Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Née whiterider
retired moderator
#51 Old 16th Jun 2012 at 7:06 PM
Well, it doesn't, actually. In Germany, it's only murder if it's particularly violent or bloody, or done out of bloodlust or revenge or as part of a sexual assault, etc. - I learnt it translated as "out of lust for killing, for the satisfaction of [the murderer's] sexual drive, out of greed or otherwise for base motives; heinously or cruelly or by means dangerous to the general public; or to make possible or conceal another offence; killing another human being".

Not that government execution fits that definition, either - but it is worth considering the possibility that a person may also be thinking of murder under a third definition, which is non-legal, and expresses, I guess, a general lack of necessity.

What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.
Advertisement
Instructor
#52 Old 16th Jun 2012 at 7:20 PM
On my last really long post that I put a lot of thought into, 3 people (and counting) disagree with me, but nobody has really explained why it was wrong. Anyone want to explain their reasoning for this, because I genuinely want to know what I said that you guys disagree with...?

♫ She's got sunset on her breath, I inhaled just a little bit now I got no fear of death ♫
Scholar
#53 Old 16th Jun 2012 at 7:45 PM
Quote: Originally posted by piggypeach
On my last really long post that I put a lot of thought into, 3 people (and counting) disagree with me, but nobody has really explained why it was wrong. Anyone want to explain their reasoning for this, because I genuinely want to know what I said that you guys disagree with...?


Two things, I agreed with you. So that makes us BLHJASAYFIFEAFFS right?

Anyways, some people just hit the disagree button or think it's funny to, so I try not to take them to seriously. I really get where you're coming from, making a statement that you really put a lot of thought in to, and having it disagreed with. A lot of the time you want to scream "Oh, I see how it is!" or "Really? Is that so? Would you mind explaining to me why? Coward!"

But, it is the internet, and furthermore a free country, so just try to ignore it. I know I have to.

Just call me Blake! :)
Hola, hablo español también - Hi, I speak Spanish too.
Undead Molten Llama
#54 Old 16th Jun 2012 at 9:31 PM
Quote: Originally posted by piggypeach
Well, it's better than "Sorry, but he is psycho, and... well, he's going to be killed. Okay, bye!"


I would have to disagree that it's "better." In reality, NOTHING is going to make the victim's family/friends "feel better." Whether or not the perpetrator is executed, they have still lost their loved one in, likely, some very horrifying way, if the perpetrator has received the death sentence. (Remember, we're not talking about someone who just gets pissed off and kills a person in an out-of-control rage. We're usually talking about the Ted Bundys of the world. I know you're young; if you don't know who he is and exactly what he did, look him up...but not just before going to bed. Same with the Jeffrey Dahmers of the world.) NOTHING can compensate for that. Ever.

But here's my thinking: If I were in that family, say that it was my husband that was killed, I guarantee that I would feel TONS better if I could know, absolutely for certain, that NO ONE would ever have the possibility of being harmed by the perpetrator ever again. It isn't "justice." It isn't "revenge." And it certainly isn't "murder." It's not even really a deterrent, since a true sociopath will often kill in horrible ways in which the victim suffers terribly while being fully aware of the possible penalty, while embracing it, even. They simply believe themselves invincible, usually. God-like.

So, execution is "simply" removing from society a threat that, at least with our current level of knowledge, cannot be fixed. (And -- So some would argue, though not necessarily me -- who also does not have the right to be fixed, nor does society have the obligation to foot the bill to attempt to fix them.) It is, in a sense, rather like putting down a rabid animal. It's true that a rabid animal cannot help what it does, but it IS a threat. I would say that a psychotic serial killer is an even worse threat. The only way to guarantee that a truly, completely unhinged person will never harm anyone again is to do away with them. (Even being in prison doesn't guarantee that they won't harm anyone. It could be a fellow inmate or an innocent prison worker. There is DEFINITELY opportunity. After all, Jeffrey Dahmer was ultimately killed by a fellow inmate. It could just as easily have been him killing someone else. And Ted Bundy escaped custody at least twice, I believe, and continued killing.) It's usually done in a humane manner now -- lethal injection more than the chair -- and it IS unfortunate...but I do believe it is justifiable. And, at least at this point in time, (very) occasionally necessary.

Quote:
...I have to disagree to that. It is more likely that they will admit in court, because they are after all, under oath.


As I said elsewhere, a high percentage of people on Death Row, during their trial, pled "not guilty by reason of insanity." As I also said, that is a confession of guilt. They are fully, freely admitting that they did the crime(s). They further claim, however, that they're not responsible for their actions because they weren't in control of their faculties at the time(s) that they committed the crime(s). The prosecution's job, then, becomes one of proving -- NOT guilt, because that's already been freely admitted -- but competency, both to stand trial AND to be punished for the crime(s) that they freely admitted that they committed. It's a whole different enchilada than a trial where innocence or guilt is determined.

Now, there are some people on Death Row who pled innocent, of course. During their trial they were found guilty, however. Remember, the death penalty is NOT given out lightly. In order to receive it, there has to be a pretty overwhelmingly-strong case against the defendant. If the case is NOT overwhelmingly-strong but the defendant is still found guilty, the judge will usually err on the side of caution and sentence the person to life in prison, usually multiple life sentences, if they're convicted on multiple counts, that pretty much guarantees (but of course doesn't FULLY guarantee) that the person will be imprisoned for the rest of their life. And as I also said, the sentence will also depend on the outcomes of multiple independent psychiatric evaluations to determine the person's level of "unhingedness." (After all, you have to be at least temporarily unhinged in order to kill a person in the first place.)

People, when they talk about this subject, seem to be under the impression that death sentences are handed out like candy. They aren't. That's entirely the point. Further, even when given the death penalty, the sentence is often commuted to life in prison during the appeals process. So, when a death sentence IS carried out, it's news, usually highly publicized. And how often do you hear about executions? Not very often, right? For one thing, the appeals process helps to insure that innocent people AREN'T put to death. And, as I said, I believe that, in general, they aren't. They might be wrongfully imprisoned, yes, but put to death? Rare, I'd say. If they can get the death sentence in the first place AND never have it commuted during the appeals process, then usually they've confessed to the crime(s) and/or there is a huge, HUGE body of undeniable evidence against them. Especially now, in the age of DNA evidence, which wasn't so applicable 25 or 30 years ago.

(Now, all of that being said, let me say that I'm not a law expert. However, my dad was a rather high-profile state District Attorney who prosecuted such "high-level" (and occasionally nightmare-inducing) cases for a living. I grew up surrounded by this stuff. So many people think the criminal justice system is just like you see on TV. Believe me, it isn't. It's bureaucratic and meticulous and VERY slow and, in general, the outcomes are fair, at least within the law's definition of the word. Even for the sociopaths.)

Quote:
Well, in many cases, what happens to the killer can indirectly or directly affect the public. As Blake has said somewhere above, a death sentence is expensive, and I assume that the public will have to pay for it... somehow.


Five figures, yes. Which sounds like a lot...but isn't. Five figures PROBABLY doesn't even cover the cost of their trial, much less the interminable appeals process that can last decades. And five figures doesn't even feed/house a Death Row-level inmate for a single year, much less for thirty or forty years or more. The cost of the actual execution is a mere drop in the bucket, trust me. Remember, jailing a Death Row-level inmate doesn't require just the mundane food they eat and clothing they wear and supplies and resources they consume but also the cost of the staff and highly specialized housing that they require. A extremely-high-security prison is by NO means cheap to run...but it IS what is required to house such people, to make sure that they cannot harm anyone. At least, as sure as can be made. Which isn't 100% sure.

Quote:
Yes, it's killing. But not... murder. I wouldn't slap that nasty word onto it. Don't they give them a last meal of whatever they want, and let them have a last wish or something?


Yes. Heck, they can sometimes even have conjugal visits with their significant other, if there is one, depending on the particular prison's rules, which are all different.

Quote:
They can say goodbye, while an innocent homicide victim has none of those luxuries, they are just put under the power of one person who feels the need to kill. I guess when it all comes down to it, a criminal sentenced to death is not innocent, while a murder victim is.


Indeed. Some would argue that by taking the life of another human being in a criminal (and usually horrible) way, they have in turn forfeited their own rights as a human being. In some cases, I agree. In some cases not; it's all dependent on the situation. But I will say that I have little compassion for the Jeffrey Dahmers of the world, I'm afraid. Yes, I know they're wrong in the head and can't necessarily help what they do...but on the other hand, if they're that wrong in the head they're just too far gone to be saved, and they're way more of a danger than should be tolerated.

Quote:
And I guess they kind of brought it upon themselves, for their behavior. If it was just one freak accident, then they wouldn't be killed in the first place. So they'd have to have done something really terrible.


Really, REALLY terrible, usually. And, usually, they've done it multiple times in very cold, sadistic, and calculated ways. I'm not convinced that these are people who deserve compassion and empathy. I am, however, rather convinced that society is better off without them.

I'm mostly found on (and mostly upload to) Tumblr these days because, alas, there are only 24 hours in a day.
Muh Simblr! | An index of my downloads on Tumblr.
Theorist
#55 Old 16th Jun 2012 at 9:37 PM
Quote: Originally posted by whiterider
Well, it doesn't, actually. In Germany...<snipped>

Except murder isn't German, it's an English word. If we're going to use English as English, and not have some weird "well, what does this word mean in German" forum I think it's pretty clear what murder is and isn't. It's unlawful and that's what distinguishes it from other forms of killing. It's a word with a specific, precise meaning. Do people act as if it were more ambiguous? Sure. Lots of people have poor English vocabulary, it's not the worst thing in the world (especially if you're German - my German vocabulary is nonexistent) but just because people screw up and mistake a very precise meaning for an ambiguous one doesn't change that meaning.

It's not "killings I disagree with" or "killings I think are wrong," it's specifically killing that's not sanctioned by the State. It's why the definition of genocide doesn't mention murder - you can commit genocide without committing murder. Killing a bunch of people at your high school is murder, killing everyone in a high school with a smart bomb lawfully dropped by an agent of a military is killing.

I'm not asking anyone to like that definition, but it is the English definition. Arguing about it is like having an argument about what color is the color blue. It is what it is.
Retired
retired moderator
#56 Old 16th Jun 2012 at 10:00 PM
Mistermook, how does "slaughter" suit you then?

Or "destroy"?

But frankly I don't care for semantic games. "Kill" should be distressing enough for anyone, or have we quite forgotten what it means to kill? Or to be killed?

As for hiding behind the legality of the killing, that it is "state-sanctioned", fine. But that makes what murder is entirely subjective. In that case, Stalin wasn't a murderer.

CAW Wiki - A wiki for CAW users. Feel free to edit.

GON OUT, BACKSON, BISY BACKSON
Undead Molten Llama
#57 Old 16th Jun 2012 at 10:33 PM
Quote: Originally posted by kiwi_tea
Mistermook, how does "slaughter" suit you then?

Or "destroy"?

But frankly I don't care for semantic games. "Kill" should be distressing enough for anyone, or have we quite forgotten what it means to kill? Or to be killed?

As for hiding behind the legality of the killing, that it is "state-sanctioned", fine. But that makes what murder is entirely subjective. In that case, Stalin wasn't a murderer.


Actually, I don't think it's semantics. Mistermook was speaking -- and I agree with him. Again! -- of the word in its legal context. And by the American legal definition (I don't know Russian law, sorry), Stalin (AFAIK; I'm far from an expert on him) didn't commit murder. Instead, he was a genocidal maniac, like Hitler was and many before both of them.

Which, IMO, is far, far worse than being a "mere" murderer. It's sociopathic serial killing taken to a whole 'nother level. Institutionalized, if you will.

But that's the point that I think Mistermook was trying to make. (Do correct me if I'm wrong, Mistermook!) I don't think he was trying to "lessen" crimes so much as he was trying to show that state-sanctioned execution isn't "murder" in the legal-definition sense, whether or not you agree with capital punishment. If you disagree with it, it falls into the "killing you don't agree with" category, as he put it. Or maybe, "killing you think is morally outrageous." Or whatever. But not murder in the legal sense.

I'm mostly found on (and mostly upload to) Tumblr these days because, alas, there are only 24 hours in a day.
Muh Simblr! | An index of my downloads on Tumblr.
Instructor
#58 Old 16th Jun 2012 at 10:47 PM
@kiwi_tea... if you still find yourself disagreeing with the death penalty, I suggest you read iCad's post. She's even got me convinced. And I seldom change my mind.

@iCad... As I just said, you've got me entirely agreeing with your arguments.

@BlakeS5678... Yeah, you're right... Thing is, not one, but 3 people disagreed, so that got me thinking that it wasn't just a joke, there had to be something stupid or untrue in the post.. Oh, and would you look at that, someone disagreed my post asking why they disagreed, oh, how funny. I sure didn't see that one coming. -_-

♫ She's got sunset on her breath, I inhaled just a little bit now I got no fear of death ♫
Mad Poster
#59 Old 17th Jun 2012 at 12:27 AM
Quote: Originally posted by piggypeach
On my last really long post that I put a lot of thought into, 3 people (and counting) disagree with me, but nobody has really explained why it was wrong. Anyone want to explain their reasoning for this, because I genuinely want to know what I said that you guys disagree with...?
Hi Piggy - it wasn't the whole post, just the last part that I disagreed with. It is murder. It's ending another's life who still has a wish to live and that is just horrible.

I listed a bunch of reasons why I was against it. Nothing anyone here has said has made me change my mind. I know it's wrong and committing this wrong does nothing to undo the wrong done to the original victim(s), it simply complicates things.

When people harm others, they harm themselves on some fundamental level. Killing them does not erase that harm, it increases it. Harm is done to the community that mourns, possibly to those that the accused may have impacted positively and profoundly if given the chance, to wrongfully accused, to the mentally weak, and to those who carry out the sentence.

Can you imagine being one of the people who assists in legal killings? It chills me to the bone to consider that.

Addicted to The Sims since 2000.
Scholar
#60 Old 17th Jun 2012 at 1:06 AM
Quote: Originally posted by piggypeach
@BlakeS5678... Yeah, you're right... Thing is, not one, but 3 people disagreed, so that got me thinking that it wasn't just a joke, there had to be something stupid or untrue in the post.. Oh, and would you look at that, someone disagreed my post asking why they disagreed, oh, how funny. I sure didn't see that one coming. -_-


Which only further proves my case, that people often hit disagree because they think it's funny or clever.

And, why is it that when someone even says the word disagree, some group of people bombard the post with "disagrees?" What is this? Junior high or something?

Just call me Blake! :)
Hola, hablo español también - Hi, I speak Spanish too.
Instructor
#61 Old 17th Jun 2012 at 1:06 AM
Quote: Originally posted by VerDeTerre
Hi Piggy - it wasn't the whole post, just the last part that I disagreed with. It is murder. It's ending another's life who still has a wish to live and that is just horrible.

I listed a bunch of reasons why I was against it. Nothing anyone here has said has made me change my mind. I know it's wrong and committing this wrong does nothing to undo the wrong done to the original victim(s), it simply complicates things.

When people harm others, they harm themselves on some fundamental level. Killing them does not erase that harm, it increases it. Harm is done to the community that mourns, possibly to those that the accused may have impacted positively and profoundly if given the chance, to wrongfully accused, to the mentally weak, and to those who carry out the sentence.

Can you imagine being one of the people who assists in legal killings? It chills me to the bone to consider that.


Thank you for explaining You remind me so much of my mom. She's just like that, but more so with animals... If we watch a movie where something bad happens to an animal, she will just lose it!

On your last sentence, it wouldn't bother me to assist in the killings, it would bother me more to have my everyday work involve psychopaths, and be that way 24/7.

(okay, this is unrelated, so nobody reply to this or we will get off topic) I'm actually thinking of becoming a doctor or a surgeon when I grow up. Partially because of my ability to concentrate, and also because I don't get squeamish. In particular a dermatologist, since there are no real "emergencies", and I don't have to ever stop what I'm doing and rush to work

Okay back on topic, so.. yeah. Actually that's all I was gonna say. Okay. Bye.

♫ She's got sunset on her breath, I inhaled just a little bit now I got no fear of death ♫
Scholar
#62 Old 17th Jun 2012 at 1:10 AM
Quote: Originally posted by piggypeach
In particular a dermatologist, since there are no real "emergencies", and I don't have to ever stop what I'm doing and rush to work


Sorry! I just couldn't resist! I would LOVE touching greasy teen's faces all day!

And, speaking of not having to handle emergencies, I think a paramedic, surgeon, poison control, or fireman would really be good non-emergency type jobs! I mean they don't EVER have to deal with an emergency! Right? I AM correct here people?

Just call me Blake! :)
Hola, hablo español también - Hi, I speak Spanish too.
Mad Poster
#63 Old 17th Jun 2012 at 1:23 AM
Quote: Originally posted by piggypeach
Thank you for explaining You remind me so much of my mom. She's just like that, but more so with animals... If we watch a movie where something bad happens to an animal, she will just lose it!
That's so sweet! Thank you.

Quote: Originally posted by piggypeach
On your last sentence, it wouldn't bother me to assist in the killings, it would bother me more to have my everyday work involve psychopaths, and be that way 24/7.

(okay, this is unrelated, so nobody reply to this or we will get off topic) I'm actually thinking of becoming a doctor or a surgeon when I grow up....


By any chance, did you read the article I linked to earlier in this thread, The Brain On Trial? If you like medicine and science and if you might like to learn more about psychopaths, you would probably find the article very interesting.

I work in special ed. I marvel at how far we've come in our understanding of those who suffer from physical and mental or emotional disabilites and handicaps. Not long ago, people who suffered were locked away. Now we try to address their issues to help them lead fulfilling lives. We still have a long way to go until we understand the best way to help the various problems people with disabilites face. I can't help feel that the same could be said about the penal system. The word alone tells you we focus on punishment right now. Capital punishment does not deter murderers. But perhaps we may yet find the tools needed to deter crime or rehabilitate the criminals. If we think in terms of reform and education, working with psychopaths could prove to be a rewarding challenge.

Addicted to The Sims since 2000.
Test Subject
#64 Old 17th Jun 2012 at 9:12 AM
"I am 100% for death penalties, though I'm not a violent person myself. Death Penalties end all the crimes that shouldn't exist since it's proven prison does nothing and criminals don't change. Death penalties ARE humane because they protect other living beings from the abusers who would otherwise go back to what they were doing. Just trusting that TIME will change them is causing more and more repeats of the same crimes."

I disagree. It might have been proven that prisons don't change criminals' minds, but it is also proven that death penalties don't make someone stop committing a crime. Besides, you can never be sure whether a person is guilty. If you put someone in prison, you can get 'm out if he turns out to be innocent, but you can't bring someone back who's dead.

Theorist
#65 Old 17th Jun 2012 at 9:18 AM
Quote: Originally posted by iCad
Actually, I don't think it's semantics. Mistermook was speaking -- and I agree with him. Again! -- of the word in its legal context. And by the American legal definition (I don't know Russian law, sorry), Stalin (AFAIK; I'm far from an expert on him) didn't commit murder. Instead, he was a genocidal maniac, like Hitler was and many before both of them.

Correct, if you're going to use words, especially words with specific distinctions in the context of a specific debate then it pays to use those words correctly. Genocide can be murder, but it doesn't have to be murder. Killing someone in self-defense can be murder, depending on your local laws and the murder, but it doesn't have to be murder. It's not to show a distinction between one death and another, but it's very important from a legality standpoint. You don't stand trial for killing people, you stand trial for murdering them.

Quote: Originally posted by iCad
I don't think he was trying to "lessen" crimes so much as he was trying to show that state-sanctioned execution isn't "murder" in the legal-definition sense, whether or not you agree with capital punishment. If you disagree with it, it falls into the "killing you don't agree with" category, as he put it. Or maybe, "killing you think is morally outrageous." Or whatever. But not murder in the legal sense.

Right. People kill people in ways sanctioned by the State that are not murder all the time: Police sometimes kill suspects while apprehending them. Doctors sometimes kill patients by improperly diagnosing illnesses. People kill their families by accidentally setting fire to the house, or driving in the fog, or whatever. Soldiers kill the people they're told to kill. Drug manufacturers kill people through industrial defects. People kill in self-defense.

All of those could be murder, but they don't have to be. Why? It's not because there's some world killing police-force that swoops in like a metaphysical philosophical eagle of determined vengeance and reprisal. It's because someone somewhere wrote a law or two and said "this way that people kill people is okay, and this way isn't."

Now, anyone's can disagree with the results or implications of that state of affairs, but barring me simply not getting my point across effectively because it's late it's the way things are. I suppose if you believe in a higher power you can go "Well, after you're dead my deity will show you what's right and wrong," and that's fine as far as that goes. Mostly here on Earth we try to find solutions to problems a bit faster and more visibly than waiting for divine intervention, no matter how devout someone supposedly is.

But what my point is, is that I suppose I get tired of people making a moral judgement on killing without apparently understanding the implications of "murder" as a non-state sanctioned event. "Killing is wrong and should never be done," is a wonderful, wonderful sentiment. But I think in the real world there's ample evidence that all sorts of killing does in fact occur and government is really the only arbiter of right and wrong that matters. That's whether it's a local government or a national government or even the "council of nations" sort of crap where everyone in your own country thinks something's fine and everyone else in the world says "Uh...no, we're going to do something about that."

Having some simple objective truth about whether killing is right or wrong just doesn't fly. People argue over objective truths. There's no enforcement of objectivity. There's no nuance to simplicity. There's no qualifier in the world that promises to me that anyone else living and breathing on this planet doesn't live only inside their head and speak with their own breath and biases. So you're left with subjective morality, even if you believe in objective morality, because as a practical matter it's what you can get.

So is an execution murder? No. Not if the State says it's okay (and theoretically if no other larger and more powerful social group comes in to say otherwise.) Is it wrong? Maybe. I feel for people who think that every life is precious and must be sustained at all cost forever and ever by everyone and always... I do, really. I think it's all quite nice, as a position that's absolutely unsustainable outside of very small populations that are able to isolate themselves and never risk confrontation from outsiders. And I absolutely don't condone the sort of reckless "kill everyone" position that the OP took, without nuance or observation of circumstance, because I think that's really kind of an antisocially monstrous position (not to mention specifically unwise.)

I'm somewhere in the middle, and I think that's a reasonable place to be. I don't agree with the vast majority of executions as performed in the US, but by the same token I'm wondering exactly why Charles Manson is still alive except to parade around as a cleverly evil-looking insane man on the television every so often. I have specific and systemic issues with the American justice system, but I confess I've not seen anyone else's justice system particularly impress me as I imagine it copied over to the peculiarities of American legislation and crime. Some of you live elsewhere in the world and you should rightfully be proud of your home country, but then I hear these calls for the US to copy your laws sometimes and I shake my head - The US is not only geographically more vast than nearly anyone else, but also non-homogenized, politically polarized, and sometimes possessing an order of magnitude more people within its borders than some foreign nations. That's not to denigrate anyone else's specific problems or successes, but only to point out that One Size Fits All is a maxim that's generally bullshit.

Anyways, what is "murder" isn't some vague philosophical question (or at least it isn't in English.) All you have to do to find out if something is murder or not is read your law books, and it will list to varying degrees of exactness what constitutes murder and what doesn't. Don't like what you read? Take it up with your government.
Retired
retired moderator
#66 Old 17th Jun 2012 at 9:39 AM Last edited by kiwi_tea : 17th Jun 2012 at 10:21 AM.
Mistermook, clarify one thing for me, are you implying, at all, that what a state sanctions is thereby ethical? Or are you just making some tangential point about the term "murder"?

You are hung up on the term murder, but I think the term itself faces serious philosophical challenges - ie, what are the ethics that underpin the moral duties we have not to murder? If those are as simple as what the state sanctions (not the US state, but whichever state), then no, neither Stalin nor Hitler were murderers, even if they were genocidal maniacs. To take more revered war criminals, the Obama and Bush admin's barely discriminate killings of civilians in the Middle East is not "murder", especially when carried out by unmanned drones. Apparently, "murder" is just a word to obfuscate the question of whether a killing is ethical. It becomes a tool, like all the terms that international signatories use to avoid ever uttering the term "genocide" and thus admitting their moral duty when genocides occur (unless admitting a genocide is happening is in their interests). So tell me, Mistermook, what are the ethics that underpin the moral duty we have not to murder? Do those ethics have wider implications about killing in general?

iCad, you say the death penalty isn't handed out like candy, and I can accept that, but I don't accept that the evidence needs to be overwhelming in these cases. A fired up jury and a justice system heavily-weighted in favour of prosecution will do the trick.

CAW Wiki - A wiki for CAW users. Feel free to edit.

GON OUT, BACKSON, BISY BACKSON
Instructor
#67 Old 17th Jun 2012 at 11:10 AM
Quote: Originally posted by jthm_nny
I am 100% for death penalties, though I'm not a violent person myself.


I like that alibism. "I'm not violent; I'm just asking someone else to do the dirty job for me."

If anyone of us would be asked to execute a person, most of us would chicken out. It doesn't matter whether you call it "murder", "rightful killing" or "justice"; it's still the same thing: asking someone else to bear the burden for you and stain his soul forever. So, when you demand death penalty for a criminal, think of the executioner as well. Either you're forcing an innocent person to become a killer, or, which is worse, the executioner actually likes his job a little too much and in that case you're giving a free hand to another killer and call it justice.
Mad Poster
#68 Old 17th Jun 2012 at 12:29 PM
I think the problem there, WayBack, is that, in a group, people are capable of all sorts of horrible behavior. I just attended a lecture on why that is so. It has to do with the type of social beings that we are and how it is very difficult to break social norms set within a group. I thought executions were carried out by a group, so that no one individual would carry the feeling of guilt. Despite that, I still agree with your assessment: the executioners become killers themselves. I would even add that those who assist legally share that stain.

Addicted to The Sims since 2000.
Instructor
#69 Old 17th Jun 2012 at 1:02 PM
Quote: Originally posted by VerDeTerre
I thought executions were carried out by a group, so that no one individual would carry the feeling of guilt. Despite that, I still agree with your assessment: the executioners become killers themselves. I would even add that those who assist legally share that stain.


Yes, I agree with you that the executioner is not the only one who is forced to become a killer. There are many other people involved in the whole process (a judge, a prosecutor, the jury etc.). If I simplified my statement just by singling out the executioner as an example and not mentioning everyone else participating, it's just because I didn't want my statement to be dissolved in redundant explanation. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but luckily you got my point anyway.
Undead Molten Llama
#70 Old 17th Jun 2012 at 9:54 PM
Random reply time!

@ kiwi_tea: Unfortunately, there are always examples of bad case management amongst many good ones and, further unfortunately, Texas is a law unto itself. (And it likes it that way. There are many Texans who want to secede from the US, after all.) And if there's any state that COULD be said to hand out (and actually carry out) death sentences fairly easily/regularly -- or at least more easily than other states that have capital punishment (Not all do) -- it would be Texas. Especially if it's children who are harmed. I'm not sure to what case, specifically, the article you linked to is referring, but it did mention the Willingham case, which I looked up quickly, and apparently he was executed for the deaths of his three kids in a fire that he deliberately started. Frankly, even assuming that the conviction was accurate, I don't think that that alone merits the death penalty, personally...but I'm not entirely familiar with Texas law or with the specific case in question. But when kids are victims, the determination to "bring someone to justice" intensifies, and the public tends to call for someone's blood. (Frankly, I don't understand why. I don't think that killing a child is necessarily more heinous than killing an adult. I suppose children are seen as the "ultimate innocents," but IMO, a human being is a human being, regardless of their age, gender, etc.)

Anyway, I'm not saying that the system is 100% infallible at all. Nothing human-invented is ever perfect, and there is room for corruption. However, the system (at least in the US) is set up with checks and balances -- just as the US government is, in general -- such that, in the MAJORITY of cases, the outcome is fair and proper according to the law. And as far as I've seen, with capital cases, more meticulous effort is GENERALLY made to make certain that mistakes aren't made and that the right person is convicted and punished. I know that was the case with the capital cases in which my dad's office was involved, at least. (We never lived in Texas, BTW. ) Because in those cases someone's life is potentially on the line, indeed. All of the parties involved are aware of that. And, as I said, the appeals process exists for a reason.

Of course, the argument would be, "Well, if the system is fallible, then we shouldn't risk killing anyone." And I can see that point, I truly can. And I agree with Mistermook that, in some cases, I DON'T agree that a particular person should be or should have been put to death because the case just wasn't strong enough or, at least IMO, wasn't at the "sociopath" level...but in a lot of cases, I agree that they should or should have been. People like Ted Bundy who remorselessly kill perhaps hundreds of people -- He confessed to 30-some in the end, but he also once said something like, "For every case connected to me, there are dozens that no one knows about." -- and who are very, very intelligent but wholly disconnected from humanity and have proven that they can fairly easily escape custody... Those are the people that I believe that society is far better off without. Call me hard-hearted and cold and all of that all you want, but I do sometimes believe that the good of the many is more important than the good of the one. And for that reason, I believe that the death penalty should remain an option, carried out judiciously and under certain clearly-defined circumstances.

@ Mistermook: Manson is still alive because California flip-flopped on capital punishment in the early 70s, so his death sentence was automatically commuted to a life sentence. CA eventually reinstated capital punishment, but all of the sentences that had been commuted couldn't be un-commuted. So, Manson is "happily" still with us. Yay. At least they haven't paroled him...yet.

As for everything else you said...I pretty much agree totally and have nothing to add. Mark this day on the calendar!


@ VerDeTerre: You're going to think me a terrible person, but if a person who once profoundly impacted me positively ultimately turned out to be someone like Ted Bundy, then I would have absolutely no problem with him being executed, assuming that he was properly convicted, etc. An act of good/kindness toward me in no way expunges the sheer evil of killing dozens, perhaps hundreds, of people in horrible, brutal ways. Not at all. And in that case, I probably could have flipped the switch, myself. Not out of hatred or revenge or what-have-you, but in the knowledge that he was a person capable of horrors and who had ALSO proven himself very capable of escaping custody. True, I would have felt badly for his family and such, but that wouldn't overcome my belief in the necessity of doing what we can to protect society from Bundy-esque people, sometimes to the level of doing away with them. I guess I'm good at compartmentalizing.

You've also spoken of treating these people and, granted, at some time in the future, we might be able to figure out how to do exactly that. We learn more every day. If/when that day comes, I suppose the debate will become, "SHOULD we fix them? Do they have the right to be fixed, given what they've done? And if we do fix them, what then? Do they go off scot-free because, hey, they're fixed and everything's good now and they won't hurt anyone? Do they get life in prison, anyway? And if we're going to imprison them, anyway, then why bother with fixing them?" Etc., etc., etc.

In truth, I think that the theoretical ability to fix these conditions might cause more headaches than it solves. At least in cases of fixing a person AFTER they've done something terrible, that is. If they could be preemptively fixed, then that's a different ball of wax, of course. And would probably render this whole argument null and void, to boot. But we're not at that point yet.

In short, I think killing of all kinds is, in general, wrong. In a shiny happy world, it wouldn't exist. But we don't live in a shiny happy world, and it DOES happen and will likely ALWAYS happen. So, when someone is demonstrably proven to be an unrepentant and repeat threat to people's lives on a dozens- or hundreds-of-people sort of level, I think that with the way things are now, society is better off without them. I think it's better off without the expense of maintaining them AND without the possibility of them ever harming anyone again. Yes, it's a soul-killer, I agree. But I believe it to be, at least at this point in time, a justifiable option to maintain. But as I've said, I believe it should be very judiciously applied -- and it isn't always, IMO. But most of the time, I think it is.

I'm mostly found on (and mostly upload to) Tumblr these days because, alas, there are only 24 hours in a day.
Muh Simblr! | An index of my downloads on Tumblr.
Scholar
#71 Old 18th Jun 2012 at 10:06 PM
I know people say, let's get rid of 'em for good for reasons such as, financial costs, making sure they don't ever harm anyone again etc. etc. But, it's starting to become clear to me that those who support the death penalty probably aren't worried about finances (It's not like it's their money spent) or them running away (People like that are in more high security than The President, Oprah, and The Pope combined) It's more of a symbolic thing, from what I've seen. Maybe making them sleep better at night knowing the criminal is gone for good or the need to establish "Karma" in places where they believe god can't step in. Either way, whether the criminal is dead or stuck in jail for life, the're generally not affecting the outside world, which is why it would be symbolic.

Just call me Blake! :)
Hola, hablo español también - Hi, I speak Spanish too.
Undead Molten Llama
#72 Old 18th Jun 2012 at 10:35 PM
Quote: Originally posted by BlakeS5678
I know people say, let's get rid of 'em for good for reasons such as, financial costs, making sure they don't ever harm anyone again etc. etc. But, it's starting to become clear to me that those who support the death penalty probably aren't worried about finances (It's not like it's their money spent)


Of course it is! It's all funded by the taxpayers. Which means EVERYONE who has a job, or collects unemployment, or collects Social Security, or has any kind of taxable income whatsoever. EVERYONE pays for these people, whatever is done with them.

Quote:
...or them running away (People like that are in more high security than The President, Oprah, and The Pope combined)


Not necessarily. As I said, Ted Bundy escaped -- TWICE! -- while he was incarcerated for some of the murders he committed. (Both times were in Colorado. Yay for my current home state. ) True, that was thirty years ago or so and security has no doubt improved since then...but no set-up is infallible. Some people even escaped from Alcatraz, after all, a supposedly inescapable prison. (Or at least they escaped the actual facility. Some were re-caught outside the walls or drowned in the bay or what-have-you, but they did manage to get out of the facility.) In any case, don't overestimate how "good" prisons are, unless you've been in one. (And I have. Not as an inmate, mind you, but as a volunteer worker, specifically involved in prison ministry. As such, I don't get to see much...but then, when you get to know the sheriffs and especially the often-bored guards well enough, you come to know what really goes on in such places. )

Quote:
It's more of a symbolic thing, from what I've seen. Maybe making them sleep better at night knowing the criminal is gone for good or the need to establish "Karma" in places where they believe god can't step in. Either way, whether the criminal is dead or stuck in jail for life, the're generally not affecting the outside world, which is why it would be symbolic.


I'm not sure that I'd agree that it's "symbolic." When you get right down to it, it's a punishment that's on the books (in some states in the US and in some other countries), and it is used as the criminal justice systems of those states/countries see fit, according to other laws and guidelines and such. There's nothing "symbolic" about it. People support it or not, philosophically, for many different reasons. Some like the "eye for an eye" thing or see it as "justice." Some people think it should be abolished because of the possibility of error. Really, everyone's reason for the position that they support is different. Perhaps some reasons are "symbolic." But some are just plain old practical, too.

But I disagree that capital criminals in jail have no affect on the outside world. If nothing else, there's the financial drain. And the simple fact that they still exist and are still trotted out on the news from time to time. And that some of them -- like Charles Manson -- could theoretically be paroled, especially in a state with a severe prison overcrowding problem like California...where Manson is.

I'm mostly found on (and mostly upload to) Tumblr these days because, alas, there are only 24 hours in a day.
Muh Simblr! | An index of my downloads on Tumblr.
Retired
retired moderator
#73 Old 18th Jun 2012 at 10:58 PM
I just can't see finances as a justification to kill, and I've never been able to. There are oodles of bigger expenses on justice systems than high profile lifers. For example, the insane prison crowding caused by the war of drugs, or the recalcitrant and greedy way that politicians refuse to address any major causes of crime.

CAW Wiki - A wiki for CAW users. Feel free to edit.

GON OUT, BACKSON, BISY BACKSON
Scholar
#74 Old 18th Jun 2012 at 11:01 PM
Quote: Originally posted by kiwi_tea
I just can't see finances as a justification to kill.


Are you referring to the death penalty or the Italian mafia? Not that I would now about the the Italian mafia or anything! Hehe. *Nervous laugh*

Just call me Blake! :)
Hola, hablo español también - Hi, I speak Spanish too.
Alchemist
#75 Old 19th Jun 2012 at 8:41 PM
i think i'll just sit back and let Mistermook and iCad rule the field. they've nailed it all, anyway.

"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
 
Page 3 of 5
Back to top