Schwarzenegger denies Williams clemency plea

[RhondaLea 4]

Quote

You still haven't adressed my core question, all you do is defining your distinction of humans vs non-humans. But I'll rest my case as we're going in circles anyway.

What exactly is your core question?

Quote

That's the conclusion I don't agree with. Everyone is human when they were born from a human mother. Humanity is an axiom for me, for you it's a variable in an equation. Big difference.
Let's agree to disagree.

We'll have to, because I don't agree that being born to a human mother makes one human. It makes one homo sapiens, but not human.

Quote

Quote

I've defined my terms. If you want to feel empathy for the persons described above, feel free. I think it's misplaced and wasted, so I'm saving my care and concern for their victims.

Trying to play the "pick your side, I've picked mine" card? Implying that I don't have compassion with the victims? Forget it...

Nope. Just telling you one more time that I have no empathy to waste on sociopaths. I'm quite sure that if you empathize with them, you empathize far more with their victims.

If you want a hostile argument, go elsewhere.

Quote

Quote

And just because you made it personal, know that I got off pretty lightly, but there are many others damaged beyond repair by such people.

Well it was you who took it to the personal level (telling about your own experience with sociopaths 2 posts up), I only referenced it. If you don't want this discussion to include personal experiences, just leave them out of your posts. I have my share of experience with weird/twisted/sick people too, but it has nothing to do with this thread and I wouldn't share it anyway.

Your opinion of my argument is fine. Your opinion of how my experience affected me--or not--is irrelevant to the issue.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[RhondaLea 4]

Ian,

You missed the point, and parleyed it into something weird.

But just so you know, I don't find you funny, and I wouldn't drink with you under any circumstances.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[brierebecca 0]

Quote

A second one is deterrent. That's of marginal value because of the martyr angle. Some will _aspire_ to be the sort of hero that a martyr is. (Twisted, I know, but there are twisted people out there.) Others will be far more fearful of execution than life in prison. Yet others fear both (life in a box, death) about the same, so one is no better or worse than the other as a deterrent. The percentages of each kind of person determines its value as a deterrent.

There's something wrong with this argument, though. If you're only executing someone to make a statement about what will happen to others if they do the same, then you're not executing him because of what he did - just what it will do for the sake of others. Seems kind of unfair to me.

I've been against the death penalty for a long time, mostly because the system just doesn't work. The reasons it doesn't work are many. The system is racist. It's sexist. It's just plain incompetent.

The other reason I'm against the death penalty is that I've never heard a good reason to keep it, and there are lots of reasons to do away with it. Every reason I've heard for keeping it doesn't do adequate justice, to the inmate or society.

I'm with ya, Nightingale.

Brie

"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie

[billvon 3,119]

>If you're only executing someone to make a statement about what
>will happen to others if they do the same, then you're not executing
>him because of what he did - just what it will do for the sake of
>others. Seems kind of unfair to me.

In a lot of ways I think the opposite is true. I don't believe in the "eye for an eye" thing, which I think is at the basis of much of the justifications for capital punishment. But I do think there is value in setting up a justice system that encourages law and order by setting appropriate punishments.

To put it a different way - I don't think that 'serving a sentence' erases someone's crime, or makes anything right. Going to jail for 20 years does not "pay back" society for killing someone. But if those 20 years in jail makes someone else think "man, I don't want to end up like that guy; I better call a cab instead of driving home" then that 20 year sentence HAS done a little bit to pay back (pay forward?) society, by preventing another death.

Now, as to whether or not capital punishment is that sort of deterrent (specifically, if it is better than life in prison with no parole) is up in the air, as I mentioned in the previous post.

[AlexCrowley 0]

But I think the same is true of any crime - whether it be a legal or moral issue.

Contrary to popular belief no negative action can ever be wiped clean.

I murder someone. I cannot bring them to life.

I break your trust. I cannot put it back together.

I have sex with your wife, I cannot not have sex with her.

Stealing is breaking a trust, I can replace the item stolen, but not the mental damage - and anyone who's had their car broken into understands how that feels.

Murder is not 'the ultimate' crime, but then I'm a little more imaginative than many people so who knows.

Anyway, on a rational level the death penalty makes absolutely zero sense. It can only be justified internally at an emotional level. The only issue is that I haven't seen someone pro-death penalty with the ability to discuss that concept properly - because it is an emotional response.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[billvon 3,119]

>I break your trust. I cannot put it back together.

>Stealing is breaking a trust, I can replace the item stolen. . . .

Agreed on the previous points, but not these two. You can break someone's trust by lying to them, or by stealing their car. One is not a crime; one is. We don't punish people for moral crimes like breaking someone's trust; that is up to each person to police on their own. We do punish people for breaking the laws against stealing.

Why? Because it's easy to legally quantify theft, and it has a direct negative influence on society. (Economies cannot really exist when theft is legal.) It's harder to quantify breaking trust, and the negative influcences are far more indirect.

[brierebecca 0]

Quote

To put it a different way - I don't think that 'serving a sentence' erases someone's crime, or makes anything right. Going to jail for 20 years does not "pay back" society for killing someone. But if those 20 years in jail makes someone else think "man, I don't want to end up like that guy; I better call a cab instead of driving home" then that 20 year sentence HAS done a little bit to pay back (pay forward?) society, by preventing another death.

The other issue with this philosophy - in this case a magnified version of it - is that this is the ultimate price to pay for what society may only quantify in very abstract terms. So I absolutely agree that it can be hard to prove the deterrance works at all. However, if we start justifying punishment in terms of deterring others for committing the same crime, then we do away with punishments that are supposed to fit the crime altogether. This is because we're not punishing the criminal for committing the crime, but so that others won't. That's the wrong reason to punish, at least in my opinion, despite the fact that society may gain in some small way from it.

That said, I also agree with the argument that those for the death penalty are unable to argue for it rationally because it is largely an emotional response. In my opinion, it is irresponsible for the government to undertake such an emotionally-charged option. It tips those scales of justice, if ya know what I mean.

Brie

"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie

[artistcalledian 0]

Quote

Ian,

You missed the point, and parleyed it into something weird.

But just so you know, I don't find you funny, and I wouldn't drink with you under any circumstances.

rl

LOL

________________________________________
drive it like you stole it and f*ck the police

[Falko 0]

Quote

Quote

You still haven't adressed my core question, all you do is defining your distinction of humans vs non-humans. But I'll rest my case as we're going in circles anyway.

What exactly is your core question?

That in post #163:
Tell me where the difference is between a so-called "sociopath" not being able to regard another fellow human as a human, and a "human" (like you) not being able to regard a so-called "sociopath" as a human.

In essence I only see two opposed people who don't acknowledge each other and who don't treat each other humanely. Only the reasons differ... one is probably very sick in a way we don't even begin to understand, the other one has, well, other reasons (let's skip the personal stuff).

Quote

We'll have to, because I don't agree that being born to a human mother makes one human. It makes one homo sapiens, but not human.

One cannot argue with semantics. What attributes of character does one have to have to be considered "human" in your book? Is a mentally ill person not human by your definition? Where's the line between mentally ill and mentally sane? I say there is none... quoting you "we're all fucked up". And we're all humans.

Quote

Nope. Just telling you one more time that I have no empathy to waste on sociopaths. I'm quite sure that if you empathize with them, you empathize far more with their victims.

Thanks for the positive assumption, but this is not the "empathy contest #432" I'm trying to win here. My one and only issue is your distinction between humans and non-humans.
That's a kind of classification I'd like to see gone. I don't care what the reasoning behind the distinction is. It needs to go and then (maybe) there can be healing. Some will never heal, but that shouldn't keep us from trying.

Ich betrachte die Religion als Krankheit, als Quelle unnennbaren Elends für die menschliche Rasse.
(Bertrand Russell, engl. Philosoph, 1872-1970)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The only issue is that I haven't seen someone pro-death penalty with the ability to discuss that concept properly - because it is an emotional response.

Funny - I see that on both sides of the issue for most of the people. I also see (very few, but still) people on both sides that are rational too. If you think the 'other' side from your own is 100% emotional, then it's likely you're coming from an emotional basis too.

I like it when someone gets a conflicting view from their own and then cry out how the other side is just emotional.

(of course, I call 'emotions' on everybody, so what might that say?)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[AlexCrowley 0]

I'm more interested in scale and guilt than "legal" crime.

But yes, EXACTLY!

Quantifiable. Which is exactly the issue at hand.

Quantify stealing: You stole $3000 = 3 months in jail. Easy. No harm no foul. $3000 of value was stolen. The sentence will also account for the impact of that $3000. Pretty easy stuff.

Killing? I kill a drug dealer after planning it meticulously. In fact I kill a whole bunch of them. Death penalty or no?

I kill a bunch of white college kids after planning it carefully. Death penalty or no?

I kill an artist of some influence after careful planning? Death penalty or no?

Death is death, which life is worth more? The drug dealers? The college kids? the artist?

How do you quantify potentiality? On loss of life? what is the value of a life now?

The drug dealers are just that, the college kids - future leaders of america/or international arms dealers in their later life. The artist? Hitler was an artist.

Give me a medal for murder?

Are we trying to quantify the crime itself, or its impact? If its the crime itself then why isnt every murderer on death row? murder 1 = death.

I think perhaps I shoudl go take my meds now.

My interest is purely in how we value life. The death penalty advocates still wish us to hold it to our darkest moments, any attempt to atone is just trying to lie your way out of a situation.

I'm pretty sure I dont want to know those people because if a person is capable of thinking that way about others they must have some real guilt issues.

Should some people be punished by death? probably. I simply cannot think of anyone, or any group of people who are qualified to quantify that.

Something about casting the first stone springs to mind. Maybe some of you religious types could assist me.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[RhondaLea 4]

I've addressed everything you've asked in my other posts, including the core question.

I tried to answer each of your contentions, and I realized that not only was I repeating myself, but that we have rupture on the issue of mental illness. Sociopathy is not a mental illness, it is a disorder of character. Sociopaths do know the difference between right and wrong. They choose to do wrong anyway for their personal gratification. In the context of a psychotic episode, the mentally ill do not know the difference between right and wrong.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[AlexCrowley 0]

I think they've just got a different concept of sanity. Which is why we see them as alien and fear them.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[artistcalledian 0]

Quote

I kill an artist of some influence after careful planning? Death penalty or no?

________________________________________
drive it like you stole it and f*ck the police

[RhondaLea 4]

Quote

I think they've just got a different concept of sanity. Which is why we see them as alien and fear them.

Are you talking about the mentally ill or about sociopaths, Alex?

I don't see the mentally ill as alien, and I don't fear them. I've had plenty of friends with many different diagnoses. Most of them have been quite bright and creative, even more so than most "normal" people.

If you're talking about sociopaths, however, I don't see how sanity comes into it, unless you define sane as seeing others only as the means to an end. And in that case you'd be right. I do fear them.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[billvon 3,119]

>How do you quantify potentiality?

You can't, which is why you shouldn't try. You should get the same sentence whether you kill a promising 13 year old skater or a 76 year old curmudgeon. Because, again, justice should not be about 'fixing a wrong' or 'make it right that he killed my poor baby!' but about stopping the crime in the future.

That being said, there are some crimes, like shooting a police officer, that have very real and direct negative impacts on the justice system, and thus have to be treated differently. In addition, there is a very real difference between someone who kills through negligence and someone who kills through malice; there is societal benefit from not punishing the accidental killer as harshly.

[AlexCrowley 0]

Actually after 8 pages of people using Sociopaths as their strawman of the day I was refering to retards like Sudsy and Sinker.

I enjoy our arrogance that our view of what is sane must be true.

Reality is merely a consensual illusion that we work hard to maintain. Sociopaths offer an alternative so alien from what we consider basic human traits that some people tend to overreact.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[AlexCrowley 0]

right. I was talking about murder 1 directly.

I may be mistaken but I didnt think that all murder 1 convictions led to the death penalty either. (maybe it varies state to state).

And yes, I agree one blanket punishment. I disagree that killing them is it.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Are we trying to quantify the crime itself, or its impact?

Or, contemporarily, punish even the thoughts of the criminal too. Or, even, punish something in the system by taking it out on the criminal.

YES, you get the biggest flaw of this legal system. This confusion permeates so much of the discussions. This confusion makes punishment arbitrary instead of direct. This confusion that tries to nuance a bunch of contributing factors and makes that more important than the action itself.

{deleted a bunch of stuff that will just generate crap from certain other posters}

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>You can't, which is why you shouldn't try. You should get the same sentence whether you kill a promising 13 year old skater or a 76 year old curmudgeon. Because, again, justice should not be about 'fixing a wrong' or 'make it right that he killed my poor baby!' but about stopping the crime in the future.

That being said, there are some crimes, like shooting a police officer, that have very real and direct negative impacts on the justice system, and thus have to be treated differently. In addition, there is a very real difference between someone who kills through negligence and someone who kills through malice; there is societal benefit from not punishing the accidental killer as harshly.

2 criteria only to set punishment -

primary - the action itself
secondarily - the potential for repeat offense

take it right off of a table and take out the subjectivity of juries and judges

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[AlexCrowley 0]

Without hijacking this into other territory - I'm reminded of the case of the simulated child porn ring, and the comic artist.

Which specifically dealt with that question.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[Falko 0]

Quote

Sociopaths do know the difference between right and wrong. They choose to do wrong anyway for their personal gratification.

That makes them mentally ill in my book.
Seems it all boils down to semantics and definitions. Well, this is Speakers Corner so what would one expect.

Case is closed for me, there's no point in defining terms even further than we did.
Anyhow I admit I also find myself to be a little misanthropic at times... but I don't like the bitter aftertaste!

I'm out, blue skies!

Ich betrachte die Religion als Krankheit, als Quelle unnennbaren Elends für die menschliche Rasse.
(Bertrand Russell, engl. Philosoph, 1872-1970)

[billvon 3,119]

>And yes, I agree one blanket punishment. I disagree that killing them is it.

I'm ambivalent about it. I don't think it's a 'moral outrage' or anything to execute a murderer; they essentially give up their rights when they commit such a crime. The arguments for execution I see are:

-_might_ be a better deterrent
-would be cheaper if the system was reformed (right now it's not)

against:

-life in prison is just as effective at removing the criminal from society
-no way of rectifying an error later, especially with a speedy reformed system

We will never get a perfect justice system; that's an impossible goal. However, I think it has to be a good deal better than it is now before we can use the death penalty with a reasonable assurance that we won't be killing innocent people.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>I don't think it's a 'moral outrage' or anything to execute a murderer; they essentially give up their rights when they commit such a crime. The arguments for execution I see are:

-_might_ be a better deterrent
-would be cheaper if the system was reformed (right now it's not)

against:

-life in prison is just as effective at removing the criminal from society
-no way of rectifying an error later, especially with a speedy reformed system

We will never get a perfect justice system; that's an impossible goal. However, I think it has to be a good deal better than it is now before we can use the death penalty with a reasonable assurance that we won't be killing innocent people.

Funny, this is nice summary of exactly my position. But here, I'm thinking a handful of people are labeling me as 'pro-murder'.

So I'll just bite right now.

{incredulous, superior, disappointed voice} BillVon - I can't believe you are for the death penalty. What happened? What an intensely emotional argument.

{end mock outrage}

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[AlexCrowley 0]

I agree on the econimics. I'm not sure that the death penalty provides any kind of deterrant.


To illustrate my personal concept: if you're a cop and you walk into an apartment where dead victims flesh is over 20% of the decor and/or warddrobe of the suspect, and the suspect is half way through a delicious meal of human flesh, you have the right to execute the guy on the spot. Otherwise he probably should go through the system.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.