think we are better than murderers , more human in some way, that they are somehow inhuman.
That those things that happen in other countries is because they are "backward" or something, but that's only because we can do it in relative privacy with modern methods. We are more civilised with our killing, we can even do it by remote control.
I don't care what anyone says to be involved in the death of another person has an effect on you, maybe even years later. and i would be a little wary of anyone who wanted the job.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Indeed.
Stephen, how is this anything other than a cheap appeal to emotion?
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
First, I don't see what's cheap about it.
Second, what's wrong with appealing to emotion?
Clearly those who believe killing others is worthy of their country have rationalized said belief to their own satisfaction.
The evidence seems to be against appealing to logic regarding the death penalty.
Regarding the point about posting images of victims I have already responded that
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Well, the fact that, rather than crafting an argument to help us understand your position, you'll just try to make us feel guilty about ours. I, for one, resent such tactics, and expect better of you.
What's wrong with any fallacy?
As have you.
Another cheap shot. I've made tremendous effort to understand your position.
Most of your responses were mere elaborations on the cheap appeal to emotion, and unworthy of response. This, however:
... is even worse. The goal of capital punishment isn't a body count, no more than the goal of incarceration is prison rape.
I'm very disappointed in you.
Amill
Apikoros
I don't really have a political opinion on the matter and I'm not sure which way I'd sway if it came to a vote, but I think the consequence of death for crimes is unavoidable. Life is brutal and unforgiving, and reciprocation for crimes is expected, especially in emotional creatures. Evolution played a part in the emotions we feel for people we love and like, and we are willing to defend them and want revenge on those who wronged us. It's part of human nature. We're still tribal, we hurt those that hurt us, and we cast out any wrongdoers within our group. Murderers, rapists, ect, know the possible consequences of their actions. I feel no empathy towards them. Do I like the idea of killing killers? Killing in general? No and I see the hypocrisy, but I really don't feel anything towards those that lose their life after committing atrocities, whether it be from someone defending their loved one within their home, or by lethal injection. It's part of life. I wouldn't feel sorry for a dog that died trying to attack the puppy of another dog either.
I think prisoners in for life are a waste of space and resources anyways. What's the point? Rehabilite those we think can make a comeback into society, and get rid of the rest. No one feels sorry for a murderer that gets killed in the heat of the moment, why do people feel so strongly about their death for the same crime at a later date? That person knew that he could be killed for what he was doing, and chose to do it anyways. The blame falls on him. Of course I would rather that "tribal" consequences would still exist. Back in the day if you committed some kind of bad act you would be cast out of that society and group, and you would lose the protection and help of your group and most likely die or be killed. These days it's much to easy to eek out a living, and there's nowhere to boot people to, so the consequences of committing horrible actions aren't as strong. So we have to decide what to do with these people, keep them locked away without any kind of production or value, or put them into the dirt. It's a hard decision.
My big issue with the death penalty is the fact that innocent people wrongly accused of crimes may and do get put to death, and that makes me feel very sad. That's what keeps me from leaning strongly towards support of the death penalty.
I think prisoners in for life are a waste of space and resources anyways. What's the point? Rehabilite those we think can make a comeback into society, and get rid of the rest. No one feels sorry for a murderer that gets killed in the heat of the moment, why do people feel so strongly about their death for the same crime at a later date? That person knew that he could be killed for what he was doing, and chose to do it anyways. The blame falls on him. Of course I would rather that "tribal" consequences would still exist. Back in the day if you committed some kind of bad act you would be cast out of that society and group, and you would lose the protection and help of your group and most likely die or be killed. These days it's much to easy to eek out a living, and there's nowhere to boot people to, so the consequences of committing horrible actions aren't as strong. So we have to decide what to do with these people, keep them locked away without any kind of production or value, or put them into the dirt. It's a hard decision.
My big issue with the death penalty is the fact that innocent people wrongly accused of crimes may and do get put to death, and that makes me feel very sad. That's what keeps me from leaning strongly towards support of the death penalty.
Last edited:
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
You shouldn't be.
Like I said to Mestemia
I am against killing. Your country is as you want it. My taking what you regard as cheap shots is inconsequential.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
In order of personal importance:
1) Admittedly, my primary goal is more emotional than rational: the aforementioned need to take a stand.
2) To serve justice. Whether you agree that this goal can be accomplished by capital punishment or not is subjective, but that's where we're coming from.
3) To prevent future crimes.
ETA: Those are just off the top of my head. I'm sure I could think of others if I tried.
kai
ragamuffin
Ok storm thanks but what is the stated aim of capital punishment in your state ( i take it it has capital punishment) and can a state or country have an emotional reason for such legislation?
misanthropic_clown
Active Member
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Your question demands more legal expertise than I possess, I'm afraid.
Still, I'll provide a bit of info, courtesy of the mighty Wiki:
Capital punishment is legal in the U.S. state of Oregon. The first execution under the territorial government was in 1851. Capital punishment was made explicitly legal by statute in 1864, and executions have been carried out exclusively at the Oregon State Penitentiary in Salem since 1904. The death penalty was outlawed between 1914 and 1920, again between 1964 and 1978, and then again between a 1981 Oregon Supreme Court ruling and a 1984 ballot measure.
Since 1904, about 60 individuals have been executed in Oregon. Thirty-two people are on Oregon's death row as of 3 January 2006.[1] The current method of execution in Oregon is lethal injection. Aggravated murder is the only crime subject to the penalty of death under Oregon law.
As you can see, Oregonians are rather ambivalent on the issue, collectively at least. Also, in the 8 years I've lived here, I've only heard it mentioned in one case: Ward Weaver, murderer of Ashley & Miranda (of whom you may have heard). In that case, the threat of capital punishment was used as leverage to get him to accept a plea bargain of life without the possibility of parole.Since 1904, about 60 individuals have been executed in Oregon. Thirty-two people are on Oregon's death row as of 3 January 2006.[1] The current method of execution in Oregon is lethal injection. Aggravated murder is the only crime subject to the penalty of death under Oregon law.
Well, obviously it CAN - a state is a body of people, after all.
But you obviously meant to ask if it should, and that's a bit trickier. I don't believe that laws should be based purely on emotion (that's how you get legal discrimination, among other things), but on issues like these, it's impossible to be purely rational, too. When you're talking about how to treat people like Ward Weaver, emotions run high on ALL sides. That needs to be taken into account and dealt with.
That probably wasn't a satisfactory answer, but it was an honest one.
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
That's not true.
Let's look at Iran for example:
In Iran, hanging is the most common form of execution.
In the United States, only 3 states have it legal, and over the course of the past 1174 executions, only 3 of them have been by hanging.
In Iran, hanging is instead done by slowly raising the condemned off the ground by the crane (as pictured), so that he will be painfully and slowly strangled to death by the noose. This method can take 39 minutes to cause the condemned to lose consciousness. Death can take anywhere up to 45 minutes to occur in this method.
In the United States, hanging is designed to have the condemned die immediately, perhaps even painlessly.
In Iran, they execute many people at one time, often in public.
In the United States, one person is executed at a time, in private.
Iran doesn't even have lethal injection.
The United States doesn't have stoning.
Iran executes people for apostasy (converting to a religion that isn't Islam) and for sodomy.
The United States will not execute anybody for anything other than murder, and has not done so since 1964.
Should I go on to other countries, or is this enough to show your statement that the US death penalty is the same as those other countries is foolish and unsupported?
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
Here's something interesting, from the 1972 Supreme Court dissenting opinion in the case of Furman V Georgia.
For those who don't know, this is the opinion in favor of retaining the death penalty:
While retribution alone may seem an unworthy justification in a moral sense, its utility in a system of criminal justice requiring public support has long been recognized. Lord Justice Denning, now Master of the Rolls of the Court of Appeal in England, testified on this subject before the British Royal Commission on Capital Punishment:
Many are inclined to test the efficacy of punishment solely by its value as a deterrent: but this is too narrow a view. Punishment is the way in which society expresses its denunciation of wrongdoing, and, in order to maintain respect for law, it is essential that the punishment inflicted for grave crimes should adequately reflect the revulsion felt by the great majority of citizens for them. It is a mistake to consider the objects of punishment as being deterrent or reformative or preventive, and nothing else. If this were so, we should not send to prison a man who was guilty of motor manslaughter, but only disqualify him from driving; but would public opinion be content with this? The truth is that some crimes are so outrageous that society insists on adequate punishment, because the wrongdoer deserves it, irrespective of whether it is a deterrent or not.
For those who don't know, this is the opinion in favor of retaining the death penalty:
While retribution alone may seem an unworthy justification in a moral sense, its utility in a system of criminal justice requiring public support has long been recognized. Lord Justice Denning, now Master of the Rolls of the Court of Appeal in England, testified on this subject before the British Royal Commission on Capital Punishment:
Many are inclined to test the efficacy of punishment solely by its value as a deterrent: but this is too narrow a view. Punishment is the way in which society expresses its denunciation of wrongdoing, and, in order to maintain respect for law, it is essential that the punishment inflicted for grave crimes should adequately reflect the revulsion felt by the great majority of citizens for them. It is a mistake to consider the objects of punishment as being deterrent or reformative or preventive, and nothing else. If this were so, we should not send to prison a man who was guilty of motor manslaughter, but only disqualify him from driving; but would public opinion be content with this? The truth is that some crimes are so outrageous that society insists on adequate punishment, because the wrongdoer deserves it, irrespective of whether it is a deterrent or not.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
This is what I was trying to say about taking a stand. Thank you
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
***MOD ADVISORY***
Several posts depicting executions have been removed from the thread due to their pornographic nature.
If you have questions or would like to challenge this action, please start a thread in site feedback and do not derail this thread.
Thanks
Several posts depicting executions have been removed from the thread due to their pornographic nature.
If you have questions or would like to challenge this action, please start a thread in site feedback and do not derail this thread.
Thanks
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
Actually yeah, I better calm down lol. Everybody has topics that they get heated on lol, I guess this topic is my "nerve" spot! xD
Although I gotta totally disagree why your idea of veiwing everyone as equal is the better position. Yeah, if they're all innocent then of course, but we're talking about Murderers and Rapists and Peadophiles!
You cannot just say that they're all equal to upstanding, law abiding civilized Citizens! What kinda of insult is that? So the person who spent 7 years in medical school and became a successfull Doctor and helped save the lives of many injured people, at the end of the day, will be equal in value and contribution, to a Murderer or Rapist?
So if you had to save only one of them, you'd struggle?
By viewing everyone as equal, regardless of what they've done, you're either:
1) Devaluing the lives of normal upstanding people.
or
2) Cherishing and favouring the lives of Murderers, Rapists and child molestors.
The reason I come to this conclusion is because whenever we judge someone, we do it off what they've said/done, and then we hold them in higher/lower regard. But you, even when faced with a murderer, will still judge him and still find him just as valuable as a Doctor. Either that or you judge the Doctor and the restof civilized society, and find them all equally as useless as the murderer.
That's the only way I can see it.
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
Does anybody else find this sequence of comments to be a bit odd?
Especially given that they occur in the same post?
Have you ever noticed how easily "justice" can be substituted for "vengeance"? Could they be synonyms? Could "justice" be a convenient euphamism?
The primary function of the justice system is to preserve social order by preventing vendetta. The government wreaks vengeance on those who harm or annoy us in a much more orderly fashion than the chaos that would ensue were we to take on the job individually.
Guilt or innocence is of little importance as long as the illusion of guilt can be created. It's all symbolic anyway. There's no rehabilitation. The point is to maintain order by finding someone to blame and publically hurting (punishing) him.
People claim to be good Christians. They laud justice, clemency, fairness. They talk endlessly about rehabilitation and crime reduction, but "civilization" just a thin veneer -- underneath it all they're a mob of vengeaful savages.
The primary function of the justice system is to preserve social order by preventing vendetta. The government wreaks vengeance on those who harm or annoy us in a much more orderly fashion than the chaos that would ensue were we to take on the job individually.
Guilt or innocence is of little importance as long as the illusion of guilt can be created. It's all symbolic anyway. There's no rehabilitation. The point is to maintain order by finding someone to blame and publically hurting (punishing) him.
People claim to be good Christians. They laud justice, clemency, fairness. They talk endlessly about rehabilitation and crime reduction, but "civilization" just a thin veneer -- underneath it all they're a mob of vengeaful savages.
Last edited by a moderator:
misanthropic_clown
Active Member
I don't accept the argument that saying someone doesn't deserve to die for their crimes means that we consider that individual to be equal to or better than law abiding citizens or better criminals.