|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
 Posted - 05/01/2002 : 05:59:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Perhaps I am the only one who would respond this way.
Speaking for myself, not at all.
------------
Truth above pride and ego; truth above all |
 |
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 07:09:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps I am the only one who would respond this way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking for myself, not at all.
I wonder if we can make any money in vigilantism?
quote:
What I meant to say is that the death penalty is applied without any basis in reality. We kill because we're pissed off. Not much different than those we're killing. We don't even seem to care if we get the "right guy."
No, I kill because Bad Guy killed my family. Being pissed off is a mechanism that helps me carry through. And I care immensely that I get the right guy.
quote:
What is best for you has nothing to do with your anger. Anger has nothing to do with reality. Anger has nothing to do with solving problems.
Anger has no role in determining what is best, but anger is real. And it can have a great deal to do with solving problems. Once a solution is determined, once what is best is determined, anger can provide the motivation that might otherwise be lacking to implement that solution.
quote:
I don't know what you mean about an evolutionary bent.
You said that what matters is what is best for society. I assumed you take this position from an evolutionary standpoint in that what is best for society is best for the species. I could be wrong.
My further point was that concern for society seems prevalent when discussing how other people should react to violence, whereas when we/I are the other people who are victims of violence, societal concerns drop quickly to the rear and concern for myself jumps to the fore.
{Edited for a Freudian slip}
My kids still love me.
Edited by - Garrette on 05/01/2002 07:10:44 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 07:21:49 [Permalink]
|
I didn't say anger wasn't real, I said that it has no concern for reality, and if it had anything to do with our decisions to act, everyone would be dead. We decide to act for a number of reasons. The same with punishment. If "feeling bad" about something fixed anything, we'd all be perfect instead of just me.
If you kill, you kill from an belief that killing someone will solve your problems (or that you are powerless to do anything else and you have to do "something"). That may or may not be true. Where is the evidence that the death penalty solves anything or is even concerned with getting "the right guy?" It seems based more on getting public officials re-elected and satisfying public anger.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn
Edited by - gorgo on 05/01/2002 07:23:34 |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 08:04:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I didn't say anger wasn't real, I said that it has no concern for reality, and if it had anything to do with our decisions to act, everyone would be dead. We decide to act for a number of reasons. The same with punishment.
I think I agreed with you on this. I said that anger does not have a role in determining what is best; it merely is a tool in helping implement that determination once made.
quote:
If you kill, you kill from an belief that killing someone will solve your problems (or that you are powerless to do anything else and you have to do "something").
Or a third option: I kill because I see it as the best way to assure my survival and the survival of my family. I may have no problems to solve at all, just an obstacle on what I consider the otherwise optimum path--that obstacle being the continued existence of Bad Guy.
And as long as I'm being hypothetical, why do you say "or that you are powerless to do anything else"? This seems to imply that killing is by default the least desirable action. Is this necessarily true?
quote:
Where is the evidence that the death penalty solves anything or is even concerned with getting "the right guy?" It seems based more on getting public officials re-elected and satisfying public anger.
Yes, politics plays a role, hence my admission that actually implementing the death penalty as a state or nation is unacceptable--there are simply too many imperfections.
I think the evidence that the people who implement death penalty legislation (not the death penalty itself, which can not have 'concerns') are concerned with getting the right person, is in the construction of the legislation itself with its built-in safeguards (imperfect as they are).
But the safeguards are imperfect and I, personally, am concerned with getting the right guy (you'll have to unskeptically take my word on this), so I don't support the death penalty as it is implemented, though I still support it in theory.
{Edited because I have an evolutionary dysfunction that prevents me from typing or proofreading correctly on the first five tries}
My kids still love me.
Edited by - Garrette on 05/01/2002 08:07:06 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 08:46:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think I agreed with you on this. I said that anger does not have a role in determining what is best; it merely is a tool in helping implement that determination once made.
Well, I disagree, but that's another thread.
quote:
Or a third option: I kill because I see it as the best way to assure my survival and the survival of my family. I may have no problems to solve at all, just an obstacle on what I consider the otherwise optimum path--that obstacle being the continued existence of Bad Guy.
Seems like another way of saying what I just said, but maybe not.
quote:
And as long as I'm being hypothetical, why do you say "or that you are powerless to do anything else"? This seems to imply that killing is by default the least desirable action. Is this necessarily true?
I don't think that's been proven. I just said that that may be the idea that one is working from. What you do teaches others. If you care about life, then you act as though life is important. If you solve problems by killing others, then that teaches others to solve problems by killing others. Killing others may be understandable in certain circumstances, but when presented with other choices, why take that route?
quote:
I think the evidence that the people who implement death penalty legislation (not the death penalty itself, which can not have 'concerns') are concerned with getting the right person, is in the construction of the legislation itself with its built-in safeguards (imperfect as they are).
It's the same with institutional racism. We can say that the people that created it did not wish to create a racist system, but the fact is that they did. The "death penalty system" is not concerned with solving "the problem" although the people that created it may think they are concerned with it. People are on death row not because that is the "scientific" way to solve a problem, but because of a lot of other factors. The goal seems to be to kill poor people.
quote:
But the safeguards are imperfect and I, personally, am concerned with getting the right guy (you'll have to unskeptically take my word on this), so I don't support the death penalty as it is implemented, though I still support it in theory.
I haven't seen a theory, so I can't say. It seems to spring from irrationality. I'm not educated enough to state that with any conviction.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn
Edited by - Gorgo on 05/01/2002 08:51:00
Edited by - gorgo on 05/01/2002 09:23:23
Edited by - gorgo on 05/01/2002 09:25:22 |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 11:27:56 [Permalink]
|
A final post before I'm away for an extended weekend.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or a third option: I kill because I see it as the best way to assure my survival and the survival of my family. I may have no problems to solve at all, just an obstacle on what I consider the otherwise optimum path--that obstacle being the continued existence of Bad Guy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems like another way of saying what I just said, but maybe not.
You're right; it reads that way. I have the distinction in my head but can't articulate it so I will concede the point.
quote:
I don't think that's been proven. I just said that that may be the idea that one is working from. What you do teaches others. If you care about life, then you act as though life is important. If you solve problems by killing others, then that teaches others to solve problems by killing others. Killing others may be understandable in certain circumstances, but when presented with other choices, why take that route?
I think you're mostly agreeing with me this time without realizing it. I'll grant you that many or even most work from the viewpoint that killing is automatically the least desirable course.
But regarding the assertion that if I resolve problems by killing others than I am teaching those around me that killing others solves problems, then I have a two-part answer:
1. Yes, it does, because it can.
2. It does not teach that idea as absolutely as you imply, any more than letting your child watch you pull weeds from the garden teaches him that pulling weeds is how you solve problems. If I am to teach my children anything, let it be the realization that their problem-solving bag is full of many, many tools--pulling weeds being one, writing letters to CEO's being another, and killing in admittedly extreme circumstances another.
quote:
We can say that the people that created it did not wish to create a racist system, but the fact is that they did. The "death penalty system" is not concerned with solving "the problem" although the people that created it may think they are concerned with it. People are on death row not because that is the "scientific" way to solve a problem, but because of a lot of other factors. The goal seems to be to kill poor people.
You're mixing lines of thought here.
Of course the death penalty system is not concerned with anything.
The people who put the death penalty system in place may very well have had the concern for 'getting the right guy' as their driving force. Your pronouncement that they only "think they do" is bias unadulterated.
They may alsos have had political concerns as their driving force.
I won't argue that the death penalty isn't applied disproportionately to the poor, but to use that observation to imply that the legislators have therefore deliberately targeted the poor is disingenuous at best.
We agree that the resulting system is so flawed that it should not be in place.
Where we disagree is our attitudes toward a perfect system, meaning one which resulted in the state execution of those undeniably guilty of undeniably horrific crimes, said definition to be supplied later, and which was applied proportionately to all classes.
I infer that you would be against even this hypothetically perfect system.
I would support it.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the safeguards are imperfect and I, personally, am concerned with getting the right guy (you'll have to unskeptically take my word on this), so I don't support the death penalty as it is implemented, though I still support it in theory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't seen a theory, so I can't say. It seems to spring from irrationality. I'm not educated enough to state that with any conviction.
Why does it seem to spring from irrationality? Because it is opposed to your view?
"Theory" was an imprecise term, as I do not have a theory. "Principle" may have been a better choice. But I think I wrote it clearly enough for you to understand my meaning
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 12:23:55 [Permalink]
|
Garrette: I wasn't picking on the word theory, I just mean that I don't think there's anything very scientific (for lack of a better word) about the death penalty. Where is any kind of proof that it improves society in any way?
Again, I didn't say that lawmakers don't intend to solve the problems they say they intend to solve. What I said was that if they intended to solve a problem, what they've achieved is different. Now, if that happens year after year, then you have to assume that whoever started the process has a problem understanding what they've created in some way, or that they intend the actual result. As we've discussed before, after 11 years of genocidal policies in Iraq, one can only conclude that the U.S. administration intends genocide (ruin of culture, mass deaths, etc.). After ?? years of the death penalty, when does one begin to assume that those that impose the death penalty (and the war on drugs) intend to attack the poor and minorities, or at least don't care about them, and really don't care about solving the problem of crime? We still have murders, those states with the death penalty have just as many or more murders as those without and we have a lot of black people on death row.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
gator
New Member
Canada
8 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 20:37:46 [Permalink]
|
I voted yes, because its the right thing to do.
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2002 : 04:28:46 [Permalink]
|
Not the effective thing to do, not the scientific thing to do, not the humane thing to do, just the right thing to do?
quote:
I voted yes, because its the right thing to do.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2002 : 11:29:46 [Permalink]
|
Garrette> I'm not really sure where to go with this. You refuse to answer any of my questions, and since you don't view the needless killing of 100.000 in Hiroshima as a crime against Humanity, I'm not sure we have the same foundation of premises to discuss from.
You seem to think executions work as deterrents. That the death-penalty is still being used, shows this is not the case.
Badger somehow puts words on my vague definition. That people like Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin or other leaders who ordered the killing of millions have in a way lost their “humanity” or right to breathe.
Lars_H asked for arguments in favour of the death-penalty, and I tried to find some on this thread. They're either emotional or not an argument at all (such as “it's the right thing to do”). This got me thinking on the admittedly vague definition I have of crimes against Humanity. And it is very much indeed emotional. I'm appalled by ethnic cleansing, completely random massacres and the horrors, terrors and uncertainty it breeds. I do see a difference between something like this and one murder.
“Would you kill the villain to save the others?”
How would you know the “villain” would commit further crimes? If you were transported back to when Adolf Hitler was seven and had a gun, would you pull the trigger?
“I kill because Bad Guy killed my family”
So, is killing wrong or right?
Gorgo> I, however, agree with you, that anger shouldn't be used even to implement a decision. Anger is a response to feeling threatened (even from the silly nail it seems, that won't go into the wall), and there is no guarantee the decision will be carried out rationally.
Is killing the least desirable action? Will killing teach that killing can solve problems?
There is a problem here. Faced with a life-threatening situation, and manslaughter happens in self-defence, who will object? Did killing in self-defence solve a problem? I'm sure the defender will agree whole-heartedly. But what if the defender was Garrettes “villain”, the “Bad Guy” who defended himself from Garrettes attack on his life?
Where would we draw the line in the problem-solving?
Self-defence sounds fine, but the guy who shot the Asian exchange student (in Florida?), who rang the wrong door-bell, probably felt threatened.
I'd defend myself if attacked physically and my life was in danger. But not with the intend to kill the attacker, but to do just that. Defend myself.
What problems will be solved by killing?
Gator> Right? How?
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
gator
New Member
Canada
8 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2002 : 01:53:37 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
Not the effective thing to do, not the scientific thing to do, not the humane thing to do, just the right thing to do?
[quote]
I voted yes, because its the right thing to do.
THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT, THE HUMANE,SCIENTIFIC,EFFECTIVE THINGS TO DO ARE EVERY BIT AS SUBJECTIVE AS THE "RIGHT" THING TO DO.
HUMANE DEFINED AS WHAT?? LOCKED IN PRISON FOR 40 YEARS GETTING RAPED ON A DAILY BASIS OR BEAT UP. SCIENTIFIC AS WHAT? NAME AN ALTERNATIVE THAT IS ANY MORE SCIENTIFIC, IT ALL DEPENDS ON SUBJECTIVE DEFINTION OF OUTCOMES AND GOALS. TRYING TO INJECT SOCIAL "SCIENCE" INTO CRIME AND PUNISHMENT HAS PROVED TO BE FUTILE AT BEST. EFFECTIVE? AS WHAT? EFFECTIVE IN PROTECTING SOCIETY FROM A REPEAT OFFENSE YES, EFFECTIVE AT PREVENTING SIMILAR CRIMES BY SOMEONE ELSE, PROBABLY NOT. AGAIN IT ALL DEPENDS ON DEFINITIONS.
AN EXAMPLE:
SCENARIO ONE
A POLICE OFFICER WALKS INTO A BANK AS IT IS BEING ROBBED BY AN ARMED BANK ROBBER. THE OFFICER DRAWS HIS WEAPON AND SHOUTS TO THE ROBBER, "DROP YOUR GUN!!" THE ROBBER TURNS WITH HIS GUN DRAWN AND SHOOTS JUST MISSING THE OFFICER. THE OFFICER RETURNS FIRE AND KILLS THE ROBBER.
NOW WHAT HAS HAPPENED HERE? A POLICE OFFICER HAS KILLED A PERSON. THAT PERSON HAD THREATENED TO KILL THE OFFICER BY HIS ACTIONS. NO JUDGE OR JURY OR ARGUMENTS OR DEFENSE LAWYERS; NO DELIBERATIONS. JUST A SPLIT SECOND DECISION TO DEFEND HIMSELF AND PERHAPS THE SAFETY OF OTHERS. PERSONALLY IN THIS SCENARIO I AM WITH THE OFFICER. NOW AFTER THE CORONER REMOVES THE BODY FROM THE BANK THE POLICE DO A CURSORY INVESTIGATION, THE OFFICER IS DECLARED A HERO AND LIFE IS GOOD.
SCENARIO TWO
NOW THE SAME SCENARIO AS ONE, EXCEPT THIS TIME THE ROBBER IS WOUNDED BUT VERY MUCH ALIVE, YET THEY FIND ONE DEAD BANK TELLER THAT THE ROBBER HAD KILLED EARLIER. THE ROBBER GOES TO TRIAL AND IS CONVICTED OF MURDER AND IS SENTENCED TO DEATH BY LETHAL INJECTION. TEN TO TWELVE YEARS OF APPEALS LATER HE IS EXECUTED, WHILE A MOB PROTESTS OUTSIDE.
THE ABOVE EXAMPLES ILLUSTRATE HOW SOCIETY EASILY ACCEPTS A KILLING OF A HUMAN BEING WHO WAS TRYING TO KILL ANOTHER BUT REJECTS THE IDEA OF KILLING SOMEONE WHO HAS ACTUALLY MURDERED SOMEONE.
A SPLIT SECOND DECISION BY A POLICE OFFICER IS SHRUGGED OFF AS "HEY THE OFFICERS LIFE WAS THREATENED",YET TRYING TO EXECUTE A CRIMINAL, EVEN AFTER A TRIAL AND APPEALS ETC.. FOR ACTUALLY HAVING KILLED ONE OR MANY PEOPLE IS NOT EFFECTIVE,SCIENTIFIC,OR HUMANE. LETS BE CONSISTENT! THERE IS NO "RIGHT" ANSWER TO THIS ISSUE,ALTHOUGH PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES PRETEND THERE IS...
|
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2002 : 04:22:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
THERE IS NO "RIGHT" ANSWER TO THIS ISSUE,ALTHOUGH PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES PRETEND THERE IS...
I am happy to report that there IS a right answer on this issue. If the law says that we cannot kill another human being, wether intentionally or accidentally, then who is to push the button or pull the switch?
What about the Judge that orders the execution? Shouldn't he be responsible for contracting murder?
How about the jury? Sounds like conspiracy to me.
And, the governor? He could have stopped it, but didn't. Accessory before the fact?
How about the rest of us? Does a hundred 'righteous' executions justify one innocent victim?
quote:
THE ABOVE EXAMPLES ILLUSTRATE HOW SOCIETY EASILY ACCEPTS A KILLING OF A HUMAN BEING WHO WAS TRYING TO KILL ANOTHER BUT REJECTS THE IDEA OF KILLING SOMEONE WHO HAS ACTUALLY MURDERED SOMEONE.
C'mon, man. Maybe, some individuals are without conscience, but surely you don't believe your own words. Society does not accept killing people for any reason, other than unintentionally in defense of one's own life, or the life of their loved ones.
Murderers have broken the laws of society sacrificing their rights to society. However, we never have the right to take away another's basic right to life, unless we are left with no alternative. If you murder, you go to prison. If necessary, you spend the rest of your miserable life in a 6 by 8 foot room, without ever again seeing the sun. But, killing another person without the necessity of immediate defense is unlawful. State sanctioned executions are not written into the law as an exception.
"The Constitution ..., is a marvelous document for self-government by Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society." P. Robertson |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2002 : 05:46:03 [Permalink]
|
Well then, you might agree that the answer to that would be to improve prisons, not kill people for no good reason. There is no good reason. You say to protect the public, but you can restrain individuals for the rest of their lives so that they are no threat to anyone. You can spend the money you are now spending keeping 2 million people incarcerated for no good reason on learning how to help violent people change. Prisons need not be places to go to learn to be violent.
quote:
THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT,
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2002 : 16:22:24 [Permalink]
|
Gator> Does you capslock not work? Or do you think you're making a point by writing in capital letters?
“HUMANE DEFINED AS WHAT?? LOCKED IN PRISON FOR 40 YEARS GETTING RAPED ON A DAILY BASIS OR BEAT UP. SCIENTIFIC AS WHAT?”
Find a prisoner who prefers the death-sentence to being jailed. This is not the first time here, that pro-death penalty people say it's more humane to execute than to imprison. I just want some kind of fact to back that up.
“THE ABOVE EXAMPLES ILLUSTRATE HOW SOCIETY EASILY ACCEPTS A KILLING OF A HUMAN BEING WHO WAS TRYING TO KILL ANOTHER BUT REJECTS THE IDEA OF KILLING SOMEONE WHO HAS ACTUALLY MURDERED SOMEONE.”
I haven't found anyone around here, who's against self-defence. You're talking about society, but what is your point? Can't you see the difference between your two examples?
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
gator
New Member
Canada
8 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2002 : 04:06:03 [Permalink]
|
In response to TIM:
I am happier to report that your response, although thoughtful, is far from right. You seem to be confusing a death sentence and unlawful murder. The state can indeed legislate the punishment of death for murder. The argument that taking a life is not allowed because then the state would be performing the same act they are punishing just does not fly. The state can do basically what ever it has legislated itself to do, period. You can challenge the state in the Supreme court, but this ability to challenge is irrelevant as to whether capital punishment is "right".
Tim:
How about the rest of us? Does a hundred 'righteous' executions justify one innocent victim?
My response:
This argument is the 'ole what happens if we execute the wrong person'? Yes having the death penalty as a punishment option carries a risk. The risk does not make capital punishment inherently right or wrong,it simply has to be taken into consideration. For example the police have the authority and capability to use lethal force. They can and have killed innocent people, yet we do not take away their guns,why? because most people are willing to take the risk that they may accidentally be shot and killed by a police officer in return for the protection they afford. I am willing to risk being executed for a crime I did not commit in return for 1)punishing those that will commit murder and 2)removing the possibility of those same persons from committing another murder.
Tim:
C'mon, man. Maybe, some individuals are without conscience, but surely you don't believe your own words. Society does not accept killing people for any reason, other than unintentionally in defense of one's own life, or the life of their loved ones.
My response:
If you scan back to the original poll question you would see that about 44% of us disagree with you on this one.
Tim:
Murderers have broken the laws of society sacrificing their rights to society. However, we never have the right to take away another's basic right to life, unless we are left with no alternative.
My response:
This is a conclusion developed from a moral position but is used as a premise. We have the right to decide what is best for our society and that may or may not include capital punishment.
Tim:
If you murder, you go to prison. If necessary, you spend the rest of your miserable life in a 6 by 8 foot room, without ever again seeing the sun. But, killing another person without the necessity of immediate defense is unlawful.
My response:
Please site the law that applys to all the states. I think you are confusing causing death with unlawful murder. See for example California penal code 187-190.
Tim:
State sanctioned executions are not written into the law as an exception.
My response:
see above
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
