The Death Penalty

[Kontiki]

That's always been my problem with the cost argument as well - it supposes that the death penalty necessarily means an expensive and lengthy appeals process.

Personally, I'm against the DP as it currently exists in the US (don't have it in Canada) simply because of the inconsistency with its application and room for error. However, I have nothing in principle against the execution of people like Charles Manson or Clifford Olsen (a Canadian serial killer you may or may not have heard of).

[ajbera]

I know Olsen well. After he was caught, asked for $10k per confession to each victim (11 of them). Gave the money to his wife. An FBI agent once visited him, and Olsen boasted he had to be imprisoned behind a wall of plexiglass, like Hannibal Lecter. Didn't tell the Fed he needed the wall to protect himself from the sh!t thrown at him by other inmates.

[Cyclotron]

No, I haven't heard of him, but that sounds like the type we're talking about here.

From a detached point of view, I don't think that killing him offers any benefits to society. Now, I'm not a relative to the victim; perhaps I have the luxury of being detached because I haven't had one of these sick individuals personally hurt or kill someone I cared about.

Only a few years ago, a friend of mine on campus was raped; this is one of my closest friends. I did not know the person, but it would have been relatively easy to find them if I wanted to. But aside from the fact that this would have been stupid on my part, there just wasn't any point. Of course I was angry, but the primary duty of someone in my position was to be there for the person hurt, not be a vigilante. Aside from that, while I'm not really a Christian, I grew up as one and the idea of forgiving people has stuck with me. I think it was Socrates (I'm not sure, I'm loosely paraphrasing) who supposedly said that men only do immoral things because they don't understand the immorality of their actions at the time; if they understood, they wouldn't have done it. Getting vengeance wouldn't change what happened, and it wasn't what my friend would have wanted anyway.

Of course, murder is more severe than this; my example isn't perfect. But I would like to think that I would be able to forgive and move on, understanding that the most productive thing I could do would be to help keep that person from hurting someone ever again; I would like to think that I wouldn't care whether his "punishment fit the crime" or whether he "deserved death." I don't think people are fit to judge that.

But you can only say for sure if it actually happens to you, and it hasn't - so I can't.

[ajbera]

I sometimes think that a convicted murderer should be made to do something constructive with his remaining time on the planet; there are many things inmates can do to justify their continued existence. If they fail to do something constructive, kill them. That at least helps maintain a balance - someone was removed from the world, and the world has lost the energy that person could use to help and nurture it. To continue to exist, the murderer must replace the lost energy of the victim. If he fails to do so, nullify him. Or, for those anti-CP folks, solitary confinement, bread & water, no priveleges.

[SlowwHand]

I'm going to try to back off this and let others have a say, but you're talking about turning the other cheek.
Another of what I consider misunderstood instructions.
Actually, what it means, I have no idea.
What circumstances it's supposed to cover. Not murder.
I know the dead victim can't turn anything.
I also think that if you literally follow that line of thought that it doesn't mean you get slapped more than once.
It doesn't say repetively turn the other cheek.
More along the lines of "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me".

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I'm going to try to back off this and let others have a say, but you're talking about turning the other cheek.
Another of what I consider misunderstood instructions.
Actually, what it means, I have no idea.
What circumstances it's supposed to cover. Not murder.
I know the dead victim can't turn anything.
I also think that if you literally follow that line of thought that it doesn't mean you get slapped more than once.
It doesn't say repetively turn the other cheek.
More along the lines of "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me".

I don't take it so far as that. If the school authorities/police laughed at my friend when she was raped, for instance, my actions might have been quite a bit different. I also think that turning the other cheek, in some circumstances, will just get you slapped more.

In the case I was discussing, however, i think there is a difference between turning the other cheek and forgiveness - I came to forgive the person who did it, as did my friend who was the victim, but that doesn't mean I ignored it as if it hadn't happened. Had I been questioned by school authorities on the matter, I would have cooperated fully and tried to get the offender punished. It would have been unacceptable to me if he was not punished. That aside, however, I eventually wasn't mad anymore because I realized it wasn't constructive.

So I do think that there should, absolutely, be consequences for people's actions. I just don't think that those consequences should be motivated by anger, vengeance, or a desire to give them "what they deserve." Of course, when choosing a sentence, this is something the court/judge must consider - what does this person deserve, in the interest of society? - but killing somebody does not, IMO, serve society, and thus it doesn't make sense to me to talk about someone deserving death. Maybe they do, on some moral or cosmic level, but that's not what everyone believes - and it's not my place to decide that, nor the place of any other person.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
" Yet most American proponents of the Death penalty would blanche at tax evaders getting hung but would demand the murderer be killed."

This right here sums up how frivilous some view things.
Why don't we give jaywalkers 25 years?
After all, it's conceivable they could be struck, thus traumatizing the driver for life.


There are penalties for tax evaders. Penalties that fit the crime.

"Penalties that fit the crime"...what a bunch of crock.

That is the point Slowwly. What punishment is adequate is 100% subjective. Therefore, ANY PUNISHMENT can "fit the crime". Back in 1600 stealing a cow was a death penalty offense. Heck, most crimes were death penalty offense. The people of 1600 would view you as a weak womanly idiot for even thinking that anyone so perfidious as to steal a mans cow should not he killed on the spot.

I always hear conservatives spout about the importance of family values. If family values are so paarmount, then why is death to adulterers bad? Would it not deter the breaking up of families? Thus meaning less crime in the future? Would you not save lives by taking those lives of individuals who harm society so much?

And that is what it boils down to. The two litigants in all criminal cases are the defendent, AND THE STATE. Crime and the punishment enforced for an activity is purely a function of the relative harm an act is supposed to have on the well-being of the state. Different states under different circusmatnces will enforce different standards of justice. If you state that the state can be given the power to end the lives of individuals for certain crimes so injurious to the polity an example needs to be made, thenh you really have no gorund to stand on and pontificate about how only certain, limited crimes, merit it. Once you give the state the power to end life as a punishment, well, your arguements about why it should only apply to murder are not based on anything logical, but simply your feelings and opinions, and honestly, I could give a **** about those.

[SlowwHand]

We're not living in 1600.

For instance, horse thieves were hung. Why?
Because to lose one's horse in what was a wild and lawless land, (full of pissed off Native Americans also)severly put the victim at risk.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
We're not living in 1600.

For instance, horse thieves were hung. Why?
Because to lose one's horse in what was a wild and lawless land, (full of pissed off Native Americans also)severly put the victim at risk.

1. SO what if we don't live in 1600, or 2000BC, or 1850. The basic moral and legal issues have not changed. They rarely do. Cultural sensitivities change, but not the underlying principles.

2. So you are saying that a crime which puts others "at risk" would be sufficient for the DP? So arson should be a death penalty crime, right? Drug dealing, of course, should also be DP. Crank calls to 911, certainly a DP crime....What about political dissent? Endangers all society, and therefore, everyone. Certainly such a terrible act deserves death, and swiftly. I mean, even our liberal constitution mandates Death for treason. We need just define it the "right" way. Not paying your taxes at a time of war is certainly undermines the government's ability to wage it, therefore giving comfort to the enemy. Treasonous behavior all around. Puts everyone at risk. Obviously, a DP case.

[SlowwHand]

Because the circumstances DO change.

You think calling 911 unwarranted is ok.
What if the people calling 911 as a joke occupy a cop's time when if he were on patol, he might stop a murder.


Keep on being a wiseass, that's ok.

[SlowwHand]

But no, it's not a DP offense.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SlowwHand

Keep on being a wiseass, that's ok.

Thanks -- you're a pretty nice guy for giving us this permission.

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Simply this. If they can't be rehabilitated, they remain a constant threat.

Originally posted by Cyclotron

Since serial killers cannot be rehabilitated, they must be removed from society.

First time I saw this, thought "OK, that proposition is entirely contrary to the most fundamental Christian teachings. So, there must be something worthwhile about it."

But the fact is, I can't think of a single legitimate philosophical context which would support those statements.

So I surrender. Clearly, serial killers are a brand new species of life. Unlike man, teh serials cannot change or be rehabilitated. They should therefore be exterminated before they are allowed to go out and colonise other galaxies.

Or not. A large part of your arguments seem to hinge on the assumption that there exists a certain class of beings which are not subject to change. I really do not understand. What is the basis of this proposition?

[Kuciwalker]

First time I saw this, thought "OK, that proposition is entirely contrary to the most fundamental Christian teachings. So, there must be something worthwhile about it."

Erm, who cares about Christian teachings? Esp. amongst the Christians?

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Agathon

Some of them might do bad things to each other, but that is part of the deterrent effect of prisons. Not wanting to be assraped is a powerful deterrent.

Very shoddy thinking

We also know that it is possible to run a society like Australia ... without having extreme punishments of any sort

So putting up with Kiwis isn't "extreme punishment?!!"