somebody2

I couldn't think of anything else all day but this topic. It troubles me, because I consider myself a good person (not blood thirsty) but my guts tell me that there is nothing wrong with giving a guilty person either a life sentence (definately)or the death penalty if there were no doubt of guilt. We are talking heinous crimes here.
I think the reason for me personally is, I relate more to the victims, not the accused. Not that that means anything particularly, but I do think of my children or innocents when considering the fate of the one found guilty by a jury of their peers.
I know of people who have been raised in deplorable conditions one family member decides to break the law by harming others and another chooses not to. Not every thing we do is up to our genes or mental illnesses. There is too much "The devil made me do it" kind of crap that people like me just don't want to hear. If an animal is abused and begins to use people as a chew toy, that animal is normally put down because there is no rehabilitation. Yes, I am comparing some of these people to animals. Who would you have teach these animals morality? Can they stay at your house after they get out? What about the victims of these crimes? Are their lives not worth anything? It seems some are so caught up with the rights of the perpetrators they aren't thinking of the victims.
So would you have had Gacy out on the streets or in morality training classes? How would you decide when he had paid his dues to the children he had killed? How would you decide that he would be ready to be put back into society?

With all that said, money has a lot to do with our legal system. If one has money they can get out of things that people without money can't. The system isn't a always a good one. So therefore, in my very humble and uneducated opinion, capital punishment should not be, only because they can't appeal after they are dead, so we have to pay people to deal with them while they live and their victims are long gone.

I think the op is a humanist because of the strong feelings for the humans whose choices in life (to be moral or not) were taken away.

taenia

Please, let me reiterate my perspective. I am the victim of a violent crime, and I have every sympathy for the victim. But, in the case of a crime like murder ... killing the murderer doesn't fix anything. It certainly won't restore anyone to life, and it won't help the person who comitted the crime.

Many people who commit horrible crimes show no remorse, and are not, by any legal definition sane. Should we, therefore, give up on them? Should we hold the same disregard for life that they do?

If a murderer has to sit for seventy years in a jail cell before deciding that they do, in fact, want to contribute to society and to live a good life, in perfectly good faith and sincere intention, is it moral to deny them that opportunity?

Shouldn't we give these people the opportunity to make a moral decision and to lead a moral life, rather than condemn them to be murdered?

I would argue that we should. Just because someone has behaved immorally doesn't mean that they're incapable of moral behavior. While they are a danger, they should be prevented from harming others, but they shoul not be permanently denied the opportunity to live a moral life as an act of vengeance.

The death penalty isn't about the victims of a crime. It's about revenge and an inability to forgive.

As an atheist, I can only say that if there is no life after death, the "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out idea" has absolutely no moral basis ... and that's, ultimately, what the death penalty is.

somebody2

I believe I see what you are saying, that people can change? I guess I just wonder if maybe, especially in these cases, is it possible that most people don't change? That if they were allowed to reenter society it would be putting innocent people at unfair risk. How would one know that they have changed? Lot's of criminals find God in prison.
I agree that we only have this one life and people when given such a gift should try very hard not to hurt or torture others while living it. The fact that god isn't there to even out the score at the end makes me more certain that people should pay for their choices of purposely harming others. If their crime was so horrifying that some would have them killed for "justice" then life in prison seems pretty fair to me.
I think it is admirable that you can be so kind after what you have been through, but I would not be so kind to your attacker as you. If you were my daughter or son, I probably, especially after hearing what is in your heart, would be at him or her personally.

Blackbeard

Although I am not as hopeful as Taenia about the possibility of rehabilitaion for certain people, like the Gaces, Dahmers and Bundys of the world, I agree that every opportunity should be given. Also, I do feel that life in prison is greater punishment than death. What is death to the atheist anyway except permanent sleep? Life in prison would be hell. Hmmm .... sleep or hell? Of course, for the christian who is in prison for murder, life in prison would be preferable to the hell he believes he will enter after death, so they would understandably choose differently. If you really wanted to "punish" the condemned man, ask him which he would prefer, death or life in prison .... and do the opposite. :cheeky: That was a joke but seriously .... I have long held that I would only support a death penalty if it was administered only at the request of the condemned man, if you get sentenced to life in prison you automatically have the option to choose death. Innocents would naturally choose life, but if for some reason they didn't at least we can't blame ourselves for a wrongful exectution.

With regards to:I must again disagree. Being a "humanist" has been defined by a [URL="http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.htm"]manifesto[/url which was linked to ealier in this thread. The definition is not necessarily what you would think just hearing the word on it's own and I do not believe that quality expressed by the OP of compassion, no matter how sincere and heartfelt, for only certain murder victims qualifies him as a humanist as defined in the humanist manifesto. In fact I think his lack of compassion for those murdered wrongly in the electric chair negates any compassion he feels for "private", ie not state funded, murder victims. Thus stripping him of the humanist moniker you feel he deserves, IMHO. He may line up in every other way with humanist ideals, but to me that is a serious enough departure from humanist philosphy that I would not consider him a humanist. He can, however, call himself whatever he likes of course.

JPD

Actually, you expect everyone else to take responsibility but you are unwilling to take any yourself. I've just sent your argument back to you and you dislike it. I repeat, had the individual who was released and murdered again been put to death in the first place the victim would be alive. So, you must share responsibility for the victim's death. It matters not a jot whether you accept it. If you wish to squirm and wriggle that's your affair.

JPD

The bad guy and the right guy are the same guy no? Or do you mean "a" bad guy - someone who is bad in other ways but who did not commit the murder?

grumpytheBright

The right guy and the bad guy are indeed the same guy. The point is, (it's getting hard not to go ad hominem here) the guy you are strapping into the chair is too often the WRONG guy. You and your ilk seem, to one outside the pack, to care much less about the innocent accused than you do about your pound of flesh.

g

JPD

Me and my ilk?

I love it when this happens. It makes me laugh. I'm getting bored of saying - repeatedly - that I do not wish for innocent people to be punished in any way, not just at the level of capital punishment.

If you think it helps your argument to pigeonhole people then you might want to take another look at the quality of your arguments.

Blackbeard

I am neither squiriming nor wriggling. When you turn my argument around but after the turn it does not argue against any assertion I have made, it is not a sound argument. It is not that I don't like it, it's that it is irrelevant. I never said I supported the release of murderers. Please show me where I did. If I had, you would be right and your argument would be valid. But it is not. It's simple logic. In addition, you are now also adding a false dilemna fallacy to the list of fallacies that you have used in this discussion. A false dilemna fallacy is when you assume that there are only two options when in fact there are many more. You think that there is either being for the death penalty or being for letting murderers run free in society. False dilemna. I am not for either of those things. You neglect to even consider, even though I have already said it, that I may be for strict life imprisnonment for first degree murderers. Since that is in fact my postition, I am not responsioble for any who are released into society against my wishes and without my support. Seems simple enough to me. :banghead:

Blackbeard

Grumpythe bright has not made any fallacious arguments that I can spot on this thread. I have pointed out three of the most common fallacies that you have used in your arguments, straw man, slippery slope and false dilemna (or bifurcation). Learn about them here to see what a fallacy is and why those particular fallacies are unsound as arguments hence allowing me to dismiss them without squirming or wiggling. Thanks for making it easy! :wave: