NationStates Jolt Archive

Curiously, I feel the same way about people that allow the worst criminals to have (possible) access to society.

meh then lock em up huh!

3) Since the UK already has no death penalty... shouldn't they ALREADY be 'catching murderers'?

Well in this particular case, they have done so. In fact most of the killings reported in our media, there have been arrests if not within the first few days then the first few months. I can't remeber the last time an unsolved murder went reported.

No in fact I can, back in the 70-80's with the Yorkshire ripper, ohh and they caught him too.

No, it isn't.

I challenge you to show me figures that even come close to suggesting it.

Here, have a few dozen (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty). As an example, an execution in Maryland costs over $1million more than life imprisonment without parole.

1) What is the point in 'catching murderers' if you're just going to give them a slap on the wrist?

Life imprisonment without parole is not a slap on the wrist.

4) As an aside (because your figures or pretty hokey) cheaper isn't automatically better.

No, it isn't. But when life imprisonment without parole is cheaper, keeps offenders away from the public for good and is reversible then it most certainly is better.

Curiously, I feel the same way about people that allow the worst criminals to have (possible) access to society.
So why not do the Athenian thing and simply exile them? Drop them off somewhere of (limited) choice and deny them access to your country ever again.

Sorry Fass.

Not true.

Article 2 (2) has derogations.

I am not talking about article 2. I am talking about Protocol 13, concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances.

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/187.htm

Article 2 – Prohibition of derogations

No derogation from the provisions of this Protocol shall be made under Article 15 of the Convention.

Article 3 – Prohibition of reservations

No reservation may be made under Article 57 of the Convention in respect of the provisions of this Protocol.

You really should know a bit about the Convention before you try to claim someone wrong...

Did you write John McCain's debate speeches?

This has the same degree of to-the-point specific assurance as "I know how to find bin Ladin"...

It's interesting how you wrote a post and failed to convey even the semblance of it carrying any sort of meaning. Care to try again? Or shall we remain assured that your knowledge of European supranational law is as non-existent as is apparent?

After reading the story today about Baby P, the young boy who was brutalised at the hands of his mothers boyfriend and another man, I ask is it now time to bring back hanging for crimes where the perpetrators are guilty beyond any reasonable doubt?*

I hear the arguments for and against execution but I cannot for the life of me understand how any decent human being can read this story and not want these bastards hanged, including the baby boy's mother who walked free.



*I admit to not knowing the full ins and outs of the case.
I can, but that's because when I hear about something like this, I don't just feel anger at the people for what they've done. I also feel pity for them, and wonder WHY they are the way they are, and anger at their situation, at whatever made them this way, and ask myself: is there anything I can do to help them repent, so to speak, and make them better people?

But then I'm a wacky idealist.

I am not talking about article 2. I am talking about Protocol 13, concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances.

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/187.htm

Article 2 – Prohibition of derogations

No derogation from the provisions of this Protocol shall be made under Article 15 of the Convention.

Article 3 – Prohibition of reservations

No reservation may be made under Article 57 of the Convention in respect of the provisions of this Protocol.

You really should know a bit about the Convention before you try to claim someone wrong...

I'm looking to find a fuller update of who has and has not ratified that Protocol but as of this moment in time all I can see is that 23 out of the 42 members states that signed that specific Protocol, have ratified it.

Therefore, until I can find something stating otherwise at which point I will either gladly edit or withdraw, states that have signed the ECHR, but not ratified that Protocol can use the death penalty in certain circumstances, as far as my reading goes.

Edit: Ok, it appears it is now more than 23, but not all signatories have ratified it - namely Russia who has not ratified 13 or 6, and who can carry out executions while still being a party to the Convention. So, neither of us were entirely accurate.

I'm looking to find a fuller update of who has and has not ratified that Protocol...

http://www.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/press-release/2003/10/fco_npr_161003_prot13deathpenalt

Google is such a handy tool. The UK has. This is a thread on the UK. I would not have brought up Protocol 13 if it hadn't. Unlike you, I do not argue from ignorance.

http://www.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/press-release/2003/10/fco_npr_161003_prot13deathpenalt

Google is such a handy tool. The UK has. This is a thread on the UK. I would not have brought up Protocol 13 if it hadn't. Unlike you, I do not argue from ignorance.

Well, actually what you said was:

The ECHR's rulings are binding. There is no derogation from the death penalty ban possible under The Convention.

Considering the thread had moved on from purely being about the UK (which earlier it was stated that they would be expelled as it would indeed be a breach of the ECHR here http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14202243&postcount=126 , which you then belatedly stated yourself) and onto a subject of the death penalty in Europe as a whole, if not in general- I was well within my rights to correct your false claim of the above.

Russia is a party to the ECHR and can still execute people.

Wow...I'm really far behind here. I think I got all your responses to me, GnI...I'll try to go back and read the rest before I go crash.


Welcome back. :) It's been progressing, just a little.


Thanks. I thought it was quite nice myself.


Never let it be said that you don't have your way with words. :)


If you lock him in a cell and he doesn't get out, he also doesn't kill again.
Sounds like alot of qualifiers, and yes, I know you're going to call me on this. However, your argument is against things as they stand...the ability to get out on good behavior and the like, where "life sentence" is usually anything but (according to the source I posted earlier, "life" was an average of [I think] 14 years). That is an argument against my point, but not an argument for yours.


Quite true.

However, the only 'cell' we actually can put a man in that we can be SURE he can never escape, is the 'cell' of his own, dead, flesh.


I don't disagree. And I won't resort to arguing "lesser", "greater" and "wrong", as that would just be more pretty prose and rhetoric. However, there are other ways to prevent the greater wrong that are less costly to the state, and potentially more beneficial, than the execution process.


People keep citing that argument, and it's still not true - because they are not evaluating the two things equally. Execution can be incredibly inexpensive.


Not really. I don't believe that either are deserving of death.


Would you treat the two equally, though? If you 'found out' that you didn't want someone at your dinner party, and you 'found out' that someone had 20 corpses of infants buried in their basement, would your response to each be the same?


Having access to society is not the same thing as being a part of society. Being a part implies two-way, consistant interaction. Having access is generally one way, and fairly on-and-off (prisoners can lose access to any of these at any time at the discression of a warden).


As a thought experiment, is it possible that a determined man could kill... for example... a lawyer visiting him, before anyone could intervene?


I see we're both good with the rhetoric.


*bows*

It is a valid point, though. What is it that makes us human... biology? OR the fact that we act as such?


Which can be accomplished in several ways.

In the case of a tumor, we have chemo, radiation, or surgery. In the case of a criminal, we have rehab, imprisonment, or execution.

And before it is said, no, execution and surgery are not analogous.


Well, they kind of are, though, aren't they? Both are the 'surgical excision' of that which is unwanted'?


Not what I intended to imply, but, while not "placed back" per se, they do sometimes reappear. But that's not really the point, and quite tangental.

A tumor will never be productive.


Not strictly true... a tumour that applies a small but persistent pressure in only the right area of the brain, for example, could actually make you a better person... more creative, maybe... happier... nicer to people.


A rehabilitated criminal might be released back into society and become a productive member. Do all? No. Should all who are released be released? No. Is that an argument against my concept? Not really...it is an argument against the state of things currently...which should be changed.

Moreover, a criminal can be forced into labor within the prison, thereby benefitting society without being a member of it.


How is slavery acceptable? I'm not sure where the 'morality' argument is supposed to be, there.


And, of course, there is the issue when they accidentally cut out the spleen instead of the tumor.

I just know you're expecting me to go there, and I hate to disappoint...

...the risk of 'accidentally cutting out the spleen' isn't actually a convincing argument against surgery for cancer.

Welcome back. :) It's been progressing, just a little.Haha...work has sort of prevented me from going back and reading the rest of the thread...so I might just pretend it doesn't exist...
<.<



Never let it be said that you don't have your way with words. :)
Haha...quite the same for you, my friend. Now if only you were one of those people who was actually swayed by good rhetoric, rather than logic.


Quite true.

However, the only 'cell' we actually can put a man in that we can be SURE he can never escape, is the 'cell' of his own, dead, flesh.
In this case, I refer to the last argument you make in this post, but slightly modified. The risk of an escape is quite small, particularly in a maximum security prison. The issue with parole can be a big one, and there does need to be a better system in place, but those issues still do not excuse taking a life out of vengance, or even fear of repeat offences.

People keep citing that argument, and it's still not true - because they are not evaluating the two things equally. Execution can be incredibly inexpensive.Note that I said the "execution process". Execution can cost only what you pay for the rope. However, the execution process includes the appeals process and initial trials. The initial trial alone is significantly more expensive.

The comparison I use is this: The cost of a) the initial trial b) the appeals process and c) the punishment.
death sentences cases are significantly more costly for a and b, and highly dependent upon method for c.



Would you treat the two equally, though? If you 'found out' that you didn't want someone at your dinner party, and you 'found out' that someone had 20 corpses of infants buried in their basement, would your response to each be the same?No. Nor do I claim it would. However, if you asked if any party deserved death, my response would be the same.



As a thought experiment, is it possible that a determined man could kill... for example... a lawyer visiting him, before anyone could intervene?
Depends. This could easily be prevented by keeping the two seperated (ie, two rooms with a sheet of sturdy glass between the two). The only time there actually must be direct contact between the criminal and another human would be in a medical setting, or if the room was being cleaned...in which case, you restrain the criminal using a SOP with more than one person in the room.

Or do what they do with elephants and tranq the bastard ;)


*bows*

It is a valid point, though. What is it that makes us human... biology? OR the fact that we act as such?
I would argue biology. Feral children are still human, despite showing almost no "human" traits...language, vertical gait, etc.


Well, they kind of are, though, aren't they? Both are the 'surgical excision' of that which is unwanted'?
In some ways, yes. In others, no.
Surgical excision could be any number of methods: old school surgery, burning it out, what have you.
Removal of a criminal could be any number of methods: death, exclusion, what have you.
Death penalty and surgical excision do have their similarities, but are not inherently synonymous.


Not strictly true... a tumour that applies a small but persistent pressure in only the right area of the brain, for example, could actually make you a better person... more creative, maybe... happier... nicer to people. Is that inherently "better"? Great to be nicer to people untill it goes too far and you trust a harmful person. Happier is great untill you never have hardship (you don't get to know yourself terribly well by being constantly happy) You have a parasite that makes you a wonderful person to be around. However, your body still has a parasite that could be having harmful impacts on other systems.



How is slavery acceptable? I'm not sure where the 'morality' argument is supposed to be, there.That would be the strict pragmatic argument...a dead body is nothing but a cost to the society, as it must be taken care of. A living person can be forced to earn their keep (good ol' stamping license plates, for example)



I just know you're expecting me to go there, and I hate to disappoint...

...the risk of 'accidentally cutting out the spleen' isn't actually a convincing argument against surgery for cancer.
haha...no, not inherently. However, accidentally taking someones life is a decent argument for not killing someone.

No. Purely due to the uncertainty/irreversibility argument though.

1) What is the point in 'catching murderers' if you're just going to give them a slap on the wrist?
Prisons, more importantly prisoners, are not kind to murderers in general, and if you do anything to children, you will basically want to die than be there for 25+ years.
3) Since the UK already has no death penalty... shouldn't they ALREADY be 'catching murderers'?
We do. Good times.

I think all countries should give murderers, rapists, and sadistic psychopaths good old fashioned hangings as long as the convicted are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think all countries should give murderers, rapists, and sadistic psychopaths good old fashioned hangings as long as the convicted are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

And I don't. Next Opinion!

I think all countries should give murderers, rapists, and sadistic psychopaths good old fashioned hangings as long as the convicted are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yeah...we've done that. Actually, that's how all convictions are done. And yet, sometimes, the wrong guy still dies.

Well in this particular case, they have done so.


If that WERE so, then the argument made about saving the money usd on execution, and spending it instead on finding murderers... would be nonsensical.

So - in fact, it it WERE true, you'd be fighting another poster's argument, not mine.


In fact most of the killings reported in our media, there have been arrests...


Arrests are not the same as being guilty.


...if not within the first few days then the first few months. I can't remeber the last time an unsolved murder went reported.


Your inability to remember things that have been reported within the last few years... is not my problem.

How you could forget the Jill Dando case (remember, the guy they originally jailed was later acquitted?), I don't know... but that's not even the most recent 'unsolved murder'. I remember reading about such cases dating from 2006, at least.

Here, have a few dozen (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty). As an example, an execution in Maryland costs over $1million more than life imprisonment without parole.


Seen that source already, and it was untrue that time, too.

Did you not read the part of your own source where it says that most of the costs are accrued even BEFORE a guilty verdict is reached?

I asked you to source your ridiculous claims about the cost of an execution, and you post legal fees, prison costs and appeals processes.


Life imprisonment without parole is not a slap on the wrist.


Isn't it? Compared to a fine and picking up litter, maybe.


No, it isn't. But when life imprisonment without parole is cheaper, keeps offenders away from the public for good and is reversible then it most certainly is better.

Reversible... is only an advantage if you consider it so. Keeping offenders away from the public for good... isn't necessarily true. Being cheaper? That's just a lie.

So why not do the Athenian thing and simply exile them? Drop them off somewhere of (limited) choice and deny them access to your country ever again.

Where are you going to drop them where they can't ever hurt anyone else, and they can't ever get back?

It's interesting how you wrote a post and failed to convey even the semblance of it carrying any sort of meaning. Care to try again? Or shall we remain assured that your knowledge of European supranational law is as non-existent as is apparent?

Maybe I was a little too poetic.

I was suggesting that your - let's face it - rather nebulous invocation of ECHR rulings (which lacked any real references, and - especially - lacked any actual threat), came across as somewhat vague. Almost Biblical in it's combination of apparent scope and lack of delivery. Much like McCain's debate performance.

Prisons, more importantly prisoners, are not kind to murderers in general, and if you do anything to children, you will basically want to die than be there for 25+ years.


So, you're arguing it would be more humane to kill them?


We do. Good times.

Apparently not.

Haha...work has sort of prevented me from going back and reading the rest of the thread...so I might just pretend it doesn't exist...
<.<


The work? Or the thread? :D


Haha...quite the same for you, my friend. Now if only you were one of those people who was actually swayed by good rhetoric, rather than logic.


I might be able to get behind a decent appeal to emotion... but I think the 'pro-death-penalty' side gets the best material on that one.


In this case, I refer to the last argument you make in this post, but slightly modified. The risk of an escape is quite small, particularly in a maximum security prison. The issue with parole can be a big one, and there does need to be a better system in place, but those issues still do not excuse taking a life out of vengance, or even fear of repeat offences.


Those issues do not excuse taking a life.... why?


Note that I said the "execution process". Execution can cost only what you pay for the rope. However, the execution process includes the appeals process and initial trials. The initial trial alone is significantly more expensive.


This much is true... most of the cost of 'execution', is because of how we do it - surrounding it with all this other expense. Execution is far more reasonably priced. So to speak.


No. Nor do I claim it would. However, if you asked if any party deserved death, my response would be the same.


But, if the question wasn't so loaded, and all we were asking was whether you thought they should receive the same treatment...?


Depends. This could easily be prevented by keeping the two seperated (ie, two rooms with a sheet of sturdy glass between the two). The only time there actually must be direct contact between the criminal and another human would be in a medical setting, or if the room was being cleaned...in which case, you restrain the criminal using a SOP with more than one person in the room.

Or do what they do with elephants and tranq the bastard ;)


That made me laugh...

But, in all earnest, in order to achieve the same kind of 'security' that a bullet in the brainpan gives, you have to use the kind of draconian prison mechanism that would be attacked just about as fervently...


I would argue biology. Feral children are still human, despite showing almost no "human" traits...language, vertical gait, etc.


But, does walking like a human and talking like a human make you 'human'?

Or is 'humanity' more than that?


In some ways, yes. In others, no.
Surgical excision could be any number of methods: old school surgery, burning it out, what have you.
Removal of a criminal could be any number of methods: death, exclusion, what have you.
Death penalty and surgical excision do have their similarities, but are not inherently synonymous.


Not synonymous, but I think there's room for analogy.


Is that inherently "better"? Great to be nicer to people untill it goes too far and you trust a harmful person. Happier is great untill you never have hardship (you don't get to know yourself terribly well by being constantly happy) You have a parasite that makes you a wonderful person to be around. However, your body still has a parasite that could be having harmful impacts on other systems.


But the point stands... the 'tumor' COULD have something to contribute.


That would be the strict pragmatic argument...a dead body is nothing but a cost to the society, as it must be taken care of. A living person can be forced to earn their keep (good ol' stamping license plates, for example)


I appreciate the pragmatism, but it appears to be arguing 'execution is wrong, let's enslave them instead'.


haha...no, not inherently. However, accidentally taking someones life is a decent argument for not killing someone.

But what about someone NOT-accidentally taking someone's life?

The work? Or the thread? :D
both ;)


I might be able to get behind a decent appeal to emotion... but I think the 'pro-death-penalty' side gets the best material on that one.
I tend to shy away from the emotional, and yes, the pro side definatly has the best. Though, if I were to make one, it would be that these criminals are someones child, spouse, parent, etc. In the case that you are wrong, what is to be said to these now-innocent victims and their families (well, probably not much to the victims themselves...they're kinda...you know...dead.)

Even if the person was truly the criminal, it still punishes more than just the criminal.

Mind you, I'm not making that argument ;)


Those issues do not excuse taking a life.... why?
Because I think the only excuse for taking a life is self-preservation. And even that can be tenuous. But it's generally impossible to argue that kind of opinion.


This much is true... most of the cost of 'execution', is because of how we do it - surrounding it with all this other expense. Execution is far more reasonably priced. So to speak.I try to keep my language a bit clear...execution can be very cheap, or very expensive depending on method. But the execution process is a bit more costly.



But, if the question wasn't so loaded, and all we were asking was whether you thought they should receive the same treatment...?
No question they don't. And, as said in Pirates of the Caribbean, we agree that the offer is sound, now we're just hagling price.


That made me laugh...
:)

But, in all earnest, in order to achieve the same kind of 'security' that a bullet in the brainpan gives, you have to use the kind of draconian prison mechanism that would be attacked just about as fervently...

No question. And I would argue just as fervently against such imprisonment myself.

It's about balance. Finding the balance between that guarentee and the risk. To me, maximum security prison, solitary confinement, is an acceptable middle ground.

But, does walking like a human and talking like a human make you 'human'?

Or is 'humanity' more than that?
It's an interesting question to ponder, no doubt (Hey GnI...are you pondering what I'm pondering?)
What makes a human "human"?
I lean towards the biology argument. And I won't lie, a big part of it is the discomfort over declaring someone sub-human. It shouldn't be surprising that I'm also the one who always feels bad for the "bad guy". Except Iago. But he interests me on a whole different level.


Not synonymous, but I think there's room for analogy.
no question. The analogy just leaves the wiggle room that I pointed out.


But the point stands... the 'tumor' COULD have something to contribute.
That's almost an argument in my favor ;)
This malignant tumor could have a benefit to the host, if placed properly.


I appreciate the pragmatism, but it appears to be arguing 'execution is wrong, let's enslave them instead'.
appearences can be accurate, it would seem.
I don't disagree that these criminals must be punished. And that punishment will certainly entail some level of loss of freedom...from the extreme of loss of life, to the case of enslavement, to the case of a light slap on the wrist and probation. At least one of these has the benefit of removal of the criminal as well as a real benefit to society of some kind of production.


But what about someone NOT-accidentally taking someone's life?I'd still say that it is too risky.


By the way, it's fun to be opposing you for once. You're fun to debate.

Seen that source already, and it was untrue that time, too.

Did you not read the part of your own source where it says that most of the costs are accrued even BEFORE a guilty verdict is reached?

I asked you to source your ridiculous claims about the cost of an execution, and you post legal fees, prison costs and appeals processes.

Oh, I understand now. In that case, if you are proposing that the cost of capital punishment is merely the cost of the execution itself, then I consider the cost of life imprisonment to be restricted to the cost of placing someone in a cell. The cost of food, guards, recreation - they aren't necessary to keep someone imprisoned. I can therefore conclude that life imprisonment is free, which is cheaper than an execution which requires a bullet, a piece of rope etc.

Isn't it? Compared to a fine and picking up litter, maybe.

You sound a little unsure. Are you confused as to wether you would rather be sent to prison for life or have to pick up litter?

Reversible... is only an advantage if you consider it so. Keeping offenders away from the public for good... isn't necessarily true. Being cheaper? That's just a lie.

Who doesn't consider the reversibility of wrongful convictions an advantage? Do you know many people who consider it a good thing when someone innocent gets executed?

Genesis 9:6

Genesis 9:6

I get the distinct impression that Jesus himself wouldn't be too fond of capital punishment.

After reading the story today about Baby P, the young boy who was brutalised at the hands of his mothers boyfriend and another man, I ask is it now time to bring back hanging for crimes where the perpetrators are guilty beyond any reasonable doubt?*

I hear the arguments for and against execution but I cannot for the life of me understand how any decent human being can read this story and not want these bastards hanged, including the baby boy's mother who walked free.



*I admit to not knowing the full ins and outs of the case.

Punishment that fits the crime. According to a friend of mine from the British Virgin Islands:

If you kill someone, someone will kill you.
If you stab someone to death, someone will stab you to death slowly.
If you strangle someone to death, someone will strangle you to death.
If you shoot someone to death, someone will shoot you to death.'
If you rape someone, someone will, lol interesting question?

Punishment that fits the crime. According to a friend of mine from the British Virgin Islands:

If you kill someone, someone will kill you.
If you stab someone to death, someone will stab you to death slowly.
If you strangle someone to death, someone will strangle you to death.
If you shoot someone to death, someone will shoot you to death.'
If you rape someone, someone will, lol interesting question?

Luckily, in the last...oh...3000 years, we've progressed beyond eye for an eye.

well i'm not in 'gb' so maybe its not for me to say for you, but in general, the death penality should ONLY be reserved for politicians who deliberately and knowingly and intentionally commit war crimes.

I get the distinct impression that Jesus himself wouldn't be too fond of capital punishment.

Matthew 26:52 "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."

You can certainly read that as "Don't kill - who kills, shall be killed".

That's pretty PRO-death-penalty, actually.

Oh, I understand now. In that case, if you are proposing that the cost of capital punishment is merely the cost of the execution itself, then I consider the cost of life imprisonment to be restricted to the cost of placing someone in a cell. The cost of food, guards, recreation - they aren't necessary to keep someone imprisoned.


Don't be ridiculous.

The cost of the execution would include things like transport to the palce of execution, the guards, etc. Which would be fairly minimal. If you put your firing squad at the exit to the court, it's non-existent.

Imprisonment, on the other hand, is going to at least include the cost of SOME form of food, and some degree of maintenance of the facility - because otherwise you're either going to fail to contain your prisoner.. or you're going to kill them through starvation.

You probably thought you were being really clever, too.


I can therefore conclude that life imprisonment is free, which is cheaper than an execution which requires a bullet, a piece of rope etc.


Actually, one doesn't NEED a weapon to kill...


You sound a little unsure.


Because I asked your question back at you? That's a fairly standard rhetoric device for expressing doubt in the truth of your proposition.


Are you confused as to wether you would rather be sent to prison for life or have to pick up litter?


No.


Who doesn't consider the reversibility of wrongful convictions an advantage? Do you know many people who consider it a good thing when someone innocent gets executed?

I've yet to meet anyone that has already BEEN executed, that complains when they are later found innocent.

I get the distinct impression that Jesus himself wouldn't be too fond of capital punishment.


Maybe if you read the verse:

"Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man."

I know exactly what you're going to say:

Isn't one of the commandments don't kill? Isn't captial punishment killing?

Yes, except for the first part. The actual commandment is "Don't murder". There is a distinct difference between murder and killing. Murder is with the direct intent of wanting to kill the person without legal justification, while killing is...manslaughter, I suppose.

Now, by getting rid of the death penalty, you all of a sudden have prisons crammed with people stuck in there for life, which requires more prisons to be built, which requires more money, which means higher taxes. Higher taxes are not fun. It would be easier for those people who are sentenced to life with no chance of parole just to be killed to get it over with.

Of course, since death can't be reversed, it would probably be wise to makes sure the person is actually guilty of the crime before killing him/her. Thanks to DNA testing, this can be achieved. Enough said.

both ;)


I hear you - I'm trying to juggle this between my usual online venue (at work) and the bit of time when I get home. :)


I tend to shy away from the emotional, and yes, the pro side definatly has the best. Though, if I were to make one, it would be that these criminals are someones child, spouse, parent, etc. In the case that you are wrong, what is to be said to these now-innocent victims and their families (well, probably not much to the victims themselves...they're kinda...you know...dead.)

Even if the person was truly the criminal, it still punishes more than just the criminal.

Mind you, I'm not making that argument ;)


Aye - so it looks like I'm (we are) stuck with the arguments from logic, then.

Was worth a try. :)


Because I think the only excuse for taking a life is self-preservation. And even that can be tenuous. But it's generally impossible to argue that kind of opinion.


That's not actually the angle I was aiming at, and I may have been (more than usually?) obtuse...

Why is it such a big deal? Those issues do not excuse taking a life... because? Why should such sanctity be attached?

I can totally see how rape could be considered a worse crime than murder, for example.


I try to keep my language a bit clear...execution can be very cheap, or very expensive depending on method. But the execution process is a bit more costly.


Even under those circumstances, though... there is a lot of 'benefit' cost that really DOESN"T have to be attached. Example - even if we assume that appeals costs are necessary, and 'death row' costs... what is the REAL justification for the massive increase in cost of a 'death sentence' trial?

Doesn't that imply that the legal system is half-assed the rest of the time?


No question they don't. And, as said in Pirates of the Caribbean, we agree that the offer is sound, now we're just hagling price.


Obviously, kudos for "Pirates" references. :)

On the other hand - I believe it is a form of cruelty to make me keep track of this point for two days, or thirteen pages... before I could resolve it. :)

The issues can be resolved as being different in degree - the offer IS sound, and we're talking prices - your earlier comment:

"They thought this child no longer deserved to live. You think these people no longer deserve to live. I think the obnoxious family I had at my table today no longer deserve to live.

Why are you to deem case two to be okay, but not case one or three?"

...we can clearly agree that we all see the difference, we can all understand that one of the situations COULD deserve a death penalty, without comrpomising our positions on the other two.

*weight off my mind*


No question. And I would argue just as fervently against such imprisonment myself.


As would I, in all probability. I'd consider it inhumane.

See my problem?


It's about balance. Finding the balance between that guarentee and the risk. To me, maximum security prison, solitary confinement, is an acceptable middle ground.


That said - can you accommodate the non-middle-ground? If the risk cannot (for whatever reason - thought experiment time again) be mitigated, does your position on the 'guarantee' aspect become more forgiving?


It's an interesting question to ponder, no doubt (Hey GnI...are you pondering what I'm pondering?)
What makes a human "human"?
I lean towards the biology argument. And I won't lie, a big part of it is the discomfort over declaring someone sub-human. It shouldn't be surprising that I'm also the one who always feels bad for the "bad guy". Except Iago. But he interests me on a whole different level.


I love Prince Nuada in Hellboy 2 because he is the perfect 'sympathetic' evil... but, absent a 'war', someone who is sneaking around murdering people isn't nearly as sympathetic a character to me.

The question of 'humanity' puts me in an interesting (and even, uncomfortable) terrain. Does a feral child actually constitute 'a person'? We should be humane to them... but then, we should be humane to all sensible creatures... but if you treat them as you would other 'people' you'll do them no service, and get all the wrong responses... What about dissociative identities... which seem to behave like more than one 'human person' dwelling within the 'shell' of one 'human' body...?

Is it not reasonable to assume it is possible to be entirely 'human' in appearance, but fail to be 'human'?


That's almost an argument in my favor ;)
This malignant tumor could have a benefit to the host, if placed properly.


It is an argument in your favour, but it has a sting in it's tail.

Even though the tumour can be beneficial... what is it's ultimate prognosis? What is it's ultimate fate, if you will?


appearences can be accurate, it would seem.
I don't disagree that these criminals must be punished. And that punishment will certainly entail some level of loss of freedom...from the extreme of loss of life, to the case of enslavement, to the case of a light slap on the wrist and probation. At least one of these has the benefit of removal of the criminal as well as a real benefit to society of some kind of production.


Are we not, though, in effect arguing that the state can enslave, but not kill? Aren't we allowing one right we deny to our individual selves... while denying another? Surely, if it's not acceptable, it's not acceptable?


I'd still say that it is too risky.


Well, yes - but I'm saying leaving a massive repeat offender alive is 'too risky', no? Why does your 'risk' trump my 'risk'?


By the way, it's fun to be opposing you for once. You're fun to debate.

Agreed. Although you're making me work much too hard. :)

Where are you going to drop them where they can't ever hurt anyone else, and they can't ever get back?
Antarctica?

Maybe if you read the verse:

"Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man."

I know exactly what you're going to say:

Isn't one of the commandments don't kill? Isn't captial punishment killing?

Yes, except for the first part. The actual commandment is "Don't murder". There is a distinct difference between murder and killing. Murder is with the direct intent of wanting to kill the person without legal justification, while killing is...manslaughter, I suppose.
Now iirc Jesus turned up because the Old Testament things were being misinterpreted/wrong/etc. And that sounds a fairly old testament verse to me.

Secondly, applying modern semantic definitions to a work that was written a fair while ago and then translated through at least one language isn't a really terrific idea if you're going for the original intent.


Now, by getting rid of the death penalty, you all of a sudden have prisons crammed with people stuck in there for life, which requires more prisons to be built, which requires more money, which means higher taxes. Higher taxes are not fun. It would be easier for those people who are sentenced to life with no chance of parole just to be killed to get it over with.

Of course, since death can't be reversed, it would probably be wise to makes sure the person is actually guilty of the crime before killing him/her. Thanks to DNA testing, this can be achieved. Enough said.

You know that people already sit on death row for decades as it is. How many people does the US actually execute in a year?

I know exactly what you're going to say:

Isn't one of the commandments don't kill? Isn't captial punishment killing?

Actually, I was going to suggest that Jesus might be opposed because of first hand experience of capital punishment...

Now, by getting rid of the death penalty, you all of a sudden have prisons crammed with people stuck in there for life, which requires more prisons to be built, which requires more money, which means higher taxes. Higher taxes are not fun. It would be easier for those people who are sentenced to life with no chance of parole just to be killed to get it over with.

Except that the death penalty, as practiced in the US, is more expensive than life without parole (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty). So what was that you were saying about higher taxes being not fun?

Actually, I was going to suggest that Jesus might be opposed because of first hand experience of capital punishment...


Except... he didn't object to execution for those crucified with him, did he?

Or even for himself, thinking about it...


Except that the death penalty, as practiced in the US, is more expensive than life without parole (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty). So what was that you were saying about higher taxes being not fun?

Did you miss the part about having to build new prisons and stuff?

Did you miss the part about having to build new prisons and stuff?

You have to keep prisoners that are scheduled to be executed in prisons as well, unless you intend to execute them immediately after trial. But that would be denying them the right of appeal.

Besides, prison overcrowding won't be solved by killing the small proportion of prisoners on life sentences. You'd have to start executing people convicted of much lesser crimes who make up the vast majority of prisoners.

If they are raping and murdering people, sure?
Oh...

Why on Earth would you advocate the death penalty for the mentally ill? Does moral accountability enter into your arguments at all; are you OK, to take another example, with also executing children or the senile who have killed?

That's not foolish. Seeing no reason to accept the position means I'm unwilling to accept the position, not that I'm a fool.
I don't see how it's a viable position to take; unless one had no belief in any rehabilitatory method in any situation.

I said I didn't care about their remorse. I didn't say I don't care about the issues.
Merely crossed wires, dear.

Then why cite it as an alternative?
I'm citing it as an alternative to death; I'm not saying that it should be the be-all and end-all of the outcome of a crime. You seemed to be saying that I was only concerned about the criminal.

'...unable to prevent themselves from acting on murderous impulses...'?

Like... they are VICTIMS? They are the victims here?
Enough with the Daily Mail hyperbole...

You stated that "s 'do not murder and do not rape' REALLY such a great burden?" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14204014#post14204014). I'm saying that, if you feel people should be punished for not being able to stop themselves murdering or raping, then why would you ever forgive someone unable to stop themselves from stealing a cookie?

[I]Except... [Jesus] didn't object to execution for those crucified with him, did he?
He didn't explicitly object to it in the Bible, but then he didn't explicitly object to punching your Granny in the face, either...

I think the Golden Rule amounts to a prohibition of crucifixion quite adequately.

Maybe if you read the verse:

"Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man."

I know exactly what you're going to say:

Isn't one of the commandments don't kill? Isn't captial punishment killing?

Yes, except for the first part. The actual commandment is "Don't murder". There is a distinct difference between murder and killing. Murder is with the direct intent of wanting to kill the person without legal justification, while killing is...manslaughter, I suppose.

Now, by getting rid of the death penalty, you all of a sudden have prisons crammed with people stuck in there for life, which requires more prisons to be built, which requires more money, which means higher taxes. Higher taxes are not fun. It would be easier for those people who are sentenced to life with no chance of parole just to be killed to get it over with.

Of course, since death can't be reversed, it would probably be wise to makes sure the person is actually guilty of the crime before killing him/her. Thanks to DNA testing, this can be achieved. Enough said.

On the other hand, he also said "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone". Who are you to claim that you are without sin, and thus qualified to execute someone? Who is anyone to claim that?

From the context of his statements, Jesus seems to have been generally opposed to combat and killing, even in the case of self defense. I don't see how you can reasonably claim him to have supported the death penalty.

You have to...

Re-read the posts. The post you were responding to? You ignored half of what the other poster said. Think of me as a little cricket on your shoulder, or something, showing you the error of your ways.

Oh...

Why on Earth would you advocate the death penalty for the mentally ill?


Wait - phrasing it like that makes it sound like I'm saying we should be using 'mentally ill' as a justification for executions.

I guess the way I look at it, if a half dozen teenage girls are raped by the 'alternative identity', rather than the sweet, bookish identity - they are still just as raped.


Does moral accountability enter into your arguments at all; are you OK, to take another example, with also executing children or the senile who have killed?


Children, maybe... although I can't think of circumstances that I would consider appropriate, offhand. Senile people, sure.


I don't see how it's a viable position to take; unless one had no belief in any rehabilitatory method in any situation.


Why? I think chlorine is a great disinfectant for water package plants in the third world, but I don't want to use it to disinfect a graze...


Merely crossed wires, dear.


Ah. Okay.


Enough with the Daily Mail hyperbole...

You stated that "s 'do not murder and do not rape' REALLY such a great burden?" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14204014#post14204014). I'm saying that, if you feel people should be punished for not being able to stop themselves murdering or raping, then why would you ever forgive someone unable to stop themselves from stealing a cookie?


Wait, what? Where is the hyperbole?

You're talking about stealing cookies being somehow comparable to rape and murder?


He didn't [I]explicitly object to it in the Bible, but then he didn't explicitly object to punching your Granny in the face, either...


And that which isn't explicitly condemned, is allowed...


I think the Golden Rule amounts to a prohibition of crucifixion quite adequately.

"Do unto others"? That one? Isn't that basically 'an eye for an eye'?

To the OP: Simply no. For the same reason that I'm against the death penalty in the countries that have them on the books now.

Where are you going to drop them where they can't ever hurt anyone else, and they can't ever get back?

How do these (admittedly gruesome) alternatives to the death penalty strike you? They would remove the risk of re-offending:

Lobotomization
tetraplegia (through surgery of some kind)

How do these (admittedly gruesome) alternatives to the death penalty strike you? They would remove the risk of re-offending:

Lobotomization
tetraplegia (through surgery of some kind)

They seem a little... inhumane... would be my first thought.

Second thoughts... tetraplegia seems counterproductive, in as much as it makes the person 100% dependent, and also strikes me as being arguable as 'cruel and unusual'. Lobotomy might have a better argument depending on how sucessful it is, how dependent it makes the lobotomised, and how much other 'damage' it does.

They seem a little... inhumane... would be my first thought.

Second thoughts... tetraplegia seems counterproductive, in as much as it makes the person 100% dependent, and also strikes me as being arguable as 'cruel and unusual'. Lobotomy might have a better argument depending on how sucessful it is, how dependent it makes the lobotomised, and how much other 'damage' it does.

I'm pretty sure capital punishment is inhumane.... And arguably cruel. 'Unusual' as an argument is meaningless.

Is the fact these alternatives are more expensive really a deciding factor?

I'm pretty sure capital punishment is inhumane


I'm not. How can something like... for example... a morphine overdose (playing the non-suffering, no-pain angle, here) be inhumane?

.... And arguably cruel.


Again, I don't see why that should be the case.

Is it 'cruel' to euthanise a rabid dog?


'Unusual' as an argument is meaningless.


Not in the context of 'cruel and unusual'.


Is the fact these alternatives are more expensive really a deciding factor?

I didn't say it was a factor, at all.

Wait - phrasing it like that makes it sound like I'm saying we should be using 'mentally ill' as a justification for executions.

I guess the way I look at it, if a half dozen teenage girls are raped by the 'alternative identity', rather than the sweet, bookish identity - they are still just as raped.



Yes, they're just as raped. They're just as raped no matter what you do to the guy who did it. So this shouldn't enter into how you punish the guy.


<snip>

And that which isn't explicitly condemned, is allowed...



You're confusing US law with stuff Jesus said.

But I don't remember you ever saying I shouldn't go run screaming down the street and cut someone's arm off. Should I?


"Do unto others"? That one? Isn't that basically 'an eye for an eye'?

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is what Jesus said. Not as they do unto you. "Do unto others as they do unto you" is a really crappy rule to live by.

I'm not. How can something like... for example... a morphine overdose (playing the non-suffering, no-pain angle, here) be inhumane?

It's the result, not the method, which is inhumane. I could humanely murder someone, it's still counted as murder. I think given the choice a lot of people would prefer to live. Not all tetraplegics want to end it all, do they?



Again, I don't see why that should be the case.

Is it 'cruel' to euthanise a rabid dog?


That analogy would potentially apply to madmen. But not to the sane killer, you're not "putting them out of their misery"



Not in the context of 'cruel and unusual'.


Why does something being 'unusual' make it bad? If It was done more often, suddenly it's OK?



I didn't say it was a factor, at all.
then what does "seems counterproductive, in as much as it makes the person 100% dependent" mean?

I'm not. How can something like... for example... a morphine overdose (playing the non-suffering, no-pain angle, here) be inhumane?



Because the guy is dead afterwards. Non-living. A stiff. Bereft of life, he rests in peace. This is an ex-... sorry.

But the point is, after you kill someone, he doesn't exist anymore. There is literally no punishment that could be worse.

Especially something like a lobotomy, which is destroying a certain part of the brain, where death destroys the whole brain. It's seriously just a scaling up of the same punishment.



Again, I don't see why that should be the case.

Is it 'cruel' to euthanise a rabid dog?


No.

Because it's a dog.

Suppose you have a tiger at a zoo. Someone hops the fence and the tiger kills them. Do you kill the tiger?

Yes, they're just as raped. They're just as raped no matter what you do to the guy who did it. So this shouldn't enter into how you punish the guy.


Errr... what shouldn't?

It looks like you're agreeing with me, actually.


You're confusing US law with stuff Jesus said.


I assure you, I'm not.


But I don't remember you ever saying I shouldn't go run screaming down the street and cut someone's arm off. Should I?


Am I my brother's keeper?


"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is what Jesus said. Not as they do unto you. "Do unto others as they do unto you" is a really crappy rule to live by.

Matter of opinion. It's the basis of a lot of Levitical law...

It's the result, not the method, which is inhumane. I could humanely murder someone, it's still counted as murder.


I don't think I can agree with your usuage of the word 'humane'.


I think given the choice a lot of people would prefer to live. Not all tetraplegics want to end it all, do they?


That looks like a good way to get railroaded into the euthanasia debate, I think I'll avoid it.


That analogy would potentially apply to madmen. But not to the sane killer, you're not "putting them out of their misery"


Sane killer? Does such a thing exist?

Regardless - my intention there was to demonstrate the meaning of 'cruel', rather than to say that rapists and murderers are rabid dogs.


Why does something being 'unusual' make it bad? If It was done more often, suddenly it's OK?


I think you're making an argument where there isn't one. "Cruel and unusual" is a significant debate concept.


...then what does "seems counterproductive, in as much as it makes the person 100% dependent" mean?

Well, for a start, it becomes punitive on someone OTHER than the criminal. If you paralyse someone from the neck down, someone else has to take care of that person, 24/7. It's transferring the punishment to someone else, for the acts of the criminal.

Because the guy is dead afterwards. Non-living. A stiff. Bereft of life, he rests in peace. This is an ex-... sorry.


One should never apologise for Monty Python. :)


But the point is, after you kill someone, he doesn't exist anymore. There is literally no punishment that could be worse.


Actually - it looks to me like your two sentences there are mutually contradictory.

If you no longer experience punishment, and you do so in one painless instant... almost ANY other punishment is worse. Surely?


Especially something like a lobotomy, which is destroying a certain part of the brain, where death destroys the whole brain. It's seriously just a scaling up of the same punishment.


Except one can make an argument for 'suffering' after a lobotomy. Less so, after execution.


No.

Because it's a dog.

Suppose you have a tiger at a zoo. Someone hops the fence and the tiger kills them. Do you kill the tiger?

Would I? No - not at all. But then, I've not once argued that we should punish people who kill in self-defence, either.

Punishment or revenge is unpractical because nobody ever knows if a penalty is punishment enough for a certain criminal. There may be worse things than death for most of us, but since we can never truly understand the feelings of a convict about his/her penalty (especially if said convict is a psychopath), penalties should serve as a deterrent for other potential criminals and as a way of assuring that a convict never commits said crime again. Death penalty is practical in this case. Death itself might or might not be a relief for a criminal, but in the case of severe crimes where the chance of a breakout from prison or setting the criminal loose may never even be considered, death penalty does the job of removing a menace from society (side effects include deterring potential criminals who don't want to die).

I can't give a general answer to the question of which crimes are heinous enough to be punished by death. Sometimes it's obvious (like in the case of that Austrian Fritzl), sometimes it's controversial. But penalties for the sake of giving back the pain are either too cruel to be implemented or impossible (there is no way of imprisoning a 73 year-old man for 24 years and making him give birth 7 times), thus the practical aspect of removing the criminal from society once and for all must be focused upon

For those who say that the death penalty is immoral: says who? Is it less moral than releasing a predator back to a world with more potential innocent victims? One who takes life has no right to live. And by this, the innocents' right to live is protected, which (unfortunately for the criminal) overrules a murderer's right to live.

I don't think I can agree with your usuage of the word 'humane'.

That looks like a good way to get railroaded into the euthanasia debate, I think I'll avoid it.


That doesn't mean it isn't a valid point in relation to your argument. Ignore it if you wish.

Function:adjective
Etymology: Middle English humain
Date:
circa 1500

1 : marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals


I contend that it is not compassionate, sympathetic or considerate to kill someone.

Doesn't sound particularly contentious to me. The alternatives I suggested are also arguably inhumane, but then so is incarceration. The point is it's not necessarily the case that being a tetraplegic is worse than being killed.


Sane killer? Does such a thing exist?

Yes, that's why some killers go to jail, and others to psychiatric hospitals.


Regardless - my intention there was to demonstrate the meaning of 'cruel', rather than to say that rapists and murderers are rabid dogs.

I think you're making an argument where there isn't one. "Cruel and unusual" is a significant debate concept.

If it wasn't debatable why have courts agonized over it in relation to the death penalty? Just saying something is a "significant debate concept" doesn't give you carte blanche to apply it however you wish and dismiss my application of it without justification.

EDIT: I'm quite tired and just looked back through the thread, and yes, this is a bit of a digression. But seeing as people disagree on how to apply it, why shouldn't it be analyzed?


Well, for a start, it becomes punitive on someone OTHER than the criminal. If you paralyse someone from the neck down, someone else has to take care of that person, 24/7. It's transferring the punishment to someone else, for the acts of the criminal.

It's not a punishment to look after someone that can't look after themselves. It's a JOB. They are paid. Does that mean prison guards are unfairly punished by having to look after criminals? No, it's a job.

That doesn't mean it isn't a valid point in relation to your argument. Ignore it if you wish.


It's not so much that I wish to ignore it... it's more about that I don't really want to talk euthanasia here. I think it would probably hurt YOUR argument more than mine, if you would argue it the way I think you would...


Function:adjective
Etymology: Middle English humain
Date:
circa 1500

1 : marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals


Right - so if you kill, with compassion... if you euthanise painlessly, that seems to me like it would be humane.


I contend that it is not compassionate, sympathetic or considerate to kill someone.


Sure it is, if it's painless...


Doesn't sound particularly contentious to me. The alternatives I suggested are also arguably inhumane, but then so is incarceration. The point is it's not necessarily the case that being a tetraplegic is worse than being killed.


It doesn't sound contentious to you, because you don't allow for the contention. Out of incarceration, and the mutilations you suggested, and a painless death... the death option is actually the more humane one.


Yes, that's why some killers go to jail, and others to psychiatric hospitals.


No - being DECLARED insane is why some killers go to jail and other go to psychiatric hospitals. I'm questioning whether ALL multiple murderers, or serial rapists, for example... are insane, and are slipping through the cracks.


If it wasn't debatable why have courts agonized over it in relation to the death penalty? Just saying something is a "significant debate concept" doesn't give you carte blanche to apply it however you wish and dismiss my application of it without justification.


Eh... I was applying 'unusual' in the context of 'cruel and unusual' (as in, one of the main arguments for/against death penalties), and thus am not defending it being questioned on it's own. Carte blanche is... off the track.


It's not a punishment to look after someone that can't look after themselves.
It's a JOB. They are paid. Does that mean prison guards are unfairly punished by having to look after criminals? No, it's a job.

There's a difference between sitiing in a guard tower, and feeding someone and wiping their ass.

I don't think I can cope with the developing quotemountain, as I need some sleep!

This seems to have just boiled down to me saying it's inhumane, and you saying it's humane. But while a METHOD may be more humane, that doesn't make the ACT humane.

On the insanity point, neither of us are qualified to answer, I am assuming.

There are plenty of horrible jobs out there, they are still jobs, and people do them. It's not 'transferring a punishment', I just don't see how that works.

Right, time for bed before I write some *really* incoherent nonsense :D

There are many arguments about the death penalty - an easy one is that we can rarely be 100% sure that the candidate is guilty. Even foresic evidence can be planted on someone by experts (watch "Dexter" for clever ideas on how to).

However, the argument that finally swayed me was put to me by my Philosophy tutor in first year at Monash Uni. If we condone the execution of someone, no matter what heinous crime that person has committed, our society is condoning killing. Therefore that execution brutalises us.
Now this argument was not an easy one for me to digest at the time. There is the "Lex Talionis" argument from Deuteronomy "an eye for an eye; a tooth forth a tooth") But hey! That view of punishment hasn't exactly helped the middle east peace process, so maybe we need to move on from there and start to evolve as a society.

As with sex offenders (many of whom were sexually abused as children) many violent criminals were brutalised from an early age. So society being brutal to them is par for the course.
This brings us to the deterrent argument. Do executions prevent murders? Not the ones carried out in "hot blood"; nor the ones carried out by psychopaths. I would argue that

The only way it would act as a dterrent would be to the individual murderer who is executed (stops him/her reoffending).
So really, why do pro-execution advocates want capital punishment ? Are they driven by a desire for society to exact its revenge? Is this base desire a healthy thing?

Too many bleeding hearts here....I'm in for capital punishment,as for the really atrocious acts I would add torture and execution.Then again I always agreed with the 'an eye fir an eye' philosophy.

Too many bleeding hearts here....I'm in for capital punishment,as for the really atrocious acts I would add torture and execution.Then again I always agreed with the 'an eye fir an eye' philosophy.

Saluna, there's a bleeding heart hit squad coming your way, armed to the teeth with anger-management pamphlets.:D

Saluna, there's a bleeding heart hit squad coming your way, armed to the teeth with anger-management pamphlets.:D
Cool!I need some target exercise!Just wait one minute to install my machine gun!:-)

Let's hope that they don't have the death penalty in your state, then

There are many arguments about the death penalty - an easy one is that we can rarely be 100% sure that the candidate is guilty. Even foresic evidence can be planted on someone by experts (watch "Dexter" for clever ideas on how to).

However, the argument that finally swayed me was put to me by my Philosophy tutor in first year at Monash Uni. If we condone the execution of someone, no matter what heinous crime that person has committed, our society is condoning killing. Therefore that execution brutalises us.
Now this argument was not an easy one for me to digest at the time. There is the "Lex Talionis" argument from Deuteronomy "an eye for an eye; a tooth forth a tooth") But hey! That view of punishment hasn't exactly helped the middle east peace process, so maybe we need to move on from there and start to evolve as a society.

As with sex offenders (many of whom were sexually abused as children) many violent criminals were brutalised from an early age. So society being brutal to them is par for the course.
This brings us to the deterrent argument. Do executions prevent murders? Not the ones carried out in "hot blood"; nor the ones carried out by psychopaths. I would argue that

The only way it would act as a dterrent would be to the individual murderer who is executed (stops him/her reoffending).
So really, why do pro-execution advocates want capital punishment ? Are they driven by a desire for society to exact its revenge? Is this base desire a healthy thing?
o.o Ironically it was practically just then that on some other site I was talking about how last year, at some public lecture at MUN about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, being reminded of the effects of the retaliatory approach being taken to its extreme helped remind me that it wasn't such a good idea.

But anyway, yeah, I sometimes find it hard to believe that there's actually people who think that the death penalty is an effective deterrent (and that being continuously ass-raped by an inmate for the rest of your life isn't) and it's one thing to have philosophy professors and psychology professors alike dismiss the deterrent argument, but when you hear the argument dismissed even by people who support the death penalty (like Barack Obama) I have to wonder why people cling to it.

The eye-for-an-eye mentality might not be very logical, but I think it's at least more logical than the deterrent argument...

Let's hope that they don't have the death penalty in your state, then
Unfortunately it was banned by some idiot politicians!You know the saying 'if you want something done you have to do it yourself'.:-)

Two wrongs don't make a right, IMHO.

On the other hand, three lefts do make a right, and as the opposite of right is left and the opposite of wrong is right, you could theoretically execute the zombie you've already executed once, and that would be okay.

Because the guy is dead afterwards. Non-living. A stiff. Bereft of life, he rests in peace. This is an ex-... sorry.

But the point is, after you kill someone, he doesn't exist anymore. There is literally no punishment that could be worse.

Especially something like a lobotomy, which is destroying a certain part of the brain, where death destroys the whole brain. It's seriously just a scaling up of the same punishment.


No.

Because it's a dog.

Suppose you have a tiger at a zoo. Someone hops the fence and the tiger kills them. Do you kill the tiger?
For your information all animals that kill humans/taste their flesh are euthanised (except specially trained army dogs).And yes I for one value more the lives of dogs than some human-looking beasts all liberals are fond to defend.

Wait - phrasing it like that makes it sound like I'm saying we should be using 'mentally ill' as a justification for executions.
I didn't mean it to, I'm just questioning your position that the mentally ill (i.e., those who we would traditionally assign little or no moral accountability to) should be executed. I'm actually rather surprised you'd hold such a position.

I guess the way I look at it, if a half dozen teenage girls are raped by the 'alternative identity', rather than the sweet, bookish identity - they are still just as raped.
Yes, but a half dozen teenage girls drowned because of a freak wave are 'just as drowned' as a half dozen teenage girls drowned intentionally by a completely cogent person; yet we don't assign moral accountability to the wave.

Now, obviously, there's a difference between a wave and a person, but a person who is so mentally deficient that they cannot account for their actions should not, in my view, be held as morally responsible for their actions.

Children, maybe... although I can't think of circumstances that I would consider appropriate, offhand. Senile people, sure.
Could you outline your reasoning for this? I simply don't see how you can assign moral accountability to someone with little or no rational control over their actions.

Why?
Because I can't think of a good argument (perhaps you can) for saying that certain actions can be forgiven/the perpetrator can be punished and rehabilitated for, yet certain actions can't, beyond appealing to a feeling of disgust at certain acts.

Wait, what? Where is the hyperbole?
Here:

You're talking about stealing cookies being somehow comparable to rape and murder?
I'm doing nothing of the sort. What I am doing is pointing out that you seem to be pushing for the death penalty largely because you feel it can't be that hard not to murder or rape, and that therefore, individuals who do so are somehow defective (I take this from your quote "s 'do not murder and do not rape' REALLY such a great burden?").

All I'm saying is that if you feel the above to be true, then you must feel even more anger for individuals who commit minor infractions; after all, not stealing a cookie must be easier to achieve than suppressing a murderous rage.

[i]And that which isn't explicitly condemned, is allowed...
That's not how it works...

Unless you're suggesting that punching old women in the face, having sex with children and animals, blowing up Luxembourg with nuclear weapons, and innumerable other nefarious acts that the character of Jesus doesn't explicitly condemn, are 'allowed' by Christianity?

I think you'd have a hard time arguing for that.

"Do unto others"? That one? Isn't that basically 'an eye for an eye'?
That's an explicit refutation of 'eye for an eye'. You need to read up on your Sermon on the Mount. ;)

NO NO NO NO NO

Say you were to commit a person to death for the crime of murder... How does that make you any better than them? They had obviously decided through their reason that a person needed to die and you would be doing the same thing!

In addition, if you bring back the death penalty someone always has to be the one to do the actual killing. Can you really condone the fact that a human being somewhere will have the job of ending one human life after another, day in day out, until they can't take it anymore?

There are truely horrid crimes being committed every day across the globe and the offenders (who would otherwise be eligable for the death penalty) should be caught and punished and made to live with their guilt, if they are capable of feeling any, for the rest of their days. They should be forced to do works that repay humanity for what they have done and for the cost of keeping them alive till they perish of natural causes and they should then be buried/cremated with no ceremony.
Through their lives in prison they should be denied all luxuries such as TV, games education and sporting goods. They should have to wear a uniform making them appear the same as any other inmate, right down to the underwear. They should be denied religious council. And they should be denied any communication with friends and family. Rehabilitation should be completely off the cards.
Basically if a person takes the life of another their life should be taken from them in all forms other than the physical removing of their actual existance.

Just before I go on - I'd like to express thanks to yourself, and a couple of others (who, I assume, know who they are), for probably the best debate I've been in, in NSG. The efforts to maintain a civil and dynamic exchange are not wasted on me.


I didn't mean it to, I'm just questioning your position that the mentally ill (i.e., those who we would traditionally assign little or no moral accountability to) should be executed. I'm actually rather surprised you'd hold such a position.


I think you're conflating arguments. I'm not assigning 'moral' accountability to anyone or anything. Indeed, I think I've kept my arguments pretty much free of 'moral' considerations.


Yes, but a half dozen teenage girls drowned because of a freak wave are 'just as drowned' as a half dozen teenage girls drowned intentionally by a completely cogent person; yet we don't assign moral accountability to the wave.


That seems to come dangerously close to a 'god made me do it' argument, to be honest. The wave isn't accountable, because it is an 'act of god', but in the comparison you're inviting comparison between the wave and the killer...


Now, obviously, there's a difference between a wave and a person, but a person who is so mentally deficient that they cannot account for their actions should not, in my view, be held as morally responsible for their actions.


Maybe. However.... I find 'moral responsibility' to be a philosophical/theological argument, and not necessarily within the realms of consideration of pragmatically dealing with criminals.


Could you outline your reasoning for this? I simply don't see how you can assign moral accountability to someone with little or no rational control over their actions.


I don't.

I'm willing to accept arguments that children should maybe assessed differently to other criminals... not least, because they are less likely to be leaving mass homicide and serial rape wakes. But, I'm finding 'moral responsibility' to be something of an x-factor argument - snake oil, if you will.


Because I can't think of a good argument (perhaps you can) for saying that certain actions can be forgiven/the perpetrator can be punished and rehabilitated for, yet certain actions can't, beyond appealing to a feeling of disgust at certain acts.


I'm not convinced by the promise of rehabilitation, and - if we're going to take a chance that we've magically cured someone of their criminal behaviour, I'd rather we were taking such chances with... stealing cookies, than with multiple homicide.


I'm doing nothing of the sort. What I am doing is pointing out that you seem to be pushing for the death penalty largely because you feel it can't be that hard not to murder or rape, and that therefore, individuals who do so are somehow defective (I take this from your quote "s 'do not murder and do not rape' REALLY such a great burden?").


No, that's not what I'm saying. The condition which is established by our society (I'm conflating history and the context of this debate) in order to not be executed... is not to leave a trail of corpses and rape victims in your wake. I'm saying - setting the bar there... doesn't seem unreasonable. I'm finding it hard to accept excuses that someone 'couldn't stop themselves' from mass rape and homicide.


All I'm saying is that if you feel the above to be true, then you must feel even [I]more anger for individuals who commit minor infractions; after all, not stealing a cookie must be easier to achieve than suppressing a murderous rage.


Why would a lesser crime be more of a problem for me? The excuse works better for smaller things. I can see how a hungry man might well think he 'couldn't help himself' when he steals food.


That's not how it works...

Unless you're suggesting that punching old women in the face, having sex with children and animals, blowing up Luxembourg with nuclear weapons, and innumerable other nefarious acts that the character of Jesus doesn't explicitly condemn, are 'allowed' by Christianity?


That's kind of my point actually. You have fallen victim to my undisclosed satire marks.


That's an explicit refutation of 'eye for an eye'. You need to read up on your Sermon on the Mount. ;)

I really don't think it is - I think it's much the same sentiment, just with Hello Kitty stickers on it. It simply takes the premise from reactive behaviour to PRO-active behaviour.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"... so, if you kill, what should you expect?

NO NO NO NO NO

Say you were to commit a person to death for the crime of murder... How does that make you any better than them? They had obviously decided through their reason that a person needed to die and you would be doing the same thing!

In addition, if you bring back the death penalty someone always has to be the one to do the actual killing. Can you really condone the fact that a human being somewhere will have the job of ending one human life after another, day in day out, until they can't take it anymore?

There are truely horrid crimes being committed every day across the globe and the offenders (who would otherwise be eligable for the death penalty) should be caught and punished and made to live with their guilt, if they are capable of feeling any, for the rest of their days. They should be forced to do works that repay humanity for what they have done and for the cost of keeping them alive till they perish of natural causes and they should then be buried/cremated with no ceremony.
Through their lives in prison they should be denied all luxuries such as TV, games education and sporting goods. They should have to wear a uniform making them appear the same as any other inmate, right down to the underwear. They should be denied religious council. And they should be denied any communication with friends and family. Rehabilitation should be completely off the cards.
Basically if a person takes the life of another their life should be taken from them in all forms other than the physical removing of their actual existance.

What you suggest is less humane than a painless death. Where is the argument for everything-short-of-death? Why is it better than death?

What you suggest is less humane than a painless death. Where is the argument for everything-short-of-death? Why is it better than death?
Maybe because at least it's reversible?

What you suggest is less humane than a painless death. Where is the argument for everything-short-of-death? Why is it better than death?

I agree that my idea of punishment for a person who has killed another person is less humane than a painless death, thats the point!

I do not condone the death penalty because it makes some innocent party responsible for the ending of that life which I should imagine is alot harder to live with than supervising someone paying for their crime by working and losing their individuality and freedoms.

Murder is no small matter and people should not get off lightly for committing murder. But no one should make another human being responsible for ending the lowlife murderers existance

Oh and I'm not talking about torture or sensory depravation either just no luxuries.
What they need to survive like soap and runniing hot and cold water and food and drink and toothpaste and clean bedding and clothing and time to run around a field every day to get their heart pumpimg.

Hey that's still a lot better an existance than many people have living on the streets of our cities or in the third world and I think it is a just PUNISHMENT for their crimes.

Also as Hayteria pointed out, it is reversable. If a mistake has been made and the wrong person is punished for the crimes of another they are still alive and with councelling and compensation can return to normal life.

I think you're conflating arguments. I'm not assigning 'moral' accountability to anyone or anything. Indeed, I think I've kept my arguments pretty much free of 'moral' considerations.
Well, change the text to 'legal accountability', or even 'sophisticated psychological capabilities".

That seems to come dangerously close to a 'god made me do it' argument, to be honest. The wave isn't accountable, because it is an 'act of god', but in the comparison you're inviting comparison between the wave and the killer...
I'm inviting a limited comparison between a freak wave and an individual so mentally deficient or underdeveloped that they cannot be held accountable (morally, legally, etc.) for their actions. Do you accept the position that some people shouldn't be blamed for their actions, as they do not have full rational control over them?

As to talk of any deity, I don't see how they fit into this. I wouldn't blame a freak wave for drowning someone, in the same way that I would blame someone who was fully aware, rational and mentally cogent. This lack of blame for the wave, however, isn't rooted in any deity; it's rooted in the fact that waves are not sentient beings capable of rational thought and guided action.

Neither, I would argue, do very young children, the severely mentally deficient, the extremely senile, etc., have completely rational thought or guided action. Thus I don't see how we can blame and/or punish them for acts they have little or no control over.

Maybe. However.... I find 'moral responsibility' to be a philosophical/theological argument, and not necessarily within the realms of consideration of pragmatically dealing with criminals.
On the contrary, our legal system is grounded, in many ways, on considerations of moral responsibility and whether agents have or lack it. The UK and US law systems, as I understand them, regard every sane, competent adult as an agent who wills their own acts, and can be held morally responsible for any bad (illegal) actions they commit.

If we didn't have a conception of moral responsibility, we wouldn't have any criminal prosecution system to speak of.

I'm not convinced by the promise of rehabilitation, and - if we're going to take a chance that we've magically cured someone of their criminal behaviour, I'd rather we were taking such chances with... stealing cookies, than with multiple homicide.
See, it's this talk of "magically cur" individuals that I find confusing, when jumping from minor infractions to major crimes. We don't feel (and I imagine you wouldn't) that a teenager understanding the import of their actions, recognising what they did wrong, accepting some form of punishment for the infraction, and then resolving to genuinely change their behaviour, is some sort of 'magic' process.

I don't see why we should think any different of criminals.

[i]No, that's not what I'm saying. The condition which is established by our society (I'm conflating history and the context of this debate) in order to not be executed... is not to leave a trail of corpses and rape victims in your wake.
That's begging the question somewhat, especially as I don't live in a society which executes criminals.

I'm saying - setting the bar there... doesn't seem unreasonable. I'm finding it hard to accept excuses that someone 'couldn't stop themselves' from mass rape and homicide.
My objection, I feel, still stands.

Why would a lesser crime be more of a problem for me? The excuse works better for smaller things.
If you've taken the position that 'society prohibits x, thus you shouldn't have any reason to do x', then why treat someone differently when x=murder or x=stealing a cookie?

That's kind of my point actually.
Well, I think that's a fairly weak point to make against Christian ethics, or of any person really. Does it not amount to the criticism that many Christian fundies throw at Islam, that of, "Oh, I've not heard imam y denounce every act of extremist terrorism, therefore they condone it"?

I really don't think it is - I think it's much the same sentiment, just with Hello Kitty stickers on it. It simply takes the premise from reactive behaviour to PRO-active behaviour.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"... so, if you kill, what should you expect?
I suppose you could flip the Golden Rule around like that, but you're on shaky ground here. The Golden Rule isn't saying, "if you do action z, then someone is obliged to do action z back to you". It's quite clearly saying, "before performing action z, think if you'd like someone else doing action z back to you".

An important difference.

Maybe. However.... I find 'moral responsibility' to be a philosophical/theological argument, and not necessarily within the realms of consideration of pragmatically dealing with criminals.


If pragmatism is the only issue here, then why shouldn't we 'excise' paedophiles also? That would be the 'only way to be certainly sure' that they do not re-offend. What about people who defraud banks or the government to a grand scale, 'excising' them would probably save millions. etc...

If pragmatism is the only issue here, then why shouldn't we 'excise' paedophiles also? That would be the 'only way to be certainly sure' that they do not re-offend. What about people who defraud banks or the government to a grand scale, 'excising' them would probably save millions. etc...
This is kinda my point: if there's a set behaviour that a good citizen should follow, why should any infraction, from murder to laughing at inappropriate moments, be tolerated?

Some sides of this argument are right; instantaneous death is not harsh enough.

Other sides are also right; imprisonment costs money.

To boil this down to absolute simplest terms, create "torture guilds" in the employment of the judicial system except they have to furnish their own methods and once a convict is sent there, proven guilty, the state washes their hands of the issue and leaves it up to the people.

Preferably the people with sharp instruments and much hate inside, eh?

I think you're conflating arguments. I'm not assigning 'moral' accountability to anyone or anything. Indeed, I think I've kept my arguments pretty much free of 'moral' considerations.
The relevant question, then, should be, "why"? Part of the purpose of civilization is to get away from the rampant "survival of the fittest" of nature and have standards on ethics... moral considerations shouldn't be ignored.

And if the focus is on "dealing with the criminals" then as I said earlier, the focus should be more so on changes in prison structure to make it harder for them to escape...

Maybe because at least it's reversible?

Why should reversibility trump humanity?

Why is the quantity of life more important than the quality?

I agree that my idea of punishment for a person who has killed another person is less humane than a painless death, thats the point!

I do not condone the death penalty because it makes some innocent party responsible for the ending of that life which I should imagine is alot harder to live with than supervising someone paying for their crime by working and losing their individuality and freedoms.

Murder is no small matter and people should not get off lightly for committing murder. But no one should make another human being responsible for ending the lowlife murderers existance

That being the case, why not make one of your murderers the executioner? They are ALREADY guilty of the crime, and get to re-offend in a constructive fashion, since they become a benefit to their society?

I'm not convinced by arguments that suggest we should be LESS humane. If a quick death is more humane than the other punishment, but serves the purpose of absolute prohibition of re-offence... why would we choose something that increases suffering instead?

How can THAT possibly be the progressive approach?

If pragmatism is the only issue here, then why shouldn't we 'excise' paedophiles also? That would be the 'only way to be certainly sure' that they do not re-offend. What about people who defraud banks or the government to a grand scale, 'excising' them would probably save millions. etc...

Paedophilia isn't an offence.

The relevant question, then, should be, "why"?


Why, what?


Part of the purpose of civilization is to get away from the rampant "survival of the fittest" of nature


No it isn't.


...and have standards on ethics... moral considerations shouldn't be ignored.


Morals and ethics have no intrinsic and/or essential connection.


And if the focus is on "dealing with the criminals" then as I said earlier, the focus should be more so on changes in prison structure to make it harder for them to escape...

The focus isn't dealing with criminals. It's preventing killers from killing. Rapists from raping. The criminal is only the messenger.

Paedophilia isn't an offence.

So?

Bleeding hearts on a mission!:)

Morals and ethics have no intrinsic and/or essential connection.
For me, the 'morals' and 'ethics' have always been synonyms.

What's your definition of the two?

Execute!Execute!Kill!Kill!Kill!

For me, the 'morals' and 'ethics' have always been synonyms.

What's your definition of the two?

It's Wuh-Wuhwuh-Wuh-Wuh_WIKI-time! (best imagined said by the voice of Will Smith, I think)

Or not of course. We all have our crazy ideas!

Morals and ethics have no intrinsic and/or essential connection.
To civilization, you mean? Then I wonder how you respond to the following comment by Chumblywumbly:

"On the contrary, our legal system is grounded, in many ways, on considerations of moral responsibility and whether agents have or lack it. The UK and US law systems, as I understand them, regard every sane, competent adult as an agent who wills their own acts, and can be held morally responsible for any bad (illegal) actions they commit.

If we didn't have a conception of moral responsibility, we wouldn't have any criminal prosecution system to speak of."


The focus isn't dealing with criminals. It's preventing killers from killing. Rapists from raping. The criminal is only the messenger.
But the killers already killed and the rapists already raped; the point would be to prevent them from killing more, and rapists from raping more, and as I said earlier, for that the focus should be more so on changing the prison structure to make it harder for criminals to escape, than on killing them, if only because people have been falsely convicted of crimes before...

But the killers already killed and the rapists already raped; the point would be to prevent them from killing more, and rapists from raping more, and as I said earlier, for that the focus should be more so on changing the prison structure to make it harder for criminals to escape, than on killing them, if only because people have been falsely convicted of crimes before...

If the purpose of the death penalty is to prevent re-offending, then wouldn't it make sense to have it as the default sentence for every crime, or at least every premeditated one?

I hear you - I'm trying to juggle this between my usual online venue (at work) and the bit of time when I get home. :)Ha...I have no computer access at work, so am trying to keep up minus those hours, and minus the time that I'm studying for my sub teaching test.



Aye - so it looks like I'm (we are) stuck with the arguments from logic, then.

Was worth a try. :)

That it was.

That's not actually the angle I was aiming at, and I may have been (more than usually?) obtuse...

Why is it such a big deal? Those issues do not excuse taking a life... because? Why should such sanctity be attached?

I can totally see how rape could be considered a worse crime than murder, for example.

I can see the argument where rape is worse than murder...however, I think it comes down to the chance for redemption. With death, everything is pretty well decided. To quote Stewie, "That's it. Game over, man, game over."
With incarceration, there is a chance to improve...to become a decent person. With rape, there is a chance to do the "take back the night" thing...to overcome.


Even under those circumstances, though... there is a lot of 'benefit' cost that really DOESN"T have to be attached. Example - even if we assume that appeals costs are necessary, and 'death row' costs... what is the REAL justification for the massive increase in cost of a 'death sentence' trial?

Doesn't that imply that the legal system is half-assed the rest of the time?
Interesting point. And you may be correct...given that most of the costs are incurred before a verdict is reached would seem to imply that we as a society take much greater care in some cases than others. I wouldn't argue that it's half-assing it the rest of the time...it's more reflecting the finality and seriousness of the potential result.



Obviously, kudos for "Pirates" references. :)
I quite enjoyed it myself ;)

On the other hand - I believe it is a form of cruelty to make me keep track of this point for two days, or thirteen pages... before I could resolve it. :)
haha...appologies.
The issues can be resolved as being different in degree - the offer IS sound, and we're talking prices - your earlier comment:

"They thought this child no longer deserved to live. You think these people no longer deserve to live. I think the obnoxious family I had at my table today no longer deserve to live.

Why are you to deem case two to be okay, but not case one or three?"

...we can clearly agree that we all see the difference, we can all understand that one of the situations COULD deserve a death penalty, without comrpomising our positions on the other two.

*weight off my mind*

Granted, I would like to kick several of my customers in the face and/or kill them. They are (slightly) less deserving than actual criminals ;)

As would I, in all probability. I'd consider it inhumane.

See my problem?That I do. It's actually quite similar to the problem I have. I'm uncomfortable with the finality of the death penalty and consider taking a life to be...well...bad...but also seek something decently comparable in security to the society.

Quite the conundrum, no?



That said - can you accommodate the non-middle-ground? If the risk cannot (for whatever reason - thought experiment time again) be mitigated, does your position on the 'guarantee' aspect become more forgiving?
I would tend to still say no, and surprisingly, not just out of stubbornness. Because as much as there is a massive issue with not being able to mitigate the risk, I find the risk of getting it wrong to be far too great.

And even as I'm typing this, I question myself. I'll have to give it some more thought.


I love Prince Nuada in Hellboy 2 because he is the perfect 'sympathetic' evil... but, absent a 'war', someone who is sneaking around murdering people isn't nearly as sympathetic a character to me.
not untill you get the back story (or create one, as may be the case). When you take into consideration their family and friends (assuming they exist), their history, etc.
Perhaps not a sympathetic character, but one who can earn some level of sympathy.

The question of 'humanity' puts me in an interesting (and even, uncomfortable) terrain. Does a feral child actually constitute 'a person'? We should be humane to them... but then, we should be humane to all sensible creatures... but if you treat them as you would other 'people' you'll do them no service, and get all the wrong responses... What about dissociative identities... which seem to behave like more than one 'human person' dwelling within the 'shell' of one 'human' body...?

Is it not reasonable to assume it is possible to be entirely 'human' in appearance, but fail to be 'human'?
It becomes a very uncomfortable area...and perhaps one that would merit a seperate thread. Lets say we don't count criminals and feral children as being entirely human...what of those with assorted mental handicaps? You mention dissociative, but what about severe Down, Edwards, and Patau syndromes?



It is an argument in your favour, but it has a sting in it's tail.

Even though the tumour can be beneficial... what is it's ultimate prognosis? What is it's ultimate fate, if you will?
Quite true. A tumor that makes you a wonderful person, but will kill you, is ultimatly pretty bad.
The problem with the tumor analogy is that a tumor is what it is. It cannot change. A human can...a human can shift from being a drain on society to being a positive force.



Are we not, though, in effect arguing that the state can enslave, but not kill? Aren't we allowing one right we deny to our individual selves... while denying another? Surely, if it's not acceptable, it's not acceptable?
Not entirely. In becoming a member of society, particularly one with a legal culture, we give up many of our individual rights. The state, in turn, cannot have free reign just because we have given up our rights. The state is restricted by the people just as much as the people are restricted by the state.
We give the state the right to punish...but we dictate what those punishments can and cannot be. I wouldn't say that it is inherently all or nothing.


Well, yes - but I'm saying leaving a massive repeat offender alive is 'too risky', no? Why does your 'risk' trump my 'risk'?
Because it's mine ;)
Your argument changes massively depending on the circumstances of this massive repeat offender.
I would say there are three distinct possibilities. A) the criminal offended many many times before being caught. B) the criminal was caught, released, and recomitted...possibly several times. C) the criminal escapes frequently.
A is a failure of the state to capture the criminal, not of the punishment system. B is a failing of the review board. This is an issue with the punishment and a good case to fix the system. C is a failure of the facility.
Of these, I would say C is the biggest risk, followed by B, then A. In all of these cases, there is something more the state could be doing, short of the death of the criminal. While this can lead back to the inhumane cell, it doesn't inherently have to.
Though, both of our risks can, admittedly, lead to the deaths of innocents. Mine can lead to deaths through the bad guy getting out. Yours can lead to innocent deaths because a) the "bad guy" wasn't the bad guy, and b) the real bad guy is still out there.


Agreed. Although you're making me work much too hard. :)
You too, my friend. You too.

Why should reversibility trump humanity?

Why is the quantity of life more important than the quality?

Reversibility is hugely important. How would you feel if your father was executed for a crime he did not commit? Wouldn't you feel better, wouldn't he feel better if he kept his life and was released with free councelling and masses of compensation once his innocence was proven?

I counter the second question with - Why should a murder be permitted to watch TV, work out, read, communicate with his friends and family, seek religious council etc? In my opinion it is fair to strip them of those luxuries.

What punishment is it if the only thing that really makes things different for the murderer than being at home is the fact that they are confined and and just go out for a walk when ever they feel like it?

That being the case, why not make one of your murderers the executioner? They are ALREADY guilty of the crime, and get to re-offend in a constructive fashion, since they become a benefit to their society?

I'm not convinced by arguments that suggest we should be LESS humane. If a quick death is more humane than the other punishment, but serves the purpose of absolute prohibition of re-offence... why would we choose something that increases suffering instead?

How can THAT possibly be the progressive approach?

You couldn't make one of the murderers become the executioner, if they kill because they enjoy it you would just be keeping them very happy. If they killed for some other reason this could be seen as torture and torture is not in my agenda.

How would they be SUFFERING?

With the method of punishment that I suggest the offenders would not be in pain they would be able to see and go outside every day. They would be kept in a building of an acceptable temperature with clean water to wash in and drink from. They would be supplied clean bedding, clean clothing, soap, toothpaste and medical care as and when they need it. they would spend every day working, with adequate brakes through out their work day, in accordance with their skills to benefit society and this inturn would mean the offender is not sitting around bored to tears day in day out. They would recieve healthy food three times a day and be given plenty of time to get a good nights sleep. They would recieve no torture and their living conditions would be clean, dry and warm.

What the devil is wrong with that?

I counter the second question with - Why should a murder be permitted to watch TV, work out, read, communicate with his friends and family, seek religious council etc? In my opinion it is fair to strip them of those luxuries.


It is fair to strip criminals of luxuries. Anyway reading, communicating with other people, receiving religious council aren't exactly luxuries. They're needs of human beings, and, as such, should be granted even to the worse criminals, unless by granting them you don't give them a tool to continue breaking the law (like mafia ringleaders in prison communicating and giving orders to their clan without).
By stripping people of material needs, you starve them. By stripping people of immaterial needs, you drive them crazy.

I'd argue that reading and recieving religious council are luxuries, as people can, and do, get on without doing such things.

I'd argue that reading and recieving religious council are luxuries, as people can, and do, get on without doing such things.

Ok: it's a matter of different personalities. I live perfectly well without religion, but having nothing good to read can drive me crazy. Some other people might need a priest every sunday, but wouldn't mind not speaking to their family.
Anyway, if you can respect the personality of an inmate without endangering society, why not granting him his personal immaterial needs? The State should behave better than criminals.

I propse something else. We replace the life/death sentence with what I like to call the 'Big Bubba Sentence'.

Errr... what shouldn't?

It looks like you're agreeing with me, actually.


The point I was trying to make is that, since no matter what you do to the guy the girls he raped are just as raped, that shouldn't enter into his punishment.


I assure you, I'm not.


But "that which isn't explicitly condemned is allowed" is a principle in US law and not stuff Jesus said.


Am I my brother's keeper?


You seem to be arguing against yourself here.

You're not responsible for not telling me to not do something stupid; therefore Jesus isn't responsible for not telling people to not do something stupid.


Matter of opinion. It's the basis of a lot of Levitical law...

Which is crappy law.

One should never apologise for Monty Python. :)


:tongue:


Actually - it looks to me like your two sentences there are mutually contradictory.

If you no longer experience punishment, and you do so in one painless instant... almost ANY other punishment is worse. Surely?


You're not getting the whole "don't exist anymore" bit, are you?

A punishment that was actually painless wouldn't be a punishment at all. The reason the death penalty is a punishment is because it makes the prisoner stop existing.

I really don't see what's so hard to grasp about this.


Except one can make an argument for 'suffering' after a lobotomy. Less so, after execution.


Oh, I get where you're coming from now.

So then, why do you want to punish murderers at all, if death isn't really that bad?


Would I? No - not at all. But then, I've not once argued that we should punish people who kill in self-defence, either.

But the tiger isn't killing in self-defense, it's killing because it's a tiger.

Reversibility is hugely important. How would you feel if your father was executed for a crime he did not commit?


How would I feel?

Pretty amazed. And confused. I'd be trying to work out who we cremated a decade ago.


Wouldn't you feel better, wouldn't he feel better if he kept his life and was released with free councelling and masses of compensation once his innocence was proven?


No. He wouldn't feel better if... because he wouldn't be 'feeling' at all, if he were dead. (Which he is, but I'm trying to follow the argument).


I counter the second question with - Why should a murder be permitted to watch TV, work out, read, communicate with his friends and family, seek religious council etc? In my opinion it is fair to strip them of those luxuries.


I agree. That's not what I mean by 'quantity or quality', though. Your'e arguing it's important to keep them alive (not execute), I'm saying why? If they're going to be imprisoned anyway, they might be happier with a sooner ending.


You couldn't make one of the murderers become the executioner, if they kill because they enjoy it you would just be keeping them very happy.


Which is bad? People aren't allowed to enjoy their work?


If they killed for some other reason this could be seen as torture and torture is not in my agenda.


Or it could be seen as a job.


How would they be SUFFERING?


Why should they be?


With the method of punishment that I suggest the offenders would not be in pain they would be able to see and go outside every day. They would be kept in a building of an acceptable temperature with clean water to wash in and drink from. They would be supplied clean bedding, clean clothing, soap, toothpaste and medical care as and when they need it. they would spend every day working, with adequate brakes through out their work day, in accordance with their skills to benefit society and this inturn would mean the offender is not sitting around bored to tears day in day out. They would recieve healthy food three times a day and be given plenty of time to get a good nights sleep. They would recieve no torture and their living conditions would be clean, dry and warm.

What the devil is wrong with that?

Nothing.

You are suggesting a model where killing people that piss you off... gives you a better quality of life than a lot of people can get for being honest, law-abiding citizens.

You're not getting the whole "don't exist anymore" bit, are you?


Yes, I am. What's so bad about that?


So then, why do you want to punish murderers at all, if death isn't really that bad?


I'm not looking to punish. I'm looking to cure society of a disorder.

How would I feel?

Pretty amazed. And confused. I'd be trying to work out who we cremated a decade ago..

Now you're just arguing for the sake of it! You know full well I was using your father as an example. Replace the word father with mother/uncle/aunt/brother/sister/son/daughter or self and answer the question properly

I agree. That's not what I mean by 'quantity or quality', though. Your'e arguing it's important to keep them alive (not execute), I'm saying why? If they're going to be imprisoned anyway, they might be happier with a sooner ending..

Taken right down to brass tacks your answer is because in British society today is it morally wrong to take another human life no matter what they have done to you or others.

Which is bad? People aren't allowed to enjoy their work?.

Again, you are just being argumentative for the hell of it. NOONE should enjoy, or be allowed to enjoy taking another human life and giving a murderer that enjoys killing the oportunity to legitimately kill over and over and love every minute of it is hardly punishment is it.

Or it could be seen as a job..

Ha f'ing Ha

Nothing..

You are suggesting a model where killing people that piss you off... gives you a better quality of life than a lot of people can get for being honest, law-abiding citizens.

Hang on a minute, not long ago you were saying that this same model was inhumane. Now it's a better quality of live than many other law abiding citizens.... make up your mind!

It is fair to strip criminals of luxuries. Anyway reading, communicating with other people, receiving religious council aren't exactly luxuries. They're needs of human beings, and, as such, should be granted even to the worse criminals, unless by granting them you don't give them a tool to continue breaking the law (like mafia ringleaders in prison communicating and giving orders to their clan without).
By stripping people of material needs, you starve them. By stripping people of immaterial needs, you drive them crazy.

They can communicate with other people just not with folk outside. maybe i should have been clearer by saying no phone calls, pages, text messages, emails, letters telegrams (excepting notification of a relatives death which should be delivered verbally by a prison officer) or visits. reading is a luxury. writing is a luxury. education is a luxury. religious council is a luxury. If an offender already has religion, for want of a better phrase, he is welcome to pray to his god and he does not need a priest, pastor, reverand, imam or any other religious leader to help him do that. being allowed visits and communications with their friends and family from outside of prison is also a luxury. They will have human contact with the other inmates and the prison staff that is all they need to avoid mental illness anymore is unnessessary.
I do see your point but you need to remember that we are talking about murderers here not someone getting 3 weeks for robbing a car stereo

Pffff forced labor with heavy lead balls attached to their feet day and night should be standard treatment of [U]all[U] criminals,murderers and rapists should be executed,and serial offenders or particularly brutal murderers/rapists should be tortured to death.

Pffff forced labor with heavy lead balls attached to their feet day and night should be standard treatment of [U]all[U] criminals,murderers and rapists should be executed,and serial offenders or particularly brutal murderers/rapists should be tortured to death.

What is your effin' problem SS? :mad:

Stop vomiting bile on our nice clean forum.

What is your effin' problem SS? :mad:

Stop vomiting bile on our nice clean forum.
nice clean forum???Bleeaachhh!I'm vomiting now!Bleeding hearts on parade!

nice clean forum???Bleeaachhh!I'm vomiting now!Bleeding hearts on parade!

Thanks Genghis! Now come up with some arguments and not just repetitive rants.

You've had these sorts of barbaric punishments exacted by "civilsations" that have come and gone over the milennia and is the world any safer for their atrocities?
Why are you putting yourself in the same team as the Taliban?

Evolve, my brother!

Thanks Genghis! Now come up with some arguments and not just repetitive rants.

You've had these sorts of barbaric punishments exacted by "civilsations" that have come and gone over the milennia and is the world any safer for their atrocities?
Why are you putting yourself in the same team as the Taliban?

Evolve, my brother!
Evolve?And become a wimpy liberal?No thanks!:-)
Seriously now,arguments are useless,it's a personal decision if you're for or against harsher penalties,as is being a vegetarian,religious,etc.As for your point that our world is not much safer I could say that it would be if harsher penalties were present.
P.S. The taliban would be among the first to face my death squad!:-)

Yep! But they might just get you first.

That's the trouble with "eye for an eye" solutions - vendettas that never end.

Unless you completely exterminate your enemy,hmmm it could also be called genocide but oh well......trivial matters.:-)

Seriously now,arguments are useless,it's a personal decision if you're for or against harsher penalties,as is being a vegetarian,religious,etc.

I know you had more to say but I only wish to comment on this bit.

Agruments are not useless, unless you're talking about shouting and name calling!

Yes, all things are viewed differently by different people but the only way for us to understand how each other thinks and feels on a subject is to discuss that subject with each other.

If a single decision is to be made there are several ways of going about the making of that decision not least of which being healthy debate where opinions are shared at an increasingly more indepth fashion until a middle ground can be found that all parties can agree on or at the very least most parties can be satisfied with.

I know you had more to say but I only wish to comment on this bit.

Agruments are not useless, unless you're talking about shouting and name calling!

Yes, all things are viewed differently by different people but the only way for us to understand how each other thinks and feels on a subject is to discuss that subject with each other.

If a single decision is to be made there are several ways of going about the making of that decision not least of which being healthy debate where opinions are shared at an increasingly more indepth fashion until a middle ground can be found that all parties can agree on or at the very least most parties can be satisfied with.
Thanks for your comment,now since you took the time to discuss I at least owe you an explanation about why I don't say more,the answer is simple;I'm just too freaking tired of having this debate again seeing that it would take several pages of reasons (personal or not),arguments and counter-arguments.I know,I've had the same thing happen a couple of years ago in a similar forum.Anyway,I cannot convince someone to support my thesis as I cannot be swayed by another's religious beliefs,the death penalty debate takes the things in extremis,some people will always look for alternatives (being themselves horrified by the idea of killing someone),some people will see it as a necessary evil,and a few will actually enjoy it's implementation (being a bit bloodthirsty or slightly deranged themselves).

Thanks for your comment,now since you took the time to discuss I at least owe you an explanation about why I don't say more,the answer is simple;I'm just too freaking tired of having this debate again seeing that it would take several pages of reasons (personal or not),arguments and counter-arguments.I know,I've had the same thing happen a couple of years ago in a similar forum.Anyway,I cannot convince someone to support my thesis as I cannot be swayed by another's religious beliefs,the death penalty debate takes the things in extremis,some people will always look for alternatives (being themselves horrified by the idea of killing someone),some people will see it as a necessary evil,and a few will actually enjoy it's implementation (being a bit bloodthirsty or slightly deranged themselves).

Thank you for that.

If you don't want to join in with our debate because you see it as a waste of your time, as you have seen it all before, why don't you toddle off and leave us to it.

Thank you for that.

If you don't want to join in with our debate because you see it as a waste of your time, as you have seen it all before, why don't you toddle off and leave us to it.
No offense meant really!But you see I LOVE to rile people up a bit!Especially those with liberal ideas :-).Since nothing much will come out of this debate anyway (since the legislation is not in our hands and I'm not a UK citizen anyway),what's the difference if I have some fun while I may?

No offense meant really!But you see I LOVE to rile people up a bit!Especially those with liberal ideas :-).Since nothing much will come out of this debate anyway (since the legislation is not in our hands and I'm not a UK citizen anyway),what's the difference if I have some fun while I may?

Do you really belive nobody gets 'anything much' from debate then? So you are just here to rile us up?

No offense meant really!But you see I LOVE to rile people up a bit!Especially those with liberal ideas :-).Since nothing much will come out of this debate anyway (since the legislation is not in our hands and I'm not a UK citizen anyway),what's the difference if I have some fun while I may?

This would be an admission of trolling, then?

Now you're just arguing for the sake of it! You know full well I was using your father as an example. Replace the word father with mother/uncle/aunt/brother/sister/son/daughter or self and answer the question properly


I answered the question properly.

People that have already been executed rarely have complaints about it after the fact.


Taken right down to brass tacks your answer is because in British society today is it morally wrong to take another human life no matter what they have done to you or others.


Rubbish.

If everyone felt the way you claim, the Capital Punishment debate wouldn't surface every few years.

Another person invoking 'moral wrongs'... that's a replacement for a real argument.


Again, you are just being argumentative for the hell of it. NOONE should enjoy, or be allowed to enjoy taking another human life and giving a murderer that enjoys killing the oportunity to legitimately kill over and over and love every minute of it is hardly punishment is it.


I'm being entirely serious.

If, as you argue, no decent citizen should have to do the killing, then the obvious solution is to spare the life of one of your 'murderers', and put him to work for the state.


Ha f'ing Ha


Not a joke.

The government already pays people to kill for it.


Hang on a minute, not long ago you were saying that this same model was inhumane. Now it's a better quality of live than many other law abiding citizens.... make up your mind!

I wasn't saying this model was inhumane. Re-read my posts.

I'm usually dead set against the death penalty, but since a few weeks, I'm not really sure anymore. For one, I'm getting sick and tired of my government releasing physically sick criminals because they sat out their terms and then, within 24 hours, the released criminal does the same thing that he was imprisoned for again. So, I'm thinking that maybe pedosexuals (pedophiles who rape kids of under 12) should be executed, if, and only if, it's proven by at least five independent psychologists that this person is actually a pedophile. Why? Because they cannot help being who they are, but they're very harmful to society by being that way, so executing might be the most humane thing you can do. I mean, what would it be like knowing that you're the kind of person who is hated by even the worst criminals?

Do you really belive nobody gets 'anything much' from debate then? So you are just here to rile us up?
You've got me wrong,I didn't talk about debates in general.I just said nobody gets anything from this particular debate.Other useless debates are like 'why are you religious?','why did Jesus do this or that',etc.

This would be an admission of trolling, then?
This whole thread just ASKS for it!This is a troll's paradise.

This whole thread just ASKS for it!This is a troll's paradise.

No matter your interpretations of what this thread is 'just asking for', the overall forum rules are a little more insistent, and rather less inviting of troll-like pursuits.

No matter your interpretations of what this thread is 'just asking for', the overall forum rules are a little more insistent, and rather less inviting of troll-like pursuits.
Your started talking about 'trolls',not me!However if you think I have overstepped my bounds feel free to report me.:-)
P.S. Not that I care that much...

Trolling is a art.

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/2893/internetwv2.png

Your started talking about 'trolls',not me!However if you think I have overstepped my bounds feel free to report me.:-)
P.S. Not that I care that much...

You were trolling. You said you were trolling. You just didn't call it trolling. Rather than report you, I thought I'd make a delicate gesture... let you see the error of your ways.

"I don't care" probably isn't the best defence, cleverest response, or wisest policy.

You were trolling. You said you were trolling. You just didn't call it trolling. Rather than report you, I thought I'd make a delicate gesture... let you see the error of your ways.

"I don't care" probably isn't the best defence, cleverest response, or wisest policy.
Man as I said before;Do what thou wilt!It matters not!I told you I really don't care.Best regards and stay well.:-)

Man as I said before;Do what thou wilt!It matters not!I told you I really don't care.Best regards and stay well.:-)

You're not significant or noticable enough for your 'death-by-mod' to make an impact, my friend. No one is going to be sitting around the NS Campfire singing sad laments about the nation that died too young. You'll be just another deleted troll. If you're that desparate for mod attention, report yourself. That might at least earn you a comment in the footnotes.

You're not significant or noticable enough for your 'death-by-mod' to make an impact, my friend. No one is going to be sitting around the NS Campfire singing sad laments about the nation that died too young. You'll be just another deleted troll. If you're that desparate for mod attention, report yourself. That might at least earn you a comment in the footnotes.
Who said I was asking for attention?Just because I had some fun on a trivial matter?You got it all wrong and as far as behavior counts I did not 'troll' or offend anyone so lay off my back ok?

Who said I was asking for attention?Just because I had some fun on a trivial matter?You got it all wrong and as far as behavior counts I did not 'troll' or offend anyone so lay off my back ok?

Who said you were asking for attention? You trolled... someone pointed that you trolled... you ADMITTED you trolled... someone pointed out you admitted it... and you've spent half a dozen posts either trolling, or arguing about it? So... YOU asked for attention.

And I notice you're still doing it...

Who said you were asking for attention? You trolled... someone pointed that you trolled... you ADMITTED you trolled... someone pointed out you admitted it... and you've spent half a dozen posts either trolling, or arguing about it? So... YOU asked for attention.

And I notice you're still doing it...
Ok I admitted it so what?Nobody has any sense of humour left?BTW I was just going to leave this thread since I was not interested anymore,that's why I posted my 2 replies earlier,the one to you would have been my last but then you replied and got into this argument troll/no troll.Now I will leave this thread,if you don't wish this to continue ignore this message.

Ok I admitted it so what?Nobody has any sense of humour left?BTW I was just going to leave this thread since I was not interested anymore,that's why I posted my 2 replies earlier,the one to you would have been my last but then you replied and got into this argument troll/no troll.Now I will leave this thread,if you don't wish this to continue ignore this message.

It's nowt to do with any sense of homour(and there is plenty here BTW) it has more to do with forum rules re: trolling.

It's nowt to do with any sense of homour(and there is plenty here BTW) it has more to do with forum rules re: trolling.
Who's trolling?:-)

Who's trolling?:-)

Meh! guess if we have movedon from that then.

I'm interested in your opinion though, why do you think we would get nowt from this debate?

At least the number of people who agree on the death penalty is increasing!

At least the number of people who agree on the death penalty is increasing!

And you see that as a good thing?

And you see that as a good thing?
Of course I do!I did not entirely joke before when I made those remarks,I'm pro capital punishment 110%.As for this debate being (in my opinion) pointless,I thought it was obvious but apparently I was mistaken,I'm sure you agree though that condoning or not capital punishment is a deeply personal issue,it has more to do with if individual persons see killing as acceptable than with arguments being valid or not.

Of course I do!I did not entirely joke before when I made those remarks,I'm pro capital punishment 110%.As for this debate being (in my opinion) pointless,I thought it was obvious but apparently I was mistaken,I'm sure you agree though that condoning or not capital punishment is a deeply personal issue,it has more to do with if individual persons see killing as acceptable than with arguments being valid or not.

A few things, to be pedantic about it 110% is rather meaningless.

We can all get things out of debate, if only a better understanding of our own moral values by debating with those who's opinion seems to differ from our own.

Arguments are either valid or not(at least logicaly anyway) appeals to emotion are indeed subjective, but logical reasoning cannot be so.

Why are you in favour of capital punishment then? Do you see any differance between state sanctioned killing and the taking of a life by an individual? What are these differances?

Seriously now,arguments are useless,it's a personal decision if you're for or against harsher penalties,as is being a vegetarian,religious,etc
I'm sure you agree though that condoning or not capital punishment is a deeply personal issue,it has more to do with if individual persons see killing as acceptable than with arguments being valid or not.
I wouldn't agree at all.

Something being a 'deeply personal issue' does not preclude it from being an issue that has a right or wrong side. During the Enlightenment, whether Earth was at the centre of the universe was a 'deeply personal issue', but one side, who held a deep personal view, was wrong. Moreover, they were shown to be wrong through argumentation.

Now, there's differences between empirical and ethical issues (though, I'd posit, we can look at empirical evidence for ways ethical issues affect our lives). But whether one is for or against capital punishment, eats nonhuman animal flesh or not, etc., is one that is decided, for the vast majority of people, by convincing arguments.

Thus, this thread is in no way 'pointless'.

Now, there's differences between empirical and ethical issues (though, I'd posit, we can look at empirical evidence for ways ethical issues affect our lives). But whether one is for or against capital punishment, eats nonhuman animal flesh or not, etc., is one that is decided, for the vast majority of people, by convincing arguments.

Thus, this thread is in no way 'pointless'.

However, ultimately, such arguments are appeals to our emotional preferences, and not empirical or logical, even if based on empirical premises'.

Ok,ok but debating if you're pro capital punishment or not is not the same with the FACT that the earth is round.

A few things, to be pedantic about it 110% is rather meaningless.

We can all get things out of debate, if only a better understanding of our own moral values by debating with those who's opinion seems to differ from our own.

Arguments are either valid or not(at least logicaly anyway) appeals to emotion are indeed subjective, but logical reasoning cannot be so.

Why are you in favour of capital punishment then? Do you see any differance between state sanctioned killing and the taking of a life by an individual? What are these differances?
110% is an exaggeration I admit (I put it just for show).As for state sanctioned killing I must say it at least removes the threat of vigilante justice by 'concerned' citizens or relatives of the victim (there are other reasons also of course).And applying logical reasoning in this matter will produce valid arguments both for pro and anti capital punishment supporters.

However, ultimately, such arguments are appeals to our emotional preferences, and not empirical or logical, even if based on empirical premises'.
Not on my account; I believe moral statements/arguments are much more than mere expressions of like or dislike. I'm a moral realist, so I'd say moral statements/arguments are aiming (or attempting to aim) at truths.

Ok,ok but debating if you're pro capital punishment or not is not the same with the FACT that the earth is round.
On the contrary, I believe we're dealing with facts when we discuss moral matters. To me, 'goodness' is an attribute in the same way that 'smallness' is. Therefore, we are dealing with facts about how the world is.

Not on my account; I believe moral statements/arguments are much more than mere expressions of like or dislike. I'm a moral realist, so I'd say moral statements/arguments are aiming (or attempting to aim) at truths.

Ok, but even moral realists, like G.E More, argue that the majority of moral arguments are fallacious (naturalistic fallacy).

However, ultimately, such arguments are appeals to our emotional preferences, and not empirical or logical, even if based on empirical premises'.

Not all such, although this is an emotional issue. It strikes me that those who favour the death penalty do so more out of a desire for vengance than anything else.

Thats so fucked up... what is wrong with some people?

I think those people need to die, not through capital punishment thats to quick. I'm for giving them something much more brutal and painful but i'm sure if I post it i'll get into trouble with the mods.

Thats so fucked up... what is wrong with some people?

I think those people need to die, not through capital punishment thats to quick. I'm for giving them something much more brutal and painful but i'm sure if I post it i'll get into trouble with the mods.

Besides coming across as a complete beast.

And please, I'm not calling you one. I'm merely referring to your post and how some people would view you if you were to post the death methods.

seriously what is the point in killing someone?


Removing them from the gene pool and removing their burden from society to which they obviously have no redeeming qualities.

We could exile them, but those darn criminals just keep coming back.

Ever notice that many of the "terrorists" in the middle east have criminal records in the US?

GP

I must disagree my friend,morality is subjective and goodness is can be perceived differently by different people,the fact that the sun is the center of our solar system cannot.

Thats so fucked up... what is wrong with some people?

I think those people need to die, not through capital punishment thats to quick. I'm for giving them something much more brutal and painful but i'm sure if I post it i'll get into trouble with the mods.
Hear!Hear!

Besides coming across as a complete beast.

And please, I'm not calling you one. I'm merely referring to your post and how some people would view you if you were to post the death methods.
A faulted perception I think,who is the beast?The child murderer or the child murderer's killer?

Thats so fucked up... what is wrong with some people?

I think those people need to die, not through capital punishment thats to quick. I'm for giving them something much more brutal and painful but i'm sure if I post it i'll get into trouble with the mods.

Yep vengance. *nods*

Removing them from the gene pool and removing their burden from society to which they obviously have no redeeming qualities.

We could exile them, but those darn criminals just keep coming back.

Ever notice that many of the "terrorists" in the middle east have criminal records in the US?

GP

There are lots wrong with this post not least, just who gets to decide who has or who lacks redemeing qualities and by what authorty?

Also if that last statment is in any way true, what does the US do to these people to turn them into 'terrorists'?

110% is an exaggeration I admit (I put it just for show).As for state sanctioned killing I must say it at least removes the threat of vigilante justice by 'concerned' citizens or relatives of the victim (there are other reasons also of course).And applying logical reasoning in this matter will produce valid arguments both for pro and anti capital punishment supporters.

Yes correct, and yet using the logical approch only one side can be correct.

With that in mind are you really telling me that your well thought out rational for being pro capital punishment is to stop viliganty killings?

Not on my account; I believe moral statements/arguments are much more than mere expressions of like or dislike. I'm a moral realist, so I'd say moral statements/arguments are aiming (or attempting to aim) at truths.

Yes and I agree, for if not then then they are based only on emotional reactions.

A faulted perception I think,who is the beast?The child murderer or the child murderer's killer?

Re-read my post. But do so slowly and with care.

I must disagree my friend,morality is subjective and goodness is can be perceived differently by different people,the fact that the sun is the center of our solar system cannot.

Morality is subjective, the ethics behind ones personal morality though should be rational.

We need the death penalty back. Not because I like death, but in the most extreme cases concerning serial killers, don't we need it?

If a serial killer is jailed, then escapes, it's a sure fire thing that he will re-offend. By bringing back the death penalty, we can rest peacefully in our beds, safe in the knowledge that he/she can't commit any more crimes.

I also think appealing should be limited, so criminals on Death Row can be given the injection quicker. Of course, some don't resist, like BTK, but there are a LOT of people on Death Row right now.

A faulted perception I think,who is the beast?The child murderer or the child murderer's killer?

Appeal to emotion, right there. I would call such actions more animal and insticntula than rational, and so yep beast like.

We need the death penalty back. Not because I like death, but in the most extreme cases concerning serial killers, don't we need it?

If a serial killer is jailed, then escapes, it's a sure fire thing that he will re-offend. By bringing back the death penalty, we can rest peacefully in our beds, safe in the knowledge that he/she can't commit any more crimes.

I also think appealing should be limited, so criminals on Death Row can be given the injection quicker. Of course, some don't resist, like BTK, but there are a LOT of people on Death Row right now.


So this argument is based on the idea that a murderer may escape jail and thus none of us can sleep safetly at night?
Isn't that trying to apeal to fear, is that a good foundation for law?

Yes and I agree, for if not then then they are based only on emotional reactions.

I'm not saying arguments in this thread are merely just emotional reactions as in "the death penalty makes me feel disgusted, therefore I dislike it". I'm saying that although they may have good empirical premises, with facts that can be tested and observed, ultimately the 'sophisticated' arguments are based on the premise of subjective preference to what is good, and what is harmful.

Morality is subjective, the ethics behind ones personal morality though should be rational.

What do you think is the difference between ethics and morals?

Morality is subjective, the ethics behind ones personal morality though should be rational.
In this I will agree.

Appeal to emotion, right there. I would call such actions more animal and insticntula than rational, and so yep beast like.
If you called both these actions beast-like I will mostly agree,if you acknowledge that certain people will see a difference between one of the two I'm in 100%.

I'm not saying arguments in this thread are merely just emotional reactions as in "the death penalty makes me feel disgusted, therefore I dislike it". I'm saying that although they may have good empirical premises, with facts that can be tested and observed, ultimately the 'sophisticated' arguments are based on the premise of subjective preference to what is good, and what is harmful.



What do you think is the difference between ethics and morals?


Morality is what you feel is right and wrong, ethics has more to do with doing what IS right. Morality is therefore subjective, whislt ethics can only be based upon reason.

I may find capital punishment moraly repugnent, but I do so based on sound ethical reasons(see the why is murder moraly wrong thread for my reasons.)

Morality is what you feel is right and wrong, ethics has more to do with doing what IS right. Morality is therefore subjective, whislt ethics can only be based upon reason.


No offence, but I think you have an inaccurate definition of morality and ethics.

No offence, but I think you have an inaccurate definition of morality and ethics.

Well that may well be true, as I never went to uni nor college, please enlighten me.

please enlighten me.

:tongue:

That's a little difficult, thing is the difference between ethics and morality is a little vague for me as well (I always thought they were one in the same, but recently some things I've read may suggest that this possibly might not be the case, annoyingly).

:tongue:

That's a little difficult, thing is the difference between ethics and morality is a little vague for me as well (I always thought they were one in the same, but recently some things I've read may suggest that this possibly might not be the case, annoyingly).

Hah hah well perhaps we may have read some conflicting stuff, coz that is where I get my definition from. So philosophy students, give us a hint huh!

As far as I know morality is about ones personal sense of right and wrong(or sociaty, or tribe, whatever) and ethics deals with the act of doing what is right(again personaly, or socialy, or for the tribe, or whatever.)

Either or, that is what I mean when I use these terms.

Appeal to emotion, right there. I would call such actions more animal and insticntula than rational, and so yep beast like.

No, the initial killing could be referred to as instinctive. and thus - maybe - beastlike... but the reasoned response that takes the life of the killer? The fact that we're talking about codes of laws and balances of punishments suggests it's unlike the other action, in design at least... thus, not beastlike.

Ok, but even moral realists, like G.E More, argue that the majority of moral arguments are fallacious (naturalistic fallacy).
That's because Moore, and others like him, are using the term 'good' in a way I wouldn't.

Moore says goodness is a 'non-naturalistic property', very different to properties such as smallness, fatness, etc. But I would beg to differ. We use the word 'good' in a variety of contexts, and philosophers such as Moore have tended to think that that the description of, say, good soil or a good pizza, is quite different from the description of a good human. Again, I would beg to differ.

Think of a plant. When I say, “that is a good plant”, I can mean a variety of things. I can mean that the plant is a good source of food, or that is aesthetically good, and might win a gardening competition. I can even say that the plant is pleasing to my eye and looks good on my window-sill. The plant can also be said to be good if it is a good example or good specimen of that particular species of plant. Botanists and general gardeners do this all the time with plants, while ethologists regularly make this kind of evaluation with nonhuman animals.

To cut a long story short, I would posit that goodness is similar in humans, determined by facts about the nature of human life. We make factual evaluations all the time about human sight, hearing, etc., I think we can do the same with ethical evaluation.

EDIT: This is, as Wittgenstein advocated, bringing back words 'from their metaphysical to their everyday use'.

But with so many interpretations and uses of the word, does it really help our understanding of it? I know this sounds a bit like the "it's all subjective innit guv" argument, but if you take the Wittgensteinian view then you either end up with complete relativism and pluralism, or passing over in silence. If it really is a factual property, it's awfully open to interpretation - more so than many others within the realms of language I would think.

I'm sure you agree though that condoning or not capital punishment is a deeply personal issue,it has more to do with if individual persons see killing as acceptable than with arguments being valid or not.
No, it's about the relationship between a criminal, his peers in the jury and the powers of the state.

That's because Moore, and others like him, are using the term 'good' in a way I wouldn't.

Moore says goodness is a 'non-naturalistic property', very different to properties such as smallness, fatness, etc. But I would beg to differ. We use the word 'good' in a variety of contexts, and philosophers such as Moore have tended to think that that the description of, say, good soil or a good pizza, is quite different from the description of a good human. Again, I would beg to differ.

Think of a plant. When I say, “that is a good plant”, I can mean a variety of things. I can mean that the plant is a good source of food, or that is aesthetically good, and might win a gardening competition. I can even say that the plant is pleasing to my eye and looks good on my window-sill. The plant can also be said to be good if it is a good example or good specimen of that particular species of plant. Botanists and general gardeners do this all the time with plants, while ethologists regularly make this kind of evaluation with nonhuman animals.

To cut a long story short, I would posit that goodness is similar in humans, determined by facts about the nature of human life. We make factual evaluations all the time about human sight, hearing, etc., I think we can do the same with ethical evaluation.

EDIT: This is, as Wittgenstein advocated, bringing back words 'from their metaphysical to their everyday use'.

Much as I would like to continue this debate, it is a threadjack. Maybe someone should make another thread for it.

Much as I would like to continue this debate, it is a threadjack. Maybe someone should make another thread for it.
Quite.

Perhaps yourself or HC&S would be so kind (I'm having connection problems on this end)?

EDIT: This is, as Wittgenstein advocated, bringing back words 'from their metaphysical to their everyday use'.
*Shudders*

Bad memories of Disenchantment of Early Modern Europe.

*Shudders*

Bad memories of Disenchantment of Early Modern Europe.
*googles*

Oooh, looks like an alright course... no?

Yes correct, and yet using the logical approch only one side can be correct.

With that in mind are you really telling me that your well thought out rational for being pro capital punishment is to stop viliganty killings?
Not only,I support capital punishment for many reasons,too many to include into one post.Suffice it to say that I consider it an adequate punishment for some crimes,and I (personally) have no problem with it.

Not only,I support capital punishment for many reasons,too many to include into one post.Suffice it to say that I consider it an adequate punishment for some crimes,and I (personally) have no problem with it.

So criminals should be punished, not rehabilitated?

I assume that you see the unlawful killing of a human as wrong? Then why is it fine if the state does it?

*googles*

Oooh, looks like an alright course... no?
I'm just not a real fan of cultural and social history. The course was fine when you didn't have to go through Wittgenstein (and Darnton) trying to be too clever and read too much into things, in my opinion. I'm doing a similar course on the Salem Witch Trials now, which is actually quite similar.

So criminals should be punished, not rehabilitated?

I assume that you see the unlawful killing of a human as wrong? Then why is it fine if the state does it?
If I had to choose between punishment and rehabilitation I'd choose punishment cause rehab fails in most cases,and don't forget for really heinous crimes rehab is impossible (and pointless) but punishment always succeeds.As for the state being ok when executing criminals you answered your own question,the killing would be lawful.

If I had to choose between punishment and rehabilitation I'd choose punishment cause rehab fails in most cases,and don't forget for really heinous crimes rehab is impossible (and pointless) but punishment always succeeds.As for the state being ok when executing criminals you answered your own question,the killing would be lawful.

There is a lot to think about there.

Can you show me any studies that back up your claims above?

Can you show me how punishment always deteres people from murdering(if that is the case, why do people still do it?)


I would argue that any killing without the consent of the victim is unlawfull, and thus state sanctioned murder is just that.

There is a lot to think about there.

Can you show me any studies that back up your claims above?

Can you show me how punishment always deteres people from murdering(if that is the case, why do people still do it?)


I would argue that any killing without the consent of the victim is unlawfull, and thus state sanctioned murder is just that.
I suppose you're ok with euthanasia then,I am too.Anyway we're overstepping on each others' personal views about universal values.There is no unanimous 'yes' on 'no' in these matters.And no studies (mostly from the US) will show that it functions as a deterent,but US is a world in itself,no amount of laws or punishments will eradicate the gun mentality that pervades them.

I suppose you're ok with euthanasia then,I am too.Anyway we're overstepping on each others' personal views about universal values.There is no unanimous 'yes' on 'no' in these matters.And no studies (mostly from the US) will show that it functions as a deterent,but US is a world in itself,no amount of laws or punishments will eradicate the gun mentality that pervades them.

That's the point man. To step on each others values, so that I can understand myself better by questioning somebody who 'seems' to hold the opposite values.

Come on, play with me, don't go running scarred now!

That's the point man. To step on each others values, so that I can understand myself better by questioning somebody who 'seems' to hold the opposite values.

Come on, play with me, don't go running scarred now!
Running scared?Through an internet connection?That would have been weird....

Since you want a game I guess two can play :-).

Seriously now,what do you want to know about my 'values'?

Running scared?Through an internet connection?That would have been weird....

Since you want a game I guess two can play :-).

Seriously now,what do you want to know about my 'values'?

Really I want to know how one can feel that murder is immoral, but be in support of the dealth penalty?

How do you go about rationalising that?

Really I want to know how one can feel that murder is immoral, but be in support of the dealth penalty?

How do you go about rationalising that?
What is so strange?Murder is one thing,execution another,murder=cause,execution=effect.
No reason to apply the death penalty in all cases,a hot-blooded murder is one thing,a premeditaded killing another.

Don't be ridiculous. The Middle Ages are long gone, and so has the death penalty.
I read about this case, and cried about it.
still, I don't believe that we should have a backward measure like the death penalty. It is not up to us to take human life, however deranged it is.
That said, I hope these idiots will be kept far away of the rest of society. I realize that will cost a lot of money, so perhaps we could bring back another outdated institution: forced labour. Let extreme, dangerous criminals work for their own upkeep in prison.

All criminals should be forced to work while in prison,as for the death penalty we would not be taking human lives in that matter.

All criminals should be forced to work while in prison

No, not all! We need jobs in the outside world too. The 'light' criminals can work on rehabilitation and just be bored out of their minds for the rest of the time, and the really nasty ones will do jobs that no one else wants; like scraping out very old, overused ovens (mine). Their earnings will go to victim support. Yep, I got it all sorted.

No, not all! We need jobs in the outside world too. The 'light' criminals can work on rehabilitation and just be bored out of their minds for the rest of the time, and the really nasty ones will do jobs that no one else wants; like scraping out very old, overused ovens (mine). Their earnings will go to victim support. Yep, I got it all sorted.
Sounds like a good idea!How about forcing them to donate blood for free every now and then (I got the idea from an issue!).

What is so strange?Murder is one thing,execution another,murder=cause,execution=effect.
No reason to apply the death penalty in all cases,a hot-blooded murder is one thing,a premeditaded killing another.

Okay then lets try it this way.

Why is murder wrong and execution by the state right? After all both take the life of a person not willing to give up their life.

Okay then lets try it this way.

Why is murder wrong and execution by the state right? After all both take the life of a person not willing to give up their life.
Only if you consider the criminal a person or even human.

Only if you consider the criminal a person or even human.

So this tells me that you haven't realy thought about the issue, and are acting on emotional gut instincts instead.

So how does your reaction differ from the animalistic impusle to murder a child? Are you not just as guilty unthinking actions as those you want the state to kill?

What is it about performing a murder that suddenly turns a human into a non human? Are those that murder for the state the same?

Do you count soliders as unhuman?

Only if you consider the criminal a person or even human.
How can one not think a person is a criminal or a human? What vital essence of humanity is lost when one commits a crime?

What of wrongly-convicted, innocent 'criminals'? What of those convicted for offences we now do not consider as crimes? Were all homosexual men (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law#United_Kingdom) in England and Wales prior to 1967, in Scotland prior to 1980 and Northern Ireland prior to 1982 inhuman non-persons?

Your position makes no sense whatsoever.


I'm just not a real fan of cultural and social history. The course was fine when you didn't have to go through Wittgenstein (and Darnton) trying to be too clever and read too much into things, in my opinion. I'm doing a similar course on the Salem Witch Trials now, which is actually quite similar.
Interesting stuff... to me at least!

Anyhoo, if you'd be so kind, could you please post (or TG) some thoughts on Sheffield Uni? It's one of the places recommended to me as a good philosophy department to do a postgrad with, but I've got little to go on.

Interesting stuff... to me at least!
Absolutely, once you get past the theorists.;)

Anyhoo, if you'd be so kind, could you please post (or TG) some thoughts on Sheffield Uni? It's one of the places recommended to me as a good philosophy department to do a postgrad with, but I've got little to go on.
I'm going to post (and threadjack) because my nation died, a while ago actually.

I'll start off by saying that I am biased because I like both Sheffield City and Sheffield University regardless of its reputation for postgrad philosophy, but if it was mentioned to you by your uni anyway, it must be doing something right. If the philosophy department is as professional as the history department is, it's a good place to be. I know several students who want to do postgrad courses (not in philosophy though) who all want to stay in Sheffield rather than go (in the case of one student) back to the States or to another university, if that's any guide.

I won't say not to look anywhere else, because that's just stupid, but I think it's a strong option, in my opinion. Last I looked, we've got a solid reputation both academically and socially without being snooty like (I hear from friends there) Bristol, Durham and Oxbridge, for example. Okay, that doesn't necessairily apply to Conservative Future or the Cricket club, but my limited visits to other universities, and visits from friends up to Sheffield tell me that it's much more friendly than others.

The same applies to the City. Where else do people call you 'duck' but here?

Well worth a look, if you ask me. Arguably I'm not the right person for more information, but if you want more info, ask and I'll do my best or point you in the right direction.

How can one not think a person is a criminal or a human? What vital essence of humanity is lost when one commits a crime?

What of wrongly-convicted, innocent 'criminals'? What of those convicted for offences we now do not consider as crimes? Were all homosexual men (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law#United_Kingdom) in England and Wales prior to 1967, in Scotland prior to 1980 and Northern Ireland prior to 1982 inhuman non-persons?

Your position makes no sense whatsoever.

If you think that one of the key identifiers of a 'person', or of 'being human' is 'not murdering one another', then murderers are clearly not human.

It makes perfect sense.

Death Penalty, no. Remove the TV's, X-Box's, comfy beds and short sentences for serious crimes from prison. And a spot of meaningless manual labour never did anybody any harm.

If you think that one of the key identifiers of a 'person', or of 'being human' is 'not murdering one another', then murderers are clearly not human.

It makes perfect sense.

You're essentially saying here: "if something that doesn't make sense makes sense to you, then it makes perfect sense"

You're essentially saying here: "if something that doesn't make sense makes sense to you, then it makes perfect sense"

No, I'm saying the logic is fine, and claiming that it's not, just because you start with a different assumption, is flawed.

No, I'm saying the logic is fine, and claiming that it's not, just because you start with a different assumption, is flawed.

But he's not attacking a conclusion derived from a differing assumption, he's attacking the premise itself. Why should we assume that a "key identifiers of a 'person', or of 'being human' is 'not murdering one another'"?

<Sheffield snip>
Cheers mate, thanks for the hijack.

Useful stuff indeed.



If you think that one of the key identifiers of a 'person', or of 'being human' is 'not murdering one another', then murderers are clearly not human.
I don't see how you can hold up that as a workable definition.

Indeed, why define any activity that humans can engage with as a 'blocker' to human-ness? It seems completely arbitrary.

On a more practical note, I have doubts that any criminal prosecution/punishment system that regards all criminals (for Saluna Secundus is not just talking about murderers here) as inhuman nonpersons could run for any length of time without serious prisoner abuses.

If you think that one of the key identifiers of a 'person', or of 'being human' is 'not murdering one another', then murderers are clearly not human.

It makes perfect sense.

And is perfectly wrong. The most vilest of humanbeings is still a human.

But he's not attacking a conclusion derived from a differing assumption, he's attacking the premise itself. Why should we assume that a "key identifiers of a 'person', or of 'being human' is 'not murdering one another'"?

Those are assumptions.

If you start from the assumption that 'humans' don't murder each other, you may come to a different conclusion than if you start from the assumption that humans are basically fluffy bunnies.

And is perfectly wrong. The most vilest of humanbeings is still a human.

Opinion.

Opinion.

Bwahahahahaha. Okay first off what is opionion is that an act can somehow enforce a change in species.

A human being, a memeber of Homo Sapien, remains such no matter what act of depravity they play out.

A monkey can no more become a man by a great feat of love, than a man can become a monkey be a great feat of evil.

Those are assumptions.

If you start from the assumption that 'humans' don't murder each other, you may come to a different conclusion than if you start from the assumption that humans are basically fluffy bunnies.

Huh? I think you've missed the point of my post. I didn't say they weren't assumptions, I said that Chumbly is attacking the assumptions themselves, and not conclusions derived from them.

Those are assumptions.

If you start from the assumption that 'humans' don't murder each other, you may come to a different conclusion than if you start from the assumption that humans are basically fluffy bunnies.

And the assumption that humans do not kill each other is clearly wrong innit.

I don't see how you can hold up that as a workable definition.


I don't see how you can not.


Indeed, why define any activity that humans can engage with as a 'blocker' to human-ness? It seems completely arbitrary.


On the contrary, if you argue that what defines us is our ability to transcend the beast within, then the sort of behaviour that undoes that social trend is an entirely UN-arbitrary marker.


On a more practical note, I have doubts that any criminal prosecution/punishment system that regards all criminals (for Saluna Secundus is not just talking about murderers here) as inhuman nonpersons could run for any length of time without serious prisoner abuses.

On the contrary, it would make things much easier. In that model (which I'm not saying I embrace) there can be no 'prisoner abuses'.

And the assumption that humans do not kill each other is clearly wrong innit.

No.

Your assumption that the animals that kill other humans are, themselves, human, is clearly wrong.

Huh? I think you've missed the point of my post. I didn't say they weren't assumptions, I said that Chumbly is attacking the assumptions themselves, and not conclusions derived from them.

He said it didn't 'make any sense'.

Bwahahahahaha. Okay first off what is opionion is that an act can somehow enforce a change in species.

A human being, a memeber of Homo Sapien, remains such no matter what act of depravity they play out.

A monkey can no more become a man by a great feat of love, than a man can become a monkey be a great feat of evil.

I think you're making either too much, or too little, of the details.

What YOU are talking about, appears to be 'DNA'. Not 'humanity'.

No.

Your assumption that the animals that kill other humans are, [/i]themselves[/i], human, is clearly wrong.

No I made no such assumption. See post 452.

By what action can a member of Homo Sapian suddenly change species?

He said it didn't 'make any sense'.

Yeah, the assumption, didn't make any sense. You responded by basically saying "it makes perfect sense that x=y if y=x".

I think you're making either too much, or too little, of the details.

What YOU are talking about, appears to be 'DNA'. Not 'humanity'.

No I'm talking of being a human, not what you or others consider Humane and non humane acts.

You may well call the act of murder inhumane, but it is not behavour that suddenly makes you not human.

Those are assumptions.
Indeed, but they're damn good ones.

If you start from the assumption that 'humans' don't murder each other, you may come to a different conclusion than if you start from the assumption that humans are basically fluffy bunnies.
I think both starting assumptions are patently ludicrous.

On the contrary, if you argue that what defines us is our ability to transcend the beast within, then the sort of behaviour that undoes that social trend is an entirely UN-arbitrary marker.
For a start, the notion of "the beast within" is an outdated and rather poor view of human nature and of the natural world in general. (What 'beast' are you talking about? I know of no other animal which kills in cold blood.) This, incredibly strange attitude stems (in society, not directly in you) from muddled, pre-Darwinian Aristotelian-Christian thinking which marks a clear seperation between 'animal' and 'human'; a seperation that is, at best, hopelessly naive.

We are not 'battling' the Devil or some blood-crazed monster lurking within our souls, we're talking about human actions and human desires, needs, pleasures, etc. Excusing morally wrong actions as the work of something inhuman is in my view incredibly dangerous, for it denies any real engagement with important issues of humans committing morally wrong actions.

On the contrary, it would make things much easier. In that model (which I'm not saying I embrace) there can be no 'prisoner abuses'.
No, (hypothetical) you is only raping, torturing, etc., a lump of flesh.

But, as I say, that's a ludicrous notion.

So this tells me that you haven't realy thought about the issue, and are acting on emotional gut instincts instead.

So how does your reaction differ from the animalistic impusle to murder a child? Are you not just as guilty unthinking actions as those you want the state to kill?

What is it about performing a murder that suddenly turns a human into a non human? Are those that murder for the state the same?

Do you count soliders as unhuman?
No!Many soldiers are human and many are not,not because of the war but because they chose not to be!As for gut feelings,they define you as human,pure rationalism functions only with perfect beings (non-human).Being rational I could argue that many productive and law-abiding people die from lack of transplants,wouldn't have been rational to propose total recycling of death-row criminals?

How can one not think a person is a criminal or a human? What vital essence of humanity is lost when one commits a crime?

What of wrongly-convicted, innocent 'criminals'? What of those convicted for offences we now do not consider as crimes? Were all homosexual men (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law#United_Kingdom) in England and Wales prior to 1967, in Scotland prior to 1980 and Northern Ireland prior to 1982 inhuman non-persons?

Your position makes no sense whatsoever.



Interesting stuff... to me at least!

Anyhoo, if you'd be so kind, could you please post (or TG) some thoughts on Sheffield Uni? It's one of the places recommended to me as a good philosophy department to do a postgrad with, but I've got little to go on.
There is always the chance of someone being convicted erroneously,this is an acceptable compromise.As for what defining a human from a sub-human,everyone should get the idea!

If you think that one of the key identifiers of a 'person', or of 'being human' is 'not murdering one another', then murderers are clearly not human.

It makes perfect sense.
Well thanks!That's what I was saying!

No I'm talking of being a human,


No, you're talking about being biologically 'human'.


...not what you or others consider Humane and non humane acts.

You may well call the act of murder inhumane, but it is not behavour that suddenly makes you not human.

Yes it is.

Yes it is.

And what reason is there to concur with this?

And is perfectly wrong. The most vilest of humanbeings is still a human.
I totally disagree but as I said a hundred times already it's a matter of perspective.

Bwahahahahaha. Okay first off what is opionion is that an act can somehow enforce a change in species.

A human being, a memeber of Homo Sapien, remains such no matter what act of depravity they play out.

A monkey can no more become a man by a great feat of love, than a man can become a monkey be a great feat of evil.
Oh but it can,genetic structure alone does not define humanity,many animals have humanlike qualities while many vile murderers/rapists are no better than a shark or a rabid dog.

As for what defining a human from a sub-human,everyone should get the idea!
They won't from your posts.

You give no argument for the assertion that a criminal is an inhuman non-person; it is purely arbitrary. It is not "a matter of perspective" either, unless you can give some clear definition of what it means to be a human.

But one based upon acts (and especially on acts that are culturally prohibited) seems doomed to failure.



Yes it is [behavour that suddenly makes you not human].
Could you then give a defintion of behaviour, spanning the entire length of human existence, that defines somebody as human?

No!Many soldiers are human and many are not,not because of the war but because they chose not to be!As for gut feelings,they define you as human,pure rationalism functions only with perfect beings (non-human).Being rational I could argue that many productive and law-abiding people die from lack of transplants,wouldn't have been rational to propose total recycling of death-row criminals?

What defines you as a human is the species you were born to, this and only this.

Emotion certianly has a place, but when you let emotion rule your life you have every chance of becoming the kind of killer you abhour.

If you have been married for 20 years, have three children all under the age of ten, and suddenly find that you partner has been shagging the boss. Running on just emotions you may find yourself killing the spouse and the kids, and the boss.

No better to rationalise your belife structer then be emotional about it, don't you think?

The rational part would indeed suggest that when a person dies, the best thing to do for the greater good would be to just take any organs that are fit for transplant into living humans that may need then. I certianly agree with this policy, I wonder if it is rationality and reason, or emotion that has recently skewed this idea in my own country?

And what reason is there to concur with this?

What reason is there to not concur with this?

Oh but it can,genetic structure alone does not define humanity,many animals have humanlike qualities

But they don't have the same DNA. Human has always been defined as being part of the human species.

What reason is there to not concur with this?

What reason is there not to concur with the assumption that there is a giant floating penis exactly three billion light years from the moon, and that is fundamentally opposed to indecency laws?

No, you're talking about being biologically 'human'.

Yes.


[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle;14230089]Yes it is.

Bearing in mind the above, No.

Acctualy Chumblywumbly has a very good point, If no other animal kills in cold blood, doing so is a purely Human trait, and thus labeling a human that does such a thing as unhuman, is clearly logicaly wrong.

It's an appeal to emotion when you use this sort of language, which really IS akin to the the mindset of the people that you use such language against.

Surly you can see the contradiction in this?

What defines you as a human is the species you were born to, this and only this.


Once again, you confuse 'species' with 'being human'.

If we accept your model, the point at which a divergent enough mutation occurs to render the progeny arguably within a different 'species'.... they'll no longer be human.

I totally disagree but as I said a hundred times already it's a matter of perspective.

No it's a matter of biology.

Oh but it can,genetic structure alone does not define humanity,many animals have humanlike qualities while many vile murderers/rapists are no better than a shark or a rabid dog.

And the last time you heard of a shark or a dog killing in cold blood was?

Your metaphor is completly wrong.

Acctualy Chumblywumbly has a very good point, If no other animal kills in cold blood, doing so is a purely Human trait, and thus labeling a human that does such a thing as unhuman, is clearly logicaly wrong.

It's an appeal to emotion when you use this sort of language, which really IS akin to the the mindset of the people that you use such language against.

Surly you can see the contradiction in this?

Chumbly is wrong. Homo sapiens is not the only species that has been seen to kill in cold blood.

Does that change your argument?

No it's a matter of biology.

You keep saying that. But you can't support it.

I've still noticed that you haven't provided a single argument as to why we should believe that killing someone makes you not human, GnI.

Once again, you confuse 'species' with 'being human'.
I see no confusion; to be human is to be part of the human species. To be a chimpanzee is to be part of the chimpanzee species. Why would humans be any different, unless you're positing that humans are seperate from the natural world, and/or 'touched' by a deity?

Hitler was a human. Jack the Ripper was a human. Stalin was a human. Myra Hindley was a human. To deny otherwise seems to be both a delusion of grand proportions, and a poor excuse for ridding responsibility of one's actions.

If we accept your model, the point at which a divergent enough mutation occurs to render the progeny arguably within a different 'species'.... they'll no longer be human.
And the problem with that is...?

EDIT: The X-men aren't human, but that's not a problem, morally or practically etc., unless our morals are distinctly speciesist.

Homo sapiens is not the only species that has been seen to kill in cold blood.
And the other animal(s) would be?

P.S. Kudos for keeping up with all the replies to you!

Once again, you confuse 'species' with 'being human'.

If we accept your model, the point at which a divergent enough mutation occurs to render the progeny arguably within a different 'species'.... they'll no longer be human.

There is no confusion. A Human is a human, and can never be anything else. Your feelings do not change this.

Acting 'inhumanely' does not change your species. And again read Chumblywumbly's post.

Chumbly is wrong. Homo sapiens is not the only species that has been seen to kill in cold blood.

Does that change your argument?

Source?

You keep saying that. But you can't support it.

Whats that card game? Oh yeah Snap!

P.S. Kudos for keeping up with all the replies to you!

I'm trying :)

I'm leaving for work shortly, and should be able to keep up better once there aren't babies crawling all over me. Either that... or I'll be busy as hell.

But, I'll catch up (sooner or later).

And the last time you heard of a shark or a dog killing in cold blood was?

Your metaphor is completly wrong.
There are apes that kill in cold blood!There are even certified murderers among them.And we're not talking about biology here,I'm sorry if I have to indicate that by human I meant humane also.

I'm leaving for work shortly, and should be able to keep up better once there aren't babies crawling all over me.
Damn babies...

But, I'll catch up (sooner or later).
Well, be glad this is a forum, and not a chat-room!

Source?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3323070/Killer-dolphins-baffle-marine-experts.html

For starters. They also gang-rape.

Lions eat young that are not biologically their own, etc. Killing 'in cold blood' is not a 'human' disease.

Damn babies...


I know right?


Well, be glad this is a forum, and not a chat-room!

I usually manage to respond to everything sooner or later, so.. yes, I'm glad.

There are apes that kill in cold blood!There are even certified murderers among them.And we're not talking about biology here,I'm sorry if I have to indicate that by human I meant humane also.

So show me, if you know this, show me the source from whence your knowledge came.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3323070/Killer-dolphins-baffle-marine-experts.html

For starters. They also gang-rape.

Lions eat young that are not biologically their own, etc. Killing 'in cold blood' is not a 'human' disease.
Shit!I didn't know that!

So show me, if you know this, show me the source from whence your knowledge came.
I saw it in a documentary a couple of years ago,but why do you need sources?Do you imply I'm making stuff out of thin air?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3323070/Killer-dolphins-baffle-marine-experts.html

For starters. They also gang-rape.

Lions eat young that are not biologically their own, etc. Killing 'in cold blood' is not a 'human' disease.

Didn't see this line then?

'Orca whales hunt eider ducks for practice'

Yes all sorts of animals kill young not of their gene pool, you can't figure out why, and so call it cold blooded?

I saw it in a documentary a couple of years ago,but why do you need sources?Do you imply I'm making stuff out of thin air?

No because if you want anybody to take seriously the claims you make, back them up.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3323070/Killer-dolphins-baffle-marine-experts.html

Lions eat young that are not biologically their own, etc. Killing 'in cold blood' is not a 'human' disease.
An interesting article, though it's not clear that the dolphins are killing in cold blood; i.e. without any real purpose. I'm not claiming definitavely they aren't, but obviously these cases need to be studied further.

As to the lions, it's my understanding that the killings are territorial in nature, or to do with alpha-male assertion. This, in my understanding, wouldn't be murder in 'cold blood'.

However, I'd also say that murder in 'cold blood' is rather rare in humans also.


There are apes that kill in cold blood!
As far as I am aware, cannibalism certainly exists between certain groups of chimpanzees, as does rampant aggression, but these are killings for meat/dominance within the troupe, not cold-blooded murder.

Should we bring in the death penalty for those posters who don't adequately source their information?
No! We're not monsters! We should reserve it for the really serious crimes like trolling and flaming!

the case of baby p angered me

child abuse is the worst sort of crime.

however if we kill these people then they don't have to live with the guilt of what they have done, and well, there is a degree of honour amongst thieves in that amongst prison inmates any rapist or child abuser etc tend to be just a little abused themselves shall we say.

I want perpetrators who are definitely guilty to suffer as much as possible and being locked in a cold dark room on your own for years has to be more tortuous than death!

besides we have to give all scum the chance of rehabilitation

No because if you want anybody to take seriously the claims you make, back them up.
Still not getting it?I don't care if anyone takes seriously my 'claims',I'm not trying to influence others.And honestly I don't need their approval either,if I were in a position of power and was able to decide about the fate of such criminals I'd do what I think is right without putting it into a referendum.

the case of baby p angered me

child abuse is the worst sort of crime.

however if we kill these people then they don't have to live with the guilt of what they have done, and well, there is a degree of honour amongst thieves in that amongst prison inmates any rapist or child abuser etc tend to be just a little abused themselves shall we say.

I want perpetrators who are definitely guilty to suffer as much as possible and being locked in a cold dark room on your own for years has to be more tortuous than death!

besides we have to give all scum the chance of rehabilitation
That's the problem,many of these criminals don't have a conscience and the state isolates them in prison from other inmates so as not to get killed,if they really suffered in prison I wouldn't have been so set up about what I'm saying.And no I'm sorry but for me some scumbags don't deserve a second chance,they didn't deserve a first one either.