What about this... is it their fault really? Is it the murderer's fault?
Is it his fault that he had the thoughts to create the act?
What exactly makes a person kill someone else?
This leads to the question of what makes us? Our consciousnesses.
I guess if you believe in god or some other devine spirituality, you might believe we are all premade to be certain characters. What choice does that leave us, really?
If our characters are perdetermined then we don't technically have freewill.
What if our characters are products of environment, genetics and interaction?
Who is responsible then?
I know it sounds messed up because no one is accountable for themselves. But I honestly believe it's the truth. Either way you look at it, we are ourselves not by freewill. We have the ability to change, but only based on three things, environment, genetics and interaction.
I think it goes both ways. Some people may know what they're doing is wrong but like you said...can't think far enough to consider the consequences. But you have people who commit crimes such as murder, fully aware of what they're doing and what the consequences will be. These people go through steps to try and ensure that they don't get caught.
I remember watching the discovery channel about a murder that took place. Seemed a neighbor who had the I.Q. of a genuis laced his neighbor's coke with a poison that is very hard to trace and unless you're looking for it...generally won't be found. By a fluke the doctors found it and upon searching his house they fround notebooks filled with diagrams and chemical compositions of poisions. This guy planned out this whole thing, found out what chemical worked best...and what would be hard to trace. He ended up killing the mom and nearly killing two teenage boys. Motivation? The kids were too loud.
So why do people have the thought to kill and why do people act on it?
Let me speak from personal experience. Because I've been through some real shit and I've almost killed people and tried to kill people. People that I love.
I know many people will hear this stuff and their whole opinion of me will be changed. Because people don't think you come back from that. They think you always have those tendancies. Well I don't. I don't even kill insects in my apartment because I'd rather tolerate them than kill them.
I experienced a serious head trauma when I was a little boy. As mentioned before I was hit by a truck travelling approximately 80 kph (50 mph). Immediately following that I became a very violent person, just like Phineas Gage. I almost killed my best friend and all of my family. By the time I was 8, I was hitting the road, I said fuck this I'm out. But I didn't go anywhere, something made me stay, security I suppose. Life had been good up to that point. The doctors started thinking I had brain damage and at the time I took a lot of offense to it. But looking back now and knowing about Phineas Gage I can see what they meant.
Thankfully there was a part of me that continued to stop me from actually killing anyone. Though that didn't stop me from seriously injuring them or trying to dominate them. To this day I don't know why, I guess a combination of head trauma to the prefrontal cortex and the psychological consequences of almost dying, spending two weeks in the hospital and having my teeth wired shut for a few months.
Anyway, eventually as I was getting older I started to calm down. But by this time I was really sick and tired of the system and all it's bullshit. I was 13 being told to draw pictures and play in a damn sandbox because they thought I was still 5 years old. They diagnosed me with every damn thing in their psychology books and nothing seemed to fix me. So, I started to freak out at them and fight with them. I was eventually put into the psychiatric ward of the hospital where I was analyzed some more and drew more pictures. After that I commited more crimes and hurt more people until I was eventually sent off to a half-way house. I broke out of there, went AWOL with some inmates and caused more chaos. I was totally addicted to it.
After that, I was looking at some serious time in juvenile hall, or worse. I had already commited crimes I hadn't been caught for. Serious crimes that would have landed me in juvy. Somehow, I pulled out of it, my parents had split and my dad was living in Victoria, so I went to stay with him. My whole life changed at that point, I wasn't the person I was before, I had freedom to give an impression to people. Before everyone knew me, they knew what I was like, so I couldn't change.
Ten years later, my whole perspective has changed. Life is so much different now. People actually like me and I fit into society, it's awesome. I honestly thought I would be dead or in jail by age 19. I couldn't forsee this happening.
So you see, this is just me. It's not all that bad really, well, I didn't mention all the details. But other people have lead similar lives, and much much worse. It can go either way, I could have killed someone, I came pretty close a few times. I'm thankful I didn't, as I'm sure they are too. But I can understand how people get to the point, I've felt it before. I wanted to kill everyone at one time or another. Totally indiscriminate killing because I thought my life sucked.
Anyway, a product of society, if I was never hit by that truck. Maybe none of that shit would have happened. Sorry again for spewing hardcore reality about my life. I just can't seem to keep information to myself when I think sharing it could be helpful. It's not a self-pity trip, it's an awareness thing. I'm not saying I'm better either, just saying this is real shit.
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
I don't think it's a matter of responsibility. I think it's a matter of making society safer. We arrest murderers and put them in prison so that society is free from the threat of that person's murderous ways.
And at the same time, we set an example for other would-be murderers. We make it known that murder will be met with extreme consequences.
But, by instituting the death penalty, we send the message that in spite of the fact that society is safer, the consequences should be taken to the next level just for the sake of good measure.
That is, we send the message that the value of a human life is really a matter of perspective -and that that perspective is the perspective of the person who is flipping the switch on the electric chair - the "executioner", if you will. The executioner in this case represents the collective will of the american people and judicial system.
And of course the murderer is saying, "A matter of perspective? What about my perspective?" And our response is, "Your perspective doesn't matter, therefore, your life doesn't matter."
And so the cycle continues without said murderer ever really learning the value of human life, which is that the value of human life is not a matter of perspective. This is because if the value of human life was a matter of perspective, then harmony amongst all people from all walks of life will never be achieved.
I don't think it's a matter of responsibility. I think it's a matter of making society safer. We arrest murderers and put them in prison so that society is free from the threat of that person's murderous ways.
And at the same time, we set an example for other would-be murderers. We make it known that murder will be met with extreme consequences.
But, by instituting the death penalty, we send the message that in spite of the fact that society is safer, the consequences should be taken to the next level just for the sake of good measure.
That is, we send the message that the value of a human life is really a matter of perspective -and that that perspective is the perspective of the person who is flipping the switch on the electric chair - the "executioner", if you will. The executioner in this case represents the collective will of the american people and judicial system.
And of course the murderer is saying, "A matter of perspective? What about my perspective?" And our response is, "Your perspective doesn't matter, therefore, your life doesn't matter."
And so the cycle continues without said murderer ever really learning the value of human life, which is that the value of human life is not a matter of perspective. This is because if the value of human life was a matter of perspective, then harmony amongst all people from all walks of life will never be achieved.
It is the perspective of the people at large that leads to the way we deal with criminals. I've studied criminology and what it teaches is in drastic contrast to how we deal with criminals. We know it's psychological and it's phsycial abnormalities that drive people to commit crimes. Yet we lock them all up and throw away the key. We attempt to rehabilitate them by putting them in with other bad examples.
If you put five male mice into a cage together with no females, is it their fault they fuck each other?
Because they do. But if you put some females in there, they stick to heterosexual intercourse.
Marilyn Manson sang in hist song "Beautiful People"
"If you live with apes man, it's hard to be clean"
If you put criminals in with criminals all you get is criminals. We are products of our surroundings and the influences we are subjected to coupled with our genetics.
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
I don't think it's a matter of responsibility. I think it's a matter of making society safer. We arrest murderers and put them in prison so that society is free from the threat of that person's murderous ways.
And at the same time, we set an example for other would-be murderers. We make it known that murder will be met with extreme consequences.
But, by instituting the death penalty, we send the message that in spite of the fact that society is safer, the consequences should be taken to the next level just for the sake of good measure.
That is, we send the message that the value of a human life is really a matter of perspective -and that that perspective is the perspective of the person who is flipping the switch on the electric chair - the "executioner", if you will. The executioner in this case represents the collective will of the american people and judicial system.
And of course the murderer is saying, "A matter of perspective? What about my perspective?" And our response is, "Your perspective doesn't matter, therefore, your life doesn't matter."
And so the cycle continues without said murderer ever really learning the value of human life, which is that the value of human life is not a matter of perspective. This is because if the value of human life was a matter of perspective, then harmony amongst all people from all walks of life will never be achieved.
Are you aware that death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent? There's numerous example abut this, one of the most famous ones was made by the Columbia university.
It is also easy to understand why:
1) people get used to violence
2) people see that the same state use death as a method, so they start to think that if it is a valid method for the state, it is a valid method also for them
Are you aware that death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent? There's numerous example abut this, one of the most famous ones was made by the Columbia university.
It is also easy to understand why:
1) people get used to violence
2) people see that the same state use death as a method, so they start to think that if it is a valid method for the state, it is a valid method also for them
I did not say the death penalty was a deterrent. I said extreme consequences were a deterrent. And by extreme consequences I meant life sentences. Immediately following my use of the term extreme consequences, I mentioned the death penalty as taking it to the next level. So, it was never implied by me that the death penalty acts as a deterrent.
It is the perspective of the people at large that leads to the way we deal with criminals. I've studied criminology and what it teaches is in drastic contrast to how we deal with criminals. We know it's psychological and it's phsycial abnormalities that drive people to commit crimes. Yet we lock them all up and throw away the key. We attempt to rehabilitate them by putting them in with other bad examples.
If you put five male mice into a cage together with no females, is it their fault they fuck each other?
Because they do. But if you put some females in there, they stick to heterosexual intercourse.
Marilyn Manson sang in hist song "Beautiful People"
"If you live with apes man, it's hard to be clean"
If you put criminals in with criminals all you get is criminals. We are products of our surroundings and the influences we are subjected to coupled with our genetics.
I completely agree. However, I think it's the best we can do with system that we have. We cannot afford to put every single criminal into a truly rehabilitative environment with group therapy and psychoactive meds.
But, I also think that criminals are also products of their environments outside of prison. I think if they grew up in a certain environment or lived a certain neighborhood, then their likelihood of being a criminal has increased.
But,I don't think we can ignore the fact that the harshness of prison life really does serve as a wake-up call to would-be repeat offenders. Some of them just need a swift kick in the ass to help them stay on the straight and narrow. In those cases, it's a matter of doing to them what their pre-frontal cortex should've done for them.
Why do people ignore the point that people aren't solely responsible for their own thoughts and actions?
When an animal does something we say "oh well they are just animals."
Well we are just animals too, only a little bit better at some things.
If we realize that we are all responsible for the way our societies influences people and the way we treat people. If we could all be so self-aware that we don't mistreat people and don't lay judgement on people. We could have the eutopia we dream of. We make no effort to understand people, we only provide consequences. I'm no different, but I am making progress in that direction.
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
I completely agree. However, I think it's the best we can do with system that we have. We cannot afford to put every single criminal into a truly rehabilitative environment with group therapy and psychoactive meds.
But, I also think that criminals are also products of their environments outside of prison. I think if they grew up in a certain environment or lived a certain neighborhood, then their likelihood of being a criminal has increased.
But,I don't think we can ignore the fact that the harshness of prison life really does serve as a wake-up call to would-be repeat offenders. Some of them just need a swift kick in the ass to help them stay on the straight and narrow. In those cases, it's a matter of doing to them what their pre-frontal cortex should've done for them.
Well that doesn't solve the problem. They only learn how to be better criminals in Jail. Sure some come out alright for a while. But the success rate is really bad.
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
My ex-girlfriend had a criminology and psychology textbook I read because she was going to be a criminal psychologist. I read it to help her study it, but she never read it herself.
Anyway, it had some really good statistics and stuff in it, but I guess she took it with her.
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
Let me also add that I felt a lot different coming out of the psyche ward than I did the jail. The whole time I was in jail I was pissed off, but while I was in the hospital I was always questioning things and I met some people with really serious problems, a lot worse than mine. I met a girl in their that was continueing to attempt suicide. She had recently overdosed on some perscription anti-depressant. She died later from a shotgun wound, they said it was suicide. I also met a paranoid schizophrenic, man he was really messed up. I also don't think we should perscribe drugs for depression, they affect the seratonin levels and mess up a persons brain.
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
Why do people ignore the point that people aren't solely responsible for their own thoughts and actions?
When an animal does something we say "oh well they are just animals."
Well we are just animals too, only a little bit better at some things.
If we realize that we are all responsible for the way our societies influences people and the way we treat people. If we could all be so self-aware that we don't mistreat people and don't lay judgement on people. We could have the eutopia we dream of. We make no effort to understand people, we only provide consequences. I'm no different, but I am making progress in that direction.
Are you familiar with the term conduct disorder? Sociopath? Some people will just never understand the difference between right and wrong. Yes, I agree it's not their fault. Obviously, they are a product of their environment. But, once they're gone, they're gone. All the therapy in the world isn't going to change that. That's what earns them those labels. Ever read in any psychology text about a sociopath or conduct disorder being "cured"?
Yes, I am aware of the low rehabilitation rates at prisons. But, how do we really know what kind of rehabilitation rates we'd be seeing if we put them into a pscyhe ward instead? Has that ever been done on a large scale with violent criminals?
Regardless, the money just isn't there. Our system can barely afford to house and feed the prisoners that we have. And that's what I'm getting at when I say that it's really the best we can do with the resources we have. All we can do is hope that some of those criminals learn from the experience of receiving the consequences alone. I am aware that it is an exception rather than the norm, but who's got the billions it would cost to do otherwise?
They diagnosed me with every damn thing in their psychology books and nothing seemed to fix me. So, I started to freak out at them and fight with them. I was eventually put into the psychiatric ward of the hospital where I was analyzed some more and drew more pictures. After that I commited more crimes and hurt more people until I was eventually sent off to a half-way house.
After you got out of the psyche ward, you committed more crimes and hurt more people....
After that, I was looking at some serious time in juvenile hall, or worse. I had already commited crimes I hadn't been caught for. Serious crimes that would have landed me in juvy. Somehow, I pulled out of it, my parents had split and my dad was living in Victoria, so I went to stay with him. My whole life changed at that point, I wasn't the person I was before, I had freedom to give an impression to people. Before everyone knew me, they knew what I was like, so I couldn't change.
Your whole life changed before you ever served time in juvy? You just said that you "felt a lot different coming out of the psyche ward than I did the jail."
After you got out of the psyche ward, you committed more crimes and hurt more people...
Your whole life changed before you ever served time in juvy? You just said that you "felt a lot different coming out of the psyche ward than I did the jail."
I've been to holding cells, and the half-way house was very similar to Juvy. None of it is anything like big time. I think how I felt at the time is as important as the crimes I commited. The real cure for me was getting a fresh start on life. Even that took a long time to set in. I spent most of my time in solitude for several years.
It's expensive to house criminals in jail, but when is it ok to put a price tag on life?
The key point I am trying to make is that we need to put more effort into understanding and refining society to prevent violent crimes. What we do with violent criminals is also important. I do believe some people are unfortunately uncurable, or will most likely not be cured, but we don't make any progress by executing 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
I've been to holding cells, and the half-way house was very similar to Juvy. None of it is anything like big time. I think how I felt at the time is as important as the crimes I commited. The real cure for me was getting a fresh start on life. Even that took a long time to set in. I spent most of my time in solitude for several years.
It's expensive to house criminals in jail, but when is it ok to put a price tag on life?
The key point I am trying to make is that we need to put more effort into understanding and refining society to prevent violent crimes. What we do with violent criminals is also important. I do believe some people are unfortunately uncurable, or will most likely not be cured, but we don't make any progress by executing them.
I think what you're getting at is a guns and butter analogy. The government can build more missiles, or it can do more to rehabilitate criminals.
We could cut back on some programs and redirect that money into building better prisons. But, how much of a guarantee do you have that pseudo-psyche-ward prisons would make that much of an impact? You don't have that guarantee.
I think for the most part that once a person makes the decision to lead a life of crime, we have lost that person. Those who somehow make the change for the better usually make that decision for themselves.
It's like how that joke that goes, "How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb? One, but the lightbulb has to be willing to change."
And this goes back to your point about prevention. Now we're talking about sociological problems. That's where the biggest impact would be made, if at all. And that's where the money should be spent. But, just where to begin is what social scientists the world over have arguing about.
And it is only after we've solved the crime problem from the causation side that we should start worrying about the rehabilitative side, just as a fire extinguisher should be pointed at the base of the fire instead of the body of the fire.
And that's why I say that, yes, putting a price-tage on human life is an acceptable notion when considering the cost of improving jail conditions. And, of course, I do not hold the stance that progress is achieved through executions.
I think the reason why you are fighting so vigorously for the rights of prisoners is because you are still struggling with forgiving yourself for your actions. You see the system as having failed you, and you are trying to find an explanation as to how you ever became so fucked up in the first place.
So, by extending your forgiveness to these prisoners, you are in turn forgiving yourself. You're saying, "Look at how misunderstood these people are, just as I was so misunderstood."
But, I think what you're forgetting is that you changed through an act of your own free will. It doesn't sound like the psyche ward did you much good. Maybe lock-up didn't do you much good either. You said it yourself that you just ended up in another more positive environment and took it from there.
I doubt the average prison inmate possesses that kind of intrinsic will of redemption. But, you are assuming that they do.
I am assuming that the human mind is highly subjective. We create demons in society. Without them we don't feel secure. We create demons to project our aggressions on. The mind is highly plyable and subject to influence.
My experiences I use for reflection and understanding. I don't need forgiveness for the things I've done. My family has forgiven me and everyone else I assume would. I was also in a situation where I was targetted by a lot of people and constantly evading confrontation. So, all that becomes me. There was a time when no one understood me. I'd explain things to the authorities and they just find another explanation that suits their precepts.
It was to the point that I was being forced to consume antihistamines because the doctors believed my allergy to red food dye changed my behaviour. All I can say is there are a lot of stupid doctors and psychologists that don't listen to their patients, or don't trust their patients.
It seems like there is no solution sometimes. But I won't give up.
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
I was thinking about the death penalty and how innocent people have died because of it.
So I wondered what pro-death penalty people think we should do when a person is proven to be innocent but yet was executed. This must be a dilemma. I mean, the whole ideology behind the death penalty is justice right, making sure that these killers can never kill again and that they pay the ultimate price for the heinous act.
So, either someone goes to jail for murder, maybe even several people, all the people responsible for taking an innocent man’s life or they do nothing. They admit the system is not flawless, they admit that their “justice” is worth an innocent man’s life and at the same time they say a murderer can get away with the murder of an innocent person. By doing nothing, they go up against their own ideology, because these killers will kill again without ever paying for the exact same heinous act other killers pay for with their life. But then, what’s the point of the death penalty?
So, either someone goes to jail for murder, maybe even several people, all the people responsible for taking an innocent man’s life or they do nothing. They admit the system is not flawless, they admit that their “justice” is worth an innocent man’s life and at the same time they say a murderer can get away with the murder of an innocent person. By doing nothing, they go up against their own ideology, because these killers will kill again without ever paying for the exact same heinous act other killers pay for with their life.
that is a very thought provoking question. What DO we do with people who wrongly exectue another human being. (maybe we put the lawyer who prosecuted the defendant on trial if he was responsible for convincing the jury with the guilty verdict...that way we have someone who will be "atonement" for a wrongful death AND (poss more importantly) we'll start decreasing the amount of lawyers we have) Perhaps if the stakes were so high that the legal party responsible for bringing the death penalty would be put to death in the case of wrong conviction we might have lessened the chance for abuse of the death penalty.
Buy you're right, right now we just chalk it up to an oops, we thought we had our guy and that is just as bad. My answer above is very (perhaps too) simplistic of an answer b/c then you have the issue of finding out who lied under oath or who lied by commission or omission etc... which would imply someone knew the absolute truth.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
I'm not for the death penalty, but assuming that the death penalty was actually a morally justifiable means of administering punishment, I wouldn't say that the potential for mistaken identity would make it wrong.
False convictions are the collateral damage of the war against crime. If we're going to stand behind the death penalty, then we have to accept the realities that go along with the imperfections of the judicial system in terms of how it reaches those convictions.
We accept those realities in the case of imprisonment sentences, so the same must go for the death penalty if we are to treat both as equally appropriate measures of punishment for the guilty.
We accept those realities in the case of imprisonment sentences, so the same must go for the death penalty if we are to treat both as equally appropriate measures of punishment for the guilty.
if you wrongly imprison someone you can let them out; if you wrongfully kill someone; they are SOL. they are not equally appropriate measures of punishment; that is why there needs to be every step taken to ensure that a mistake does not happen.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
if you wrongly imprison someone you can let them out; if you wrongfully kill someone; they are SOL. they are not equally appropriate measures of punishment; that is why there needs to be every step taken to ensure that a mistake does not happen.
I would think that a vast majority of those who are imprisoned under a false conviction eventually are not let out. Even with the innocence project out there trying to exonerate the falsely convicted, false convictions that are never overturned are still a reality of the justice system.
And so there's still going to be false convictions leading to mistaken identity executions. To say that we should allow the death penalty "as long as every step is taken..." is to disregard the reality of false convictions.
That's why I say...if we assume the death penalty to be right, then we should accept false convictions as a reality and not use it as a means of making the death penalty wrong.
But, I also hold my own logic up to the strict test of consistency. So, it was like last night or so that I said to myself, "If our penal system should really only exist for the sake of separating and rehabilitating, then the following should be true: those nazi war criminals who are living peacefully and lawfully in other countries should be pardoned."
Those nazi war criminals are a perfect example of people who committed atrocities, yet are able to function like normal human beings amongst civilized society.
The reason why they committed those atrocities is not because they're heinous, sick people. The reason why they committed those atrocities is because they were given the power to do it under the right circumstances for it to be carried out.
Now that they have been relieved of that power and removed from those circumstances, they are back to normal. From this point on, justice is in the form of revenge only (aka accountability).
But, by attempting to enforce that justice, we are actually trying to remove ourselves from any responsibility when, in fact, we did have responsibility. We are responsible because if we as a human race cannot prevent shit like that before it happens, then it will always happen regardless of the consequences for those who perpetrate it. So, in effect, we do have that ultimate responsibility.
I would think that a vast majority of those who are imprisoned under a false conviction eventually are not let out. Even with the innocence project out there trying to exonerate the falsely convicted, false convictions that are never overturned are still a reality of the justice system.
And so there's still going to be false convictions leading to mistaken identity executions. To say that we should allow the death penalty "as long as every step is taken..." is to disregard the reality of false convictions.
That's why I say...if we assume the death penalty to be right, then we should accept false convictions as a reality and not use it as a means of making the death penalty wrong.
But, I also hold my own logic up to the strict test of consistency. So, it was like last night or so that I said to myself, "If our penal system should really only exist for the sake of separating and rehabilitating, then the following should be true: those nazi war criminals who are living peacefully and lawfully in other countries should be pardoned."
Those nazi war criminals are a perfect example of people who committed atrocities, yet are able to function like normal human beings amongst civilized society.
The reason why they committed those atrocities is not because they're heinous, sick people. The reason why they committed those atrocities is because they were given the power to do it under the right circumstances for it to be carried out.
Now that they have been relieved of that power and removed from those circumstances, they are back to normal. From this point on, justice is in the form of revenge only (aka accountability).
But, by attempting to enforce that justice, we are actually trying to remove ourselves from any responsibility when, in fact, we did have responsibility. We are responsible because if we as a human race cannot prevent shit like that before it happens, then it will always happen regardless of the consequences for those who perpetrate it. So, in effect, we do have that ultimate responsibility.
your reasoning lack of the part that justice must not be only to "separate and rehabilitate" but also to act as a deterrant. So that in your example, I think that nazi criminals, but also for example pinochet, should be put in front of justice anyway, even if they are now old and harmless, to show to the world that you can't escape to face justice.
Said this, I'm against death penalty, so even those people that committed crimes against humanity should not be put to death
your reasoning lack of the part that justice must not be only to "separate and rehabilitate" but also to act as a deterrant. So that in your example, I think that nazi criminals, but also for example pinochet, should be put in front of justice anyway, even if they are now old and harmless, to show to the world that you can't escape to face justice.
I was waiting for someone to say that.
My rationale is that it's not a deterrent. Nazi war criminals thrived in a society where it wasn't illegal. So, if a nazi situation like that happens in the future, the potential war criminal is not going to be concerned about international tribunals.
The real deterrent is to let these guys remain free so that the world understands what the problem really was -apathy on the part of the world.
I have an analogy and it goes like this. If we the US with our fity states decided to set up a new state, give it complete autonomy, and let it create its own laws, then we as the US could not reasonably prosecute anybody who follows the laws of that state, but not the laws of the US.
It's really our fault for letting that state exist, just as it's really the world's fault for letting fascist germany exist. People like churchill saw that problem way before it happened, but nobody did shit about it. It's that apathy that is the problem, not the war criminals themselves. So, to think that tracking them down and putting them away will make future potential-war criminals think twice is like ignoring what causes war criminals in the first place.
That's why I said in that post that unless we take full responsibility as an international community for what happened in germany, things like what happened in germany will always happen regardless of the consequences that await those who perpetrate it. Fascist regimes would not exist if the people who led them were even remotely concerned about international law.
Indeed, death penalty is not a deterrant, multiple studies confirm that, I think you misunderstood what I meant. But other form of penalties (I'm talking in general, of course this might depend on single cases), can work as deterrants.
Paul Rusesabagina, the man that inspired the movie "hotel rwanda" wrote for example that when he started to say to the people committing the genocide "I will tell to the international courts that you've been good with us", they started to help him, because they were scared of that.
Indeed, death penalty is not a deterrant, multiple studies confirm that, I think you misunderstood what I meant. But other form of penalties (I'm talking in general, of course this might depend on single cases), can work as deterrants.
Paul Rusesabagina, the man that inspired the movie "hotel rwanda" wrote for example that when he started to say to the people committing the genocide "I will tell to the international courts that you've been good with us", they started to help him, because they were scared of that.
I wasn't referring to the death penalty. I was referring to any penalty.
Regardless of what Rusesabagina said to the mass murderers of rwanda, there is still a crapload of genocide going on in africa to this very day. The international courts know about this. The whole world knows about this.
And that's my point. My point is that the world misses the point. The point is not to put the leaders in jail. The point is to disable the regime. If putting the leaders in jail succceeds in disabling the regime, then obviously that's the right move.
But, that's different from nazi criminals. That regime is broken and those criminals don't pose a threat. There is no practical reason to lock them up other than revenge. And that act of revenge is part of the problem why genocide still exists. The world is too focused on blaming a few responsible individuals, not the duty the rest of us have to disable the influence those few responsible individuals have.
I would think that a vast majority of those who are imprisoned under a false conviction eventually are not let out. Even with the innocence project out there trying to exonerate the falsely convicted, false convictions that are never overturned are still a reality of the justice system.
And so there's still going to be false convictions leading to mistaken identity executions. To say that we should allow the death penalty "as long as every step is taken..." is to disregard the reality of false convictions.
That's why I say...if we assume the death penalty to be right, then we should accept false convictions as a reality and not use it as a means of making the death penalty wrong.
But, I also hold my own logic up to the strict test of consistency. So, it was like last night or so that I said to myself, "If our penal system should really only exist for the sake of separating and rehabilitating, then the following should be true: those nazi war criminals who are living peacefully and lawfully in other countries should be pardoned."
Those nazi war criminals are a perfect example of people who committed atrocities, yet are able to function like normal human beings amongst civilized society.
The reason why they committed those atrocities is not because they're heinous, sick people. The reason why they committed those atrocities is because they were given the power to do it under the right circumstances for it to be carried out.
Now that they have been relieved of that power and removed from those circumstances, they are back to normal. From this point on, justice is in the form of revenge only (aka accountability).
But, by attempting to enforce that justice, we are actually trying to remove ourselves from any responsibility when, in fact, we did have responsibility. We are responsible because if we as a human race cannot prevent shit like that before it happens, then it will always happen regardless of the consequences for those who perpetrate it. So, in effect, we do have that ultimate responsibility.
I'll agree that with the imperfect justice system we will have to acknowledge that wrong people may and most likely will be put to death. I don't like the word accept the way you use it but I won't fight over semantics early on monday.
I will take issue with your accusation that the nazi's weren't sick people though. Legality or not something should tell you that performing THOSE experiments on people is wrong. And I feel they should be held accountable for their actions. Who knows, maybe the pain and torture they live with (assumption on my part) is punishment enough; to know every day taht you committed those heinous acts.
I agree that society has a role and should be held accountable; but not so much that the individual can be let off the hook or not held accountable for their actions.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
I will take issue with your accusation that the nazi's weren't sick people though. Legality or not something should tell you that performing THOSE experiments on people is wrong. I agree that society has a role and should be held accountable; but not so much that the individual can be let off the hook or not held accountable for their actions.
The truth be told, scientific researchers in the US legally do just as sickening, if not worse, on chimpanzees and rats than any nazi dr. ever did to a jew.
The nazis believed that the jews were animals. They really believed this. This was their way of thinking. So, what's the crime here? Thinking that jews are animals? As long as researchers in the US are allowed to virtually torture to death lab animals, then, yes, the only crime committed by nazi death doctors is that they thought of jews as animals.
When the nazi regime was broken up, these heinous sickos moved to other countries and led normal lives. So what does that tell you?
It tells you that there is no such thing as heinous and sick; there's only what is allowed by law and what isn't. We don't put pepole in prison for being sickos. We put them in prison for breaking the law.
Someday, we'll look back and be totally appalled by what we're doing to animals. We won't understand it. In fact, we'll do everything we can to distance ourselves from it. We'll say stuff like, "Only a small portion of the population really supported it." Who knows. But, we probably won't acknowledge that we all had a hand in it by way of our own apathy toward it.
If we all of the sudden made it legal to experiment on people like the way the nazis did, I guarantee we would have no shortage of otherwise "law abiding" doctors to do the job.
One example I can think of is the tuskegee syphilis experiment. I'm sure you already know of these experiments. They involved giving syphillis to unsuspecting black men just to see how the disease goes to work. When penicillin was invented, the doctors deliberately withheld it so that they could observe the progressed stages of the disease.
That's just as sick as any nazi experiment if you ask me. But, it's what our government allowed to happen because black people were animals back then. It didn't take a sick doctor to do those experiments. It took a general consensus of approval.
That's why nazi doctors are not sick and heinous. Apathy is sick and heinous.
The truth be told, scientific researchers in the US legally do just as sickening, if not worse, on chimpanzees and rats than any nazi dr. ever did to a jew.
The nazis believed that the jews were animals. They really believed this. This was their way of thinking. So, what's the crime here? Thinking that jews are animals? As long as researchers in the US are allowed to virtually torture to death lab animals, then, yes, the only crime committed by nazi death doctors is that they thought of jews as animals.
Have you ever read Milan Kundera's The Unbearable Lightness of Being? There's a very interesting part in it, which I happen to agree with. I'll come back to it later on.
However sad it may be, animal testing is not forbidden, it is indeed legal. We can protest against it and do whatever we can to stop it. And you make a point when you say nazi's viewed Jews, homosexuals, Roma as animals and thus their only crime was exactly that and since animal testing is not illegal, their actions may be viewed as "what was, and still is allowed." It's hard to see people as human, when they are starved, when they live, and sometimes eat, their own fæces, they were given numbers...
But the fact is, killing people, torturing people is illegal. And this is where Milan Kundera comes in. In his book he compares the attrocities of the communists with the story of Oedipus.
When Oedipus found out he was responsible for all the mishap in his country he couldn't bare it anymore and stabbed out his own eyes and left his country. Although Oedipus never intended to cause those misfortunes, when he found out, he accepted responsibility. He didn't hide behind lame excuses such as "I didn't know." He felt guilty.
A lot of nazi's hided behind the "Ich habe es nicht gewusst" facade, a way of pushing responsibility away. Though they might not have known, they know now and I think they should be punished. Saying they didn't see the Jews as human is no excuse in my opinion, because they know now. They should, imo, admit their guilt and be punished, though living with knowing what they did must not be easy.
Apathy is sick and heinous.
I agree, but I don't think it's an excuse to hide behind.
The truth be told, scientific researchers in the US legally do just as sickening, if not worse, on chimpanzees and rats than any nazi dr. ever did to a jew.
The nazis believed that the jews were animals. They really believed this. This was their way of thinking. So, what's the crime here? Thinking that jews are animals? As long as researchers in the US are allowed to virtually torture to death lab animals, then, yes, the only crime committed by nazi death doctors is that they thought of jews as animals.
When the nazi regime was broken up, these heinous sickos moved to other countries and led normal lives. So what does that tell you?
It tells you that there is no such thing as heinous and sick; there's only what is allowed by law and what isn't. We don't put pepole in prison for being sickos. We put them in prison for breaking the law.
Someday, we'll look back and be totally appalled by what we're doing to animals. We won't understand it. In fact, we'll do everything we can to distance ourselves from it. We'll say stuff like, "Only a small portion of the population really supported it." Who knows. But, we probably won't acknowledge that we all had a hand in it by way of our own apathy toward it.
Put down the A.L.F. literature In order to carry out experiments on animals you have to go through animal research boards and animal review boards which have the general public on them. Yes there are things that are done to animals that CANNOT be done to humans in early phases of research, b/c (imho and a lot of researchers opinions) humans are more important than animals.
I realize that nazi's thought the jews were animals and that is sick and heinous and so was the worlds lack of response in some of those instances.
I don't think that we'll look back on animal research and be upset. If you get a chance to see the movie "something the lord made" I'd do it. It's about early heart surgery; they praciticed on dogs in order to save human lives. It's not just about that, but you catch my drift?
If we all of the sudden made it legal to experiment on people like the way the nazis did, I guarantee we would have no shortage of otherwise "law abiding" doctors to do the job.
One example I can think of is the tuskegee syphilis experiment. I'm sure you already know of these experiments. They involved giving syphillis to unsuspecting black men just to see how the disease goes to work. When penicillin was invented, the doctors deliberately withheld it so that they could observe the progressed stages of the disease.
That's just as sick as any nazi experiment if you ask me. But, it's what our government allowed to happen because black people were animals back then. It didn't take a sick doctor to do those experiments. It took a general consensus of approval.
That's why nazi doctors are not sick and heinous. Apathy is sick and heinous.
The Tuskegee experiement was criminal as was the nazi stuff (as a side the medical community learned a lot from those...WHICH IN NO WAY JUSTIFIES IT OR SHOULD EVER BE USED TO CONDONE SUCH ACTIONS). Also, I don't think there was a general consesus of approval for either the nazi's or tuskegee experiments b/c there was a huge outcry once it got public.
The nazi doctors are sick and heinous b/c of what they did just as it's disturbing that society on some level tolerated it. I agree the situation was "right" for those to occurr but that doesn't mean it's not sick or heinous. Plus, wouldn't you try to blend in to society and act normal if you knew the things you did while working in a concentration camp adn you are aware of the public outcry of what happened.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
When Oedipus found out he was responsible for all the mishap in his country he couldn't bare it anymore and stabbed out his own eyes and left his country.
Oedipus was a king. Kings represent an absolute monarchy. An absolute monarchy is different from fascism only in the sense that kings supposedly have some kind of bloodline superior to the commoner.
And that's why I think the Oedipus analogy actually supports my stance more than it counters it. Oedipus should never have been king. He should have been elected, and there should have been a parliament or something to that effect. Atrocities are what ALWAYS happen when there is too much of a centralized authority and not enough oversight.
In order to carry out experiments on animals you have to go through animal research boards and animal review boards which have the general public on them. Yes there are things that are done to animals that CANNOT be done to humans in early phases of research, b/c (imho and a lot of researchers opinions) humans are more important than animals.
In recent research done on primates at columbia university, a test was done on to study the effect of stress on the menstrual cycle. To induce the "stress" part of the experiment, a weight was surgically attached to the skull. Researchers then observed the primate's stress levels resulting from having to walk around with a weight surgically attached to its skull. And what about primates that are injected with AIDS? How about ones that are subjected to electrocution of the testicles to induce ejaculation?
Those sound pretty nazi-like to me. And so because an oversight board approves all of this, that must mean it's ethical? You do make a point that humans do sometimes benefit from those experiments, but using that as a justification is just basically saying that human life is more valuable that an animal's life. So, like I was saying, the difference is that the nazis thought of jews as animals. And if we call thinking of certain people as animals sick and heinous, then I would say that most of the population would qualify as a nazi.
Also, I don't think there was a general consesus of approval for either the nazi's or tuskegee experiments b/c there was a huge outcry once it got public.
Maybe not a general consensus of the public, but a general consensus in the from of approval from a government body that is in control of the public. My point about the tuskegee experiment is that the doctors who performed that experiment were never classified as "sick and heinous", yet by your defition, they should be.
The nazi doctors are sick and heinous b/c of what they did just as it's disturbing that society on some level tolerated it. I agree the situation was "right" for those to occurr but that doesn't mean it's not sick or heinous. Plus, wouldn't you try to blend in to society and act normal if you knew the things you did while working in a concentration camp adn you are aware of the public outcry of what happened.
What you're saying there is that the acts that were carried out are sick and heinous. I agree. But, it can't be said that the people who carried them out were sick and heinous.
Like you said, now that they are in a society that disapproves of that behavior, they act normal. Under that rationale, if those people in that normal society were placed in a situation where the government condoned acts that are sick and heinous, they would probably do it. That's why nazi doctors are a product of their situation, not of their own sick and heinous tendencies. And once we acknowledge the situation and the situation alone, we are then better equipped to prevent such occurrences from happening again.
65% of the participants allowed themselves to commit what they believed was life-threatening torture on an unwilling individual simply because they were pressured to do so by the test administrator. That's a lot of sick and heinous people out there.
Comments
I think it goes both ways. Some people may know what they're doing is wrong but like you said...can't think far enough to consider the consequences. But you have people who commit crimes such as murder, fully aware of what they're doing and what the consequences will be. These people go through steps to try and ensure that they don't get caught.
I remember watching the discovery channel about a murder that took place. Seemed a neighbor who had the I.Q. of a genuis laced his neighbor's coke with a poison that is very hard to trace and unless you're looking for it...generally won't be found. By a fluke the doctors found it and upon searching his house they fround notebooks filled with diagrams and chemical compositions of poisions. This guy planned out this whole thing, found out what chemical worked best...and what would be hard to trace. He ended up killing the mom and nearly killing two teenage boys. Motivation? The kids were too loud.
Let me speak from personal experience. Because I've been through some real shit and I've almost killed people and tried to kill people. People that I love.
I know many people will hear this stuff and their whole opinion of me will be changed. Because people don't think you come back from that. They think you always have those tendancies. Well I don't. I don't even kill insects in my apartment because I'd rather tolerate them than kill them.
I experienced a serious head trauma when I was a little boy. As mentioned before I was hit by a truck travelling approximately 80 kph (50 mph). Immediately following that I became a very violent person, just like Phineas Gage. I almost killed my best friend and all of my family. By the time I was 8, I was hitting the road, I said fuck this I'm out. But I didn't go anywhere, something made me stay, security I suppose. Life had been good up to that point. The doctors started thinking I had brain damage and at the time I took a lot of offense to it. But looking back now and knowing about Phineas Gage I can see what they meant.
Thankfully there was a part of me that continued to stop me from actually killing anyone. Though that didn't stop me from seriously injuring them or trying to dominate them. To this day I don't know why, I guess a combination of head trauma to the prefrontal cortex and the psychological consequences of almost dying, spending two weeks in the hospital and having my teeth wired shut for a few months.
Anyway, eventually as I was getting older I started to calm down. But by this time I was really sick and tired of the system and all it's bullshit. I was 13 being told to draw pictures and play in a damn sandbox because they thought I was still 5 years old. They diagnosed me with every damn thing in their psychology books and nothing seemed to fix me. So, I started to freak out at them and fight with them. I was eventually put into the psychiatric ward of the hospital where I was analyzed some more and drew more pictures. After that I commited more crimes and hurt more people until I was eventually sent off to a half-way house. I broke out of there, went AWOL with some inmates and caused more chaos. I was totally addicted to it.
After that, I was looking at some serious time in juvenile hall, or worse. I had already commited crimes I hadn't been caught for. Serious crimes that would have landed me in juvy. Somehow, I pulled out of it, my parents had split and my dad was living in Victoria, so I went to stay with him. My whole life changed at that point, I wasn't the person I was before, I had freedom to give an impression to people. Before everyone knew me, they knew what I was like, so I couldn't change.
Ten years later, my whole perspective has changed. Life is so much different now. People actually like me and I fit into society, it's awesome. I honestly thought I would be dead or in jail by age 19. I couldn't forsee this happening.
So you see, this is just me. It's not all that bad really, well, I didn't mention all the details. But other people have lead similar lives, and much much worse. It can go either way, I could have killed someone, I came pretty close a few times. I'm thankful I didn't, as I'm sure they are too. But I can understand how people get to the point, I've felt it before. I wanted to kill everyone at one time or another. Totally indiscriminate killing because I thought my life sucked.
Anyway, a product of society, if I was never hit by that truck. Maybe none of that shit would have happened. Sorry again for spewing hardcore reality about my life. I just can't seem to keep information to myself when I think sharing it could be helpful. It's not a self-pity trip, it's an awareness thing. I'm not saying I'm better either, just saying this is real shit.
I don't think it's a matter of responsibility. I think it's a matter of making society safer. We arrest murderers and put them in prison so that society is free from the threat of that person's murderous ways.
And at the same time, we set an example for other would-be murderers. We make it known that murder will be met with extreme consequences.
But, by instituting the death penalty, we send the message that in spite of the fact that society is safer, the consequences should be taken to the next level just for the sake of good measure.
That is, we send the message that the value of a human life is really a matter of perspective -and that that perspective is the perspective of the person who is flipping the switch on the electric chair - the "executioner", if you will. The executioner in this case represents the collective will of the american people and judicial system.
And of course the murderer is saying, "A matter of perspective? What about my perspective?" And our response is, "Your perspective doesn't matter, therefore, your life doesn't matter."
And so the cycle continues without said murderer ever really learning the value of human life, which is that the value of human life is not a matter of perspective. This is because if the value of human life was a matter of perspective, then harmony amongst all people from all walks of life will never be achieved.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
It is the perspective of the people at large that leads to the way we deal with criminals. I've studied criminology and what it teaches is in drastic contrast to how we deal with criminals. We know it's psychological and it's phsycial abnormalities that drive people to commit crimes. Yet we lock them all up and throw away the key. We attempt to rehabilitate them by putting them in with other bad examples.
If you put five male mice into a cage together with no females, is it their fault they fuck each other?
Because they do. But if you put some females in there, they stick to heterosexual intercourse.
Marilyn Manson sang in hist song "Beautiful People"
"If you live with apes man, it's hard to be clean"
If you put criminals in with criminals all you get is criminals. We are products of our surroundings and the influences we are subjected to coupled with our genetics.
It is also easy to understand why:
1) people get used to violence
2) people see that the same state use death as a method, so they start to think that if it is a valid method for the state, it is a valid method also for them
www.amnesty.org.uk
I did not say the death penalty was a deterrent. I said extreme consequences were a deterrent. And by extreme consequences I meant life sentences. Immediately following my use of the term extreme consequences, I mentioned the death penalty as taking it to the next level. So, it was never implied by me that the death penalty acts as a deterrent.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I completely agree. However, I think it's the best we can do with system that we have. We cannot afford to put every single criminal into a truly rehabilitative environment with group therapy and psychoactive meds.
But, I also think that criminals are also products of their environments outside of prison. I think if they grew up in a certain environment or lived a certain neighborhood, then their likelihood of being a criminal has increased.
But,I don't think we can ignore the fact that the harshness of prison life really does serve as a wake-up call to would-be repeat offenders. Some of them just need a swift kick in the ass to help them stay on the straight and narrow. In those cases, it's a matter of doing to them what their pre-frontal cortex should've done for them.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
When an animal does something we say "oh well they are just animals."
Well we are just animals too, only a little bit better at some things.
If we realize that we are all responsible for the way our societies influences people and the way we treat people. If we could all be so self-aware that we don't mistreat people and don't lay judgement on people. We could have the eutopia we dream of. We make no effort to understand people, we only provide consequences. I'm no different, but I am making progress in that direction.
Well that doesn't solve the problem. They only learn how to be better criminals in Jail. Sure some come out alright for a while. But the success rate is really bad.
Anyway, it had some really good statistics and stuff in it, but I guess she took it with her.
Are you familiar with the term conduct disorder? Sociopath? Some people will just never understand the difference between right and wrong. Yes, I agree it's not their fault. Obviously, they are a product of their environment. But, once they're gone, they're gone. All the therapy in the world isn't going to change that. That's what earns them those labels. Ever read in any psychology text about a sociopath or conduct disorder being "cured"?
Yes, I am aware of the low rehabilitation rates at prisons. But, how do we really know what kind of rehabilitation rates we'd be seeing if we put them into a pscyhe ward instead? Has that ever been done on a large scale with violent criminals?
Regardless, the money just isn't there. Our system can barely afford to house and feed the prisoners that we have. And that's what I'm getting at when I say that it's really the best we can do with the resources we have. All we can do is hope that some of those criminals learn from the experience of receiving the consequences alone. I am aware that it is an exception rather than the norm, but who's got the billions it would cost to do otherwise?
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
After you got out of the psyche ward, you committed more crimes and hurt more people....
Your whole life changed before you ever served time in juvy? You just said that you "felt a lot different coming out of the psyche ward than I did the jail."
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I've been to holding cells, and the half-way house was very similar to Juvy. None of it is anything like big time. I think how I felt at the time is as important as the crimes I commited. The real cure for me was getting a fresh start on life. Even that took a long time to set in. I spent most of my time in solitude for several years.
It's expensive to house criminals in jail, but when is it ok to put a price tag on life?
The key point I am trying to make is that we need to put more effort into understanding and refining society to prevent violent crimes. What we do with violent criminals is also important. I do believe some people are unfortunately uncurable, or will most likely not be cured, but we don't make any progress by executing them.
I think what you're getting at is a guns and butter analogy. The government can build more missiles, or it can do more to rehabilitate criminals.
We could cut back on some programs and redirect that money into building better prisons. But, how much of a guarantee do you have that pseudo-psyche-ward prisons would make that much of an impact? You don't have that guarantee.
I think for the most part that once a person makes the decision to lead a life of crime, we have lost that person. Those who somehow make the change for the better usually make that decision for themselves.
It's like how that joke that goes, "How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb? One, but the lightbulb has to be willing to change."
And this goes back to your point about prevention. Now we're talking about sociological problems. That's where the biggest impact would be made, if at all. And that's where the money should be spent. But, just where to begin is what social scientists the world over have arguing about.
And it is only after we've solved the crime problem from the causation side that we should start worrying about the rehabilitative side, just as a fire extinguisher should be pointed at the base of the fire instead of the body of the fire.
And that's why I say that, yes, putting a price-tage on human life is an acceptable notion when considering the cost of improving jail conditions. And, of course, I do not hold the stance that progress is achieved through executions.
I think the reason why you are fighting so vigorously for the rights of prisoners is because you are still struggling with forgiving yourself for your actions. You see the system as having failed you, and you are trying to find an explanation as to how you ever became so fucked up in the first place.
So, by extending your forgiveness to these prisoners, you are in turn forgiving yourself. You're saying, "Look at how misunderstood these people are, just as I was so misunderstood."
But, I think what you're forgetting is that you changed through an act of your own free will. It doesn't sound like the psyche ward did you much good. Maybe lock-up didn't do you much good either. You said it yourself that you just ended up in another more positive environment and took it from there.
I doubt the average prison inmate possesses that kind of intrinsic will of redemption. But, you are assuming that they do.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
My experiences I use for reflection and understanding. I don't need forgiveness for the things I've done. My family has forgiven me and everyone else I assume would. I was also in a situation where I was targetted by a lot of people and constantly evading confrontation. So, all that becomes me. There was a time when no one understood me. I'd explain things to the authorities and they just find another explanation that suits their precepts.
It was to the point that I was being forced to consume antihistamines because the doctors believed my allergy to red food dye changed my behaviour. All I can say is there are a lot of stupid doctors and psychologists that don't listen to their patients, or don't trust their patients.
It seems like there is no solution sometimes. But I won't give up.
So I wondered what pro-death penalty people think we should do when a person is proven to be innocent but yet was executed. This must be a dilemma. I mean, the whole ideology behind the death penalty is justice right, making sure that these killers can never kill again and that they pay the ultimate price for the heinous act.
So, either someone goes to jail for murder, maybe even several people, all the people responsible for taking an innocent man’s life or they do nothing. They admit the system is not flawless, they admit that their “justice” is worth an innocent man’s life and at the same time they say a murderer can get away with the murder of an innocent person. By doing nothing, they go up against their own ideology, because these killers will kill again without ever paying for the exact same heinous act other killers pay for with their life. But then, what’s the point of the death penalty?
naděje umírá poslední
that is a very thought provoking question. What DO we do with people who wrongly exectue another human being. (maybe we put the lawyer who prosecuted the defendant on trial if he was responsible for convincing the jury with the guilty verdict...that way we have someone who will be "atonement" for a wrongful death AND (poss more importantly) we'll start decreasing the amount of lawyers we have) Perhaps if the stakes were so high that the legal party responsible for bringing the death penalty would be put to death in the case of wrong conviction we might have lessened the chance for abuse of the death penalty.
Buy you're right, right now we just chalk it up to an oops, we thought we had our guy and that is just as bad. My answer above is very (perhaps too) simplistic of an answer b/c then you have the issue of finding out who lied under oath or who lied by commission or omission etc... which would imply someone knew the absolute truth.
False convictions are the collateral damage of the war against crime. If we're going to stand behind the death penalty, then we have to accept the realities that go along with the imperfections of the judicial system in terms of how it reaches those convictions.
We accept those realities in the case of imprisonment sentences, so the same must go for the death penalty if we are to treat both as equally appropriate measures of punishment for the guilty.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
if you wrongly imprison someone you can let them out; if you wrongfully kill someone; they are SOL. they are not equally appropriate measures of punishment; that is why there needs to be every step taken to ensure that a mistake does not happen.
I would think that a vast majority of those who are imprisoned under a false conviction eventually are not let out. Even with the innocence project out there trying to exonerate the falsely convicted, false convictions that are never overturned are still a reality of the justice system.
And so there's still going to be false convictions leading to mistaken identity executions. To say that we should allow the death penalty "as long as every step is taken..." is to disregard the reality of false convictions.
That's why I say...if we assume the death penalty to be right, then we should accept false convictions as a reality and not use it as a means of making the death penalty wrong.
But, I also hold my own logic up to the strict test of consistency. So, it was like last night or so that I said to myself, "If our penal system should really only exist for the sake of separating and rehabilitating, then the following should be true: those nazi war criminals who are living peacefully and lawfully in other countries should be pardoned."
Those nazi war criminals are a perfect example of people who committed atrocities, yet are able to function like normal human beings amongst civilized society.
The reason why they committed those atrocities is not because they're heinous, sick people. The reason why they committed those atrocities is because they were given the power to do it under the right circumstances for it to be carried out.
Now that they have been relieved of that power and removed from those circumstances, they are back to normal. From this point on, justice is in the form of revenge only (aka accountability).
But, by attempting to enforce that justice, we are actually trying to remove ourselves from any responsibility when, in fact, we did have responsibility. We are responsible because if we as a human race cannot prevent shit like that before it happens, then it will always happen regardless of the consequences for those who perpetrate it. So, in effect, we do have that ultimate responsibility.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Said this, I'm against death penalty, so even those people that committed crimes against humanity should not be put to death
www.amnesty.org.uk
I was waiting for someone to say that.
My rationale is that it's not a deterrent. Nazi war criminals thrived in a society where it wasn't illegal. So, if a nazi situation like that happens in the future, the potential war criminal is not going to be concerned about international tribunals.
The real deterrent is to let these guys remain free so that the world understands what the problem really was -apathy on the part of the world.
I have an analogy and it goes like this. If we the US with our fity states decided to set up a new state, give it complete autonomy, and let it create its own laws, then we as the US could not reasonably prosecute anybody who follows the laws of that state, but not the laws of the US.
It's really our fault for letting that state exist, just as it's really the world's fault for letting fascist germany exist. People like churchill saw that problem way before it happened, but nobody did shit about it. It's that apathy that is the problem, not the war criminals themselves. So, to think that tracking them down and putting them away will make future potential-war criminals think twice is like ignoring what causes war criminals in the first place.
That's why I said in that post that unless we take full responsibility as an international community for what happened in germany, things like what happened in germany will always happen regardless of the consequences that await those who perpetrate it. Fascist regimes would not exist if the people who led them were even remotely concerned about international law.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Paul Rusesabagina, the man that inspired the movie "hotel rwanda" wrote for example that when he started to say to the people committing the genocide "I will tell to the international courts that you've been good with us", they started to help him, because they were scared of that.
www.amnesty.org.uk
I wasn't referring to the death penalty. I was referring to any penalty.
Regardless of what Rusesabagina said to the mass murderers of rwanda, there is still a crapload of genocide going on in africa to this very day. The international courts know about this. The whole world knows about this.
And that's my point. My point is that the world misses the point. The point is not to put the leaders in jail. The point is to disable the regime. If putting the leaders in jail succceeds in disabling the regime, then obviously that's the right move.
But, that's different from nazi criminals. That regime is broken and those criminals don't pose a threat. There is no practical reason to lock them up other than revenge. And that act of revenge is part of the problem why genocide still exists. The world is too focused on blaming a few responsible individuals, not the duty the rest of us have to disable the influence those few responsible individuals have.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I'll agree that with the imperfect justice system we will have to acknowledge that wrong people may and most likely will be put to death. I don't like the word accept the way you use it but I won't fight over semantics early on monday.
I will take issue with your accusation that the nazi's weren't sick people though. Legality or not something should tell you that performing THOSE experiments on people is wrong. And I feel they should be held accountable for their actions. Who knows, maybe the pain and torture they live with (assumption on my part) is punishment enough; to know every day taht you committed those heinous acts.
I agree that society has a role and should be held accountable; but not so much that the individual can be let off the hook or not held accountable for their actions.
The truth be told, scientific researchers in the US legally do just as sickening, if not worse, on chimpanzees and rats than any nazi dr. ever did to a jew.
The nazis believed that the jews were animals. They really believed this. This was their way of thinking. So, what's the crime here? Thinking that jews are animals? As long as researchers in the US are allowed to virtually torture to death lab animals, then, yes, the only crime committed by nazi death doctors is that they thought of jews as animals.
When the nazi regime was broken up, these heinous sickos moved to other countries and led normal lives. So what does that tell you?
It tells you that there is no such thing as heinous and sick; there's only what is allowed by law and what isn't. We don't put pepole in prison for being sickos. We put them in prison for breaking the law.
Someday, we'll look back and be totally appalled by what we're doing to animals. We won't understand it. In fact, we'll do everything we can to distance ourselves from it. We'll say stuff like, "Only a small portion of the population really supported it." Who knows. But, we probably won't acknowledge that we all had a hand in it by way of our own apathy toward it.
If we all of the sudden made it legal to experiment on people like the way the nazis did, I guarantee we would have no shortage of otherwise "law abiding" doctors to do the job.
One example I can think of is the tuskegee syphilis experiment. I'm sure you already know of these experiments. They involved giving syphillis to unsuspecting black men just to see how the disease goes to work. When penicillin was invented, the doctors deliberately withheld it so that they could observe the progressed stages of the disease.
That's just as sick as any nazi experiment if you ask me. But, it's what our government allowed to happen because black people were animals back then. It didn't take a sick doctor to do those experiments. It took a general consensus of approval.
That's why nazi doctors are not sick and heinous. Apathy is sick and heinous.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Have you ever read Milan Kundera's The Unbearable Lightness of Being? There's a very interesting part in it, which I happen to agree with. I'll come back to it later on.
However sad it may be, animal testing is not forbidden, it is indeed legal. We can protest against it and do whatever we can to stop it. And you make a point when you say nazi's viewed Jews, homosexuals, Roma as animals and thus their only crime was exactly that and since animal testing is not illegal, their actions may be viewed as "what was, and still is allowed." It's hard to see people as human, when they are starved, when they live, and sometimes eat, their own fæces, they were given numbers...
But the fact is, killing people, torturing people is illegal. And this is where Milan Kundera comes in. In his book he compares the attrocities of the communists with the story of Oedipus.
When Oedipus found out he was responsible for all the mishap in his country he couldn't bare it anymore and stabbed out his own eyes and left his country. Although Oedipus never intended to cause those misfortunes, when he found out, he accepted responsibility. He didn't hide behind lame excuses such as "I didn't know." He felt guilty.
A lot of nazi's hided behind the "Ich habe es nicht gewusst" facade, a way of pushing responsibility away. Though they might not have known, they know now and I think they should be punished. Saying they didn't see the Jews as human is no excuse in my opinion, because they know now. They should, imo, admit their guilt and be punished, though living with knowing what they did must not be easy.
I agree, but I don't think it's an excuse to hide behind.
naděje umírá poslední
Put down the A.L.F. literature
I realize that nazi's thought the jews were animals and that is sick and heinous and so was the worlds lack of response in some of those instances.
I don't think that we'll look back on animal research and be upset. If you get a chance to see the movie "something the lord made" I'd do it. It's about early heart surgery; they praciticed on dogs in order to save human lives. It's not just about that, but you catch my drift?
The Tuskegee experiement was criminal as was the nazi stuff (as a side the medical community learned a lot from those...WHICH IN NO WAY JUSTIFIES IT OR SHOULD EVER BE USED TO CONDONE SUCH ACTIONS). Also, I don't think there was a general consesus of approval for either the nazi's or tuskegee experiments b/c there was a huge outcry once it got public.
The nazi doctors are sick and heinous b/c of what they did just as it's disturbing that society on some level tolerated it. I agree the situation was "right" for those to occurr but that doesn't mean it's not sick or heinous. Plus, wouldn't you try to blend in to society and act normal if you knew the things you did while working in a concentration camp adn you are aware of the public outcry of what happened.
Oedipus was a king. Kings represent an absolute monarchy. An absolute monarchy is different from fascism only in the sense that kings supposedly have some kind of bloodline superior to the commoner.
And that's why I think the Oedipus analogy actually supports my stance more than it counters it. Oedipus should never have been king. He should have been elected, and there should have been a parliament or something to that effect. Atrocities are what ALWAYS happen when there is too much of a centralized authority and not enough oversight.
In recent research done on primates at columbia university, a test was done on to study the effect of stress on the menstrual cycle. To induce the "stress" part of the experiment, a weight was surgically attached to the skull. Researchers then observed the primate's stress levels resulting from having to walk around with a weight surgically attached to its skull. And what about primates that are injected with AIDS? How about ones that are subjected to electrocution of the testicles to induce ejaculation?
Those sound pretty nazi-like to me. And so because an oversight board approves all of this, that must mean it's ethical? You do make a point that humans do sometimes benefit from those experiments, but using that as a justification is just basically saying that human life is more valuable that an animal's life. So, like I was saying, the difference is that the nazis thought of jews as animals. And if we call thinking of certain people as animals sick and heinous, then I would say that most of the population would qualify as a nazi.
Maybe not a general consensus of the public, but a general consensus in the from of approval from a government body that is in control of the public. My point about the tuskegee experiment is that the doctors who performed that experiment were never classified as "sick and heinous", yet by your defition, they should be.
What you're saying there is that the acts that were carried out are sick and heinous. I agree. But, it can't be said that the people who carried them out were sick and heinous.
Like you said, now that they are in a society that disapproves of that behavior, they act normal. Under that rationale, if those people in that normal society were placed in a situation where the government condoned acts that are sick and heinous, they would probably do it. That's why nazi doctors are a product of their situation, not of their own sick and heinous tendencies. And once we acknowledge the situation and the situation alone, we are then better equipped to prevent such occurrences from happening again.
Please refer to the milgram experiments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
65% of the participants allowed themselves to commit what they believed was life-threatening torture on an unwilling individual simply because they were pressured to do so by the test administrator. That's a lot of sick and heinous people out there.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825