the death penalty

ed243421

scb wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

scb wrote:

Generally speaking, I would say that education has cured more of the world's ills than violence ever has.

it can also be argued that lack of education can lead to increased violence. the less sophisticated a society is the more violent it is.

Good point.

i believe the u.s. is one of the highest educated countries in the world
and also one of the most violent

Hugh Freaking Dillon

I would have to agree with that, ed243421.

ed243421 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

it can also be argued that lack of education can lead to increased violence. the less sophisticated a society is the more violent it is.

i believe the u.s. is one of the highest educated countries in the world
and also one of the most violent

_

ed243421 wrote:

i believe the u.s. is one of the highest educated countries in the world
and also one of the most violent

I guess I meant more at an individual level.

FiveB247x

That's not true - in terms of basic skills like reading levels, math skills and geography, we're not the highest educated.

ed243421 wrote:

i believe the u.s. is one of the highest educated countries in the world
and also one of the most violent

chadwick

FiveB247x wrote:

That's not true - in terms of basic skills like reading levels, math skills and geography, we're not the highest educated.

ed243421 wrote:

i believe the u.s. is one of the highest educated countries in the world
and also one of the most violent

fuck no we are not.
we are gracefully falling further behind all the time.
the death penalty has zero to do with advanced learning.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

he said ONE OF, not THE. One of the highest educated countries in the world is true.

chadwick wrote:

FiveB247x wrote:

That's not true - in terms of basic skills like reading levels, math skills and geography, we're not the highest educated.

ed243421 wrote:

i believe the u.s. is one of the highest educated countries in the world
and also one of the most violent

fuck no we are not.
we are gracefully falling further behind all the time.
the death penalty has zero to do with advanced learning.

so then, why, Chadwick, is the US the only industrialized nation left that does it?

chadwick

Billy Pumpkin wrote:

so then, why, Chadwick, is the US the only industrialized nation left that does it?

im sure china is industrialized and executes its nasty monsters.
the u.s. does it because we are plagued with nasty fuckers that harm innocence.

Byrnzie

As far as I'm concerned if you support the death penalty then you are no better than the sickest of all sick fucks.

If you support the clinical snuffing out of a life in the name of 'justice' then you are the worst kind of hypocrite and represent everything that's wrong with the human race.

Byrnzie

I posted this in another thread some time ago but I'll post it here again as I think it has the ring of truth to it:


Albert Camus:

http://isak.typepad.com/isak/2008/03/al ... us-re.html

"No government is innocent enough or wise enough or just enough to lay down to so absolute a power as death."

" ... the moral contradiction inherent in a policy which imitates the violence it claims to abhor and in fact premeditates it."

"To assert, in any case, that a man must be absolutely cut off from society because he is absolutely evil amounts to saying that society is absolutely good, and no one in his right mind will believe this today."

"For there to be equivalence, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him to his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life."

http://pewforum.org/deathpenalty/resour ... der/21.php
'Could not justice concede to the criminal the same weakness in which society finds a sort of permanent extenuating circumstance for itself? Can the jury decently say: “If I kill you by mistake, you will forgive me when you consider the weaknesses of our common nature. But I am condemning you to death without considering those weaknesses or that nature"? There is a solidarity of ill men in error and aberration. Must that solidarity operate for the tribunal and be denied the accused? No, and if justice has any meaning in this world, it means nothing but the recognition of that solidarity; it cannot, by its very essence, divorce itself from compassion. Compassion, of course, can in this instance be but awareness of a common suffering and not a frivolous indulgence paying no attention to the sufferings and rights of the victim. Compassion does not exclude punishment, but it suspends the final condemnation. Compassion loathes the definitive, irreparable measure that does an injustice to mankind as a whole because of failing to take into account the wretchedness of the common condition.'



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection ... Guillotine
'Camus's main point in his argument against capital punishment is its ineffectiveness. Camus points out that in countries where the death penalty has already been abandoned crime has not risen. He explains this by arguing that the world has changed so that capital punishment no longer serves as the deterrent that it may once have been. In Camus's father's day the guillotine was still used to execute criminals in public but by the time Camus wrote his essay executions took place privately in prisons. Although Camus approved of conducting the executions in private he argued that it removed the element of deterrence and rendered the death penalty as merely a means for the state to dispose of those whom it saw as irremediable.

Camus also argued that the threat of death is insufficient to prevent people from committing crimes as death is the common fate shared by all, regardless of guilt. He also believed that because most murders are not premeditated no deterrent can be effective and in the case of premeditated murder the deterrent would be insufficient to stop those who have already decided to act.

Without serving a purpose Camus argued that capital punishment is reduced to an act of revenge that only breeds further violence, fueled only by sadism and perpetuated by tradition. He likened this act of state revenge to the concept of an eye for an eye and stated that justice should be based on law and principles and not instinct and emotions.

Although Camus opposed the use of capital punishment today, he gives examples in the essay of how it may have been logical and appropriate in pious civilizations. In such civilizations Camus states that the death penalty was usually administered by the Church in order to deprive the convicted of the divine gift of life. However, by doing so, the convicted would then face judgement and have the chance of atonement at the hands of God. In an unbelieving world, Camus argues, the convicted is given no chance of atonement. The process takes place completely separate from the convict and simply dismisses him as beyond salvation or remedy.

Camus also stated that in an unbelieving world there is no absolute authority capable of delivering judgement as no man possesses absolute innocence himself. Because of this Camus suggested that the maximum penalty should be set at life labor due to the possibility of judicial error, a life of labor in Camus's opinion being harsher than death but at least carrying the possibility of being reversed. The convicted would then also always have the option of choosing death via suicide.

Camus also argued that capital punishment was inappropriate because by effecting revenge for grievances it simultaneously hurts the family and loved ones of the convict in the same manner as those being avenged were hurt by the initial crime.'

cincybearcat

Byrnzie wrote:

As far as I'm concerned if you support the death penalty then you are no better than the sickest of all sick fucks.

If you support the clinical snuffing out of a life in the name of 'justice' then you are the worst kind of hypocrite and represent everything that's wrong with the human race.

Kinda harsh, no?

I can't help but feel like some people do not deserve to live any longer and others need to be protected from them.

But I see the point of others as well. I usually am just about to give up my support of it and then some jackass shoots his 6 month old kid in front of people. Cut and dry case...definitely guilty. And it makes it hard to say that he shouldn't be put to death.

chadwick

Byrnzie wrote:

As far as I'm concerned if you support the death penalty then you are no better than the sickest of all sick fucks.

If you support the clinical snuffing out of a life in the name of 'justice' then you are the worst kind of hypocrite and represent everything that's wrong with the human race.

thank you very much.
this means a lot coming from you.

i am now no better than the sickest of the sick.
interesting.

i guess i am damaged like a child predator, torturing rapist, or serial killer.
it is awesome to finally be among these beasts, yet i have done nothing like they have.
shit, all i have done lately is smoke a little weed.

Byrnzie

cincybearcat wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

As far as I'm concerned if you support the death penalty then you are no better than the sickest of all sick fucks.

If you support the clinical snuffing out of a life in the name of 'justice' then you are the worst kind of hypocrite and represent everything that's wrong with the human race.

Kinda harsh, no?

I can't help but feel like some people do not deserve to live any longer and others need to be protected from them.

But I see the point of others as well. I usually am just about to give up my support of it and then some jackass shoots his 6 month old kid in front of people. Cut and dry case...definitely guilty. And it makes it hard to say that he shouldn't be put to death.

Murder the murderer?

Someone may shoot their kid, and for what reason? Could that individual be considered sane? Probably not. Whatever way you look at it, to then carry out a pre-meditated, clinical snuffing out of this individuals life makes you worse in my opinion. At least a child murderer has insanity as his excuse. What's your excuse? (And I don't mean 'you' personally).

Those who support the death penalty place themselves on some sort of higher pedestal in the name of justice. But it's a pretty warped and perverse sense of justice. The kind of murder involved in a state execution is just as - if not more - depraved than any other type of murder outside of those prison walls, simply for the fact that it's carried out in the name of something supposedly 'good', 'decent', and 'just'. It reeks of the lowest kind of hypocrisy.

Any murder is a tragedy, but it's also a tragedy for the murderer in my opinion. That murderer was a child once. Whenever such a thing occurs I think society needs to take a good look at itself, as opposed to simply wetting it's lips over the prospect of watching another individual fry.

Byrnzie

chadwick wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

As far as I'm concerned if you support the death penalty then you are no better than the sickest of all sick fucks.

If you support the clinical snuffing out of a life in the name of 'justice' then you are the worst kind of hypocrite and represent everything that's wrong with the human race.

thank you very much.
this means a lot coming from you.

i am now no better than the sickest of the sick.
interesting.

i guess i am damaged like a child predator, torturing rapist, or serial killer.
it is awesome to finally be among these beasts, yet i have done nothing like they have.
shit, all i have done lately is smoke a little weed.

I wasn't speaking specifically about you, but if you want to spend 50 pages of a thread cheering state-sanctioned, clinical murder then don't expect a pat on the back from me.

_

cincybearcat wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

As far as I'm concerned if you support the death penalty then you are no better than the sickest of all sick fucks.

If you support the clinical snuffing out of a life in the name of 'justice' then you are the worst kind of hypocrite and represent everything that's wrong with the human race.

Kinda harsh, no?

I can't help but feel like some people do not deserve to live any longer and others need to be protected from them.

But I see the point of others as well. I usually am just about to give up my support of it and then some jackass shoots his 6 month old kid in front of people. Cut and dry case...definitely guilty. And it makes it hard to say that he shouldn't be put to death.

So it sounds like you're saying your position is based on emotion then, no?

_

Byrnzie wrote:

I posted this in another thread some time ago but I'll post it here again as I think it has the ring of truth to it:


Albert Camus:

http://isak.typepad.com/isak/2008/03/al ... us-re.html

"No government is innocent enough or wise enough or just enough to lay down to so absolute a power as death."

" ... the moral contradiction inherent in a policy which imitates the violence it claims to abhor and in fact premeditates it."

"To assert, in any case, that a man must be absolutely cut off from society because he is absolutely evil amounts to saying that society is absolutely good, and no one in his right mind will believe this today."

"For there to be equivalence, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him to his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life."

http://pewforum.org/deathpenalty/resour ... der/21.php
'Could not justice concede to the criminal the same weakness in which society finds a sort of permanent extenuating circumstance for itself? Can the jury decently say: “If I kill you by mistake, you will forgive me when you consider the weaknesses of our common nature. But I am condemning you to death without considering those weaknesses or that nature"? There is a solidarity of ill men in error and aberration. Must that solidarity operate for the tribunal and be denied the accused? No, and if justice has any meaning in this world, it means nothing but the recognition of that solidarity; it cannot, by its very essence, divorce itself from compassion. Compassion, of course, can in this instance be but awareness of a common suffering and not a frivolous indulgence paying no attention to the sufferings and rights of the victim. Compassion does not exclude punishment, but it suspends the final condemnation. Compassion loathes the definitive, irreparable measure that does an injustice to mankind as a whole because of failing to take into account the wretchedness of the common condition.'



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection ... Guillotine
'Camus's main point in his argument against capital punishment is its ineffectiveness. Camus points out that in countries where the death penalty has already been abandoned crime has not risen. He explains this by arguing that the world has changed so that capital punishment no longer serves as the deterrent that it may once have been. In Camus's father's day the guillotine was still used to execute criminals in public but by the time Camus wrote his essay executions took place privately in prisons. Although Camus approved of conducting the executions in private he argued that it removed the element of deterrence and rendered the death penalty as merely a means for the state to dispose of those whom it saw as irremediable.

Camus also argued that the threat of death is insufficient to prevent people from committing crimes as death is the common fate shared by all, regardless of guilt. He also believed that because most murders are not premeditated no deterrent can be effective and in the case of premeditated murder the deterrent would be insufficient to stop those who have already decided to act.

Without serving a purpose Camus argued that capital punishment is reduced to an act of revenge that only breeds further violence, fueled only by sadism and perpetuated by tradition. He likened this act of state revenge to the concept of an eye for an eye and stated that justice should be based on law and principles and not instinct and emotions.

Although Camus opposed the use of capital punishment today, he gives examples in the essay of how it may have been logical and appropriate in pious civilizations. In such civilizations Camus states that the death penalty was usually administered by the Church in order to deprive the convicted of the divine gift of life. However, by doing so, the convicted would then face judgement and have the chance of atonement at the hands of God. In an unbelieving world, Camus argues, the convicted is given no chance of atonement. The process takes place completely separate from the convict and simply dismisses him as beyond salvation or remedy.

Camus also stated that in an unbelieving world there is no absolute authority capable of delivering judgement as no man possesses absolute innocence himself. Because of this Camus suggested that the maximum penalty should be set at life labor due to the possibility of judicial error, a life of labor in Camus's opinion being harsher than death but at least carrying the possibility of being reversed. The convicted would then also always have the option of choosing death via suicide.

Camus also argued that capital punishment was inappropriate because by effecting revenge for grievances it simultaneously hurts the family and loved ones of the convict in the same manner as those being avenged were hurt by the initial crime.'

_

chadwick wrote:

i am now no better than the sickest of the sick.

Now!? Hell, I've been saying that all along!

chadwick

Byrnzie wrote:

I wasn't speaking specifically about you, but if you want to spend 50 pages of a thread cheering state-sanctioned, clinical murder then don't expect a pat on the back from me.

it doesn't have to be state sanctioned either.
i enjoy vigilantly justice the most.
that is truly a lost art form.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

sorry, meant to say developed country, along with Singapore, Taiwan, and Japan.

did you know that the US is the only country in the WORLD that executes child offenders? as in those under 18? and it's actually against international law, which the US says it's above?

chadwick wrote:

Billy Pumpkin wrote:

so then, why, Chadwick, is the US the only industrialized nation left that does it?

im sure china is industrialized and executes its nasty monsters.
the u.s. does it because we are plagued with nasty fuckers that harm innocence.

SolarWorld

I've always had the convenience to judge the death penalty from a distance. But a few weeks ago a good friend of mine was murdered by a friend of his, someone I know and have hung out with as well. His story of self defense does not match the ballistic evidence which shows my friend was sitting in a chair and was shot from the back and to the side at close range in the head. This was in a death penalty state, he has tons of priors of violent crimes his whole life. Has done time in a state pen. I could see him getting the death penalty and honestly I could give two shits if they put this POS down right now. I hope he's getting treated real nicely in prison.

_

SolarWorld wrote:

I've always had the convenience to judge the death penalty from a distance. But a few weeks ago a good friend of mine was murdered by a friend of his, someone I know and have hung out with as well. His story of self defense does not match the ballistic evidence which shows my friend was sitting in a chair and was shot from the back and to the side at close range in the head. This was in a death penalty state, he has tons of priors of violent crimes his whole life. Has done time in a state pen. I could see him getting the death penalty and honestly I could give two shits if they put this POS down right now. I hope he's getting treated real nicely in prison.

I am so SO sorry that you are having to go through this! There's not much worse in the world than losing a good friend, especially to senseless violence. Feel free to PM me if you ever need to talk.