World Day Against the Death Penalty

Ahnimus

Ahnimus wrote:

Phineas Gage

Ahem

Hope&Anger

Ahnimus wrote:

Ahem

Okay, I'll bite. What has Phineas Gage got to do with any of this?

Ahnimus

Hope&Anger wrote:

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?

sponger

chopitdown wrote:

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.

Vedderlution_Baby

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.

sponger

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

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.

Vedderlution_Baby

sponger wrote:

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.

sponger

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

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.

Ahnimus

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.

Vedderlution_Baby

sponger wrote:

...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.

sponger

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

Then again, your sister probably knew that it's not legal to hit someone on purpose.

Ahnimus

sponger wrote:

Then again, your sister probably knew that it's not legal to hit someone on purpose.

I think the person that hit her knew it wasn't legal.

On that note, when is murder legal outside of Iran?

If a person commits murder and doesn't know it's wrong, they should be going to a psychiatric institute not the electric chair.

Hope&Anger

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

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.

That's fine. But the whole idea of the criminal justice system is that we take these decisions out of the hands of the families of the victims. We don't want private people in charge of dispensing justice. So we don't let friends or family of the victim on the jury.

If we had such a system, the seriousness of punishment would depend on things like how many friends the victim had (and how big they were). So, if you killed a homeless person who had no one to defend them, you'd probably get away with it. But if you killed someone from a big family with brawny cousins -- like mine -- you'd have your head handed to you. And "justice" really shouldn't depend on things like that.

The desire for revenge isn't pretty, but at some level, it's part of human nature (or at least a part of our society, our culture). But it doesn't mean we should base our criminal justice system on that particular feeling.

Vedderlution_Baby

I respect people who can forgive people who have killed someone close to them, but as hard as it is to admit, I am not one of those people. Why? I don't know. I guessing it has a lot to do with my childhood. I'm not using that as an excuse either.

Ahnimus

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

I respect people who can forgive people who have killed someone close to them, but as hard as it is to admit, I am not one of those people. Why? I don't know. I guessing it has a lot to do with my childhood. I'm not using that as an excuse either.

Two of my grandparents were killed by a police office. I can forgive him, but I can't forgive the justice system for simply suspending his license. I wouldn't want him executed, but he should have a slightly more severe punishment. It was reckless driving.

Vedderlution_Baby

Hope&Anger wrote:

That's fine. But the whole idea of the criminal justice system is that we take these decisions out of the hands of the families of the victims. We don't want private people in charge of dispensing justice. So we don't let friends or family of the victim on the jury.

If we had such a system, the seriousness of punishment would depend on things like how many friends the victim had (and how big they were). So, if you killed a homeless person who had no one to defend them, you'd probably get away with it. But if you killed someone from a big family with brawny cousins -- like mine -- you'd have your head handed to you. And "justice" really shouldn't depend on things like that.

The desire for revenge isn't pretty, but at some level, it's part of human nature (or at least a part of our society, our culture). But it doesn't mean we should base our criminal justice system on that particular feeling.

I agree that there are way too many flaws to use it as an effective punishment. If it were going to be used as a punishment, they would have to take everyone that's currently on death row and sentence to life terms and start all over again. Since that's not going to happen, it's probably better to do away with it all together.

Vedderlution_Baby

Ahnimus wrote:

Two of my grandparents were killed by a police office. I can forgive him, but I can't forgive the justice system for simply suspending his license. I wouldn't want him executed, but he should have a slightly more severe punishment. It was reckless driving.

Wow, that's bullshit. They just suspened his fucking license? Wtf?!

sponger

I think the reason why we still seek revenge in spite of knowing that it's wrong is because we don't want to appear weak. We all have that us against them mindset where we believe that if we project weakness, it will only invite further aggression. It's an instinctive mechanism that happens on the subconscious level, which makes it difficult for us to recognize.

We all want to be treated as "equals". We don't like being perceived as the "lesser". So, if someone takes the life of someone we love, we subconsciously want to make things "equal" again. We think that if we let that person live, we are letting him have the upper hand. And if we start letting people have the upper hand, other people will just walk all over us.

Vedderlution_Baby

sponger wrote:

I think the reason why we still seek revenge in spite of knowing that it's wrong is because we don't want to appear weak. We all have that us against them mindset where we believe that if we project weakness, it will only invite further aggression. It's an instinctive mechanism that happens on the subconscious level, which makes it difficult for us to recognize.

We all want to be treated as "equals". We don't like being perceived as the "lesser". So, if someone takes the life of someone we love, we subconsciously want to make things "equal" again. We think that if we let that person live, we are letting him have the upper hand. And if we start letting people have the upper hand, other people will just walk all over us.

I think those who don't want revenge are stronger than me.

sponger

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

I think those who don't want revenge are stronger than me.

Right, and that's because they aren't concerned about looking weak.