Death Penalty

[Tetrahedrite]

Thats just speculation and you know it.

Are you seriously suggesting that your government would release a convicted serial killer who had murdered 10 people back into society? The USA must be worse than I first thought!

[Lance]

Are you seriously suggesting that your government would release a convicted serial killer who had murdered 10 people back into society?

 

No, I am seriously suggesting that if a serial killer was released or escaped that neither of us would know.

 

Why quarantine a deadly virus when you can simply destroy it? Sure, if the virus is locked up it cant hurt anybody but why take the risk?

[Coral Rhedd]

Actually, Lance isn't totally off the wall here. Ted Bundy escaped from a jail in Colorado and went on to kill several people. Escaping from prison is harder however. While Bundy was appealing his death sentence, he provided profilers with examples of thinking and behavior that they still use today to peg guys like him.

[Aardvark]

But what if the perp just couldn't help it. Newtonian' date=' I would be interested in your view on the following odd but footnoted article I found by googling the words molester, heritable, and genetic:

 

http://io.uwinnipeg.ca/~mwahn/bornevil.html[/quote']

 

 

Interesting article. It is possible to reasonably postulate that some people have strong involuntary urges. However i do not see how that can be allowed to be used as mitigating circumstances. Whatever impelled a person to commit a crime does not detract in any manner from the impact of that crime.

 

In terms of punishment it should be ignored. On the other hand understanding these urges and what causes them could be very useful in crime prevention, both in providing help/treatment for people who might otherwise commit crimes and in changing aspects of our society which could provide negative stimuli to potential criminals.

[Supaiku]

It DOES seem pretty pragmatic...

[Coral Rhedd]

Interesting article. It is possible to reasonably postulate that some people have strong involuntary urges. However i do not see how that can be allowed to be used as mitigating circumstances. Whatever impelled a person to commit a crime does not detract in any manner from the impact of that crime.

 

In terms of punishment it should be ignored. On the other hand understanding these urges and what causes them could be very useful in crime prevention' date=' both in providing help/treatment for people who might otherwise commit crimes and in changing aspects of our society which could provide negative stimuli to potential criminals.[/quote']

 

Well, we do alter our approach somewhat for criminal behavior if it can be established that the perp is insane. For instance we recognize the concept of someone being so unconnected as to be unable to contribute to his own defense and below certain IQ levels the mentally retarded are generally excused.

 

I think I favor a containment model rather than a punishment model. There used to be a name for the type of people mentioned in the link I posted. They called it moral insanity. Later, much of that behavior fell under the rather general category of sociopathy.

 

To me, in order to justify the death penalty (assuming a certainty that only the guilty are put to death) you have to demonstrate that the murderer had intent and could conform his behavior to the standards of society. Intent is fairly easy. Legally, if you make a deliberate decision a split second before you killed someone, you had intent.

 

However, I cannot see how someone can argue that most behavior -- especially disordered behavior -- is heritable and still favor the death penalty. To me, this is a contradiction. It is like executing someone for having blue eyes.

 

_____ _____ _____

 

Newtonian, we (You and I) have been here before on this in another thread. Do let us hear your opinion.

[Lance]

To me' date=' this is a contradiction. It is like executing someone for having blue eyes.

[/quote']

 

Blue eyes dont kill people.

[syntax252]

I am in favor of executing people who have murdered others, but I don't trust the state far enough to get it right every time.

 

That leads to quite a lot in the way of appeals, which leads to a lot of time passing before the sentence is actually imposed, which leads me to believe that it is probably not very effective as a deterrent.

 

About all one can say for sure is that it is one hell of a recidivism reducer.

 

On that note, I read an article recently that pointed out that there have been hundreds of people killed by murderers who had been convicted of murder and were later released, or who had killed other prisoners or guards. Many more that even the highest estimates of people who have been executed by mistake. Still.........

[YT2095]

I still recon we should harvest them for organs to save lives of others.

it`s not quite the same as bringing the person they killed back to life again, but it`s the next best thing, and also Forces them to become usefull citizens.

[5614]

I totaly agree with syntax252, except maybe instead of saying "still..." at the end I'd say that I was in favour it.

 

[edit] and i agree with YT

[Newtonian]

Coral best not to overlap threads,I dont see a contradiction at all.Perhaps we should use the thread we were previously in.They was a darker side to Ramins post to criminal accountability.

[Coral Rhedd]

Blue eyes dont kill people.

 

Neither does sociopathy. People kill people. However to ignore what might be the basic cause is foolish. If people kill people because they have some sort of killer genes, how is this their fault?

 

Take my dog: He looks at cats as prey. After six years of training I have finally taught him to ignore cats while he is on leash. He has been trained (programmed) to the extent that he will not even look at cats. All bets are off when he is free. In other words, in a controlled situation, he will not chase cats. But off leash, even if he killed a cat I would be foolish to turn around and execute him for it. 'Tis his nature.

 

It is odd to me that people who are eager to say so much behavior is heritable don't like to examine the possibility that killers kill because it's their nature.

[Coral Rhedd]

Coral best not to overlap threads,I dont see a contradiction at all.Perhaps we should use the thread we were previously in.They was a darker side to Ramins post to criminal accountability.

 

Not understanding your last sentence here. Feel free to PM me if you wish to keep it out of this thread.

[syntax252]

 

It is odd to me that people who are eager to say so much behavior is heritable don't like to examine the possibility that killers kill because it's their nature.

 

 

I think that killing is indeed in the nature of some people' date=' at least to the extent that it comes a lot easier for them.

 

I doubt that it is inherited though, unless it is some sort of maldevelopement of the brain.

 

But, regardless of [b']why[/b] it is easier for some people to kill, isn't the fact that it is easier for them to kill enough reason to get them off the streets and into a secure place where they can't?

 

At least after they have demonstrated their willingness to do so?

[Coral Rhedd]

[quote name=syntax252

But' date=' regardless of why it is easier for some people to kill, isn't the fact that it is easier for them to kill enough reason to get them off the streets and into a secure place where they can't?

 

I absolutely agree with you on getting them to a secure place. Our problem is indeed that we let them out sometimes to do it again. Of course I doubt that murder is the crime with the highest recidivism but its consequences are entirely permanent.

 

What constitutes a secure place is worth considering. There are some people so dangerous that they will murder their fellow inmates and guards. We can argue that the guards are paid (not very well) to take this risk but their fellow inmates are not.

[Aardvark]

If people kill people because they have some sort of killer genes, how is this their fault?

 

Just because someone can't help the fact that they are evil doesn't alter the fact that they are evil.

 

I think it is perfectly reasonable to consider that aspects of behaviour are heritable and not to consider that as an excuse. If you commit an act of evil it doesn't really matter why you do it, that doesn't alter the reality of your action in any way.

 

We should be careful not to confuse insanity, the inability to understand the meaning or consequences of action, with impulses to unacceptable behaviour. There is a significant difference of principal. An evil person knows what they are doing is wrong, they just 'can't help themselves'.

 

 

In short, i agree with your basic premise, some killers kill because it is in their nature. It's just that i don't see that as an excuse. I think people who commit serious crimes should be punished seriously, whatever their nature. I do not however support capital punishment.

[Coral Rhedd]

Just because someone can't help the fact that they are evil doesn't alter the fact that they are evil.

 

I think it is perfectly reasonable to consider that aspects of behaviour are heritable and not to consider that as an excuse. If you commit an act of evil it doesn't really matter why you do it' date=' that doesn't alter the reality of your action in any way.

[/quote']

 

I wonder how far apart we are in terms of what we would both like to see happen. Both of us, I think, would like to see people who commit certain types of crime put away for a very long time. I do agree that the consequences of "evil" crimes for the victims of those crimes outweighs any reason or excuse that might be brought forward.

 

From the standpoint of understanding and perhaps changing human behavior, I think the "why" matters very much.

 

We should be careful not to confuse insanity, the inability to understand the meaning or consequences of action, with impulses to unacceptable behaviour. There is a significant difference of principal. An evil person knows what they are doing is wrong, they just 'can't help themselves'.

 

I believe evil people most often know that society and the law consider what they are doing is wrong. I think however that some of them might reduce that problem to a mere difference of opinion. Could it be possible that some people simply lack all capacity to internalize moral teaching?

 

 

In short, i agree with your basic premise, some killers kill because it is in their nature. It's just that i don't see that as an excuse. I think people who commit serious crimes should be punished seriously, whatever their nature. I do not however support capital punishment.

 

I think our differences may revolve around the words excuse and punishment. I don't think to understand has to mean to excuse. For instance, if your child is impulsive due to a disorder you would still need to make certain actions had consequences, but you might understand and forgive (not excuse!) because of the disorder.

 

I am thinking here of the child of a friend of mine. I am virtually certain that unless his behavior is altered this child will grow up to be very dangerous indeed. My friend needs to figure out how to penalize but still love. But that is probably another thread altogether.

[Macroscopic]

Originally posted by Coral Rhedd

It is odd to me that people who are eager to say so much behavior is heritable don't like to examine the possibility that killers kill because it's their nature.

I don't understand that last part. Why should killers be considered any less guilty just because they happen to be naturally evil? So they are born killers, and have an evil nature, but I'm somehow supposed to feel sorry for them? Is a monster that was born a monster any better than a human that voluntarily became one? I don't think so, and believe they should be treated equally.

[john5746]

I think our differences may revolve around the words excuse and punishment. I don't think to understand has to mean to excuse. For instance' date=' if your child is impulsive due to a disorder you would still need to make certain actions had consequences, but you might understand and forgive (not excuse!) because of the disorder.

[/quote']

 

I understand your point from the aspect of intent. If someone goes out, drinks and drives and kills someone by "accident", that is different than if they go out and shoot someone on purpose. Of course, they are both guilty, but the punishment might be different.

 

As far as mental capacity, genes, upbringing, I don't put that in the same category. If a person is "born to kill" then I consider them as I would a rabid dog. Hey, I love Ol' Yeller and it wasn't his fault, but he is going to kill and their ain't anything I can do about it, so I will kill him. Not out of malice, not out of hatred, it just needs to be done. Same with certain wild animals.

 

Now, if that drunk driver has a history of drinking and driving and will likely repeat the offense again when released, might as well get rid of him as well.

 

I'm not arguing for the death penalty mind you, just that this line of reasoning has no bearing IMO.

[Coral Rhedd]

I don't understand that last part. Why should killers be considered any less guilty just because they happen to be naturally evil? So they are born killers, and have an evil nature, but I'm somehow supposed to feel sorry for them? Is a monster that was born a monster any better than a human that voluntarily became one? I don't think so, and believe they should be treated equally.

 

A schizophrenic having a psychotic episode may not know that when she drowns her children she is not saving their souls and sending them to heaven. It makes mighty sense to prevent her from committing such an act again, but she has a genetic disease. Without the disease, she would not have killed. But because what she did was "monstrous" is she therefore a monster? And if you do view her as a monster do you think she should be executed?

 

If evil behavior is the result of a disease, how to we separate the disease from the evil. How do we parse responsibility?

 

I propose that we need to punish. It is within us to exact revenge. This desire is natural.

[Coral Rhedd]

I understand your point from the aspect of intent. If someone goes out' date=' drinks and drives and kills someone by "accident", that is different than if they go out and shoot someone on purpose. Of course, they are both guilty, but the punishment might be different.

 

As far as mental capacity, genes, upbringing, I don't put that in the same category. If a person is "born to kill" then I consider them as I would a rabid dog. Hey, I love Ol' Yeller and it wasn't his fault, but he is going to kill and their ain't anything I can do about it, so I will kill him. Not out of malice, not out of hatred, it just needs to be done. Same with certain wild animals.

 

Now, if that drunk driver has a history of drinking and driving and will likely repeat the offense again when released, might as well get rid of him as well.

 

I'm not arguing for the death penalty mind you, just that this line of reasoning has no bearing IMO.[/quote']

 

As I indicated earlier, the death penalty has certainly been discussed in previous threads. I thought if might be interesting to explore a different approach.

 

I think most alcoholism falls under the category "disease" but I am not for executing drunk drivers either. And neither are you. This is because you have analysed culpability and make some excuse both for the driver who was not drunk and the one who was. If you were weighing only the result -- that people died -- you would require the same punishment for everyone whose actions resulted in a death.

 

That is why I think my line of reasoning has a bearing on the death penalty. It exacts the ultimate punishment. People on death row are there because of the nature of their crimes. Otherwise, we would have a lot of careless physicians on death row.

 

About the rabies: Old Yeller would have died anyway. Think of it as euthanasia and not execution. I cried my eyes out at that movie as a child and it can still make me tear up today.

[Macroscopic]

And if you do view her as a monster do you think she should be executed?

No. As I have said earlier in this thread, I am against the death penalty.

 

Originally posted by Coral Rhedd

A schizophrenic having a psychotic episode may not know that when she drowns her children she is not saving their soul and sending them to heaven. It makes mighty sense to prevent her from committing such an act again, but she has a genetic disease. Without the disease, she would not have killed. But because what she did was "monstrous" is she therefore a monster?

 

That is different than the example of the killers that kill 'because it's their nature'.

I think the schizophrenic would be able to plead insanity, genetic insanity is different than genetic evilness.

[Aardvark]

I wonder how far apart we are in terms of what we would both like to see happen.

 

I think we are in agreement over in broad principle. It's the detail of the implications we are thrashing out.

 

From the standpoint of understanding and perhaps changing human behavior' date=' I think the "why" matters very much.[/quote']

 

Very much so. If we can understand 'why' then we can devise strategies and interventions to help prevent people becoming criminals in the first place.

 

 

I believe evil people most often know that society and the law consider what they are doing is wrong. I think however that some of them might reduce that problem to a mere difference of opinion. Could it be possible that some people simply lack all capacity to internalize moral teaching?

 

From personal experience i'd say the answer is definitely yes. Some people (quite a lot of people) seem to lack any capacity for meaningful empathy.

 

 

 

I think our differences may revolve around the words excuse and punishment. I don't think to understand has to mean to excuse. For instance' date=' if your child is impulsive due to a disorder you would still need to make certain actions had consequences, but you might understand and forgive (not excuse!) because of the disorder.[/quote']

 

Here is the crux. I have heard the argument used that because criminals had these urges, for whatever reason, environmental influences or heriditary, therefore it was an excuse. A lot of people confuse an explanation for an excuse. This was a point i felt it important to be clear upon.

 

An example is that men are far more likely to commit acts of violence than women. This is clearly biological, probably related to testosterone. High levels of testosterone may go some way to explaining why a man beats a woman, but it can in no way be used as an excuse. High testosterone can be recognised as a factor in increased likelyhood of commiting such acts. Therefore the individual can take remedial activity to prevent it occuring, but not to use as an excuse if such an act were to occur.

 

 

 

I am thinking here of the child of a friend of mine. I am virtually certain that unless his behavior is altered this child will grow up to be very dangerous indeed. My friend needs to figure out how to penalize but still love. But that is probably another thread altogether.

 

Here we are in complete agreement.

 

 

Basically, my positon is that to explain is not to excuse. We are responsible for our actions regardless of our biological impulses, as sentient creatures we must learn to acknowledge and control these impulses, but never use them as excuses. We are independent moral agents with full responsibility for our own actions.

[Aardvark]

A schizophrenic having a psychotic episode may not know that when she drowns her children she is not saving their souls and sending them to heaven.

 

This is an important point of principal. If someone is insane, ie not aware of the consequences of their actions, they should not be treated in the same way as someone would is aware of what they are doing (whatever urges or impulses are driving them).

 

It's important to seperate the two catergories. Mad and bad are different.

[john5746]

I guess for me, since the death penalty is more for getting rid of waste, I am not too concerned with mad or bad. I am concerned with threat potential.

 

Ok, the rabid dog wasn't the best example, so if ANY dog mauls or kills a child, then it needs to be killed. No need to keep it around, feeding it, etc. Did it know it was doing something "bad" - who cares, it might do it again.

 

And with the drunk driver, I am more concerned with someone who keeps drinking and driving than OJ Simpson. That doesn't mean I want to live near OJ, that just means the drunken driver is the bigger threat IMO. Both should be locked up forever or killed.