The Death Penalty

pandora

polaris_x wrote:

i always find it ironic that a country that has a huge population interested in protecting human life that they are so comfortable killing so many people ... from capital punishment to wars to day in day out violence .. .stop murdering the fetuses! ... but go ahead and kill women and children overseas ...

What country do you speak of?
and what makes you assume all this?

dimitrispearljam

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

what about the punishment ? is a life for a life fair ?

Godfather.

and eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

exactly,correct..

its called civilization..we dont live in caves anymore..those times was eye for an eye..

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Byrnzie wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

what about the punishment ? is a life for a life fair ?

Premeditated state-sponsored revenge killing has nothing to do with fairness.

As for punishment, prison would take care of that.

You speak from a slightly idealistic general society's perspective. What of the victim's survivors perspective?

With exceptions of course, I think it's safe to suggest that most grieving parents would prefer that the rodent that (as an example) raped and killed their 8 year old daughter be strapped into a chair and executed. Call it bloodlust if you wish, but if I was placed in that position... I would demand watching the asshole fry. Call me weak, shallow, or insensitive as well, but I would not be able to summon any empathy for such a scoundrel. It would not bring my daughter back... but at least I would not need to think of what books the bastard has been reading in the relative comfort of his isolated cell or read of him getting married to some pen pal.

Should we concern ourselves at all with how we might consider the wishes or needs of the survivors- scarred and battered victims in their own right? Or do we- from a safe distance of course given that we have not been directly impacted- 'take the high road' and feel good about our level of humanistic development that we can extend mercy to someone who many feel deserves none?

I know you'll likely disagree, but I strongly feel the death penalty is appropriate in some cases.

dimitrispearljam

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

, but I strongly feel the death penalty is appropriate in some cases.

i really feel that this is the first reaction,for a human beign..
i mean,u see someone kiil 30 people,or he rape and killed,or put a bomb and the explode killed alot of people..i really think is the first reaction.,lets kill him too..
and for sure everyone thinks what if was me,or my people..what i would do?for sure i want him killed..
but i think society in general must think different...cant go in the same low level with the bad guys..with the kilers..
is very diffeicult conversation this..you are right that some people do horrible things dont deserve to live..
but lets not us play Gods,who will live or dies..
just lock those bastards for ever in jail so cant do bad to anyone else..
let them fuckin realise for the next years of their lifes,that all their millions breaths they will take,will never be Free ones...
let them u nderstand,that life is so important only when its Free..

and in the end...even if u kill the bad guy..the victim..,will not come back..

Byrnzie

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

You speak from a slightly idealistic general society's perspective. What of the victim's survivors perspective?

With exceptions of course, I think it's safe to suggest that most grieving parents would prefer that the rodent that (as an example) raped and killed their 8 year old daughter be strapped into a chair and executed. Call it bloodlust if you wish, but if I was placed in that position... I would demand watching the asshole fry. Call me weak, shallow, or insensitive as well, but I would not be able to summon any empathy for such a scoundrel. It would not bring my daughter back... but at least I would not need to think of what books the bastard has been reading in the relative comfort of his isolated cell or read of him getting married to some pen pal.

Should we concern ourselves at all with how we might consider the wishes or needs of the survivors- scarred and battered victims in their own right? Or do we- from a safe distance of course given that we have not been directly impacted- 'take the high road' and feel good about our level of humanistic development that we can extend mercy to someone who many feel deserves none?

I know you'll likely disagree, but I strongly feel the death penalty is appropriate in some cases.

And I strongly feel that it's that kind of smug, self-righteous attitude that perpetuates the hypocrisy and violence in American society.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Byrnzie wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

You speak from a slightly idealistic general society's perspective. What of the victim's survivors perspective?

With exceptions of course, I think it's safe to suggest that most grieving parents would prefer that the rodent that (as an example) raped and killed their 8 year old daughter be strapped into a chair and executed. Call it bloodlust if you wish, but if I was placed in that position... I would demand watching the asshole fry. Call me weak, shallow, or insensitive as well, but I would not be able to summon any empathy for such a scoundrel. It would not bring my daughter back... but at least I would not need to think of what books the bastard has been reading in the relative comfort of his isolated cell or read of him getting married to some pen pal.

Should we concern ourselves at all with how we might consider the wishes or needs of the survivors- scarred and battered victims in their own right? Or do we- from a safe distance of course given that we have not been directly impacted- 'take the high road' and feel good about our level of humanistic development that we can extend mercy to someone who many feel deserves none?

I know you'll likely disagree, but I strongly feel the death penalty is appropriate in some cases.

And I strongly feel that it's that kind of smug, self-righteous attitude that perpetuates the hypocrisy and violence in American society.

You describe my position as smug and self-righteous? I presented a position that people surviving violent crimes might possess- accented with a slice of personal opinion.

There can be varying opinions on the subject you introduced for discussion. Sorry mine doesn't mesh with yours. I understand you hold your position dear to you, however, that doesn't necessarily make it right. Regardless, I never attacked your character for holding it.

When you created the thread... were you thinking everyone would just simply agree?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

You speak from a slightly idealistic general society's perspective. What of the victim's survivors perspective?

ok, but you are speaking as if most victim's families would prefer the convicted be put to death, which is wholely untrue. I think those numbers are actually a lot closer than you think.

in the cases where the family of the victim opposes death for the convicted, should it be their choice then whether he lives or dies?

the whole point of making laws and having objective strangers deciding the outcome of someone's fate is to take the emotion, wherever possible, out of the equation. because that's how justice gets served.

how does killing someone serve the dead? it doesn't. they are still dead. how does killing someone serve society? it doesn't. it serves only revenge of the loved ones of the victims. is that any way to decide someone's fate?

I don't believe so.

Byrnzie

Byrnzie wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

You speak from a slightly idealistic general society's perspective. What of the victim's survivors perspective?

With exceptions of course, I think it's safe to suggest that most grieving parents would prefer that the rodent that (as an example) raped and killed their 8 year old daughter be strapped into a chair and executed. Call it bloodlust if you wish, but if I was placed in that position... I would demand watching the asshole fry. Call me weak, shallow, or insensitive as well, but I would not be able to summon any empathy for such a scoundrel. It would not bring my daughter back... but at least I would not need to think of what books the bastard has been reading in the relative comfort of his isolated cell or read of him getting married to some pen pal.

Should we concern ourselves at all with how we might consider the wishes or needs of the survivors- scarred and battered victims in their own right? Or do we- from a safe distance of course given that we have not been directly impacted- 'take the high road' and feel good about our level of humanistic development that we can extend mercy to someone who many feel deserves none?

I know you'll likely disagree, but I strongly feel the death penalty is appropriate in some cases.

And I strongly feel that it's that kind of smug, self-righteous attitude that perpetuates the hypocrisy and violence in American society.

Wouldn't any attempt to empathize with such a person immediately elevate you above him/her? Why descend to his level by cheering a pre-meditated murder that dresses itself in the cloak of 'justice'? Shouldn't the test of any just society be that it refuses to sink to the level of those it condemns?

Godfather.

dimitrispearljam wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

what about the punishment ? is a life for a life fair ?

Godfather.

and eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

exactly,correct..

its called civilization..we dont live in caves anymore..those times was eye for an eye..

why isit so different now ? believe me if someone breaks into my home and threatens my family or myself that person will be carried out of my house when it's all said and done.

why is it so hard to understand a punishment of death for killing ?
everybody here speaks so highly of their personal morals and opinions like they're the only ones who know right from wrong,useing terms like "state sanctioned revenge killing" and prison don't fix it every time...you all talk about the wrong man being exacuted but you don't talk about the ones that are guilty and spend 5 years or less in prison..well I have not heard of a drug that brings dead victims of violent crimes back to life, it's not about revenge in a court of law it's about laws that have been in place for a long time and if you kill and don't know the punishment for murder then I'd say you fucked up or your lieing.

our court systems and laws are not perfect for sure but if you take a life with out provacation it stands to reason you will forfit yours thru a court of law...you may even lose it trying to commit a murder.

Godfather.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

You speak from a slightly idealistic general society's perspective. What of the victim's survivors perspective?

ok, but you are speaking as if most victim's families would prefer the convicted be put to death, which is wholely untrue. I think those numbers are actually a lot closer than you think.

in the cases where the family of the victim opposes death for the convicted, should it be their choice then whether he lives or dies?

the whole point of making laws and having objective strangers deciding the outcome of someone's fate is to take the emotion, wherever possible, out of the equation. because that's how justice gets served.

how does killing someone serve the dead? it doesn't. they are still dead. how does killing someone serve society? it doesn't. it serves only revenge of the loved ones of the victims. is that any way to decide someone's fate?

I don't believe so.

Hugh... we've had a similar discussion before. We could have it again, but I feel we won't be any closer to reaching common ground. To address your comments:

I wish that we wouldn't have to discuss such things, but there are incidents where people cross the line in brutal fashion- leaving society to deal with the aftermath. Even though- as you put it- the victims are still dead (so why take an attitude such as mine?)... justice absolutely needs to be served. We don't disregard victims because 'what's done is done'. Similar to soldiers placing themselves at great risk to bring back bodies from the battlefield so that they may be buried with honour and dignity, we need to speak and act for those that cannot anymore because of cold, callous actions that cut their life short. It's appropriate to serve them after the fact. Acting on their behalf assists with the grieving process as well- people forced to live with the tragedy take measures of comfort.

That aside, the fundamental disagreement you and I have lies within the manner in which we deal with some offenders. I think you have implied that victims are normally distraught and being emotional... their wishes for justice are not legitimate because they are based on revenge. Even if this is the case, I'm not so sure this is a poor thing.

Regardless... let's do what you suggest and take emotion out of the equation then... both ways: let the punishment fit the crime in an objective manner. I ask you then... what sentence would be appropriate for a guy such as Clifford Olson (the child serial murderer in British Columbia)? Does 11 child murders equate to solitary confinement with prepared meals, cable television, books, internet access, and (laughably) an old age pension? Emotions aside, with all checks and balances in place... I see how one such as this should shape up.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Byrnzie wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

You speak from a slightly idealistic general society's perspective. What of the victim's survivors perspective?

With exceptions of course, I think it's safe to suggest that most grieving parents would prefer that the rodent that (as an example) raped and killed their 8 year old daughter be strapped into a chair and executed. Call it bloodlust if you wish, but if I was placed in that position... I would demand watching the asshole fry. Call me weak, shallow, or insensitive as well, but I would not be able to summon any empathy for such a scoundrel. It would not bring my daughter back... but at least I would not need to think of what books the bastard has been reading in the relative comfort of his isolated cell or read of him getting married to some pen pal.

Should we concern ourselves at all with how we might consider the wishes or needs of the survivors- scarred and battered victims in their own right? Or do we- from a safe distance of course given that we have not been directly impacted- 'take the high road' and feel good about our level of humanistic development that we can extend mercy to someone who many feel deserves none?

I know you'll likely disagree, but I strongly feel the death penalty is appropriate in some cases.

And I strongly feel that it's that kind of smug, self-righteous attitude that perpetuates the hypocrisy and violence in American society.

Wouldn't any attempt to empathize with such a person immediately elevate you above him/her? Why descend to his level by cheering a pre-meditated murder that dresses itself in the cloak of 'justice'? Shouldn't the test of any just society be that it refuses to sink to the level of those it condemns?

I'm not so sure it would be "cheering a pre-meditated murder". I think it is more along the lines of playing the hand you were dealt. It's not as if society is anxiously awaiting the opportunity to fry someone. I view capital punishment as a solemn affair that marks closure to an undesirable event: an unfortunate event that is borne out of necessity given the nature of the case.

Byrnzie

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

I'm not so sure it would be "cheering a pre-meditated murder". I think it is more along the lines of playing the hand you were dealt. It's not as if society is anxiously awaiting the opportunity to fry someone. I view capital punishment as a solemn affair that marks closure to an undesirable event: an unfortunate event that is borne out of necessity given the nature of the case.

Necessity? Why is it necessary to murder someone who is already cut off from society behind bars?

From Reflections on the Guillotine - Albert Camus:

"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."

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Byrnzie wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

I'm not so sure it would be "cheering a pre-meditated murder". I think it is more along the lines of playing the hand you were dealt. It's not as if society is anxiously awaiting the opportunity to fry someone. I view capital punishment as a solemn affair that marks closure to an undesirable event: an unfortunate event that is borne out of necessity given the nature of the case.

Necessity? Why is it necessary to murder someone who is already cut off from society behind bars?

From Reflections on the Guillotine - Albert Camus:

"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."

Camus omits the part about the fact that the murderer intitated the event and had a level of control over his actions before doing so- he brought this upon himself. Sticking with my previous example, Olson never fought the sadistic urges that moved him forward through his killing spree (at least not effectively). Camus also dismisses the victims and annoints the murderer a victim while, at the same time, equates law-abiding society forced to deal with the offence as an unparalleled monster- he obviously never met or heard of Michael Rafferty. I'm not buying it.

Why can't the punishment fit the crime?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

dimitrispearljam wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

, but I strongly feel the death penalty is appropriate in some cases.

i really feel that this is the first reaction,for a human beign..
i mean,u see someone kiil 30 people,or he rape and killed,or put a bomb and the explode killed alot of people..i really think is the first reaction.,lets kill him too..
and for sure everyone thinks what if was me,or my people..what i would do?for sure i want him killed..
but i think society in general must think different...cant go in the same low level with the bad guys..with the kilers..
is very diffeicult conversation this..you are right that some people do horrible things dont deserve to live..
but lets not us play Gods,who will live or dies..
just lock those bastards for ever in jail so cant do bad to anyone else..
let them fuckin realise for the next years of their lifes,that all their millions breaths they will take,will never be Free ones...
let them u nderstand,that life is so important only when its Free..

and in the end...even if u kill the bad guy..the victim..,will not come back..

I'll agree with you regarding the fact that these discussions are difficult. I'll also agree with you that prison would not be a fun time.

I don't think we're playing God though, Dimi. I think we're just dealing with situations that are difficult to deal with. When forced to... one side takes a hard line while the other takes a 'milder' stance. Who decides who's right?

Byrnzie

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Camus omits the part about the fact that the murderer intitated the event and had a level of control over his actions before doing so- he brought this upon himself. Sticking with my previous example, Olson never fought the sadistic urges that moved him forward through his killing spree (at least not effectively). Camus also dismisses the victims and annoints the murderer a victim while, at the same time, equates law-abiding society forced to deal with the offence as an unparalleled monster- he obviously never met or heard of Michael Rafferty. I'm not buying it.

Why can't the punishment fit the crime?

Have you read 'Reflections on The Guillotine'? No, you haven't. Does Camus dismiss the victims and annoint any murderer? No, he doesn't.


Albert Camus:

'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.'

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Byrnzie wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Camus omits the part about the fact that the murderer intitated the event and had a level of control over his actions before doing so- he brought this upon himself. Sticking with my previous example, Olson never fought the sadistic urges that moved him forward through his killing spree (at least not effectively). Camus also dismisses the victims and annoints the murderer a victim while, at the same time, equates law-abiding society forced to deal with the offence as an unparalleled monster- he obviously never met or heard of Michael Rafferty. I'm not buying it.

Why can't the punishment fit the crime?

Have you read 'Reflections on The Guillotine'? No, you haven't. Does Camus dismiss the victims and annoint any murderer? No, he doesn't.


Albert Camus:

'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.'

You left your quote there for me to digest. From what you left for me, there was much to be explained. You have now offered another quote to clarify. Byrnzie, I can go find proponents for the death penalty, quote them, and place their quotes on here to make my case for me (and look impressive to some for doing so). I'd rather try and articulate my stance on the subject myself. If I care to read Camus... then I'd go do it. I'm not interested. This subject can be discussed without intervention from scholars outside the 10C- it's really not that profound a topic.

The fact that you have read Camus and I have not does not make your position more legitimate.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

We don't disregard victims because 'what's done is done'.

... their wishes for justice are not legitimate because they are based on revenge.

what sentence would be appropriate for a guy such as Clifford Olson (the child serial murderer in British Columbia)? Does 11 child murders equate to solitary confinement with prepared meals, cable television, books, internet access, and (laughably) an old age pension? Emotions aside, with all checks and balances in place... I see how one such as this should shape up.

I did not ever suggest that victim's wishes aren't legitimate. they are, they are just clouded with emotion.

I also never suggested that we shouldn't serve justice because what is done is done. I merely pointed out that killing the perpetrator really serves no purpose other than the revenge of the living. My personal belief is that no matter what was done by the perpetrator, killing them is a useless and unreasonable reaction.

what I don't like is when people who are pro-death penalty try to paint the picture of being in prison as being some sort of holiday. most inmates conditions, save for people like Martha Stewart, are far from country club. it is a miserable existence full of violence, fear, and sometimes death.

let me say this: if it were my kid, one of my beautiful daughters, who was a victim, and I was living to mourn her, for sure I'd want the bastard dead who did it! And I'd want to do it myself! but that's not a rational or reasonable response, and why revenge killing is a crime just like any other murder.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

We don't disregard victims because 'what's done is done'.

... their wishes for justice are not legitimate because they are based on revenge.

what sentence would be appropriate for a guy such as Clifford Olson (the child serial murderer in British Columbia)? Does 11 child murders equate to solitary confinement with prepared meals, cable television, books, internet access, and (laughably) an old age pension? Emotions aside, with all checks and balances in place... I see how one such as this should shape up.

I did not ever suggest that victim's wishes aren't legitimate. they are, they are just clouded with emotion.

I also never suggested that we shouldn't serve justice because what is done is done. I merely pointed out that killing the perpetrator really serves no purpose other than the revenge of the living. My personal belief is that no matter what was done by the perpetrator, killing them is a useless and unreasonable reaction.

what I don't like is when people who are pro-death penalty try to paint the picture of being in prison as being some sort of holiday. most inmates conditions, save for people like Martha Stewart, are far from country club. it is a miserable existence full of violence, fear, and sometimes death.

let me say this: if it were my kid, one of my beautiful daughters, who was a victim, and I was living to mourn her, for sure I'd want the bastard dead who did it! And I'd want to do it myself! but that's not a rational or reasonable response, and why revenge killing is a crime just like any other murder.

I get everything you are saying. These things have never been lost on me.

Allow me to allude to your last paragraph: my position supports those like yourself (and I) who would seek and need that form of justice given the most traumatic moment of their life. As 'irrational' as the response might be from a logical 'middle way' sense... my personal position is one that allows for those who need that form of closure to get it. I don't care for these types of offenders at all- not a bit.

With the aforementioned said, I appreciate the position you have taken the time to detail for me- providing balance to the subject and food for thought to say the least.

Byrnzie

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

If I care to read Camus... then I'd go do it. I'm not interested.This subject can be discussed without intervention from scholars outside the 10C- it's really not that profound a topic.

You're not interested in what one of the 20th Century's leading intellectuals had to say on the subject?

And what could be more profound a topic than the taking of a life?

dimitrispearljam

Godfather. wrote:

why isit so different now ? believe me if someone breaks into my home and threatens my family or myself that person will be carried out of my house when it's all said and done.

why is it so hard to understand a punishment of death for killing ?
everybody here speaks so highly of their personal morals and opinions like they're the only ones who know right from wrong,useing terms like "state sanctioned revenge killing" and prison don't fix it every time...you all talk about the wrong man being exacuted but you don't talk about the ones that are guilty and spend 5 years or less in prison..well I have not heard of a drug that brings dead victims of violent crimes back to life, it's not about revenge in a court of law it's about laws that have been in place for a long time and if you kill and don't know the punishment for murder then I'd say you fucked up or your lieing.

our court systems and laws are not perfect for sure but if you take a life with out provacation it stands to reason you will forfit yours thru a court of law...you may even lose it trying to commit a murder.

Godfather.

i agree with you,that seems not fair punishment prison,for someone do horrible crimes,
believe me ,im with the good guys and not with the ones do crimes..
i dont have any interest to support them.as u said,the system of laws,not only isnt perfect,my opinion is that sucks/..i believe this need to fixed,and not just say,..:
what this guy did?he kill someone,?ok,kill him too..
when someone come to your house and threat u is different to protect your self..we are talking for someone do a crime and he gotr arrested..
as u understand we arent in wild west anymore,we have courts,we dont do public trials,in 2 min,anfd put a rope in someone throat..
we need to do seperate things than monsters..
monsters do crimes,humans need to do different..
we need to control our instincts,we arent a jungle..we are a society..