No such thing as evil - top trumped

[alanschu]

Defending the blatantly guilty, those who have committed the most egregious crimes, has become a liberal parlour-game.

 

I have no time for it.

 

Not killing a person is not the same as defending the blatantly guilty.

 

Wanting to kill someone is simply an act of vindictiveness that serves no additional purpose over life imprisonment aside from satiating that vindictive desire.  It's nothing more than a "u mad bro" and wanting to exercise it because in your mind, it's some sort of ultimate punishment.

 

If I could be guaranteed that corruption and incompetence would never interfere, I'd be more open to the death penalty.  Except that I'd still have reservations because it doesn't accomplish much in terms of exercising justice of life imprisonment, and I'd need to know more information about how people behave prior to arrest if they know that they have committed a capital crime (i.e. are they more willing to perform additional harm in order to save their own lives and the like).  I don't have that sort of information, however.

[TrashMan]

Nah, killing is basicly making SURE a guy like that will never do anything like that again.

It also serves as an example.

And I frankly don't think scum like that deserve ot have their food and bed and TV and other crap provided by the money from honest folk - including the family and friends of the victims.

[BruceVC]

Nah, killing is basicly making SURE a guy like that will never do anything like that again.

It also serves as an example.

And I frankly don't think scum like that deserve ot have their food and bed and TV and other crap provided by the money from honest folk - including the family and friends of the victims.

 

Except for the point  that I don't think there is any evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent to people who plan to commit these heinous acts that can lead them to be executed

[Calax]

Nah, killing is basicly making SURE a guy like that will never do anything like that again.

It also serves as an example.

And I frankly don't think scum like that deserve ot have their food and bed and TV and other crap provided by the money from honest folk - including the family and friends of the victims.

You say that, but at the same time you'll also have mistakes made (humans make mistakes get over it) so one minor misunderstanding leads to a pitchfork and torch brigade charging down the wrong path. And in this day and age of the media, you've got most of your jury pool and public opinion swayed by people like Nancy Grace who exist solely to feast on the revulsion that they make others feel. I honestly got pissed off at the Scott Peterson case because he got railroaded so quickly to "OMG HE'S A FILTHY ANIMAL WHO KILLED!" before there was even a trial. I'm not saying that I think he's innocent or anything like that, but rather that I can't ever feel he got a proper and fair trial because of how the entire thing was handled.

[AGX-17]

This is why opponents of the death penalty baffle and mystify me.

Probably because you haven't seriously listened to their reasoning, and if you have, did so without bringing a pre-existing bias, conscious or not. Even under the ancient concept of "an eye for an eye," such a penalty is unjustifiable as the planned crime/s were not actually committed. If a community is given leave to kill anyone who offends their moral sensibilities, that effectively gives them leave to kill anyone legally. Atrocious plans without successful atrocious action do not warrant capital punishment. Going to the steps you're suggesting goes beyond the concept of "rule of law," and strays closer to the territory of thought crimes. Furthermore, there roughly a thousand examples of wrongfully convicted people exonerated by such things as DNA evidence which was not technologically possible at the time of conviction who were saved from death by said evidence.

 

If even one innocent person is put to death because the criminal justice system, who is the criminal then? The simple fact of the matter is, given the numbers, it's inevitable that a significant number of people have been executed in the US for crimes they didn't commit. Some of them must have been career criminals, some of them must have been fully innocent. That's the most fundamental problem of capital punishment. The US criminal justice system is severely flawed to begin with. Roughly two thirds of African American males have been incarcerated, but the president is an African American male. There is no genetic predisposition among African American males toward deviant behavior and criminality, the US system ignores the socio-economic root causes of crime in the name of economic liberalism, choosing to punish rather than prevent crime.

 

That said, back to my original point: Opponents of the death penalty are opposed to it on general moral grounds. The basis for opposition to the death penalty is that one person's crime/s, no matter how despicable, does not give anyone else the moral or legal right to commit a crime (murder.) To kill someone who is an imminent threat is a different matter to executing someone who has already committed a crime and has been caught and convicted. Some base it on religious grounds, others on pacifist, still others on humanist grounds.

 

Ignoring all that, pedophiles aren't exactly the most popular denizens of prison environments, to say the least.The culprit here is 40 years old and never successfully acted out his plans. With a 27 year sentence, he'll be 67 when he gets out, if he doesn't die in prison.

[BruceVC]

 

This is why opponents of the death penalty baffle and mystify me.

Probably because you haven't seriously listened to their reasoning, and if you have, did so without bringing a pre-existing bias, conscious or not. Even under the ancient concept of "an eye for an eye," such a penalty is unjustifiable as the planned crime/s were not actually committed. If a community is given leave to kill anyone who offends their moral sensibilities, that effectively gives them leave to kill anyone legally. Atrocious plans without successful atrocious action do not warrant capital punishment. Going to the steps you're suggesting goes beyond the concept of "rule of law," and strays closer to the territory of thought crimes. Furthermore, there roughly a thousand examples of wrongfully convicted people exonerated by such things as DNA evidence which was not technologically possible at the time of conviction who were saved from death by said evidence.

 

If even one innocent person is put to death because the criminal justice system, who is the criminal then? The simple fact of the matter is, given the numbers, it's inevitable that a significant number of people have been executed in the US for crimes they didn't commit. Some of them must have been career criminals, some of them must have been fully innocent. That's the most fundamental problem of capital punishment. The US criminal justice system is severely flawed to begin with. Roughly two thirds of African American males have been incarcerated, but the president is an African American male. There is no genetic predisposition among African American males toward deviant behavior and criminality, the US system ignores the socio-economic root causes of crime in the name of economic liberalism, choosing to punish rather than prevent crime.

 

That said, back to my original point: Opponents of the death penalty are opposed to it on general moral grounds. The basis for opposition to the death penalty is that one person's crime/s, no matter how despicable, does not give anyone else the moral or legal right to commit a crime (murder.) To kill someone who is an imminent threat is a different matter to executing someone who has already committed a crime and has been caught and convicted. Some base it on religious grounds, others on pacifist, still others on humanist grounds.

 

Ignoring all that, pedophiles aren't exactly the most popular denizens of prison environments, to say the least.The culprit here is 40 years old and never successfully acted out his plans. With a 27 year sentence, he'll be 67 when he gets out, if he doesn't die in prison.

 

 

A convincing argument, a very convincing argument. I can't anything in your post that I dispute

[TrashMan]

 

Going to the steps you're suggesting goes beyond the concept of "rule of law," and strays closer to the territory of thought crimes. Furthermore, there roughly a thousand examples of wrongfully convicted people exonerated by such things as DNA evidence which was not technologically possible at the time of conviction who were saved from death by said evidence.

 

We're technicly already there up to a point. Always were.

Expressing oppenly oppinions that are unpopular follows quick punishment.

 

Society tends to pressure people, one way or another, to conform.

 

[Monte Carlo]

I am glad, and heartened a great deal, that this thread is full of people who have never had some seriously horrible **** happen to a loved one.

 

It might, just might, change their minds.

 

Edit: The state has a monopoly on justice. We are not allowed to take it for ourselves. But when the state begins to fail in that fell duty, is it any wonder people begin to want the ultimate sanction?

 

Or are the thoughtful, liberal-minded people here the final arbiters of what does, or does not, constitute justice?

Edited May 11, 2013 by Monte Carlo

[Calax]

I am glad, and heartened a great deal, that this thread is full of people who have never had some seriously horrible **** happen to a loved one.

 

It might, just might, change their minds.

 

Edit: The state has a monopoly on justice. We are not allowed to take it for ourselves. But when the state begins to fail in that fell duty, is it any wonder people begin to want the ultimate sanction?

 

Or are the thoughtful, liberal-minded people here the final arbiters of what does, or does not, constitute justice?

Isn't that the point though? You have "serious ****" happen to you and you lose proper objectivity. And if you happen to think that the wrong person is to blame and want them dead, wouldn't the wrong person being killed end up with "serious ****" happening to that family and, by rights, you/your family who pushed for their loved one to die, be brought up on charges of murder or at the very least "accidental manslaughter"?

 

You're not advocating Justice, you're advocating vengeance. You may feel they're similar, having been the harmed party, but they aren't, and vengance should never be used to justify a death.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I am glad, and heartened a great deal, that this thread is full of people who have never had some seriously horrible **** happen to a loved one.

 

It might, just might, change their minds.

 

Edit: The state has a monopoly on justice. We are not allowed to take it for ourselves. But when the state begins to fail in that fell duty, is it any wonder people begin to want the ultimate sanction?

 

Or are the thoughtful, liberal-minded people here the final arbiters of what does, or does not, constitute justice?

Have you ever had a loved convicted of a serious crime that they were innocent of? How would you feel of said loved one were executed(or even had to spend years in prison) that could have been avoided with proper DNA testing? Would you be satisfied with a "sorry" from the jurors, judge, and government for wrongly penalizing them?

 

You know here in Texas, it is possible to get the death penalty without DNA evidence. One man spent 25 years in prison for rape that he did not commit(fun fact: DNA evidence exonerated him) and died there. Looking at Texas alone, we could find hundreds of cases where people were wrongly convicted and either spent large parts of their life in prison or were executed.

 

But who cares, the loved ones of someone who was wronged get the satisfaction of vengeance! Why bother confirming with absolute certainty the accused is actually guilty?

[Hurlshort]

If I'm going to get some vengeance on somebody, I want to do it with my bare hands, not watch from the gallery as he falls asleep.

[BruceVC]

I

 

Or are the thoughtful, liberal-minded people here the final arbiters of what does, or does not, constitute justice?

 

Thats correct Monte we are the final judges of what constitutes Justice, you are learning to be a liberal. Its unexpected but its a refreshing change

[Meshugger]

Roughly two thirds of African American males have been incarcerated, but the president is an African American male. There is no genetic predisposition among African American males toward deviant behavior and criminality, the US system ignores the socio-economic root causes of crime in the name of economic liberalism, choosing to punish rather than prevent crime.

 

Not entirely true, while socio-economic causes play a great role, there's also this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A But it is very difficult to approach since 

 

1) You have to acknowledge biology as a factor, which pretty much goes against the very idea that all are inheritly equal.

2) It would divide people between those that slight touch of "evil" in them, and those that have not.

[Walsingham]

Firstly, not that Monte will give a hoot, but why are you being so goddamn rude to him? If you chaps put in some of the consideration you seem so keen on you'd find he's a thoughtful guy and has been for the considerable time he's been a forum user.

 

More pertinently Bruce and I diverge on this one, since I can find a LOT to disagree with in AGX-17's argument.

 

Fundamentally I think AGX (Or is that Mr 17?) is treating this - as a great many fine people do - as if it were an abstract exercise. But Monte and I would contend it is completely unlike an exact exercise. Where I'd drag Guard Dog in to join our conceptual posse is to observe that ALL GOVERNMENT ACTIVITY is an imprecise and bloody handed business. Everything from tax collection to state schooling to conventional warfare is a matter of life and death to someone and mistakes get made.

 

My point isn't merely to say "You wrong."

 

My point is whether you apply your rule about no innocent harm consistently within your own position. Would you apply a 'no innocents must get irreversibly harmed' rule across government. Much more importantly:

 

To what extent is state justice implicit in harm to victims?

[BruceVC]

Firstly, not that Monte will give a hoot, but why are you being so goddamn rude to him? If you chaps put in some of the consideration you seem so keen on you'd find he's a thoughtful guy and has been for the considerable time he's been a forum user.

 

More pertinently Bruce and I diverge on this one, since I can find a LOT to disagree with in AGX-17's argument.

 

Fundamentally I think AGX (Or is that Mr 17?) is treating this - as a great many fine people do - as if it were an abstract exercise. But Monte and I would contend it is completely unlike an exact exercise. Where I'd drag Guard Dog in to join our conceptual posse is to observe that ALL GOVERNMENT ACTIVITY is an imprecise and bloody handed business. Everything from tax collection to state schooling to conventional warfare is a matter of life and death to someone and mistakes get made.

 

My point isn't merely to say "You wrong."

 

My point is whether you apply your rule about no innocent harm consistently within your own position. Would you apply a 'no innocents must get irreversibly harmed' rule across government. Much more importantly:

 

To what extent is state justice implicit in harm to victims?

 

Walsie my friend thats the beauty of debate on forums, we can agree to disagree.

 

I like Monte so this isn't personal but as you mentioned I don't think he does care about people being rude to him. He typically posts what he wants and isn't concerned if he offends people, so I'm sure he is use to people doing the same thing in response to him?

[Zoraptor]

If the state did execute an innocent man then it would be absolutely implicit in harm to victims, because the person they executed would be a victim.

 

It's fundamentally opposing views, really. Rather like parole or bail too- some will say that x percent of people reoffend on licence, thus no licence should be granted to prevent this. Others would say that 100-x precent of people on licence do not reoffend, and in the case of bail y% are found innocent, so these people would be unnecessarily and in some cases wrongly locked up in a more punitive system.

 

The whole notion of justice is predicated on an impartial viewing of evidence, measured judgement, and appropriate punishment, when appropriate. While it should be sympathetic to victims in good systems it is designed to be agnostic towards their feelings for a very good reason- it's meant to be objective and truth seeking, and feelings aren't objective.

[Maedhros]

I think the death penalty is one of those things you have to leave behind if you want to head towards a better society. Humans shouldn't have the lawful right to kill other humans. However I suppose it's easy to be naive about these sort of things, when you live in relatively peaceful Norway.

 

 

 

 

I am glad, and heartened a great deal, that this thread is full of people who have never had some seriously horrible **** happen to a loved one.

After the Breivik-massacre the mantra in the country, including the people who lost their friends and family was "more humanity, more democracy, more love" etc, rather than "off with his head". So it's definitely possible to be anti-death penalty even if you've lost loved ones.

[BruceVC]

I

After the Breivik-massacre the mantra in the country, including the people who lost their friends and family was "more humanity, more democracy, more love" etc, rather than "off with his head". So it's definitely possible to be anti-death penalty even if you've lost loved ones.

A relevant point raised around the mindset of Norwegians after the Breivik massacre, in South Africa we have about 50 murders a day and other horrific crimes committed. Unfortunately this probably makes me in this discussion the person who is living in the most violent country. Despite this I still don't support the death penalty as I don't see any evidence that it would stop people committing these types of serious crimes and we know that many people commit crime in South Africa due to social reasons and other factors like  a lack of respect for the rule of law.

Edited May 12, 2013 by BruceVC

[alanschu]

 

 

I am glad, and heartened a great deal, that this thread is full of people who have never had some seriously horrible **** happen to a loved one.

 

So essentially you're admitting that you're thoughts on this are emotionally charged and not rational?

 

Don't even begin to assume what I have or have not been through in my life, thank you very much.

[Monte Carlo]

 

I am glad, and heartened a great deal, that this thread is full of people who have never had some seriously horrible **** happen to a loved one.

 

So essentially you're admitting that you're thoughts on this are emotionally charged and not rational?

 

Don't even begin to assume what I have or have not been through in my life, thank you very much.

 

 

Calm down, dear.

[Nonek]

 

A relevant point raised around the mindset of Norwegians after the Breivik massacre, in South Africa we have about 50 murders a day and other horrific crimes committed. Unfortunately this probably makes me in this discussion the person who is living in the most violent country. Despite this I still don't support the death penalty as I don't see any evidence that it would stop people committing these types of serious crimes and we know that many people commit crime in South Africa due to social reasons and other factors like  a lack of respect for the rule of law.

 

I was shocked to read this, as a nipper I spent a few years in Montclair in Durban, and my parents always told me that the crime rate was almost non existent. I can't really remember much except for walking along the beachfront and munching on ridiculously cheap fruit, so i'm left wondering whether this was hidden from foreign workers and their families, or whether the crime rates have actually changed so dramatically?

Edited May 12, 2013 by Nonek

[BruceVC]

 

 

A relevant point raised around the mindset of Norwegians after the Breivik massacre, in South Africa we have about 50 murders a day and other horrific crimes committed. Unfortunately this probably makes me in this discussion the person who is living in the most violent country. Despite this I still don't support the death penalty as I don't see any evidence that it would stop people committing these types of serious crimes and we know that many people commit crime in South Africa due to social reasons and other factors like  a lack of respect for the rule of law.

 

I was shocked to read this, as a nipper I spent a few years in Montclair in Durban, and my parents always told me that the crime rate was almost non existent. I can't really remember much except for walking along the beachfront and munching on ridiculously cheap fruit, so i'm left wondering whether this was hidden from foreign workers and their families, or whether the crime rates have actually changed so dramatically?

 

 

To be honest since the end of Apartheid the crime statistics now incorporate all South Africans. Black South Africans represent  70 % of the population and they are  the largest victims of crime. So its a combination of proper representative statistics and also in some cases the increase of crime

 

But I don't want to paint a bad picture I think my country is a fantastic place to live and its people have many amazing qualities

Its not like we see murders or know people that have been murdered. But the newspapers do report on the crime and police reports do have the data so we know it happens and is a concern.

[TrashMan]

Human are in the end creatrues of reason AND emotions.

 

Appealing to cold, inpartial justice sounds fine on paper - expect the concept of justice is quite subjective.

 

Not to mention that if using cold logic, there is no reason to spare those people either.

 

Alternatively, if you consider life in prison to be a worse punishment than death, wouldn't it then be more mercyfull to kill them?

 

Either way, this is one of those debates that go nowhere, make no one happy and sway no one. And ultimatively depressing to boot. We should discuss happier things.

[BruceVC]

 We should discuss happier things.

 

What like female Chainmail bikini armour? I think there is a thread on this.....

Edited May 12, 2013 by BruceVC

[Malcador]

Was surprised at only 37 years, but I suppose as it was just a plan that's not too bad. And pretty much all discussions here are just slugouts, it's mildly entertaining to watch especially if people start to get pissy.