Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - Life or Death
| User | Post |
Ramadan Roy
Posts: 491/816 |
Personally, I believe that the best consequence for someone who has done wrong is not physical punishment equivalent to the crime, but for them to correct themselves. This applies also to the death penalty. I think that people who have commited crimes "evil" enough to be executed should be placed in prison instead, so they at least have the chance to repent, even if they may not ever leave jail. |
Grey the Stampede
Posts: 1562/3770 |
I believe he's trying to say that often a killer's motivations come from outside, and that the killer is not responsible for actions influenced by his environment.
On a totally different note, one has to take into account a killer's psyche when they are apprehended. I say we find out his motivations for the killing, his history, his environment, and every possible factor that contributed to his hatred of life (including things that may seem irrelevant, such as who his third grade math teacher was or something like that, psychoanalysis can take the smallest details and work them toward the largest consequences), and based on that, give him the choice of living a life in prison or dying a death that he may or may not want. This goes both for and against the proposition that financial status has to do with murder.
The view that someone should die because they killed is an eye-for-eye view of the world. I believe everyone's life has a different worth, and that losing one's life does not justify losing another person's. It's just primitive to assign a set value to everyone's life. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 2483/5458 |
Originally posted by Samur4iX
and part of the reason most of crimes are done by poor people is cause majority of people are POOR!
What exactly are you trying to say here? |
The SomerZ
Posts: 624/862 |
Zarathud, killing a person in the scenario you presented would probably be what I would do (given that I would have a gun, and the knowledge of how to use it, neither of which I actually have). However, this would be an action based on emotion and self-defence, not on rationalism and morals. In a life-threatening situation, people tend to forget reason and forget their morals. The reasonable (from my moral persepective) thing to do would be to try to neutralize the shooter, without actually killing him. However, the scenario presents a situation where emotions take control, and morals and reason are forgotten. If this person were to be aprehended, though, he would no longer pose a threat, and thus one should again be able to think morally and reasonably, and not sentence the person to death.
Oh, and Capital Z, damnit.  
Originally posted by Zarathud
Welcome to consequentialism.
... and thank you, though it is a little late, I have been studying different philosophical directions for quite some time now. 
|
Samur4iX
Posts: 11/28 |
unlike what you may have heard, life in prison is as bad as or worse than death, like rotting away in a box. Although i agree, why the formalites, just shoot them in the head instead of "lethal injection" and part of the reason most of crimes are done by poor people is cause majority of people are POOR! |
Halo2-tankwhore
Posts: 7/30 |
Originally posted by Dracoon
If it is proven without possible doubt, then I'm for it, but if it is arguable, then no. I do prefer life sentence, if it is actually a life sentence. If they eventually get out, than no...
Why don't we just use a bullet through the brain, it'd cost a lot less.
You know what, the whole thing about the innocent person being killed almost swayed me. I am a devout Christian, and the Biblical answer is to make sure beyond doubt that the accused is guilty, and then turn them over to the victims family. They were called the seven cities of refuge, and they were basically appeal courts. You must realize; however, that our American tax-paying dollars go to keeping convicted serial killers alive. They could be going toward something more useful like putting armor on vehicles that American soldiers in Iraq are using and getting killed in. |
Generation Terrorist
Posts: 15/18 |
A person that has killed another person has demonstrated not only the capacity (which anybody has), but the willingness to kill another person. They're a loose cannon. Crime of passion, premeditation, insanity - there's only so much rehabilitation can do. I don't hold with the poverty argument either - I've lived all my life around people who are skirting the edges of subsistence mode, or actually there, and very rarely have I ever encountered anybody who holds morals that makes murder acceptable. If a dog kills a human, we kill the dog, as it is a threat to the species. The same holds true for a 'renegade' human.
hhallahh, to speak from the magic of ignorance must be bliss! To see the world from glasses without tint of wretched experience, ah by the heavens how that must be! To never have had anyone die within your hands, or to never have experienced such agony! Lo, it is the man whose hands and innocence lost who hath the best interpretation!
Rhetoric makes the baby Jesus cry. |
hhallahh
Posts: 486/607 |
I'm not going to accept the argument that the rule of law is inherantly unjust because some people are more disadvantaged by it than others, sorry. Even if you could make a good argument for it philosophically, it would be a disaster in the real world (which is ultimately what counts) if we were to have any kind of system meant to remedy these "injustices."
A policy's worth is in its practical - not metaphysical - value. You can argue that my "spoiled American conservative" perspective makes me misinterpret the practical value of things, but my basic point is not a product of this perspective.. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 2398/5458 |
hhallahh, to speak from the magic of ignorance must be bliss! To see the world from glasses without tint of wretched experience, ah by the heavens how that must be! To never have had anyone die within your hands, or to never have experienced such agony! Lo, it is the man whose hands and innocence lost who hath the best interpretation!
The vast majority of the world wallows in poverty, and don't see the world from the persepective of a spoiled American Conservative or a pampered Canadian Socialist. Your point is completely if you choose to rule out the poverty argument of Kefka. |
Arwon
Posts: 244/506 |
Strangely enough, my viewpoint is summed up by the Marquis de Sade:
"to kill a man in a paroxysm of passion is understandable, but to have him killed by someone else after calm and serious meditation and on the pretext of duty honourably discharged is incomprehensible"
State sanctioned death is icky, icky territory to me. |
hhallahh
Posts: 483/607 |
Originally posted by Kefka
How's it hypocritical for ME to think that everyone has the right to live unconditionally? You might be able to argue that it is hypocritical for the murderer to think that, but um, I've never killed anyone, and don't plan to, because I believe that everyone has the right to live. So um, I don't see the hypocrisy from myself there.
He meant that it's only hypocritical to support the death penalty if you believe that everyone has an unconditional right to live (well, "hypocritical" isn't the right term here, "contradictary" is..) If you think everyone has that right and you oppose the death penalty.. then there's no hypocrisy.
Originally posted by Kefka
1) Most murderers come from very poor economic positions, and often the motivation for killing stems from this; as children, they grew up around crime, and as adults, it has become part of their nature. For this reason, I don't think that all murderers are cold-hearted bastards. Many of them have a conscience that has been skewed by their experiences, much like ours. It is just that theirs has been skewed in a way that makes most of the people growing up in more fortunate situations to view them as hateful people. Because of the culture that many of the murders grew up in, I still think that they are humans just like us, but they tend to have psychological problems that they had no oppurtunity to harness, and they grow up around crime, skewing their view of the way most of us think that life should be lived. They are humans, and if one can't be compassionate enough to see that, then they are as coldhearted as they imagine the murderers to be.
Irrelevant. And you don't have to believe that murderers are cold-hearted bastards to support the death penalty. Out of all the (serious) arguments for the death penalty, revenge is definately the worse. However, unless you're saying that murderers aren't responsible for their actions (and if that's so, why punish them at all?), then appealing to some chain of causality beyond their control is a worthless point. Yes, it can be argued that some people are less able to resist homicidal urges than others. If this is really the case, that's why we have the insanity defense. Whether or not we should have it is a different issue, but if people are really so out of control, they won't be executed. However, the way you present the argument is still bad, since it works on the argument that people who are at higher demographic risk of committing certain behaviours shouldn't be punished in the same manner... which is an argument with some very strange implications... depending where you go with it.
Originally posted by Ziffski
Zarathud, is it instinctive for you to carry a pistol into a crowded marketplace anyways? Your entire argument is simply saying "I'm justified in killing you because you killed someone by your own will!". So, by this, you, by your will premeditated the murder of the murderer because of the deliberations proving his guilt. Wowwee, if that isn't hyprocricy I have no clue what is.
Wow, you're quite the deontologist, I guess. It's wrong to kill, even to prevent the mass deaths of others? Unfortunately, the vast majority of people in this world would disagree with that. Imagine this scenario: "It would've been wrong to shoot down the planes of the 9/11 hijackers if we could've, because killing is wrong." Not many people will agree. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 2397/5458 |
Zarathud, is it instinctive for you to carry a pistol into a crowded marketplace anyways? Your entire argument is simply saying "I'm justified in killing you because you killed someone by your own will!". So, by this, you, by your will premeditated the murder of the murderer because of the deliberations proving his guilt. Wowwee, if that isn't hyprocricy I have no clue what is. |
Kefka
Posts: 2543/3392 |
Originally posted by Zarathud
It's only hypicrisy if you believe that everyone has an unconditional right to life. I don't.
How's it hypocritical for ME to think that everyone has the right to live unconditionally? You might be able to argue that it is hypocritical for the murderer to think that, but um, I've never killed anyone, and don't plan to, because I believe that everyone has the right to live. So um, I don't see the hypocrisy from myself there.
Originally posted by Zarathud
The act of mass-murder is a tacit admission that the murderer is not willing to play by the same rules as everybody else. Tit-for-tat in such cases is a perfectly reasonable strategy, though we can argue over whether or not it's optimal. It may not be. But as soon as someone commits premeditated murder (assuming of course that we have no difficulty at all proving this), they forfeit their own right to life. After that the only question is over what would be the most efficient way of disposing of them. I respect everyone's right to life until they signal that they don't respect mine; then all bets are off.
A few things:
1) Most murderers come from very poor economic positions, and often the motivation for killing stems from this; as children, they grew up around crime, and as adults, it has become part of their nature. For this reason, I don't think that all murderers are cold-hearted bastards. Many of them have a conscience that has been skewed by their experiences, much like ours. It is just that theirs has been skewed in a way that makes most of the people growing up in more fortunate situations to view them as hateful people. Because of the culture that many of the murders grew up in, I still think that they are humans just like us, but they tend to have psychological problems that they had no oppurtunity to harness, and they grow up around crime, skewing their view of the way most of us think that life should be lived. They are humans, and if one can't be compassionate enough to see that, then they are as coldhearted as they imagine the murderers to be.
2) Mental disorders are a common disability that murderers have. Some people in this state don't even have a conscience at all. Are you going to kill them for having a disability? How about we just kill off everyone with a mental disorder, whether they've killed someone or not? After all, just by the state they can be in at times (exhibited by murderers), they are a threat to society, right?
3) Now, granted, there are SOME, but not a lot, of murderers who have full mental capabilities and grew up in fortunate situations. It is more arguable to sentence these people to death, but in this case, I have nothing to tell you other than 1) people at a higher economic level tend to have the jury in favor of them before the trial even begins, thus making this whole segment moot (since often they won't be sentenced to death anyway), and 2) my compassion kicks in, recognizing them as humans too, and giving them an oppurtunity to have a productive life in prison. |
Zarathud
Posts: 55/55 |
Ziff - "...condoning murder of mass murderers turns you into one yourself. The death sentence stands not only as detracting to a society, but also as a glaring hypocricy. Anyone who supports it in any case has been lowered to the level of a murderer or some form of slavering beast."
It's only hypicrisy if you believe that everyone has an unconditional right to life. I don't. The act of mass-murder is a tacit admission that the murderer is not willing to play by the same rules as everybody else. Tit-for-tat in such cases is a perfectly reasonable strategy, though we can argue over whether or not it's optimal. It may not be. But as soon as someone commits premeditated murder (assuming of course that we have no difficulty at all proving this), they forfeit their own right to life. After that the only question is over what would be the most efficient way of disposing of them. I respect everyone's right to life until they signal that they don't respect mine; then all bets are off.
Somerz - "Everyone has a right to life, even so-called scum like McVeigh, and I don't quite understand how anyone can believe they are allowed to decide who lives and who dies. This is basically also my one main problem with utilitarianism; no matter what the economical or social gain for society, killing is wrong."
So if some guy pulls out a machine gun in the middle of a crowded market and starts firing at people, it would be morally wrong for me to gun him down in order to stop him from killing others? Are you sure about that?
Pre-emptive response: yes, I know that once you've captured and subdued the guy, the emergency is over and killing him is not necissary. But it doesn't matter. Once you've acknowledged that killing is right in some cases, we've passed that threshold and are just arguing over under what circumstances it's permissable to kill people. Welcome to consequentialism. |
The SomerZ
Posts: 621/862 |
Back in the days when I wore buttons I had one that said "Why do we kill people who kill people to show people that killing people is wrong?". Banal? Yes, I would have to admit so, but it still sums up my general viewpoint on the death-penalty (which I know will be perceived as quite banal, but meh. ).
I've heard people talking about the cost of keeping people in prison vs. the cost of executing them. I find this to be a cynical way of thinking. Everyone has a right to life, even so-called scum like McVeigh, and I don't quite understand how anyone can believe they are allowed to decide who lives and who dies. This is basically also my one main problem with utilitarianism; no matter what the economical or social gain for society, killing is wrong.
Oh, for those of you who speak French, the Belgian artist Franquin made a good one-page comic about the death penalty once. It's the one in the top right corner on this page. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 2365/5458 |
Interesting fact:
In Ukraine a few years ago, there was a man standing accused of killing five people, via disembowllment. He was to be summarily executed for his crimes, as he admitted himself to being the criminal.
A week after his sentencing, he was walking free in Svestpool because the real killer had been caught.
People admit to these things to get attention, or to die.
I've yet to see conclusive evidence that state-sanctioned killing is given to anything but negative consequences.
Zarathud - condoning murder of mass murderers turns you into one yourself. The death sentence stands not only as detracting to a society, but also as a glaring hypocricy. Anyone who supports it in any case has been lowered to the level of a murderer or some form of slavering beast. |
Zarathud
Posts: 51/55 |
I've become dissillusioned with the idea that the death penalty has any appreciably greater deterrent effect than the threat of a life sentence. It has a negligable if not nonexistent effect, and the consequences of a false positive are far worse than in cases of unjust imprisonment where compensation can be given to the falsely accused.
At the same time, it just seems senseless to keep people alive who are guilty of heinous crimes beyond the slightest possibility of doubt (i.e. they admit it). So I would like to keep it an option in exceptional circumstances, but the bar of evidence needs to be even higher than it would be for a normal conviction due to the seriousness of the punishment. Scum like McVeigh, once their guilt is nolonger contested by anyone, shouldn't go on wasting air. Unfortunately as hhallahh mentioned, the transaction costs of the appeals process would need to be significantly lowered in order for this to be worthwhile. |
Dracoon
Posts: 2259/3727 |
If it is proven without possible doubt, then I'm for it, but if it is arguable, then no. I do prefer life sentence, if it is actually a life sentence. If they eventually get out, than no...
Why don't we just use a bullet through the brain, it'd cost a lot less. |
geeogree
Posts: 257/448 |
I'm for it, but only in certain extreme cases.... like serial killers, multiple murder type instances...
but not as a general thing.... |
alte Hexe
Posts: 2339/5458 |
Or you get people like Timothy McVeigh who want to die.
The best way to deal with justice is life inprisonment and the costs of the death sentence per annum be put towards more intensive rehab programs. |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. |
|
