Originally posted by yo its meI've been reading the posts in this thread for the past hour and decided to throw my 2 cents in---which I usually don't do here because posts in the general forum are usually just too articulate and well thought out for my liking. Sometimes all I need to do is take a quick perusal of my states violent offenders to remind myself of the evil that exists in our world.
You must be pretty special that you know which people deserve to die.
Take Bobby Woods for example, scheduled to be executed 12-3-09.....
"On April 30, 1997, Woods entered the home of his ex-girlfriend through an open window. Woods sexually assaulted the 11 year old white female, then abducted her and her 9-year-old male brother. Woods severely beat the 9-year-old boy about the head, resulting in serious injury, and cutting the throat of the 11-year-old victim, resulting in her death."
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/woodsbobby.htm
Now, what is the use of paying for this guy to stay in jail for the rest of his life? Is putting him to death a deterrent? Probably not. I mean he probably knew he would get the death penalty but that didn't stop him, and a lot of violent criminals are high when they commit their crimes so they don't care anyways, but what is justice and what is fair? Why does he deserve to live? Why does he get to exist (in whatever minimal way)? Now, I would prefer this person perform hard labor 15 hours a day for the rest of his life, but unfortunately a "real" prison does not exist anymore. Plus, these offenders cannot be rehabilitated and if they get out they will commit such crimes again. I just cannot understand, comprehend, or rationalize (with some sort of pseudo morality holier than thou philosophy) the ideal of showing this individual any mercy, and short of putting him through daily physical abuse he should be put to death (and in a less humane way than lethal injection).
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenIf you had read the posts on this thread, you'd see several examples of rationalizations which included no morality or philosophy, let alone "pseudo morality holier than thou philosophy".
I just cannot understand, comprehend, or rationalize (with some sort of pseudo morality holier than thou philosophy) the ideal of showing this individual any mercy, and short of putting him through daily physical abuse he should be put to death (and in a less humane way than lethal injection).
But it's interesting to see that your only defence of such death penalties is not even deterrence but simple, primitive blood lust.
Originally posted by PalynkaHOH and I agree in part, with respect to the historical principle of capital punishment appropriate for capital
There is more to deterrence than punishment. Punishment may stop some person that wants to commit murder (static deterrence), but a society that teaches that violence is never a solution will have less individuals wanting to commit murder (dynamic deterrence).
25 years is already a pretty good static deterrent. In my opinion if that doesn't stop someone, ...[text shortened]... Do you want to quench your blood lust and revenge instincts or do you want a better society?
crimes but part ways with respect to the emotionally driven blood lust revenge which motivates elbowing law
enforcement aside to take matters into your own hands. In a stable society demands of justice are served?
Originally posted by PalynkaI did note from reading the posts that 'blood lust' is your crutch phrase, but in all actuality a lust for blood has nothing to do with anything. I would be fine with a good old fashion hanging which would not shed a drop of blood. Seriously, though, I would have no desire for this individual's death had he not committed the crime he did, thus 'blood lust' is irrelevant. I simply desire justice.
If you had read the posts on this thread, you'd see several examples of rationalizations which included no morality or philosophy, let alone "pseudo morality holier than thou philosophy".
But it's interesting to see that your only defence of such death penalties is not even deterrence but simple, primitive blood lust.
1 edit
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenBlood lust is not literally about blood, silly.
I did note from reading the posts that 'blood lust' is your crutch phrase, but in all actuality a lust for blood has nothing to do with anything. I would be fine with a good old fashion hanging which would not shed a drop of blood. Seriously, though, I would have no desire for this individual's death had he not committed the crime he did, thus 'blood lust' is irrelevant. I simply desire justice.
Of course this is about blood lust because his death will not undo the crimes done. This is about your appeasement. You will only feel appeased by taking his life and this is why it is pure blood lust.
Moreover, you want what you call "justice" (certainly not justice to me) at the cost of more violence and more crime. All to appease your primal instinct.
Originally posted by PalynkaSo, in theory, if there were so many murderers that we could not incarcerate them all, your idea would be to just let them walk? Let them kill again? You do realize that once you kill someone they are dead forever, right? So a person gets to make a decision to end a life, forever, and they deserve to live out the rest of theirs, correct? Just want to make sure I have a correct understanding of your thought process.
Blood lust is not literally about blood, silly.
Of course this is about blood lust because his death will not undo the crimes done. This is about your appeasement. You will only feel appeased by taking his life and this is why it is pure blood lust.
Moreover, you want what you call "justice" (certainly not justice to me) at the cost of more violence and more crime. All to appease your primal instinct.
1 edit
Originally posted by Palynka(1) Restraints on violent/evil behavior which serve to prevent a pristine village in the jungle or a highly developed society
(1) What does this mean?
And (2) you completely ignored the main point regarding what I called the dynamic deterrent.
from self destructing. (2) Wrong. Simply accepted the concepts at face value as your opinion and decided to ponder them.
1 edit
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenLOL! What a ridiculous argument. You think the death penalty should be used because "if there were [too] many murderers [...] we could not incarcerate them all"? 😵
So, in theory, if there were so many murderers that we could not incarcerate them all, your idea would be to just let them walk? Let them kill again? You do realize that once you kill someone they are dead forever, right? So a person gets to make a decision to end a life, forever, and they deserve to live out the rest of theirs, correct? Just want to make sure I have a correct understanding of your thought process.
So a person gets to make a decision to end a life, forever, and they deserve to live out the rest of theirs, correct?
Yes. Spending a large amount of it in prison, but yes. I like the "forever" bit. Colourful.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby(1) Yes, by definition a stable society cannot be on the way to self-destruction. I don't believe that requires capital punishment or torture (for the reasons I've mentioned).
[b](1) Restraints on violent/evil behavior which serves to prevent a pristine village in the jungle or a highly developed society
from self destructing. (2) Wrong. Simply accepted the concepts at face value as your opinion and decided to ponder them.[/b]
(2) Fair enough. I apologize if I reacted too defensively.
Originally posted by PalynkaActually it's not my argument but a fact that does occur on occasion. It is not always due to over-crowding but it does occur. Violent offenders, and murderers, get released only to kill again.
LOL! What a ridiculous argument. You think the death penalty should be used because "if there were so many murderers that we could not incarcerate them all"? 😵
[b]So a person gets to make a decision to end a life, forever, and they deserve to live out the rest of theirs, correct?
Yes. Spending a large amount of it in prison, but yes. I like the "forever" bit. Colourful.[/b]
So, is a second innocent person killed more preferable to you than the death penalty for a murderer?
2 edits
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenThis certainly happens a lot in the US, especially in a state like California where every prison is overcrowded and there is the highest number of death row inmates. But isn't this an argument against capital punishment as a deterent?
Actually it's not my argument but a fact that does occur on occasion. It is not always due to over-crowding but it does occur. Violent offenders, and murderers, get released only to kill again.
So, is a second innocent person killed more preferable to you than the death penalty for a murderer?
EDIT - AFter seeing your post above, I see that you are not arguing that capital punishment is a deterent.
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenWe already discussed that the opposite is often true. Here's some data:
Actually it's not my argument but a fact that does occur on occasion. It is not always due to over-crowding but it does occur. Violent offenders, and murderers, get released only to kill again.
So, is a second innocent person killed more preferable to you than the death penalty for a murderer?
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
Louisiana 11.9
Maine *2.4
Maryland 8.8
Massachusetts *2.6
Michigan *5.4
Minnesota *2.1
Mississippi 8.1
Missouri 7.7
Montana 2.4
Nebraska 3.8
Nevada 6.3
New Hampshire 1
New Jersey *4.3
New Mexico 7.2
New York *4.3
North Carolina 6.5
North Dakota *0.5
Ohio 4.7
Oklahoma 5.8
Oregon 2.2
Pennsylvania 5.6
Rhode Island *2.8
South Carolina 6.8
South Dakota 3.2
Tennessee 6.6
Texas 5.6
Utah 1.4
Vermont *2.7
Virginia 4.7
Washington 2.9
West Virginia *3.3
Wisconsin *2.6
Wyoming 1.9
States with * have no death penalty statute
Average with the death penalty: 5.222
Average without: 2.964
This is fact, not your speculation. So where is this blood I'm supposed to have on my hands?
Originally posted by PalynkaIt'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.
Blood lust is not literally about blood, silly.
Of course this is about blood lust because his death will not undo the crimes done. This is about your appeasement. You will only feel appeased by taking his life and this is why it is pure blood lust.
Moreover, you want what you call "justice" (certainly not justice to me) at the cost of more violence and more crime. All to appease your primal instinct.
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 freedom. Afterall, they are the ones left to suffer the consequences of the offenders actions. What could be more fair?