1 edit
Originally posted by Hand of HecateA see-saw may be balanced within a back and forth movement but it's not the only form to reach equilibrium. To keep the metaphor, I would put a large stone in one side and refuse to move. That's how I would reach equilibrium.
It's not blood lust. It's a matter of equilibrium. A force acts upon a closed system and an equal and opoosite force is required to bring it back into equilibrium. So it is with retrobution.
In the case of capital crimes, would you have a problem with the family of the victim deciding the fate of the offender? Life or death. Punishment or free ...[text shortened]... e the ones left to suffer the consequences of the offenders actions. What could be more fair?
Yes, of course I would have a problem. Those are the ones most likely to be affected by the blood lust I mention. Ending the cycle of murder-revenge and the notion that violence is justice is important to my argument.
Originally posted by PalynkaFirst, I never said the death penalty was a deterent..Second, I would argue the reason those states have not adopted the death penalty yet is because they don't have a lot of violent crime/murders.
We already discussed that the opposite is often true. Here's some data:
Murder rates in 2008 (per 100000 people):
Alabama 7.6
Alaska*4.1
Arizona 6.3
Arkansas 5.7
California 5.8
Colorado 3.2
Connecticut 3.5
Delaware 6.5
Florida 6.4
Georgia 6.6
Hawaii *1.9
Idaho 1.5
Illinois 6.1
Indiana 5.1
Iowa *2.5
Kansas 4
Kentucky 4.6
...[text shortened]...
This is fact, not your speculation. So where is this blood I'm supposed to have on my hands?
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenThat's irrelevant. The amount of repeat murders is much smaller than the ones that are brought about the lack of the dynamic deterrent.
First, I never said the death penalty was a deterent..Second, I would argue the reason those states have not adopted the death penalty yet is because they don't have a lot of violent crime/murders.
Canada, for example, saw it's death rate decrease in the years following the abolishment of the death penalty.
Originally posted by PalynkaYou have no stake in the outcome. If people are as civilized as you purport then the victims families would be able to separate their emotion from justice. We're only talking about capital cases afterall. The worst of the worst. The most heinous of barbaric acts. What could it possibly matter to you?
A see-saw may be balanced within a back and forth movement but it's not the only form to reach equilibrium. To keep the metaphor, I would put a large stone in one side and refuse to move. That's how I would reach equilibrium.
Yes, of course I would have a problem. Those are the ones most likely to be affected by the blood lust I mention. Ending the cycle of murder-revenge and the notion that violence is justice is important to my argument.
You say you're ending the cycle of murder-revenge? That's crap. The family has to sweat through parol hearings, retrials, and a constant reminder that their loved one is lost to them. There's no forgetting Palynka and very likely no forgiving.
Would you condone dumping capital prisoners on a remote island and leaving them to fend for themselves? Send them some basic food goods and clothing. Otherwise leave them to their own devices? Afterall, they've domonstrate they can't function as part of society. Presto, no bloodshed, no revenge.
Originally posted by lauseyThank you, lausey, for an excellent link.
Another point to consider is that once someone is dead, valuable information about this person is gone. Information which can be used to understand the human condition and identify potential problems in people early in life.
EDIT: Here is an interesting article I have read some years ago expressing quite well arguments against capital punishment.
http://www.freezerbox.com/archive/article.php?id=233
Hand, did you read this?
1 edit
Originally posted by Hand of HecateMy argument is NOT about the family or the murderer. It's about how society tries to stop breeding violence. You focus on trying to compensate or appease those that were wronged, but I prefer if people are not wronged at all. I don't see how the fact that there's no forgiving or forgetting means we have to kill the murderer.
You have no stake in the outcome. If people are as civilized as you purport then the victims families would be able to separate their emotion from justice. We're only talking about capital cases afterall. The worst of the worst. The most heinous of barbaric acts. What could it possibly matter to you?
You say you're ending the cycle of murder 've domonstrate they can't function as part of society. Presto, no bloodshed, no revenge.
There can be no substitute for a murdered son. There's no amount of punishment you can inflict on someone to repay that. So why not chose the path that breeds the less murderers?
Originally posted by SunburntNo I didn't. I've been busy trying to keep his Lord Chief Justiceship honest.
Thank you, lausey, for an excellent link.
Hand, did you read this?
Give me a summary in point form. Try to work in "for the sake of the childrens" and/or "rehabilitaion into productive members of society".
Thanx.
Originally posted by PalynkaSo it's not about the murderer now? Not the family either? Oh, my mistake I thought that's all we were talking about.
My argument is NOT about the family or the murderer. It's about how society tries to stop breeding violence. You focus on trying to compensate or appease those that were wronged, but I prefer if people are not wronged at all. I don't see how the fact that there's no forgiving or forgetting means we have to kill the murderer.
There can be no substitute for ...[text shortened]... inflict on someone to repay that. So why not chose the path that breeds the less murderers?
Didn't like my Inmate Island reality show idea hey? We could make a mint.
I'm all for changing society, improving it and pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps. Playing around with murderers isn't in the equation. Stick them in prison to deplete resources, endanger others and act less civilized than primates at the zoo is stupid.
Originally posted by Hand of HecateStupid is sticking your head in the sand and play your "common sense" game when the facts show evidence that murder rates are lower when society doesn't condone lawful executions.
Stick them in prison to deplete resources, endanger others and act less civilized than primates at the zoo is stupid.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaThat's shear faggotry of the highest order.
Stupid is sticking your head in the sand and play your "common sense" game when the facts show evidence that murder rates are lower when society doesn't condone lawful executions.
It's about balancing an equation not reducing the murder rate.
By the way, your concept of equilibrium makes you sound like Sarah Palin's retarded little baby gumming his own fist.
1 edit
Originally posted by Hand of HecateSo you think appeasing your blood lust is worth having higher murder rates in the future? 😕 How is this not about reducing murder rates?
That's shear faggotry of the highest order.
It's about balancing an equation not reducing the murder rate.
By the way, your concept of equilibrium makes you sound like Sarah Palin's retarded little baby gumming his own fist.
Originally posted by PalynkaReducing murder rates is an entirely different issue. I'm just talking about revenge. A good old fashioned killin' of the guilty.
So you think appeasing your blood lust is worth having higher murder rates in the future? 😕 How is this not about reducing murder rates?
If you want to lower crime rates, you need to fix society. So far, the US has not had the will or experienced sufficient pain to drive the change required to fix the rot we tolerate.
Originally posted by Hand of HecateAre you backtracking already? Reducing murder rates and improving society is THE issue. And I've repeatedly explained that your revenge seeking is incompatible with both.
Reducing murder rates is an entirely different issue. I'm just talking about revenge. A good old fashioned killin' of the guilty.
If you want to lower crime rates, you need to fix society. So far, the US has not had the will or experienced sufficient pain to drive the change required to fix the rot we tolerate.
To fix (part) of the rot you need to let go of revenge. Intolerance towards avoidable killings, including lawful executions is part of that. But you seem too bent on appeasing your blood lust to bother.