COMMENTS:
Voted : I already support the death penalty in general
Fry him.
Voted : No, I am opposed to the death penalty in 100% of cases without exception
State sponsored executions are premeditated 1st degree homocide. Murder is murder no matter who commits it. It's wrong, it serves no practical purpose and allows society an easy excuse dupe ressponsability and dispose of the rubbish it creates.
Don't even claim it works as a deterent because it don't and there are numerous studies to prove it.
Governments should abide by the same laws it imposes on it's citizenry.
Why?
Because in not every case has the person really been guilty or the conviction sustained. Mistakes are made, evidence overlooked, witnesses lie, and sometimes the convicted is exhonorated decades later by new evidence.
The death penalty is like censorship. There are good specific reasons for it, but it's still a bad institution.
^What passiveson said.
consider sadaam hussein. once he was an enemy of al-quaeda, considered an infidel because he was a stalinist and anti-religious. but he's going to be executed. then he will be a martyr to al-quaeda's cause.
Voted : I already support the death penalty in general
, for ANYthing except victimless crimes
by Jyl on Sat Dec 09, 06 12:46am
[+]
^Like littering??
In general I agree with you passive. I am not in favor of the somewhat arbitrary application of the death penalty, particularly when the individual in question has been convicted of killing only one person. But I'm talking about crimes against humanity where the party has been proven beyond all conceivable doubt to be responsible for mass murder or genocide.
Would you not make an exception in the case of Hitler? Doesn't the depth of such crimes against humanity committed by the likes of Hitler transcend conventional moral boundaries surrounding execution? We're not talking about some shootout at a bank. We're talking about the systematic extermination of 10 MILLION people. Would it be more acceptable if it was sponsored by people and not the state?
At this point I'm leaning towards opposition of capital punishment except in cases of mass murder and genocide, which I regard as crimes against humanity.
I'm glad you address me on this Applerod.
I want to establish that I, in no manner condone or sympathize with the acts of a sociopath, a homocidal maniac, a serial killer, or anybody else who deliberately and consciously, with premeditation, exterminates another human being in cold blood, or a million, or 10 million.
You ask, "would I compromise my beliefs and make an exception in favor of executing the most serious perpetrators of henious crimes against humanity (to parphase), people like Hitler, Saddam Hussain, Gary Ridgeway"?
My answer is still no, I would not! Why? Because by condoning of, approving of or supporting the act of capital punishment (legal execution), I become the thing I dispise, a deliberate and conscious, premeditated, cold blooded murderer. You can not justify punishing a crime by committing the identical crime as punishment, just because you call it something else. Capital punishment is State sponsored premeditated homocide.
Then you ask, Would it be more acceptable if it was sponsored by people and not the state?
Does vigilante justice change it from a premeditated, first degree murder, into something else? No. You commit the exact same crime you're executing the murderer for. You've created a paradox of morality. We cannot escape the immorality of premeditated cold blooded murder. We become less then humanity. Less then civilized We become the murderer.
It's nonsense to believe you can justify murdering him in cold blood, because he murdered someone else in cold blood. It's wrong. It seems like a moronic logic to me.
Several people express a sociapathic disposition. Do you understand what I mean? There is no emotion to the taking of a life. "Fry him", and "For anything except victimless crimes". I don't say this in malice or to boast or put anyone down. That's the very psychology of the Hitlers and the Bundys. cold, calculating, unconcerning of a life. How's that any different?
It's not an act of self defense, as killing an enemy in armed conflict or to save a life in eminent danger. There's no excusable justifacation for the deliberate and conscious intent of taking a human life in cold premeditation. You want to murder the problem society created?
Let's fuck the world up with chemicals and toxins, pollute the water, the air, the foods we serve, act immorally, negligent and abuse, introduce drugs and alcohol, distribute virus and disease, and when you can't cope or become psychologically imbalanced, overstressed and violent, Well we can just murder you and dispose of the problem we created.
This way is the least compounding way to solve the problem we created and not bare the responsabilty for our contribution to creating it. Capital murder is not a punishment, It's an easy way out. An act of revenge, hatred, and malicious as the Bundys, the Ridgeways and the hitlers.
If you don't want the problems, have heart, be smart, care and work to prevent creating the next Hitler, or Ridgeway or Bundy. Do you think they were born murders?
Voted : Other
I only support the death penalty in the rare cases that the murder was caught on camera or done in public where many people could see. Basically, well beyond any reasonable doubt.
Voted : No, I am opposed to the death penalty in 100% of cases without exception
No, I could not support that.
"I only support the death penalty in the rare cases that the murder was caught on camera or done in public where many people could see. Basically, well beyond any reasonable doubt."
that's completely backwards. wouldn't you want him to be PUNISHED?
Voted : I already support the death penalty in general
I support the death penalty.
How anyone believes that the Death Penalty serves no practical purpose is something I cannot understand.
After mandatory (years of) appeals, a convicted murderer is executed and will NEVER torment society again.
neothe
A life of labor would be my first choice. The death penalty if they refuse. I'm not willing to waste resources on people like that.
Great answer. I think I understand your point. It is necessary to dehumanize people in order to kill them or make them suffer without remorse. Black slaves were perceived as animals, murderers are perceived as monsters, and innocent people killed in war are regarded as numbers. On that last point, would you, in the case of war, regard those responsible for any and all offensive military actions which are made with the knowledge that there is a risk that civilians will be killed--as murderers? Or would you go even further and say that all offensive military action not made to save lives or in self-defense constitutes state-sanctioned murder?
I still stand by my belief that in the most egregious examples of crimes against humanity the individual(s) responsible should be killed. Could you call it murder? Yes. Is there an element of arbitrariness to it? Yes. Is it any better than the crimes of the individual? Yes; IF by "better" we regard taking two lives as worse than taking one life. (The math would of course be much different in cases of mass murder or genocide)--> AND if by better we consider inflicting suffering before death as worse than killing a person in a humane fashion.
Is it still wrong? Maybe. Maybe it's cold-blooded murder. But the cases I mentioned and envision are of an order of magnitude sufficient to compromise my moral standard of the basic wrongness of taking a life. (Acknowledging the subjectivity of that last statement, in all cases of mass murder/genocide of which I am aware, the majority of those affected by the crimes of the person in question supported that person's execution.)
If we still disagree then maybe at least in the case of Hitler we can find a happy medium and just cut off his arms and legs. Dictators tend to have less sway without arms and legs. ;)
^(for passiveson)
I think my screen name is very consistant to my answer. Passive.
I bare no condemnation against those who do support capital punishment as tostatus, dignity and their right to think free and independently. I won't condemn or disrespect anyone for having a different prespective.
We all believe as we do because of our own experiences and for our own reasons. No one peticularly is more right than someone else on this issue. We're different, and I celebrate that, because we're each one unique. I value that and embrace it. Without diversity we would not be having this interaction and then what disinteresting lives we would live.
I will get back to you on the further question you pose concerning my thoughts on acts of war costing civilian lives. I find it easier to compose in *MSWord* then this tiny text box.
I may be a bit so check back a little later. Good dialog Sir Rod.
"How anyone believes that the Death Penalty serves no practical purpose is something I cannot understand." Ms. Black Lava
Ms. Lava, execution is not a *practical* solution. It's a cop out. An easy excuse to not accept responsability for social apathy. A temporary solution to the serious consequences of social negligence, abuse and exploitation.
To analogize, when over-extending one's credit limits beyond a capacity to repay, considering bankruptcy a *practical* resolve is irresponsable and immoral.
Sure, it's legal, but it doesn't justify the sufferage (of loss) inflicted on the creditors. It provides no incentive for the person indebted to uphold responsabilty to the debts.
It enables an enviroment of continuing in undisciplined, careless flagrancy, usery and repititous disregard.
* It is necessary to dehumanize people in order to kill them*
This isn’t the point I intended, but briefly, it’s a good point. You do have to dehumanize the condemned to execute them, but it also dehumanizes the executioner’s. To kill another person in cold blood is inhumane (opposite of humanity).
Glad you caught that.
* would you, in the case of war, regard those responsible for any and all offensive military actions which are made with the knowledge that there is a risk that civilians will be killed--as murderers? Or would you go even further and say that all offensive military action not made to save lives or in self-defense constitutes state-sanctioned murder?*
No and No. Sometimes war is necessary, collateral damage unavoidable and executions of civilian threats absolute.
War is hell, to quote a famous US General. Military strategists and logistics decisions are never easy to make. War is not just a conflict between rivaling military forces, but a conflict between nations and people. War is not just a defensive front but requires aggressive offensive assaults and capture of land, resources and utilities.
In war, it’s a given that collateral damage cannot be avoided. Civilian casualties will be incurred, brutality against and executions of civilian *collaborators* a necessity.
Declarations of war are generally considered as a last resort to diplomatic processes and are waged for decisive protection of a Nations rights and peoples. The civilian population is the driving force behind the war machine and that makes them a primary target for military power. That is, conquest depends solely on breaking the spirit and the will to fight behind the war machine.
Does that mean slaughter everything that moves? Of course not. Does that mean exploiting and suppressing resistance? Absolutely. But there is a difference between unbridled display of force with disregard for life, and the necessity to eliminate threats and secure a strategic victory with a minimal of collateral damage.
Over all, the deaths of civilians must be considered case by case and determinations made with regard to the humane execution of the battle. Many things need to be considered and prudence weighed. War is not sanitary or perfect.
Death sentences under civil capital punishment laws are calculated.
"How anyone believes that the Death Penalty serves no practical purpose is something I cannot understand.
After mandatory (years of) appeals, a convicted murderer is executed and will NEVER torment society again."
but you REWARD them for it!
"A life of labor would be my first choice. The death penalty if they refuse. I'm not willing to waste resources on people like that."
but you're fine with wasting resources on petty criminals by not bothering to rehabilitate them, guaranteeing that millions of them are in and out of jail most of their lives.
That's part of what I refer to as social negligence, abuse and exploitation that they don't want to take responsibility for. *Fry 'em*. Not much of a solution, is it?
neothe
When did I ever say I don't want to rehabilitate petty criminals?
There may not be a better example of the importance of linguistics than in death. People, civilians, collateral damage; execute, kill, murder...
Language shapes our thoughts and feelings, and we have to communicate them through language. This may seem obvious, but it's so natural for us we usually don't think about it. Capital punishment or state-sanctioned murder? Murdering people or incurring collateral damage?
In the case of war, the laws by which we are bound in society disintegrate. That's necessary. It's lawful to launch a preemptive strike via missile into a building inhabited by the enemy and by civilians. But it's illegal to execute a mass murderer without due process. I'm not saying those things are right or wrong; I'm saying this implies a moral gray area.
I don't believe the whole issue of taking life with intent is black and white, all or nothing. The white and black ends of the moral spectrum bleed into the gray, because it's impossible to delineate specific cut-off points where one ends and the other begins--which hold true to the moral standards of all people. Certainly individuals are entitled to disagreement with moral ambiguity regarding the death penalty. I just don't see it that way.
*In the case of war, the laws by which we are bound in society disintegrate.*
The dymanics of life and morality changes substantially between peace time and war time. You certainly are correct.
*Capital punishment or state-sanctioned murder? Murdering people or incurring collateral damage?*
What's the question here? Whether one chooses either discription doesn't dispell the validity of the other with the exception that collateral damage may not necessarially include/exclude murder.
When discussing the charateristics of war, naturaly the terminology changes. It's not to rationalize or justify the fact that people are dying, but calling the death of an armed enemy threat or execution of civilian collaborators a (cold blooded) murder is inapplicable. *(see footnote)
War is about eliminating threats to a people's National security and well being. The circumstances are extremely different in War than in peace, there's no grey area when comparing it to Civil Autority's executing a prisoner who is no longer a threat, as in a case of capital punishment because they are completely different sets of circumstances.
I think you are attempting to integrate them but the *usual* cases of genocide and mass murders are under the Rules of War (Defined by International Treaty) and the person(s) responsible are subject to those guidelines, not civil laws.
*I hold the belief (as most civil laws do, as well as international treaties governing the rules of war), that once a person is no longer a threat, it is wrong to kill them in cold blood. I apply this to cases of POW's and Detainee's during war time. I also believe that man will evolve beyond our state of barbarism and treat the problem, not sweep it under the rug and eliminate the symptom so we don't have to think about our responsibility for creating it.
So would you support execution if it is warranted by the rules of war? (I'm still thinking about those convicted of genocide.)
|
