The Death Penalty

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

A solution to a problem nobody asked for. Nobody wants murder as a solution... they'd rather the problem never manifest itself.

Given we are forced to deal with such events though, what exactly is the appropriate response? I guess that depends on your perspective. I know where you stand with regards to this issue and I am okay with that. I'm not as forgiving as you however; to me, some crimes simply demand a punishment that meets their level of obscenity.

I do not feel as if I am 'lessening' myself supporting death for some as a consequence for their actions. I'd prefer never having to read of such brutality, but forced to... well... I feel as if we should respond in a matter that reflects our disdain for the crime.

this is a common misconception from pro-DPers. It has nothing to do with forgiveness. it is about one thing and one thing only: making a choice about someone's mortality that shouldn't be ours to make. nothing else.

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

A solution to a problem nobody asked for. Nobody wants murder as a solution... they'd rather the problem never manifest itself.

Given we are forced to deal with such events though, what exactly is the appropriate response? I guess that depends on your perspective. I know where you stand with regards to this issue and I am okay with that. I'm not as forgiving as you however; to me, some crimes simply demand a punishment that meets their level of obscenity.

I do not feel as if I am 'lessening' myself supporting death for some as a consequence for their actions. I'd prefer never having to read of such brutality, but forced to... well... I feel as if we should respond in a matter that reflects our disdain for the crime.

this is a common misconception from pro-DPers. It has nothing to do with forgiveness. it is about one thing and one thing only: making a choice about someone's mortality that shouldn't be ours to make. nothing else.

So you have decided what the choices we can make regarding that person's fate can be then. In other words, you feel your ideals are the most appropriate for matters such as these.

What if an extreme naturalist argued that it should not be our choice to lock anyone in prison and that society should be as it was meant to be in our most natural state and survival of the fittest? In other words, we are all free to live as nature intended- doing as we please and dealing with things as we must without any governance at all.

I am sure we would both agree that this is not appropriate. So... as we agreeingly begin to move along the continuum from there to the point where we think humanity should exist (as it pertains to crime and punishment)... we come to the point where the idea of capital punishment is entertained. You elect to stop short of this and declare that we should not make decisions regarding someone's mortality. With 100% confidence, can you declare that this is the correct spot to stop? As much as it 'feels right' for you... the death penalty 'feels right' for others.

Don't get me wrong- I'm not trying to attack you. I just think that there are good, intelligent people all along the spectrum and from everything I know... there is no 'correct' course of action. What I do know is that for us to be typing away on these keyboards trying to make sense of it all... there are people that care. Your opinon is valued by me. It is well-stated. I just disagree.

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

So you have decided what the choices we can make regarding that person's fate can be then. In other words, you feel your ideals are the most appropriate for matters such as these.

What if an extreme naturalist argued that it should not be our choice to lock anyone in prison and that society should be as it was meant to be in our most natural state and survival of the fittest? In other words, we are all free to live as nature intended- doing as we please and dealing with things as we must without any governance at all.

I am sure we would both agree that this is not appropriate. So... as we agreeingly begin to move along the continuum from there to the point where we think humanity should exist (as it pertains to crime and punishment)... we come to the point where the idea of capital punishment is entertained. You elect to stop short of this and declare that we should not make decisions regarding someone's mortality. With 100% confidence, can you declare that this is the correct spot to stop? As much as it 'feels right' for you... the death penalty 'feels right' for others.

Don't get me wrong- I'm not trying to attack you. I just think that there are good, intelligent people all along the spectrum and from everything I know... there is no 'correct' course of action. What I do know is that for us to be typing away on these keyboards trying to make sense of it all... there are people that care. Your opinon is valued by me. It is well-stated. I just disagree.

I was wondering if/when this point was going to come up, because it is a valid one. How does the current solution of taking away the freedom of a criminal not infringe upon his rights as capital punishment also does? I get that. But I think the answer lies in doing the very least we have to in order to protect society. putting them to death is an extreme that isn't necessary for public safety. People on death row, or life in prison, pose no risk to the general public. Except in extreme cases of escape, but again, I don't think it's right to kill someone based on a hypothetical.

Byrnzie wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

I feel as if we should respond in a matter that reflects our disdain for the crime.

Thereby demonstrating that the society in question does not exist on a higher footing than that of emotional responses, and violent impulses.
Such a society sees violence and death as solutions to it's problems. And what society created these problems in the first place? Do murderers and rapists evolve independently of the World around them? Is society perfectly good, and a criminal perfectly evil? I doubt anyone could be so arrogant as to answer yes to either of the above.
Shoud society respond to it's sickness with more sickness? Or should society exist on a level removed from such primitive feelings of violence and revenge? Isn't the test of any civilized society the ability to maintain and adhere to a strict moral code in the face of the worst kinds of sadism and barbarity?

whoa. very well put.

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Regardless, I still feel the same. Let's not give ourselves too much credit. Idealistic and romantic notions of a noble and higher order society reflect illusions of grandeur. They sound great, but since the beginning of time, we have waged wars, wreaked havoc on the earth, slaughtered animals, and killed each other for fun. I think it is fair to suggest we are far from divine. In light of what is our reality... I'm not sure why one might think we can dignify ourselves by displaying compassion and mercy on someone who has kidnapped, raped and dismembered a small child.

but I think we are capable, as a species, of living in this idealistic state. Just because we aren't necessarily that way now doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to be better than we currently are.

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Regardless, I still feel the same. Let's not give ourselves too much credit. Idealistic and romantic notions of a noble and higher order society reflect illusions of grandeur. They sound great, but since the beginning of time, we have waged wars, wreaked havoc on the earth, slaughtered animals, and killed each other for fun. I think it is fair to suggest we are far from divine. In light of what is our reality... I'm not sure why one might think we can dignify ourselves by displaying compassion and mercy on someone who has kidnapped, raped and dismembered a small child.

but I think we are capable, as a species, of living in this idealistic state. Just because we aren't necessarily that way now doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to be better than we currently are.

Certainly. But don't you think measuring our progress towards an idealistic state might be best measured with our efforts to feed the hungry or to stop waging wars?

I'm not prepared to agree with the statements that suggest we are 'better' for not executing some murderers. Such statements reflect one set of values and, as I have expressed in an earlier post, these values may not necessarily be the 'correct' or 'best' values. I still feel death is appropriate for some no matter how one might try to illustrate the nobility in displaying a level of compassion towards a person committing a heinous and brutal crime.