The act of taking a life does little to teach people about respecting life.
I agree but i also would like to add that locking someone up for the rest of their life in a place that only teaches them more new ways of killing and forces them to be the toughest or get raped or killed,is not going to teach them to respect life either.
Not saying that they should get away with their crime,just think that their can be other ways to maybe turn a few of them around?!
I agree but i also would like to add that locking someone up for the rest of their life in a place that only teaches them more new ways of killing and forces them to be the toughest or get raped or killed,is not going to teach them to respect life either.
Not saying that they should get away with their crime,just think that their can be other ways to maybe turn a few of them around?!
Unfortunately, I think that's the best we can do for now. We have to put these people somewhere. And wherever we put them, they're going to act the way they've been acting.
Also worth mentioning here is that our jails and prisons are overcrowded. It's hard to make jail or prison a rehabilitative atmosphere when you got like 3-4 guys in a cell designed for 2 maximum.
At any rate, regardless of overcrowding, I doubt that society is intentionally making prison a place where people get raped and beaten.
Of course, the most "civilized" and probably the most productive alternative would be to put everyone into some kind of rehab-esque kind of atmosphere, where the criminals can go to therapy and talk about their problems so that someone can get to the bottom of what made these people into monsters.
But, we'd be talking about a lot of money that our government will probaby never even come close to having. Therapists cost a lot of money. And to maintain a "safe" environment for so many people, it would cost even more money.
I think a big mistake was Nancy Reagan's zero tolerance policy. If I'm not mistaken, that policy alone made the biggest contribution to jail overcrowding, and didn't even make a significant dent in drug abuse. These people belong in a rehab facility, not prison. So, perhaps that would be the first step towards making the world a perfect place.
A humans life is precious. If someone goes and destroys a human life (i.e. murder) the only punishment that can validate the preciousness of the life taken by murder is punishment by death. There are other options but that's where I choose to take my stance. That's the blunt answer b/c I don't feel like typing everything out.
A humans life is precious. If someone goes and destroys a human life (i.e. murder) the only punishment that can validate the preciousness of the life taken by murder is punishment by death. There are other options but that's where I choose to take my stance. That's the blunt answer b/c I don't feel like typing everything out.
the first and the second sentences are contradicting one each other.
I find it worrying that people not involved directly in the problem (people that didn't suffer of the killing of a relative, etc) can call for killing someone (through death penalty) so easily.
A humans life is precious. If someone goes and destroys a human life (i.e. murder) the only punishment that can validate the preciousness of the life taken by murder is punishment by death. There are other options but that's where I choose to take my stance. That's the blunt answer b/c I don't feel like typing everything out.
Surely you can see the contradiction and hypocrisy in that?
Here are a couple:
A. If a human's life is precious, then why are we sanctioning ending it.
B. If we have to punish those who kill by killing them, then the jury, judge & executioner should also be killed
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
no, it's not revenge. Revenge implies resentfulness and vindictiveness. If the murderer was killed in the streets in would be a revenge killing. If the murderer has gone through procedure and the law was followed and the law allows for putting a man to death it is not revenge. You can perceive it as revenge but it's not, in my mind.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
the first and the second sentences are contradicting one each other.
I find it worrying that people not involved directly in the problem (people that didn't suffer of the killing of a relative, etc) can call for killing someone (through death penalty) so easily.
where did i say it was easy to call for killing. In every post I've written about this I say this is something to take VERY seriously and it should be exercised with extreme care. quit putting words in my mouth about how easily I can call for someones execution. the fact that I have an opinion on the matter that is different than yours does not mean that it's flippant.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
Surely you can see the contradiction and hypocrisy in that?
Here are a couple:
A. If a human's life is precious, then why are we sanctioning ending it.
B. If we have to punish those who kill by killing them, then the jury, judge & executioner should also be killed
b/c of the action of murder. A person bears responsibility for their actions and murder is something that, in my opinion, is the most heinous act.
If the judge jury and executioner perform the murder in the street, i agree with you 100% on part B.
there is one alternative to capital punishment that I think can be enacted. complete and total solitary confinement in a cage with no windows for the rest of the murderers life. So it's like he's dead to society, family etc... but he's still alive knowing full well he'll never see anyone again.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
where did i say it was easy to call for killing. In every post I've written about this I say this is something to take VERY seriously and it should be exercised with extreme care. quit putting words in my mouth about how easily I can call for someones execution. the fact that I have an opinion on the matter that is different than yours does not mean that it's flippant.
well, YOU have the opinion that a person shhould be killed, that's what i meant. Now I don't know if you're involved somehow (if they killed a relative of your, etc), but if not, you think that someone that doesn't interfere with your life should be killed. And i find it worrying.
well, YOU have the opinion that a person shhould be killed, that's what i meant. Now I don't know if you're involved somehow (if they killed a relative of your, etc), but if not, you think that someone that doesn't interfere with your life should be killed. And i find it worrying.
I think the option should be available and used with care, yes I do. I think that someone who has endangered society doing the most heinous act possible should have to take responsibility for their actions. I'm sorry you find it worrying, but just give me credit that it is not an easy decision and one that i take lightly, I just happen to weigh the options and (gasp) disagree with you. I'm not saying I'm right and your opinion is wrong, they are just different and we can both present valid reasons for our belief, whether or not you want to accept the reasons is a different thing.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
no, it's not revenge. Revenge implies resentfulness and vindictiveness. If the murderer was killed in the streets in would be a revenge killing. If the murderer has gone through procedure and the law was followed and the law allows for putting a man to death it is not revenge. You can perceive it as revenge but it's not, in my mind.
Sorry -- I don't get why the location of the killing is relevant to the question of whether or not it was vengeful. Out on the street -- revenge, but strapped to a gurney with a needle stuck in your arm -- not revenge? I don't get why it matters.
(And I'm not sure I agree with you that revenge implies resentfulness and vindictiveness. Most supporters of the death penalty call themselves retributivists -- they seek retribution for the murder. Retribution is a fancy word for revenge that intellectuals use to deny they're seeking revenge.)
I also wonder if you demand this kind of accountability from all murderers. If not, how do we decide which murderers to seek the death penalty for? Because right now, in our system of justice, local prosecutors have a lot of discretion over these things.
"Things will just get better and better even though it
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
Sorry -- I don't get why the location of the killing is relevant to the question of whether or not it was vengeful. Out on the street -- revenge, but strapped to a gurney with a needle stuck in your arm -- not revenge? I don't get why it matters.
(And I'm not sure I agree with you that revenge implies resentfulness and vindictiveness. Most supporters of the death penalty call themselves retributivists -- they seek retribution for the murder. Retribution is a fancy word for revenge that intellectuals use to deny they're seeking revenge.)
I also wonder if you demand this kind of accountability from all murderers. If not, how do we decide which murderers to seek the death penalty for? Because right now, in our system of justice, local prosecutors have a lot of discretion over these things.
the location was to show the difference b/t procedure and a "vengence is mine" attitude. The only way i feel it is appropriate to take a human life is if you can show through proper procedure the person is at fault. If you take away procedure and take matters into your own hands you are not respecting the life of the person in question. the death penalty is a punishment that you had better be 100% right about in exercising. If there is doubt about guilt, it should not be instituted at all.
You may be right about retributionist, i'll concede that. To me revenge has a vindictive side to it, and I'm sure that a lot of people have the vindictive position...esp the family of the murdered.
I haven't given much thought to which type of murderers deserve the death penalty and i agree that the prosecuters do have control over who gets what. My biggest concern with the death penalty is ensuring that if it is carried out that the wrong person isn't put to death, which tragically happens.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
no, it's not revenge. Revenge implies resentfulness and vindictiveness. If the murderer was killed in the streets in would be a revenge killing. If the murderer has gone through procedure and the law was followed and the law allows for putting a man to death it is not revenge. You can perceive it as revenge but it's not, in my mind.
The only difference is that, in the case of a state sanctioned execution, the chances of mistaken identity are greatly reduced. So, by that rationale, all you're saying is that revenge ceases to be revenge if one is reasonably sure of who is being revenged upon.
But, I think that just because we have determined for sure who is responsible for the crime doesn't mean that we aren't being vindictive and vengeful when we demand his execution. It just means we're careful.
After all, isn't that why executions are witnessed by the victim's immediate family? You don't think they are being resentful and vindictive by taking pleasure in seeing the execution?
"Due process" doesn't change our motivations. It only keeps up the appearance of order within our society.
It's sort of like mob killings. Prior to the creation of the "commission" in the early 1900's, mobsters did not need a "go ahead" to do a hit on another mobster. Maranzano changed that when he created the five famlies and the commission to oversee the activities of those families.
Under your rationale, the act of getting a "go ahead" from a commission takes the vindictiveness and revenge out of mob hits.
The only morally justifiable reason to take another person's life is to protect your own or the life of another. When a killer is behind bars, the "self-defense" rationale is no longer valid as he is no longer a threat to society.
Therefore, the only reason why anyone would want to execute that person would strictly be for the act of revenge. There is no other reason.
You might say that the death penalty serves as a deterrent. But, does it really? Do murderers really care if they might someday face the electric chair for their actions? Statistics don't seem to support that notion.
It kind of reminds me of alcoholics who think they're not true alcoholics because they only drink the expensive stuff. That is, in their minds, alcoholics are the winos on the street who drink ernest & gallo and ask for hand-outs. Yes, there really are alcoholics out there who really do believe they are different because they aren't drinking cheap alcohol.
In this case, "due process" is the expensive stuff, and "street revenge" is ernest & gallo. That is, you think a trial by judge and jury takes the ugliness out of revenge as we live in a so-called "civilized" society.
Alcoholism is alcoholism just as revenge is revenge.
The only way i feel it is appropriate to take a human life is if you can show through proper procedure the person is at fault. If you take away procedure and take matters into your own hands you are not respecting the life of the person in question. the death penalty is a punishment that you had better be 100% right about in exercising. If there is doubt about guilt, it should not be instituted at all.
This is really interesting because this is one of the proposals to reform the death penalty.
Right now, in all 36 (or 38?) states that have the death penalty and the federal system, the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt" -- which is NOT 100% sure. Try to get a lawyer tell you HOW SURE you have to be to be beyond a reasonable doubt -- they all have a different number. But one thing they are agreed on is that it's NOT 100%.
Some have argued that juries use a different standard of proof in death penalty cases. That standard would be that there's absolutely no doubt -- they are 100% sure that the defendant committed the crime.
Most prosecutors and police are against this standard because it doesn't give them any room for error. And they're willing to have room for error even in death penalty cases.
"Things will just get better and better even though it
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Some have argued that juries use a different standard of proof in death penalty cases. That standard would be that there's absolutely no doubt -- they are 100% sure that the defendant committed the crime.
Most prosecutors and police are against this standard because it doesn't give them any room for error. And they're willing to have room for error even in death penalty cases.
there should be no room for error in the death penalty. It is a VERY permanant penalty.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
there should be no room for error in the death penalty. It is a VERY permanant penalty.
I completely agree. Sadly, the way the death penalty is administered in the US, it's riddled with errors.
"Things will just get better and better even though it
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
The only difference is that, in the case of a state sanctioned execution, the chances of mistaken identity are greatly reduced. So, by that rationale, all you're saying is that revenge ceases to be revenge if one is reasonably sure of who is being revenged upon.
it ceases to be revenge if due process and the legally allowed procedure is followed. that is what I'm saying. I am more comfortable with the death penalty if they are 100% sure they have the right person. I'm not comfortable with it if there is doubt.
But, I think that just because we have determined for sure who is responsible for the crime doesn't mean that we aren't being vindictive and vengeful when we demand his execution. It just means we're careful.
After all, isn't that why executions are witnessed by the victim's immediate family? You don't think they are being resentful and vindictive by taking pleasure in seeing the execution?
"Due process" doesn't change our motivations. It only keeps up the appearance of order within our society.
i'm not saying there aren't people in attendance who it's not revenge for; I'm not crazy enough to think that. I bet a majority of the people who were affected are there b/c of revenge. I think the persons actions have earned the death penalty.
It's sort of like mob killings. Prior to the creation of the "commission" in the early 1900's, mobsters did not need a "go ahead" to do a hit on another mobster. Maranzano changed that when he created the five famlies and the commission to oversee the activities of those families.
Under your rationale, the act of getting a "go ahead" from a commission takes the vindictiveness and revenge out of mob hits.
The only morally justifiable reason to take another person's life is to protect your own or the life of another. When a killer is behind bars, the "self-defense" rationale is no longer valid as he is no longer a threat to society.
Therefore, the only reason why anyone would want to execute that person would strictly be for the act of revenge. There is no other reason.
No mob hits are always revenge and murder by definition. The legal due process, for me takes away the revenge factor. If you break the law but follow process (mob hit by committee) it is still revenge b/c it's not legal and it is about revenge.
I agree that self defense is morally acceptable. Another reason is to take responsibility for an action.
You might say that the death penalty serves as a deterrent. But, does it really? Do murderers really care if they might someday face the electric chair for their actions? Statistics don't seem to support that notion.
I don't think it's a deterrent; if it serves as one to some great, but that's not what the primary motive is for me. For me it's about accountability.
In this case, "due process" is the expensive stuff, and "street revenge" is ernest & gallo. That is, you think a trial by judge and jury takes the ugliness out of revenge as we live in a so-called "civilized" society.
Alcoholism is alcoholism just as revenge is revenge.
why would the jury be out for revenge on the murderer and why would the judge be out for revenge???
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Okay, I'll bite. What has Phineas Gage got to do with any of this?
"Things will just get better and better even though it
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
Okay, I'll bite. What has Phineas Gage got to do with any of this?
The man suffered damage to his prefrontal cortex and it altered his ability to gauge right from wrong. He became more violent and unruly, though to what degree is debated.
It is possible a person that commits murder is suffering from some kind of brain malfunction or abnormality. Perhaps we should treat is as a disorder as opposed to a concious decision.
We can all agree if someone kills another, such as the amish school case, there is something seriously wrong with them. Perhaps they were beaten as a child and it caused damage to their brain. Or perhaps their perspectives of reality spawn from the psychological affects of a violent upbringing.
We should all be able to agree that no people are born violent.
I just think we should try to understand people before we go ahead and execute them. We might be able to prevent future murders if we understand why they happen in the first place. Also, if a person does have a disorder or a brain damage that causes them to kill, is it still ok to execute them?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
it ceases to be revenge if due process and the legally allowed procedure is followed. that is what I'm saying. I am more comfortable with the death penalty if they are 100% sure they have the right person. I'm not comfortable with it if there is doubt.
Again, all you're saying is that it's not revenge because we are 100% sure that the person who is being executed committed the crime.
By that rationale, "street revenge" would cease to be revenge if we were 100% sure that the person being killed actually committed the crime.
What if after a "street revenge", it was determined by the authorities that the person who was killed really did commit the crime? By your rationale, it would no longer be revenge because we would be 100% sure that the right person got revenged upon.
Regardless of how "careful" we are in determining who committed the crime, the motivation is still the same.
If you hurt your toe, assumed it was broken, and made a splinter for it, your motivation is to fix your toe. If you go to the hospital and have an "expert" who is 100% sure what the problem is make the splinter, your motivation is still the same - to fix your toe.
Revengefulness is a motivation, not a process. And as long as that motivation is there, the process is revenge, regardless of whether or not we are 100% sure of who committed the crime.
i'm not saying there aren't people in attendance who it's not revenge for; I'm not crazy enough to think that. I bet a majority of the people who were affected are there b/c of revenge. I think the persons actions have earned the death penalty.
You just don't think the person deserves to live. That doesn't mean the taking of his life isn't an act of revenge. It's still an act of revenge whether or not you think that person deserves to live.
No mob hits are always revenge and murder by definition. The legal due process, for me takes away the revenge factor. If you break the law but follow process (mob hit by committee) it is still revenge b/c it's not legal and it is about revenge.
translation: As long as it's legal, it's not evil. That is what you're saying. I'm sorry that the depth of your morality ends with what is legal and what isn't legal. Just imagine...50 yrs ago when it was legal to segregate blacks and whites, it was perfectly moral because it was legal.
You might say that it's wrong to segregate blacks because it amounts to racism. That would be an explanation. With the above quote, you don't offer an explanation as to why a mob hit is different from an execution other than that one is legal and the other isn't.
I agree that self defense is morally acceptable. Another reason is to take responsibility for an action.
The act of taking responsibility is one that is voluntary and cannot be forced. It is the act of being remorseful. In the case of murder, true remorse cannot be achieved without having respect for life. You cannot teach a person to respect life by executing him.
I don't think it's a deterrent; if it serves as one to some great, but that's not what the primary motive is for me. For me it's about accountability.
In this case, accountability is just a euphemism for revenge. Accountability would be taking the necessary action to see to that this person does not commit the same crime again. Prison achieves that means. Anything more is strictly for the purpose of bringing comfort to the bereaved - comfort by way of revenge.
why would the jury be out for revenge on the murderer and why would the judge be out for revenge???
....the same reason why millions of americans want to see bin laden pay dearly for 9/11. They had nothing to do with with the twin towers. They had no family or friends involved in twin towers. Yet, they want nothing more than to see Bin Laden pay by means of the death penalty. I'm sure we can all agree on that.
Crimes that warrant capital punishment under our current judicial system are crimes that stir anger in all of us. We don't have to be the immediate family. So, naturally, we all want to see revenge take place as well. The only difference is that we don't want to use the word "revenge" because it's an ugly word and none of us want to admit that we are uncivilized at heart. So, instead we use words like "accountability" and "justice". It's all revenge just the same.
I think the problem is that you don't know what true remorse is. You'd rather see a person be punished than see that person heal.
That is, if by some miracle the criminal realized the seriousness of his wrongdoings and truly feels remorseful in his heart, you'd still like to see that person suffer the same punishment as someone who did not achieve that state of mind.
And that would be the very definition of the vindictive mindset. You are focused on the punishment, not the healing. It's a hard, hard thing to admit. It would mean that you are a bad person and that society is dead wrong. So, for that reason, you'll always hide behind "due process" and "accountability" to wash your hands clean of your own immoralities.
If someone killed someone I loved, I'd want them dead. Yes for revenge. I'm sorry but I'm not going to lie to you guys.
So would I. But, at least you know the difference. You aren't sitting there saying that if that person was convicted and sentenced to death, it would not be an act of revenge.
So would I. But, at least you know the difference. You aren't sitting there saying that if that person was convicted and sentenced to death, it would not be an act of revenge.
I don't really see how it wouldn't be an act of revenge. He/she killed someone so you're going to kill him/her. Quite simple really.
I don't really see how it wouldn't be an act of revenge. He/she killed someone so you're going to kill him/her. Quite simple really.
...not when words like justice, due process, and accountability are thrown into the mix. Then things get confused. And in that confusion, people just end up doing what they wanted to do from the beginning, which is commit revenge.
My sister was hit by a car and broke her leg in 3 places. To this day she is in pain and can't make proper use of her leg.
One day she was driving and saw the guy that hit her walking across the street. She had the opportunity to return the favor but she didn't.
So ask yourselves, if the person that was murdered would murder their murderer given the chance? It may not always be the case.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
...not when words like justice, due process, and accountability are thrown into the mix. Then things get confused. And in that confusion, people just end up doing what they wanted to do from the beginning, which is commit revenge.
Those words just make people fell better about doing this. It's a big deal. You're ending a person's life. You're sending them to either hell, or to nothing forever. So naturally people are going to need something to block out that. They're going to need something to make it feel like they're doing it for more than revenge, because then the guilt may change their mind.
Comments
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Not saying that they should get away with their crime,just think that their can be other ways to maybe turn a few of them around?!
Unfortunately, I think that's the best we can do for now. We have to put these people somewhere. And wherever we put them, they're going to act the way they've been acting.
Also worth mentioning here is that our jails and prisons are overcrowded. It's hard to make jail or prison a rehabilitative atmosphere when you got like 3-4 guys in a cell designed for 2 maximum.
At any rate, regardless of overcrowding, I doubt that society is intentionally making prison a place where people get raped and beaten.
Of course, the most "civilized" and probably the most productive alternative would be to put everyone into some kind of rehab-esque kind of atmosphere, where the criminals can go to therapy and talk about their problems so that someone can get to the bottom of what made these people into monsters.
But, we'd be talking about a lot of money that our government will probaby never even come close to having. Therapists cost a lot of money. And to maintain a "safe" environment for so many people, it would cost even more money.
I think a big mistake was Nancy Reagan's zero tolerance policy. If I'm not mistaken, that policy alone made the biggest contribution to jail overcrowding, and didn't even make a significant dent in drug abuse. These people belong in a rehab facility, not prison. So, perhaps that would be the first step towards making the world a perfect place.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
So it's simply revenge then? A revenge killing?
I find it worrying that people not involved directly in the problem (people that didn't suffer of the killing of a relative, etc) can call for killing someone (through death penalty) so easily.
www.amnesty.org.uk
Surely you can see the contradiction and hypocrisy in that?
Here are a couple:
A. If a human's life is precious, then why are we sanctioning ending it.
B. If we have to punish those who kill by killing them, then the jury, judge & executioner should also be killed
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
no, it's not revenge. Revenge implies resentfulness and vindictiveness. If the murderer was killed in the streets in would be a revenge killing. If the murderer has gone through procedure and the law was followed and the law allows for putting a man to death it is not revenge. You can perceive it as revenge but it's not, in my mind.
where did i say it was easy to call for killing. In every post I've written about this I say this is something to take VERY seriously and it should be exercised with extreme care. quit putting words in my mouth about how easily I can call for someones execution. the fact that I have an opinion on the matter that is different than yours does not mean that it's flippant.
b/c of the action of murder. A person bears responsibility for their actions and murder is something that, in my opinion, is the most heinous act.
If the judge jury and executioner perform the murder in the street, i agree with you 100% on part B.
there is one alternative to capital punishment that I think can be enacted. complete and total solitary confinement in a cage with no windows for the rest of the murderers life. So it's like he's dead to society, family etc... but he's still alive knowing full well he'll never see anyone again.
www.amnesty.org.uk
I think the option should be available and used with care, yes I do. I think that someone who has endangered society doing the most heinous act possible should have to take responsibility for their actions. I'm sorry you find it worrying, but just give me credit that it is not an easy decision and one that i take lightly, I just happen to weigh the options and (gasp) disagree with you. I'm not saying I'm right and your opinion is wrong, they are just different and we can both present valid reasons for our belief, whether or not you want to accept the reasons is a different thing.
Sorry -- I don't get why the location of the killing is relevant to the question of whether or not it was vengeful. Out on the street -- revenge, but strapped to a gurney with a needle stuck in your arm -- not revenge? I don't get why it matters.
(And I'm not sure I agree with you that revenge implies resentfulness and vindictiveness. Most supporters of the death penalty call themselves retributivists -- they seek retribution for the murder. Retribution is a fancy word for revenge that intellectuals use to deny they're seeking revenge.)
I also wonder if you demand this kind of accountability from all murderers. If not, how do we decide which murderers to seek the death penalty for? Because right now, in our system of justice, local prosecutors have a lot of discretion over these things.
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
-- EV, Live at the Showbox
the location was to show the difference b/t procedure and a "vengence is mine" attitude. The only way i feel it is appropriate to take a human life is if you can show through proper procedure the person is at fault. If you take away procedure and take matters into your own hands you are not respecting the life of the person in question. the death penalty is a punishment that you had better be 100% right about in exercising. If there is doubt about guilt, it should not be instituted at all.
You may be right about retributionist, i'll concede that. To me revenge has a vindictive side to it, and I'm sure that a lot of people have the vindictive position...esp the family of the murdered.
I haven't given much thought to which type of murderers deserve the death penalty and i agree that the prosecuters do have control over who gets what. My biggest concern with the death penalty is ensuring that if it is carried out that the wrong person isn't put to death, which tragically happens.
The only difference is that, in the case of a state sanctioned execution, the chances of mistaken identity are greatly reduced. So, by that rationale, all you're saying is that revenge ceases to be revenge if one is reasonably sure of who is being revenged upon.
But, I think that just because we have determined for sure who is responsible for the crime doesn't mean that we aren't being vindictive and vengeful when we demand his execution. It just means we're careful.
After all, isn't that why executions are witnessed by the victim's immediate family? You don't think they are being resentful and vindictive by taking pleasure in seeing the execution?
"Due process" doesn't change our motivations. It only keeps up the appearance of order within our society.
It's sort of like mob killings. Prior to the creation of the "commission" in the early 1900's, mobsters did not need a "go ahead" to do a hit on another mobster. Maranzano changed that when he created the five famlies and the commission to oversee the activities of those families.
Under your rationale, the act of getting a "go ahead" from a commission takes the vindictiveness and revenge out of mob hits.
The only morally justifiable reason to take another person's life is to protect your own or the life of another. When a killer is behind bars, the "self-defense" rationale is no longer valid as he is no longer a threat to society.
Therefore, the only reason why anyone would want to execute that person would strictly be for the act of revenge. There is no other reason.
You might say that the death penalty serves as a deterrent. But, does it really? Do murderers really care if they might someday face the electric chair for their actions? Statistics don't seem to support that notion.
It kind of reminds me of alcoholics who think they're not true alcoholics because they only drink the expensive stuff. That is, in their minds, alcoholics are the winos on the street who drink ernest & gallo and ask for hand-outs. Yes, there really are alcoholics out there who really do believe they are different because they aren't drinking cheap alcohol.
In this case, "due process" is the expensive stuff, and "street revenge" is ernest & gallo. That is, you think a trial by judge and jury takes the ugliness out of revenge as we live in a so-called "civilized" society.
Alcoholism is alcoholism just as revenge is revenge.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
This is really interesting because this is one of the proposals to reform the death penalty.
Right now, in all 36 (or 38?) states that have the death penalty and the federal system, the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt" -- which is NOT 100% sure. Try to get a lawyer tell you HOW SURE you have to be to be beyond a reasonable doubt -- they all have a different number. But one thing they are agreed on is that it's NOT 100%.
Some have argued that juries use a different standard of proof in death penalty cases. That standard would be that there's absolutely no doubt -- they are 100% sure that the defendant committed the crime.
Most prosecutors and police are against this standard because it doesn't give them any room for error. And they're willing to have room for error even in death penalty cases.
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
-- EV, Live at the Showbox
there should be no room for error in the death penalty. It is a VERY permanant penalty.
I completely agree. Sadly, the way the death penalty is administered in the US, it's riddled with errors.
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
-- EV, Live at the Showbox
it ceases to be revenge if due process and the legally allowed procedure is followed. that is what I'm saying. I am more comfortable with the death penalty if they are 100% sure they have the right person. I'm not comfortable with it if there is doubt.
i'm not saying there aren't people in attendance who it's not revenge for; I'm not crazy enough to think that. I bet a majority of the people who were affected are there b/c of revenge. I think the persons actions have earned the death penalty.
No mob hits are always revenge and murder by definition. The legal due process, for me takes away the revenge factor. If you break the law but follow process (mob hit by committee) it is still revenge b/c it's not legal and it is about revenge.
I agree that self defense is morally acceptable. Another reason is to take responsibility for an action.
I don't think it's a deterrent; if it serves as one to some great, but that's not what the primary motive is for me. For me it's about accountability.
why would the jury be out for revenge on the murderer and why would the judge be out for revenge???
i know, that's where my biggest dilemma comes in..I agree with it in principle but the way it's enacted is extremely troubling.
Ahem
Okay, I'll bite. What has Phineas Gage got to do with any of this?
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
-- EV, Live at the Showbox
The man suffered damage to his prefrontal cortex and it altered his ability to gauge right from wrong. He became more violent and unruly, though to what degree is debated.
It is possible a person that commits murder is suffering from some kind of brain malfunction or abnormality. Perhaps we should treat is as a disorder as opposed to a concious decision.
We can all agree if someone kills another, such as the amish school case, there is something seriously wrong with them. Perhaps they were beaten as a child and it caused damage to their brain. Or perhaps their perspectives of reality spawn from the psychological affects of a violent upbringing.
We should all be able to agree that no people are born violent.
I just think we should try to understand people before we go ahead and execute them. We might be able to prevent future murders if we understand why they happen in the first place. Also, if a person does have a disorder or a brain damage that causes them to kill, is it still ok to execute them?
Again, all you're saying is that it's not revenge because we are 100% sure that the person who is being executed committed the crime.
By that rationale, "street revenge" would cease to be revenge if we were 100% sure that the person being killed actually committed the crime.
What if after a "street revenge", it was determined by the authorities that the person who was killed really did commit the crime? By your rationale, it would no longer be revenge because we would be 100% sure that the right person got revenged upon.
Regardless of how "careful" we are in determining who committed the crime, the motivation is still the same.
If you hurt your toe, assumed it was broken, and made a splinter for it, your motivation is to fix your toe. If you go to the hospital and have an "expert" who is 100% sure what the problem is make the splinter, your motivation is still the same - to fix your toe.
Revengefulness is a motivation, not a process. And as long as that motivation is there, the process is revenge, regardless of whether or not we are 100% sure of who committed the crime.
You just don't think the person deserves to live. That doesn't mean the taking of his life isn't an act of revenge. It's still an act of revenge whether or not you think that person deserves to live.
translation: As long as it's legal, it's not evil. That is what you're saying. I'm sorry that the depth of your morality ends with what is legal and what isn't legal. Just imagine...50 yrs ago when it was legal to segregate blacks and whites, it was perfectly moral because it was legal.
You might say that it's wrong to segregate blacks because it amounts to racism. That would be an explanation. With the above quote, you don't offer an explanation as to why a mob hit is different from an execution other than that one is legal and the other isn't.
The act of taking responsibility is one that is voluntary and cannot be forced. It is the act of being remorseful. In the case of murder, true remorse cannot be achieved without having respect for life. You cannot teach a person to respect life by executing him.
In this case, accountability is just a euphemism for revenge. Accountability would be taking the necessary action to see to that this person does not commit the same crime again. Prison achieves that means. Anything more is strictly for the purpose of bringing comfort to the bereaved - comfort by way of revenge.
....the same reason why millions of americans want to see bin laden pay dearly for 9/11. They had nothing to do with with the twin towers. They had no family or friends involved in twin towers. Yet, they want nothing more than to see Bin Laden pay by means of the death penalty. I'm sure we can all agree on that.
Crimes that warrant capital punishment under our current judicial system are crimes that stir anger in all of us. We don't have to be the immediate family. So, naturally, we all want to see revenge take place as well. The only difference is that we don't want to use the word "revenge" because it's an ugly word and none of us want to admit that we are uncivilized at heart. So, instead we use words like "accountability" and "justice". It's all revenge just the same.
I think the problem is that you don't know what true remorse is. You'd rather see a person be punished than see that person heal.
That is, if by some miracle the criminal realized the seriousness of his wrongdoings and truly feels remorseful in his heart, you'd still like to see that person suffer the same punishment as someone who did not achieve that state of mind.
And that would be the very definition of the vindictive mindset. You are focused on the punishment, not the healing. It's a hard, hard thing to admit. It would mean that you are a bad person and that society is dead wrong. So, for that reason, you'll always hide behind "due process" and "accountability" to wash your hands clean of your own immoralities.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
So would I. But, at least you know the difference. You aren't sitting there saying that if that person was convicted and sentenced to death, it would not be an act of revenge.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I don't really see how it wouldn't be an act of revenge. He/she killed someone so you're going to kill him/her. Quite simple really.
...not when words like justice, due process, and accountability are thrown into the mix. Then things get confused. And in that confusion, people just end up doing what they wanted to do from the beginning, which is commit revenge.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
One day she was driving and saw the guy that hit her walking across the street. She had the opportunity to return the favor but she didn't.
So ask yourselves, if the person that was murdered would murder their murderer given the chance? It may not always be the case.
Those words just make people fell better about doing this. It's a big deal. You're ending a person's life. You're sending them to either hell, or to nothing forever. So naturally people are going to need something to block out that. They're going to need something to make it feel like they're doing it for more than revenge, because then the guilt may change their mind.