Death penalty is wrong, this is why..

[Matteo Martini]

Sure you do. You agree with me on principle, and I with you, but then everything goes crazy from there.

Honestly this topic is right up there with gun control. If there hasn't been one for a while try it. Post a position for, or against, gun control. As wacky as you want, and it'll be 20 pages before you wake up.

Have fun kids.

People get unexpectedly rough, when they can not convince you of their point..

 

[RandFan]

Basically, we have two different ideas about " justice ".

Clearly.

Life in prison should be the harshest punishment, as killing another human being, not for self-defense, should be wrong.

That is your opinion. As I have said before, I respect it. It looks like that is a one way street though.

Then, why not tortured for one month, and then killed?

Excellent question.

1. I happen to believe, in the abstract, that torture is appropriate in some circumstances.
2. It's not pragmatic.
3. It's contrary to the concept of cruel and unusual punishment.
4. It debases society.

You call it " justice ", I call it revenge.

• I know what revenge is.
• I know what justice is.
• That you equate what I think of as justice as revenge doesn't make you right.

The sentence " Justice is not of this world ", means that, sometimes, you can not reach perfect justice whatever you do.

I've already stated that.

And, you should not call " idiots " people who think differently from you..

It was a joke. You started a sentence with "they" (who are they?). A sentence started with "they" is often urban myth or BS. That's considered poor form where I'm from and the rebuttal is often something along the lines of sarcasm.

I did not not that you had to write this

I'm not certain what you are trying to say but what I wrote was very important to the discussion and I DID very much need to write it.

Reasonable people can disagree.

Basically, I think that death penalty is wrong, it should be wrong for the layman, and for the state too.
But, we apparently disagree on that.

Yes.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Clearly.

That is your opinion. As I have said before, I respect it. It looks like that is a one way street though.

OK
We have agreed on what we disagree

Excellent question.

1. I happen to believe, in the abstract, that torture is appropriate in some circumstances.
2. It's not pragmatic.
3. It's contrary to the concept of cruel and unusual punishment.
4. It debases society.
   

1. 
   I have not understood if we can include ( or not ) torture ( and, which kind ) as an additional punishment.
   It is not clear to me, what it means " it` s not pragmatic ".
   It is not clear to me why torture debases society and why death penalty, apparently, does not.
   
   

   Reasonable people can disagree.
   
   Yes.

   
   OK.
   Basically, on the other topics, we disagree.

 

[Z]

So in the meantime do you propose some controlled experiments to see what, other than the present system of deterrence, works better?

We could go back to the days of public hangings, from a tree or better staged for example. Ooops, that didn't work did it?

Actually, it did work better as a deterrant than the current capital punishment system does. Public executions were much more vivid reminders of the cost of criminal behavior than secret executions.

So since deterrence is your primary focus, and since most of us will agree, I think, that 100% effectiveness is never achievable, what percentage would you suggest and what forms of gore would you like to see?

As high a percentage as possible; whatever gore would best deter people from committing the crimes that suit the punishments.

Of course you could be having us on, just trolling so to speak, but always give the benefit of the doubt, I say.

Not trolling. No point to it.

 

[Z]

That is completely out of sync with what you have previously said. Which is in sync with how Wiccans react to real life.



I have done it before, and I am continuing to rip your silly, inhuman beliefs apart.

No, last time you wrassled with me, you wound up berated by your fellow skeptics for being a [rule10] and for not listening to any evidence offered, whatsoever.

Or have you finally conceded that a self-identified branch of the Catholic Church does not recognize the Pope in Rome yet?

The final result of our arguments on Wicca was to prove that you have no concept of how Pagans in general work, why their believes are considered to be a legal and actual religion, or why they have no dogma to adhere to, like normal religion.

Or shall we dredge up the old thread, and look over just how poorly you actually performed?

Of course, all that is considerably off-topic, so unless you'd like to start a new thread, I suggest you drop it, Clausy.

List all of the rights they "automatically" forfeit.

Depends on the crime. All of them should automatically forfeit the right to be treated as a normal human being.

What about female rapists?

Female castration.

What about thieves? Are you going to steal from them?

Jail time, and they forfeit all property, possessions, and funds, up to and equalling the value of what they stole.

What about people who break the speed limit? Are you going to out-speed them?

They lose the right to drive at all. I said 'scaled to the crime'; I did not say 'duplicate the crime'. Do try to read, Clausy.

What about spies? Are you going to spy on the spies?

Imprisonment with total lack of privacy, of course.

What about extortionists? Are you going to extort them?

Form of thievery; treat appropriately.

What about people who commit identity theft? Are you going to steal their identities?

Form of thievery; treat appropriately.

What about stalkers? Are you going to stalk them?

Form of espionage; treat appropriately.

What about smugglers? Are you....well, what are you going to do with smugglers?

Hmmm... now smugglers are slightly more complicated. It's not theft, exactly... Possession of illegal substances in general does pose a small problem to a system like this.

Still, I did say 'scaled to the crime', so I suppose it depends on what's being smuggled. Foreign baseball cards? Slap on the wrist, and brief travel restrictions. Babies? Treat like any child abuser or kidnapper.

You mentioned arson before. Arson is simply setting fire to stuff. If you were consistent, you would set fire to an arsonist's property. Or, if you liken arson to murder, set fire to the arsonist.

Sounds good to me. If someone dies in the fire the arsonist sets, light him up. Otherwise, make him watch as his own home burns to the ground.

You use that word quite a lot: "Prone". How do you determine who are "prone" to similar acts of violence?

There are entire fields of behavioral science and genetics that are dealing with that problem; do your own research, Clausy.

Is it not already punishing those whom you have deemed are "prone" to something, but haven't yet actually committed a crime?

Hardly. Is watching a public execution punishment? Why, all those terrible horror movies must be torture!!

In the likely event that you are serious, should we all be altered to become believers in (your brand of) Wicca?

No, quite frankly, I'd rather everyone (myself included) be altered to be fully functioning atheists, with no memory or need of ever having to had to believe in any mythical protectors or powers. While we're at it, I'd rather everyone be altered to eliminate fierce emotions, illogical behavior, etc... to be upgraded to more perfect machines.

Of course, there's a whole world of intuitive, illogical people out there that are against me, but that's my personal wish - perfectly ordered people in a perfectly ordered society where negative emotions no longer exist. Ahhhh...

 

[CFLarsen]

Actually, it did work better as a deterrant than the current capital punishment system does.

How do you know that?

Public executions were much more vivid reminders of the cost of criminal behavior than secret executions.

Probably. Is scaring the public into submission a viable solution today? Isn't that what we today would call inhuman?

As high a percentage as possible;

How will you calculate this?

whatever gore would best deter people from committing the crimes that suit the punishments.

How do you decide that? Run a series of trial executions and poll the audience?

Not trolling. No point to it.

OK, you are serious.

Of course, all that is considerably off-topic, so unless you'd like to start a new thread, I suggest you drop it, Clausy.

Oh, no. When you have to resort to childish namecalling, it is clear your argument lacks in substance.

Depends on the crime. All of them should automatically forfeit the right to be treated as a normal human being.

OK: Please list all rights that would be lost when committing the following crimes:

• Arson
• Assaults
• Battery
• Blackmail
• Burglary
• Child sexual abuse
• Counterfeiting
• Drug possession
• Embezzlement
• Espionage
• Extortion
• Forgery
• Fraud/Deception offences
• Homicide
• Identity theft
• Illegal gambling
• Inchoate offenses
• Kidnapping
• Larceny
• Looting
• Motor vehicle theft/TWOC
• Perjury
• Piracy
• Rape
• Robbery
• Sexual assaults
• Smuggling
• Stalking
• Tax evasion
• Terrorism
• Theft
• Treason
• Trespass
• Vandalism

Female castration.

Are you talking about oophorectomy? If so, how will that prevent future rapes?

If not, what kind of "female castration" are you talking about? And how will that prevent future rapes?

Jail time, and they forfeit all property, possessions, and funds, up to and equalling the value of what they stole.

Why jail time? How long? Does the jail time depend on the value of what they stole, or will stealing a lollipop result in the same jailtime as stealing one billion dollars?

They lose the right to drive at all. I said 'scaled to the crime'; I did not say 'duplicate the crime'. Do try to read, Clausy.

Well, if you are going to castrate rapists (male ones, that is), it would be consistent to outspeed speeders.

Imprisonment with total lack of privacy, of course.

Of course. Do they have to sleep in the nude, exposed to the world, with 24/7 cameras, in HDTV?

Form of thievery; treat appropriately.

What if they only steal someone's identity, but don't profit from it? How do you treat those "appropriately"?

Form of espionage; treat appropriately.

Stalking is a form of espionage? What about the threatening aspect of stalking? That doesn't count? If you threaten someone, you walk free?

Hmmm... now smugglers are slightly more complicated. It's not theft, exactly... Possession of illegal substances in general does pose a small problem to a system like this.

Still, I did say 'scaled to the crime', so I suppose it depends on what's being smuggled. Foreign baseball cards? Slap on the wrist, and brief travel restrictions. Babies? Treat like any child abuser or kidnapper.

Ah, so you are not really punishing the crime, but the "outcome" of the crime.

Sounds good to me. If someone dies in the fire the arsonist sets, light him up.

In public, presumably. How, exactly, do you want him to be set on fire? E.g., do you burn him using dry wood (causing him immense pain) or wet wood (allowing him to choke to death first)? Do you throw him into a vat of hot coal? What is gruesome enough for you?

Otherwise, make him watch as his own home burns to the ground.

What if he burns down a house but nobody gets hurt, and he doesn't own anything?

There are entire fields of behavioral science and genetics that are dealing with that problem; do your own research, Clausy.

No, you do yours: You are the one who claims that some people are "prone" to acts of violence.

It is interesting that you point to current behaviorists. What do they say about the rather gruesome measurements you want to implement, especially how it influences people?

Hardly. Is watching a public execution punishment? Why, all those terrible horror movies must be torture!!

Horror movies are fiction.

If you don't think watching a public execution is punishment, where is the deterrent?

No, quite frankly, I'd rather everyone (myself included) be altered to be fully functioning atheists, with no memory or need of ever having to had to believe in any mythical protectors or powers. While we're at it, I'd rather everyone be altered to eliminate fierce emotions, illogical behavior, etc... to be upgraded to more perfect machines.

Of course, there's a whole world of intuitive, illogical people out there that are against me, but that's my personal wish - perfectly ordered people in a perfectly ordered society where negative emotions no longer exist. Ahhhh...

I have to assume that you are still serious.

 

[CplFerro]

The 'rights' of man are whatever the prevalent society see fit to provide man. Frankly, I don't feel much for the rights of criminals. Once someone stoops to committing a crime, they forfeit certain rights automatically.

Dear Z,

I'll omit the rest of your reply as irrelevant since you've shown your hand with the above. If there are no rights of man, then political truth is purely existential, political forms arbitrary expressions of bestial will. This is fascism, or worse, and anything deriving from it is not worth debating because the essential principles are antihuman and the results arising from any policies derived from those principles will be antihuman as well. Indeed, in the end, you HAVE no principles and that is what makes fascism so adaptable, it is all about acquiring power. Your philosophy of crime and society thus is indistinguishable from that of the worst killer, from a Mao or Stalin or any of the rest, and those types are, assuredly, much more craftier than you are in moulding society the way they see fit, and in using people like you as tools.

Cpl Ferro

 

[Z]

Dear Z,

I'll omit the rest of your reply as irrelevant since you've shown your hand with the above. If there are no rights of man, then political truth is purely existential, political forms arbitrary expressions of bestial will. This is fascism, or worse, and anything deriving from it is not worth debating because the essential principles are antihuman and the results arising from any policies derived from those principles will be antihuman as well. Indeed, in the end, you HAVE no principles and that is what makes fascism so adaptable, it is all about acquiring power. Your philosophy of crime and society thus is indistinguishable from that of the worst killer, from a Mao or Stalin or any of the rest, and those types are, assuredly, much more craftier than you are in moulding society the way they see fit, and in using people like you as tools.

Cpl Ferro

Indeed. You understand quite well.

Nevertheless, IMHO, the current implementation of the death penalty does not work, which was my original point - which seems to be missed in the shocked overreaction to my image of an idyllic draconian society.

I'd have been long ago executed in such a society, btw.

As to Clausy, I'm not getting drawn into another infantile discussion again with you, not when so much of it is vacantly off-topic. G'day.

 

[CFLarsen]

As to Clausy, I'm not getting drawn into another infantile discussion again with you, not when so much of it is vacantly off-topic. G'day.

If you don't want to discuss your ideal punitive system that include all these "draconic" methods, e.g. how to burn people in the most outrageously inhumane fashion as possible, in order to serve as a "deterrent"...don't bring it up...

 

[CplFerro]

Indeed. You understand quite well.

Dear Z,

Then what was the point of your point? If we're not going to talk fundamental principles we might as well not talk at all. Good day.

Cpl Ferro

 

[RandFan]

I have not understood if we can include ( or not ) torture ( and, which kind ) as an additional punishment.

I don't understand your question. I'm talking in the abstract.

It is not clear to me, what it means " it` s not pragmatic ".

Torture creats all kinds of problems with the mental health and morale of both gaurds and inmates. See the Stanford Prison Experiments.

It is not clear to me why torture debases society and why death penalty, apparently, does not.

It seems counter intuitive but it is a rational position. Again I refer you to the Stanford Prison Experiments. Torture creates more serious and pernicious problems than capital punishment.

 

[Elind]

Actually, it did work better as a deterrant than the current capital punishment system does. Public executions were much more vivid reminders of the cost of criminal behavior than secret executions.

Non public does not equal secret. I can't say that it worked better, and I doubt you can show it did.

Not trolling. No point to it.

OK. I was just being a smartass.

Of course, no system is going to be 100% effective until we perfect brain alteration - so let's all hope that day comes sooner, rather than later.

However you did say this earlier, and I thought later that there is an answer to that. We can't do brain alteration after a certain age, but we can do brain configuration in most, if we start early enough.

So I'm surprised you don't lobby for sterilization of women, and men, who bring babies into a world of birth control options, and with no means to support or teach them; then take the babies away and teach them not to be like mommy and daddy (whoever that was).

 

[Matteo Martini]

I don't understand your question. I'm talking in the abstract.

Yes, but, in the abrstract, would you say that torture, could be a " fair " punishment, in addition to death penalty, for the worst crimes?

Torture creats all kinds of problems with the mental health and morale of both gaurds and inmates. See the Stanford Prison Experiments.

It seems counter intuitive but it is a rational position. Again I refer you to the Stanford Prison Experiments. Torture creates more serious and pernicious problems than capital punishment.

Yes.
I have read quickly your link, and it seems that the people, when divided into guards and thieves, tend to get their role seriously.
Now, why you mean that you create serious problems in the guards when you torture a person, but not when you kill him?

 

[RandFan]

Yes, but, in the abrstract, would you say that torture, could be a " fair " punishment, in addition to death penalty, for the worst crimes?

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.

Now, why you mean that you create serious problems in the guards when you torture a person, but not when you kill him?

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.

 

[Z]

So I'm surprised you don't lobby for sterilization of women, and men, who bring babies into a world of birth control options, and with no means to support or teach them; then take the babies away and teach them not to be like mommy and daddy (whoever that was).

Actually, if it were a reversible sterilization, I'd be all for that. Also, the same process should be mandatory for all members of the armed services, male and female, during their tours of duty; for anyone attending full-time college (not distance learning or on-line); and for anyone guilty of criminal child abuse, neglect, molestation, pedophilia, etc. Though, in those cases, I could go with permanent sterilization, too.

 

[CFLarsen]

Actually, if it were a reversible sterilization, I'd be all for that.

If it is reversible, what is to prevent those people from having it reversed?

Also, the same process should be mandatory for all members of the armed services, male and female, during their tours of duty;

Why? A soldier on leave cannot get his wife pregnant?

for anyone attending full-time college (not distance learning or on-line);

Why?

And why only those attending full-time college?

and for anyone guilty of criminal child abuse, neglect, molestation, pedophilia, etc. Though, in those cases, I could go with permanent sterilization, too.

"Etc"? Precisely which crimes would result in permanent sterilization?

 

[Bob Klase]

Actually, if it were a reversible sterilization, I'd be all for that. Also, the same process should be mandatory for all members of the armed services, male and female, during their tours of duty; for anyone attending full-time college (not distance learning or on-line); and for anyone guilty of criminal child abuse, neglect, molestation, pedophilia, etc. Though, in those cases, I could go with permanent sterilization, too.

Why stop there. Just sterilize everyone and require permission from the government before anyone can have children.

 

[Elind]

Actually, if it were a reversible sterilization, I'd be all for that. Also, the same process should be mandatory for all members of the armed services, male and female, during their tours of duty; for anyone attending full-time college (not distance learning or on-line); and for anyone guilty of criminal child abuse, neglect, molestation, pedophilia, etc. Though, in those cases, I could go with permanent sterilization, too.

I like your frankness. No bull, although it isn't always clear what you think in terms of realities. However you did not address my main point, to your main point, about brain modification.

Did you miss the connection, the concept, or do you just prefer to be controversial regardless?

 

[Elind]

Why stop there. Just sterilize everyone and require permission from the government before anyone can have children.

Like in China?

 

[Tricky]

It is not clear to me, what it means " it`s not pragmatic ".

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.

It is not clear to me why torture debases society and why death penalty, apparently, does not.

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.