Why NOT death penalty?

[rehmwa 2]

  Quote

I agree that when we are forced to destroy one of our number, we should practice some introspection to determine where society might have contributed and could do better.

that's a good point that gets lost often because of the below here -

understanding = understanding (even when we trying to understand a wrong and heinous act)

understanding DOES NOT = acceptance or approval


Just because I understand why someone would commit a specific act doesn't automatically imply that I have to now approve of the act. I can sympathize with a murderer's motivation, but I would still vote guilty.

I'm not sure how many people can get that. Especially those that like to throw out emotional scenarios to generalized debate topics that start with "how would you feel if it were someone close to you" etc etc etc.

...
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

[normiss 873]

Actually we have.
Rational is subjective based on one's own experiences though.

A civilized nation doesn't kill it's own people.

Life without parole.
Works just fine.

[rehmwa 2]

  Quote

A civilized nation doesn't kill it's own people.

a civilized nation protects its law abiding citizens from known threats


anyone can make -'nuff said- statements and walk away, the discussion is the important thing

...
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

[davjohns 1]

  Quote

Actually we have.
Rational is subjective based on one's own experiences though.

A civilized nation doesn't kill it's own people.

Life without parole.
Works just fine.

I think someone else indirectly suggested this. Life with parole, even with the inherent risks that I've outlined, is preferable to execution. Correct?

So we are willing to accept that these men may walk among us again? We are comfortable with them watching cable TV, eating three squares a day, not working, surfing the internet, watching movies, exercising in a provided gym, having visitors (even conjugal visits) and, perhaps one day walking free if the legal system or parole board can be persuaded by less evidence than the jury had or emotional pleas from the family (theirs...obviously the family they raped and killed will not get a vote)?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

  Quote

Of each of your people convicted of heinous crimes with serious psych issues - how many people are out there that had very similar upbringings that chose NOT to commit the same heinous crimes?

Psychological disease is not something you chose.

  Quote

I doubt the "village" concept is super valid (I don't like the idea of people butting into the upbringing of someone else's kids), but that's just an opinion. Actually, I just can't stand the idea of the "village" and what it would ultimately represent

Very few parents raise their children all by themselves.

Daycare, schooling, interaction with other people, socializing...all parts of being raised.

How many people do you know who have been raised without any influence outside of that of their parents? Do you think that would be healthy?

[airdvr 210]

  Quote

That is supposed to be part of the accuracy check of the system.
When making that sort of a decision that involves the taking of a human life, then we should exhaust ALL possible options to verify the case is correct.

Absolutely. I'm saying we should end capital punishment and also the exhaustive appeals process. That would impact more than capital punishment cases.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[normiss 873]

That's not what I said.
I said life with no parole. Means they will die in jail.

Not sure about most other states in the US...but in Florida, they don't get internets. They don't get maovies. They don't get cable. They actually had only black and white tv over the air - until the production of black and white tv's stopped entirely. I wouldn't wish prison food on the French either.
The victims and the surviving members of a decedent's family have a LOT of input on sentencing in Florida. Sometimes anyway.

We can pretty much dismiss the whole chance of escape as well. It's so very rare these days with the current design of prisons.

[rehmwa 2]

  Quote

Very few parents raise their children all by themselves.

Daycare, schooling, interaction with other people, socializing...all parts of being raised.

How many people do you know who have been raised without any influence outside of that of their parents? Do you think that would be healthy?

that's an odd tangent - we're clearly missing each other's point - you seem to consider the concept of "the village" as something that should be legalized and turned into a formal contract (example - the murderer's parents and neighbors should be held responsible for his adult acts also...???). Whereas, I just see people growing up and interacting as "life" and it shouldn't be forced into something deeper than that just to progress a specific socio/politico agenda

you can strawman and misread me all you like, but it's pretty much that simple

however, what you propose is pretty socially intrusive into people's lives - I'm sure the evangelical right wing types will love it

...
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

  Quote

Of each of your people convicted of heinous crimes with serious psych issues - how many people are out there that had very similar upbringings that chose NOT to commit the same heinous crimes?

Psychological disease is not something you chose.

as for this implied strawman.......

the point is we can make a generalized argument that the village has little to do with whether these guys end up with their disease or not - it hits the individual. So blaming the 'village' for one man's acts is inherently unfair unless there was a preponderance of people from that village that exhibit that behavior. This is akin to saying all black urban youths will commit crimes. it's another example of just putting people in generalized buckets. I won't buy that.


sometimes, an individual just turns out poorly whether the parents, the school and the community might still have done everything right.......

...
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

[SkyDekker 1,465]

  Quote

as for this implied strawman.......

the point is we can make a generalized argument that the village has little to do with whether these guys end up with their disease or not - it hits the individual. So blaming the 'village' for one man's acts is inherently unfair unless there was a preponderance of people from that village that exhibit that behavior. This is akin to saying all black urban youths will commit crimes. it's another example of just putting people in generalized buckets. I won't buy that.

And my point is that as a society you have an obligation to protect the weak, to help them. I believe that noblesse oblige.

Execution is a great way to make sure you no longer have to think about what went wrong though. Great way to forget anything that might be learned. A great way to take the focus off a bigger picture.

It is a wonderful spectacle to ensure people do not ask too many questions. It is also a fine part of panem at circenses.

[davjohns 1]

  Quote

That's not what I said.
I said life with no parole. Means they will die in jail.

Not sure about most other states in the US...but in Florida, they don't get internets. They don't get maovies. They don't get cable. They actually had only black and white tv over the air - until the production of black and white tv's stopped entirely. I wouldn't wish prison food on the French either.
The victims and the surviving members of a decedent's family have a LOT of input on sentencing in Florida. Sometimes anyway.

We can pretty much dismiss the whole chance of escape as well. It's so very rare these days with the current design of prisons.

I didn't mean to imply that you said that. I meant that it was left out. You are OK with accepting the inherent risk of our current system. They may very well walk free at some point. The amenities of prison surely vary from state to state. However, I have yet to see one so austere that I would not prefer it to some other options.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[wmw999 2,560]

  Quote

You are OK with accepting the inherent risk of our current system. They may very well walk free at some point

I am OK with that, mainly because there haven't been (to my knowledge, at least), people sentenced to LWOP who have gotten out to commit other heinous crimes.

I agree there are people who have really lost their right to exist. However, I think it's a recognition of the humanity of our society that we let them continue to exist.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[loch1957 0]

Well if your a Christian the answer is simple, if your not then you can debate all you want. This is in regard to the death penalty for murder, biblically there is no other time when its allowed.

The death penalty was first instituted by God Himself in Genesis 9:6: "Whosoever sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." Man didn't invent the death penalty, so man has no right to abandon it.

Exodus 21:12 says, "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.

Deuteronomy 19:11-13

"But if any man hate his neighbor, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities: Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee."

Now I know not everyone is a Christian but if you are then theres not much debate.

Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.”

[billvon 3,090]

But what did Jesus have to say on the matter?

Romans 13:8 -

"Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

Matthew 5:38 -

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also."

If you define "Christian" as "following the teachings of Christ" the answer is pretty plain.

[billvon 3,090]

>Life with parole, even with the inherent risks that I've outlined, is
>preferable to execution. Correct?

I don't think anyone is suggesting that. Life WITHOUT parole is what capital punishment is being compared against.

[killler 2]

Stand there and let that happen to your wife or children.... Then tell me the guy has rights

There are people that are plain evil.... I think most know where I stand on this subject....

Killler...

[billvon 3,090]

>Stand there and let that happen to your wife or children.... Then tell me
>the guy has rights

He doesn't. He has forfeited them. The only question that remains is - how do you make sure he doesn't kill someone else's wife and kids? And life without parole is equivalent to execution there. And life is cheaper.

[killler 2]

You are thinking with "YOUR" morals... You think jail is a scary place, That the guy is gonna feel bad about what he did...

This guy and those like him don't give a fuck about jail.... They are only pissed-off that they got caught... Jail is not a bad deal for a lot of people... and with all the human right nutters running around it like a a cheap club med... Know a few that have done some hard time and it's not really bad after the shock wears off... If jail was the deal that you think it is... Why the fuck do "MOST" people go back over and over again...

prison/jail only works to keep honest people honest..

killler....

[loch1957 0]

Unfortunately, kill is a mistranslation of the original Hebrew, which does not say, you shall not kill. The Hebrew verb here is ratsach, and it only refers to illegal killing.

The meaning of the principle, an eye for an eye, is that a person who has injured another person receives the same injury in compensation. The exact Latin to English translation of this phrase is actually The law of retaliation. At the root of this principle is that one of the purposes of the law is to provide equitable retribution for an offended party.

The phrase, an eye for an eye, is a quotation from several passages of the Hebrew Bible in which a person who has injured the eye of another is instructed to pay compensation. It defined and restricted the extent of retribution in the laws of the Torah.

The English word talion means a punishment identical to the offense, from the Latin talio. The principle of an eye for an eye is often referred to using the Latin phrase lex talionis, the law of talion.

This is the doctrine of revenge, preached against by Jesus Christ in his sermon on the mount:

For example, killing the assailant from Numbers 35:16-18 is not only allowed but required. That sort of required killing (capital punishment, as we call it now) is not ratsaching, and is not forbidden by the Ten Commandments.

Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.”

[billvon 3,090]

> You are thinking with "YOUR" morals...

No, just being practical.

>This guy and those like him don't give a fuck about jail.... They are only
>pissed-off that they got caught... Jail is not a bad deal for a lot of
>people... and with all the human right nutters running around it like a a
>cheap club med...

Doesn't matter. Their feelings are irrelevant; the only thing that is important is keeping them out of society forever.

>prison/jail only works to keep honest people honest..

Again, doesn't matter. They're not going to be "kept honest." They are going to be kept there for the rest of their lives.

You seem to be thinking along the lines of "but what if they like it? It's not that much of a deterrent then." If so, that misses the point. It is not a deterrent; it is the end of the line. They will never be released to kill again. It doesn't matter if they repent, or don't repent, or have a TV, or whatever. All that matters is that they can never murder anyone in society ever again.

[skypuppy 1]

>No good can come of keeping them alive.

And no good can come from killing them. At that point it's just a question of "what is the least bad?"

Wrong. If you kill em, they're dead. They're not going to walk past the fence and rape some poor housewife who happens to live down the block, like happened not far from where I live a few years back....

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[skypuppy 1]

  Quote

I don't quite understand how you could think someone confined to a high security prison in a remote area of Alaska could pose a danger to society. Please explain.

Remote prisons are not secure. Many people walked away from gulags in Russia or from other remote high security prison camps. And the fact they did it, means that these dangerous people would be free to attack society again. The purpose of the justice system is to protect society -- if they can;t be rehabilitate (and many can't), and they're liable to kill or commit other violent crime -- kill em first.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[billvon 3,090]

>For example, killing the assailant from Numbers 35:16-18 is not only
>allowed but required. That sort of required killing (capital punishment, as
>we call it now) is not ratsaching, and is not forbidden by the Ten
>Commandments.

Oh, agreed. But most Christians do not follow the commandments of the Old Testament. Leviticus requires that you kill all gays, for example, and Exodus requires that if you sell you daughter into slavery she must not be free to leave her service. Heck, you even have to kill anyone who curses their parents or commits adultery. Fortunately, excepting some very extreme Christians, no one really believes that stuff nowadays.

Christ's teachings were quite clear on the subject - accept offenses and let them sin again against you. All four main gospels agree on that point.

[billvon 3,090]

>Wrong. If you kill em, they're dead.

So what? Who cares?

>They're not going to walk past the fence and rape some poor housewife
>who happens to live down the block

Agreed. Nor are they going to do that inside a 10x10 cell.

[skypuppy 1]

  Quote

  Quote

now this is a new form of judgmentalism we haven't seen - should be fun to stretch it out

So the adoptee has abandonment issues and goes on a killing spree at the age of 35 - .... so we find the birth mother and put her in jail too?

Nope, but as a society you have failed. The village has failed.

Here are some questions to consider:

How many people convicted of heinous crimes have serious psychological issues?

Does "The Village" and the family not have a responsibility to help those dealing with severe psychological diseases?

I don't really believe in the 'it takes a village' philosophy, however, even if I did there are many severe psychological diseases that cannot be cured.

A schizophrenic women just stabbed two canadian women fatally in the main tourist region of atlantic city in broad daylight (about 11;45 am) in front of a policeman.

A schizophrenic man who cut a stranger's head off while taking a bus trip, and then ate some of his victim (in front of the other passengers on the bus) is now getting day parole just 3 years after killing the 25 year-old.

I view neither of those perps as being anyone I owe anything to just because they have wires crossed -- but I still believe that society should be protected from them.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone