Epos Nix on 4/7/2008 at 10:51
Dammit guys.
WE"RE ALL GONNA DIE EVENTUALLY ANYWAY.
... get over it
Aerothorn on 4/7/2008 at 12:13
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
I don't really believe in rehabilitation.
I once had a conversation with someone involved with the Bard Prison Initiative. It is a program run by Bard College in which students and teachers go into prisons (two maximum security, one lesser security) and do general college classes for inmates - and at the end they get a general liberal arts degree from Bard. Sounds like silly liberal shit - but they found that for the people who got these degress, the recidivism (sp?) rate dropped to 4% - which is way, way lower than the norm (which is probably greater than 50%). Obviously it depends on the person, but often it's no so much a case of "rehabilitation" as giving someone the opportunity to start a new life. Though admittedly, I doubt any of these people were murderers - I was sort of going off topic.
So back on topic - I didn't really mean for this to be a debate on the death penalty, but it seems that's what it's become. Someone to my surprise, it seems the fact majority of debate here has been on moral lines (with the exception of the "where do we draw the line" folks).
Here's another few things I'd like to toss out:
1. In the Lousiana case, there was a large group of people - including various sexual abuse victims and organizations who supported them - who filed a brief asking them NOT to have the death penalty in thi case, for two reasons. One, sexual abuse often comes from relatives. And if a child understood that, say, their father would be killed if they reported the crime, they would be less likely to report. And likewise, if the abuser understood that they could be killed, they might be more likely to kill the witness (though the last one is definitely a lot more questionable than the first).
2. The other commonly discussed problem with the death penalty is that it gets involved in serious problems with the American court system. Namely, pretty much all of the people on death row are poor, and a hugely disproportionate number of them are minorities. If you're rich and white, you generally don't get the death penalty unless it's a really high-profile case.
SubJeff on 4/7/2008 at 12:16
If you don't want to discuss it Epox then don't. You out? K
Scots - many people should indeed be imprisoned for life. Meaning life without chance of parole. One could argue that life in prison is no life at all. In some circumstances it must be a hell to be in prison. Other people will find a happy niche though and for them it's much less of a punishment. They are still free to experience new things, educate themselves, entertain themselves, have enjoyment. I'd never suggest torture as a punishment but I believe that some people should not have the freedom to do any of these things - that the crimes they have commited render them unfit for this world. If there is a higher divine judgement we should speed them on their way to that, and if not we extinguish all capacity for further experience of life for they have forfeit their right to it.
I must stress that I do not think that any current system is suitable to make these judgements so although I am pro-capital punishment am only so in ideology. There are far too many loopholes and errors that can be made and the one thing that absolutely puts the bosh on a death sentence is the possibility that an innocent man could be wrongly executed.
On another note (and in relation to another issue you mentioned): "life" sentences in the UK are a joke. It's life for a cat perhaps but come on some lifers get out in under 10. wtf?
Aerothorn - re: starting a new life. I'm all for this for less serious crimes, and in a big, big way. One on hand I think that sentences for serious violent/sexual crimes are too low, but on the other hand more minor crimes that were done a long time ago should really be wiped if there has been a long period of where someone has not offended, e.g. stealing a car at 18 still being a hinderance to job prospects when you are in your 40s or something.
Starrfall on 4/7/2008 at 13:05
Quote Posted by Kolya
Starrfall, a war is not a trial. Just as abortion isn't a death penalty. Do you really need someone to explain the differences to you?
Well, if you can't explain the difference yourself then I'm going to say you're full of shit because it's your views I'm asking about.
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
1. A person on trail from is not guaranteed to kill again. Yes, they may kill again but only in exceptional circumstances can you quantify the probability of it as high/likely or even say it is inevitable.
2. A country that is at war with you will very highly likely attack again. A war is an ongoing process.
That's not really good enough when it comes to things like the US civil war (which admittedly you might not give two figs for) where the south was apparently all ready to pay for any federally owned lands and sign a peace treaty if they would just be left alone. Not every war is the same.
And then there's the point mop brought up about it not being able to fairly secure conviction for a future crime. I think if you're really taking the "no one can be killed by the state ever" view then a higher probability of the bad guy doing harm in the future still wouldn't be enough.
SubJeff on 4/7/2008 at 14:53
What I don't give two figs about is "future" crime. I'm talking about a convicted murderer and whether he/she should be executed by the state.
To be clear on something: there are only two reasons I think that any country should ever go to war for and that is to defend itself from attack or to prevent a humanitarian disaster/crime against humanity. This includes pre-emptive strikes on hostile neighbours. The US civil war was a different kettle of fish.
In any case - a war is very different to a criminal trail. You always have the choice to excute the criminal or not. You don't always have choices in war.
Starrfall on 4/7/2008 at 15:07
And sometimes you do. So I'd like to know how the no-death-penalty people analyze it. This isn't argument, this is an attempt to get a more complete understanding of people's views.
Basically all I'm interested in whether they think the same way about war as you do, and if not how they reconcile war with their views on state-initiated killing.
You'd think people so passionate about their views would jump at the chance to better explain them to those who are interested but so far you're the only one who really answered!
Rogue Keeper on 4/7/2008 at 15:14
Quote Posted by Kolya
abortion isn't a death penalty
Nope, it's another kind of murder sanctioned by social consensus.
hopper on 4/7/2008 at 15:23
Quote Posted by Starrfall
Well, if you can't explain the difference yourself then I'm going to say you're full of shit because it's your views I'm asking about.
He has a point, though. Just because war and capital punishment both make people dead doesn't mean they're the same thing. I count myself squarely in the "no death penalty, period" camp, but honestly I don't even see the need to "reconcile" my views with "good" wars. War is not punishment, because to punish someone (as opposed to taking revenge or simply preventing them from doing any harm) you need to have them under your control. In fact, wars usually end the moment one party has gained control over the other, if not sooner. If the victorious party doesn't end hostilities at that point, it turns into genocide. I see no need to kill anybody for punishment once they're under control.
If you want to equate the death penalty and war, do you also equate the situation where the police kills a man who's taken people hostage in order to free them, with the death penalty? I'm guessing that even in the USA, a bank robber who releases his hostages physically unharmed and surrenders to the police will not face the death penalty for such a crime.
Starrfall on 4/7/2008 at 15:28
If it isn't for punishment then isn't the killing worse unless it's in self-defense? Is it not ok to kill to punish but ok to kill as a means of getting your way politically?
I equate the police sniper who kills a hostage-taker with someone acting in defense of others, but I'm not sure I'm getting the point you're trying to make about the bank robber who releases his hostages.
Tocky on 4/7/2008 at 15:31
Quote Posted by Kolya
Tocky, if someone is in governmental arrest, he isn't the "strong" one and the ones that walk free and can decide his fate aren't "weak".
I was speaking of children. It is our duty to protect them because they cannot protect themselves. Any money and effort expended to feed, house, and educate prisoners is money that could be used in social programs for those who did not make a decision to rape and kill someone.
Quote Posted by Koyla
And since someone brought up Mengele (Yay. How I've been waiting for the Nazi argument.).... You do realise that Mengele killed thousands or more with the exact same justification that you are using now? He deemed those Jews "subhuman", "animals", "rats", "not part of the human race". So did his government, and so these people were murdered by governmental sanction.
Not the same. The only thing that makes one subhuman are actions. The only thing that can make one subhuman is therefore onesself.
