1 edit
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardI just don't believe that people are born sociopathic. People are to some extent products of their environment, sure, but everybody has the choice. You can't tell me that somebody is born and has no choice but to become a murderer. Why would God create a person like that?
I would never kill anyone because my social intelligence tells me its wrong. (I would not want anyone to do it to me)
Murderers often lack this basic reasoning and see others as objects that can be removed to suit their needs.
These murderers where born like this so they cant help it, its not something they can change.
Why kill them for bein ...[text shortened]... doing labour so even from a capitalist point of view it would be wrong to murder the murderers.
It costs much more money to keep these guys alive then the value of their work, and if they are released into the general prison work force, chances are they will kill again. So how does this make sense from a capitalist point of veiw?
LordOfTheChessboard ...
This is why we make a distinction between killing: "to put to death" and murder: "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice."
... this is also why your question "Should the american soldiers in iraq be trialed for murder?" a moot point .. it simply isn't murder.
2 edits
Originally posted by Amaurote"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."
I don't think there's any ethical inconsistency at all, since the principal point of capital punishment is its supposed effect of deterrence. However, the ethical superstructure behind the death penalty is multiform anyway, so even if it were a flier in one country the argument about the sovereignty of individual life would almost certainly not apply equa ...[text shortened]... bility for the executions of people like this:
http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/timothyevans/
John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence
"During the temporary suspension on capital punishment from 1972-1976, researchers gathered murder statistics across the country. In 1960, there were 56 executions in the USA and 9,140 murders. By 1964, when there were only 15 executions, the number of murders had risen to 9,250. In 1969, there were no executions and 14,590 murders, and 1975, after six more years without executions, 20,510 murders occurred rising to 23,040 in 1980 after only two executions since 1976. In summary, between 1965 and 1980, the number of annual murders in the United States skyrocketed from 9,960 to 23,040, a 131 percent increase. The murder rate -- homicides per 100,000 persons -- doubled from 5.1 to 10.2. So the number of murders grew as the number of executions shrank."
"The most striking protection of innocent life has been seen in Texas, which executes more murderers than any other state. According to JFA (Justice for All), the Texas murder rate in 1991 was 15.3 per 100,000. By 1999, it had fallen to 6.1 -- a drop of 60 percent. Within Texas, the most aggressive death penalty prosecutions are in Harris County (the Houston area). Since the resumption of executions in 1982, the annual number of Harris County murders has plummeted from 701 to 241 -- a 72 percent decrease."
www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html
Just because somebody faces death like a man, does not mean that the death penalty has no deterrence effect. True, the endless appeals process makes it less of a deterrence, but that should be changed as well.
Who's to say that the death penalty won't prevent some people from getting to the point where they become sociopathic?
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressI'm sorry, this looks awfully like a nonsequitur - quite apart from factoring out the innocent and life imprisonment from the equation, the second predicate does not follow the first. Is he seriously suggesting that all killers are serial killers?
"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders [sic], we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."
John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence
Originally posted by AmauroteEvery case is tried on an individual basis. He was referring to the murderers who do it for the thrill of it.
I'm sorry, this looks awfully like a nonsequitur - quite apart from factoring out the innocent and life imprisonment from the equation, the second predicate does not follow the first. Is he seriously suggesting that all killers are serial killers?
2 edits
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressAn American phenomenon
That's not always possible though. If somebody pulls a gun on a cop, the cop is within his/her rights to use deadly force. So you agree then that their are things people can do to loose their right to life?
Over here coppers aren't allowed to use deadly force just like that!
Why shoot someone in the head if you can take them out by smashing up their knee.
I am enjouying this debate a great deal, by the way, Lord of the Chess Board. Keep it coming.
EDIT: Just fixed my spelling of Americian!!
EDIT2: if coppers were allowed to kill on sight Freddie2004 would not be here right now!!
Originally posted by Bosse de NageTrue,
Unless they're dealing with a Brazilian electrician.
and there is nothing I can say that can explain that cock up.
So I would appreciate it if you wouldn't bring it up again.
BTW, I feel very strongly about the shooting of innocents, and I have all the respect for Mr Menendez and his family. May the next world be kinder to him than this one.
3 edits
Originally posted by knightwestDo cops ever get shot and killed in the UK? Are they ever forced to shoot and kill a criminal? Assuming the answer is yes, then it's not just an American phenomenon. If the cops are not armed with guns I'm not sure how they could do their jobs effectively with just a knightstick. What happens when they're confronted by an armed criminal? Bullets are faster than Knightsticks. How do they do their jobs effectively?
An American phenomenon
Over here coppers aren't allowed to use deadly force just like that!
Why shoot someone in the head if you can take them out by smashing up their knee.
I am enjouying this debate a great deal, by the way, Lord of the Chess Board. Keep it coming.
EDIT: Just fixed my spelling of Americian!!
EDIT2: if coppers were allowed to kill on sight Freddie2004 would not be here right now!!
Originally posted by knightwestMaybe the cops are realizing that they need guns after all.
True,
and there is nothing I can say that can explain that cock up.
So I would appreciate it if you wouldn't bring it up again.
BTW, I feel very strongly about the shooting of innocents, and I have all the respect for Mr Menendez and his family. May the next world be kinder to him than this one.
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressThe same way the British Army does its job in Basra: win their Hearts and Minds.
Do cops ever get shot and killed in the UK? Assuming the answer is yes, I'm not sure how they could do their jobs effectively with a knightstick when they're confronted by an armed criminal. Bullets are faster than Knightsticks. How do they do their jobs effectively?
British Army personnel don't patrol downtown Basra in full body armour, they patrol it in normal uniform and caps, not helmets.
I guess here, the uniform of a copper still gets the respect it deserves. The British Bobby (Police Officer) is mostly viewed as a friend in need and not an enemy to be shot on sight.
Saying that, there have been shootings of police officers, but they usually were extreme situations (Iranian Embassy hostage situation etc). Nowhere near like the US, though.
Fact is, British Police forces can police the country withouth having to carry guns.