| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - State Killing
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


State Killing

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>
Author
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: State Killing
    Posted: 28 Apr 2015 at 03:43
Do we (you, me, the state, spiritual authorities, anyone) have the right to kill?

And if so, for what reason? Murder? Drug offensives? Rape? Massive economic mayhem?

Does anyone have a right to take a life in our modern world?

Turning things around a bit, why should taxpayers foot the bill for a crazed serial killer who lives out a multi-decades life behind bars (there are some), who will never, ever, walk the streets again, given his or her crime?

Indonesia is running into condemnation right now for its intention to execute some drug dealers...but are they wrong?

At what point do societies rights collide with individual rights, and who...if anyone.......should yield?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-32491975
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Apr 2015 at 05:58
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Do we (you, me, the state, spiritual authorities, anyone) have the right to kill?

And if so, for what reason? Murder? Drug offensives? Rape? Massive economic mayhem?

Does anyone have a right to take a life in our modern world?
<span style="line-height: 1.4;">
</span>
<span style="line-height: 1.4;">Turning things around a bit, why should taxpayers foot the bill for a crazed serial killer who lives out a multi-decades life behind bars (there are some), who will never, ever, walk the streets again, given his or her crime?</span>
<span style="line-height: 1.4;">
</span>
<span style="line-height: 1.4;">Indonesia is running into condemnation right now for its intention to execute some drug dealers...but are they wrong?</span>
<span style="line-height: 1.4;">
</span>
<span style="line-height: 1.4;">At what point do societies rights collide with individual rights, and who...if anyone.......should yield?</span>
<span style="line-height: 1.4;">
</span>
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-32491975

Many countries have skipped death penalty. Even if for some offenses and persons we may doubt the do not deserve the worst that seems the right to do, and then also weget Things clearer and simpler: No death penalty mens no, instead of either endless discussions about where exactly goes the limit for deserving it, or alternatively execute people and later find out they are innocent or at least deserved far less. Of course such doubts may exist for other forms of punishments, but at least then there is a chance to rectify later. I did not mention "rights" since I have some reservations about the very notion (I wilol get no deeper into it, and other participants may see it as just about "semanticts").
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Apr 2015 at 00:17
Should people with life sentences be allowed to sellect the death penalty?
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3570
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Apr 2015 at 04:04
Originally posted by wolfhnd wolfhnd wrote:

Should people with life sentences be allowed to sellect the death penalty?
 
No, I don't think so.
 
Having been convicted of a serious crime, the convicted person should suffer the punishment awarded by the court, but not death.
 
Having said this, the awarding of a thousand years in prison, as has happened in the USA, or Life plus 200 is stupid. "Life" means life and not 10 or 20years either.
 
By it's harsh sentencing procedures, the USA has corrupted the sentencing process by deals with the prosecution due to the overcrowding of prisons.
 
The death penalty hasn't acted as a deterrent in serious cases so it's pointless using it.
 
The USA should look at other means of punishment for the less serious crimes and free up prison space for the more serious.
 
 
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Apr 2015 at 08:58
We really were not focused on the US and the question of the right to die seems like a good starting point for this discussion for several reasons.  
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Apr 2015 at 21:45
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Do we (you, me, the state, spiritual authorities, anyone) have the right to kill?

And if so, for what reason? Murder? Drug offensives? Rape? Massive economic mayhem?

Does anyone have a right to take a life in our modern world?
<span style="line-height: 1.4;">
</span>
<span style="line-height: 1.4;">Turning things around a bit, why should taxpayers foot the bill for a crazed serial killer who lives out a multi-decades life behind bars (there are some), who will never, ever, walk the streets again, given his or her crime?</span>
<span style="line-height: 1.4;">
</span>
<span style="line-height: 1.4;">Indonesia is running into condemnation right now for its intention to execute some drug dealers...but are they wrong?</span>
<span style="line-height: 1.4;">
</span>
<span style="line-height: 1.4;">At what point do societies rights collide with individual rights, and who...if anyone.......should yield?</span>
<span style="line-height: 1.4;">
</span>
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-32491975

If the majority have voted for the death penalty in a given state then the right to do so exists. Retribution on behalf of victims is acceptable according to 68% of Americans. That figure differs based on the source.

Spiritually the question is not so polarizing as in politics. Capital punishment out of compassion for the victim makes sense to me, when serial killers not only destroy the victim but also the people who knew them. But compassion is not the legal standard.

In Ted Bundy's case he confessed to 30 murders. His victims are in the hundreds when you consider the haunted, agonizing life that the loved ones of his victims will endure.

We can justify war when its for the greater good. Murdered Ted Bundy does not bring a tear to my eye.
Though I wouldn't call it a deterrent since Bundy never thought he would be caught. First he blamed porn, then he confessed to additional murders, then pointed out places where he buried his victims all in the hope of getting life in prison. Surely he did not want to die, surely he was always thinking. In most cases violent offenders are not thinking they are reacting.

The data can and has been skewed for political purposes so I wouldn't trust a survey that claims to predict what an offender will be thinking during a robbery if they happen to be in a death penalty state.

Bundy got nine years of appeals he had good lawyers. The appeals are nessacary since mistakes are made by crime scene investigators, public defenders, lawyers, police and eye witnesses have all been known to be wrong. Sometimes it costs more for appeals then life in prison.

Indonesia is making an example of these guys as the article says, getting married while in custody to illicit sympathy. I don't think Indonesia is wrong. In the USA you can get life in prison for non- lethal violent crime.

If you commit horrible crimes in tribal communities such as the Kung, the rest of the tribe will kill you no question and no politics.
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Apr 2015 at 22:46
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by wolfhnd wolfhnd wrote:

Should people with life sentences be allowed to sellect the death penalty?
 
No, I don't think so.
 
Having been convicted of a serious crime, the convicted person should suffer the punishment awarded by the court, but not death.
 
Having said this, the awarding of a thousand years in prison, as has happened in the USA, or Life plus 200 is stupid. "Life" means life and not 10 or 20years either.
 
By it's harsh sentencing procedures, the USA has corrupted the sentencing process by deals with the prosecution due to the overcrowding of prisons.
 
The death penalty hasn't acted as a deterrent in serious cases so it's pointless using it.
 
The USA should look at other means of punishment for the less serious crimes and free up prison space for the more serious.
 
 

I'd say that there is more to consider when sentencing crime than just deterrent value. One must also take into account the slightly more abstract notion of community values, and perceived standards of justice. The less justice is seen to be done, the more likely individuals will drift from social solidarity, and towards self-interest. If there is little harsh sanction for murder, how important is honesty on that tax form, or that mortgage contract, or......? How is business done in Moscow, as apposed to London? Or in Somalia? The social contract can break down, or at least be stretched out of shape, if the notion is punted (however unintentionally) that values are not fixed but negotiable.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1969
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Apr 2015 at 01:16
I watched some of the opening statements for the James Holmes trial (theater shooting, 12? dead, etc.).
I think this "not guilty, by reason of insanity" is a good excuse for the next seriously, extremely disturbed person to _not_ talk himself out of something like this.  "I'm insane and therefore, I am not responsible for my actions."  No, I think that there was always a part of him that knew to hide his plans from the school psychologist.  There is a fascination of being on the edge, and there is a question of whether we pull someone back or push them into the abyss.  If they want to fall into the abyss, ultimately we cannot stop them, but we should let them know that taking others with them is, on a fundamental (primordial?) level, "not acceptable."

I am not saying that James Holmes should get the death penalty.  I am saying that we shouldn't say he
was not guilty, "by reason of insanity."  I would rather have a guilty verdict and let him live, then have him have a "not guilty by reason of insanity."  Many people in the world have problems with schizophrenia, almost all of them don't go Rambo in a theater full of movie goers.  He is guilty, period, regardless of what his sentence will be.



Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Apr 2015 at 02:00
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

I watched some of the opening statements for the James Holmes trial (theater shooting, 12? dead, etc.).
I think this "not guilty, by reason of insanity" is a good excuse for the next seriously, extremely disturbed person to _not_ talk himself out of something like this.  "I'm insane and therefore, I am not responsible for my actions."  No, I think that there was always a part of him that knew to hide his plans from the school psychologist.  There is a fascination of being on the edge, and there is a question of whether we pull someone back or push them into the abyss.  If they want to fall into the abyss, ultimately we cannot stop them, but we should let them know that taking others with them is, on a fundamental (primordial?) level, "not acceptable."

I am not saying that James Holmes should get the death penalty.  I am saying that we shouldn't say he
was not guilty, "by reason of insanity."  I would rather have a guilty verdict and let him live, then have him have a "not guilty by reason of insanity."  Many people in the world have problems with schizophrenia, almost all of them don't go Rambo in a theater full of movie goers.  He is guilty, period, regardless of what his sentence will be.




Good point. Mental illness runs on a continuum, and many of those even those fairly ill still have a sense of the world around them. Responsibility doesn't come to a full stop with a diagnosis of schizophrenia.
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Apr 2015 at 05:55
The point I was trying to make is why does the state have the right to say who will live but not who will die.  It's not enough that we value human life and make it a community standard but we should also considered the quality of life as part of that standard.  

It's pretty well established that punishment has little deterrent value so the logical assumption is that we incarcerate and execute people to remove the threat they pose to society.  For the most dangerous offenders the practical choice is life in prison or execution.  The standard for execution is that it be humane but what is the standard for permanent incarceration?  Couldn't permanent incarceration be cruel and unusual inhumane?  If incarceration is not a deterrent then what value is served by making it a punishment?  We make life in a zoo for dangerous animals as meaningful and pleasant as possible so why not in prison?  If our community values not only life but the quality of life then prisons should be as pleasant as practical.  If someone cannot have a reasonably meaningful life under a permanent incarceration why should they not be able to choice the death sentence?   While it is clear that human life must be the communities highest value but it is not clear that euthanasia and physician assisted suicide should be illegal or that the state has the right to deny those options.

This may all seem like hyperbola and off topic as concerns the death penalty but it isn't just human life we need to be concerned about but the quality of that life.  I believe we have two choices continue the death penalty or make permanent incarceration humane.  The question then becomes does society have the right to devote resources to murderers if it detracts from the quality of life of law abiding citizens?


  
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1969
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Apr 2015 at 06:25
I believe that killing someone leaves a black mark on the soul.  It may be the lesser of evils, when one is faced with war or self-defense, but even then, it affects the individual.  With war or self-defense, one has "no choice," but in murder it is worse, because one is choosing the evil, and that leaves a worse tarnish on the soul.  Execution is something sanctioned by society, but in the case of executioner, it is also a choice and so it leaves a blacker mark on the soul than war or self-defense.  [In Indonesia, they used a firing squad of soldiers, so that blurs my division here between no choice in war, but definitely a choice with execution].

In other words, I have a very odd reasoning about the death penalty.  I don't really care if Holmes or Tsarnaev or drug dealers in Indonesia die, I just don't like putting someone in the role of executioner.  It is not for the criminal's sake that I don't want them executed.  It is a matter of placing an individual executing into the position of choosing to tarnish their soul.  If mass murderers could die, without having someone be the executioner, I would be all for that.  Of course, from what I understand, firing squads have something like that.  Only one of the executioner's rifles is loaded, the rest are blanks, so no one in the squad knows who fired the killing shot.  You might say that everyone is the executioner, and also no one.  I read this in a Classics Illustrated comic book, so it must be true;) 

Insanity defense is not necessarily letting someone off easily.  John Hinkley Jr. is still locked up, after his assassination attempt on Reagan in 1981.  He has visitation rights with family, but otherwise it has been 34 years after the incident, in which 4 were wounded but nobody immediately died.  James Brady, the press secretary critically wounded in the head, died in 2014, and that was ruled a homicide from the shooting, but Hinkley has not been (re)tried for that.  Still, I don't believe in "not guilty by reason of insanity."

Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Apr 2015 at 15:09
Originally posted by wolfhnd wolfhnd wrote:

The point I was trying to make is why does the state have the right to say who will live but not who will die.  It's not enough that we value human life and make it a community standard but we should also considered the quality of life as part of that standard.  

It's pretty well established that punishment has little deterrent value so the logical assumption is that we incarcerate and execute people to remove the threat they pose to society.  For the most dangerous offenders the practical choice is life in prison or execution.  The standard for execution is that it be humane but what is the standard for permanent incarceration?  Couldn't permanent incarceration be cruel and unusual inhumane?  If incarceration is not a deterrent then what value is served by making it a punishment?  We make life in a zoo for dangerous animals as meaningful and pleasant as possible so why not in prison?  If our community values not only life but the quality of life then prisons should be as pleasant as practical.  If someone cannot have a reasonably meaningful life under a permanent incarceration why should they not be able to choice the death sentence?   While it is clear that human life must be the communities <span style="line-height: 1.4;">highest </span><span style="line-height: 1.4;">value but it is not clear that euthanasia and physician assisted suicide should be illegal or that the state has the right to deny those options.</span>
<span style="line-height: 1.4;">
</span>
<span style="line-height: 1.4;">This may all seem like hyperbola and off topic as concerns the death </span>penalty<span style="line-height: 1.4;"> but it isn't just human life we need to be concerned about but the quality of that life.  I believe we have two choices continue the death </span>penalty<span style="line-height: 1.4;"> or make </span>permanent<span style="line-height: 1.4;"> incarceration humane.  The question then becomes does society have the right to devote </span>resources<span style="line-height: 1.4;"> to murderers if it detracts from the quality of life of law abiding citizens?</span>


  


There is a good deal of literature on prison life and in all cases, the prisoner comes to understand their role in the current predicament. Many learn to read while in prison. They also learn something about what led them to prison and that forces an introspective awakening.
There is no place to hide from yourself in prison. You are utterly alone whether in isolation or the general population.

There is a film called "Bronson" true story about Charles Bronson an infamous criminal from GB. His story illustrates the individual who simply cannot stop himself from harming others outside of the strict confines of solitary confinement. I think he is an emerging archetype.


Depending on the facility prisoners can earn degrees and otherwise elevate themselves. That is a choice, not giving in to despair. You may be familiar with the phenomenon of men asking to be returned to prison because they are so institutionalized that they cannot cope with freedom.

It is sad but for many people due to their life circumstances keeping a job and stability is not possible within the accepted social norms. They offend repeatedly because they have not achieved the level of self awareness required to transform a human being.

In the case of capital punishment, you need not have an appeals process. In January 2001, Tim McVeigh decided to drop all his appeals and expedite his own execution. Zacharias Moussaoui chose to be in a cell for 23 hours a day and he must be drawing on his religious practice to cope.

Assisted suicide is not difficult in the general population if you really want to die. Is the quality of life attributable to an institution or an individual?

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/10041168.Send_me_back_to_jail__pleads_criminal_who_can_t_cope_with_life_outside/?ref=rss
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Apr 2015 at 15:25
[QUOTE=franciscosan]
Franciscosan said "In other words, I have a very odd reasoning about the death penalty.  I don't really care if Holmes or Tsarnaev or drug dealers in Indonesia die, I just don't like putting someone in the role of executioner.  It is not for the criminal's sake that I don't want them executed.  It is a matter of placing an individual executing into the position of choosing to tarnish their soul.  If mass murderers could die, without having someone be the executioner, I would be all for that.  Of course, from what I understand, firing squads have something like that.  Only one of the executioner's rifles is loaded, the rest are blanks, so no one in the squad knows who fired the killing shot.  You might say that everyone is the executioner, and also no one.  I read this in a Classics Illustrated comic book, so it must be true;)" 


How important is intent in these matters? You know a soldier pays the price for following orders and so does the executioner. In your statement you've nailed it we are all the executioner. I'd add that we are victims of crime on some level.
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Apr 2015 at 21:05
Did the Aussies plead for the Bali bombers lives when they were on death row?



Didn't think so.

Anyway having seen what drugs do I only have one thing to say, good riddance.

Al-Jassas
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1969
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Apr 2015 at 23:44
Intent is important, and a fact in consideration, but not necessarily in a straightforward manner.
Compare:
Someone drunk who mows (drives) into a crowd of people.
Someone who is old and somewhat enfeebled mowing into a crowd of people.
Someone who gets mad or impatient....  say, with a parade crowd.
Someone who uses a car as a weapon for terrorist purposes.
Someone who uses a car as a weapon for just general criminal mayhem purposes.
Someone out of apathy who just doesn't care.
Someone who mows into a crowd while trying to elude the authorities (whether we are sympathetic to why they are trying to elude or not).
Someone (maybe the old and enfeebled) who "mistakes" the gas for the brake.
Someone who runs into a crowd, backs up and does it again.
Someone who runs into a crowd and takes off, trying to elude the authorities.
There may be other scenarios that one could think of.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 707
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 May 2015 at 00:26
Yes like speeding and mowing into people by accident because there was a pebble on the road that you were trying to evade.
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 May 2015 at 02:07
The two startling observation on crime and punishment of the 20th century is that punishment is not a deterrent and reform a dream.  The purpose of prisons is now to isolate criminals from the general population.  For those prisoners that require permanent isolation from society at large there are two options life in prison or execution.  The number of individuals who are so violent and deranged that they require permanent isolation however is relatively small.  As a practical matter the majority of our resources should be allocated to those that can be released someday.  Execution as it violates our value of human life and due to the possibility of wrongful conviction should be abolished.  It can be abolished only when we have the resources to permanently incarcerated individuals humanely.  If the situation should ever arise that we can not provide humane incarceration then it may be morally justified to reinstate the death penalty.  For similar reasons it may be the case that some societies with limited resources can justify the death penalty. 
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 May 2015 at 02:30
Originally posted by Vanuatu Vanuatu wrote:

[QUOTE=franciscosan]
Franciscosan said "In other words, I have a very odd reasoning about the death penalty.  I don't really care if Holmes or Tsarnaev or drug dealers in Indonesia die, I just don't like putting someone in the role of executioner.  It is not for the criminal's sake that I don't want them executed.  It is a matter of placing an individual executing into the position of choosing to tarnish their soul.  If mass murderers could die, without having someone be the executioner, I would be all for that.  Of course, from what I understand, firing squads have something like that.  Only one of the executioner's rifles is loaded, the rest are blanks, so no one in the squad knows who fired the killing shot.  You might say that everyone is the executioner, and also no one.  I read this in a Classics Illustrated comic book, so it must be true;)" 


How important is intent in these matters? You know a soldier pays the price for following orders and so does the executioner. In your statement you've nailed it we are all the executioner. I'd add that we are victims of crime on some level.

As a footnote, those that fire a rifle know if they are using a blank or a live round, due to the recoil of the weapon. I don't know if this ever happens, but my guess is that it belongs in the realm of fiction rather than reality. 
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 May 2015 at 02:40
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Did the Aussies plead for the Bali bombers lives when they were on death row?



Didn't think so.

Anyway having seen what drugs do I only have one thing to say, good riddance.

Al-Jassas

True enough, buy where does intent come in to sentencing? I'd say it should. The Bali bombers clearly intended to kill lots of innocent people. The drug smugglers?

Given the range of human values and behavior, I'd suggest that their intents ran a rather large range. At one end, there would have been those who said, in relation to future deaths: I don't give a sh*t, give me the money. There would have been those that said, I need it, those folks are on their own. There would have those that did mental contortions to rationalize their behavior. 

However you look at it, there are varying degrees of intent. 

As for what drugs do, this is invariably a combination of personal problems, societal pressures, economic circumstance, and psychological issues, in addition to the mal intent of dealers.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1969
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 May 2015 at 06:30
The drug smugglers did not intend to kill people, but at the same time, they either just didn't care or they rationalized their selling drugs as freedom or some other such bunk.  The Bali bombers were doing something they thought was good (but really was evil), the drug smugglers were just trying to make a profit.

In some ways, the drug smugglers are worse.  They corrupt the morals of society, whereas the bombers have a morality, it is just a severely skewed, paranoid and a utopian morality (dystopian for everyone else).  It is wrong, but in someways it easier to go from being wrong, to being right, rather than going from in the middle, not believing anything in particular, to being right.

Captain, my Captain!  Are you doubting my sources?  ;)  I'll have you know that it was a very good comic book that taught me about firing squads;D

Nietzsche has a little poem:
There is one thing I cannot abide,
someone who has no good nor evil inside.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 May 2015 at 21:08
Originally posted by wolfhnd wolfhnd wrote:

The two startling observation on crime and punishment of the 20th century is that punishment is not a deterrent and reform a dream.  The purpose of prisons is now to isolate criminals from the general population.  For those prisoners that require permanent isolation from society at large there are two options life in prison or execution.  The number of individuals who are so violent and deranged that they require permanent isolation however is relatively small.  As a practical matter the majority of our resources should be allocated to those that can be released someday.  Execution as it violates our value of human life and due to the possibility of wrongful conviction should be abolished.  It can be abolished only when we have the resources to permanently incarcerated individuals humanely.  If the situation should ever arise that we can not provide humane incarceration then it may be morally justified to reinstate the death penalty.  For similar reasons it may be the case that some societies with limited resources can justify the death penalty. 


Your assertion that punishment is not a deterrent is an opinion. If we are talking capital punishment well, obviously that is known only to the offender. But if you take a life and then plead for mercy from the court then you have learned the value of a human life. Whether the prisoner gets life or execution is a jury's decision that is our system.

There are about 80,000 prisoners in isolation, 33,586 in disciplinary segregation, and 10,765 in protective custody. A relatively small number you say but in comparison to what?

Execution may violate your sense of value but not mine. I value the Retribution on behalf of victims and loved ones which is one of the legal standards for execution.

I don't know any tax payers who want the majority of our resources to go towards making life easy for prisoners. It's not supposed to be day camp, its punishment so you don't want to come back. Even so some still do prefer prison to outside world. Three meals a day, free room and board and access to drugs.

I don't follow your reasoning about resources and how that relates to death penalty.

As to wrongful execution, its true that the appeals process has kept people from execution. In some states monetary compensation is awarded.

The last known case of wrongful execution, and it is spurious, was in 1989.
23 years after Carlos DeLuna was executed his friends and family come out of the woodwork with a story blaming someone else for the murder.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/05/yes-america-we-have-executed-an-innocent-man/257106/http://solitarywatch.com/2012/02/01/how-many-prisoners-are-in-solitary-confinement-in-the-united-states/
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 May 2015 at 22:05
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Did the Aussies plead for the Bali bombers lives when they were on death row?



Didn't think so.

Anyway having seen what drugs do I only have one thing to say, good riddance.

Al-Jassas

True enough, buy where does intent come in to sentencing? I'd say it should. The Bali bombers clearly intended to kill lots of innocent people. The drug smugglers?

Given the range of human values and behavior, I'd suggest that their intents ran a rather large range. At one end, there would have been those who said, in relation to future deaths: I don't give a sh*t, give me the money. There would have been those that said, I need it, those folks are on their own. There would have those that did mental contortions to rationalize their behavior. 

However you look at it, there are varying degrees of intent. 

As for what drugs do, this is invariably a combination of personal problems, societal pressures, economic circumstance, and psychological issues, in addition to the mal intent of dealers.

Did the 17 year old SS concentration camp guards intended to be deployed to those camps and actively participated in the act of the holocaust for them to be dragged in their 90s in cuffs and charge with murder?

One rule for all. Either acquit both or condemn both, the statue at the Old Bailey was blindfolded for a reason.



Al-Jassas 
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 May 2015 at 19:58
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Did the Aussies plead for the Bali bombers lives when they were on death row?



Didn't think so.

Anyway having seen what drugs do I only have one thing to say, good riddance.

Al-Jassas

True enough, buy where does intent come in to sentencing? I'd say it should. The Bali bombers clearly intended to kill lots of innocent people. The drug smugglers?

Given the range of human values and behavior, I'd suggest that their intents ran a rather large range. At one end, there would have been those who said, in relation to future deaths: I don't give a sh*t, give me the money. There would have been those that said, I need it, those folks are on their own. There would have those that did mental contortions to rationalize their behavior. 

However you look at it, there are varying degrees of intent. 

As for what drugs do, this is invariably a combination of personal problems, societal pressures, economic circumstance, and psychological issues, in addition to the mal intent of dealers.

Did the 17 year old SS concentration camp guards intended to be deployed to those camps and actively participated in the act of the holocaust for them to be dragged in their 90s in cuffs and charge with murder?

One rule for all. Either acquit both or condemn both, the statue at the Old Bailey was blindfolded for a reason.



Al-Jassas 

In the case of the Holocaust, we certainly see a great latitude for intent given, and indeed a great degree of outright forgiveness, or at least a willingness to forget about certain events.

Some participants were never brought to justice, others received only modest judgments. If I am not mistaken, I believe the old gaffer now on trial is being charged with accessory to murder, a notch down from murder.

I'd suspect that many low level personnel at that time simply kept their head down and their mouth shut, in order to survive themselves. This may be considered a crime, but not  the same caliber as planning the event, and then ensuring it is carried out.

So too with drug dealers. Except for a tiny minority, I'd propose that there is no intent among them to kill their clients, although this happens, and the attitudes to this may well be shockingly blase. This is still further down the scale from planning to commit mass murder, and then painstakingly taking all steps necessary to carry it out.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 May 2015 at 20:44
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

The drug smugglers did not intend to kill people, but at the same time, they either just didn't care or they rationalized their selling drugs as freedom or some other such bunk.  The Bali bombers were doing something they thought was good (but really was evil), the drug smugglers were just trying to make a profit.

In some ways, the drug smugglers are worse.  They corrupt the morals of society, whereas the bombers have a morality, it is just a severely skewed, paranoid and a utopian morality (dystopian for everyone else).  It is wrong, but in someways it easier to go from being wrong, to being right, rather than going from in the middle, not believing anything in particular, to being right.

Captain, my Captain!  Are you doubting my sources?  ;)  I'll have you know that it was a very good comic book that taught me about firing squads;D

Nietzsche has a little poem:
There is one thing I cannot abide,
someone who has no good nor evil inside.

All perpetrators have their rationale. "They made me do it, it was beyond endurance, society is better off, I needed the money, it was self-defense, God told me to do it, the Devil told me to do it".........claiming some moral high ground while being a low-life doesn't cut it. People do what they want, and then will often look for a nice glossy cover to put on it. That doesn't reduce their culpability.

As for a moral society, which do you think would be better, one suffused with bloody effects of the hysterical psycho-soldiers of God, or one in which a small minority suffer the effects of drug addiction. I know which I'd choose. 
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 May 2015 at 01:11
Originally posted by Vanuatu Vanuatu wrote:

 

Execution may violate your sense of value but not mine. I value the Retribution on behalf of victims and loved ones which is one of the legal standards for execution.

I don't know any tax payers who want the majority of our resources to go towards making life easy for prisoners. It's not supposed to be day camp, its punishment so you don't want to come back. Even so some still do prefer prison to outside world. Three meals a day, free room and board and access to drugs.

I don't follow your reasoning about resources and how that relates to death penalty.


It's a question of raising the value of human life by saying that the state will not take the life of even the most heinous criminal.  The same idea applies to abortion and while I'm in favor of abortion being legal I'm not in favor of it being used as birth control.  These questions are difficult and confounding in so far as the state should do whatever it can to establish the value of human life while at the same time maintaining the principle of liberty.  It was with this in mind that I brought up euthanasia because I can think of no other case which better illustrates the conflict between liberty and the state's vested interested in promoting the value of human life.  Personally I feel that liberty is a higher value than life because it is central to the quality of life.

The question of the morality of state executions remains a complex problem because it is so tied up in circumstances.  There are circumstances where the state may find it impossible to provide humane confinement because of resources which may make execution the moral choice.  Even when that is not the case the question of the diversion of resources from the general population to maintain humane incarceration remains an issue.   
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1969
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 May 2015 at 03:24
My theory is that you make society in general less brutal, then maybe opening up to a respect for life will make the violent criminals less brutal as well.
Saying that, it is still government's decision whether or not to execute, government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.  Government can fine you or imprison you, and tax you (the power to tax is the power to destroy).
There are several arguments that death penalty opponents make that are made in bad faith.
They do everything they can to delay an execution, and then they say that execution does not act as a deterent.  
They argue that the fact the individual is on death row for so long, is cruel and unusual.  Punishment is either too swift, or not swift enough?  
They follow the appeals process and then complain that death row inmates are too expensive, after having made them that way.  
They are obsessively concerned about whether the executed face pain in their execution, trying to stop executions that way.  Making such a excuse, it is not like they would accept a painless solution, even if it was proven to them.  
PJ O Rourke points out that only are most beloved pets, and our most heinous criminals get to die 'pain-free.'  All else gets whatever comes.

The point is, is that the death penalty opponents, are often disengenuous about their arguments.  They are not concerned with pain, with "cruel and unusual," with cost, with the quickness or delay of the penalty.  They are concerned with stopping the execution, regardless of the cost to the legal system and to the victims.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 May 2015 at 12:50
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

My theory is that you make society in general less brutal, then maybe opening up to a respect for life will make the violent criminals less brutal as well.
Saying that, it is still government's decision whether or not to execute, government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.  Government can fine you or imprison you, and tax you (the power to tax is the power to destroy).
There are several arguments that death penalty opponents make that are made in bad faith.
They do everything they can to delay an execution, and then they say that execution does not act as a deterent.  
They argue that the fact the individual is on death row for so long, is cruel and unusual.  Punishment is either too swift, or not swift enough?  
They follow the appeals process and then complain that death row inmates are too expensive, after having made them that way.  
They are obsessively concerned about whether the executed face pain in their execution, trying to stop executions that way.  Making such a excuse, it is not like they would accept a painless solution, even if it was proven to them.  
PJ O Rourke points out that only are most beloved pets, and our most heinous criminals get to die 'pain-free.'  All else gets whatever comes.

The point is, is that the death penalty opponents, are often disengenuous about their arguments.  They are not concerned with pain, with "cruel and unusual," with cost, with the quickness or delay of the penalty.  They are concerned with stopping the execution, regardless of the cost to the legal system and to the victims.



Here the political arguments show their teeth. The same person who has qualms over killing a convicted murderer can't make a clear decision about abortion because the schism in their thinking becomes clear.

A fetus may be destroyed but not as a form of birth control. It rather is birth control what ever the rational given by political groups. The schism is caused by social and political conditioning. It doesn't have to make sense to be politically correct.
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1969
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 May 2015 at 00:33
It is a little ironic that those who condemn death penalty, condone abortion.
But I think that these are people who just want to have fun! and see death sentences or pregnancy 
as things that get in their way.<grin>  How can a mass murderer enjoy himself, if he knows he might face the death penalty?  
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3570
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 May 2015 at 02:51
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

It is a little ironic that those who condemn death penalty, condone abortion.
But I think that these are people who just want to have fun! and see death sentences or pregnancy 
as things that get in their way.<grin>  How can a mass murderer enjoy himself, if he knows he might face the death penalty?  
 
Not referring to mass murderers per se, but I have a theory that perhaps some killers go on to, say, kill police because they're going to die anyway. 
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 May 2015 at 04:34
Originally posted by Vanuatu Vanuatu wrote:

 
Here the political arguments show their teeth. The same person who has qualms over killing a convicted murderer can't make a clear decision about abortion because the schism in their thinking becomes clear.

A fetus may be destroyed but not as a form of birth control. It rather is birth control what ever the rational given by political groups. The schism is caused by social and political conditioning. It doesn't have to make sense to be politically correct.

The qualm over killing convicted murderers arises indirectly and not from the actual right of the state to execute.  There are many reasons to be leary of execution including false convictions, mental competency questions, devaluation of human life to name a few.  The same is true for abortion as it is not simply the case that we can establish at what point in development a fetus becomes a human life.  While it is certainly true that the most uncontroversial form of birth control is abstinence it is not an option in the case of rape or incest.  The complexity of the abortion issue is not limited however just to rape and incest but may also include lack of access to birth control or mental incompetence.  To be against abortion as a form of birth control does not mean that there are no exceptions it only implies that when other options are available they are preferable.  The same is true of execution for murderers in so far as it need not be the most desirable option under certain circumstances. 

Many people dislike moral relativism but it is simply a recognition of the complexity of circumstances relative to the application of more universal principles.  Even when we agree on the basic principles a series of compromises is required in all social interactions as no two minds are ever in complete agreement nor is knowledge ever complete.           
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.