View Full Version : Killing People
There is something that has always really puzzled me. People seem to freak out if someone believes that someone deserves to die. Don't some people though? (Just to clarify, I am not talking about murder or breaking the law. I am talking about war, and legal punishment for crime.)
Is war always dark and horrible, or are there times you just have to go and kill some people for the good of yourself or others?
Say Random Country 1 (1), with the nearly unanimous support of their population and military started attacking Random Country 2 (2) because they did not like their religion, and started massacring the populace without provocation. Would there really be anything wrong with going over there and defeating them? Would it be wrong to want to kill them because of what they did and because of how they think? Where do you draw the line? If most of the population believes in exterminating their neighbors because of their race or religion, are you justified in exterminating their populace, or does that make you a genocidal crazy just like them? If you don't and a few decades down the road they go at it again, are you responsible for that genocide because you did not do what could have stopped it?
Also with crime, is it wrong to put a murderer or rapist to death? If they were convicted falsely, you are a murderer. If they were not, and you don't kill them, and they kill someone else, are you not just as much of a murderer? If you know for a fact that someone murdered someone (many eye witnesses, confession, etc.), is it wrong to want to kill them for what they did? For the type of person they are? Are you just vindictive?
I know it is a sensitive issue, which is exactly why I wanted to talk about it. Basically it gets down to do you think that some people just need killing? Personally, I think that some people do (which is not to say you can just kill whoever you want, there needs to be law and due process), but I am not sure where I stand on many of the intricacies of the subject.
What is your opinion?
Montmorency
03-03-2012, 22:13
If everyone were Hitler, would I be justified in murdering my neighbors and claiming their homes?
If everyone were Hitler, would I be justified in murdering my neighbors and claiming their homes?
You wouldn't have the chance, because you would end up in a gas chamber.
EDIT: Seriously though Montmorency, you know I said within the confines of law and obviously assumed within the confines of reality. Let's go with that though. Say your neighbor is Hitler and he abducts your five children and your wife, rapes them, tortures them, and then gases them all to death. The police arrest him for what he did, and have videos he took of him committing the crime as proof. Do you think that the government should sentence him to death? Or is even a person capable of that immune to the death penalty in your book?
Montmorency
03-03-2012, 22:19
But everyone knows Hitlers don't get their hands dirty, so I would have free reign.
But everyone knows Hitlers don't get their hands dirty, so I would have free reign.
Yes, funny, haha. How about answering the above post seriously though?
gaelic cowboy
03-03-2012, 22:23
Your question should be "Is it sensible to want a society that thinks Death is enough of a solution to x and an end in itself"
Yes sometimes war can be a solution but really I cannot think of any society that actually was completely made up so many loopers it needed to be exterminated.
Germans eventually saw the awful thing they had done in the end, is it not better that they to grew up rather than the allies repeat the mistake by exterminating them.
Yes we have wars of liberation but it's always a table they sit at in the end of it all so it kinda says something about how we view killing.
I cannot agree we should kill prisoners no matter how vile the crime or cast iron the guilt, we all know the stories of the falsely accused etc etc the saving of just one of those is worth it.
Montmorency
03-03-2012, 22:24
I don't have a (discursive) moral stance on killing. :shrug:
Say Random Country 1 (1), with the nearly unanimous support of their population and military started attacking Random Country 2 (2) because they did not like their religion, and started massacring the populace without provocation. Would there really be anything wrong with going over there and defeating them?
Like Iran in the Iran-Iraq war?
If most of the population believes in exterminating their neighbors because of their race or religion, are you justified in exterminating their populace, or does that make you a genocidal crazy just like them?
When does this ever happen?
Also with crime, is it wrong to put a murderer or rapist to death? If they were convicted falsely, you are a murderer. If they were not, and you don't kill them, and they kill someone else, are you not just as much of a murderer? If you know for a fact that someone murdered someone (many eye witnesses, confession, etc.), is it wrong to want to kill them for what they did?
Well, I think so, but not everyone shares my opinion. In any case, I dislike the death penalty especially for the reason just specified: most of the times, we can't know for sure. Furthermore, I'd say that there is always the possibility that the criminal feels remorse. I don't know, I don't think we should judge about life and death.
Vuk, nothing personal, but I think you seriously have to overthink things. Reading your posts, I get the feeling that you have a very one-sided world view. By using vague hypothetical situations (without even pretending to refer to real situations) you completely skirt over any kind of subtleties. It's a bit worrying, in my opinion.
Your question should be "Is it sensible to want a society that thinks Death is enough of a solution to x"
The wording was a deliberate choice. It was the uproar concerning General James Mattis's comments that got me thinking about this.
Yes sometimes war can be a solution but really I cannot think of any society that actually was completely made up so many loopers it needed to be exterminated. Germans eventually saw the awful thing they had done is it not better they were allowed to grow up as it ather than for the allies to repeat there mistake.
While I agree with you (at least in the context of the modern world, though I can think of some ancient societies that the world would have been better off with...I am looking at you Rome), I wanted to put the most extreme of both sides on the table for discussion.
I cannot agree we should kill prisoners no matter how vile the crime or cast iron the guilt, we all know the stories of the falsely accused etc etc the saving of just one of those is worth it.
And what about all those you could save by not allowing offenders to repeat their crimes?
Like Iran in the Iran-Iraq war?
When does this ever happen?
I didn't say that it did. I am discussing principles here, and not real situations. What I am asking is how far people are willing to take their principles. I personally don't think something like that is ever ok in the modern world, but I stated the extremes of both positions anyway.
Well, I think so, but not everyone shares my opinion. In any case, I dislike the death penalty especially for the reason just specified: most of the times, we can't know for sure. Furthermore, I'd say that there is always the possibility that the criminal feels remorse. I don't know, I don't think we should judge about life and death.
Vuk, nothing personal, but I think you seriously have to overthink things. Reading your posts, I get the feeling that you have a very one-sided world view. By using vague hypothetical situations (without even pretending to refer to real situations) you completely skirt over any kind of subtleties. It's a bit worrying, in my opinion.
Who cares if a criminal feels remorse? Does that make the person they killed come alive? You can often never know 100% whether or not a suspect committed a crime, but you can never know for sure whether or not they feel remorse. If you guess wrong, more people could die because of it. Is that not a problem?
Also, nothing personal, but I don't think you understand my post. Do I think a murderer deserves to die? Absolutely. I don't think there is any grey area there. There can be grey area in determining whether or not someone is a murderer, but if they, it is my opinion that they deserve death. I make no pretense there.
And aren't you just as one-sided in your view that people should not be put to death? Or by one sided did you mean not holding your view?
gaelic cowboy
03-03-2012, 22:36
And what about all those you could save by not allowing offenders to repeat their crimes?
Explain and expand on this statement Vuk
Stating we must kill people because other innocent people might be later killed on release makes no sense.
We cannot prove any such crimes will occur but we can be 100% sure not everyone executed worldwide is guilty.
Explain and expand on this statement Vuk
Stating we must kill people because other innocent people might be later killed on release makes no sense.
We cannot prove any such crimes will occur but we can be 100% sure not everyone executed worldwide is guilty.
No, but you know the likelihood that if you let someone out of prison who was convicted of murder he will kill again. You may not know for 100% certain, but you know there is an enormous likelihood, and your actions make it possible.
If I close my eyes and point a loaded gun into a crowd and press the trigger, I don't know for sure if I will kill people, but I do know for sure that my actions will greatly increase the likelihood of someone being killed. Am I not a murderer if someone gets killed?
How so is it any different with someone who lets a confessed and convicted killer out of prison, knowing that it will greatly increase the chance of someone being murdered? Are they not just as much a murder as the one who closes his eyes and shoots toward a crowd?
gaelic cowboy
03-03-2012, 22:59
No, but you know the likelihood that if you let someone out of prison who was convicted of murder he will kill again. You may not know for 100% certain, but you know there is an enormous likelihood, and your actions make it possible.
You would be on more solid ground if your statement had been started this way.
No, but you know the likelihood that if you let someone out of prison who was convicted of murder they might kill again. You may not know for 100% certain, but you know there is an enormous likelihood, and your actions make it possible.
Now it makes more sense but it still does not mean we need capital punishment.
If I close my eyes and point a loaded gun into a crowd and press the trigger, I don't know for sure if I will kill people, but I do know for sure that my actions will greatly increase the likelihood of someone being killed. Am I not a murderer if someone gets killed?
Yes you are a murder and willfully negligent in your actions even if you had not meant to kill anyone, but really Vuk how is this relevant to the present discussion.
How so is it any different with someone who lets a confessed and convicted killer out of prison, knowing that it will greatly increase the chance of someone being murdered? Are they not just as much a murder as the one who closes his eyes and shoots toward a crowd?
No
Rhyfelwyr
03-04-2012, 00:13
Vuk I get the mindset you are coming from where everything is very absolute and it's all about harsh justice etc.
But ask yourself. In the examples you are giving, does taking that approach really make the world a better place?
Killers can be reformed. Why not help them change and become contributing members of society? Hatred between different religions or nationalities is more a sort of collective madness than a reflection on the personalities of the individuals involved. Why not remove the hatred and live in peace?
Supporting the death penalty and the right of militaries to kill in self-defence are very mainstream opinions, but you are using extreme and pretty bizarre arguments to take those principles and apply them in a very hardline, impractical and chaotic way.
a completely inoffensive name
03-04-2012, 03:08
I kept trying to remove all the nuance from my world view.....but it's just not working. Sorry Vuk, looks like I am still seeing shades of gray.
Centurion1
03-04-2012, 03:19
This topic has merit as grounds for a backroom debate let's actually try to keep this one going and not just dismiss it out of hand.
a completely inoffensive name
03-04-2012, 03:24
No one except the religious should have a reason to tolerate the death penalty under any sorts.
A. Left minded people will reach this conclusion from the view point of prisoner's rights/human rights.
B. Right minded people should come to this conclusion from the view point of not legalizing the practice of government killing its own citizens. There really should never be any sort of situation where government is "allowed" to murder a citizen. Pretending otherwise is just as silly as pretending that we really will never need the 2nd Amendment.
Rhyfelwyr
03-04-2012, 03:29
A. Left minded people will.
B. Right minded people should.
Cool, and open minded people debate the topic. :wink:
a completely inoffensive name
03-04-2012, 03:37
Cool, and open minded people debate the topic. :wink:
If some one who identifies himself as right wing wants to take a shot at why government should be able to kill its citizens and try not to be a hypocrite, go right ahead.
Papewaio
03-04-2012, 04:23
If you cannot be 100% certain that a criminal committed a crime the punishment should have the same level of certainty.
The death penalty is 100% certain once carried out. Surely killing an innocent person is wrong, bad for an individual to do, terrifying for a terrorist to commit, chilling for a government to be allowed to do.
Consider the amount of times they can get simple things wrong and then giving the government the ability to administer the death penalty. Sounds like expecting too much from a government.
Ibn-Khaldun
03-04-2012, 04:54
Death sentence for murders should be allowed. You can't "reform" them. How could you "reform" a serial killer? Or why should other people pay for him having a good life in prison? I mean free food, roof over their head, all these different ways to educate themselves? Some prisoners have much better life than people living outside. Shouldn't the government take care of the people who haven't committed crimes first? Terrorists, serial killers, psychopaths etc deserve to get killed.
a completely inoffensive name
03-04-2012, 05:17
It is essentially self defense--you're taking someone who has demonstrated an utter unwillingness to be a civilized individual (murder, rape, ect.) and protecting your society from them.
Keeping them in jail forever achieves the same goal.
Ibn-Khaldun
03-04-2012, 05:26
Keeping them in jail forever achieves the same goal.
I guy kills your family. He is sent to prison. And then they ask you to pay for his food and for all other expenses needed to keep him there. Are you really willing to pay all that money so that a guy who killed your family could live quite good life in the prison?
Don't you want him to die for his crime?
a completely inoffensive name
03-04-2012, 05:38
I guy kills your family. He is sent to prison. And then they ask you to pay for his food and for all other expenses needed to keep him there. Are you really willing to pay all that money so that a guy who killed your family could live quite good life in the prison?
Don't you want him to die for his crime?
No. Society is better than its most disturbed members. Government should not have the power to legally kill its citizens. Granting the government that power out of bloodlust is barbaric. Granting the government that power out of "economics" reeks of the same kind of logic that has propelled failed liberal experiments.
Death sentence for murders should be allowed. You can't "reform" them. How could you "reform" a serial killer? Or why should other people pay for him having a good life in prison? I mean free food, roof over their head, all these different ways to educate themselves? Some prisoners have much better life than people living outside. Shouldn't the government take care of the people who haven't committed crimes first? Terrorists, serial killers, psychopaths etc deserve to get killed.
We can always reform the prison system so it isn't "the good life" anymore, we don't have to resort to the death penalty.
Ibn-Khaldun
03-04-2012, 05:58
You can't change murderers. No matter how much you want. You could compare them with tigers/lions. Once a man-eater, always a man-eater.
Changes in the prison system doesn't change anything. We shouldn't work with the consequences but with the source of this problem.
Sasaki Kojiro
03-04-2012, 06:00
No. Society is better than its most disturbed members. Government should not have the power to legally kill its citizens. Granting the government that power out of bloodlust is barbaric. Granting the government that power out of "economics" reeks of the same kind of logic that has propelled failed liberal experiments.
JS mill argued that life in prison was the barbaric option, iirc.
Don't see the point in talking about "bloodlust" and the gov't "murdering its citizens".
You also have to consider that in some cases people are not content with prison and will take justice into their own hands.
a completely inoffensive name
03-04-2012, 06:00
We shouldn't work with the consequences but with the source of this problem.
That's disingenuous, you can't stop murderers from being born.
Montmorency
03-04-2012, 06:04
That's disingenuous, you can't stop murderers from being born.
Soon... :mellow:
a completely inoffensive name
03-04-2012, 06:04
JS mill argued that life in prison was the barbaric option, iirc.
Mill was a smart man. But like Kant, his philosophy leaves much to be desired.
Don't see the point in talking about "bloodlust" and the gov't "murdering its citizens".
When you blatantly ask, "Don't you want to see him dead?" Are you asking that from a position of justice or a position of anger? Think carefully about how most people are.
The murdering it's citizens logic is similar to the 2nd amendment. We have the 2nd amendment just in case. We should deny legalized murder just in case.
You also have to consider that in some cases people are not content with prison and will take justice into their own hands.
I cannot speak towards what individuals should or should not do, only what government can or cannot do.
Ibn-Khaldun
03-04-2012, 06:07
That's disingenuous, you can't stop murderers from being born.
So, people born to be a murderer? It's all in the genes? If a child is borned then there is no way to teach them to value life?
a completely inoffensive name
03-04-2012, 06:12
So, people born to be a murderer? It's all in the genes? If a child is borned then there is no way to teach them to value life?
Some people are....broken. No other way to put it. Society itself is never perfect either. People fall through the cracks, get isolated, become dangerous. Talking about preventing the cause of murderers is like talking about preventing the cause of poverty. It's a silly question because there is no singular cause and many of them stem from human beings being flawed.
Sasaki Kojiro
03-04-2012, 06:24
Mill was a smart man. But like Kant, his philosophy leaves much to be desired.
The point being--he had a reason for believing as he did, despite being left wing...
When you blatantly ask, "Don't you want to see him dead?" Are you asking that from a position of justice or a position of anger? Think carefully about how most people are.
You are talking about the inevitability of humans being flawed in one post, and saying justice must be totally divorced from anger in the other? Justice can be angry. It's not like we are having the family of the murder victim decide the sentence.
The murdering it's citizens logic is similar to the 2nd amendment. We have the 2nd amendment just in case. We should deny legalized murder just in case.
It's not murder, was the point. And it's perfectly possible that we would need for the government to have the ability to execute.
I cannot speak towards what individuals should or should not do, only what government can or cannot do.
It has to take into account what the individuals will do.
a completely inoffensive name
03-04-2012, 06:33
The point being--he had a reason for believing as he did, despite being left wing...
If you accept the reason as valid....which I am not sure it is since the arguments of Utilitarianism seems more and more sketchy to me.
You are talking about the inevitability of humans being flawed in one post, and saying justice must be totally divorced from anger in the other? Justice can be angry. It's not like we are having the family of the murder victim decide the sentence.
You have to try to separate the two, otherwise you might as well have the family decide. Justice can be angry yes, but it rarely works out in a reasonable manner.
It's not murder, was the point. And it's perfectly possible that we would need for the government to have the ability to execute.
Besides for enemy combatants? I don't see what kind of non-military proceedings should lead to a death penalty.
It has to take into account what the individuals will do.
Why?
Strike For The South
03-04-2012, 07:06
Things are never as simple as the OP makes them
a completely inoffensive name
03-04-2012, 08:28
I agree. Revenge should not be the goal of the penal system, and if financially feasible then keeping them in jail forever is better. But, if it wasn't feasible, and exile isn't an option, what can you do besides kill such people? I'm not against the death penalty because I think killing is wrong, I'm against the death penalty because I don't think the system is capable of making the right judgement 100% of the time. Collateral damage is fine in war, but not in a civilized legal system.
I think the finances of keeping criminals in jail forever works out if we stop arresting people for a couple ounces of their recreational drug of choice. We would probably even be spending less.
Sasaki Kojiro
03-04-2012, 09:04
If you accept the reason as valid....which I am not sure it is since the arguments of Utilitarianism seems more and more sketchy to me.
You have to try to separate the two, otherwise you might as well have the family decide. Justice can be angry yes, but it rarely works out in a reasonable manner.
Besides for enemy combatants? I don't see what kind of non-military proceedings should lead to a death penalty.
Why?
"Few, I think, would venture to propose, as a punishment for aggravated murder, less than imprisonment with hard labor for life; that is the fate to which a murderer would be consigned by the mercy which shrinks from putting him to death. But has it been sufficiently considered what sort of a mercy this is, and what kind of life it leaves to him?...What comparison can there really be, in point of severity, between consigning a man to the short pang of a rapid death, and immuring him in a living tomb, there to linger out what may be a long life in the hardest and most monotonous toil, without any of its alleviations or rewards—debarred from all pleasant sights and sounds, and cut off from all earthly hope, except a slight mitigation of bodily restraint, or a small improvement of diet?
...
Much has been said of the sanctity of human life, and the absurdity of supposing that we can teach respect for life by ourselves destroying it. But I am surprised at the employment of this argument, for it is one which might be brought against any punishment whatever. It is not human life only, not human life as such, that ought to be sacred to us, but human feelings. The human capacity of suffering is what we should cause to be respected, not the mere capacity of existing. And we may imagine somebody asking how we can teach people not to inflict suffering by ourselves inflicting it? But to this I should answer—all of us would answer—that to deter by suffering from inflicting suffering is not only possible, but the very purpose of penal justice."
What do you object to here?
a completely inoffensive name
03-04-2012, 10:23
"Few, I think, would venture to propose, as a punishment for aggravated murder, less than imprisonment with hard labor for life; that is the fate to which a murderer would be consigned by the mercy which shrinks from putting him to death. But has it been sufficiently considered what sort of a mercy this is, and what kind of life it leaves to him?...What comparison can there really be, in point of severity, between consigning a man to the short pang of a rapid death, and immuring him in a living tomb, there to linger out what may be a long life in the hardest and most monotonous toil, without any of its alleviations or rewards—debarred from all pleasant sights and sounds, and cut off from all earthly hope, except a slight mitigation of bodily restraint, or a small improvement of diet?
...
Much has been said of the sanctity of human life, and the absurdity of supposing that we can teach respect for life by ourselves destroying it. But I am surprised at the employment of this argument, for it is one which might be brought against any punishment whatever. It is not human life only, not human life as such, that ought to be sacred to us, but human feelings. The human capacity of suffering is what we should cause to be respected, not the mere capacity of existing. And we may imagine somebody asking how we can teach people not to inflict suffering by ourselves inflicting it? But to this I should answer—all of us would answer—that to deter by suffering from inflicting suffering is not only possible, but the very purpose of penal justice."
What do you object to here?
You have caught me in a trap.
I can say that if Mill admits the purpose of penal justice is to prevent suffering by inflicting suffering, then we should advocate for life in prison since according to him it inflicts more suffering than death and should be an even greater teaching tool to people not to commit such acts. But then I am contradicting what I said earlier:
No one except the religious should have a reason to tolerate the death penalty under any sorts.
A. Left minded people will reach this conclusion from the view point of prisoner's rights/human rights.
Since Mill's rationale against life is prison is to minimize suffering due to his belief that human capacity to suffer is what we should respect. Thus my above statement that caring about the prisoner will always lead to advocating life in prison invalid.
Thus my attempt at fixing this thread up from Vuk's horrific rambling comes to an end and I must default back to my original statement before I tried giving a go at Vuk's black and white world:
I kept trying to remove all the nuance from my world view.....but it's just not working. Sorry Vuk, looks like I am still seeing shades of gray.
Now I want to pick up the copy of J.S.Mill's essays I have on my book shelf and start reading.
gaelic cowboy
03-04-2012, 12:07
You can't change murderers. No matter how much you want. You could compare them with tigers/lions. Once a man-eater, always a man-eater.
you have proof the people who committed murders are completely unreformable or is this just a gut feeling you have.
Changes in the prison system doesn't change anything. We shouldn't work with the consequences but with the source of this problem.
Excellant idea since we know the death penalty doesn't prevent murders it wont matter if we remove it then.
B. Right minded people should come to this conclusion from the view point of not legalizing the practice of government killing its own citizens. There really should never be any sort of situation where government is "allowed" to murder a citizen. Pretending otherwise is just as silly as pretending that we really will never need the 2nd Amendment.
Locking someone up for the rest of their lives is already pretty extreme. It is true that the death penalty implies the permanent silencing of a voice, but a voice in a prison is not easy to hear, regardless. Provided that it is actually carried out, there is not that much difference between the death penalty and the rest of the life in a jail in terms of a government's ability to control the life of this particular citizen.
Revenge should not be the goal of the penal system
What is then justice? If the judiciary did not take revenge on behalf of the offended, then there would be no justice, only preventive measures. "You go to jail so that hopefully fewer people will commit this act than what would otherwise have been the case."
gaelic cowboy
03-04-2012, 12:27
Locking someone up for the rest of their lives is already pretty extreme. It is true that the death penalty implies the permanent silencing of a voice, but a voice in a prison is not easy to hear, regardless. Provided that it is actually carried out, there is not that much difference between the death penalty and the rest of the life in a jail in terms of a government's ability to control the life of this particular citizen.
Indeed it is extreme but it's still not the ultimate sanction.
You have caught me in a trap.
I can say that if Mill admits the purpose of penal justice is to prevent suffering by inflicting suffering, then we should advocate for life in prison since according to him it inflicts more suffering than death and should be an even greater teaching tool to people not to commit such acts. But then I am contradicting what I said earlier:
Since Mill's rationale against life is prison is to minimize suffering due to his belief that human capacity to suffer is what we should respect. Thus my above statement that caring about the prisoner will always lead to advocating life in prison invalid.
Thus my attempt at fixing this thread up from Vuk's horrific rambling comes to an end and I must default back to my original statement before I tried giving a go at Vuk's black and white world:
Now I want to pick up the copy of J.S.Mill's essays I have on my book shelf and start reading.
lol ACIN, the entire point was to separate the principles of your beliefs from the complexities of reality. To ask on a completely theoretical level: is killing always bad. In many threads on the Org we have already discussed the extra layers of complexities of the debate that are added on afterward. (which may or may not change what you think is right for our society.) I just have noticed how people seem horrified at the idea of killing people, even when it saves lives, and I think this gets down to their core principles and beliefs, and not the careful and rational weighing of all the complexities of a given situation for our society.
For instance, my core belief is that those who murder or rape should be put to death a) to discourage others from doing the same and b) to make sure that they never have the opportunity to repeat their crimes. That said, the complexities of real life make me believe that in cases without a willing confession, or some set of air-tight/nearly air-tight proof (criteria which would have to be decided. DNA evidence, video of suspect committing the crime, etc), someone should not be put to death for a crime you suspect they committed.
That, however, does not change my fundamental belief that murderers and rapists should be put to death. Those when I see comments about killing bad people, I will not have a strong, incoherent, emotional reaction like many liberals who have a fundamental belief against the death penalty, but will carefully and rationally consider whether or not death is suitable and just in such a case.
That said, I have a strong fundamental belief that killing innocent people is wrong, and therefore I would probably have a strong emotional reaction if I heard that the government was killing innocent civies.
Do you get my point? The complexities and realities of a situation are like a lens that may change you final opinion concerning an individual circumstance (or many individual circumstances), but will not change your fundamental beliefs. I am asking simply what people's fundamental beliefs are. Is it, or is it not ok for a legal government or military to kill people who have killed or raped innocents for the protection of society. Yes, or course there are complicating factors, but more than anything I just asked for your beliefs in a vacuum.
The short version is this: 'Killing' when against some ones own will never morally acceptable
The complexities of reality and the unfortunates circumstances will mean people will die, accidentally or on purpose. However, it is never right to glorify the act of killing and the death of that person at your hands or at some one elses. At the absolute best, it is an a "unfortunate necessary" which should never be taken lightly. In both religious and non-religious circles, this is also the belief and opinions espoused. The judgement of the individual on the basis of their life is in the hands of the creator in Christian faith, and in Humanist ideology, life is the precious thing we all share which we should never ever really be in the position to deprive it from somebody.
You can probably name hundred and one situations where you can successfully argue that the death of some one was superior to the alternative situation, however, that death will still always be unfortunate. One interesting concept of Death as shown in the assassin's creed series is where the character kills some one in an attempt to bring about positive change, instead of merely celebrating or glorifying it, they respectably nod and wish them to rest in peace.
Some people might state about war time with enemy combatants saying killing is now acceptable and being honest, it still isn't. That person facing you is mostly just you but born from another area, as depicted in the Winter Truce, the soldiers from both sides met and exchanged gifts. That person on the otherside simply isn't some evil person wishing for you to die die die as propaganda will wish you to believe, they are just like you, sent there as a pawn of people back at home sitting their rears on big comfy chairs, far removed from it all.
Death should never be wished upon someone there is always a better alternative, and if wishes came true, it should be that and not some one being deprived of life against their will.
What is then justice? If the judiciary did not take revenge on behalf of the offended, then there would be no justice, only preventive measures. "You go to jail so that hopefully fewer people will commit this act than what would otherwise have been the case."
There is a big difference between revenge and justice. The justice system operates on justice and not revenge, justice is making sure some is being hold accountable for their own actions and have the consequences of such actions becoming applied to them, it isn't simply to satisfy the desires of the victim against an individual which might have not even done the said action, and the courts decide on what they did and bring them to account. The idea of such measures is that people are punished for what they have done on account and it is hoped that the consequences of doing such actions will help in deterring others who might consider those actions.
The short version is this: 'Killing' when against some ones own will never morally acceptable
The complexities of reality and the unfortunates circumstances will mean people will die, accidentally or on purpose. However, it is never right to glorify the act of killing and the death of that person at your hands or at some one elses. At the absolute best, it is an a "unfortunate necessary" which should never be taken lightly. In both religious and non-religious circles, this is also the belief and opinions espoused. The judgement of the individual on the basis of their life is in the hands of the creator in Christian faith, and in Humanist ideology, life is the precious thing we all share which we should never ever really be in the position to deprive it from somebody.
You can probably name hundred and one situations where you can successfully argue that the death of some one was superior to the alternative situation, however, that death will still always be unfortunate. One interesting concept of Death as shown in the assassin's creed series is where the character kills some one in an attempt to bring about positive change, instead of merely celebrating or glorifying it, they respectably nod and wish them to rest in peace.
Some people might state about war time with enemy combatants saying killing is now acceptable and being honest, it still isn't. That person facing you is mostly just you but born from another area, as depicted in the Winter Truce, the soldiers from both sides met and exchanged gifts. That person on the otherside simply isn't some evil person wishing for you to die die die as propaganda will wish you to believe, they are just like you, sent there as a pawn of people back at home sitting their rears on big comfy chairs, far removed from it all.
Death should never be wished upon someone there is always a better alternative, and if wishes came true, it should be that and not some one being deprived of life against their will.
No one should revel in death, but that does not mean that killing isn't acceptable some times.
Vuk in this thread:
I don't see why so many people think killing is wrong in every instance. People who threaten your homeland must be eliminiert as soon as possible to preserve the Volk. The infestation of minderwertiges Ungeziefer has endangered the future of our great arische Rasse, and our sacred duty as KÄMPFER FÜR DEUTSCHLAND UND DIE REINHEIT DES BLUTES MUSS ES SEIN, UNTERMENSCHEN VOM ANGESICHT DES KONTINENTS ZU FEGEN!
Vuk in this thread:
I don't see why so many people think killing is wrong in every instance. People who threaten your homeland must be eliminiert as soon as possible to preserve the Volk. The infestation of minderwertiges Ungeziefer has endangered the future of our great arische Rasse, and our sacred duty as KÄMPFER FÜR DEUTSCHLAND UND DIE REINHEIT DES BLUTES MUSS ES SEIN, UNTERMENSCHEN VOM ANGESICHT DES KONTINENTS ZU FEGEN!
Subotan, in his infinite open-mindedness:
Vuk disagrees with me, and therefore he is HITLER!!!
How can you seriously read any of that into my posts Subotan? You are doing nothing but trolling. Race, first of all, when was it mentioned. I said murderers and rapists should be put to death (regardless of race), not murderers and rapists who do not share Vuk's perfect genetic make-up of part Irish, part Norwegian, part Anglo-Saxon, part Italian, part African, part Native American, part-Jewish should be put to death.
You are simply trolling and insulting people you disagree with. No offense, but kindly take your BS out of this thread. Thanks. :bow:
gaelic cowboy
03-04-2012, 17:27
For instance, my core belief is that those who murder or rape should be put to death a) to discourage others from doing the same and b)
Since we know that murder still happens even in places with the death penalty what use is it having a deterrant that does not work.
it's to make sure that they never have the opportunity to repeat their crimes.
Since this is merely a feeling rather than proof these supposed crimes will happen it is not enough for the death penalty.
That said, the complexities of real life make me believe that in cases without a willing confession, or some set of air-tight/nearly air-tight proof (criteria which would have to be decided. DNA evidence, video of suspect committing the crime, etc), someone should not be put to death for a crime you suspect they committed.
People are convicted all the time on supposedly water tight evidence it might take years for proof to emerge of there innocence. If you have used the death penalty you have removed there chance of release for all time.
British justice and the UK public at large was convinced of the guilt of the Birmingham Six it took's years for appeals to overturn the convictions. It's likely they would have been executed far quicker than there appeal took to prove the conviction was unsound because of the initial public outcry.
I am quite willing to hold a million airtight convicted Bin Ladens in order that some poor unfortunate whoever they might be is not exterminated by accident or design.
Vuk disagrees with me, and therefore he is HITLER!!!
yes
There is a big difference between revenge and justice. The justice system operates on justice and not revenge, justice is making sure some is being hold accountable for their own actions and have the consequences of such actions becoming applied to them, it isn't simply to satisfy the desires of the victim against an individual which might have not even done the said action, and the courts decide on what they did and bring them to account. The idea of such measures is that people are punished for what they have done on account and it is hoped that the consequences of doing such actions will help in deterring others who might consider those actions.
You cannot have justice without [some form of] revenge for the misdeed. A court could apply any punishment it would like, but only certain specific forms of punishment would truly amount to justice, provided that the legal system has the sole authority to carry out relevant justice.
rory_20_uk
03-04-2012, 18:04
Bin Laden was not convicted of anything. He was assassinated partly as there was no airtight evidence linking him to the crime. If a state wants someone dead they will not bother with the legal system, regardless of if there is the death penalty or not. But I digress...
In theory I am pro the death penalty. There are some people that are... broken. They did not snap due to severe stress or anger, they killed as they saw no reason not to. Perhaps they would have had a good career in the intelligence services or in the special forces (two areas where killing without compassion or guilt are positive assets), but otherwise they need to be put down.
But I do not think that any country has a court system that is robust enough not to have a large number of false positives and false negative results. There are very few clear cut cases where the guilty person was indisputably identified and killed with premeditation.
~:smoking:
Sasaki Kojiro
03-04-2012, 18:29
There is a big difference between revenge and justice. The justice system operates on justice and not revenge, justice is making sure some is being hold accountable for their own actions and have the consequences of such actions becoming applied to them, it isn't simply to satisfy the desires of the victim against an individual which might have not even done the said action, and the courts decide on what they did and bring them to account. The idea of such measures is that people are punished for what they have done on account and it is hoped that the consequences of doing such actions will help in deterring others who might consider those actions.
That isn't true, and never has been. Don't change your "it should" to "it is". Punishment is most certainly a part of justice.
You can probably name hundred and one situations where you can successfully argue that the death of some one was superior to the alternative situation, however, that death will still always be unfortunate.
It clearly isn't...that would be contradictory. Maybe you can say it's unfortunate that it was best for them to be killed, i.e. it's unfortunate that they murdered 17 people with an axe.
Kralizec
03-04-2012, 18:53
Punishment is about:
1) Retribution: meant to alleviate the bloodlust of the victim and society at large; the only reason people will respect the state's monopoly at punishing criminals is if the punishments are seen as an acceptable, sufficient response to the crime.
2) Discouragement: in two different ways. In the specific sense, it's supposed to prevent the convict from crossing the line again. In the general sense, it's supposed to deter others from contemplating a crime. It's generally accepted nowadays that the chance of getting caught is a much more significant factor in deterring crime than the severity of the punishment, so having the death penalty as an alternative to lifelong imprisonment likely has little to no effect on potential criminals.
3) In the case of prison sentences or death penalty, making it physically impossible for the convict to repeat his crime, or at least for the duration of the punishment. Lifelong imprisonment is just as effective in this regard. And I seem to recall that in the USA executions actually cost more money than life imprisonment.
No, but you know the likelihood that if you let someone out of prison who was convicted of murder he will kill again. You may not know for 100% certain, but you know there is an enormous likelihood, and your actions make it possible.
No, you do not "know" this. You can only make educated guesses in individual cases.
Do I think a murderer deserves to die? Absolutely. I don't think there is any grey area there.
Suppose a random person kills someone of who he thinks is a rapist and/or a murderer who attacked someone close to random person. Should random person be executed?
No, you do not "know" this. You can only make educated guesses in individual cases.
You are the second person who did not read my post. I did not say "You know that if you let someone out of prison who was convicted of murder he will kill again."
I said "you know the likelihood that if you let someone out of prison who was convicted of murder he will kill again"
There has been plenty of research that shows that someone who killed someone before will have a higher likelihood of murdering again than someone who has not murdered will have of killing someone. Reading is an important life skill...you should learn it.
Suppose a random person kills someone of who he thinks is a rapist and/or a murderer who attacked someone close to random person. Should random person be executed?
I classify a murderer as someone who willingly breaks the law and willingly and deliberately kills an innocent person.
Kralizec
03-04-2012, 19:18
You are the second person who did not read my post. I did not say "You know that if you let someone out of prison who was convicted of murder he will kill again."
I said "you know the likelihood that if you let someone out of prison who was convicted of murder he will kill again"
There has been plenty of research that shows that someone who killed someone before will have a higher likelihood of murdering again than someone who has not murdered will have of killing someone. Reading is an important life skill...you should learn it.
Those statistics are meaningless in individual cases. They can't tell you with any degree of certainty if a particular convict will commit a crime again.
I classify a murderer as someone who willingly breaks the law and willingly and deliberately kills an innocent person.
You're dodging the question.
Those statistics are meaningless in individual cases. They can't tell you with any degree of certainty if a particular convict will commit a crime again.
You're dodging the question.
You know that statistically that individual has a higher likelihood of killing again. A much higher likelihood. That is important.
And no, I am not dodging the question. It is an invalid question. Rephrase it, and I may consider answering it.
Tellos Athenaios
03-04-2012, 19:53
Bin Laden was not convicted of anything. He was assassinated partly as there was no airtight evidence linking him to the crime. If a state wants someone dead they will not bother with the legal system, regardless of if there is the death penalty or not. But I digress...
In theory I am pro the death penalty. There are some people that are... broken. They did not snap due to severe stress or anger, they killed as they saw no reason not to. Perhaps they would have had a good career in the intelligence services or in the special forces (two areas where killing without compassion or guilt are positive assets), but otherwise they need to be put down.
But I do not think that any country has a court system that is robust enough not to have a large number of false positives and false negative results. There are very few clear cut cases where the guilty person was indisputably identified and killed with premeditation.
~:smoking:
Partly this. But there's another side. If a state is to kill a convict, the practical ethical issue of “how to go about it” arises. As far as we know the most humane way of killing, remains to this day the guillotine because (a) there's about zero chance of that ever going wrong, and (b) it's as far as we know next to painless. However, what about the people who have to clean up afterwards?
Essentially that's a major practical implication of death penalties: nobody has ever got it right. Either it's unreliable, or it's reliable but sedation isn't, or it's altogether too messy and distressing for the people who have to watch it/clean up.
Kralizec
03-04-2012, 19:59
Those statistics are only meaningful in that they're saying an amorphous group of people, whose only common characteristic is that they've been convicted of a crime, are on average more likely to commit a crime again.
The question is perfectly valid. From your "answer" I can infer that you think that killing someone you believe is a criminal of sort is a justifiable thing for anyone to do, so that "random person" should walk free.
Crazed Rabbit
03-04-2012, 20:33
That said, the complexities of real life make me believe that in cases without a willing confession,
Sometimes willing confessions (in a police interrogation room, without physical coercion) are false.
You know that statistically that individual has a higher likelihood of killing again. A much higher likelihood. That is important.
Care to provide statistical proof?
Also, since an average person has a very low probability of murdering someone, even a much higher likelihood doesn't mean a released murderer will murder again.
Finally, arguing statistics while ignoring the specifics of each case is useless.
You should answer the question Vuk.
As for the death penalty as a deterrent; just because it doesn't deter all murders does not mean it doesn't deter some.
I am against it though, based on the chance of convicting an innocent person due to things like eyewitness testimony (which is not very reliable).
You can probably name hundred and one situations where you can successfully argue that the death of some one was superior to the alternative situation, however, that death will still always be unfortunate.
You could say unfortunate in the sense that the person killed should not have committed the actions that led to him being killed (ie trying to attack or kill someone else). But the death would be fortunate compared to other possible outcomes.
Some people might state about war time with enemy combatants saying killing is now acceptable and being honest, it still isn't. That person facing you is mostly just you but born from another area, as depicted in the Winter Truce, the soldiers from both sides met and exchanged gifts. That person on the otherside simply isn't some evil person wishing for you to die die die as propaganda will wish you to believe, they are just like you, sent there as a pawn of people back at home sitting their rears on big comfy chairs, far removed from it all.
It's not acceptable to kill people who are trying to kill you, and who might be part of an army attacking your country? That you might have been friends with such a person in different circumstances seems rather immaterial when said person is aiming a gun at you. :inquisitive:
CR
ajaxfetish
03-04-2012, 21:26
You are the second person who did not read my post. I did not say "You know that if you let someone out of prison who was convicted of murder he will kill again."
I said "you know the likelihood that if you let someone out of prison who was convicted of murder he will kill again"
There has been plenty of research that shows that someone who killed someone before will have a higher likelihood of murdering again than someone who has not murdered will have of killing someone. Reading is an important life skill...you should learn it.
There may well be a higher chance of a previous murderer killing again, compared to someone who has never committed a murder. But is that small difference enough to justify killing them?
The United States Department of Justice tracked the rearrest, re-conviction, and re-incarceration of former inmates for 3 years after their release from prisons in 15 states in 1994.[10] Key findings include:
Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).
Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide. These are the lowest rates of re-arrest for the same category of crime.
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism)
Based on this study, nearly 99 out of 100 people imprisoned for murder will not commit murder again (and that's 1.2% arrested for it, not necessarily convicted of it). Is Vuk suggesting we kill all 100 to make sure we get that one (or two) who will repeat their crime?
3) In the case of prison sentences or death penalty, making it physically impossible for the convict to repeat his crime, or at least for the duration of the punishment. Lifelong imprisonment is just as effective in this regard. And I seem to recall that in the USA executions actually cost more money than life imprisonment.
Indeed. I don't have anything to say in regards to the principle under discussion here (whether some people 'deserve' to die), but I definitely don't trust the government to separate the innocent from the guilty without fail, and with that in mind, there definitely needs to be adequate scrutiny and opportunity for appeal, especially in cases where the punishment is so irreversible as death, and with that in mind, the death penalty ends up as the most expensive punishment available (so King's concerns about victims paying for the prison costs of murderers is rather moot, since the alternative is those same victims paying even more for the trials to establish guilt to a sufficient certainty).
Ajax
rory_20_uk
03-04-2012, 22:26
Based on this study, nearly 99 out of 100 people imprisoned for murder will not commit murder again (and that's 1.2% arrested for it, not necessarily convicted of it). Is Vuk suggesting we kill all 100 to make sure we get that one (or two) who will repeat their crime?
That was for 3 years. That's hardly a long time. Most people manage to go a whole lifetime without killing anyone.
And it was persons who are convicted of committing a second murder. If you are to question the numbers that who were convicted but innocent, you also have to take into account those who did kill again and were not caught - in the 3 year window of the study. What is the rate of successful solving of a murder? How long does it take to solve a murder?
~:smoking:
You should answer the question Vuk.
Suppose a random person kills someone of who he thinks is a rapist and/or a murderer who attacked someone close to random person. Should random person be executed?
What he did was an unlawful killing of an innocent person. That is murder, no?
Murder is should be punishable by death.
There may well be a higher chance of a previous murderer killing again, compared to someone who has never committed a murder. But is that small difference enough to justify killing them?
Based on this study, nearly 99 out of 100 people imprisoned for murder will not commit murder again (and that's 1.2% arrested for it, not necessarily convicted of it). Is Vuk suggesting we kill all 100 to make sure we get that one (or two) who will repeat their crime?
Indeed. I don't have anything to say in regards to the principle under discussion here (whether some people 'deserve' to die), but I definitely don't trust the government to separate the innocent from the guilty without fail, and with that in mind, there definitely needs to be adequate scrutiny and opportunity for appeal, especially in cases where the punishment is so irreversible as death, and with that in mind, the death penalty ends up as the most expensive punishment available (so King's concerns about victims paying for the prison costs of murderers is rather moot, since the alternative is those same victims paying even more for the trials to establish guilt to a sufficient certainty).
Ajax
No, one of the bonuses of killing them is that they will not kill again. There is also the reason that it will serve as a deterrent to others. Also, it will provide the victims families with some closure.
As far as rape goes, only a tiny percentage of rapes get reported, and I remember seeing several interviews with rapists where they bragged that they raped many more than they were convicted more, and then raped a bunch of people when the got out of prison and were never caught.
The chance of them raping again may be a lot higher than that statistic shows.
Even if it isn't though, yes, you kill them on that 2.5% chance, because they lost the benefit of the doubt when they raped. They lost their right for society to take a chance on them when the murdered and raped.
Do you realize that prison is torture? The modern prison system amounts to cruel and unreasonable punishment. Do you know how many people get sexually assaulted there? According to that Wiki article of yours, 70%! (that we know of) That is not only physical torture, but it is emotionally scarring. It messes people up and just makes them less likely to be good citizens than before you put them in there. Honestly, I would prefer a bullet to the head than life in prison, whether I committed a crime or not! That is torture, and death is far preferable!
Do I trust the government? No, that is why we have a right to a trial by our peers. Is the justice system perfect? No. Will less innocent people die if we execute murders and rapists? Probably.
The problem as I see it is not that the death penalty is bad, but that the justice system is in need of reform to make sure innocent people are not convicted. It will never be perfect, but it would sure as heck be better than a world in which we kept releasing dangerous killers and rapists onto the streets to repeat their crimes!
That was for 3 years. That's hardly a long time. Most people manage to go a whole lifetime without killing anyone.
And it was persons who are convicted of committing a second murder. If you are to question the numbers that who were convicted but innocent, you also have to take into account those who did kill again and were not caught - in the 3 year window of the study. What is the rate of successful solving of a murder? How long does it take to solve a murder?
~:smoking:
Actually, that is a very good point. And are they also looking at people on parole?
People may wait 5-10 years or more till they strike again.
Sasaki Kojiro
03-05-2012, 02:25
The goal of the justice system is to take people out of the game who don't want to play by the rules. They are indeed punished, but the goal is rehabilitation or removal--all for the benefit of society. Revenge has never been the goal of the penal system, and attempting to make it the goal only distracts people from the fact that justice should be blind.
That's not true at all. How can you possibly think, given human nature, that people have never wanted revenge to be a goal of the penal system? Besides, punishment can be a goal without revenge being the goal, since revenge is inherently personal. Justice is just reasonable, restrained revenge in the kind of cases we are talking about.
Imagine that a dictator who committed many atrocities against his people is deposed, and flees the country. Since he has now been removed, and since he is powerless to harm anyone now, you think he should just go free? That's what you call justice?
Rhyfelwyr
03-05-2012, 02:30
The modern prison system amounts to cruel and unreasonable punishment. Do you know how many people get sexually assaulted there? According to that Wiki article of yours, 70%!
The article said 70% of inmates are assaulted, not sexually assaulted. I've heard that sexual assault is a big problem in American prisons, but it surely can't be that bad.
Anyway, I watched Louis Theroux's documentary on American prisons and they seem to fight for sport in there.
And to be more on topic, I'm less confident of my support in the death penalty these days. It's just too much hassle.
Although at the same time, I would probably prefer the death penalty over life in prison if I faced a choice between the two. I think we need to strike a balance between acting like decent, civilised people, and making prison enough of a deterrent to prevent crime.
I think part of the reason prison is so bad is because the prisoners make it that way for each other. Most of the time it's not the prison guards that are doing the sexual assaulting.
Kagemusha
03-05-2012, 13:45
Maybe it could be made available for convicted murderers to choose between death and life in prison?
Maybe it could be made available for convicted murderers to choose between death and life in prison?
I don't think it would be considered, though it would certainly be a novel idea. Interesting to see the numbers on each choice regardless.
Oregon (or is it Washington?) implements that. Either way, a convict there recently asked for the death penalty, and the Governor almost burst into tears when explaining why he couldn't sign his death warrant.
gaelic cowboy
03-05-2012, 14:38
Oregon (or is it Washington?) implements that. Either way, a convict there recently asked for the death penalty, and the Governor almost burst into tears when explaining why he couldn't sign his death warrant.
What sort of eejit politician thinks this is something to be crying about.
rory_20_uk
03-05-2012, 14:44
One with an eye to female voters in the next election.
~:smoking:
Kagemusha
03-05-2012, 15:06
Maybe a politician should not made the call.
Kralizec
03-05-2012, 17:56
That was for 3 years. That's hardly a long time. Most people manage to go a whole lifetime without killing anyone.
And it was persons who are convicted of committing a second murder. If you are to question the numbers that who were convicted but innocent, you also have to take into account those who did kill again and were not caught - in the 3 year window of the study. What is the rate of successful solving of a murder? How long does it take to solve a murder?
~:smoking:
Criminology isn't my strong suit, but I imagine that the first couple of years after release are the most relevant. That is, if ex-cons don't reoffend for several years, they're not likely to do so in the farther future. Murder isn't exactly a thing that habitual criminals tend to specialise in, anyway.
What he did was an unlawful killing of an innocent person. That is murder, no?
The question I posed to you was to test wether you really don't distinguish between the different reasons that lead to people committing murder. I applaud you for being consistent, at least, but I don't see why you're adding the qualifier "innocent". Premeditated killing of a convicted criminal is murder.
No, one of the bonuses of killing them is that they will not kill again. There is also the reason that it will serve as a deterrent to others. Also, it will provide the victims families with some closure.
As far as rape goes, only a tiny percentage of rapes get reported, and I remember seeing several interviews with rapists where they bragged that they raped many more than they were convicted more, and then raped a bunch of people when the got out of prison and were never caught.
The chance of them raping again may be a lot higher than that statistic shows.
Even if it isn't though, yes, you kill them on that 2.5% chance, because they lost the benefit of the doubt when they raped. They lost their right for society to take a chance on them when the murdered and raped.
Anecdotes you have heard are neither here or there.
Do you realize that prison is torture? The modern prison system amounts to cruel and unreasonable punishment. Do you know how many people get sexually assaulted there? According to that Wiki article of yours, 70%! (that we know of) That is not only physical torture, but it is emotionally scarring. It messes people up and just makes them less likely to be good citizens than before you put them in there. Honestly, I would prefer a bullet to the head than life in prison, whether I committed a crime or not! That is torture, and death is far preferable!
Do you seriously consider this a reason in favour of the death penalty, or are you just grabbing whatever reason you can think of to cling on to your original position?
There are also all sorts of "minor" crimes that land people in jail. Should we execute pickpockets and petty thieves because that's more humane than putting them in jail for a few years?
'Do you seriously consider this a reason in favour of the death penalty, or are you just grabbing whatever reason you can think of to cling on to your original position?'
His position is still 'why not', I am more interested in why you want to keep it alive, how very civil you are of course they will eventually die
Do you seriously consider this a reason in favor of the death penalty, or are you just grabbing whatever reason you can think of to cling on to your original position?
There are also all sorts of "minor" crimes that land people in jail. Should we execute pickpockets and petty thieves because that's more humane than putting them in jail for a few years?
No we shouldn't execute these people, and I don't think we should put them in prison either. I think the prison system is completely removed from justice, and only ever has been a tool of tyrants and those lazy or stupid enough not to think of real solutions.
Fines, or even exile in extreme cases seems to me to be a much better solution for cases not deserving of the death penalty than prison. Prison is torture, and civilized people do not torture their citizens.
Kralizec
03-05-2012, 19:02
No we shouldn't execute these people, and I don't think we should put them in prison either. I think the prison system is completely removed from justice, and only ever has been a tool of tyrants and those lazy or stupid enough not to think of real solutions.
Fines, or even exile in extreme cases seems to me to be a much better solution for cases not deserving of the death penalty than prison. Prison is torture, and civilized people do not torture their citizens.
You do realize that in some other countries the risk of getting sexually molested in prison is markedly lower?
What would you do with people unable to afford the fine?
'Do you seriously consider this a reason in favour of the death penalty, or are you just grabbing whatever reason you can think of to cling on to your original position?'
His position is still 'why not', I am more interested in why you want to keep it alive, how very civil you are of course they will eventually die
I could imagine cases where the death penalty would be morally justifiable- but I'd still be against it because of the possibility of wrongful convictions and the practical problems associated with execution in general.
You do realize that in some other countries the risk of getting sexually molested in prison is markedly lower?
What would you do with people unable to afford the fine?
Yes, I realize that. If we are going to keep a prison system, it needs serious reform. It needs to be a lot stricter, a lot better governed and run.
What would you do? Have them work for the government doing whatever labour they are able, keeping just enough pay from their pay check to live off of until they pay back the fine. Once the fine is payed back, they have two months at the job (keeping their full pay check), in which time they can look for other employment and are then released from their jobs.
If you don't like that, I am sure you could figure out another, similar solution that would take care of the problem in a humane way that would make them pay back what they took, be punished for their crime, and learn to be responsible.
If it is just a petty crime, and if they work it off in a timely manner, I would even consider not putting the crime on their public record the first time (that way, you won't hurt the chances of them getting a job, and they will have the motivation to reform, because the next time it will be on their record).
Tellos Athenaios
03-05-2012, 20:30
His position is still 'why not', I am more interested in why you want to keep it alive, how very civil you are of course they will eventually die
See previous page of thread. Might like to watch "How to kill a human being" aka "Capital Punishment". Fair warning though, what happened to the pig was perhaps only mildly disturbing (it being dead already), what happened to the bunny was rather worse.
It's not acceptable to kill people who are trying to kill you, and who might be part of an army attacking your country? That you might have been friends with such a person in different circumstances seems rather immaterial when said person is aiming a gun at you. :inquisitive:
Prisoners of War. You hope they surrender or put down their weapon, or a more peaceful compromise is met. Just because you are in a war it doesn't give you a free ticket to start spraying your gun at everyone and everything, you are still punished for killing civilians or not taking care to minimise risks. It is one of those unfortunate things that something it does boil down to who has the fastest reaction time, but many people still become distressed through doing this action, taking that other persons life.
HoreTore
03-05-2012, 22:25
War can never fix more than the symptom.
What we need is to fix the problem itself. That's why people whine and moan about war.
The goal of the justice system is to take people out of the game who don't want to play by the rules. They are indeed punished, but the goal is rehabilitation or removal--all for the benefit of society. Revenge has never been the goal of the penal system, and attempting to make it the goal only distracts people from the fact that justice should be blind.
It cannot be a tool for personal revenge, because this would violate a principle of equal treatment. But if the judiciary did not make personal revenge seem superfluous, then there would be more trouble ahead.
Major Robert Dump
03-07-2012, 19:10
A man who just tried to kill you from 50 feet away is terribly injured by gunfire and shrapnel (from the suicide vest of one of his buddies). His AK-47 flew several meters from where he lies.
One leg is completely gone and he is gushing blood, the other lag is mangled.
Some of his friends are still alive and firing at you from near his position, with other firing RPGs from the tree line to your left.
Multiple civilians lie dead, shot in the back by these attackers as they tried to breach your position. They were the first to die. The dead were carpenters for a development NGO coming to work.
Your local "allies" have run away, quite literally
The injured man is yelling and screaming and reaching out towards you as if begging for help. Maybe his wounds are fatal, maybe not. He cannot get to his weapon.
He is wearing a suicide vest.
What do you do?
Vladimir
03-07-2012, 19:14
Begging for help? More like begging to put his hands around your throat.
Still, if it's safe to do so, bind his wounds, care for him, convince him you're his best friend, and interrogate the :daisy: out of him.
What do you do?
Ignore him and concentrate on killing his buddies. Shoot him if he gets closer. War is hell.
Major Robert Dump
03-07-2012, 19:47
Edited -- TMI, not relevant
I apologize for hijacking this thread. I am bored and just wanted to post something. Now excuse me I am going to spend some time with Sasha Grey and then play SWTOR while I wait for my plane.
Vladimir
03-07-2012, 20:05
I'm pretty sure I told you not to deploy. Now look at you. ~;)
Edited -- TMI, not relevant
I apologize for hijacking this thread. I am bored and just wanted to post something. Now excuse me I am going to spend some time with Sasha Grey and then play SWTOR while I wait for my plane.
Awwww man, why'd you delete all that? That was a good read. Sasha Grey might be TMI though.
Vladimir
03-07-2012, 21:43
Edited -- TMI, not relevant
I apologize for hijacking this thread. I am bored and just wanted to post something. Now excuse me I am going to spend some time with Sasha Grey and then play SWTOR while I wait for my plane.
Wait a minute. Are you "spending time with her" AT THE AIRPORT? :inquisitive:
No one except the religious should have a reason to tolerate the death penalty under any sorts.
A. Left minded people will reach this conclusion from the view point of prisoner's rights/human rights.
B. Right minded people should come to this conclusion from the view point of not legalizing the practice of government killing its own citizens. There really should never be any sort of situation where government is "allowed" to murder a citizen. Pretending otherwise is just as silly as pretending that we really will never need the 2nd Amendment.
I'm pretty far left, and I support the death penalty in theory. I do believe that there are crimes that are sufficiently abhorrent that a person does not deserve to continue living. I also agree with SCOTUS' stance on the issue, which is that there are two valid reasons for the existence of the death penalty: (1) deterrance for others and (2) retribution for society. SCOTUS believes there is value to society in being able to exorcise the impact of some criminal acts by ending the existence of the perpetrator. I agree with this; I think there are many situations in which society as a whole benefits more by the criminal being dead than being alive.
However, on a practical level, I do not support the death penalty due to the risk of executing an innocent person. I believe that such a mistake is so utterly abhorrent that the risk of it outweighs the other benefits of the death penalty. I would support the death penalty on a practical level in the US if the standard of proof was changed in the US legal system. Convictions for crimes require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This works relatively well, and I would maintain it. However, I think that no one should be eligible for the death sentence unless they are convicted by a more stringent standard of proof, namely 'beyond any doubt.' Essentially, I believe that the death penalty should only be used in situations in which there is no question at all whether the person committed the act. It should be reserved for those situations in which the commission of the crime itself is not really in question, such as Jeffrey Dahmer and others who are essentially caught by the authorities in the act. Crimes in which the identity of the criminal is an actual debatable issue should not be eligible for the death sentence.
This works relatively well, and I would maintain it. However, I think that no one should be eligible for the death sentence unless they are convicted by a more stringent standard of proof, namely 'beyond any doubt.' Essentially, I believe that the death penalty should only be used in situations in which there is no question at all whether the person committed the act. It should be reserved for those situations in which the commission of the crime itself is not really in question, such as Jeffrey Dahmer and others who are essentially caught by the authorities in the act. Crimes in which the identity of the criminal is an actual debatable issue should not be eligible for the death sentence.
I have been flirting with this idea myself. The question if it is really feasible to establish truth 'beyond any doubt'. In theory, any setup, any witness testimonies could be a conspiracy (and not necessarily a massive one, either).
Sasaki Kojiro
03-07-2012, 23:59
I imagine that video cameras will proliferate in the future...not even like the government ones, just private use.
ajaxfetish
03-08-2012, 02:46
That was for 3 years. That's hardly a long time. Most people manage to go a whole lifetime without killing anyone.
And it was persons who are convicted of committing a second murder. If you are to question the numbers that who were convicted but innocent, you also have to take into account those who did kill again and were not caught - in the 3 year window of the study. What is the rate of successful solving of a murder? How long does it take to solve a murder?
~:smoking:
I'll agree that 3 years is a short time and data from a longer period would be better. But this is data. Where's the data to support the contention that previous murderers are particularly likely to murder again? If lives are on the line, I think there should be evidence to back up the claims, and I kindly ask Vuk to provide it. Also, how do you get from "1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide" to "And it was persons who are convicted of committing a second murder." That seems a very significant difference to me.
Ajax
I have been flirting with this idea myself. The question if it is really feasible to establish truth 'beyond any doubt'. In theory, any setup, any witness testimonies could be a conspiracy (and not necessarily a massive one, either).
In cases where identification of the perpetrator is based exclusively on eyewitness testimony, I do not think it would be possible to prove guilt beyond any doubt. I think that kind of situation would be reserved for cases where there was actual documented evidence of the crime, such as a camera recording, an unbelievable amount of hard evidence, such as with Dahmer, or so many witnesses to the act that the identity was never in question, such as with many school/workplace shootings.
rory_20_uk
03-08-2012, 11:12
I'll agree that 3 years is a short time and data from a longer period would be better. But this is data. Where's the data to support the contention that previous murderers are particularly likely to murder again? If lives are on the line, I think there should be evidence to back up the claims, and I kindly ask Vuk to provide it. Also, how do you get from "1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide" to "And it was persons who are convicted of committing a second murder." That seems a very significant difference to me.
Ajax
I made not assertions beyond my comments that this data is extremely weak. Bad data isn't any more useful than no data at all.
I agree that evidence to support the other side on this matter would be ideal. I personally think that it is immaterial. If we are assuming that these are people who did murder in the first place, then they should be executed for the first one.
As Tincow mentions, such cases would only be based on hard evidence such as video footage, and so in practice much of the time would not be used as there would be room for doubt and hence life imprisonment would be used instead.
~:smoking:
Major Robert Dump
03-08-2012, 16:32
Wait a minute. Are you "spending time with her" AT THE AIRPORT? :inquisitive:
No, the plane will not be here for severl days. And it won't be at an airport unless you consider 100 yards of pavement in a field by a mountain an airport. RIP C-130s.....
ajaxfetish
03-08-2012, 17:56
I agree that evidence to support the other side on this matter would be ideal. I personally think that it is immaterial. If we are assuming that these are people who did murder in the first place, then they should be executed for the first one.
My main problem with execution for the first crime is the many false convictions that make it through our justice system. In cases where guilt is certain, I don't have a definite stance as of now. But that's not the issue I was addressing anyhow. Among Vuk's arguments for why murderers should be executed was that releasing them will lead to further murders. My understanding is that the recidivism rate for murder is very low, and what numbers there are seem to back that up. Whether or not we want to execute for the crime already committed, we certainly should not be executing for crimes that they might later commit, especially without evidence that it is extremely likely to happen.
Ajax
rory_20_uk
03-08-2012, 17:58
My main problem with execution for the first crime is the many false convictions that make it through our justice system. In cases where guilt is certain, I don't have a definite stance as of now. But that's not the issue I was addressing anyhow. Among Vuk's arguments for why murderers should be executed was that releasing them will lead to further murders. My understanding is that the recidivism rate for murder is very low, and what numbers there are seem to back that up. Whether or not we want to execute for the crime already committed, we certainly should not be executing for crimes that they might later commit, especially without evidence that it is extremely likely to happen.
Ajax
As so often, persons can argue on an issue whilst basically agreeing on all major points ~;)
~:smoking:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.