how is the death penalty justified?

[YT2095]

with my question (without me having to even ASK it) came peoples idea of what "Revenge" Is/Consists of, as they see it.

I find That the most interesting part here

 

again, I`m not presenting ANY opinion, I`m just an Observer thus far.

[Jim]

with my question (without me having to even ASK it) came peoples idea of what "Revenge" Is/Consists of' date=' as they see it.

I find That the most interesting part here

 

again, I`m not presenting ANY opinion, I`m just an Observer thus far.[/quote']

 

That's way too easy. What would be your answer to my hypothetical?

[Skye]

How many would let an Underwood type live so easily, literally paying no consequences for his actions even if he had zero chance of recidivating and if deterrence would not be served?

But then, how can you let him die so easily as through lethal injection or the electric chair?

 

My problem is that there appears to be no punishment to fit some crimes, or if there is it's so terrible I feel it's an act of debasement.

[Jim]

But then' date=' how can you let him die so easily as through lethal injection or the electric chair?

 

My problem is that there appears to be no punishment to fit some crimes, or if there is it's so terrible I feel it's an act of debasement.[/quote']

 

The hypothetical was intended to probe whether there is ever a situation when "revenge," or less pejoratively, "retribution" justice is appropriate. I have a feeling the vast majority of people would want some punishment for many crimes even if it did not serve a rehabilitation or deterrence interest.

[Bettina]

I have a feeling the vast majority of people would want some punishment for many crimes even if it did not serve a rehabilitation or deterrence interest.

 

Me for one. I want a child killer put to death. They can call it whatever they want. Revenge sounds nice to me so I'll use that.

 

Bee

[MacroQuantum]

The hypothetical was intended to probe whether there is ever a situation when "revenge," or less pejoratively, "retribution" justice is appropriate. I have a feeling the vast majority of people would want some punishment for many crimes even if it did not serve a rehabilitation or deterrence interest.

Right now I do feel as though a "wrong" deserves "punishment" although I'm not sure I can say I understand where this feeling comes from. Making sure that it never happens again is only half the solution. Both the victim and the offender deserve something more.

Whenever my little girl does something wrong, and she gets caught, her first statement is always "sorry". She's not really sorry, and so the thing that I always tell her is that "'Sorry' does not mean that you did not do something stupid."

 

I've answered this question already, in great detail -- is there some reason you can't respond directly to the answers that I went through the time and effort to type into this forum before? Are you unable to do so?

You really should come out of your closet. You're great for theory, not so great on reality. It was my hope that you would see the reality of it, but I guess that was asking to much.

 

since if you had you would know that I have not *advocated* the death penalty in any of my posts.

But if I were on this jury I'd probably ask to pull the lever on ol' sparky myself.

That certainly sounds like indirect advocation to me. Yes, I certainly do realize that right before that you said you did not "advocate" DP. Sounds to me like you want to ride the fence. DP is good as long as you don't have to share in the responsibility, e.g. you verbally disavow it.

 

Well thanks for letting me know that your judgement can be swayed merely by the tone and behavior of the poster.

Sounds to me like you're all tone and behavior and not much understanding of your own thinking process.

[budullewraagh]

Quote:

Originally Posted by budullewraagh

and absolutely yes. if we are all at the level of this "criminal mindset" that you speak of' date=' we will all be just like criminals.

When speaking to a criminal it is a good idea to speak a language that they can understand.[/quote']

i fail to see the relevance of this statement. what is the point?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by budullewraagh

and if you're going to be offended by the fact that your tax dollars pay for the feeding and housing of certain criminals' date=' why not be mention any offense you may have at the fact that your tax dollars pay for the defense of such criminals?

Last thing I heard, before he is convicted he is not a criminal. He is being held in custody and is innocent until proven guilty.[/quote']

this was assuming you had no qualms with paying for defense of the innocent. when i was referring to "criminals" i was referring to people who have been proven guilty of crimes that have been defended at the expense of taxpayers.

now care to respond to my question? i'll restate:

if you're going to be offended by the fact that your tax dollars pay for the feeding and housing of certain criminals, why not be mention any offense you may have at the fact that your tax dollars pay for the defense of such criminals?

[Phi for All]

I forget which movie it was, but there is an alleged tribe in Africa that ties up murderers and puts them in the middle of the river to drown. If the family of the victim lets the murderer drown, they will have justice but will mourn the victim forever. If the victim's family swims out to save the murderer, it's an admission that life isn't fair and the idea of a life for a life is absurd. The family gets to mourn a decent interval and then move on with their lives.

 

I suppose I think of the death penalty from the perspective of me as the victim. Do I want my family to mourn me forever? Do I want them to feel good about justice by death? Or do I want them to realize that tragedy has no answer, and death penalty justice is an illusion. Certainly take the murderer away from society so they can't harm others, but don't let the finality of his death continue to harm my family.

[Jim]

Certainly take the murderer away from society so they can't harm others, but don't let the finality of his death continue to harm my family.

 

But this is the question I keep posing. Assume that imprisonment doesn't deter a particular type of violent criminal. What if we could "take the murderer away" from society without sending him to prison? In the not too distant future, it may be possible to protect society without punishing at all (e.g. 10 years from now a wearable computer and embedded GPS locator). We could give murderers cosmetic surgery a name change and not even attach stigma to their act.

 

Is there some part of you that would not accept such an easy solution for Kevin Underwood and desires retribution in some form?

 

And if you accept retribution isn't the question of life imprisonment vrs. death merely a matter of taste since both acts are being unnecessarily cruel? Personally, I believe that imposing life in prison to abuse and be abused may be more cruel than death.

 

Focussing on the victim alone I'm not sure how you can ever justify punishing. If you are atheistic, the victim is no more and has no interest either way. If you are Christian, you've got to turn the other cheek and forgive the crime itself. It's not even a question of the severity of the punishment. I can't really say how other religious views impact the question.

[Phi for All]

But this is the question I keep posing. Assume that imprisonment doesn't deter a particular type of violent criminal.

I don't think our present system is a deterrent for violent criminals. A lot of these guys say the worst thing about prison is the embarassment of having the toilet sit in the middle of the cell. Public flogging would probably be the worst thing you could do to these guys.

What if we could "take the murderer away" from society without sending him to prison? In the not too distant future, it may be possible to protect society without punishing at all (e.g. 10 years from now a wearable computer and embedded GPS locator). We could give murderers cosmetic surgery a name change and not even attach stigma to their act.

I don't know why this would be a good alternative. I believe in consequences and taking responsibility for your actions. I just don't like the idea that death can be atoned for by more death.

 

A man in prison for life has a better chance of affecting others and giving some meaning to the death of his victim. Kill him and he is forgotten, and the victim's family may feel like justice was done, but there was only more death done and society is pushing them to feel good about it, to feel justified, to feel like all the victim would have wanted was revenge on his killer.

 

And if you accept retribution isn't the question of life imprisonment vrs. death merely a matter of taste since both acts are being unnecessarily cruel? Personally, I believe that imposing life in prison to abuse and be abused may be more cruel than death.

It's necessary to remove a murderer from society so he has no chance to kill again. This isn't unnecessarily cruel. Life itself is cruel since people can take the lives of others and feel no remorse. For those of us who would feel remorse, why should the state pull the switch?

 

I would feel remorse even if I killed someone in a justifiable situation, like protecting my family from someone intent on killing us. I would not mourn the person I killed forever, but I would be diminished for taking ANY life. I would be glad I saved my family, and they would take precedence in that situation, but I would not smile and say the killer deserved it. No human deserves death at the hand of another human.

 

Focussing on the victim alone I'm not sure how you can ever justify punishing. If you are atheistic, the victim is no more and has no interest either way. If you are Christian, you've got to turn the other cheek and forgive the crime itself. It's not even a question of the severity of the punishment. I can't really say how other religious views impact the question.

Punishing isn't killing. Forgiving the crime doesn't mean allowing the criminal to go unpunished. You're confusing forgiving with forgetting.

 

Part of the way I feel about the DP is that it allows society to forget too easily. We need to be reminded that killers are out there, that we make them with unkindness, that some can't be redeemed, that some can be redeemed, that only time will tell, that life isn't fair and just, that you can affect people positively, that there will still be Underwoods, that life is still precious anyway.

[Skye]

The hypothetical was intended to probe whether there is ever a situation when "revenge," or less pejoratively, "retribution" justice is appropriate. I have a feeling the vast majority of people would want some punishment for many crimes even if it did not serve a rehabilitation or deterrence interest.

Sure. They want more than some sort of punishment though, they want one that fits the crime. If you gave him a six month sentence no-one would think justice was served or that it was revenge or retribution. Even the most severe penalties we currently give can barely be seen as justice. So in that case even if he gets the death penalty, so what? It's nothing compared to what he did.

[Pangloss]

You really should come out of your closet. You're great for theory' date=' not so great on reality. It was my hope that you would see the reality of it, but I guess that was asking to much.

 

Sounds to me like you're all tone and behavior and not much understanding of your own thinking process.[/quote']

 

Heh, yeah, that must be it.

 

(shrug) I accept your withdrawl from the debate, and I'm sorry you weren't able to refute me on point. Better luck next time.

 

As a side note, it always disappoints me to see this kind of personal slander taking the place of a serious debate. I hope you step back and reflect on your goals before entering this arena again.

[Pangloss]

I forget which movie it was' date=' but there is an alleged tribe in Africa that ties up murderers and puts them in the middle of the river to drown. If the family of the victim lets the murderer drown, they will have justice but will mourn the victim forever. If the victim's family swims out to save the murderer, it's an admission that life isn't fair and the idea of a life for a life is absurd. The family gets to mourn a decent interval and then move on with their lives.

[/quote']

 

Possibly... "Tears of the Sun", with Bruce Willis?

[Jim]

I don't think our present system is a deterrent for violent criminals. A lot of these guys say the worst thing about prison is the embarassment of having the toilet sit in the middle of the cell. Public flogging would probably be the worst thing you could do to these guys. I don't know why this would be a good alternative. I believe in consequences and taking responsibility for your actions. I just don't like the idea that death can be atoned for by more death.

 

I agree that consequences should follow actions. Some call this vengeance but I call it justice. I'm not sure of your point here. You're not advocating public floggings?

 

A man in prison for life has a better chance of affecting others and giving some meaning to the death of his victim. Kill him and he is forgotten, and the victim's family may feel like justice was done, but there was only more death done and society is pushing them to feel good about it, to feel justified, to feel like all the victim would have wanted was revenge on his killer.

 

I do not see how a man living in a hell hole for the rest of his life can give meaning to the death of his victim. It seems more cruel than death. I don't want Underwood to suffer. I just want him gone.

 

 

 

It's necessary to remove a murderer from society so he has no chance to kill again. This isn't unnecessarily cruel. Life itself is cruel since people can take the lives of others and feel no remorse. For those of us who would feel remorse, why should the state pull the switch?

 

My hypothetical was surmising that in ten years we might have much more humane alternatives than life in prison. I think within 10-15 years we'll be able to eliminate the risk of recidivism without incarceration.

 

I would feel remorse even if I killed someone in a justifiable situation, like protecting my family from someone intent on killing us. I would not mourn the person I killed forever, but I would be diminished for taking ANY life. I would be glad I saved my family, and they would take precedence in that situation, but I would not smile and say the killer deserved it. No human deserves death at the hand of another human.

 

I would not take pleasure in killing to protect my family but I also would not feel diminished.

Punishing isn't killing. Forgiving the crime doesn't mean allowing the criminal to go unpunished. You're confusing forgiving with forgetting.

 

Well, besides the fact that killing can be punishment, you aren't seeing my point. I'm replying to the notion that it is not appropriate to have punishment of various forms for revenge/retribution. I think that deep down almost everyone agrees that some punishment is necessary even if the punishment did not deter or rehabilitate.

 

Part of the way I feel about the DP is that it allows society to forget too easily. We need to be reminded that killers are out there, that we make them with unkindness, that some can't be redeemed, that some can be redeemed, that only time will tell, that life isn't fair and just, that you can affect people positively, that there will still be Underwoods, that life is still precious anyway.

 

Oh, I think we get reminded often enough that there are killers in society. Fox News, CNN, et al. will make certain we don't forget.

 

I reject the notion that we "make killers with unkindness." Killers are personally responsible for their own actions. They make themselves.

 

I certainly agree that life is precious despite the Underwoods. I do not, however, view life as an absolute value that cannot be sacrificed in appropriate circumstances. Kevin Underwood, quite simply, needs to be no more.

[MacroQuantum]

Heh' date=' yeah, that must be it.

 

(shrug) I accept your withdrawl from the debate, and I'm sorry you weren't able to refute me on point. Better luck next time.

 

As a side note, it always disappoints me to see this kind of personal slander taking the place of a serious debate. I hope you step back and reflect on your goals before entering this arena again.[/quote']

 

You have made no point. You have appealed to emotion, appealed to a nonexistant item like justice. So far you have failed to say anything of substance. There is nothing to refute.

 

Meanwhile your own rudeness is equal to mine. You're right, I am finished with you. And apparently the debate since Jim said it very well.

[Pangloss]

You have made no point. You have appealed to emotion' date=' appealed to a nonexistant item like justice. So far you have failed to say anything of substance. There is nothing to refute.

 

Meanwhile your own rudeness is equal to mine. You're right, I am finished with you. And apparently the debate since Jim said it very well.[/quote']

 

I *will not* be called out like that by an outright LIAR while I have air to breath in this body.

 

THE ONE AND ONLY reason you're not eating a ban right now is because I am a moderator. Had you assaulted the honest opinion and logical argument of ANY other member like that you'd be looking for a new home right now.

 

I reiterate my central non-emotional argument, which is that justice is not about revenge, it's about fairness and equality, and these concepts are firmly rooted in law as well as the writings of the founding fathers. That is not an appeal to emotion, sir, that is an appeal to REASON. That DOESN'T mean it's the ONLY reasonable position, of course, and you may certainly choose to disagree with it. But you will not mischaracterize it, ignore it, spin it, disrespect it, or LIE about it.

 

The difference between you and me, sir, is that I respect your opinion about the death penalty. It's interesting how Jim has managed to post some nice counterpoint to my position without actually LYING about his opponents or insulting and disrespecting them. You could learn a lot from his debate style, which IS about debate, not about insulting and attacking the other guy.

[Phi for All]

You have made no point. You have appealed to emotion' date=' appealed to a nonexistant item like justice. So far you have failed to say anything of substance. There is nothing to refute.

 

Meanwhile your own rudeness is equal to mine. You're right, I am finished with you. And apparently the debate since Jim said it very well.[/quote']I've reread this whole thread and I see no reason for this big chip on your shoulder, MacroQuantum. If you have a personal problem with Pangloss he is more than willing to discuss it privately. Personal vengeance makes for bad political arguments.