Death penalty is wrong, this is why..

[Elind]

The motives are completely different, or should be.

Famous last 3 words. Shall we start from the beginning again?

 

[Tricky]

Famous last 3 words. Shall we start from the beginning again?

Since no system is perfect, we need to consider what the system is designed to accomplish. I have hope that problems can be ironed out. Innocents will be less likely to be executed. The cost of execution won't be greater than the cost of life imprisnoment. That sort of thing. Even without that, a good case can be made that life imprisonment is more cruel than execution, if for not other reason than that with life-without-parole, the punishee suffers longer.

 

[Elind]

Since no system is perfect, we need to consider what the system is designed to accomplish. I have hope that problems can be ironed out. Innocents will be less likely to be executed. The cost of execution won't be greater than the cost of life imprisnoment. That sort of thing. Even without that, a good case can be made that life imprisonment is more cruel than execution, if for not other reason than that with life-without-parole, the punishee suffers longer.

What the system is designed (hoped) to accomplish is always the debate when it involves actual results. Some say it actually prevents some crime more than life in prison threats (I doubt), some say it save money (wrong), some say it's in the bible (right), some say it feels better (as in "closure" on TV). Some just say fry the SOB.

The latter is probably the most honest and true, but also the one we like to think we are above (if not individually, at least collectively).

So, I say lock the SOBs up for life and throw away the key. Then we can pretend we are morally better, and if we were wrong we can always say we are sorry.

 

[RandFan]

Answering for myself, not for RandFan,who is a big girl's blouse.

It is not pragmatic because it does not protect the public either by removing criminals or rehabilitating criminals. It is punishment with no purpose other than revenge.


First of all, the definition of "torture" would have to be established. People use the word loosely all the time, as in "I can't watch Woody Allen movies. That's torture." So for the purposes of answering this question, I am defining torture as causing pain without the goal of rehabilitation. And so torture, by this definition, shows the ugly, pain-craving side of society. Humane execution does not. It shows pragmatism (when applied correctly) by protecting the public from people it has determined can't be rehabilitated. The motives are completely different, or should be.

Well said, between your post and mine I feel guilty for thinking torture appropriate at times, well, sorta.

What the hell is "a big girl's blouse"?

 

[Tricky]

What the system is designed (hoped) to accomplish is always the debate when it involves actual results. Some say it actually prevents some crime more than life in prison threats (I doubt), some say it save money (wrong), some say it's in the bible (right), some say it feels better (as in "closure" on TV). Some just say fry the SOB.

My feeling is that some of each of these are true. Different places have different rules. My own state (Texas) has a trigger finger that is far too itchy for my taste. On the other hand, I have a great deal more empathy for the victims of crimes than their perpetrators. There are relatively few people in prisons who are "really nice guys who got railroaded". The Shawshank Redemption (one of my favorite movies) is fiction.

But again, I'm talking about (and hopefully working toward) an ideal system in which only the guilty are punished or executed. As a realist, I know this is not possible, but as a pragmatist, this is what we should try to achieve. So no, I don't agree with the way the death penalty is often used, but I do agree with it on a philosophical standpoint. It is more humane to kill incurably dangerous creatures than to keep them alive forever without hope but with the possibility that they will harm others.

The latter is probably the most honest and true, but also the one we like to think we are above (if not individually, at least collectively).

LOL. I don't argue there. We humans are definitely into revenge. Just look at the "action movies" that Hollywood cranks out. There is a strong undercurrent of "kill the bastards" mentality. I don't deny that I can be moved by it too. (Didn't you hate it in The Karate Kid when the bad guys cheated? They deserved to have their asses kicked.)

So, I say lock the SOBs up for life and throw away the key. Then we can pretend we are morally better, and if we were wrong we can always say we are sorry.

We can execute them and if we turn out to be wrong, say we are sorry to their family. If we do it right, we won't have to say it too often. Neither will we have to apologize to the family of a person murdered by an escaped or even incarcerated criminal.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Yes, purely theoretical I think it could. Of course I'm talking very rare occasions. I wouldn't have an objection, theoreticaly, to the torturing of people like Dr. Mengle and the BTK killer.

Do you think that will, somehow, make " justice "?

That's just the way it is. I don't understand all of the psychology but torturing people opens up real nasty areas of the human psyche.

If I had to venture a guess it would be that capital punishment is very brief, statistically painless and to a large degree done clinically.

Torture is about pain and it is not brief. There is nothing clinical about it. Those involved with administering it are subjected to it for a longer periods of time and must deal with the fact that another person is suffering horribly.

As I see the both of us, we have no definite evidence supporting if torture can make torturer worse than death penalty makes the guy who actually put the needle in the skin of the person sent to death.
I just have strong doubts that life penalty is more " humane " than torturing

 

[Tricky]

Well said, between your post and mine I feel guilty for thinking torture appropriate at times, well, sorta.

Thanks. And yeah, I can't help feeling it too occasionally. Sometimes emotions trump logic.

What the hell is "a big girl's blouse"?

British slang. The American equivalent is "sissy".

 

[RandFan]

Do you think that will, somehow, make " justice "?

I can't help but think of Tricky's post as I write this.

Well, we need to figure out what justice is. I would say that it is a sense. One not far from revenge. One that can easily become revenge.

To answer the question, in a prefect world (in the abstract), yes, I think it is possible. However, justice can be very elusive. Often punishment doesn't really give us what we seek or, as the poet says, it might relive us of what we are suffering from but leave us suffering from the cure.

As I see the both of us, we have no definite evidence supporting if torture can make torturer worse than death penalty makes the guy who actually put the needle in the skin of the person sent to death.

I don't think it is really controversial for the reasons that I (and Tricky)have stated.

I just have strong doubts that life penalty is more " humane " than torturing

That might be the problem. I don't know. I'm currently anti-death penalty.

If and when it can demonstrated that it isn't based on biases and prejudice. When the likelihood of the death penalty isn't pegged to the amount of money spent on the defense or one's social status then I will remain against it.

 

[Elind]

We can execute them and if we turn out to be wrong, say we are sorry to their family. If we do it right, we won't have to say it too often. Neither will we have to apologize to the family of a person murdered by an escaped or even incarcerated criminal.

This is what we have. personally I'd rather pretend, if that is the truth, that we are better and focus more on why we (non genetically speaking) let so many people develop to that stage in the first place. Instead we pretend that by being tough we "teach" some people not to be thugs. I think that's bull.

I think we should lock em all up early. If early enough teach them until they prove something concrete, if not keep them locked up until everyone who knew them has forgotten they existed, but know that that could also be their fate. That's the deterrent part, but it has to be matched with an entirely different effort at those just learning to talk, which includes some of the parents, and I know some like that. Too many for my liking, but honestly, I apologize for sounding like some liberal bleeding heart (AUP's favorite expression. A little in joke there.), but if we let crack heads, to use a valid analogy, breed and raise kids, what the hell can we expect?

 

[Elind]

That might be the problem. I don't know. I'm currently anti-death penalty.

If and when it can demonstrated that it isn't based on biases and prejudice. When the likelihood of the death penalty isn't pegged to the amount of money spent on the defense or one's social status then I will remain against it.

I think you need to edit the above sentence a bit. It seemed contradictory at first.

Should it say?:

As long as it can't be demonstrated that it isn't based on biases and prejudice and when the likelihood of the death penalty isn't pegged to the amount of money spent on the defense, or one's social status, I will remain against it.

So, your reasons (against the death penalty) are entirely a matter of equality of justice in all cases, which of course is never going to be an arguable absolute, so you are safe in that position.

Otherwise I presume you would be all in favor of killing when the law allows?

As we said earlier, I might like to in specific situations, but somehow I feel better by thinking that if I could I wouldn't just because I could.

 

[RandFan]

I think you need to edit the above sentence a bit. It seemed contradictory at first.

Should it say?:

As long as it can't be demonstrated that it isn't based on biases and prejudice and when the likelihood of the death penalty isn't pegged to the amount of money spent on the defense, or one's social status, I will remain against it.

Yes, thank you.

So, your reasons (against the death penalty) are entirely a matter of equality of justice in all cases...

Fair question. No, thank you for given me an opportunity to clarify. I seek no absolute. I don't know what the level would be and I don't know what the solution would be. That I don't know what the solution is doesn't preclude one from existing. I'll wait for someone with more imagination.

Otherwise I presume you would be all in favor of killing when the law allows?

That's my biggest objection. I could be persuaded on other grounds. I'm not dogmatic on the issue. I didn't come to my current position lightly though.

Otherwise, yes.

As we said earlier, I might like to in specific situations, but somehow I feel better by thinking that if I could I wouldn't just because I could.

Ok. It's a personal issue I respect different view points.

 

[RandFan]

This is what we have. personally I'd rather pretend, if that is the truth, that we are better and focus more on why we (non genetically speaking) let so many people develop to that stage in the first place. Instead we pretend that by being tough we "teach" some people not to be thugs. I think that's bull.

I think we should lock em all up early. If early enough teach them until they prove something concrete, if not keep them locked up until everyone who knew them has forgotten they existed, but know that that could also be their fate. That's the deterrent part, but it has to be matched with an entirely different effort at those just learning to talk, which includes some of the parents, and I know some like that. Too many for my liking, but honestly, I apologize for sounding like some liberal bleeding heart (AUP's favorite expression. A little in joke there.), but if we let crack heads, to use a valid analogy, breed and raise kids, what the hell can we expect?

I'm not sure incarceration for the youth is a liberal position. I could be wrong.

 

[Tricky]

This is what we have. personally I'd rather pretend, if that is the truth, that we are better and focus more on why we (non genetically speaking) let so many people develop to that stage in the first place. Instead we pretend that by being tough we "teach" some people not to be thugs. I think that's bull.

I agree with you here. It is horrendoulsly difficult (and expensive) to focus on the causes of crime. It is much easier (and satisfying) to focus to work on punishment. I'd rather do the former, even if it is, in the short term, more expensive. I think it would be better overall. I don't pretend it will fix everything. I'm an optimist, but not an idiot.

I think we should lock em all up early.

How early? First time they bully their elementry school classmates? As soon as they reach puberty? Adulthood? The seeds of antisocial behavior are planted very young. I don't know that "locking them up" is the answer, but I definitely agree with identifying it early and making efforts to correct it. This is a really big topic, probably out of the scope of this thread.

If early enough teach them until they prove something concrete, if not keep them locked up until everyone who knew them has forgotten they existed, but know that that could also be their fate.

Boy, that sounds pretty cruel and unusual to me, but I admit, I don't have enough details of your program to know if it will really rehabilitate people, or just make them angrier. And if you're not trying to rehabilitate people, what is the point of keeping them locked up?

That's the deterrent part, but it has to be matched with an entirely different effort at those just learning to talk, which includes some of the parents, and I know some like that. Too many for my liking, but honestly, I apologize for sounding like some liberal bleeding heart (AUP's favorite expression. A little in joke there.), but if we let crack heads, to use a valid analogy, breed and raise kids, what the hell can we expect?

It sounds as if you, like me and so many others, are wrestling with compassion versus "tough love". One thing we need to realize is that no matter what system we use, there will always be a few misanthropes who do not respond to anything. There are also a few who might respond to the "perfect" treatment, if we could figure out what it is. Unfortunately, it is different for every one of them.

It is not pragmatic to tailor our criminal justice system to fit every possible variety of screwed-up brain. Sad, but true. At some point, the pragmatic solution is to cut our losses. I wish it weren't so, but my bias is always for the greater good for the greatest number. I can't be so compassionate for criminals that I forget my compassion for the rest of society.

 

[Z]

That's a very good point. Obviously, I tend to lack compassion when it comes to criminality. I don't care much for 'human rights'. Of course, that path leads to fascism and totalitarianism, and I'm under no illusion otherwise.

But that's how I feel, after 35 years of living among humankind and learning to strongly dislike people in general. I still try to be an optimist, but that part of me has been dying off over the last decade.

I can't help thinking these days that the earth is lucky that all creatures eventually die off/mutate away.

 

[CFLarsen]

That's a very good point. Obviously, I tend to lack compassion when it comes to criminality. I don't care much for 'human rights'. Of course, that path leads to fascism and totalitarianism, and I'm under no illusion otherwise.

How does human rights lead to fascism and totalitarianism?

But that's how I feel, after 35 years of living among humankind and learning to strongly dislike people in general. I still try to be an optimist, but that part of me has been dying off over the last decade.

I can't help thinking these days that the earth is lucky that all creatures eventually die off/mutate away.

It seems you lack compassion, period.

 

[CplFerro]

How does human rights lead to fascism and totalitarianism?

He means his lack of caring, Lar.

Cpl Ferro

 

[CFLarsen]

He means his lack of caring, Lar.

Cpl Ferro

If so, I find that a sad world view.

 

[CplFerro]

If so, I find that a sad world view.

Dear Larsen,

Given the direction the world has been going in for a while now, it's a popular one. Most people are only holding fast to moral principles because everybody else is--popular opinion, in other words. That can change if enough people like Mr. Z over there start publicly playing with themselves about torture and the destruction of human rights and "crackdowns on crime" and wishing for human extinction.

Cpl Ferro

 

[CFLarsen]

Dear Larsen,

Given the direction the world has been going in for a while now, it's a popular one. Most people are only holding fast to moral principles because everybody else is--popular opinion, in other words. That can change if enough people like Mr. Z over there start publicly playing with themselves about torture and the destruction of human rights and "crackdowns on crime" and wishing for human extinction.

...for everyone else but themselves.

 

[balrog666]

Since no system is perfect, we need to consider what the system is designed to accomplish. I have hope that problems can be ironed out. Innocents will be less likely to be executed. [snip]

I must have missed it, where did you establish that innocents have been executed?