Death Penalty

[Nixie]

There have been a lot of talk recently about the death penalty because of a botched execution and the fact that states are keeping the names of the pharma companies that supply the drugs used a secret (so the companies don't have to face public pressure for supplying them).

I did a quick search and didn't see a thread about the death penalty...or at least one didn't pop up.

So what are your views on the death penalty? Do you think it is murder or an acceptable form of punishment? What are your feelings/thoughts about the rights of the convicted versus the rights of the murder victim(s)? Would you be able to vote for the death penalty if you sat on a murder trial?

 

[rachelbaker99]

I think that the concept of the death penalty represents the epitome of evils which can be achieved when a person chooses to believe that their own personal values or fears are above value of another human being's life.

 

[say what]

I don't know how I feel.

On one hand I think that there are certain people who are lucky to be able to live a life in prison - often in a cell by themselves. To me, it seems like they are lucky to be getting a lifetime of warmth, food, shelter, and basic amenities..considering some of these people have done unthinkable things to others.

On the flip side, there are cases where people who were wrongly convicted have died. There are cases, as you said, of botched attempts which were horribly painful and almost like torture- which then makes you question whether or not the system is as unjust as the criminals.

Justice is all about blind equality....and yet my opinion of the death penalty is so subjective and case to case. So I really don't know what I think. I don't think there is an answer that could be just for everyone!

 

[Keirouen]

Sure some people deserve a fate worse than death.

Here's the problem. The government shouldn't hold that power. The victim and the people who loved the victim deserve to avenge the perp!

When we make the crime a spectical and let lawyers and public opinion decide the fate of the accused, we commit the greater crime of forgetting why we should punish in the first place. We should punish to balance out the wrong to the injured party. Instead we punish to fuel our own misguided sense of justice and self-righteousness!

 

[say what]

Sure some people deserve a fate worse than death.

Here's the problem. The government shouldn't hold that power. The victim and the people who loved the victim deserve to avenge the perp!

When we make the crime a spectical and let lawyers and public opinion decide the fate of the accused, we commit the greater crime of forgetting why we should punish in the first place. We should punish to balance out the wrong to the injured party. Instead we punish to fuel our own misguided sense of justice and self-righteousness!

But the victim and their loved ones are going to be so blind by emotions...not to mention I think that's a lot to put on them. In a fit of rage I might want the person killed, but I'm not sure I could handle having that decision on my shoulders!

 

[Nixie]

@Keirouen
What if the victim or the victim's family exact some type of inhumane or grossly painful torture when they enact their vengeance? If we (meaning society) give them the power to exact revenge wouldn't we be complicit in that torture? Is punishment merely a tool to create a balance or does it have a larger purpose? If society has a misguided sense of justice, then how can a single individual have a "guided" sense of justice? How can something on an individual level not have a correlation to the macro/society level?

@rachelbaker99
What about the person(s) the convicted murderer killed? Are their rights or the rights of their family members nonexistent in the face of the rights of the convicted? What should they face for their actions? How is it evil? Are you saying that society should not set forth acceptable behavior with outlined consequences? What about the social contract? Everyone fend for themselves and hope that nothing bad ever happens to you?

 

[rachelbaker99]

@Adriift
The person they killed is dead. Nothing is going to change that. I think the universe will have its way and either the killer will learn to do better things in the future, or they will bring demise upon themselves (someone will kill them in revenge or self-defense.) but it's not up to anyone else to decide what their fate should be. And I don't believe in the social contract, because I believe not all people are innately a danger or competition to one another.

 

[Nixie]

@Adriift
The person they killed is dead. Nothing is going to change that. I think the universe will have its way and either the killer will learn to do better things in the future, or they will bring demise upon themselves (someone will kill them in revenge or self-defense.) but it's not up to anyone else to decide what their fate should be. And I don't believe in the social contract, because I believe not all people are innately a danger or competition to one another.

But that doesn't make any sense. If the universe will have it's way and someone else kills them, then isn't someone else deciding what their fate will be?

You don't agree that man is a social animal by nature? That one has to sublimate the individual to a degree in order to exist within the group and support the group health?

Where is the Fe? Does that ring a bell?

 

[Cornerstone]

I don't like it but the reality of keeping people in prison forever is unlikely not to be constantly challenged for budgets etc. making it more dangerous and cruel than it need be.

I mean, the way I see it is if this person is just a pure monster. Suppose from them you can extract no goodness directly, they have no hope of rehabilitation or repentance.
Then you can look to the next person. One option is to make a regular person a murderer, the other is to make them a guard (I imagine Hannibal Lector's decent orderly).

The experience of looking after evil incarnate is a better experience (if you can keep it safe and professional) than being turned killer in the most boring way possible - getting a robot to kill someone who can't move for you.

We can't have some of these monsters out and about...ever. We just can't. They do not play well with others.
But...isn't that fucked up that they exist? We should keep them alive and in relative dignity and try to know them...or at least film the spooky interviews.

I think the death penalty is such a waste. But how can you seriously advocate that when the rest of the world is the way it is?
We have the capacity to know the old ways are wrong but I don't think we have evolved enough on the inside to know why less exploitation is worth it inherently,despite representing a net loss materially.

 

[rachelbaker99]

But that doesn't make any sense. If the universe will have it's way and someone else kills them, then isn't someone else deciding what their fate will be?

You don't agree that man is a social animal by nature? That one has to sublimate the individual to a degree in order to exist within the group and support the group health?

Where is the Fe? Does that ring a bell?

There's a difference between an individual doing something to that person directly in retaliation, out of pure emotion, and someone thinking they have the ability to say what punishment the person should receive. I think that for some people, who expect those harms from others which they would be able to inflict on someone else, the idea of a social contract is the only way to "ensure" order or peace among people. But their initial assumption is wrong. There are people who would inhabit their space peacefully and harmoniously with others, using only those resources they needed and always trying to ensure the survival of as many others as possible. All the social contract does is justifies some people's false assumptions of human nature, restricting freedoms and inhibiting personal growth.

 

[Nixie]

[MENTION=11663]rachelbaker99[/MENTION]
The assumption that everyone will live harmoniously is the correct assumption then? So explain why crimes like murder and rape exist. Explain why conflict exists. There doesn't seem to be any valid point to your argument.

The social contract does make the assumption that man is unable to exist by himself and have all his(let's not quibble over pronoun, and use his for expedience's sake) needs met every moment of every day and still be able to live within a society/with other people.

You cannot expect to have a relationship with someone else and expect every single one of your needs met whenever you want. It is about the push/pull of the Other and adapting to differing needs and outlining acceptable behavior that makes the group strong enough to survive inherent individual conflict. It is the very nature of the Other. We are not hive animals. I am not you, you are not me. We will see and experience things differently, have different wants/needs and different problems/issues. So how do we live together harmoniously? We agree to sublimate our individuality in favor of a group dynamic which includes laws and strictures about acceptable behavior.

I would argue that without the social contract we would live in a world that stunts our growth.

 

[rachelbaker99]

I disagree. I think it is possible to live with someone else and have all your needs met. But you have to be able to believe that other people care as much about your life as you do. If you don't care about others' lives as much as your own, by nature, then over time you might learn to value others' lives, or without the social contract it is true, many things would seem to be in chaos. But at least everyone would be free to make their own mistakes, and those who innately care for others may be able to teach others how to be the same. It would be chaos, at first, and perhaps deadly for many. But everyone would be completely free and have their own opportunities for personal growth, rather than being born into a society which tells them there is a right and wrong way to behave yet always manages to contradict itself. The social contract teaches people to pretend they have ideals or morals until they no longer feel threatened by anyone else, at which point they can relish their own power and it becomes clear that throughout their lifetime they have leaned nothing of true worth.

 

[Lark]

There have been a lot of talk recently about the death penalty because of a botched execution and the fact that states are keeping the names of the pharma companies that supply the drugs used a secret (so the companies don't have to face public pressure for supplying them).

I did a quick search and didn't see a thread about the death penalty...or at least one didn't pop up.

So what are your views on the death penalty? Do you think it is murder or an acceptable form of punishment? What are your feelings/thoughts about the rights of the convicted versus the rights of the murder victim(s)? Would you be able to vote for the death penalty if you sat on a murder trial?

I think the secrecy surrounding the supply of the toxins used in executions is stupid, would people boycott ammunition suppliers if executions were by firing squad again?

I am not a supporter of capital punishment/death penalties by and large because evidence in the UK suggests that criminals find serving life sentences more difficult, there's been two serial killers and a child killer try to kill themselves, one of them was successful, another has campaigned for the right to euthenasia/suicide. It seems the harder sentence.

Alternatively I believe in revenge, a state shouldnt be able to carry out a killing, I can understand voters and tax payers not wishing to be even indirectly responsible for this but victims or victims kin or families wanting to exact revenge, I'm fine with that.

Doesnt need to be immediate either.

I think that perhaps when courts have decided on guilt then victims, victims kin or families should be permitted to decide upon execution or commuting the sentence in the name of mercy. I think this exists in some shape or form in some political islamic states.

 

[Nixie]

I disagree. I think it is possible to live with someone else and have all your needs met.


I didn't say it wasn't possible to have your needs met in a relationship. I said having (impliednly) your needs met every moment of every day. For example: This would mean: If I was in a relationship that at the exact moment, regardless of how the other person felt or was doing that if I wanted sex, they would give it to me but only in the way I wanted to have it.

But you have to be able to believe that other people care as much about your life as you do. You make the assumption that the Other is capable of "caring" about your life in the EXACT SAME manner as you would, which is a fallacy. I am not you, you are not me.

If you don't care about others' lives as much as your own, by nature, then over time you might learn to value others' lives, or without the social contract it is true, many things would seem to be in chaos. What?

But at least everyone would be free to make their own mistakes, and those who innately care for others may be able to teach others how to be the same. Everyone is already free to make their own mistakes. How are people not free to make their own mistakes? There are those who innately care for others? "Innately care for others"? What they come out of the womb able to care for others? Or is this ability to "care" a learned behavior by being socialized? Seems like a high handed statement to masturbate one's ego.

It would be chaos, at first, and perhaps deadly for many.

But everyone would be completely free and have their own opportunities for personal growth, rather than being born into a society which tells them there is a right and wrong way to behave yet always manages to contradict itself. But isn't change a normal part of growth? Wouldn't society in general have the capacity to change. We aren't talking about a static system of rules/laws/norms.

The social contract teaches people to pretend they have ideals or morals until they no longer feel threatened by anyone else, at which point they can relish their own power and it becomes clear that throughout their lifetime they have leaned nothing of true worth. People only pretend to have ideals and morals because they don't want to be threatened by others? It sounds pretty in a "rah rah" kinda way but this doesn't mean anything.

I agree to a greater extent that the death penalty exists for a reason. That within the confines of a decent society one must move to protect the interest of the whole at the expense of the individual. That someone can be killed to protect the rest of society from them. I don't see it as a function of punishment but one of consequence. If you cannot uphold the basic tenants of the reason to live communally (better protection and survival) then you must be eliminated. Perhaps one day we can find a method that doesn't involve death but as of now, there isn't one.

I also have radical ideas about proving guilt too. I mean, we have drugs that induce a greater willingness to tell the truth. If you are innocent, then lets go ahead and pump you full of some stuff and ask you some questions about what happened.

Tribalism is marked by a firm distinction between individuality and communal rights with the belief that protecting the whole is more vital than my own life. I like that word better than socialism.

 

[rachelbaker99]

I don't think you're understanding me. It's okay though.

 

[TinyBubbles]

There have been a lot of talk recently about the death penalty because of a botched execution and the fact that states are keeping the names of the pharma companies that supply the drugs used a secret (so the companies don't have to face public pressure for supplying them).

I did a quick search and didn't see a thread about the death penalty...or at least one didn't pop up.

So what are your views on the death penalty? Do you think it is murder or an acceptable form of punishment? What are your feelings/thoughts about the rights of the convicted versus the rights of the murder victim(s)? Would you be able to vote for the death penalty if you sat on a murder trial?

strongly against it.

 

[cvp12gh5]

I'm against it. Mainly because it is much more expensive to execute a criminal than it is to keep him/her in jail for life. The constitution requires a long and very complex judicial process in capital cases to ensure that a innocent person is not being put to death. This long, drawn-out process cost taxpayers millions of dollars more than if the criminal were sentenced to life in prison.

Do some of them deserve death? Absolutely. But if it's going to save hard-working taxpayers a significant amount of money to confine them to prison for life, then so be it. What I do think they need to change is the services that are provided in the prisons.

Let's pretend for a minute: They finally do away with the death penalty. In lieu of death, they are given life without the possibility of parole. I agree with this scenario, but I feel that they should suffer there until they die. No t.v. No visits. No phone. No lifting weights. No GED or college courses. Nothing. Absolutely NOTHING that will help them enjoy their stay. Let them suffer in their own private hell/cell.

They will wish they were put to death after 1 week of this. That's what doing life should feel like.

The govt should try it out. I'm almost certain the crime rate would drop significantly if people knew they would actually suffer in prison.

 

[the]

I don't believe in prisons or long sentences. I definitely don't believe that just because the government kills someone then that makes it okay. I also don't believe that torture does anyone any good.

i do have good feelings towards the idea of vigilantes.

 

[TinyBubbles]

I don't believe in prisons or long sentences. I definitely don't believe that just because the government kills someone then that makes it okay. I also don't believe that torture does anyone any good.

i do have good feelings towards the idea of vigilantes.

 

[Kanamori]

It shouldn't exist. The second the state kills an innocent person -- and the justice system is imperfect -- the people have collectively decided to kill an innocent person and become murderers themselves. There are some serial killers where I can understand the reasoning, maybe, but still, better safe than sorry. My state has never killed anyone in an execution and my conscience is clean 100% clean in that regard... A death penalty is one rule for a place I have, if for no other reason than the company I keep affecting me.