Death Penalty

[Jim]

Absolutely ! I've posted and deleted 4 times today on this thread, because I was so sickened by the mentality of (clearly intelligent) people that support the death penalty on here, I was trying hard not to let my emotions get the better of me.

 

Oh, heck, give it to me with both barrels to the extent you think I'm one of the misguided intelligent posters supporting CP. I can take it.

 

This holds especially for the example from the OP, someone who commits an act like that is BLATANTLY mentally disturbed. You shouldn't get swayed by the act itself, but think of a solution to stopping it happening again...and killing somebody is soooo not the answer.

 

Mentally disturbed, yes. Legally insane? We'll see.

[Jim]

I don't think it's just the DP that makes us numb to lives taken. I don't think it's just Hollywood's casual treatment of killing and guns and violence. I don't think it's just shoot-em-up video games where killing let's you win points. I don't think it's just political prioritizing that emphasizes Christian values like heterosexual union over somebody else's problem like genocide. I don't think it's just gigabytes of photos of mass graves and video footage of casual killings that are available to any young person with Internet access.

 

You seem to think that killing is of recent origin when we are a species that evolved scratching and clawing and, I'm afraid, killing to dominate the planet. There is no physical difference between you and a Roman legionnaire who helped salt Carthage. Recent culture is a vast improvement on historical standards.

 

I think all these things together in a major country that has more access to guns than any other, that has a news media that salivates over gruesome killings, AND that has a legal system where the ultimate justice is more killing could possibly point to the reason why people like Underwood come to be. We'll never catch guys like him before they kill with the present system.

 

"Could possibly" is about about right. Anything is possible but I find this connection doubtful.

 

My reference to history was to point out that the past should show that executing murderers hasn't done much to stop murder. Perhaps I should have said "the past" earlier so your mind didn't immediately jump to "war" when I said "history". Given what I'm arguing about, I can certainly see why your mind would make that leap.

 

Actually, my mind jumped to the holocaust and then to WWII after you said "genocide." The earlier point I made was a very broad one: Not all killing is immoral and it is lazy to simply call killing "murder" (not saying you did this) and end the discussion.

 

Fundamentally, I believe Underwood should die because that is a punishment which fits the crime. It's fair. He deserves it. DP opponents want to warp those reasons into blood thirsty revenge.

 

I was trying to show that killing is viewed as the ultimate deterrent to unwanted behavior, but history the past shows that's not true. The more numb we become to killing the less importance life has for the individual who may just pick up a gun to solve his disputes tomorrow.

 

I agree that if we had Christians and gladiators dieing in the Coliseum we'd have a problem. However, I think people are capable of making moral distinctions these days. They understand Underwood is dieing because there is zero doubt as to his guilt and because he deserves to die. The message that sends to me is not a mind numbing "killing is okay" mantra but, instead, a message that we protect our young and some lines will not be crossed.

 

I don't like the war analogy because, as I said, some killing IS justified, like in war where defense is paramount and killing an enemy means saving lives on your side. I don't see how war is a good argument for supporting the DP. Are we executing captured prisoners of war now?

 

But that is the only limited point I made - some killing is justified. I didn't just cite war; i also cited enforcement of a living will, self defense and plain ol accidents. You have to look to the REASON for the killing and can't just say all killing is murder which is what some here have done.

 

Your response, not mine, has been focus on the war example. I could just as easily emphasize accidental killings. When a car wreck occurs we don't just say the guy who hit the deceased is a murderer or even, necessarily, negligent. We look to why the killing happened.

 

In this case, Kevin Underwood may die for the very simple reason that in premeditated fashion he brutally killed an innocent ten year old girl. If he is mentally capable of distinguishing right from wrong, that, together withthe fact that he was caught red-handed, will cause his death.

[Phi for All]

i still say the point of the analogy was only to address the exposure to violence' date=' not to compare the situations of war and the death penalty.

 

the soldiers werent horrified by seeing executed prisoners, they were horrified by seeing starving, tortured prisoners who were then burned alive. its a pretty big difference.[/quote']Read post #43 again.

 

[Jeopardy theme playing in background]

 

I was trying to point out that war was just one of the places where our idea of "strong" is killing, but it's not the killing during wartime that I'm objecting to. I don't like that the distinction between justifiable kill-or-be-killed situations and solving your domestic problems by plotting to kill someone becomes blurred by this idea of killing being the ultimate "strong" response. So blurred that many people who buy a gun to defend themselves and their families end up using it to kill someone who cut them off on the freeway. This is why I didn't want my argument to be derailed by Jim's justification of killing during wartime.

 

"Strong" should be about being willing to face what's wrong and deal with it responsibly. It should be about admitting that killing doesn't stop more killing. "Strong" should be NOT sweeping sick killers like Underwood under the rug by ending their lives for no other reason than retribution and justice. "Strong" should be figuring out a way to turn Jamie's senseless death into life for a future potential victim.

[Royston]

Oh, heck, give it to me with both barrels to the extent you think I'm one of the misguided intelligent posters supporting CP. I can take it.

 

Ok, I was a bit pushed for time...I have an assignment to be getting on with, but here you go.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/09/970927110900.htm testing of violent female inmates, conclusive results.

 

http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/17984.html...

 

Some people say that you can pick out serial killers by some of their actions from when they were younger. A study(1) involving 36 incarcerated serial killers was tested and they collected a lot of data on childhood behavior traits among serial killers. Out of the 36 men, 28 said they daydreamed a lot, had compulsive masturbation, and were in constant isolation. These are the top three common behaviors.

Animal cruelty in children has also been linked with homicide, serial killers...by studying the childhood of inmates...http://www.animalsvoice.com/PAGES/writes/editorial/features/link/randour_link.html

 

Another group of research studies explored the childhood of individuals who were incarcerated or committed to psychiatric hospitals for criminal offenses, comparing them to "normal" men. Would the childhood of the men in prison and psychiatric hospitals for criminal behavior reveal more juvenile animal cruelty when compared to a group of "normal" men? After conducting a number of their own studies, and reviewing the research of their colleagues, Kellert and Felthous arrived at a definitive result. They stated that there was a significant association between acts of cruelty to animals in childhood and serious, recurrent aggression against people as an adult.

 

http://www.bxscience.edu/publications/forensics/articles/psychologicalprofiles/killer.pdf more studies and conclusive childhood traits on serial killers that were incarcerated.

 

Correlation of schizophrenia amongst deathrow inmates...

 

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro06/web1/cheffron.html

 

The signs need to be found before this kind of thing happens again...this can only be done if behaviour can be matched and compared i.e the subject needs to be alive.

[Jim]

Ok' date=' I was a bit pushed for time...I have an assignment to be getting on with, but here you go.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/09/970927110900.htm testing of violent female inmates, conclusive results.

 

http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/17984.html...

 

[i']Some people say that you can pick out serial killers by some of their actions from when they were younger. A study(1) involving 36 incarcerated serial killers was tested and they collected a lot of data on childhood behavior traits among serial killers. Out of the 36 men, 28 said they daydreamed a lot, had compulsive masturbation, and were in constant isolation. These are the top three common behaviors.

[/i]

Animal cruelty in children has also been linked with homicide, serial killers...by studying the childhood of inmates...http://www.animalsvoice.com/PAGES/writes/editorial/features/link/randour_link.html

 

Another group of research studies explored the childhood of individuals who were incarcerated or committed to psychiatric hospitals for criminal offenses, comparing them to "normal" men. Would the childhood of the men in prison and psychiatric hospitals for criminal behavior reveal more juvenile animal cruelty when compared to a group of "normal" men? After conducting a number of their own studies, and reviewing the research of their colleagues, Kellert and Felthous arrived at a definitive result. They stated that there was a significant association between acts of cruelty to animals in childhood and serious, recurrent aggression against people as an adult.

 

http://www.bxscience.edu/publications/forensics/articles/psychologicalprofiles/killer.pdf more studies and conclusive childhood traits on serial killers that were incarcerated.

 

Correlation of schizophrenia amongst deathrow inmates...

 

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro06/web1/cheffron.html

 

The signs need to be found before this kind of thing happens again...this can only be done if behaviour can be matched and compared i.e the subject needs to be alive.

 

I thought you were emotional and were going to blast me. This all interesting stuff and I thank you for sending it.

 

I'll go this far with you. If the legitimate consensus of the physch community is that these type of crimes can be reduced by studying serial killers (which Underwood probably would have become had he been smarter) for longer than the average time they spend on death row, then we should delay execution. It would seem to me most of the information needed could be drained out of the killer within 5 years or so but I'd be willing to be wrong on this.

[Callipygous]

Read post #43 again.

 

[Jeopardy theme playing in background]

 

in just a minute, im busy pulling my foot out of my mouth.

....

...

...

..

 

 

there we go. i had only read his other post, about the concentration camps. i wasnt aware there was another one. this is a long thread!

[Jim]

well... the people who normally make such decisions are generally known as judges.

 

anyway... im not talking about a personal preference. no one said there couldnt be laws to determine which cases. for example' date=' one thing i heard in a comedy routine(no idea if its true or not) was about texas adding a law where if 3 or more people saw you commit the crime you move to the front of the line at death row.[/quote']

 

I came across this tonight and it seemed relevant. From Roger Ebert reviewing Sophie Scholl: The Final Days:

 

This is not a thriller but a police procedural, in which we have all the information we need, right from the outset. She is guilty. Sophie and her brother Hans (Fabian Hinrichs) belong to the White Rose, an underground group that mimeographs statements critical of the regime and the continuation of a war that is already lost. In theory their leaflets were to be mailed. Hans gets the idea of distributing them on their campus. This is reckless and stupid and exactly the sort of grand gesture beloved by idealistic kids. If the Scholls had been communists, party discipline would have mocked them. But they are Catholics carried away by conscience.

 

The effect of this scene is so powerful that I leaned forward like a jury member, wanting her to get away with it so I could find her innocent. But the law moves as the law always does, with no reference to higher justice; even in this Nazi procedure there are carbon copies and paper clips and rubber stamps and a need to see the law followed, as indeed it is. The law underpins evil, but it is observed. When Sophie is found guilty, it is legal enough.

 

The sentence against her is carried out with startling promptness; because of the movie's title, we are not surprised, but we are jolted. I was reminded of an exchange in "Thank You for Smoking," where the son of a tobacco lobbyist asks him, "Dad, why is the American government the best government?" And his father replies, "Because of our endless appeals system." It is a luxury to be able to joke about such things

 

All of this is not to compare your view to the Nazi system or to suggest that you were advocating that anyone be executed one day after trial. I do want to make the limited point, however, that our appeals system, particularly in a capital case, serves the primary purpose of restraining the awesome power of the State when it descends on an individual.

[Callipygous]

ok. so set up a law to make it so extreme cases get moved along faster, and give the judge veto power so he can give it the right to appeals in all those lovely freak cases you see in the movies.

[Jim]

ok. so set up a law to make it so extreme cases get moved along faster, and give the judge veto power so he can give it the right to appeals in all those lovely freak cases you see in the movies.

 

Heh, it was late last night when I found that and mainly I posted because I'd never heard of the White Rose and the Scholls. What an inspiring story. What courageous, intelligent and wise young people.

 

With respect to substance, you would need standards to guide the judges as to what are the "extreme cases" to ensure that the law would not be misused in a crisis. These standards can't be vague or the potential for rule of men, not laws, becomes reality.

 

Also, you would need to amend the constitution which preserves the right to jury trial.

[Callipygous]

With respect to substance' date=' you would need standards to guide the judges as to what are the "extreme cases" to ensure that the law would not be misused in a crisis. These standards can't be vague or the potential for rule of men, not laws, becomes reality.

 

Also, you would need to amend the constitution which preserves the right to jury trial.[/quote']

 

 

the laws are written to determine which cases move to the front of the line. the judge always gets veto power on that particular part of it so if he feels that there are special circumstances around the case he can leave the person with the right to appeals.

 

the jury still tries the case and gives a virdict, the judge just passes the sentence and determines whether he gets appeals. similar to how they already decide if they get parole.

[Skye]

I don't really like the idea of a justice system. The problem is that there's often a divide in regards to appropriate punishment between the public (on behalf of which laws are written) and the victims. Governments should simply admit that life's not fair, because it's not and no government can make it so.

[Callipygous]

I don't really like the idea of a justice system. The problem is that there's often a divide in regards to appropriate punishment between the public (on behalf of which laws are written) and the victims. Governments should simply admit that life's not fair, because it's not and no government can make it so.

 

 

your right, we cant make it perfect. so we shouldnt try to get as close as possible?

 

we cant make the punishment for murder appropriate, so we should just let people murder each other without fear of repercussions? go back to the stone age?

[Skye]

I don't really think we can get close enough to really justify (wink) the whole exercise. If someone had killed my daughter horribly, even if they died through capital punishment, I'd still feel that justice wasn't yet completely served. I'm not sure anything you could do could balance the scales. I'd rather not hold out the idea of justice for people, or engage in this contract of exchanging my right to perform the deed for such a poor payment.

 

That being said, I'm not saying there shouldn't be a fear of repercussions, but that's a matter of deterrence rather than justice I think.

[Callipygous]

I don't really think we can get close enough to really justify (wink) the whole exercise. If someone had killed my daughter horribly' date=' even if they died through capital punishment, I'd still feel that justice wasn't yet completely served. I'm not sure anything you could do could balance the scales. I'd rather not hold out the idea of justice for people, or engage in this contract of exchanging my right to perform the deed for such a poor payment.

 

That being said, I'm not saying there shouldn't be a fear of repercussions, but that's a matter of deterrence rather than justice I think.[/quote']

 

 

so maybe its misnamed, but the justice system certainly serves a purpose, even if it cant even the scales. there needs to be something to prevent mob rule, and the only thing i know of is fear of cops with big guns.