|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
 Posted - 05/07/2002 : 07:59:11 [Permalink]
|
This gentleman that Turnipseed writes about may be a good candidate for our new re-education program at the least. Definitely an individual with some problems.
I think it's been shown that people are in prison and on death row because of their color and their income. Some of them actually did commit the crimes for which they are convicted, and I'm glad that some of them are not living next door to me.
I don't see much real science when it comes to these issues. You mentioned emotionalism, much of the system seems to be based on emotionalism. From gittin' tuff on crime to gittin'Osama.
Yes, I'm cold and heartless too.
quote:
Never said it did.
Glad to hear I'm not the only hardhearted, coldblooded, unfeeling bastard around.
There is undoubtedly some truth to it. It is doubtful that it is completely true. Possible, but doubtful.
"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 - 05/08/2002 : 19:42:33 [Permalink]
|
Garrette> I'm still wondering if you even believe there is such a thing as crimes against humanity or not? Whether there exists a clear-cut definition of it or not.
If you were transported back to when Adolf Hitler was seven, and you carried a gun, would you shoot him?
Again, to me, it has to do with the intention behind the crime. The motives behind the CAH (let's just call them that) solely arise from racial, national or religious considerations on an almost unimaginable scale. The crime does not only affect an individual or nation, it affects all of humanity.
I believe the term CaH is fairly new even, from after World War II, when the world had to come to terms with the holocaust in Germany. Genocide is an example. The only reason to set out an exterminate an entire group of people is purely racial and/or religious. It has nothing to do with what the group in question has done or not done. The people who order the genocide are not threatened by the group, they belong to the ruling class and do not starve or freeze..
The specificity of genocide doesn't arise from the extend of the killings, or the savagery of the resulting infamy, but solely from the intention: The destruction of a group.
On to the emotional reasons. You ask if we I say we may never react with anger. When it comes to killing others, that is certainly NOT a very useful reaction.
Murder is final. If someone steals bread it's not with the intend to kill anyone.
And I understand that you wrote, that anger should not motivate the decision, but could be used to implement the decision.
So do you mean an execution should be decided without emotions? How does that differ from cold-blooded premeditated murder?
You may rationally decide to “get the man”, and with much angered decision set out to get him. What guarantees are there, that you get the right guy?
“Well, if my ‘attack' is truly an ‘attack', then I qualify as Bad Guy. My scenario's made it clear that this was not the case.”
What do you mean by “truly”? Perhaps I'm not to clear on what's implied by your “scenario”. Is you attack and act of self-defence or does it happen later?
“quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Omega:
Self-defence sounds fine, but the guy who shot the Asian exchange student (in Florida?), who rang the wrong door-bell, probably felt threatened.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is why the death penalty would not apply to that guy.”
But he took the life of an innocent who meant him no harm. The insane guy who pulls a trigger may feel threatened in his delusional mind. The death-penalty doesn't apply to him either?
Deterrence is used as an argument in favour of the death-penalty. I'm just pointing out, that it does not work. So it is not a valid point to make in discussions for or against executions/cold-blooded murder.
And it is very fine that you an Tokyo agrees, but what is the point? Should I make a list of the people who agree with me?
Tokagure Ryu Ninjutsu may be fine. But we're not in feudal Japan/China here and it is the point of martial arts not to never have to use them. On the list you posted, the weakest would need the hardest solution.
I'll ask again: What problems are solved by killing?
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
Badger
Skeptic Friend
Canada
257 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2002 : 20:37:33 [Permalink]
|
Omega, you agreed that Pol Pot, and Hitler are obvious choices to get the penalty, but it seems you define it in terms of volume.
I threw in Homolka and Bernardo. They killed 3, and one of those, Karla's sister, was accidental as she choked on her own vomit after they'd drugged her.
My criteria is twofold: Premeditation and rehabilitation.
IF the crimes are henious and premeditated to be so, AND there is negligable hope of rehabilitating the person (sicko/psycho) then one murder is enough for me.
If there is chance of rehabilitation, ie the perpetrator feels/understands guilt and demonstrates regret and also makes attempts to improve themselves, or the crime was reactionary such as the guy shooting the oriental who came to his door, then I wouldn't advocate the death penalty.
If you think it's work, you're doing it wrong. |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2002 : 13:13:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Badger:
IF the crimes are henious and premeditated to be so, AND there is negligable hope of rehabilitating the person (sicko/psycho) then one murder is enough for me.
This is as close to my personal position as I have seen, with the repeated caveat that due to the imperfections of the system, I'm only speaking in principle and remain against the death penalty in practice.
These are from Omega:
quote:
Maybe it's just me, but I see “Crimes against Humanity” as far more serious than a single murder.
Again it's not the quantity, but the deliberation and utter lack of need for those crimes.
Again, to me, it has to do with the intention behind the crime.
The motives behind the CAH (let's just call them that) solely arise from racial, national or religious considerations on an almost unimaginable scale. The crime does not only affect an individual or nation, it affects all of humanity.
The specificity of genocide doesn't arise from the extend of the killings, or the savagery of the resulting infamy, but solely from the intention: The destruction of a group.
It seems you are saying that scale doesn't matter but that it also does. And you seem to imply that genocide is a component of a CAH.
Actually, I may have it: It is a CAH if the intent of the crime is the eradication of a group for racial, national, or religious reasons AND lots of people get killed.
If I am correct, then I must assume that you believe that President Truman (who ordered the atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima) was:
1. Attempting to eradicate the Japanese people AND
2. Was doing so for racial or national reasons
Before I leave this point, though, I'd like to point out a couple of things. In the quotation above, you say that CAH's arise from racial, national, or religious considerations. But later you say this:
quote:
The only reason to set out an exterminate an entire group of people is purely racial and/or religious.
Note that ‘national' is not there anymore. Could be an oversight, so I apologize if I'm nitpicking. But I do wonder why you leave out possibilities like territorial or political (which you may equate with national, but which I do not). Cultural?
This isn't about definitions, but about your reasoning for applying the death penalty in the case of CAH:
quote:
I would see it more as a “symbol” to the thousands of widows and fatherless children in ex-Yugoslavia, who still don't know if their husbands/fathers are missing or bones in an anonymous grave.
Symbology as justification? Why would this not apply to Ted Bundy. The parents of his victims could use the symbol just as much.
quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2002 : 20:03:39 [Permalink]
|
Badger> “I threw in Homolka and Bernardo. They killed 3, and one of those, Karla's sister, was accidental as she choked on her own vomit after they'd drugged her.”
I have no idea who Homolka and Bernado are. We all know who Pol Pot and Hitler are.
“IF the crimes are henious and premeditated to be so, AND there is negligable hope of rehabilitating the person (sicko/psycho) then one murder is enough for me.”
Are there always hopes of curing the insane? Is anyone who commits a murder not a sociopath in one way or another?
Let's just look at the Florida-guy shooting the exchange student again. Why did he do it?
Garrette> I left the “national” out later in my post by accident. It was supposed to be there. I apologise if it caused misunderstandings.
“Symbology as justification? Why would this not apply to Ted Bundy. The parents of his victims could use the symbol just as much.”
Because in neither case it will change anything. Can we agree that Ted Bundy was insane, before moving on along this topic?
“This is an old quotation, because I don't normally respond to loaded comments; I do not view it (the bombing of Hiroshima) as a CAH because I do not view it as needless.”
The bomb could've been dropped, say, off the cost of Japan to prove the strength of the bomb.
It was needless to drop it on a city.
“So you want me to tell you if I believe something exists before you define it?” I did. Please read my last post again.
“I don't know. Would you? (shoot a seven year old Adolf Hitler).”
You don't know? I do. I wouldn't have.
“What do you mean by not a very useful reaction?” When acting out of anger, logic often fails. Should justice be based on anger? Are we not close to revenge then?
No, I don't intentionally misunderstand things you write. What on Earth would be the point? You could consider, that you're not making your points clear, too.
What I did misunderstand, I think, is the question as to whether or not any “good” can ever come from killing. I misread that in the context of an execution.
You use bread to show, how stealing bread can be both right and wrong, depending on circumstances. And go on to make the analogy, that the same goes for killing. Perhaps you chose a bad analogy, what do I know? But a stolen bread can be given back, that doesn't go for the taking of a life. Perhaps you're trying to make some kind of survival analogy? If so I have missed the point.
Your scenarios: Both are flawed by perfect knowledge. Then there's the self-defence issue too. We agree self-defence is ok. We may argue about the application of force. You're certain Bad Guy has killed your family and set out to kill him. He defends himself and kills you. Is his act of self-defence ok?
That is what I asked. What would you achieve by killing him? His death will not bring back your family, not ease your loss in any way.
“So you're implying that anything from feudal Japan/China is by definition without relevance?”
Where did I say that? And you talk about deliberately misunderstanding?
In old Japan, the sempai-kohai relationship would extend beyond the dojo, to every aspect of life. While I certainly accept the superior skills of my senseis and sifu, I don't pretend they have perfect knowledge of all aspects of life. Does knowledge of both the physical and mental skills of martial arts make for possibly lethal self-defence? Yes. Is it the death-penalty? No. Are there useful things to be found from the philosophy of martial arts in feudal Japan and China? Yes. Is it the perfect knowledge of how the world is? No. I don't have a feudal lord, whose orders I must obey whether I agree or not. And I happen to think that's a good thing.
“It is the hope of martial arts never to have to use it. It is the practical realization of martial arts that sometimes they must be used.”
Indeed. But not with the intend of killing as prime motivation.
“It is, in my opinion, common that the weakest require the hardest solution |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2002 : 12:52:45 [Permalink]
|
Let me summarize the parallel discussions going on here:
1. Death penalty is good or bad
2. Crimes Against Humanity (CAHs) exist
3. Crimes Against Humanity are defined as…..
4. Specific events are or are not CAHs
5. The death penalty is or is not desirable for use in cases of CAH
I've asked you to start another thread to discuss specifics about alleged CAHs so that we do not hijack this thread, and you have not done so. I will not discuss them on this thread any longer except as they pertain to the death penalty.
No matter, masochist that I am, I will create the other thread for you. For my comments regarding the atomic bombings and the definition of a CAH, please go to the appropriate thread.
For the death penalty issues, let me summarize positions of the recent participants in this debate as I understand them:
1. Garrette and TokyoDreamer: Good in principle; bad in practice
2. Gorgo: Bad
3. Badger: Good
4. Omega: Bad
Now let me summarize mine and Omega's positions on the death penalty in cases of CAH (as well or ill-defined as it may be):
1. Garrette: Good in principle; bad in practice
2. Omega: Good
Which leads me to ask about the apparent inconsistency, Omega. For sake of clarity, I'll drop the “bad in practice” caveat. Separate from that, it seems we agree that the death penalty is a good thing. Our disagreement lies only in its application. You say it can apply only to cases of CAH. I say it can apply at a more individual level.
So unless I've grossly misunderstood, the debate about the death penalty in general is concluded, at least regarding you, Omega. Gorgo may still legitimately object, though. Further argument will logically be restricted to the topic of which crimes to which the death penalty may be applied.
For responses to specific comments, see further postings.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2002 : 13:03:43 [Permalink]
|
All quotations are from Omega:
quote:
Badger> “I threw in Homolka and Bernardo. They killed 3, and one of those, Karla's sister, was accidental as she choked on her own vomit after they'd drugged her.”
I have no idea who Homolka and Bernado are. We all know who Pol Pot and Hitler are.
A young couple (either natives of Canada, or natives of America who emigrated to Canada, I can't remember) who started out engaged, got married, and throughout their relationship engaged in the abduction and brutal rape of several young girls (total count was near 20, I think, though it's been a while). One victim was Homolka's (the female's) young sister whom Homolka drugged so Bernardo could rape her. Sister choked on vomit and died. Other victims were deliberately murdered with at least one being dismembered and encased in concrete and thrown in a river. When caught, Homoka plea-bargained in a travesty of justice and testified against Bernardo.
quote:
“IF the crimes are henious and premeditated to be so, AND there is negligable hope of rehabilitating the person (sicko/psycho) then one murder is enough for me.”
Are there always hopes of curing the insane? Is anyone who commits a murder not a sociopath in one way or another?
Depends how you define ‘hope.' There is not always reasonable expectation. And, no, most murderers are not sociopaths who are relatively rare. The conflation of sociopath and, by implication, other mental illnesses with insanity is a common error. I am not clinically qualified to speak too authoritatively on this subject, but I have worked in and with the psychiatric community for some years, so I have at least some grounding on which to make these statements.
quote:
Let's just look at the Florida-guy shooting the exchange student again. Why did he do it?
From what I understand of your position, his reason does not matter since the act does not reach the scale of a CAH.
Still, I think he did it for a combination of reasons, though this is pure speculation as I have not researched it:
1. He was afraid due to the hour
2. He was afraid due to an irrational xenophobia (not to suggest there is rational xenophia)
3. He was emotionally unprepared to deal with what he perceived as a crisis situation except in an extreme, overreactive manner
quote:
“Symbology as justification? Why would this not apply to Ted Bundy. The parents of his victims could use the symbol just as much.”
Because in neither case it will change anything. Can we agree that Ted Bundy was insane, before moving on along this topic?
Yes, I agree it will change nothing, yet you posited, without any prompting from me, that Milosevic's death is still desirable. You see no inconsistency here? Ageeing that Bundy was insane is another matter and does not advance your argument.
quote:
“What do you mean by not a very useful reaction?” When acting out of anger, logic often fails. Should justice be based on anger? Are we not |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2002 : 19:14:44 [Permalink]
|
Garrette> The reason CAH's are even discussed here, is because I some time ago said, the only exception to my strong opposition to the death-penalty I could think off, would be CaHs. And since you're the one who wanted another thread, why should I make it?
But being a civilised debeteur, I have posted my comments on the CaH's in the the other thread.
If my thoughts on possibly leaving perpetrators of CaH's out of my strong objections to the death-penalty suddenly makes me in favour, then I will rather say, I'm against the death-penalty in all circumstances. Because my reasons for considering CaH's as possibilities, are not the same as your reasons for theoretically applying it (if the legal-system worked etc). See the thread on CaH's for anexplanation.
I cannot say that the story you relay on Homolka and Bernardo does not disgust me. But with such a gruesome example as our disposal, I'll have to ask this:
Why did they do it? I know it's a world of imperfect knowledge, but did anything come out during the trial?
Sociopaths. So you think a sane person can commit a murder? You write you've had some experience with the psychiatry community, so I'd like to at least hear your opinion. What defines a sociopath?
Since when do I only talk about perpetrators of CaH? You say the Florida-shooter is not eligeble for your standards of the death-penalty. I assume it is because of the intention behind the shooting? There was no planning, yes?
Symbology. I understand why you see the inconsitency in my standing on what should happen to Ted Bundy versus Milosovich. Especially since Milosovich didn't actually pull the trigger himself. But that is exactly my point. It is the excessive abuse of power and legalising the masscare, ordering it even (see other thread for more on this).
“You have said you understand my distinction between anger as motivation and as mechanism yet you continue to conflate them. Is revenge worse than symbology, especially since you have admitted that symbology accomplishes nothing?”
A reaction to a CaH is international. Essentially it has to do with a world-wide reaction to those who ordered the CaH. Nationally women are being stoned in a country after a rape. That is a national law (which I do of course NOT agree with). In some countries it's illegal to posses marihuana in others it isn't. In some countries you can go to jail for writing satire.
The symbology is a way of saying the world is strongly opposed to the crime in question. I see criminals as very much a part of the society that spawned them. Murderers to me are indeed sociopaths, and instead of murdering them, I want to understand what on Earth made them do what they did. To prevent it from happening again.
“Are you saying that you see no good coming of an execution but can see good coming from some other type of killing? If so, then it REALLY confuses me because then you're saying you advocate killing when it will not do good and are against it when it will.”
Ehrm, yes. Let me state it like this: I see an execution as a cold-blooded murder. It is planned and carried out with clinical precision. If a hapless person is suddenly assaulted, tries to defend onself and accidentially kills the perpetrator “it does good”. Please note the quotation marks. I'm not saying it is GOOD that someone died, but I am not ready to place that person in jail for the rest of his or her life.
But “the good” that came out of the killing was that the hapless person survived. This person did not plan and carry out a murder. So in that context I agree that “some good” can come from killing.
Again, I placed your use of “killing” as being an execution.
“Frankly, I have no idea, as I have never been in such a situation.”
Neither have I. Perhaps that is the problem. I have frankly no idea how I'd react if someone dear to me was murdered.
But what if the death of your family was manslaugther? It was an accident. Bad Guy didn't mean to.
What if it Bad |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2002 : 03:56:13 [Permalink]
|
Tried posting this yesterday and the board locked me out of this and the other threads.
Just because you asked, here are some clinical definitions.
From:
Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary, edition 16, © 1989, F.A. Davis Company:
quote:
insane … Mentally deranged; pert. to insanity.
insanity … A severe mental disorder such as a psychosis. A general term for mental disorder or psychosis, now obsolete except as a legal term. In legal medicine, the state or mental condition characterized by inability to distinguish between right and wrong, possession of delusions or hallucinations that prevent individuals from looking after their own affairs with ordinary prudence or that render them a menace to others, or actions resulting from impulses of such intensity that they cannot be resisted.
During lucid intervals, an insane person may enter into a legal contract, marriage, business, or buying and selling, providing at the time he or she is capable of entering into such matters with an understanding of all that is implied. The mental capacity at the time determines the validity of such acts and not the condition before or after. SEE: neurosis; psychosis.
From:
Quick Reference To The DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA From DSM-IV™
© 1994 American Psychiatric Association
quote:
General diagnostic criteria for a Personality Disorder
A. An enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual's culture. This pattern is manifested in two (or more) of the following areas:
(1) cognition (i.e., ways of perceiving and interpreting self, other people, and events)
(2) affectivity (i.e., the range, intensity, lability, and appropriateness of emotional response)
(3) interpersonal functioning
(4) impulse control
B. The enduring pattern is inflexible and pervasive across a broad range of personal and social situations.
C. The enduring pattern leads to clinically significant distress or
impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
D. The pattern is stable and of long duration and its onset can be traced back at least to adolescence or early adulthood.
E. The enduring pattern is not better accounted for as a manifestation or consequence of another mental disorder.
F. The enduring pattern is not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, a medication) or a general medical condition (e.g., head trauma).
...(snip)
301.7 Antisocial Personality Disorder
A. There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 Years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
(1) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
(2) deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
(3) impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
(4) irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
(5) recless disregard for safety of self or others
(6) consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
(7) lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another
B. The individual is at least age 18 years
C. There is evidence of Conduct Disorder with onset before age 15 years
D. The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2002 : 04:09:36 [Permalink]
|
More "expert" testimony. (0:
quote:
Which reminds me of some thing Richard Pryor said....
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2002 : 04:41:58 [Permalink]
|
Quotations are from Omega:
The reason CAH's are even discussed here, is because I some time ago said, the only exception to my strong opposition to the death-penalty I could think off, would be CaHs. And since you're the one who wanted another thread, why should I make it?
Because the topic changed from the death penalty to the definition of a CAH and whether certain events qualified as such. You asked for my comments regarding that, not regarding the death penalty.
But being a civilised debeteur, I have posted my comments on the CaH's in the the other thread.
Much obliged.
If my thoughts on possibly leaving perpetrators of CaH's out of my strong objections to the death-penalty suddenly makes me in favour, then I will rather say, I'm against the death-penalty in all circumstances. Because my reasons for considering CaH's as possibilities, are not the same as your reasons for theoretically applying it (if the legal-system worked etc). See the thread on CaH's for anexplanation.
I must say that this is one of the most interesting and flattering reasons for abandoning a position that I have ever heard.
I cannot say that the story you relay on Homolka and Bernardo does not disgust me. But with such a gruesome example as our disposal, I'll have to ask this:
Why did they do it? I know it's a world of imperfect knowledge, but did anything come out during the trial?
I don't recall specifics, but my general feeling at the time was that they were simply scum. Probably even sociopaths.
Sociopaths. So you think a sane person can commit a murder? You write you've had some experience with the psychiatry community, so I'd like to at least hear your opinion. What defines a sociopath?
See previous post for the clinical definitions to which I must defer.
By those definitions, it becomes clear that most murders are not committed by sociopaths as they are not indicative of a long-standing pattern of behavior.
Of course a sane person can commit murder, though perhaps you are saying that during the instant of the act then sanity is momentarily lost. Reasonable on the surface, but belied by those examples of single, planned murders.
Since when do I only talk about perpetrators of CaH?
You said it was the only exception to the penalty of which you could think.
You say the Florida-shooter is not eligeble for your standards of the death-penalty. I assume it is because of the intention behind the shooting? There was no planning, yes?
Yes.
Symbology. I understand why you see the inconsitency in my standing on what should happen to Ted Bundy versus Milosovich. Especially since Milosovich didn't actually pull the trigger himself. But that is exactly my point. It is the excessive abuse of power and legalising the masscare, ordering it even (see other thread for more on this).
I think this may be the tip of what is our fundamental disagreement which, if I am correct, is a socio-political one. (I just created that term; sorry if it's not clear. I'm not formally schooled in the formal terms of philosophy and debate). Let's see if I can summarize or clarify:
Your position is that the death penalty is warranted only when the crime is such that it is injurious to society. Further, the death penalty is justifiable only when it will have some meliorating effect upon society or a portion thereof.
My position is that injury to an individual is sufficient.
Am I close?
A reaction to a CaH is international. Essentially it has to do with a world-wide reaction to those who ordered the CaH.
See above.
I see criminals as very much a part of the society that spawned them. Murderers to me are indeed sociopaths, and instead of murdering them, I want to understand what on Earth made them do what they did. To prevent it from happening again.
This is not exclusive of the death penalty.
“Are you saying that you see no goo |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2002 : 19:08:41 [Permalink]
|
Garrette> (I've tried to keep the quotations from previous posts to a minimum so this doesn't get too long.)
Thank you for the dictionary definitions.
I find them to describe a murderer quite adequately actually. The inability to tell right from wrong for example or the “continuous and chronic antisocial behavior that violates the rights of others”.
There are the crimes of passion, temporary insanity, yes. But the cold-blooded murders, which are eligible of the death-penalty in your book, are sociopaths.
What, for example, keeps you from murdering people you don't like?
“”Since when do I only talk about perpetrators of CaH?””
“You said it was the only exception to the penalty of which you could think.”
Yes, but we're talking about the death-penalty here, being for and against it.
“I think this may be the tip of what is our fundamental disagreement which, if I am correct, is a socio-political one. (I just created that term; sorry if it's not clear. I'm not formally schooled in the formal terms of philosophy and debate).”
I get your meaning.
“Let's see if I can summarize or clarify:
Your position is that the death penalty is warranted only when the crime is such that it is injurious to society. Further, the death penalty is justifiable only when it will have some meliorating effect upon society or a portion thereof.”
My position is that injury to an individual is sufficient.
Am I close?”
I think you actually hit it right on, Garrette. Yes.
“This is not exclusive of the death penalty.”
Did you recently find a way to talk to the dead? :) Seriously, though. How will you conduct research with a murderer, if he/she is dead? It is not necessarily exclusive, no, but hardly an argument in favour of the death-penalty.
“Same actions. Same results. Same ‘good' resulting. Is the defender guilty of murder?”
No. The defender is still without blame. He didn't seek out the offender.
“Then my ire and my actions would be transferred from BG to BV. Is it murder?”
If planned in advance, yes.
“Good thing you've already retracted your support for the death penalty in this case, or else you'd be in grave danger of holding conflicting positions. I'm sure the juries of those wrongly convicted in the US highly doubted the pleas of innocence of the accused.”
No, I said (and if my meaning wasn't clear I'll try again), IF my support of the death-penalty in case of CaH suddenly makes me supportive of the death-penalty in general (which I am not), then I will rather object to the d-p in all cases. Your point was, that how could anyone be sure Milosovich is guilty of a CaH. A single murder contains one link, between the murderer and the victim. A CaH has more. From the person in power, through generals and/or colonels or police-officers, down to those who carry out the order to kill.
Therefore more people will KNOW where the order comes from. It makes it easier to find the guilty party.
“If you say so. Should I add this to the definition I wrote for you?”
You can add that to the definition I wrote, yes.
“I wonder why you can posit a scenario without doubt yet continue to assert that my scenarios are plagued with it?”
Defending oneself when attacked is not the death-penalty is my argument. You then go on to ask, how my sensei would know he gets the right guy. I say there is hardly any doubt who attacks you, when you're walking along, minding your own business, and suddenly someone jumps you. I don't know how you can doubt
1) that you're being attacked by the person who's attacking you
2) having doubts whether or not it is an execution on behalf of the person defending him/herself.
“Then there is my reasoning similar to Badger's comment some posts ago. An individual can be so inherently repulsive, so nearly without redeeming quality, AND so intractable and so beyond rehabilitation, that the practical solution is death. This, I admit, is a stance that, at the end, is an emotionless, even cold-blooded |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2002 : 12:18:56 [Permalink]
|
Not being of a mind to actually convert you, Omega, and having other more pressing matters to hand, I'm happy to call this quits. I'll take comfort that in the end we were both able to articulate our positions clearly and understand the other.
Further arguments on this topic will have to come from another quarter.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Atheist_Conspirator
New Member
Canada
6 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2002 : 01:26:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I see that is an increased violence on behalf of society, that can lead to even more violent crimes, as the criminals seek to avoid victims.
Interesting. By this reasoning, it's armed victims that cause criminals to be even more violent. Why if households didn't have knives, baseball bats, forks, or any other dangerous implement, criminals would be less violent! Damn those violent victims! All one should do is just sit there and take it like a man, when someone is violating your rights and property.
Edited by - Atheist_Conspirator on 06/18/2002 01:30:33 |
|
|
|
Chagur
New Member
USA
21 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2002 : 17:13:59 [Permalink]
|
Son-of-a-gun.
Decided to drop in again on this thread and found that the second half is as rote boring as the first half was. Other than Lar_H presenting the 'German' view, no one wanted to get the least bit off the beaten path.
Oh well, should have taken to heart Snake's comment: "The reason I'm not going to comment or state my views and reason for my vote is because this subject has been talked to death, pardon the pun. So I think it's a waste of time to keep writing about it."
How true, how true.
Take care all.
"Fie, fie how franticly I square my talk!" -Edwin A. Abbott - |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
