Boston Marathon - explosion

Thirty Bills Unpaid

callen said:

Godfather. said:

callen said:

know1 said:

Godfather. said:

it's easy for me joke about "ol' sparky" but I have to say I'm still uncertin of the death penalty because of my faith, I just don't know, but if that had been my family member who was killed I may think a little harder on the death penalty.

Godfather.

Emotion shouldn't determine whether you favor the death penalty or not.

Welcome back.

Agree.

Read the posts favoring killing the Fkers and see the same emotional rage as what killers have. More killing doesn't help in any way. It hurts. Cheapens our society and though not religious agree that no one has the right to end another's life prematurely except God/natural causes. And if you do you will be punished and not allowed to walk amount us. Simple.

Thirty, Team Pj silence has reached statute of limitations. 48 hours.

if it were my family member who was killed emotion would put me prison .

Godfather.

Yeah I get that and may do the same who knows. Still in society we can't have revenge killings and can't have the state do them for us. Wrong on so many levels.

If a dad knew who the killer of his child was, stalked said killer, and murdered him... this would be a revenge killing. When the courts establish guilt and the murderer of a child (or children) is sentenced to death... this is a punishment.

Persisting in calling the DP murder is no different than proponents calling opponents sympathizers (to which many opposed take exception to).

It's clear this will always be a contentious issue. Hopefully people will look at others no differently for having opposing views- there is no right or wrong perspective to possess.

callen

Oh the simple fact that by having the death penalty, innocent people will be put to death should stop it's use immediately.

I don't have to rationalize my position

I don't have to play "What If" game.

Very clean position.

That should tell you something.


Killing is wrong period. Label it as you wish. We should be better humans than murderers.

rgambs

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

callen said:

Godfather. said:

callen said:

know1 said:

Godfather. said:

it's easy for me joke about "ol' sparky" but I have to say I'm still uncertin of the death penalty because of my faith, I just don't know, but if that had been my family member who was killed I may think a little harder on the death penalty.

Godfather.

Emotion shouldn't determine whether you favor the death penalty or not.

Welcome back.

Agree.

Read the posts favoring killing the Fkers and see the same emotional rage as what killers have. More killing doesn't help in any way. It hurts. Cheapens our society and though not religious agree that no one has the right to end another's life prematurely except God/natural causes. And if you do you will be punished and not allowed to walk amount us. Simple.

Thirty, Team Pj silence has reached statute of limitations. 48 hours.

if it were my family member who was killed emotion would put me prison .

Godfather.

Yeah I get that and may do the same who knows. Still in society we can't have revenge killings and can't have the state do them for us. Wrong on so many levels.

If a dad knew who the killer of his child was, stalked said killer, and murdered him... this would be a revenge killing. When the courts establish guilt and the murderer of a child (or children) is sentenced to death... this is a punishment.

Persisting in calling the DP murder is no different than proponents calling opponents sympathizers (to which many opposed take exception to).

It's clear this will always be a contentious issue. Hopefully people will look at others no differently for having opposing views- there is no right or wrong perspective to possess.

That is ridiculous. The first is a question of definitions and semantics, the second is proponents trying to project motives onto opponents to discredit them and further their own debate.

I don't think murder is technically correct, but I think it is a good bit closer than calling opponents sympathizers, assuming you are implying they sympathize with murderers.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

callen said:

Godfather. said:

callen said:

know1 said:

Godfather. said:

it's easy for me joke about "ol' sparky" but I have to say I'm still uncertin of the death penalty because of my faith, I just don't know, but if that had been my family member who was killed I may think a little harder on the death penalty.

Godfather.

Emotion shouldn't determine whether you favor the death penalty or not.

Welcome back.

Agree.

Read the posts favoring killing the Fkers and see the same emotional rage as what killers have. More killing doesn't help in any way. It hurts. Cheapens our society and though not religious agree that no one has the right to end another's life prematurely except God/natural causes. And if you do you will be punished and not allowed to walk amount us. Simple.

Thirty, Team Pj silence has reached statute of limitations. 48 hours.

if it were my family member who was killed emotion would put me prison .

Godfather.

Yeah I get that and may do the same who knows. Still in society we can't have revenge killings and can't have the state do them for us. Wrong on so many levels.

If a dad knew who the killer of his child was, stalked said killer, and murdered him... this would be a revenge killing. When the courts establish guilt and the murderer of a child (or children) is sentenced to death... this is a punishment.

Persisting in calling the DP murder is no different than proponents calling opponents sympathizers (to which many opposed take exception to).

It's clear this will always be a contentious issue. Hopefully people will look at others no differently for having opposing views- there is no right or wrong perspective to possess.

That is ridiculous. The first is a question of definitions and semantics, the second is proponents trying to project motives onto opponents to discredit them and further their own debate.

I don't think murder is technically correct, but I think it is a good bit closer than calling opponents sympathizers, assuming you are implying they sympathize with murderers.

I don't.

I think that the comparison is very fair... assuming (seeing as we are doing that) you are calling the state 'murderers committing murder' for carrying out the legally sanctioned punishment on behalf of society.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

callen said:

Oh the simple fact that by having the death penalty, innocent people will be put to death should stop it's use immediately.

I don't have to rationalize my position

I don't have to play "What If" game.

Very clean position.

That should tell you something.


Killing is wrong period. Label it as you wish. We should be better humans than murderers.

Correct.

We should be better humans. We should not kill other people. And when one does go and kill other people, it places the rest of society in the unenviable position where we need to determine and administer appropriate justice.

Using the extreme example of Anders Breivik... you can call state funded degrees, X-Box, internet privileges, and a robust assortment of exercise options justice for killing 77 people (mostly children); however, I don't see that as such.

callen

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

callen said:

Oh the simple fact that by having the death penalty, innocent people will be put to death should stop it's use immediately.

I don't have to rationalize my position

I don't have to play "What If" game.

Very clean position.

That should tell you something.


Killing is wrong period. Label it as you wish. We should be better humans than murderers.

Correct.

We should be better humans. We should not kill other people. And when one does go and kill other people, it places the rest of society in the unenviable position where we need to determine and administer appropriate justice.

Using the extreme example of Anders Breivik... you can call state funded degrees, X-Box, internet privileges, and a robust assortment of exercise options justice for killing 77 people (mostly children); however, I don't see that as such.

Feel we give these murderers just enough creature comfort to minimize costs. So if TV keeps them from going insane fine. Some work labor to off set costs fine as well. We need to punish and I feel life WO possibility of release should mean that.

I despise humans that end others lives. More than anything. I have hate towards them and not much forgiveness. Let them rot. At minimum cost.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

callen said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

callen said:

Oh the simple fact that by having the death penalty, innocent people will be put to death should stop it's use immediately.

I don't have to rationalize my position

I don't have to play "What If" game.

Very clean position.

That should tell you something.


Killing is wrong period. Label it as you wish. We should be better humans than murderers.

Correct.

We should be better humans. We should not kill other people. And when one does go and kill other people, it places the rest of society in the unenviable position where we need to determine and administer appropriate justice.

Using the extreme example of Anders Breivik... you can call state funded degrees, X-Box, internet privileges, and a robust assortment of exercise options justice for killing 77 people (mostly children); however, I don't see that as such.

Feel we give these murderers just enough creature comfort to minimize costs. So if TV keeps them from going insane fine. Some work labor to off set costs fine as well. We need to punish and I feel life WO possibility if release should mean that.

I despise humans that end others lives. More than anything. I have hate towards them and not much forgiveness. Let them rot. At minimum cost.

Okay... so we both agree that Norway's penal system is not something we favour.

From such an extreme position, we slide along the continuum towards the DP; however, you stop short of a sentence of death at the point where such murderers 'rot' with minimal comforts and cost.

What would you say to someone who favoured intensive rehabilitation efforts to reintegrate murderers back into society no matter what their crime was? What would you say to them when they looked at your position and called it cruel and unusual- citing the possibility of imprisoning the wrong man and the damages resulting from such a situation?

JimmyV

When Tsarnaev's rightful appeals are exhausted and his sentence carried out it will be an example of the death penalty being used correctly and appropriately.

callen

Thirty:

Humans need certain enrichment to maintain sanity. So this will include certain creature comforts. So rotting in jail may have been too strong of a word. Also giving inmates a certain level of comfort takes care of falsely imprisoned. Not like death penalty that can't be taken back. As to some seemingly liberal sentencing or comforts used by other countries, yeah probably to easy and think if you willingly end another persons life, you permanently loose your rights to live like the victim would of lived. If that makes sense. Course each case is different so 16 year old killing someone?,?,?, Nothing is black and white except ending a life that can't be taken back. Murderer or state.

Rehabilitation, first degree murder? I don't know.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

callen said:

Thirty:

Humans need certain enrichment to maintain sanity. So this will include certain creature comforts. So rotting in jail may have been too strong of a word. Also giving inmates a certain level of comfort takes care of falsely imprisoned. Not like death penalty that can't be taken back. As to some seemingly liberal sentencing or comforts used by other countries, yeah probably to easy and think if you willingly end another persons life, you permanently loose your rights to live like the victim would of lived. If that makes sense. Course each case is different so 16 year old killing someone?,?,?, Nothing is black and white except ending a life that can't be taken back. Murderer or state.

Rehabilitation, first degree murder? I don't know.

And I don't know for certain either, Callen.

I have become very pragmatic over time in almost every aspect of life. To me, It's painfully obvious that this scumbag should be sentenced to death given the nature of his crime. If he was a 16 year old gangster killing another 16 year old gangster, I would feel that prison- and perhaps some strong rehabilitation efforts- would be more appropriate.

benjs

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

callen said:

Thirty:

Humans need certain enrichment to maintain sanity. So this will include certain creature comforts. So rotting in jail may have been too strong of a word. Also giving inmates a certain level of comfort takes care of falsely imprisoned. Not like death penalty that can't be taken back. As to some seemingly liberal sentencing or comforts used by other countries, yeah probably to easy and think if you willingly end another persons life, you permanently loose your rights to live like the victim would of lived. If that makes sense. Course each case is different so 16 year old killing someone?,?,?, Nothing is black and white except ending a life that can't be taken back. Murderer or state.

Rehabilitation, first degree murder? I don't know.

And I don't know for certain either, Callen.

I have become very pragmatic over time in almost every aspect of life. To me, It's painfully obvious that this scumbag should be sentenced to death given the nature of his crime. If he was a 16 year old gangster killing another 16 year old gangster, I would feel that prison- and perhaps some strong rehabilitation efforts- would be more appropriate.

Personally, the empathetic part of me says to let (yes, I said 'let') this kid die. To me, if a person is deemed beyond reform to a statistical certainty, will never be eligible for 'reformed citizen' treatment even, and is to be starved of human connection and pleasure for the remainder of his or her life, he or she is not being treated like a human. A basic principle we ought to uphold is not the preservation of life, but the preservation of quality life (because is a life really worth living if those allowing it are allowing it with the purpose of starving it of quality). The life this 21 year old would be given, if he were not to be executed, would not be definable by any reasonable person as a quality life.

All throughout our lives we are taught that punishment has an end goal of reform ('time out' was for bad behaviour - conditioning a child to behave better; parking tickets condition us to care about the law, etc.). If there is a certainty of no reform, and there is a certainty of suffering, to let Tsarnaev live a miserable excuse of a life seems to be a sadistic interpretation of 'an eye for an eye'. If we all obeyed the 'eye for an eye' mentality and observed the suffering of those who have made us suffering smugly, we would be wiping each other out. In fact, the 'eye for an eye' mentality seems to be responsible for the perpetuation of much of the suffering we see today.

mickeyrat

benjs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

callen said:

Thirty:

Humans need certain enrichment to maintain sanity. So this will include certain creature comforts. So rotting in jail may have been too strong of a word. Also giving inmates a certain level of comfort takes care of falsely imprisoned. Not like death penalty that can't be taken back. As to some seemingly liberal sentencing or comforts used by other countries, yeah probably to easy and think if you willingly end another persons life, you permanently loose your rights to live like the victim would of lived. If that makes sense. Course each case is different so 16 year old killing someone?,?,?, Nothing is black and white except ending a life that can't be taken back. Murderer or state.

Rehabilitation, first degree murder? I don't know.

And I don't know for certain either, Callen.

I have become very pragmatic over time in almost every aspect of life. To me, It's painfully obvious that this scumbag should be sentenced to death given the nature of his crime. If he was a 16 year old gangster killing another 16 year old gangster, I would feel that prison- and perhaps some strong rehabilitation efforts- would be more appropriate.

Personally, the empathetic part of me says to let (yes, I said 'let') this kid die. To me, if a person is deemed beyond reform to a statistical certainty, will never be eligible for 'reformed citizen' treatment even, and is to be starved of human connection and pleasure for the remainder of his or her life, he or she is not being treated like a human. A basic principle we ought to uphold is not the preservation of life, but the preservation of quality life (because is a life really worth living if those allowing it are allowing it with the purpose of starving it of quality). The life this 21 year old would be given, if he were not to be executed, would not be definable by any reasonable person as a quality life.

All throughout our lives we are taught that punishment has an end goal of reform ('time out' was for bad behaviour - conditioning a child to behave better; parking tickets condition us to care about the law, etc.). If there is a certainty of no reform, and there is a certainty of suffering, to let Tsarnaev live a miserable excuse of a life seems to be a sadistic interpretation of 'an eye for an eye'. If we all obeyed the 'eye for an eye' mentality and observed the suffering of those who have made us suffering smugly, we would be wiping each other out. In fact, the 'eye for an eye' mentality seems to be responsible for the perpetuation of much of the suffering we see today.

if its life with no parole is reform necessary or a desrerd goal of the state? You can't force that or any kind of individual change without the cooperation of the one being changed.

benjs

mickeyrat said:

benjs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

callen said:

Thirty:

Humans need certain enrichment to maintain sanity. So this will include certain creature comforts. So rotting in jail may have been too strong of a word. Also giving inmates a certain level of comfort takes care of falsely imprisoned. Not like death penalty that can't be taken back. As to some seemingly liberal sentencing or comforts used by other countries, yeah probably to easy and think if you willingly end another persons life, you permanently loose your rights to live like the victim would of lived. If that makes sense. Course each case is different so 16 year old killing someone?,?,?, Nothing is black and white except ending a life that can't be taken back. Murderer or state.

Rehabilitation, first degree murder? I don't know.

And I don't know for certain either, Callen.

I have become very pragmatic over time in almost every aspect of life. To me, It's painfully obvious that this scumbag should be sentenced to death given the nature of his crime. If he was a 16 year old gangster killing another 16 year old gangster, I would feel that prison- and perhaps some strong rehabilitation efforts- would be more appropriate.

Personally, the empathetic part of me says to let (yes, I said 'let') this kid die. To me, if a person is deemed beyond reform to a statistical certainty, will never be eligible for 'reformed citizen' treatment even, and is to be starved of human connection and pleasure for the remainder of his or her life, he or she is not being treated like a human. A basic principle we ought to uphold is not the preservation of life, but the preservation of quality life (because is a life really worth living if those allowing it are allowing it with the purpose of starving it of quality). The life this 21 year old would be given, if he were not to be executed, would not be definable by any reasonable person as a quality life.

All throughout our lives we are taught that punishment has an end goal of reform ('time out' was for bad behaviour - conditioning a child to behave better; parking tickets condition us to care about the law, etc.). If there is a certainty of no reform, and there is a certainty of suffering, to let Tsarnaev live a miserable excuse of a life seems to be a sadistic interpretation of 'an eye for an eye'. If we all obeyed the 'eye for an eye' mentality and observed the suffering of those who have made us suffering smugly, we would be wiping each other out. In fact, the 'eye for an eye' mentality seems to be responsible for the perpetuation of much of the suffering we see today.

if its life with no parole is reform necessary or a desrerd goal of the state? You can't force that or any kind of individual change without the cooperation of the one being changed.

That's exactly what I'm saying, mickeyrat. With life with no parole - clearly reform is not necessary nor desired. It might be a byproduct of the years of reflection one might do when left with literally nothing else to pass the time, but it isn't the goal. The goal is quite simply to induce suffering; and a punishment without a goal of reform does not make sense to me.

I can't comprehend why we choose to induce a lifetime of misery in those who have induced years of misery in others. This seems aimless, and absurdly primitive to me. I can honestly say that, between these two options, I find a painless death penalty to be the more humane of the options.

mickeyrat

benjs said:

mickeyrat said:

benjs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

callen said:

Thirty:

Humans need certain enrichment to maintain sanity. So this will include certain creature comforts. So rotting in jail may have been too strong of a word. Also giving inmates a certain level of comfort takes care of falsely imprisoned. Not like death penalty that can't be taken back. As to some seemingly liberal sentencing or comforts used by other countries, yeah probably to easy and think if you willingly end another persons life, you permanently loose your rights to live like the victim would of lived. If that makes sense. Course each case is different so 16 year old killing someone?,?,?, Nothing is black and white except ending a life that can't be taken back. Murderer or state.

Rehabilitation, first degree murder? I don't know.

And I don't know for certain either, Callen.

I have become very pragmatic over time in almost every aspect of life. To me, It's painfully obvious that this scumbag should be sentenced to death given the nature of his crime. If he was a 16 year old gangster killing another 16 year old gangster, I would feel that prison- and perhaps some strong rehabilitation efforts- would be more appropriate.

Personally, the empathetic part of me says to let (yes, I said 'let') this kid die. To me, if a person is deemed beyond reform to a statistical certainty, will never be eligible for 'reformed citizen' treatment even, and is to be starved of human connection and pleasure for the remainder of his or her life, he or she is not being treated like a human. A basic principle we ought to uphold is not the preservation of life, but the preservation of quality life (because is a life really worth living if those allowing it are allowing it with the purpose of starving it of quality). The life this 21 year old would be given, if he were not to be executed, would not be definable by any reasonable person as a quality life.

All throughout our lives we are taught that punishment has an end goal of reform ('time out' was for bad behaviour - conditioning a child to behave better; parking tickets condition us to care about the law, etc.). If there is a certainty of no reform, and there is a certainty of suffering, to let Tsarnaev live a miserable excuse of a life seems to be a sadistic interpretation of 'an eye for an eye'. If we all obeyed the 'eye for an eye' mentality and observed the suffering of those who have made us suffering smugly, we would be wiping each other out. In fact, the 'eye for an eye' mentality seems to be responsible for the perpetuation of much of the suffering we see today.

if its life with no parole is reform necessary or a desrerd goal of the state? You can't force that or any kind of individual change without the cooperation of the one being changed.

That's exactly what I'm saying, mickeyrat. With life with no parole - clearly reform is not necessary nor desired. It might be a byproduct of the years of reflection one might do when left with literally nothing else to pass the time, but it isn't the goal. The goal is quite simply to induce suffering; and a punishment without a goal of reform does not make sense to me.

I can't comprehend why we choose to induce a lifetime of misery in those who have induced years of misery in others. This seems aimless, and absurdly primitive to me. I can honestly say that, between these two options, I find a painless death penalty to be the more humane of the options.

physically painless, emotionally painless, mentally painless? Some combination of the three?

benjs

mickeyrat said:

benjs said:

mickeyrat said:

benjs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

callen said:

Thirty:

Humans need certain enrichment to maintain sanity. So this will include certain creature comforts. So rotting in jail may have been too strong of a word. Also giving inmates a certain level of comfort takes care of falsely imprisoned. Not like death penalty that can't be taken back. As to some seemingly liberal sentencing or comforts used by other countries, yeah probably to easy and think if you willingly end another persons life, you permanently loose your rights to live like the victim would of lived. If that makes sense. Course each case is different so 16 year old killing someone?,?,?, Nothing is black and white except ending a life that can't be taken back. Murderer or state.

Rehabilitation, first degree murder? I don't know.

And I don't know for certain either, Callen.

I have become very pragmatic over time in almost every aspect of life. To me, It's painfully obvious that this scumbag should be sentenced to death given the nature of his crime. If he was a 16 year old gangster killing another 16 year old gangster, I would feel that prison- and perhaps some strong rehabilitation efforts- would be more appropriate.

Personally, the empathetic part of me says to let (yes, I said 'let') this kid die. To me, if a person is deemed beyond reform to a statistical certainty, will never be eligible for 'reformed citizen' treatment even, and is to be starved of human connection and pleasure for the remainder of his or her life, he or she is not being treated like a human. A basic principle we ought to uphold is not the preservation of life, but the preservation of quality life (because is a life really worth living if those allowing it are allowing it with the purpose of starving it of quality). The life this 21 year old would be given, if he were not to be executed, would not be definable by any reasonable person as a quality life.

All throughout our lives we are taught that punishment has an end goal of reform ('time out' was for bad behaviour - conditioning a child to behave better; parking tickets condition us to care about the law, etc.). If there is a certainty of no reform, and there is a certainty of suffering, to let Tsarnaev live a miserable excuse of a life seems to be a sadistic interpretation of 'an eye for an eye'. If we all obeyed the 'eye for an eye' mentality and observed the suffering of those who have made us suffering smugly, we would be wiping each other out. In fact, the 'eye for an eye' mentality seems to be responsible for the perpetuation of much of the suffering we see today.

if its life with no parole is reform necessary or a desrerd goal of the state? You can't force that or any kind of individual change without the cooperation of the one being changed.

That's exactly what I'm saying, mickeyrat. With life with no parole - clearly reform is not necessary nor desired. It might be a byproduct of the years of reflection one might do when left with literally nothing else to pass the time, but it isn't the goal. The goal is quite simply to induce suffering; and a punishment without a goal of reform does not make sense to me.

I can't comprehend why we choose to induce a lifetime of misery in those who have induced years of misery in others. This seems aimless, and absurdly primitive to me. I can honestly say that, between these two options, I find a painless death penalty to be the more humane of the options.

physically painless, emotionally painless, mentally painless? Some combination of the three?

Emotionally painless can't be achieved without a lobotomy. Physically painless can be achieved, as can mentally painless. So, I guess the question becomes is it acceptable to implement the death penalty when emotional pain is a certainty? Are we obligated to induce pain by years of a quasi-life with no human connection, no reprieve, no pleasure - or to induce the brief emotional pain of the certainty of the end of a life?

callen

"Life" is a tuff sentence. There have been many convicted murderers on death row that have stopped their appeals process to end the meek existence they lived.

So what are the alternatives? I maintain vehemently that putting humans to death carries with it the guarantee of miss use and in line with other western countries, feel it's bad for our society.

So life with enrichment. Certain creature comforts. Yes may cost a bit more but less than putting a person to death. The victims are spared having to go through the pain of appeals over and over and know the murderer is locked up. Limit use of solitary. . Yes some murderers will kill other inmates but it can be controlled

So I Agree imprisonment without rehabilitation or chance to get out is tuff, the alternative of killing is far worse.

callen

benjs said:

mickeyrat said:

benjs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

callen said:

Thirty:

Humans need certain enrichment to maintain sanity. So this will include certain creature comforts. So rotting in jail may have been too strong of a word. Also giving inmates a certain level of comfort takes care of falsely imprisoned. Not like death penalty that can't be taken back. As to some seemingly liberal sentencing or comforts used by other countries, yeah probably to easy and think if you willingly end another persons life, you permanently loose your rights to live like the victim would of lived. If that makes sense. Course each case is different so 16 year old killing someone?,?,?, Nothing is black and white except ending a life that can't be taken back. Murderer or state.

Rehabilitation, first degree murder? I don't know.

And I don't know for certain either, Callen.

I have become very pragmatic over time in almost every aspect of life. To me, It's painfully obvious that this scumbag should be sentenced to death given the nature of his crime. If he was a 16 year old gangster killing another 16 year old gangster, I would feel that prison- and perhaps some strong rehabilitation efforts- would be more appropriate.

Personally, the empathetic part of me says to let (yes, I said 'let') this kid die. To me, if a person is deemed beyond reform to a statistical certainty, will never be eligible for 'reformed citizen' treatment even, and is to be starved of human connection and pleasure for the remainder of his or her life, he or she is not being treated like a human. A basic principle we ought to uphold is not the preservation of life, but the preservation of quality life (because is a life really worth living if those allowing it are allowing it with the purpose of starving it of quality). The life this 21 year old would be given, if he were not to be executed, would not be definable by any reasonable person as a quality life.

All throughout our lives we are taught that punishment has an end goal of reform ('time out' was for bad behaviour - conditioning a child to behave better; parking tickets condition us to care about the law, etc.). If there is a certainty of no reform, and there is a certainty of suffering, to let Tsarnaev live a miserable excuse of a life seems to be a sadistic interpretation of 'an eye for an eye'. If we all obeyed the 'eye for an eye' mentality and observed the suffering of those who have made us suffering smugly, we would be wiping each other out. In fact, the 'eye for an eye' mentality seems to be responsible for the perpetuation of much of the suffering we see today.

if its life with no parole is reform necessary or a desrerd goal of the state? You can't force that or any kind of individual change without the cooperation of the one being changed.

That's exactly what I'm saying, mickeyrat. With life with no parole - clearly reform is not necessary nor desired. It might be a byproduct of the years of reflection one might do when left with literally nothing else to pass the time, but it isn't the goal. The goal is quite simply to induce suffering; and a punishment without a goal of reform does not make sense to me.

I can't comprehend why we choose to induce a lifetime of misery in those who have induced years of misery in others. This seems aimless, and absurdly primitive to me. I can honestly say that, between these two options, I find a painless death penalty to be the more humane of the options.

Ben, think until your actually in position to choose death over life you will never know. We have a very strong drive to live. Think of all the tuff death row inmates that slaughtered easily fighting with guards on way to death chamber.

PJfanwillneverleave1

benjs said:

mickeyrat said:

benjs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

callen said:

Thirty:

Humans need certain enrichment to maintain sanity. So this will include certain creature comforts. So rotting in jail may have been too strong of a word. Also giving inmates a certain level of comfort takes care of falsely imprisoned. Not like death penalty that can't be taken back. As to some seemingly liberal sentencing or comforts used by other countries, yeah probably to easy and think if you willingly end another persons life, you permanently loose your rights to live like the victim would of lived. If that makes sense. Course each case is different so 16 year old killing someone?,?,?, Nothing is black and white except ending a life that can't be taken back. Murderer or state.

Rehabilitation, first degree murder? I don't know.

And I don't know for certain either, Callen.

I have become very pragmatic over time in almost every aspect of life. To me, It's painfully obvious that this scumbag should be sentenced to death given the nature of his crime. If he was a 16 year old gangster killing another 16 year old gangster, I would feel that prison- and perhaps some strong rehabilitation efforts- would be more appropriate.

Personally, the empathetic part of me says to let (yes, I said 'let') this kid die. To me, if a person is deemed beyond reform to a statistical certainty, will never be eligible for 'reformed citizen' treatment even, and is to be starved of human connection and pleasure for the remainder of his or her life, he or she is not being treated like a human. A basic principle we ought to uphold is not the preservation of life, but the preservation of quality life (because is a life really worth living if those allowing it are allowing it with the purpose of starving it of quality). The life this 21 year old would be given, if he were not to be executed, would not be definable by any reasonable person as a quality life.

All throughout our lives we are taught that punishment has an end goal of reform ('time out' was for bad behaviour - conditioning a child to behave better; parking tickets condition us to care about the law, etc.). If there is a certainty of no reform, and there is a certainty of suffering, to let Tsarnaev live a miserable excuse of a life seems to be a sadistic interpretation of 'an eye for an eye'. If we all obeyed the 'eye for an eye' mentality and observed the suffering of those who have made us suffering smugly, we would be wiping each other out. In fact, the 'eye for an eye' mentality seems to be responsible for the perpetuation of much of the suffering we see today.

if its life with no parole is reform necessary or a desrerd goal of the state? You can't force that or any kind of individual change without the cooperation of the one being changed.

That's exactly what I'm saying, mickeyrat. With life with no parole - clearly reform is not necessary nor desired. It might be a byproduct of the years of reflection one might do when left with literally nothing else to pass the time, but it isn't the goal. The goal is quite simply to induce suffering; and a punishment without a goal of reform does not make sense to me.

I can't comprehend why we choose to induce a lifetime of misery in those who have induced years of misery in others. This seems aimless, and absurdly primitive to me. I can honestly say that, between these two options, I find a painless death penalty to be the more humane of the options.

We don't induce a lifetime of misery to those who do it to others.
We as a society clearly state that if you do "this" to another human then "this is what's going to happen to you.
They induce themselves with misery for having done what we told them not to do.
The victims, families and survivors were induced with a lifetime of misery and they didn't do a single thing.

oftenreading

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

callen said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

callen said:

Oh the simple fact that by having the death penalty, innocent people will be put to death should stop it's use immediately.

I don't have to rationalize my position

I don't have to play "What If" game.

Very clean position.

That should tell you something.


Killing is wrong period. Label it as you wish. We should be better humans than murderers.

Correct.

We should be better humans. We should not kill other people. And when one does go and kill other people, it places the rest of society in the unenviable position where we need to determine and administer appropriate justice.

Using the extreme example of Anders Breivik... you can call state funded degrees, X-Box, internet privileges, and a robust assortment of exercise options justice for killing 77 people (mostly children); however, I don't see that as such.

Feel we give these murderers just enough creature comfort to minimize costs. So if TV keeps them from going insane fine. Some work labor to off set costs fine as well. We need to punish and I feel life WO possibility if release should mean that.

I despise humans that end others lives. More than anything. I have hate towards them and not much forgiveness. Let them rot. At minimum cost.

Okay... so we both agree that Norway's penal system is not something we favour.

From such an extreme position, we slide along the continuum towards the DP; however, you stop short of a sentence of death at the point where such murderers 'rot' with minimal comforts and cost.

What would you say to someone who favoured intensive rehabilitation efforts to reintegrate murderers back into society no matter what their crime was? What would you say to them when they looked at your position and called it cruel and unusual- citing the possibility of imprisoning the wrong man and the damages resulting from such a situation?

Thirty, do you mean not something we favour overall, or not something we favour specifically for these rare cases of mass murderers?

Because the truth is, Norway's penal system is effective. Their recidivism rate is far lower than that of the US. Their primary focus is on rehabilitation; the expectation is that (almost) everyone can be rehabilitated, and their success rate is high. Inmates spend their time in custody learning the skills they need to function in society so they can some day be successfully released without re-offending; if they can't, then they aren't released.

The basic goals of any penal system are retribution, protection of the public, deterrence and rehabilitation. Each society decides which of these they believe are most important and which are less so. The US has essentially chosen retribution as their primary goal. People will argue that they have, in fact, chosen "public safety" as the primary goal but the evidence is clear that the way the American prison system is run actually reduces public safety as inmates kept in overcrowded and poorly designed prisons without any attempt made to address the reasons for the offending tend to be more antisocial and more criminally involved at their release than when they entered, and recidivism rates are horrendous. So the question is - is it more important to feel like we've really given them the punishment they deserve, while making our society less safe, or to actually do something effective and accept that we can't use the penal system to indulge our baser instincts for vengeance?

Edit: In my jet-lagged state I forgot the other goal of the penal system - denunciation. It fits in neatly with retribution.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Definitely the rare and obscene cases.

In the case of the 16 year old gangster murdering another 16 year old gangster, Norway's system is perfect: there is an actual effort made towards rehabilitation where rehabilitation can be appreciated. I'm pretty sure there are many in Norway that wish they could be more selective with their efforts- who's interested in rehabilitating Breivik (or people like Clifford Olson)?

I do have to tip my hat to Norway given they say they are interested in rehabilitating criminal offenders and do a good job realizing this goal. We have the same goals in North America, however our efforts fail given the fact that we really haven't made the commitment required to achieve the results (in essence... we truly don't care).

The nature of the crime drives my thought process. Let the punishment fit the crime. If you blow a bunch of people up at the Boston Marathon... you can go. If you got tangled up in a drug deal gone badly... let's work on you.

Edit: Often... this was a response to your post. I have a tablet that I might fire into the garbage. It screws up the quote feature and sometimes when I'm typing... all of a sudden my cursor has moved into the quoted portion of the text and my post has become a mess. I had a more elaborate and fancy response, but my tablet buggered it up and, after deleting the horrific draft I had assembled for myself... I moved to my laptop to offer you this..