Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seroquel
Printable View
Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seroquel
I have actually read a story of a man who spent 28 years in isolation. He had a little more freedom than what you're describing, but basically all he had was himself, a toilet and a bed, for 28 years. You wouldn't want any man to go through that, no matter how evil they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Osmodin
That's horrible. How did he handle it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvo
He's still in there. He wrote the story in order to win some sympathy from the state, so they would perhaps move him to a little more open facility.Quote:
Originally Posted by khh
Actually, now that I think about it, there are some very good reasons why you would not kill a terrible criminal even if there was no doubt as to whether or not he committed the heinous acts.
If you keep him in jail, you can always convince those people who cry out for the death penalty that he is actually suffering more than if he were simply put to death. And if he were in jail, it would silence the moralizers who have the "killing is always bad no matter what" mindset. You could also put the prisoners to work doing some form of slave labor. It's a full win.
There are only two possible functions of penal systems. Reduce risk from humans who break the law or to take revenge. Most systems are a combination of the two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Please explain to us all your conception of a "reasonable, moral approach" when judging a predatory serial killer.
A five year old would ask such a question because he is only able to analyze a situation based on the superficial details.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvo
Killing is not universally wrong. Nothing is universally wrong. Though I disagree with execution in these modern times, what if resources were very scarce? What if you had to make the decision to imprison somebody or get rid of him and feed an innocent person?
Killing is most definitely universally wrong. It may be the most efficient way, or quite possibly the only way, to handle certain situations but I'd still say it's wrong even if it is necessary. In my eyes at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Eagle
Put him in prison until he dies?Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Eagle
I don't understand how this was supposed to trip me up.
By the way, you don't seem to be aware of an extremely important function of prison, besides deterrence (which, with respect to capital punishment, demonstrably does not work for homicide) and revenge (which is savage); protecting the populace from a dangerous individual.
I'm not sure how you managed to forget such a basic aspect of the modern, enlightened approach to punishment... DV is repeatedly failing to impress me in this thread.
I think that it is fine...
As long as you can garantee it wont happen to an innocent person.
But how will you do that?
It should be avoided, sure. I just don't see any purpose in calling it wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinGill
Why is this the more moral option?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
...Which falls under the tent of risk mitigation/prevention. As in, reducing the risk of any given innocent person being murdered by throwing certain individuals who have proven capable of the crime in prison.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I'm going to tone down my language. Or at least try.
Because this isn't the option motivated by revenge. This is the option necessitated by protecting the public.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackEagle
Killing is immoral, and two wrongs do not make a right. These are the two extremely basic moral bases.
Such black and white thinking is unbecoming of you.Quote:
Killing is immoral
State executions are exactly the same. It's carried out for the protection of the public, which is why the state carries out the act, not the wronged parties.Quote:
Because this isn't the option motivated by revenge. This is the option necessitated by protecting the public.
Not to mention that wronged parties also seek imprisonment as a form of revenge.
This is tiresome. 'You're wrong' doesn't count as an argument. Claiming I'm dichotomising an ambiguous situation is ridiculous and concerning. Killing is only permissible when it's necessary to stop another act as serious (shooting somebody on a killing spree; arguably waging war with a tyrannical regime; etc.), but that's of absolutely no relevance here. That you can't recognise 'don't kill somebody if there's no reason' as a pretty good shot as an unconditional moral law is what is unbecoming here. Go on, be the first person to explain why we can waive the moral principles of 'don't kill if it isn't necessary', 'turn the other cheek', even the universal golden rule 'do as you would be done by'.
Your second response just suggests you don't understand the word 'necessitate'.
this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
actually, this pretty well sums up a paper I turned in for Ethical Theory titled 'Revenge of the State' (Star Wars connotation FTW). I got an A.
The death penalty is completely wrong. This is an issue that's black and white, and there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to wish the death of a detained human being unless it's out of hatred or fear. It's the murder of a fellow human being who poses absolutely no threat to society. Imprisonment for life is always an option. The number of people who actually escape prison is extremely low, and it wouldn't do any harm to the community if a felon was imprisoned for life. A large number of "criminals" have been found to have been innocent after execution with the use of new DNA evidence, and there's very rarely any certainty that the person convicted even committed the crime in the first place. There's also the deep racism in capital punishment; look at the statistics compared to the general U. S. population, and you'll see that judges and juries are disproportionately sentencing ethnic minorities.
Is it really right to judge other human beings and decide who gets to live and who dies? There are so many psychological factors that go into a crime, I would almost go so far to say that the criminal was not entirely responsible. People are often products of their environment, and had the criminal been raised in a different household, there's a significant chance that he/she would not have committed the crime. People can reform, and criminals aren't always evil monsters for life out to harm as many people as they can. Prison needs to be focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment. The concept of prison is good because it keeps those who pose a threat to society quarantined, therefore keeping society safe; however, rather than give up on people who have made mistakes, the prison needs to be focused on reforming them so that they can reenter society and become happy citizens. Everyone has a right to life, and it's really not fair to take away someone's life because he/she made a mistake. (If you even think about responding with the "life's not fair" cliche, know that you hold a terribly pessimistic and defeatist worldview. If a society possesses the means by which to make things fairer, it is the moral obligation of all those with power to do so.)
This isn't a good reason to do something, but I'm going to say it anyways: sentencing people to death is economically indefensible. It's much cheaper to sentence people to life in prison, complete with food, clothing, and shelter than it is to execute, primarily due to legal fees. If the government outlawed capital punishment, it would save a significant amount of money that could be placed in other areas where funds are needed.
[sarcasm]Of course. We should just give murderers and rapists a good "talking to."[/sarcasm]Quote:
Originally Posted by GMoney
He didn't say they shouldn't be punished, he just said that it's stupid to put someone to death. Rehabilitate when possible and indefinitely imprison the ones that are beyond rehabilitation but make sure they're time behind bars is being put to good use.
I am against the death penalty. The only reason to kill is emotional. It doesn’t help anyone. The only reasonable argument I can understand for the death penalty is that it scares people into not killing, but statistics prove this isn’t true.
Let’s put our emotions aside for a moment here (because of course, if someone were to kill one of my family members, I would be completely consumed by emotion, and would post a completely different argument). The fact that the criminal “gets what they deserve” is irrelevant. This doesn’t help us. They could be served grapes in utopia if it further prevented murders.
The purpose of imprisonment should be for safety (confining criminals) and rehabilitation. And of course, rehabilitation often is not a possibility, but denying anyone that right demoralizes us. If you could magically wave a wand and turn a serial killer into a good doer, would you not, because they should get what they deserve? That satisfying your deep anger is more important than improving society?
This debate is simple. The death penalty doesn’t help anyone. It satisfies your emotions. It’s not easy to say “let’s help a murderer become better”, but its morally right (in my opinion).
Xei is right - two wrongs do not make a right. Execution probably does not even deter criminals more than life imprisonment, and on top of that it may only serve to evoke hatred and anger and encourage further violence.
On an economic standpoint, it's cheaper to keep them alive and in prison. On a moral standpoint, what if there is even a fraction of a percent of a chance that they didn't do it? DNA evidence has exonerated various "life" sentences already.
An eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye... eventually the whole world will go blind.
Well, that's a really difficult question to answer!
To be honest, there are a lot of criminals (murderers, rapists, etc.) out there which - in my opinion - should receive an unadorned 'eye for an eye'-treatment so that they experience the cruelty of their deeds firsthand; they shall suffer just as much as their victims did. And though I do know that the rule of law does not acquiesce revenge at all, I feel like someone who intentionally (!) caused pain and/or took life away completely loses his right on inviolacy.
Generally speaking, I'm pro death penalty as it does not bring back someone to life but at least frees the society from subjects like above-mentioned criminals. But: It's irrevocable, so it can only be executed when there's not the least bit of skepticism!
Now you can lapidate me for my view on this topic.
It has very little to do with hatred or fear, especially fear....lol!!Quote:
This is an issue that's black and white, and there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to wish the death of a detained human being unless it's out of hatred or fear.
Do you know what happens in the animal kingdom when one its members never quite "develops" the basic skills to whatever?
No, fear only has a small roll in the decision to take out the trash, if any fear is to blame it's on the part of the individual's moral stand point who becomes hung up on some false sense of morality.
We all instinctively know what needs to be done, some of us more than others.
I'm sorry if this has been mentioned already, but to anyone here who hasn't, I highly reccomend you read Truman Capote's In Cold Blood. It's very well written and serves as a pretty interesting reality check on the issue of capital punishment.
I say get rid of the bad people, or make life time in prison actually mean lifetime in prison.
I am sick of all this "good behavior" bullshit. They took away someone's life, to me they forfeit their own life by taking another's, so they should either: die or work till they die.
My ideas on this topic are varied. I don't really subscribe to any particular opinion.
More than the question of "Should we enforce the death penalty?", I wonder "Is there a way to live happily without the threat of force hanging over our heads?". If we could give all of the people in an area satisfaction, and raise them away from external influences that often lead to lives of crime, is it possible that we could have so few murderers or criminals that the death penalty would become a non-issue in itself? I don't know that humans have the right to kill other humans, but I also don't know that we shouldn't. I'm not even sure if the threat of prison or death is an efficient way to prevent crime. Based on our current practices, AKA killing enemy soldiers in war, I'm not so sure it's all that wrong to kill enemy (murderers) individuals in our own country.
Then again, I don't really think war is justified, either.
It's a problem, for sure. The best way to solve it, I think, would be to have the country (whichever one you live in) systematically define what is wrong and right. As it is now, we are hypocrites. The things we consider wrong and right are really not so different from each other. (Not really "we" as in individuals, but "we" as in "our country")
Yep.
in canada we dont have death penalty and i think that is wrong there was this guy down in calgary who decapatted a guy and he was let out of jail and im just like wtf thats not right its really stupid
so yes i do