Renault on 3/7/2008 at 21:18
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
Maybe we should analyze what aspects of society create men who rape 5 year olds and figure out how to prevent such things instead of deciding the best way for them to die.
Or is that too big a task?
I see no reason why we can't do both.
Thirith on 3/7/2008 at 21:51
Quote Posted by Brethren
I see no reason why we can't do both.
Because the best chance we have of finding out what makes these people what they are is to examine them. Which is somewhat less effective if they're dead.
Gingerbread Man on 3/7/2008 at 22:13
See, now people are saying "where's the line?"
The rest of us are saying there isn't, and shouldn't be, a hard and fast line. No criteria, no checklists. These things cannot be rubberstamped any more than we'd want to consign all thieves to prison for ten years regardless. All this talk about aggravating circumstances conveniently forgets that there are plenty of cases with mitigating circumstances so compelling and understandable that sometimes it is considered not necessarily morally correct to have committed a crime, but at least not morally incorrect. If that makes sense.
There's never a good reason to presort complex phenomena, and anyone who asks for a clearly delineated point beyond which things change is either deluded or attempting to set up a wonderful strawman with which to harass any poor sucker stupid enough to fall into that particular trap.
Starrfall on 3/7/2008 at 23:08
I'm interested to know how the "all human lives are precious and death is never a permissible punishment" people reconcile those views with some of the "good" wars that have been fought. (ie: not Iraq 2, that one doesn't need reconciliation because it was stupid)
I'm not trying to play gotcha, I'm serious. Because it seems that if that is your view, then the only acceptable combat is self-defense (I'm assuming you still think "killing someone who is actively trying to kill you" is ok.) By self-defense I mean defending your own borders from attack and not attacking Japan in retaliation for Pearl Harbor, for example.
It seems that such an attack would just be basically a mass death sentence passed in retribution for bad conduct. So would attacks on Germany or Italy. Standing up for Great Britain/France wouldn't be a good enough excuse because then it's just passing a death sentence in retaliation for hurting someone we like, and that's selfish and not allowed. We could go to Great Britain or France to defend it from direct attacks, but attacking in Germany would be out of line.
Is the first Iraq war justified? Is the US Civil War? Is Afghanistan? How do you answer "yes" when you think death is never a permissible punishment? Or do you answer "no"?
SubJeff on 3/7/2008 at 23:24
Don't forget that some of which you speak is actually attack as defense - the aim being to destroy the enemy war machine. This is very different to a pure revenge attack (which is, for example, what Hamas et al do).
Starrfall on 3/7/2008 at 23:39
How is that different from killing someone to keep them from killing again?
Even a life sentence in prison doesn't actually stop anyone from killing again (which is a serious flaw in the "life sentences are just as good" argument, by the way). People are murdered in prison all the time and people are murdered outside of prison at the direction of people inside prison all the time.
Given that, how is a death penalty not attack as defense?
Stitch on 3/7/2008 at 23:54
Quote Posted by Starrfall
Given that, how is a death penalty not attack as defense?
Because there are other options that don't involve government-sanctioned murder.
NNNNEEEEXXXXT!
Starrfall on 3/7/2008 at 23:55
Next is everything above that. I'm sure we're all eager for you to enlighten us.
And you haven't said how those other options prevent the defendants from killing again so you're kind of batting zero right now.
Scots Taffer on 4/7/2008 at 02:02
I wouldn't waste your breath, Starreh, Stitch doesn't have time for anything except occasional post-shitting. ;)
To toss my own two cents into the debate, I'd really like to say that I am very conflicted about the whole thing. My view of prison is that it utterly fails in every regard, I don't think there's anything positive produced by the prison system whatsoever, except the period of time that it keeps dangerous elements from society. I don't really believe in rehabilitation, I don't believe that people are capable of vast change (from psychopathic murderer to mild-mannered saint or rampaging child rapist to controlled semi-human-being) and so I think that there are people out there capable of acts that should never be allowed into society again, no matter what age they are and no matter how repentent they are after the fact.
Notice I said "period of time that it keeps dangerous elements from society", "life" in prison is kind of an alien concept these days is it not? I mean, except at very, very unusual cases, doesn't "life" imprisonment mean 7 to 50 years? I mean, that's taking someone who say, commits a series of grievous crimes at age 20 and puts them in prison anywhere from 27 to 70, and we know that other elements can come into play, good behaviour, psychological "rehabilitation", the murderer finding God, etc, that minimise their sentences.
So in a lot of cases, these "life" sentences end up being nowhere near life at all - now if we're talking in terms of commensurate punishment for grievous acts, I don't give a fuck if you find the Messiah, donate all your possessions to charity, teach blind kids to read brail, nurse people back from the dead or start healing people with your hands, you committed that act and that act got you put in prison FOR LIFE.
The only way to ensure that an extremely dangerous criminal can never again be free in society again is to put him in the dirt, I think that's a fair statement to make given the current criminal justice system.
I reckon a lot of people who support the death penalty feel that way, not just because they are revenge-minded but because they have no faith in the criminal justice system to ensure those people are put behind bars forever and actually serve out the sentence delivered.
Tocky on 4/7/2008 at 03:06
Carl was a nice guy. A little timid for a big guy but with a good sense of humor. We used to talk about the heyday of muscle cars as I taught him about alternate color matching at the Chevrolet dealership in Tunica. They tried to keep his ex son inlaw in jail by going down and testifying at his parole hearings. When they let him out he killed Carl, his wife, his daughter, and both his young grandkids, one of them still a toddler.
We are too human and they are too inhuman.
If we could study them and find the root cause of thier utter selfishness then that would be great but it would be difficult to do given thier manipulative nature and the fact so many otherwise good people fall for thier shit.
I don't think some realize that parents don't lose thier objectivity so much as become more vested in society. When you look in the wide window you know what it means to want the world to be a safe place because there is now nothing you would not do to protect that little one. That isn't a bad thing. If you don't feel that way then something is wrong with you.
