Freethought & Rationalism Archive

abe smith · 01-31-2003, 07:10 AM

Like many others responding at this thread, I also reject the O question; and reply that in general I do not support inflicting the death penalty >> for all the good reasons there are against doing so.
However there are certain circumstances >>> horrendously
offensive (can't think of the right word here) um, "crimes against humanity" which I *would* exact retributive punishment against. Indeed "termination w/ extreme prejudice" would include (for me) some extremely-archaic & um exorbitant punishments.
A justification for this position is that at-least we purge the community of the perp, who doen't get a chance to repeat. I also believe, in the same vein, that any DOG who bites any human being shd be killed.

Harumi · 01-31-2003, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Puck
Holy crap, Harumi, I can't bellieve [sic] you just said that.

Well, I just did, so deal.

Quote:

I've never seen the death penalty as revenge. It's not a matter of revenge, but, a matter of removing vermin from the face of the earth and offering the comfort to families that the murderer isn't still breathing while their loved one will never breath again.

These "vermin" as you say, also happen to be human beings. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word revenge. I really don't see how killing the person could provide comfort. But then again, I have yet to lose family members I care about to a murderer. Forgiveness in my opinion would provide something that would bring more comfort, and killing the people doesn't give them that chance. Nor does it give those people who could regret their mistake that chance either.

Quote:

As for making life in prison Hell On Earth, it's still life, and we certianly can't become monsters ourselves in carrying out the act of making it hell.

We don't have the right to become monsters and make them miserable, but we somehow have the right to become monsters and take their life away? Or are you trying to start an idea of mercy killing? Unless the criminals ask for death, I really don't see how it would give us the right to take their lives.

Quote:

The only hell of prision should be the taking away of freedom of communing with your fellow human beings and enjoying the outside world. We still must offer healthy food and med care, a chance to learn and grow, to our inmates who will be released.

You said it yourself: a prison offers a chance to learn and grow. How about giving these people a chance to learn and grow? They will never be released, but at least they can become a better person in the meantime. If we fail, at least we could have tried, not just kill them outright.

Harumi · 01-31-2003, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by abe smith
A justification for this position is that at-least we purge the community of the perp, who doen't get a chance to repeat. I also believe, in the same vein, that any DOG who bites any human being shd be killed.

*shudder* I would suggest that you create real specific criteria before starting that.

Purges have such frightening consequences.

abe smith · 02-04-2003, 06:36 AM

Okay, Harumi re your foregoing being-offended:
The criteria for the death penalty, in the very-restricted circs I have asserted in my earlier post here, would be 1. having-been found legally GUILTY beyond a doubt; 2.that unexceptionable legal guilt's having been corroborated in appeals; 3. and .um, a"community sense" of human outrage...... I admit that this 3rd criterion is undefinable. I may indeed admit finally that my criteria for exception to "NO DEATH PENALTY" are in fact undeterminable; and.hence, my fall-back is "NO DEATH PENALTY".

In response to your historically-justified! shudder against my use of the verb *purge(d)*, you avez raison; I shd have been more careful in my word-choice; probably you are much younger than I, who DO have reason to remember *PURGES* of the 1930s>1940s; and of course of many earlier centuries....
If you wish, Harumi, I can withdraw my exception .... and/but ,um, I have to admit that the *ILLEGAL* in-jail retributive murder of Jeffrey Dahmer, (serving a/several? life-sentences for the crimes of which he was found legally guilty) ... that that retribution ,by his fellow-cons satisfied some bloody-minded
"god-forsaken" need of mine for eh, "justice". And, others ,retributions, of the sort, simul.
Discussion, thus, is good-for-us.

Harumi · 02-04-2003, 08:24 AM

Your format's a bit confusing, but I think I get the gist of it.

I am extremely young, and since we've just learned about purges, both from the McCarthyist part and the Stalinist part, it's still stuck in my mind.

I think we agree.

The problem with the death penalty is that there is a always a possibility for a mistake, and it gives no second chances.

I might be more sympathetic to the idea if there was a positive, fool-proof way to determine a person's guilt, and if there was an age limit. I don't want the country to get the right to suddenly start executing children after all. Who knows what our president might do?

crocodile deathroll · 02-05-2003, 04:41 AM

I did not check to see if anyone has ever quoted this, but in my view the death penalty just turns murderers into martyres

Jacey · 02-05-2003, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
I did not check to see if anyone has ever quoted this, but in my view the death penalty just turns murderers into martyres

Agreed, and that's always where I point to McVeigh. Now he can live forever, self-sacrifice to his own cause.

Harumi · 02-05-2003, 02:32 PM

And for innocent martyrs, remember the Rosenbergs...even though one of them was indeed a spy, he was a minor one, and I don't believe that that would warrant the electric chair.

Recently on Time Magazine, I read the commentaries and one of the people commented that taking away the death penalty only puts more pain on the families who've lost loved ones to these people, and that the true "poor ones" aren't those on death row, but the families.

I was pissed. I'm sure those "poor families" would feel mighty happy when they find out that because they want one of the people to die, they inadvertantly ordered the death of an innocent. I'll bet that'll feel great.

Oolon Colluphid · 02-21-2003, 09:21 AM

I don�t have a problem with the idea of the death penalty. The problem is with implementation. Things are not black and white, criminality is a sliding scale. Take deliberate killing. On the one extreme, there�s euthanasia. At the other, there�s the Fred and Rose Wests, Beverley Allitts, Hitlers, Bin Ladens, and so on. In between, there�s all manner of culpability and nastiness.

It depends entirely on the individual case. Someone who shoots a Hitler dead deserves, not whatever may be prescribed for murder, but a medal.

A mandatory, blanket death sentence -- if you do this, then this is the sentence -- is inevitably injust, to say nothing of potential miscarriages. However, I think the DP should be an available option, to be used in the very worst, and most certain, cases, and decided on by the people who tried the case.

The speciesist nature of the discussion bothers me too. On what grounds do we happily kill millions of cattle for beef and leather? Baby sheep are regularly on the menu. What of the rats that bleed to death from Warfarin? We only kill what can harm us? Bollocks. We don�t give a second thought to the �useful� bacteria that we wipe out too with each course of antibiotics. And lest you think I�m advocating vegetarianism, we kill millions of plants with aplomb too: they are eaten, or poisoned or cut up for no better reason than we don�t like them in our gardens.

Might one object that they�re not conscious? So what? Each living thing is at the tip of its evolutionary branch; its genes have made it through countless generations to be here, just as ours have. We are all related, and it is just a matter of degree. If it is wrong to deliberately take life, then it is speciesist to limit that ruling to just humans. Conversely if it is okay to kill other living things -- as it clearly is -- then it must, under certain circumstances, be okay to kill humans too.

My point is simply that we kill when we want to. We have no choice but to kill other organisms for food, and we freely take life when it suits. To �put down� a dangerous dog, yet keep alive, happily fed, watered and maintained, a human such as Rosemary West or John Wayne Gacy is frightfully inconsistent.

And if we�re concerned about the DP being inhumane, how much more inhumane is it to keep someone alive yet permanently remove their freedom? Don�t put that pitbull down! Keep it in a small cage all its life. Yet to do so would be regarded as inhumane...

How about, other organisms that harm us are not aware of what they�re doing, they are just doing what they do? This just makes the case a fortiori for �putting down� certain humans who did know what they were doing.

Since killing is not judged wrong in all circumstances; since it is speciesist to be so inconsistent; I propose that the death penalty be available, for use in extreme circumstances. It might never, in practice, be used. But it should be an option.

Thoughts?

Cheers, DT

Harumi · 03-01-2003, 06:20 PM

I'm so tempted to argue against that, but I'm not skilled enough of a debater, nor am I well-informed. So anyone else with enough skill willing to debate?

Death doesn't really bother me. I never really cried or was upset at the Sept. 11 incident. The impending war doesn't really bother me either. A kid I new just died, and I didn't care about him.

But I'm absolutely against the death penalty.

This makes me a hypocrite, and as all humans are like that, I've learned to accept it.

Life is based on the death of others. In living, others have to die. But that is how nature is, and I've never actually thought of it in such a light, but I'll leave it to someone else to argue against you.

Such a coward I am, no?

View Poll Results: Are you For or Ggainst the Death Penalty
Yes. I support the death penalty	32	19.88%
No. I do not support the death penalty	120	74.53%
I don't know.	9	5.59%
Voters: 161. You may not vote on this poll

01-31-2003, 07:10 AM	#61
abe smith Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: springfield, MA. USA Posts: 2,482	Like many other respondants here.... Like many others responding at this thread, I also reject the O question; and reply that in general I do not support inflicting the death penalty >> for all the good reasons there are against doing so. However there are certain circumstances >>> horrendously offensive (can't think of the right word here) um, "crimes against humanity" which I would exact retributive punishment against. Indeed "termination w/ extreme prejudice" would include (for me) some extremely-archaic & um exorbitant punishments. A justification for this position is that at-least we purge the community of the perp, who doen't get a chance to repeat. I also believe, in the same vein, that any DOG who bites any human being shd be killed.

02-04-2003, 06:36 AM	#64
abe smith Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: springfield, MA. USA Posts: 2,482	To HARUMI's shudder: Okay, Harumi re your foregoing being-offended: The criteria for the death penalty, in the very-restricted circs I have asserted in my earlier post here, would be 1. having-been found legally GUILTY beyond a doubt; 2.that unexceptionable legal guilt's having been corroborated in appeals; 3. and .um, a"community sense" of human outrage...... I admit that this 3rd criterion is undefinable. I may indeed admit finally that my criteria for exception to "NO DEATH PENALTY" are in fact undeterminable; and.hence, my fall-back is "NO DEATH PENALTY". In response to your historically-justified! shudder against my use of the verb purge(d), you avez raison; I shd have been more careful in my word-choice; probably you are much younger than I, who DO have reason to remember PURGES of the 1930s>1940s; and of course of many earlier centuries.... If you wish, Harumi, I can withdraw my exception .... and/but ,um, I have to admit that the ILLEGAL in-jail retributive murder of Jeffrey Dahmer, (serving a/several? life-sentences for the crimes of which he was found legally guilty) ... that that retribution ,by his fellow-cons satisfied some bloody-minded "god-forsaken" need of mine for eh, "justice". And, others ,retributions, of the sort, simul. Discussion, thus, is good-for-us.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-04-2003, 08:24 AM	#65
Harumi Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 3,184	Your format's a bit confusing, but I think I get the gist of it. I am extremely young, and since we've just learned about purges, both from the McCarthyist part and the Stalinist part, it's still stuck in my mind. I think we agree. The problem with the death penalty is that there is a always a possibility for a mistake, and it gives no second chances. I might be more sympathetic to the idea if there was a positive, fool-proof way to determine a person's guilt, and if there was an age limit. I don't want the country to get the right to suddenly start executing children after all. Who knows what our president might do?

02-05-2003, 04:41 AM	#66
crocodile deathroll Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Darwin Posts: 1,466	I did not check to see if anyone has ever quoted this, but in my view the death penalty just turns murderers into martyres

02-05-2003, 02:32 PM	#68
Harumi Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 3,184	And for innocent martyrs, remember the Rosenbergs...even though one of them was indeed a spy, he was a minor one, and I don't believe that that would warrant the electric chair. Recently on Time Magazine, I read the commentaries and one of the people commented that taking away the death penalty only puts more pain on the families who've lost loved ones to these people, and that the true "poor ones" aren't those on death row, but the families. I was pissed. I'm sure those "poor families" would feel mighty happy when they find out that because they want one of the people to die, they inadvertantly ordered the death of an innocent. I'll bet that'll feel great.

02-21-2003, 09:21 AM	#69
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	I don�t have a problem with the idea of the death penalty. The problem is with implementation. Things are not black and white, criminality is a sliding scale. Take deliberate killing. On the one extreme, there�s euthanasia. At the other, there�s the Fred and Rose Wests, Beverley Allitts, Hitlers, Bin Ladens, and so on. In between, there�s all manner of culpability and nastiness. It depends entirely on the individual case. Someone who shoots a Hitler dead deserves, not whatever may be prescribed for murder, but a medal. A mandatory, blanket death sentence -- if you do this, then this is the sentence -- is inevitably injust, to say nothing of potential miscarriages. However, I think the DP should be an available option, to be used in the very worst, and most certain, cases, and decided on by the people who tried the case. The speciesist nature of the discussion bothers me too. On what grounds do we happily kill millions of cattle for beef and leather? Baby sheep are regularly on the menu. What of the rats that bleed to death from Warfarin? We only kill what can harm us? Bollocks. We don�t give a second thought to the �useful� bacteria that we wipe out too with each course of antibiotics. And lest you think I�m advocating vegetarianism, we kill millions of plants with aplomb too: they are eaten, or poisoned or cut up for no better reason than we don�t like them in our gardens. Might one object that they�re not conscious? So what? Each living thing is at the tip of its evolutionary branch; its genes have made it through countless generations to be here, just as ours have. We are all related, and it is just a matter of degree. If it is wrong to deliberately take life, then it is speciesist to limit that ruling to just humans. Conversely if it is okay to kill other living things -- as it clearly is -- then it must, under certain circumstances, be okay to kill humans too. My point is simply that we kill when we want to. We have no choice but to kill other organisms for food, and we freely take life when it suits. To �put down� a dangerous dog, yet keep alive, happily fed, watered and maintained, a human such as Rosemary West or John Wayne Gacy is frightfully inconsistent. And if we�re concerned about the DP being inhumane, how much more inhumane is it to keep someone alive yet permanently remove their freedom? Don�t put that pitbull down! Keep it in a small cage all its life. Yet to do so would be regarded as inhumane... How about, other organisms that harm us are not aware of what they�re doing, they are just doing what they do? This just makes the case a fortiori for �putting down� certain humans who did know what they were doing. Since killing is not judged wrong in all circumstances; since it is speciesist to be so inconsistent; I propose that the death penalty be available, for use in extreme circumstances. It might never, in practice, be used. But it should be an option. Thoughts? Cheers, DT

03-01-2003, 06:20 PM	#70
Harumi Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 3,184	I'm so tempted to argue against that, but I'm not skilled enough of a debater, nor am I well-informed. So anyone else with enough skill willing to debate? Death doesn't really bother me. I never really cried or was upset at the Sept. 11 incident. The impending war doesn't really bother me either. A kid I new just died, and I didn't care about him. But I'm absolutely against the death penalty. This makes me a hypocrite, and as all humans are like that, I've learned to accept it. Life is based on the death of others. In living, others have to die. But that is how nature is, and I've never actually thought of it in such a light, but I'll leave it to someone else to argue against you. Such a coward I am, no?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.