# Bring back the death penalty...



## Parser (Jul 6, 2005)

I don't normally do this but after hearing of
yet another helpless infant taken away from
his mother by a pissed off dumped boyfriend,
killing the child and admitting to it, I'm at the
point where them morons don't deserve to live.

I consider myself an adequate Christian, but
there has to be greater consequence in this
life for taking that of another, especially a 
helpless 2 year-old. Come on, find another
way of getting back at her, like oh, find some
one you consider better and have a happier
life. Lastly, like I want my taxes paying for
this idiots jail time as well.

Just one father of a 2 year-olds thoughts.

Parser


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Parser said:


> I don't normally do this but after hearing of
> yet another helpless infant taken away from
> his mother by a pissed off dumped boyfriend,
> killing the child and admitting to it, I'm at the
> ...


I am not ashamed to say I would support the death penalty for very heinous crimes, even though generally I disapprove of it. If not the death penalty, surely the jail conditions can be made far more uncomfortable than they are.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

biggest problem with the death penalty is that there ZERO room for fixing the mistake

_
In January [2000], Republican Governor George Ryan of Illinois suspended all execcutions in that state after 13 death row inmates were found to have been wrongly convicted.
_
...
_
Bill Kurtis, the A&E host and Kansas booster, has had an uncomfortably up-close view of the worst in human nature for much of his career. But the man who covered the Manson family trials has lately been sickened by the idea that our justice system has sent innocent men to the death chamber.

“Look, I was for the death penalty,” Kurtis said in a telephone interview, “but looking at these cases and the rapidly increasing number of exonerations, there are just too many possibilities for error.” In the state of Illinois, where Kurtis Productions is based, 13 men were set free in the late 1990s after research — some of it done as a class project by journalism students — uncovered grave errors in their cases.
_

death is forever

I, for one, am proud to be in a country that abolished the death penalty.
I just not an "eye for an eye" kind of guy.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> biggest problem with the death penalty is that there ZERO room for fixing the mistake
> 
> _
> In January [2000], Republican Governor George Ryan of Illinois suspended all execcutions in that state after 13 death row inmates were found to have been wrongly convicted.
> ...


Agreed. It doesn't really solve the problem either. It's more of a knee-jerk response. Maybe bring back torture instead? It's not completely irreversable.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

There are real procedural problems that can be in death penalty system. However, there has never been a single proven case of an innocent actually EXECUTED. There have been innocents on death row, this is true. The procedural problems are very real.

Generally, I don't think I would be in support of the death penalty except certain circumstances. There is nothing bad about putting serial killers to death, especially if they had also tortured the victims. Read: Homolka and Bernardo.

The basis for the death penalty is not rehabilitation, it is punitive. There is nothing wrong with society exacting an appropriate punishment on the criminal if it is warranted. People who kill multiple people for fun are as deserving as any as of the ultimate punishment, and they are most certainly not candidates for rehabilitation.


----------



## Daktari (Feb 21, 2005)

Planethoth, I beg to differ. A part of me understands and the need for vengeance/punishment but another part knows that one can not guarantee the guilt of EACH and EVERY person sent to the gallows. 

It would be hard to prove that an innocent individual was actually executed, though for some interesting reading click here,(think beyond reasonable doubt) Also, think of all the innocent people who have been released, perhaps there a number left in death row? How many were missed before this wave of death row case reviews and before the moratorium on death sentences (In the USA)?

Furthermore, there are a lot of factors that come together to produce a guilty verdict. These include race, income and police bumbling and/or planting evidence and so on. Like someone asked me a while back, "what if OJ was innocent but dirt poor?"


I would support the death sentence if and only if there was a 100% guarantee that the convicted was guilty. 

Forgive me for the incoherent post but its 3:30 am and i am soooo fatigued.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> There are real procedural problems that can be in death penalty system. However, there has never been a single proven case of an innocent actually EXECUTED. There have been innocents on death row, this is true. The procedural problems are very real.


No single proven case of an innocent actually EXECUTED? Are you talking about Canada or elsewhere?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

IronMac said:


> No single proven case of an innocent actually EXECUTED? Are you talking about Canada or elsewhere?


To be clear, I was speaking about the U.S. experience with the death penalty, only.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

I would say, it is quite possible that the execution of an innocent person has taken place at some time, but it simply hasn't been proven.

Nonetheless, it is a wise caution against the application of the death penalty in all but the most extreme and heinous crimes.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

So, if I or someone else were to find one instance of an innocent person being executed for a crime they did not commit would that change your mind?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> but the most extreme and heinous crimes.


Those are relative terms...define them as to what sort of crimes would fit those descriptions.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

I would personally consider a capital offence one that involved multiple murders and murders committed alongside torture and rape.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

IronMac said:


> So, if I or someone else were to find one instance of an innocent person being executed for a crime they did not commit would that change your mind?


Not necessarily. I am already very mindful of the flaws in capital punishment schemes. I think they should be heeded.

But in the case of Robert Pickton, for example, or in Homolka and Bernardo, there is no reasonable doubt. It would be justice to see them get the ultimate punishment.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> It would be justice to see them get the ultimate punishment.


How very Old Testament of you.

Those that are executed and/or are on death row usually didn't have the money to hire a good enough lawyer. Justice isn't blind. She sees "green money" just fine.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> How very Old Testament of you.
> 
> Those that are executed and/or are on death row usually didn't have the money to hire a good enough lawyer. Justice isn't blind. She sees "green money" just fine.


What are you trying to say with your insinuations there, Macspectrum? I don't speak "vague".

Surely you don't want to return to your earlier debating tactics.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

planethoth said:


> What are you trying to say with your insinuations there, Macspectrum? I don't speak "vague".
> 
> Surely you don't want to return to your earlier debating tactics.


You seem to be an "eye for an eye" kind of guy. [Hey, that rhymes....  ]

(Notice that I explained my alleged "vagueness" whereas you refused to do so)
Oh well.
I guess what's good for the goose isn't always sauce for the gander.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

Stop it children!


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> You seem to be an "eye for an eye" kind of guy. [Hey, that rhymes....  ]
> 
> (Notice that I explained my alleged "vagueness" whereas you refused to do so)
> Oh well.
> I guess what's good for the goose isn't always sauce for the gander.


OK, I'll wave off the jabs, it is cool. I'll throw my lot in with the "eye for an eye" crowd then.


----------



## Parser (Jul 6, 2005)

Okay, now that this has had time to fizz a bit,
I'll clarify my position a little further.

I am referring to a "without a doubt" guilty individual
that has confessed to the crime and told exactly what 
happened and where the body can be found. None of
this circumstancial evidence although Homolka and 
Bernardo should probably be tossed off the coil with
the lot, but in the case of the Chatham toddler killed
in cold blood in what was probably an act of revenge
(similar to the little girl thrown off the 401 overpass
(at least the guy died) the boyfriend completely confessed,
told where they could find the body. In my book these
days, he should forfeit his life for taking the life of that
little boy, hands down. 

Why should he live. 

Give me a good reason, really!

I'm so pissed at the route society in general is taking.
Makes me want to pack up and move to a cabin up north
and not expose my son to the school shootings, stabbings,
molestings etc... 

I don't think I'm wrong for feeling this way.

Parser


----------



## Clockwork (Feb 24, 2002)

Some intersting links on the death penalty. 

http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/tows_2000/tows_past_20000928_e.jhtml

http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/newab006/dProtess.html

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engAMR510691998

I'll take it with a grain of salt. I think if your going to re-instate the death penalty, you better be able to link the person by DNA and prove well beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person is guilty. Jesus was a victim of the death penalty. I say let God sort them out. If we kill people that kill, are we any better than them?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

I have never understood how people can claim that Canada and the U.S. were founded on Judeo-Christian values and one of the 10 Commandments says; Thou shalt not kill.

It doesn't say Thou shalt not kill unless someone confesses and is really really guilty.

Nevermind the pseudo religous side of the argument, but the state should have no business in the death of its citizens (I'll leave the discussion of unecessary killing in war for a later time).

The very last private vessel we own is our own bodies. It is still illegal to attempt suicide. Why? The state did not create our physical bodies and has no right to end our lives or prevent the ending of our own lives by our own hand.

Do serial killers appal me? Of course. I am sickened by them. Killing them is revenge and murder sanctioned by the state. The state grants us our rights and freedoms, but it DOES NOT grant us our right to live or die.
That is a personal issue.
(again, military deaths to be discussed later)


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

I think this thread is just a trolling a attempt. A new user with no history of posting, makes his first post a divisive topic. I hope everybody bears this in mind when replying to this thread

But, I'll take the hook anyway.



> Planethoth wrote:
> However, there has never been a single proven case of an innocent actually EXECUTED.


This idea in incredulous. We all know that innocent people are found quilty and serve sentences all the time. Execution is/was one of those sentences (depending on country/state). It doesn't take a leap of much logic to determine that some of those sentenced to death have been innocent.

After innocent people are executed they don't really have much opportunity to appeal their cases and prove they were wrongly executed. Family members and friends after years of fighting for justice may simply move and and be tired after their efforts have failed. Not many work to clear someone else's name long after they are dead.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Killing them is revenge and murder sanctioned by the state.


Revenge is something that you want to do when you feel powerless. Once you execute a "criminal" it becomes murder.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

Revenge leads to the dark side.


----------



## Parser (Jul 6, 2005)

I get where your coming from of course, but
there's also another nine commandments that
get broken on a daily basis as well. I didn't really
want bring religion into this but being Mormon,
I really do understand. But, aren't you all just
so "deathly" tired of this. Everyday we're bombarded
with murders, death, abductions, starvation, etc. 

I'm just having a down day but I can only image
what the mother of that little boy is feeling right now.

If it was my son, I'd hunt the bastard down and kill
him with my bare hands. If I had to be put to death 
for doing so, so be it, because there'd be one less 
murderer on the street so that other family's would 
not have to go through it as well.

Parser


----------



## Parser (Jul 6, 2005)

For the record...

Old user, just new name. 
Just didn't want it tied to my 
actual user name.

The topic hit a little too close to home
and couldn't get past that the boy that
was killed was the same age as mine.
The thought of someone doing that to
a helpless child who trusted the adult
was a little too unbearable.

Good Star Wars reference though.

----------------------------------

Proud owner of G5 iMac, 17" 768 Ram, 80gigHD
& G3 Blue & White iBook, 3gig, 256.


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

actually there would be two less murderers on the street, but who's counting?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

miguelsanchez said:


> actually there would be two less murderers on the street, but who's counting?


beat me to it


----------



## sammy (Oct 12, 2002)

I have swung back and forth on the death penalty forever. I just feel sick to my stomach about the killing of this little boy. Maybe being a father makes me more empathetic. I have felt pretty hollow this week, as I drive past Langdon drive, where the childs remains were found, on my way to work everyday.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

would knowing that the murderer of the child was executed help in your grief?


----------



## Parser (Jul 6, 2005)

Yes, yes sorry for the math (wow, tough crowd).

To Sammy's point, empathy is the word for it. 
Whether or not, to my original point, the death 
penalty would apply to something like this, put
yourself, even if you don't have kids, in that
parents shoes for just a moment. How would you 
feel if that happened to your child. Just relating
for a second, what would go through your mind?

Yes, all death at the hands of another is wrong, 
even if the it would be a form of justice, but at
the same time, I was just feeling that how is letting
this person live any help to the family (other than
the they'll grow stronger from it etc.) 

To MacSpectrums point, for the family, knowing that
the murderer could never again do that to another family,
may bring a sense of closure and justice knowing that
he'll get his in the next life a lot sooner.

That's it, that's all.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

> In the death penalty for minors thread( different forum), Cephus wrote:
> 
> QUOTE
> We don't have a single example of an individual who was actually executed who was later found innocent. While I wouldn't expect the legal system to try to find innocents among the executed, there are a lot of anti-DPers out there who hold that up as the holy grail and certainly could look for one. The problem is, they can't find one because so far as we can tell, one doesn't exist.
> ...


Your assertion that no innocents have been executed in the US rings hollow.

from Amnesty international:


> Since abolition, at least 6 Canadian prisoners convicted of first-degree murder have been released on grounds of innocence. Two were incarcerated for more than 10 years before their innocence was established, after wrongful conviction for crimes that would likely have resulted in their execution if Canada had retained the death penalty.



As for actual proof of an innocent being executed? For obvious reasons there is a tendancy to purposly NOT second guess the resuls of trials that result in executions. As we have seen in my above example evedence is destroyed in contraversial casses.

It is widly believed that the last person executed in Canada was innocent.

Capital punishment is wrong for several reasons but my favorite is it is cheaper to keep a prisoner in jail than to execute them. I'd rather spend less money on Picton than more. (incase you want to bring up the emotional card: Yes Picton did kill a friend of mine (maybe two). I still don't support executing him.)


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

What about people who for some unknown psycological reason admit to crimes they did not commit? Those that committed a crime but were mentally impaired? What about the Homolka case where there is video evidence of her complicity but where she bargained out of the penalty by providing evidence to more effectively convict Bernado? Would such people be aloof of the death penalty because they bargained? What about set-ups? What about police incompetence or complicity?

Is the death penalty a deterrent for such horrific acts? Or is this about vengeance or saving the cost of prison for a society. In my opinion, the cost to society of sanctioning the killing of a person is far greater than accommodating them in a prison. However, I do think that the prison system is too lenient on serious criminals and that hard labour should be an option.

And how does one consolidate "Thou Shalt Not Kill" with the willing execution of another human being?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Parser said:


> That's it, that's all.


Parser, I do understand your point of view - or what you are trying to say.
I have two girls of my own and if it ever happened to any of them, I would never wish the death penalty on the criminal.

It's a barbaric base human reaction and to me a sign of a lower moral standard.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Parser, I do understand your point of view - or what you are trying to say.
> I have two girls of my own and if it ever happened to any of them, I would never wish the death penalty on the criminal.
> 
> It's a barbaric base human reaction and to me a sign of a lower moral standard.


This is the worst way to make policy decisions IMNSHO. 
This is the reason bad legislation like the "patriot act" in the US is tabled. legislation should be preventitave not reactionary or the draconian measures always win out.
Just because a reaction is instinctual doesn't mean it is right (morally correct).


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

martman said:


> This is the worst way to make policy decisions IMNSHO.
> This is the reason bad legislation like the "patriot act" in the US is tabled. legislation should be preventitave not reactionary or the draconian measures always win out.


Agreed -
But appealing to "emotions" is a way to pass contraversial laws.

For example, I'm opposed to many laws and measures that take away my right to privacy. Often when a city/state/country wants to place surveillance cameras they will say "it's to protect the children" - instead of 'big brother wants to spy on you". If you oppose said measure, you will be labelled anti-children (not the case). To someone who has not followed the debate, they will only see on side of the argument. 

9/11 and the spectre of fear has opened up too many doors to abusive government policies...


----------



## Parser (Jul 6, 2005)

ArtistSeries, I understand yours as well
but as a parent, it's hard to say how you'd
react unless it actually happened to you
correct. I like most other people would
probably not act upon these "barbaric"
impluses, but you have to admit, you'd
feel pretty helpless not being able to hurt
the person that took away your own flesh
and blood, even for a brief moment.

Throwing the person in a cell for the rest
of their life just doesn't seem enough
somehow, but again, for the religious
aspect, they will eventually be judged, 
guilty or not.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Parser said:


> as a parent, it's hard to say how you'd
> react unless it actually happened to you
> correct. I like most other people would
> probably not act upon these "barbaric"
> ...


To be honest, I don't know how I would react - most likely with anger and the wanting to "strike out" at someone. I would hope that I would channel my energies into something constructive.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I have grappled with this issue all my life. Part of me wants to "hang 'em high", but so many cases in Canada have been proven to be wrong like that of Steven Truscott.

If we still had the death penalty, too many innocent men would be dead, and that's the trouble 'cause dead is a long, long time.


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

plantethoth: Please see www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/capital_hist.htm. 
I'm really torn on this one. I can remember seeing a documentary a few years ago where prisoners on an American death row were interviewed. One of them had been there for years and said that if anyone had caught him "in the act" they were undoubtedly have killed him instantly and that he would have deserved it. I think life imprisonment, especially on "death row" is a worse punishment than death. I think I do support a death penalty, with some reservations. However, what I really think needs to happen is a complete overhaul of the penal system. We have to look beyond just locking people up. Currently, in Canada, there is no obligation on the part of Corrections to rehabilitate people. All they're required to do is keep the bad guy off the streets. We shouldn't be treating someone who's failed to pay his parking tickets the same way as someone who beats his wife, for insance. We must remember that the people we lock up like animals will one day be back in society.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

My beliefs tell me Capital punishment is wrong but had that been one of my children butchered I can understand the desire for the death penalty. In reality it will not bring your child back nor dampen the pain. I would have to oppose the death penalty on moral grounds. 
That said I see room for improvement in our penal system. I would think the Karla's victims parents may share my concerns for it.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I don't think any system involving human beings can be made perfect and airtight, and the justice system is no exception. I can understand the desire, but even still, I can't justify it to myself. 

Still, if we had the death penalty, it would have to be held to a higher standard of guilt than reasonable doubt.


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

I'm very much undecided on this issue.

I tend to think that it's really not the solution ("An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind." - Gandhi) and when I think about what happened with David Milgaard, it scares me to think that innocent people do get wrongfully convicted. If it was my brother being sentenced to death, I'm sure I would oppose it, regardless of his crime and whether or not he was guilty or innocent.

That said, when I think about the monsters who killed little Holly and Cecelia and other such tragedies, it enrages me so, I could almost imagine offing them myself. Certainly, if it was my own sweet child that was murdered, I would tend to agree with the death penalty and I'm not entirely sure that I don't agree with it.

So...I am indeed undecided.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Sigh. Again we have the case of people having imaginary debates with me about stuff I didn't say.

Look, as I WROTE, it is VERY POSSIBLE that innocents have been executed, though it has not been PROVEN. You can argue that either way; death row convicts typically have very long appeals processes that take years before the sentence is actually carried out. There are abuses, yes--HENCE MY EXPRESSED RESERVATIONS and my caution that it should only be used very carefully. This is not Saudi Arabia.

And what, may I ask, is so bad about "revenge"? That's the morally decadent opposition, the weakest one, to capital punishment. What some of you call "revenge" is in fact what is justice. If you take lives for your sadistic pleasure, and in the act you rape, torture, make their ends cruel and suffered, then how is it not justified that you are punished severely?

That isn't simply a "judeo-christian" morality, that is a universal morality.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

As a sidenote, by the way, Mrs. Furley, Gandhi, who was lucky enough to find himself fighting a relatively benign, unmotivated and war-weary British control of his country, said the Jews shouldn't fight Hitler and the Nazis, they should just be non-violent resisters. Such a bigger fool has never been elevated to false idol status in history.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> What some of you call "revenge" is in fact what is justice. If you take lives for your sadistic pleasure, and in the act you rape, torture, make their ends cruel and suffered


Hrmm...isn't executing someone for revenge simply the same as taking pleasure in killing them? Sinking to the same level, methinks.


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

I thought you wrote that you were going away...

About Revenge, it is just a form of burning anger, and when you use anger and violence to solve one problem, well, you will use it to solve another, it works, yet in the end, is not really effective. There are much better ways to deal with things. Yes, we will have to use our thinkin caps, but yer a Human just like me, so I think we can do it! Just Believe


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

planethoth said:


> As a sidenote, by the way, Mrs. Furley, Gandhi, who was lucky enough to find himself fighting a relatively benign, unmotivated and war-weary British control of his country, said the Jews shouldn't fight Hitler and the Nazis, they should just be non-violent resisters. Such a bigger fool has never been elevated to false idol status in history.


That would be your opinion. Literally millions would disagree. Let's not let this thread degenerate as well.....

Please could proponents of the death penalty explain what it would achieve apart from some base fulfillment (that may be erroneous) of vengeance? Is it morally correct to knowingly take the life of another under conditions where that person is no longer a threat? I'm all for keeping dangerous offenders in jail and for life imprisonment to mean life but is not the risk of error, no matter how small, enough to fundamentaly rule out this final solution? Does anyone think that the death penalty has resulted in a better society in those jurisdictions/states that practice it?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

IronMac said:


> Hrmm...isn't executing someone for revenge simply the same as taking pleasure in killing them? Sinking to the same level, methinks.


No. This argument that we are "sinking to the same level" is a moral equivocation--imagine, you are comparing the people who torture and rape and murder people to the people who punish them!

We don't gain pleasure by executing a murderer and taking life, we gain a sense of satisfaction that these people have their appropriate punishment for their repulsive crimes.

A person who has tortured and raped his/her victims before finally killing them has no moral right to continue living. You all rightly point out the flaws of state-administered justice, and you are correct. But asserting the psychopathic criminal to the adminstrators of their penalty to be equal is just morally odious.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> No. This argument that we are "sinking to the same level" is a moral equivocation--imagine, you are comparing the people who torture and rape and murder people to the people who punish them!
> 
> We don't gain pleasure by executing a murderer and taking life, we gain a sense of satisfaction that these people have their appropriate punishment for their repulsive crimes.
> 
> A person who has tortured and raped his/her victims before finally killing them has no moral right to continue living. You all rightly point out the flaws of state-administered justice, and you are correct. But asserting the psychopathic criminal to the adminstrators of their penalty to be equal is just morally odious.


There is a difference between "revenge" and "justice". You defend "revenge", ergo, "a sense of satisfaction"....which would put that on the same moral level as that of the killer.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

If a justice system includes the death penalty as part of its range of punishments and it kills someone who is actually innocent should it be held accountable? Yes yes, a jury of the accused's peers said that they believed that that person is guilty beyond "a reasonable doubt" but evidence comes out later on that the person actually made a false confession.

Ok, it's a strike against the system.

But, what happens if there are a series of innocents being killed by the justice system? Should the justice system be held accountable? Should it itself be abolished? Or should only that particular punishment be abolished?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

A few of you think it is cool to keep taking shots at me, so go ahead. I can well take it, and It delegitimizes the relevant parts of your arguments faster than I can. I however won't roll in the dirt with you.

How amusing to me, it seems, for people who feel so passionately that I am wrong on every account oppose the death penalty on grounds of it just appealing to the passions!

By the way, used to be jwoodget, the fact that millions follow Gandhi is self-evident and I don't think it refutes my calling him a false idol.


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

> I am referring to a "without a doubt" guilty individual
> that has confessed to the crime and told exactly what
> happened and where the body can be found.



Totally agree with this.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Sigh. Again we have the case of people having imaginary debates with me about stuff I didn't say.
> 
> Look, as I WROTE, it is VERY POSSIBLE that innocents have been executed, though it has not been PROVEN. You can argue that either way; death row convicts typically have very long appeals processes that take years before the sentence is actually carried out. There are abuses, yes--HENCE MY EXPRESSED RESERVATIONS and my caution that it should only be used very carefully. This is not Saudi Arabia.
> 
> ...


I believe Wolfshead pointed some cases in the UK where posthumous pardons were given--though no details were provided, there's a strong implication of the innocent being executed. The same article pointed out a number of prisoners who were declared innocent, who had been imprisoned for so long that they would have been executed had the death penalty still existed. 

Moreover, the lack of proof that innocents were never executed is likely due to the fact that the courts are less likely to re-open a case if it does not benefit someone in a tangible way--in this case, if the person who benefits from the pardon is dead, why spend the money? 

In any case, I am against the death penalty because justice is not served, in my opinion, if there is a chance that the falsely accused can be executed. 

It may be justified that you should be punished for your crimes. The question is how. Though I am not a believer in eye for an eye-style justice, I believe injustice inherent in the risk of executing the falsely accused simply outweighs the perceived justice in capital punishment.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

IronMac said:


> If a justice system includes the death penalty as part of its range of punishments and it kills someone who is actually innocent should it be held accountable? Yes yes, a jury of the accused's peers said that they believed that that person is guilty beyond "a reasonable doubt" but evidence comes out later on that the person actually made a false confession.
> 
> Ok, it's a strike against the system.
> 
> But, what happens if there are a series of innocents being killed by the justice system? Should the justice system be held accountable? Should it itself be abolished? Or should only that particular punishment be abolished?


The problem inherent in "systems" of any sort is that they are not accountable because there is a diffusion of responsibility, a bureaucratization of responsibility. Of course, the nature of systems as being unaccountable and prone to mistakes or abuse is a very good reason to oppose capital punishment, one I think is very compelling. I'm not disputing anyone on that. I believe in capital punishment on a very, very limited scale if any.

What I dispute is those who claim it is somehow wrong or immoral to execute these people if they did these horrible crime. That is an inversion of morality, one that accords the criminal moral rights they forfeited when they committed these wicked acts.


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

Pamela said:


> Totally agree with this.


Oh, and forget this 30 years on the block thing. I'm not paying for an admitted killer to sit in jail. Kill him as soon as he confesses. I'm sick of hearing this stuff in the news....that's the reason I don't watch it anymore.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Pamela said:


> Oh, and forget this 30 years on the block thing. I'm not paying for an admitted killer to sit in jail. Kill him as soon as he confesses. I'm sick of hearing this stuff in the news....that's the reason I don't watch it anymore.


I like your style


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> What I dispute is those who claim it is somehow wrong or immoral to execute these people if they did these horrible crime. That is an inversion of morality, one that accords the criminal moral rights they forfeited when they committed these wicked acts.


You caught him but that's not enough? You want to push it a bit further? Maybe you want to go a bit further than simply killing him because he killed someone? How about you do the same things that he did to his victims? Yes...I believe "heinous" was the term used by you...so, let's go with raping and torturing the killer...and then killing him.

Yep, that would even it all out.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> What I dispute is those who claim it is somehow wrong or immoral to execute these people if they did these horrible crime. That is an inversion of morality, one that accords the criminal moral rights they forfeited when they committed these wicked acts.


I don't think that your arguments are motivated by any potential for "an inversion of morality" but by a need for "revenge" or "sense of satisfaction".


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

PT you fling about concepts very loosely especially morality and morals and it really detracts from your points.



> psychopathic criminal


 - is in your description a sick or insane person - do you expect your society to execute the insane or sick or retarded or abused or genetically challenged???

Morals are set by the comfort and expectations of the particular society at a particular time. The morality of the Texas panhandle was to hang rustlers on the spot.

The nature of a criminal act and the "responsibility" and penalty versus rehabilition are all knotty issues that require careful definition and assessment even before you can lay out some clear options as to choices a society can make.

How do we view FAS ( Fetal Alcohol Syndrome ) children who due to no fault of their own lack the capacity to distinguish "inappropriate" acts that are often criminal in nature.

There was a 900 page small print tome I read a while back about Criminal justice and race in America and the conclusion was after all that deep analysis ( some 8 years in the writing and research ..........there is no satisfactory solution in sight. 

The issues are so convoluted and engaged with historical wrongs such as slavery, genetic pre-disposition say with alcohol, economic and social and eduational deprivation that it had no equitable, "just" approach that could be devised for the larger society.

IF you take the "do no harm" route ......then any killing by society is abhorrent as there is risk of killing and innocent and it degrades the value of human life.

Yet it's easy to argue society should not have to bear the cost of incarceration when childredn go hungry and other needs.

California spends $5000 or so on a student yet $60,000 on a prisoner.

Triage is not easy in these situations.
You need definitions.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Pamela said:


> Oh, and forget this 30 years on the block thing. I'm not paying for an admitted killer to sit in jail. Kill him as soon as he confesses. I'm sick of hearing this stuff in the news....that's the reason I don't watch it anymore.


I am sick of it as well! However, there is absolutely zero evidence that the Death Penalty acts as a deterant. So, Unfortunately, these types of crimes will continue irregardless of the penalty imposed.
So, it becomes a question of economics then? I'm not sure if I could support that. If it did show to be a deterant, I would support it starting now.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Practically, where does one draw the line in decreeing the death penalty? That there is no reasonable doubt? This is left to the jury to decide and their decisions are based on subjective and objective information. I fail to understand how this yields a clear enough line. And once a line is drawn, it will be moved. The burden of proof will change since every case is unique - as are the jurors. What if jurors refuse to serve if they consciously object to the concept of the death penalty? Can one then recruit a societally representative jury? What about the appeals process? In the US, the result of death row appeals largely depends on the sitting governor. Some never grant a reprieve, others commute the sentence with high frequency. What if Alberta (for example) was the only jurisdiction that actually executed prisoners? Could Ontario refuse to "extradite" a prisoner to Calgary? While these are hypothetical instances, they reflect the reality of the situation in the US.

The dilemmas faced by the concept of capital punishment seem to me to greatly outweigh any potential feeling of effective justice.


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

iPetie said:


> I am sick of it as well! However, there is absolutely zero evidence that the Death Penalty acts as a deterant. So, Unfortunately, these types of crimes will continue irregardless of the penalty imposed.
> So, it becomes a question of economics then? I'm not sure if I could support that. If it did show to be a deterant, I would support it starting now.


If it doesn't act as a deterant than that's even more reason to knock off the crazy's that are willing to take lives regardless!


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> PT you fling about concepts very loosely especially morality and morals and it really detracts from your points.
> 
> - is in your description a sick or insane person - do you expect your society to execute the insane or sick or retarded or abused or genetically challenged???
> 
> ...


MacDoc, with all due respect man, I find it quite funny that you accuse of me flinging around concepts "loosely" when you are always all over the map, throwing in anecdotal or tangentially related issues such as "yet it's easy to argue society should not have to bear the cost of incarceration when children go hungry..." and the 900 page tome on Criminal Justice you once read.

That said, I will cut you slack if you cut me slack.

A murderer cannot be forgiven or made exceptional for "historical" circumstances. Then we should excuse everyone for everything because, after all, SOMEWHERE there was one incident or another that may have caused another incident or another emotion that caused... you see the stupidity of this, I hope. One cannot be forgiven a repellent crime simply for some injustices that may have been done to them or their family or ancestors.

I would not see 20 year old gang members who shot someone in a turf war put to death necessarily. I would see Karla Homolka put to death. Can you understand why?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

planethoth said:


> I would not see 20 year old gang members who shot someone in a turf war put to death necessarily. I would see Karla Homolka put to death. Can you understand why?


And there is the rub. Karla Homolka did a deal for her light sentence. If the death penalty had been an option, do you think that the prosecution would have turned down the deal without the strong evidence "beyond reasonable doubt" that led to Bernado being thrown in jail for life? In other words, the death penalty would not have been applied to Homolka in the circumstances.

What if the gang member shoots the wrong guy? How the heck do you draw your line? Some first degree murders are more horrible than others? Tell that to the relatives and friends of the victims!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Your problem is you can't see the relevance - you've been told about scattershot approaches to concepts.



> Moral rights, inversion of morality, wicked, diffusion of responsibility, a bureaucratization of responsibility


 ......all speaks to sloppy language use - it's why you're getting dissed.

The point of the book anecdote is to show even highly trained and experienced scholars have no answers.



> Of course, the nature of systems as being unaccountable and prone to mistakes or abuse is a very good reason to oppose capital punishment, one I think is very compelling


This is a clear point ...the sentences preceding and following are muddles.

Criminals forfeit some *civil rights* in committing crimes......and you have yet to answer to underlying factors such as FAS and psychopathy.

Bottom line .....it's NOT simple.....and using language sloppily makes it hopeless.

Here are some clear issues.

Is the goal by society in relation to the convicted criminal

Rehabilitation or punishment??

Once you pick one of those then other points can be argued.

If rehabilitation then the death sentence is a non starter.

If punishment - then the question arises does evoking the death penalty put society in the role of sanctioned murder.
A case can be made that a lifetime of incarceration is a more fitting punishment than an easy death.

and so on...

Narrow the scope, keep the terms clear and unmuddled.

For instance taking two extremes can often be beneficial.

A planned murder of say a spouse or child for financial gain on an insurance claim....say burning a house with kids inside. as one polar extreme.

An FAS teen from a economically challenged background convicted of killing a drug dealer in a buy gone bad might be another pole.

In the first you might strongly argue CP if you accept society's role is to punish while in the latter you might wish to invoke "extenuating circumstances" even tho people are killed in both instances.

Without starting at an assumption such as "the role of society is punishment for criminals" - it's far too hard to keep a consistent pro and con debate going.

Look up FinkNottles posts for clarity.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> And there is the rub. Karla Homolka did a deal for her light sentence. If the death penalty had been an option, do you think that the prosecution would have turned down the deal without the strong evidence "beyond reasonable doubt" that led to Bernado being thrown in jail for life? In other words, the death penalty would not have been applied to Homolka in the circumstances.
> 
> What if the gang member shoots the wrong guy? How the heck do you draw your line? Some first degree murders are more horrible than others? Tell that to the relatives and friends of the victims!


Jwoodget: the legislation of some murders being more serious than others under law is well-established and not at all unprecedented. In fact, there is already a scale that you alluded to in your use of the "first-degree" adjective.

I never once made an argument that the death penalty should rely solely on the loss of a victim's loved ones. Obviously, the loved ones will miss the victim regardless of whether they died in a car accident, by manslaughter, or murdered in cold blood.

Perhaps people were confused by the use of the idiotic perjorative "eye for an eye" that gets thrown around in these discussions. In reality, the "eye for an eye" was not even applied in the literal manner in the "Old Testament" era, so it is completely misinterpreted.

The determination of a penalty is not that it will be a literal mirror of the crime. It is that it is appropriate and as severe as warranted. It is not intended solely or at all as a deterrent or to rehabilitate. Is intended, rightfully so, as a punishment.

There is ample precedent, legally and morally, to distinguish between different types of crimes even within the same category. The person who shoots someone in the act of robbing a store has committed a wicked deed, but they are NOT the same as Karla Homolka.

Re Homolka, the government legal system failed in this case b/c its Crown prosecutors bought a phony, pseudointellectual theory that sociologists and their kind have been promoting, and then when it was revealed that their plea bargainer lied to them, declined to press for a nullification of the plea bargain because it would have meant many of them would have lost their place on the career ladder. A failure of the system? Yes. More reason to be skeptical about government, I would say. But not a moral argument against the death penalty.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Better post but it's comments like this that lose you cred 



> bought a *phony, pseudointellectual theory* that sociologists and [/b]their kind[/b] have been promoting


BTW it is pejorative not perjorative but I misspell it often too. That said it's a terrible use. Try homily or proverb.


••



> The determination of a penalty is not that it will be a literal mirror of the crime. It is that it is appropriate and as severe as warranted. It is not intended solely or at all as a deterrent or to rehabilitate. Is intended, rightfully so, as a punishment.


Unwarranted assumption that YOU can state the intention. You might surmise the intention - you didn't. You made a blanket statement.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Your problem is you can't see the relevance - you've been told about scattershot approaches to concepts.
> 
> ......all speaks to sloppy language use - it's why you're getting dissed.
> 
> ...



You love your binary thinking, MacDoc! I don't have to create some false dichotomy between rehabilitation and punishment. There is a sliding scale. You only want to pick a dichotomy so it will prove your barely veiled preference, which is having a society that eliminates punishment, hence your "If rehabilitation then the death sentence is a non starter." 

You know very well for some crimes we can try to rehabilitate people and for others, it is a non-starter. You may as well not object if I tell you this point you made was mere sophistry. A murderer who tortured and raped his victims does not get a chance for rehabilitation--and rightfully so! So, in our case, this limited category of criminal, punishment is the only issue.

I answer the issue of FAS and psychopathy thus: they will never be rehabilitated. They have no chance of it. If one can be proven that they were not aware of what they were doing in the act of the crime, then maybe you can spare them the death penalty. That would be an 'insanity' defence, though i disagree with it. I am not interested in sparing murderers their punishments.

Sanctioned murder? Sure call it what you want, that's a diversion. You know very well that murdering little kids is not the same thing as executing their tormentors. Or is my benefit of the doubt wrong, are you so morally inverted that you can't see that?

You're right on one thing---a lifetime of incarceration MIGHT be a more appropriate punishment for some murderers. I acknowledged that! Be intellectually honest in attacking my arguments!


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

planethoth said:


> What I dispute is those who claim it is somehow wrong or immoral to execute these people if they did these horrible crime. That is an inversion of morality, one that accords the criminal moral rights they forfeited when they committed these wicked acts.


Well, therein lies the crux of where you and I disagree on this issue. I believe that the society who chooses to punish those who kill by killing them is no t than the killers to begin with--and for me that is the moral problem. If it is wrong to kill, it is (in my mind) also wrong to kill killers. 

But this is of those things where you believe what you believe and I believe something different, and we will have to agree to disagree.

I do agree with you that punishment in law should be vary in severity with the crime. Someone on this thread mentioned bringing back hard labour--I agree with that.

I also think that the system must provide better rehabilitative services for those who were falsely imprisoned. People don't come out of that experience unharmed--if the system failed them, the system should attempt to make that right.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Better post but it's comments like this that lose you cred
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good lord man, now you are really reaching! Yes, you are CORRECT, I incorrectly spelled "pejorative". No, it was not an incorrect usage; this phrase was used a pejorative to describe those who believe in capital punishment as a measure of justice.

Are you proofreading or having a philosophical argument?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

By the way, MacDoc, does the terms "diffusion of responsibility" and the "bureaucratization of responsibility" in relation to organizations really strike you as muddled concepts?

Does "wicked" strike you as muddled? Wicked = evil, very clear. Not muddled. Your objection might be muddled, true. But the term isn't.

In this case, you should be clear about what you mean by "muddled". I think it might be an "incorrect usage."


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I'm sorry planethoth, but I completely fail to understand where you (or the justice system) would draw the line. I used the term "1st degree murder" to illustrate the fact that the most severe charge does not reflect a homogeneous crime. All this descriptor does is define the lower and upper limits of penalty that a judge can apply. Even in the case of Bernardo, the Crown had to further lobby to have him decreed a "dangerous offender" to maximize his length of incarceration. In the case of Homolka, I would seriously question whether any criminal justice system would be able to re-open a plea bargain if they derived material evidence as a direct result of that bargain (as in this case). The ethical connotations are endless.

We could ban plea bargains I guess, but that would likely result in fewer convictions and more crooks would go free. Our justice system is far from perfect but it does the best job it can. Allowing an inherently imperfect system the discretion to terminate a life is simply not a risk I would be prepared to accept - under any circumstances.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

If people aren't going to argue on points i made rather than what they imagine, what is the point.

I argued that there are procedural problems with the death penalty.

My argument is a moral objection to those who claim that it is not just to execute a murderer.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> If people aren't going to argue on points i made rather than what they imagine, what is the point.


Uhhh...you don't argue on points that we make.

Give me an "H"!
Give me a "Y"!
Give me a "P"!....we all know where that goes..


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Planethoth, an interesting point re your comment "My argument is a moral objection to those who claim that it is not just to execute a murderer." Governments have the legal power and authority to undertake these extreme measures, but do they have the "just" and moral right to execute someone? Herein lies the dichotomy of any arguement, in my opinion, about the death penalty.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Governments have the legal power and authority to undertake these extreme measures, but do they have the "just" and moral right to execute someone?


Given planethoth's past postings the answer would be a resounding "YES".


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

IronMac said:


> Uhhh...you don't argue on points that we make.
> 
> Give me an "H"!
> Give me a "Y"!
> Give me a "P"!....we all know where that goes..


Yeah you can try turning it around. Fact remains, I didn't argue that there were no legal procedure problems in capital punishment. Posters continue to insinuate that I did, focusing on the legal minutiae.

But my objection is to those people who oppose capital punishment on MORAL grounds, i.e., people who are arguing that because murder = killing and the death penalty = killing, then therefore death penalty is wrong! This is what I am opposing, any argument that makes a moral equivalence like that.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Yeah you can try turning it around. Fact remains, I didn't argue that there were no legal procedure problems in capital punishment. Posters continue to insinuate that I did, focusing on the legal minutiae.


Once again, you're avoiding the issue.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Planethoth, an interesting point re your comment "My argument is a moral objection to those who claim that it is not just to execute a murderer." Governments have the legal power and authority to undertake these extreme measures, but do they have the "just" and moral right to execute someone? Herein lies the dichotomy of any arguement, in my opinion, about the death penalty.


Ok Dr. G., that's a slightly different argument than has been made, isn't it?

If governments have any moral right to dispense justice whatsoever, what makes them illegitimate dispensers of capital justice?

The only answer would be that death is an absolutely unrepairable punishment; the individual could never be materially redressed for it IF somehow there was a mistake.

Murderers are convicted on the basis of "beyond a reasonable doubt." If you quibble with that, you are not really quibbling with the morality of the death penalty. You are quibbling with the efficacy of the justice system.

A moral right to punish does not rest on the type of punishment. It rests on the legitimacy of the conviction.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

IronMac said:


> Once again, you're avoiding the issue.


Explain, please, how I am evading the issue--I just CLARIFIED the issue. I will not argue anymore points about whether there are legal procedure issues with the death penalty!

My argument is against those who claim it is immoral to execute a murderer!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Planethoth, another interesting comment ("If governments have any moral right to dispense justice whatsoever, what makes them illegitimate dispensers of capital justice?") I would contend that governments have the legal right to dispense "capital justice", but not the moral right. Thus, they are the legitimate "dispensers" of various goods and services, among them the power to take the life of someone who has taken a life. Still, while this may be a legitimate power, it does not necessarity make it a moral right.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Planethoth, another interesting comment ("If governments have any moral right to dispense justice whatsoever, what makes them illegitimate dispensers of capital justice?") I would contend that governments have the legal right to dispense "capital justice", but not the moral right. Thus, they are the legitimate "dispensers" of various goods and services, among them the power to take the life of someone who has taken a life. Still, while this may be a legitimate power, it does not necessarity make it a moral right.


Absolutely. True. I agree.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Absolutely. True. I agree.


Add to that, though, that the fact they are legitimate dispensers of ANY justice, capital or not, does not mean that they necessarily have moral right.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Planethoth, for those who might have thought you unreasonable, we have carried on a reasonable discussion, and reached both agreement and disagreement in a civil manner. May this be our legacy on this thread. Paix.


----------



## duosonic (Jan 7, 2004)

Governments do not have "moral rights" - they have legitimacy conferred by their citizens' agreement (or by force, in the case of dictatorships & monarchies). Obviously, there is quite a spectrum of what constitutes "agreement", which is a whole other discussion.

The social contract, ie - citizens' agreement, is what conveys governments' legitimacy to dispense justice. In Canada, we strive to perfect our legal system so that it truly is a "rule of law" & that set of laws will be, theoretically & ideally, coherent, comprehensible, and acceptable to its citizens. 

The larger purposes of "rule of law" are to keep order, to punish &/or rehabilitate destrcutive & antisocial behaviours, and to do so with dependable, comprehensible consequences to infractions.

"The law" is SUPPOSED TO be dispassionate – otherwise, it would be something else entirely … such as mob rule or vigilanteism (I hope I spelled that right).

The discussion - here and elsewhere - about whether one believes or not in the death penalty is part of the process by which a society determines, develops and refines its "rule of law".

Our society, which is extremely diverse, has a long way to go in this discussion. But the discussion is definitely worth having.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

An excellent posting, duosonic. In my opinion, capital punishment is the way a government allows itself to be vengeful in the sense of revenge against someone who has taken another person's life. Still, I also believe that "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" shall leave us all blind and toothless.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Planethoth, for those who might have thought you unreasonable, we have carried on a reasonable discussion, and reached both agreement and disagreement in a civil manner. May this be our legacy on this thread. Paix.


Thanks Dr.G., I don't think I am unreasonable. Prickly, defiant, yes, unreasonable, no.

Duosonic is right that governments do not possess "moral rights" per se. However, there were people in here arguing that capital punishment is a moral wrong in and of itself. This I cannot accept, and it is what my dispute was.

As for "eye for an eye", I highly doubt that the biblical author who penned (carved?) that rule intended it to be literal. The idea of "eye for an eye" is that punishment will be seen as appropriately severe and deserved as warranted by the crime. Capital punishment is not "mob justice", it is the idea that punishment should be appropriate to the wickedness of the deed.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I have always wondered what is the good underscoring the death penalty. It may be vengence and this revenge purges some of the hurt having someone's life taken away from us as a civil society. However, this catharsis is momentary, and it is not constructive. Still, this is how I feel. Deep down, I am a pacifist and I have stood up for these beliefs in the past.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> However, there were people in here arguing that capital punishment is a moral wrong in and of itself. This I cannot accept, and it is what my dispute was.


That may be, but your justification for capital punishment is "a sense of satisfaction" hence it is morally wrong, ie., on the moral equivalent of the criminals themselves. It is not motivated by a sense to bring justice but for revenge.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> As for "eye for an eye", I highly doubt that the biblical author who penned (carved?) that rule intended it to be literal. The idea of "eye for an eye" is that punishment will be seen as appropriately severe and deserved as warranted by the crime. Capital punishment is not "mob justice", it is the idea that punishment should be appropriate to the wickedness of the deed.


As I pointed out before...would you be willing to have the criminal raped and tortured before they are put to death?

P.S. I use "raped and tortured" because that is your definition of a heinous crime.

P.P.S. I highly doubt that you know what the biblical author was really thinking in any case.


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

i'm surprised that no-one has yet pointed out that what mr hoth is proposing - "eye for an eye" (thieves have their hands cut off, murderers are executed publicly, etc) - is already in place in many parts of the arabic world which as we all know by is plagued by its "pathetic tribalism and arrested development".

wouldn't that make our culture just as bad as the muslim/arab culture you so dislike?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> I have always wondered what is the good underscoring the death penalty. It may be vengence and this revenge purges some of the hurt having someone's life taken away from us as a civil society. However, this catharsis is momentary, and it is not constructive. Still, this is how I feel. Deep down, I am a pacifist and I have stood up for these beliefs in the past.


Yes, one might argue (and I am not at all married to this argument, btw) that the emotional catharsis of revenge is useful for society (really, individuals, since society is merely abstract), and in fact comprises part of what we call justice. I am not sure whether I believe that or not, but I think there might be something to it, however faint. 

Pacifism, well, this is an ideology that promotes the extreme view (note: extreme is not used by me as a pejorative, I am also extreme!) that violence, more to the point, force, is wrong in any case at any time. In this case, a criminal justice issue, pacifism would preclude any punishment at all! For the punishment of a criminal depends on the state exercising some measure of force, as much as is necessary, to carry out its decision. Pacifism in this context makes punishment of any kind impossible.

To convince us why we shouldn't punish anyone for their crimes is a task I think even most pacifists will shy from!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Planethoth, my pacifism would not preclude any punishment in any form, and, if the truth be known, and I may be called a hypocrit for saying this, I don't preclude taking the life of another, even though I think that it is wrong. I was able to convince my draft board back in 1970 that while I might have fought in WWII, in that I felt the cause was just, I would not fight as a combat soldier in Vietnam. I was willing to serve my country, either as a teacher, or as a non-combatant soldier, but not as one who carried a gun with the intent to kill someone else. The saw the truth of my convictions and granted me a Conscientious Objector status.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

miguelsanchez said:


> i'm surprised that no-one has yet pointed out that what mr hoth is proposing - "eye for an eye" (thieves have their hands cut off, murderers are executed publicly, etc) - is already in place in many parts of the arabic world which as we all know by is plagued by its "pathetic tribalism and arrested development".
> 
> wouldn't that make our culture just as bad as the muslim/arab culture you so dislike?


Dear Señor Sanchez,

Su argumento es erróneo. "Eye for an eye" is not my preferred term, it is the one the mudslingers put on me. I adopted it in jest. Consider it a "reclaimed" phrase.

If you thought about it before attacking me, you would have considered that thieves having their hands cut off is not at all "eye for an eye". Nor, for that matter, is public execution of murderers; did I address or make claim to any desire for public executions, amigo?

Saudi Arabia is not the type of capital punishment scheme I would countenance, if it makes you feel better. Nor did I say anything that can be connected to that.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Planethoth, my pacifism would not preclude any punishment in any form, and, if the truth be known, and I may be called a hypocrit for saying this, I don't preclude taking the life of another, even though I think that it is wrong. I was able to convince my draft board back in 1970 that while I might have fought in WWII, in that I felt the cause was just, I would not fight as a combat soldier in Vietnam. I was willing to serve my country, either as a teacher, or as a non-combatant soldier, but not as one who carried a gun with the intent to kill someone else. The saw the truth of my convictions and granted me a Conscientious Objector status.


Ok, I guess you are not "orthodox" pacifist then 

But then, where did you draw the line? I see Vietnam as a defensible, if poorly executed, war against communists, and you saw at as something you could not support. Was there a philosophical "first principle" you had that defines your brand of pacifism? Or was it that you didn't agree with fighting communists, or some other more political reason?

By the way, BEFORE people jump on me about warmongering (which at any rate is not why I am asking the question): NO, I am not in favour of the draft. It was the real reason why Vietnam turned out badly. No, I am not in favour of massacres and body bags and people dying. Please no rhetoric.


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

look, i wasn't trying to attack you, just your argument. those examples were just the first two that popped into my silly little head ok? the truth is that the eye for an eye/death penalty mentality exists over there, yet you think that their culture is backward (yes i know - not your word, just can't think of a better one right now that fits here and kind of resembles "arrested development"). 

i was just saying that since you don't agree with arabs and the way they go about their daily lives, i don't think you can support the death penalty in this country.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Planethoth, I disagreed with the war in Vietnam on philosophical, political and social reasons. However, at the time, this was not a reason one could request a CO deferment, such as being a Quaker, a priest, etc. However, I was willing to go to jail for my beliefs, even though the draft board knew that my mother was born in Montreal, and they figured that I would move to Canada. I convinced them that I was genuinely in opposition to this war, and to the political leaders that had continued this war, but I was not opposed to my country, nor to the soldiers who were sent to fight. They were doing what they felt was their duty, and I was doing what I felt was my duty. If being in jail was the only place where my physical body and philosophical beliefs could be together, so be it. 

As I said, they saw the depth of my convinctions and granted me a I-AO draft status, which was a "non-combatant military service". I was drafted, but never called into service as a frontline paramedic.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

miguelsanchez said:


> look, i wasn't trying to attack you, just your argument. those examples were just the first two that popped into my silly little head ok? the truth is that the eye for an eye/death penalty mentality exists over there, yet you think that their culture is backward (yes i know - not your word, just can't think of a better one right now that fits here and kind of resembles "arrested development").
> 
> i was just saying that since you don't agree with arabs and the way they go about their daily lives, i don't think you can support the death penalty in this country.


Fair enough, bro. I don't think I would be in favour of making the death penalty to anyone but serial killers. They certainly would not be public. I am not pushing for this country to adopt the death penalty. It is low on my list of priorities, I'd say.

Let me clarify: my comments about culture DO NOT mean to imply that there is a absolute hierarchy of inferior and superior! The Arab culture no doubt is superior to us in a number of ways. Their warm personal hospitality is also legendary, and if I can judge by my experience with many recent Arab immigrants back at university, the reputation is well deserved. In this department, they would be "superior" to our culture here.

I don't want to go back to the Arab thing too much. The death penalty wouldn't be what I would call a problem of the culture, though possibly you could say it is a symptom... tribalism was my focus. A tribalism that prevents the development of a peaceful unit that exists outside of clans or factions or religious affiliations. I think it was a fair criticism. My delivery was bad. What I intended to say was that these cultural factors also complicate the claim that it is only foreign meddling that causes their problems.

I do repeat, however, that the application of the death penalty by a state that does not have an independent judiciary and possesses a shaky rule of law is nothing that I would support. I don't think this is true of Canada.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Planethoth, I disagreed with the war in Vietnam on philosophical, political and social reasons. However, at the time, this was not a reason one could request a CO deferment, such as being a Quaker, a priest, etc. However, I was willing to go to jail for my beliefs, even though the draft board knew that my mother was born in Montreal, and they figured that I would move to Canada. I convinced them that I was genuinely in opposition to this war, and to the political leaders that had continued this war, but I was not opposed to my country, nor to the soldiers who were sent to fight. They were doing what they felt was their duty, and I was doing what I felt was my duty. If being in jail was the only place where my physical body and philosophical beliefs could be together, so be it.
> 
> As I said, they saw the depth of my convinctions and granted me a I-AO draft status, which was a "non-combatant military service". I was drafted, but never called into service as a frontline paramedic.


Ok, Dr G., connect this now to how you view the death penalty. Why is it wrong to kill a murderer who killed in cold blood?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

planethoth said:


> To convince us why we shouldn't punish anyone for their crimes is a task I think even most pacifists will shy from!


This isn't my view specifically, but as I understand it, the more orthodox view of pacifism is not exactly that criminals shouldn't be punished, but that to require yourself to commit violence by punishing someone is wrong.

Consequently, the orthodox pacifists do not seek violent punishment for criminals, because that would require violence. (Nonviolent restitution is another story.) Part of the idea is that meeting violence with violence only increases the amount of violence in the world, instead of eliminating it.


----------



## ct77 (Mar 10, 2005)

.


----------



## smilecentral (Jan 27, 2005)

Indeed, I do support the death penalty.

There are far, far too many people out there causing pain and suffering to others for no reason at all (and one person is far, far too many). Why should these people not suffer and give up their rights? I do believe there are unforgiveable crimes, and that some people cannot, and should not have the chance to be, rehabilitated.

The death penalty should only be used for the worst crimes. There are people out there who commit such terrible and stomach-turning acts, that it affects more than just the victims and their families. These are crimes that are detrimental to society on a large scale. Crimes that cause people to be afraid to live their lives or leave their houses (and thus hurt the economy). 

According to the Charter, I have the following rights:
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

These monsters among us deprive us of our right to life. Why should they not forfeit theirs? This IS a revenge thing - revenge and setting an example. It's no wonder crime rates rise. Criminals are treated better than those who work to better society. I did not get a free education. I worked my butt off to get the money for school. Maybe I should just have killed someone instead, so I could get a roof over my head, three square meals a day, cable TV, a gym. There are good people in this country who do not have such cushy lives.

Some say we are condoning murder by the state - well, so what? The state is in the life business: government paid doctors and nurses bring babies into the world, and save lives every day. But we all know that our government is failing to provide enough of these men and women, and people die because of lack of treatment. Same with police, firefighters, health and food inspectors, etc. By not properly funding all of these, the government is inadvertently condoning the killing of its citizens anyway. Furthermore the government regulates some aspects of death already, including the need for death certificates, and autopsies (at times). The government can also send soldiers off to kill people in other countries (who frequently, we feel are committing horrible crimes). So, why are we so hypocritical that we will fight and kill people across the sea for crimes against humanity, but not accordingly punish those within our own borders?

I understand that our system is flawed and that a few innocents may end up being executed wrongfully (and I do mean a few. The death penalty probably shouldn't be used for anything but the most serious crimes, like serial murders, etc. Therefore the number of people being executed would be relatively low to begin with). But, must we not take that risk? Victims who are raped, tortured and/or murdered did not have the option to fight for their lives. They did not have a "justice" system protecting them. They did not have lawyers arguing for them. They did not have media coverage (until perhaps, too late).

I'm sorry if I seem passionate about this. I am. I am tired of waiting for justice to be done. I am waiting for victims' rights to supercede those of the criminals. But, I'll probably be waiting a very long time for that.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

smilecentral said:


> I am. I am tired of waiting for justice to be done. I am waiting for victims' rights to supercede those of the criminals. But, I'll probably be waiting a very long time for that.


Too often the rigths of citizens are superseeded by popular belief and mob justice. 
There has always been gross mishandling of "justice". 
Anyone familiar with the Derek Bentley case (http://www.answers.com/topic/derek-bentley) will understand that. 
It took 45 years to clear his name (after he was hung).
"Eventually, on 30 July 1998 the Court of Appeal overturned Bentley's conviction for murder 45 years earlier. In an unprecedented and damning attack, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, ruled that his predecessor and Bentley's trial judge, Lord Chief Justice Goddard, had denied Bentley "that fair trial that is the birthright of every British citizen."


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

smilecentral said:


> Indeed, I do support the death penalty.
> 
> I understand that our system is flawed and that a few innocents may end up being executed wrongfully (and I do mean a few. The death penalty probably shouldn't be used for anything but the most serious crimes, like serial murders, etc. Therefore the number of people being executed would be relatively low to begin with). But, must we not take that risk?


My goodness, what rock did you crawl out from under?

Even ONE innocent person executed is so very wrong.

Canadian courts track records in this area, are frankly dismal. How you can even think that way is beyond me.

Hopefully maturity will kick in at some point in your life.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

*Wisdom from Gandalf*

But this is terrible!' cried Frodo. 'Far worse than the worst that I imagined from your hints and warnings. O Gandalf, best of friends, what am I to do? For now I am really afraid. What am I to do? What a pity that Bilbo did not stab that vile creature, when he had a chance!' 

'Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that he took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity.' 

I am sorry,' said Frodo. 'But I am frightened; and I do not feel any pity for Gollum.' 

'You have not seen him,' Gandalf broke in.
'No, and I don't want to,' said Frodo. 'I can't understand you. Do you mean to say that you, and the Elves, have let him live on after all those horrible deeds? Now at any rate he is as bad as an Orc, and just an enemy. He deserves death.'
'Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

> Smilecentral wrote:
> I understand that our system is flawed and that a few innocents may end up being executed wrongfully (and I do mean a few. The death penalty probably shouldn't be used for anything but the most serious crimes, like serial murders, etc. Therefore the number of people being executed would be relatively low to begin with). But, must we not take that risk? Victims who are raped, tortured and/or murdered did not have the option to fight for their lives. They did not have a "justice" system protecting them. They did not have lawyers arguing for them. They did not have media coverage (until perhaps, too late).


As passionately as you feel about the need to terminate the right to life of sickening murderers, where do you draw the practical line? How sickening? How many innocents would it take to reverse this passion? Ultimately, what is a life worth to you? Why take ANY risk? What genuine good does the intentional termination of a life do? Does it satisfy some form of fundamental justice? Of whom? Of you? Of the victim's family? What if the victims family forgive the murderer (and many do for complex reasons, including their faith)? Who are you serving?

I guess I don't understand the benefits of capital punishment. I am just fixated on the act of willingly terminating a life and the possibility that that life may be truly innocent. As someone previously posted, the law is meant to be dispassionate and emotions such as retribution, revenge and satisfaction, while understandable, should play no role in "execution" of the law.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> I guess I don't understand the benefits of capital punishment.


This as I see it is the best argument for capital punishment:
"He won't murder anyone now"

This is the worst: "I'm sick of paying to keep these creeps alive."

IT COST MORE TO EXECUTE SOMEONE THAN TO KEEP THEM IN JAIL TILL THEY DIE.

People who are facing execution get more and more expensive trials that push the cost of killing them higher than keeping them incarserated. This is made nessecary by the possibility of executing innocents.

Jail is no pleasure cruise and dying in jail has got to be one of the worst ways to go. No familly to feed you and care for you. I would rather spend less not more on our murderers. Let's keep them in jail.

As for moral arguments, let's not forget that execution is as cold blooded as any kind of first degree murder. It really is hard to argue that killing is wrong when society condones it.

You may say that you don't support "public executions" but all executions except those in China and Japan are "public". These nations carry out executions without proir notification to relatives. You just get a message after the fact (in Japan) or a bill for the bullet after the fact (in China). Is this what you would sugest?

When I lived in Florida folks went to the jail where Ted Bundy was to be executed and had a big BBQ party. Don't tell me that wasn't a public execution. In fact folks where throwing BBQ parties all over the state.

As for the good of society, you will never be able to convince me that throwing BBQ parties while someone is getting fried on the electric chair is a positive thing for society. To me there is little difference in that and the old British show executions. {sarcasm} Let's make a lunch of it!{/sarcasm} After watching many Floridians make asses of them selves over this twisted man's execution I think it is clear that executions are not healthy for the public.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

It reminds one of the old argument about the state trying to separate art from pornography. If a multiple murder is the bench mark, then how many? Or murder, rape, torture. What if there are only 2 out of 3? 

I think that years ago, there may have been an economic argument, but with appeals and what not on death row, it is likely more expenisve now to condemn one to death than to house them for life.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

FWIW, despite my opposition to capital punishment, I have absolutely no reservations about irreversible castration of rapists (chemical, physical or both).


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> This as I see it is the best argument for capital punishment:
> "He won't murder anyone now"
> 
> This is the worst: "I'm sick of paying to keep these creeps alive."
> ...



Yep. It does cost more to execute people than keep them alive, b/c of appeals. The economic argument is moot.

Nope, BBQs celebrating Ted Bundy's death do not constitute "public execution". That's way, way over the top. Why shouldn't people cheer that a man who savagely raped and murdered possibly 36 women goes to the death?

And the most puzzling of all, how can you claim that execution is "just as cold-blooded" as a murder? This kind of moral equivalence is frightening!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

planethoth said:


> And the most puzzling of all, how can you claim that execution is "just as cold-blooded" as a murder? This kind of moral equivalence is frightening!


Sorry, but I find UTBJ's views not nearly a frightening as yours. Surly you can't mean what you posted. You're kidding, right?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> \
> Nope, BBQs celebrating Ted Bundy's death do not constitute "public execution". That's way, way over the top. Why shouldn't people cheer that a man who savagely raped and murdered possibly 36 women goes to the death?
> 
> And the most puzzling of all, how can you claim that execution is "just as cold-blooded" as a murder? This kind of moral equivalence is frightening!


People shouldn't throw BBQ parties over electrocutions because it is sick. It is depraved to thow a party for an execution, even a scumbag like Bundy. I would add that you were earlier claiming that you do not take delight in these events but you are now defending those who do.

I see nothing frightening in taking notice that a planned execution is cold blooded. Please expalin.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> People shouldn't throw BBQ parties over electrocutions because it is sick. It is depraved to thow a party for an execution, even a scumbag like Bundy. I would add that you were earlier claiming that you do not take delight in these events but you are now defending those who do.
> 
> I see nothing frightening in taking notice that a planned execution is cold blooded. Please expalin.


First of all, I personally would not throw a party or BBQ. I will admit to cheering a little when Uday and Qusay were done in. And when Arafat croaked. Generally, I would simply say I will not toast to their health.

Hey, making a BBQ to celebrate the death of evil people is crass and unseemly but not evil itself. What is more disturbing is making out like the act of murder and the act of punishing them by death are morally equivalent. 

What did you mean by "cold blooded" when describing the death penalty? That sounds to me like you are making a moral equivalence of the two. Just because the murderer is put to death does not make it morally equal to the murder. Not even close.

As far as you mean "cold-blooded" meaning "Without emotion", OK, I will buy that. A proper planned execution should be carried out without emotion... isn't the law supposed to curb the passions?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Generally when we say that "he murdered in cold blood" that it means he planned the murder. It was not "heat of the moment" (no song jokes please).
Executions are the same.

I dissagree about the BBQs. It is evil.

As for a moral equilavence? Murder is murder whether it is state sanctioned or not. I won't go as far as to say they are equal but it is still wrong IMNSHO.

Executions do not curb passions they flame them as I have shown in my above posts.

How do I know that executions are wrong? I shure wouldn't want to hang out with the hang man...
And I certainly wouldn't trust anyone with that job...


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> Generally when we say that "he murdered in cold blood" that it means he planned the murder. It was not "heat of the moment" (no song jokes please).
> Executions are the same.
> 
> I dissagree about the BBQs. It is evil.
> ...


How can you really believe that celebrating Ted Bundy's death is evil?? I agree it is in bad taste. I would not do it myself. But evil? Come on.

You could argue the execution stoked the passions of the mob at that moment. I am not sure that is exactly right as you framed that, but I see what you are getting at. However, this does not change the morality of his being executed.

Ted Bundy was an evil, unredeemable man who was justly punished. It is not the same as saying I think the death penalty is a great idea for the state to adopt, but it was morally right in this case. The existence of people celebrating a murderer's death seems like an insufficient reason to reject it, however.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

SINC said:


> Sorry, but I find UTBJ's views not nearly a frightening as yours. Surly you can't mean what you posted. You're kidding, right?


Um no, I am not kidding. I think there is something very frightening about not being able to distill a moral difference between the murder of innocents and the execution of the murderer. I don't make predictions, but it doesn't seem like a good precedent for humanity.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Yes, one might argue (and I am not at all married to this argument, btw) that the emotional catharsis of revenge is useful for society (really, individuals, since society is merely abstract), and in fact comprises part of what we call justice. I am not sure whether I believe that or not, but I think there might be something to it, however faint.


It's already been shown that your argument is married to the concept of "revenge".


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> But then, where did you draw the line? I see Vietnam as a defensible, if poorly executed, war against communists, and you saw at as something you could not support.


Defensible war? In what way?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Gandhi, who was lucky enough to find himself fighting a relatively benign, unmotivated and war-weary British control of his country, said the Jews shouldn't fight Hitler and the Nazis, they should just be non-violent resisters. Such a bigger fool has never been elevated to false idol status in history.


I'm surprised no one has moved to ask planethoth to explain his position on Gandhi. This ought to be interesting!


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

> How do I know that executions are wrong? I shure wouldn't want to hang out with the hang man...


interesting trivia time: in medieval times, the executioner's house was usually located well outside of the town, and also set back from the road, since no-one wanted to live near him. here is a pic of the executioner's house near salzburg, austria.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

planethoth said:


> I will admit to cheering a little when Uday and Qusay were done in. And when Arafat croaked.


I'm sure you cheer also when Israel snipers execute someone but how would you feel if someone blew G.W. Bush's brain out? How did you feel when the twin towers fell? 
When you are powerless and you take someones life it's called murder - state sanctioned does not make it correct. Violence will only attract violence.


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

smilecentral said:


> I understand that our system is flawed and that a few innocents may end up being executed wrongfully (and I do mean a few. The death penalty probably shouldn't be used for anything but the most serious crimes, like serial murders, etc. Therefore the number of people being executed would be relatively low to begin with). But, must we not take that risk?


I am curious...
Would you feel this way if you somehow ended up being falsely accused and were on death row, awaiting execution? Yes, there could be very few (if any) innocents executed wrongfully, but what if you were one of those innocents? What if it was one of your loved ones? Would it still be worth the risk?


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

IronMac said:


> I'm surprised no one has moved to ask planethoth to explain his position on Gandhi. This ought to be interesting!


I was just about to ask, actually!


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

IronMac, I think planethoth's position on Gandhi is fairly clear from his quote. In any case, that's wandering off-topic. 

Planethoth--the argument for why execution is not morally better than murder stems from the following premise: Killing another human being is immoral. Thus killing a killer is also immoral. Or in other words, two wrongs don't make a right.

Most people who hold this view also include an aspect of intent to kill. That is, accidentally killing someone is wrong, but less wrong than a calculated decision. Which is why self-defense and mental incapacity are defenses in our legal system, we have a category of manslaughter which is less severe than murder, etc. 

Execution, however, is killing someone with full intent to take that person's life. The argument essentially boils down to this: is there a justification for killing another person with full intent to do so? I say no, you appear to say yes--we're at an impasse of beliefs.


----------



## AlephNull (Jan 28, 2005)

Nice thread guys... Was a good read.

Just to go off on some tangents, earlier in this thread a poster proposed a comparison of capital punishment and corporal punishment/torture. Personally, I approve of capital punishment, but my opinion is based on a perfect justice system, something that could never occur. But even with this imperfect system, I think a variety of other possibilities exist. 

Corporal punishment, such as torture of some kind, would be reversable, and could easily take the form of a psychological punishment as opposed to actually harming the body in some way. My main reasoning behind this is that it could very easily be a deterant to many criminals. With a varying degree of punishment to the severity of the crime. But the government may have to show the punishment publically to get the message out to the general populace, and this may be seen by many as barbaric... but if it works.

If corporal punishment is seen as too barbaric, I don't see what would be wrong with making a nice cheap substitute for jail. IMHO jail nowadays is far too lax, it shouldnt be comfortable in the least, a criminal should have to suffer the entire time, constantly live in fear of the others in the jail with him, throw all the criminals in a nice big pit somewhere, provide just enough food and water to keep them all alive, and say "go." Whatever happens (murder, assault.. etc), happens, and is part of the risk of commiting a crime, makes sense to my binary brain.

Another, even less barbaric possibility could be making prison the equivalent of solitary confinement, all the time. A box too short to stand and too narrow to lie down. Enough food for sustinence is provided by remote only, no human interaction. And they stay like that for the extent of their sentence, if they go insane and are deemed unsafe to put back in society, well, they shouldnt have commited a crime, throw em back in.

Any of these would be something that a potential criminal wouldnt want to experience.. and would serve as a deterant to these people. I also think that all criminals should be sterilized, even after serving their sentence, stupid enough to commit a crime, and stupid enough to get caught, I dont want that crap in my gene pool. This may seem immature to some, and downright terrible to to others, but a similar practice could be carried out to "sick" people (psychopaths, etc), makes sense to me.

Wow, that was long.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Aleph in terms of deterrent effective social "disgrace" works wonders in some circumstances and certain crimes ( *Community justice* ) but not so well with truly violent offenders many of whom are damaged humans.
http://www.cjsonline.gov.uk/the_cjs/whats_new/news-3040.html
http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/ajac.nsf/pages/customarylawDP
http://www.ncjrs.org/criminal_justice2000/vol_2/02i2.pdf

The term used appears to be "reparative justice".

Unfortunately many incarceration facilities simple breed more sophisticated criminals.

I suspect one discussion to split off is how can society deal with damaged humans who have demonstrated that they ARE a threat to society.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

AlephNull said:


> Corporal punishment, such as torture of some kind, would be reversable, and could easily take the form of a psychological punishment as opposed to actually harming the body in some way. My main reasoning behind this is that it could very easily be a deterant to many criminals. With a varying degree of punishment to the severity of the crime. But the government may have to show the punishment publically to get the message out to the general populace, and this may be seen by many as barbaric... but if it works.
> 
> If corporal punishment is seen as too barbaric, I don't see what would be wrong with making a nice cheap substitute for jail. IMHO jail nowadays is far too lax, it shouldnt be comfortable in the least, a criminal should have to suffer the entire time, constantly live in fear of the others in the jail with him, throw all the criminals in a nice big pit somewhere, provide just enough food and water to keep them all alive, and say "go." Whatever happens (murder, assault.. etc), happens, and is part of the risk of commiting a crime, makes sense to my binary brain.


What you write reminds me of a bad Sci-Fi movie.... 

Death Penalty is not a deterrant to crime - never has been, never will be.

Have you seen jail systems around the world? It's not too lax and already again to the dog eat dog world that you would like. You don't have to go very far, in the US prison is already scary.

What I find disturbing is that you would want to give the goverment powers that read like an updated 1984.

What should be done with criminals is something that should be explored....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

What to be done....there is always France's solution


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

MacDoc,
There are a few islands here in NL that could be put to good use. Not very warm, though.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yes we could put them to work cod farming.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

What was France's solution?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Think Henri 'Papillon' Charriere.... exile on a prison island... Devil’s Island penal colony


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Australia started out a solution for England and I think perhaps a couple of the very early US colonies as well in the form of indentured workers who had a choice of prison or "off to the Americas".

Diego Garcia and Gitmo serve the US now.

Bottom line - we will have in the next 30 years 8 billion more people than the planet can sustain long term.

Tristan da Cunha will be looking very tempting.


----------

