The reason for a death penalty

[D'rok]

Darat, I agree with this, and I do not think the death penalty should be used UNLESS there are ZERO doubts that an individual is guilty.

In other words, never. Or do you some sort of magical justice system where you live?

 

[cloudshipsrule]

In other words, never. Or do you some sort of magical justice system where you live?

If an individual walks into a mall and starts shooting and killing people, and then gets taken down by police, but not killed, do you think we could be fairly certain that it was that individual which killed the innocent shoppers? For cases like that, one bullet could save a buttload of tax money!

 

[D'rok]

If an individual walks into a mall and starts shooting and killing people, and then gets taken down by police, but not killed, do you think we could be fairly certain that it was that individual which killed the innocent shoppers?

Probably.

I sense you are not a fan of due process.

 

[CFLarsen]

I'm not adverse to putting this man to death if he's guilty. If he is convicted of this crime he'll have to live apart from the rest of the prison population for his own protection. If convicted but spared the death penalty his life won't be worth living. It would be better for him if he was executed.

Then, you are punishing him also for the flaws in the prison system.

CFLARSON,

Killing someone is different from all the other 'offences' you mentioned, and warrants punishment different from speeding, or shoplifting, or voting twice. If you can't see the difference or understand this concept, so be it.

I certainly won't understand your reasoning, if you won't tell me.

You just say "well, it's different", but you don't explain why.

I never said kill a murderer in the same way they kill their victims, did I?

I said if someone kills another individual for any reason other than self defense, they have given up their right to their own life.

Says who? Who has determined this? On what reasoning?

I didn't specify methods. If I murder someone, I would fully expect to get the death penalty, and I wouldn't appeal. I understand that I've given up my right to live by taking the life of another, as the law is currently written. I have no problem with it.

I am not talking about methods, but punishments. You want to kill killers, because "don't kill anyone and you won't get the death penalty". Those were your words. Your principle.

Follow that principle, and explain why rapists shouldn't be raped.

If an individual walks into a mall and starts shooting and killing people, and then gets taken down by police, but not killed, do you think we could be fairly certain that it was that individual which killed the innocent shoppers?

But why punish the dumb criminals harder than the smart ones?

For cases like that, one bullet could save a buttload of tax money!

How much money, exactly?

You can't just throw out an argument like that and expect people on a skeptics forum to gobble it up as fact.

 

[UserGoogol]

Obviously you don't have kids, and if this is what you believe I'd hit you really hard in the face with my fist if I was beside you right now.

I should perhaps clarify. Killing a newborn baby by horribly mutilating their anus is of course worse than them dying in their sleep or whatever. Blood loss due to having your anus ripped apart is going to be an extremely unpleasant way of dying no matter how cognitively developed you are. But I'm not sure if I see where it being rape becomes that big a deal. The anus is just another body part. The badness of rape is because of the various emotions that sex is associated with, the added sense of violation and whatnot, and I do doubt that newborn babies can really grasp those sorts of concepts.

After all, the article prefaces itself by saying something to the effect of "You think that the ten month old rape was bad? Listen to this!" Why is it worse to rape to death an eight day old than an ten month old? Death is death. Blood loss is arguably worse than blunt force to the abdomen, but's not how they seem to phrase it. They seem to be implying that a crime being more perverse makes it more wrong, and this seems illogical to me. If a person steals my computer because they need money or because they want to masturbate into my CD drive, it causes me the same harm either way.

But no, I don't have kids. I'm only 21. If there is evidence that I do not have access to because of that, then of course I would gladly like to have that evidence so I can revise my theories, but if you mean merely that people with kids would not take such a cavalier attitude towards baby rape, in which case I do not see the purpose in introducing such emotional biases.

If an individual walks into a mall and starts shooting and killing people, and then gets taken down by police, but not killed, do you think we could be fairly certain that it was that individual which killed the innocent shoppers? For cases like that, one bullet could save a buttload of tax money!

A human life is a human life. The interests of a guy who goes on a killing spree or who molests a newborn baby are worth exactly the same as the interests of anyone else. Of course, in general, we cannot satisfy the interests of people who go on killing sprees or who molest newborn babies without dissatisfying far more people. But that doesn't mean we should just kill them off the moment we have a chance. They still have interests, and those should be weighed accordingly by the legal system.

 

[Leftus]

But is it civilized to put people to death?

But is it civilized to keep someone locked up in a cage until they die?

The biblical "an eye for an eye"? OK, let's go with that.

From Exodus 21: 33-34

If someone leaves a pit open, or digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or a donkey falls into it, the owner of the pit shall make restitution, giving money to its owner, but keeping the dead animal.

If you are going to go with that the very least you should do is know it. Eye for an eye doesn't mean everything is matched item for item but that it is the most you can get. More often than not, money is the just compensation. You get the cost of a new ox, you don't get a new ox and the dead ox because you've been paid for that dead ox and it is no longer yours.

And if you blind your slave you have to set him or her free. Who says the bible is without compassion?

 

[D'rok]

I should perhaps clarify. Killing a newborn baby by horribly mutilating their anus is of course worse than them dying in their sleep or whatever. Blood loss due to having your anus ripped apart is going to be an extremely unpleasant way of dying no matter how cognitively developed you are. But I'm not sure if I see where it being rape becomes that big a deal. The anus is just another body part. The badness of rape is because of the various emotions that sex is associated with, the added sense of violation and whatnot, and I do doubt that newborn babies can really grasp those sorts of concepts.

After all, the article prefaces itself by saying something to the effect of "You think that the ten month old rape was bad? Listen to this!" Why is it worse to rape to death an eight day old than an ten month old? Death is death. Blood loss is arguably worse than blunt force to the abdomen, but's not how they seem to phrase it. They seem to be implying that a crime being more perverse makes it more wrong, and this seems illogical to me. If a person steals my computer because they need money or because they want to masturbate into my CD drive, it causes me the same harm either way.

But no, I don't have kids. I'm only 21. If there is evidence that I do not have access to because of that, then of course I would gladly like to have that evidence so I can revise my theories, but if you mean merely that people with kids would not take such a cavalier attitude towards baby rape, in which case I do not see the purpose in introducing such emotional biases.



A human life is a human life. The interests of a guy who goes on a killing spree or who molests a newborn baby are worth exactly the same as the interests of anyone else. Of course, in general, we cannot satisfy the interests of people who go on killing sprees or who molest newborn babies without dissatisfying far more people. But that doesn't mean we should just kill them off the moment we have a chance. They still have interests, and those should be weighed accordingly by the legal system.

You know....there are times when the whole judging based on rational/sceptical/evidence thing really just doesn't apply at all. Raping newborns is one of those times.

I suggest just quitting while you're (not) ahead.

ETA: Just to echo Loss's post...I don't mean a Judge judging in a courtroom. I mean you and me or any of us judging the relative evilness of different kinds of baby rape.

 

[D'rok]

And if you blind your slave you have to set him or her free. Who says the bible is without compassion?

No one here, AFAIK. It is also not without slavery and various other atrocities. That stuff kind of lowers its credibility as a moral guide.

 

[Loss Leader]

Loss,

Assuming you have a family, (don't know if you're single or not) If someone broke in to your house and killed everyone in you family except yourself just for fun, what right do they have to continue living?

Well, Cloud, you've got two things mixed up in there: the first is what would I want to have happen if it were my family, the second is whether I think a crime like that forfeits a defendant's life in general. You then take as a given something that normally cannot be ascertained - that the person is definitely, objectively guilty. So, let me answer one portion of your question and then I'll go back and do everything else more systematically later

If someone killed my family members, I would certainly want them dead. I would want to kill them myself. But my desire to kill them is pretty much the very reason why I shouldn't be the one to decide. The family of the victim would not be alowed to sit on a jury. They're too close to the crime and too emotional about. They are unable to determine the issues in a logical, unbiased manner. So, why should my desire to see them dead trump the fact that I'm the last person in the world who can think clearly about the issues?

It should not. My own personal passions mean I have no place as the decision-maker.

 

[Random]

If an individual walks into a mall and starts shooting and killing people, and then gets taken down by police, but not killed, do you think we could be fairly certain that it was that individual which killed the innocent shoppers? For cases like that, one bullet could save a buttload of tax money!

Should Colin Ferguson have been executed? Numerous witnesses stated that he shot and killed 6 people and wounded another 19 on a Long Island commuter train. He was tackled by other passengers while reloading and held down while the police arrived.

He nevertheless claimed he was innocent, that he was sleeping when someone else took the gun from him and started firing, that there was a conspiracy against him, and that a computer chip had been implanted in his brain.

Now, by any rational stretch of the imagination, he is guilty of murdering 6 people, and any prosecutor could prove it conclusively in a court of law. But I for one cannot see how executing him is appropriate, when it is obvious what he really needs is a rubber room and a couple of CCs of Thorazine.

 

[CFLarsen]

But is it civilized to keep someone locked up in a cage until they die?

It is more civilized to keep someone locked up in a prison until they die.

We object strongly to what we see as barbaric punishments. We don't punish people by throwing them to the lions. We don't draw and quarter people anymore. We don't even chop off their heads, even though that's as quickly and effective as it get. We have evolved into much more compassionate human beings, and we still evolve.

From Exodus 21: 33-34

If someone leaves a pit open, or digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or a donkey falls into it, the owner of the pit shall make restitution, giving money to its owner, but keeping the dead animal.

If you are going to go with that the very least you should do is know it. Eye for an eye doesn't mean everything is matched item for item but that it is the most you can get. More often than not, money is the just compensation. You get the cost of a new ox, you don't get a new ox and the dead ox because you've been paid for that dead ox and it is no longer yours.

Money is the compensation in the case where you can't get the old thing back. Otherwise, your eye for an eye.

And if you blind your slave you have to set him or her free. Who says the bible is without compassion?

...thereby missing the point that the Bible isn't against slavery itself. Some "compassion".

 

[fuelair]

Reading some of the comments on the blog makes me think that some people who wrote them are almost as sick as the accused.

Who are we to judge him?

We are the society that is supposed to protect children - and in my part of it assure pain of long and intense duration for the (capable of thinking) things that harm them. I do believe in a trial - following the administration of certain drugs and the asking of NON-Leading questions after same.
(This means I do dismiss the right to not be compelled to testify against oneself - just it can't be a method that provides questionable answers. That's why torture should only be applied after the guilty decision.)

 

[bjornart]

You know....there are times when the whole judging based on rational/sceptical/evidence thing really just doesn't apply at all. Raping newborns is one of those times.

I suggest just quitting while you're (not) ahead.

I have to disagree here. Where and, perhaps more important, how are you going to draw the line between subjects where judging rationally applies or doesn't apply?

Personally I think emotion has a place in judging the severity of crimes, but not instead of rationality. I think UserGoogol's posts are silly in a thread like this, because he focuses solely on the rational on an issue where emotion is more important (more important, not the only thing important), but I actually find his overrational post far less offensive than the emotional responses dubbing overrationality an unforgivable thought crime.

 

[ravdin]

The death penalty's too good for him.

Let him rot in solitary confinement until he's old and toothless.

 

[D'rok]

I have to disagree here. Where and, perhaps more important, how are you going to draw the line between subjects where judging rationally applies or doesn't apply?

Personally I think emotion has a place in judging the severity of crimes, but not instead of rationality. I think UserGoogol's posts are silly in a thread like this, because he focuses solely on the rational on an issue where emotion is more important (more important, not the only thing important), but I actually find his overrational post far less offensive than the emotional responses dubbing overrationality an unforgivable thought crime.

IMO, UserGoogol isn't judging rationally, he is rationalizing based on who-knows-what. I cannot think of any possible reason to minimize the evilness of baby rape.

If you can point out where I accused anyone of committing an unforgivable thought crime, I'll heartily apologize. Or were you using hyperbole for rhetorical effect?

 

[kedo1981]

Come visit KEDO world
All violent criminals should be executed , ALL: ALL of them.
The impact that violent criminals have on society goes a lot further than if they happen to kill someone and get convicted of it.
Rape
Child molestation
Assault
Armed robbery
Wife beating
Husband beating
And so forth are punishable by death in “KEDO WORLD”
How many times does a violent mugger commit the act and goes unpunished?
The same with rapists and child beaters.
Many criminals spend a life time spreading violence, mayhem and destroying lives in the process, the impact of that is probably worse than when they are convicted of killing their buddy in a poker game.
A compassionate civilization would look for ways to stop the victims from becoming victims, not play kissy face with a person who has said F U to their humanity and their society.

 

[Beerina]

Newborn babies can barely grasp the idea that there is a world beyond their nose, let alone that they are being raped. Anally raping newborn babies is therefore not significantly worse than any other way of killing newborn babies.

Obviously you don't have kids, and if this is what you believe I'd hit you really hard in the face with my fist if I was beside you right now.

Your relatively massive cock tearing up the internal guts so the baby bleeds to death would certainly hurt, so I don't know what that ass could be thinking.

This piece of work also sexually assaulted the mom as they drove the baby to the hospital.

 

[Beerina]

But is it civilized to put people to death?

Yes, as a proper expression of society's revulsion to certain acts.

Having said that, I can understand many Europeans' opposition to it, having had political executions in living memory.

 

[bjornart]

IMO, UserGoogol isn't judging rationally, he is rationalizing based on who-knows-what. I cannot think of any possible reason to minimize the evilness of baby rape.

If you can point out where I accused anyone of committing an unforgivable thought crime, I'll heartily apologize. Or were you using hyperbole for rhetorical effect?

Um, what definition of rationalizing is that? As I read it UserGoogol is "only" pointing out that to a baby, with its limited cognitive facilities, it likely makes no difference if it's killed by anal rape or being stabbed or shot even if we find it some ways of causing pain and leathal blood loss more abhorrent than others. Which seems correct to me, even though it's a uselessly limited argument.

And yes, my use of the term thought crime was partly hyperbole, and partly that I was lumping your response in with those of cloudshipsrule and GroundStrength.

Since it wasn't there when I replied I'd also like to comment on your added point. Why shouldn't we be allowed to debate ideas with the rationality of a judge in a courtroom?

 

[UserGoogol]

IMO, UserGoogol isn't judging rationally, he is rationalizing based on who-knows-what. I cannot think of any possible reason to minimize the evilness of baby rape.

If you can point out where I accused anyone of committing an unforgivable thought crime, I'll heartily apologize. Or were you using hyperbole for rhetorical effect?

Well, I think I'm judging rationally, within the constraints of my intellectual capacities. Of course human beings do not work simply by automatically connecting together logical premises, and thus I probably do have some emotional basis to this. I think a significant emotional factor is that it does annoy me when people are all wrathful towards criminals. It could certainly be considered a personality flaw, but when I look at things like this emotionally, it really doesn't effect me that much, but conversely when I see other reacting emotionally I get annoyed partly because of my love of cold unfeeling logic and partly because my "gut level" morality is very much a turn the other cheek sort of morality. (Plus, I probably have a sort of kneejerk tendency to defend perverts; even if they're evil perverts, they're evil because of the evil part, not the pervert part.)

I do think that cold unfeeling logic is the appropriate tool to use, (although emotions can be a useful heuristic, I suppose) especially because otherwise it just degenerates into a bunch of relativistic nonsense, since some people feel one way and other people feel another way and it doesn't really amount to much. But still... it might be wise for me to shut up and not let myself hijack the thread, since this is a complicated topic enough and I'm not very good at being the focus of an argument. (Partly because my "cold unfeeling logic" is of the sort that I often feel compelled to say "Good point, maybe I'm wrong, I'm sorry for wasting your time with my nonsense" and partly because I'm a giant wimp who feels uncomfortable around confrontation.)