Printable View
?????????????????????????????????????? :blink:Quote:
Originally posted by Billy_Dean+2 January 2004 - 07:15--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean @ 2 January 2004 - 07:15)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman
@hobbes - I think there are folks put to death that are innocent, that is why I think death should be carried out:
:) [/b][/quote]
Read the rest of the post Billy. <_<
Ask God that question and he'll answer it for you ;) [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by jerome18+2 January 2004 - 08:21--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jerome18 @ 2 January 2004 - 08:21)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by vidcc@2 January 2004 - 08:09
<!--QuoteBegin-jerome18
Quote:
@2 January 2004 - 08:01
she got alot of wisdom in her ;) im totally agree wit you ,only GOD can kill the living :01:
so are murderers god ?
is he a member of this forum then ? i know there are some that like to think they are him
is he a member of this forum then ? i know there are some that like to think they are him[/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by vidcc+2 January 2004 - 13:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 2 January 2004 - 13:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by jerome18@2 January 2004 - 08:21
Quote:
Originally posted by vidcc@2 January 2004 - 08:09
<!--QuoteBegin-jerome18
Quote:
Quote:
@2 January 2004 - 08:01
she got alot of wisdom in her ;) im totally agree wit you ,only GOD can kill the living :01:
so are murderers god ?
Ask God that question and he'll answer it for you ;)
A few things go through my head while reading this:
What if God is acting through the Justice system, humans being the conduits by which His desires are, ahem...executed?
He does act in mysterious ways, you know.
How would humans request a "rush disposition" on a particularly deserving individual? :huh:
I know, I know.....nevermind.
All this flailing about over the question.
Is it punishment we desire?
Revenge?
Rehabiliation?
Why don't we separate the wheat from the chaff, here?
There are people posting who probably think even a slap on the wrist is too harsh; also some who bring the Lord into this argument when they would avoid doing so at all costs if we were arguing about abortion or euthanasia.
You can't have it both ways-how about some consistency from the wishy-washy contingent?
(Not you, J'Pol-you are, as usual, the epitome of consistancy on matters religious :) )
euthanasia !!!! now there is a very good subject to debate (but i bet it's been done to death on the forum) pun intended
There are a lot of interesting comments above (and a few I don't really understand).
I am with J'Pol on this one. Yes there are despicable people who have commited awful crimes. However, I believe their execution brutalises us not them.
A number of hypothetical situations have been posed (some of which lead me to conclude that some board members live in a war zone). I don't think there is any evidence to suggest the death penalty prevents murders. Did Al Capone and his contempories worry overly or did they just ensure that there were no living witnesses? 1920s Chicago was a pretty rough place by all accounts - possibly still is.
If. as I believe, the death penalty serves no useful purpose as a deterrant the debate comes down purely to how society is best served by its penal code. If society is brutalised by its own codes such as Nazi Germany was, then that very code corrupts society even further. Perhaps this explains the divergence of thinking between Europe and the US on this matter. We have been to a place that is far worse than where the US currently is and subsequently have made a conscious decision never to re-visit that place, no matter how diluted. This is a key factor to the abolition of the death penalty being a pre-requisite for any country wishing to join the EU.
Biggles
I don't think 20s Chicago is as bad as it was. :blink:Quote:
1920s Chicago was a pretty rough place by all accounts - possibly still is.
I can vouch for the fact. :lol:Quote:
Originally posted by J'Pol@2 January 2004 - 15:39
Biggles
I don't think 20s Chicago is as bad as it was. :blink:Quote:
1920s Chicago was a pretty rough place by all accounts - possibly still is.
A few things go through my head while reading this:Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4+2 January 2004 - 18:15--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 2 January 2004 - 18:15)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by vidcc@2 January 2004 - 13:30
Quote:
Originally posted by jerome18@2 January 2004 - 08:21
Quote:
Originally posted by vidcc@2 January 2004 - 08:09
<!--QuoteBegin-jerome18
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
@2 January 2004 - 08:01
she got alot of wisdom in her ;) im totally agree wit you ,only GOD can kill the living :01:
so are murderers god ?
Ask God that question and he'll answer it for you ;)
is he a member of this forum then ? i know there are some that like to think they are him
What if God is acting through the Justice system, humans being the conduits by which His desires are, ahem...executed?
He does act in mysterious ways, you know.
How would humans request a "rush disposition" on a particularly deserving individual? :huh:
I know, I know.....nevermind.
All this flailing about over the question.
Is it punishment we desire?
Revenge?
Rehabiliation?
Why don't we separate the wheat from the chaff, here?
There are people posting who probably think even a slap on the wrist is too harsh; also some who bring the Lord into this argument when they would avoid doing so at all costs if we were arguing about abortion or euthanasia.
You can't have it both ways-how about some consistency from the wishy-washy contingent?
(Not you, J'Pol-you are, as usual, the epitome of consistancy on matters religious :) ) [/b][/quote]
thats a possibllity but God would of said it in the Bible if another man shall have the right to kill another man and one of the ten commanments God gave Moses on Mount Sinai is thy shall not kill ex:20:1-17 Deut5:6 21..... do this apply to the court justice system?
And some convicts are in their are innocence and its hard to believe but some times they excute innocence people! Now do you agree with the death penality? Because you can be that innocence person who hasnt commited a crime in your whole lifetime but the courts say you killed somebody and have to die but one thing your {innocence}.!
Its been proven that some people in jail are innocence because of DNA testing was not availble back in the day, just image how many more innocence people are in jail?!
btw im not saying all inmates or convicts are innocence or gulity im just saying God would not approve of these drastic measures tooken today to kill somebody by electric chairs, and etc etc...
These are my opinions you can like it or hate it , but really dont care :D
ok i'm going to say it upfront....i doubt there is a god...i could be wrong but it's my view. the bible you quote wasn't written by god (if he exists) it was written by men and men as we all know are open to misinterpretaion.
i admire your beliefs and in no way dissaproove of them but unless you actually have had a chat with god you are quoting the words of men when you quote the bible. now i realise that this will provoke outrage however it is not supposed to.
i wish i had religion but i have seen too many bad things in this world and justification by "well god has a reason" just makes me doubt more.
please read all the post...i said i doubt...i didn't say there definately isn't so i don't need lots of replies telling me there is.
you know what......thats brave for you to come out in and say that you doubt their is a God, but i respect that becuase you keep it real. My question for you is do you think thier is a Devil and if you say yes then thier definalty has to be a God its just has to be. If you dont believe in A {god} just pray and be commited to your religion and you will be see things change in your life. This may sound stupid but im going to say it anyway, when i was around 16,17 now im 18 , i use to have demons visit me in my dreams and when im half awake because i was doing wrong in my life and all types of stuff like stealing .lying .,fighting and all stuff of things thats when i said man...... i cant have these demons visit me in my dreams and when im half awake so i went to church since then and the demons have left my life and i sleep with my Bible so it wil protect me....this may sound stupid or ludcris but its the truth in my life.Quote:
Originally posted by vidcc@2 January 2004 - 21:13
ok i'm going to say it upfront....i doubt there is a god...i could be wrong but it's my view. the bible you quote wasn't written by god (if he exists) it was written by men and men as we all know are open to misinterpretaion.
i admire your beliefs and in no way dissaproove of them but unless you actually have had a chat with god you are quoting the words of men when you quote the bible. now i realise that this will provoke outrage however it is not supposed to.
i wish i had religion but i have seen too many bad things in this world and justification by "well god has a reason" just makes me doubt more.
please read all the post...i said i doubt...i didn't say there definately isn't so i don't need lots of replies telling me there is.
no it doesn't sound stupid that you had deamons and i am glad that you found belief.
no i don't believe in the devil.
so what do you believe in or whats your mind state of how this world was made?
Getting a wee hair of topic there mate.Quote:
Originally posted by jerome18@2 January 2004 - 23:27
so what do you believe in or whats your mind state of how this world was made?
Why don't you start a new thread, after all this is a poll created to discuss the death penalty.
good idea ;)
J'PolQuote:
Originally posted by J'Pol@2 January 2004 - 19:39
Biggles
I don't think 20s Chicago is as bad as it was. :blink:Quote:
1920s Chicago was a pretty rough place by all accounts - possibly still is.
I believe you have spotted an ambiguity I shall return it to its box immediately.
:ermm:
J'PolQuote:
Originally posted by Biggles+2 January 2004 - 20:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggles @ 2 January 2004 - 20:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J'Pol@2 January 2004 - 19:39
Biggles
I don't think 20s Chicago is as bad as it was. :blink:Quote:
1920s Chicago was a pretty rough place by all accounts - possibly still is.
I believe you have spotted an ambiguity I shall return it to its box immediately.
:ermm: [/b][/quote]
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Bravo and well-done!
Happy New Year to you, Biggles!
Happy New year to you too J2K4
all the best for 2004
According to this article it's not a safe place though.. ;)Quote:
Originally posted by J'Pol@2 January 2004 - 19:39
Biggles
I don't think 20s Chicago is as bad as it was. :blink:Quote:
1920s Chicago was a pretty rough place by all accounts - possibly still is.
I was thinking about this thread yesterday and it occured to me that morally i don't actually believe in justice. Although i haven't checked the definition of justice, it implies to me some form of retribution along the lines of an eye for an eye etc. if it were possible to rehabilitate/reform people without punishment then for me that would be ideal. Obviously its totally implausible at the moment, but does anyone agree with the sentiment ie in a better world punishment (and i suppose deterrence by proxy) serve no real purpose.
ie i'm arguing that punishment is simply curretnly the most expedient way of achievign an aim, rather than something you feel ethically should actually happen.
i say, too the fire with you.
some people just dont belong or deserve to be in this world
i agree 100%Quote:
Originally posted by creamer@3 January 2004 - 15:01
i say, too the fire with you.
some people just dont belong or deserve to be in this world
Since you don't seem willing to expend the minimal effort it takes to "actually look up the definition", I'll do it for you...Merry Christmas.Quote:
Originally posted by ilw@3 January 2004 - 06:51
I was thinking about this thread yesterday and it occured to me that morally i don't actually believe in justice. Although i haven't checked the definition of justice, it implies to me some form of retribution along the lines of an eye for an eye etc. if it were possible to rehabilitate/reform people without punishment then for me that would be ideal. Obviously its totally implausible at the moment, but does anyone agree with the sentiment ie in a better world punishment (and i suppose deterrence by proxy) serve no real purpose.
ie i'm arguing that punishment is simply curretnly the most expedient way of achievign an aim, rather than something you feel ethically should actually happen.
Now...what part of that gives you moral pause?Quote:
Main Entry: jus·tice
Pronunciation: 'j&s-t&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English & Old French; Old English justice, from Old French justice, from Latin justitia, from justus
Date: 12th century
1 a : the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments b : JUDGE c : the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity
2 a : the quality of being just, impartial, or fair b (1) : the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2) : conformity to this principle or ideal : RIGHTEOUSNESS c : the quality of conforming to law
3 : conformity to truth, fact, or reason : CORRECTNESS
Gee whiz....except for the maintainence of your theoretical "better world" no, I suppose that punishmant serves no purpose whatsoever.Quote:
does anyone agree with the sentiment ie in a better world punishment (and i suppose deterrence by proxy) serve no real purpose.
Why is the administration of punishment ( and, by implication, the granting of reward) ethically abhorrent?
On a side note: How do you reconcile your obvious Utopian world view with your sig?
That was "Al Capone and his contempories" not everyone.Quote:
Originally posted by Biggles@2 January 2004 - 20:18
A number of hypothetical situations have been posed (some of which lead me to conclude that some board members live in a war zone). I don't think there is any evidence to suggest the death penalty prevents murders. Did Al Capone and his contempories worry overly or did they just ensure that there were no living witnesses? 1920s Chicago was a pretty rough place by all accounts - possibly still is.
Think about this:
If you, Biggles, killed someone for stepping on your your shoes.
You were caught on camera and a judge told you to stand in the corner with gum on your nose for 5 minutes as punishment, would you be more or less likely to do this crime again?
Some of you have your nose so far into books and statistics that common sense is out the window.
Ian, I think that spliff is tainted. ;)Quote:
Originally posted by ilw@3 January 2004 - 09:51
I was thinking about this thread yesterday and it occured to me that morally i don't actually believe in justice. Although i haven't checked the definition of justice, it implies to me some form of retribution along the lines of an eye for an eye etc. if it were possible to rehabilitate/reform people without punishment then for me that would be ideal. Obviously its totally implausible at the moment, but does anyone agree with the sentiment ie in a better world punishment (and i suppose deterrence by proxy) serve no real purpose.
ie i'm arguing that punishment is simply curretnly the most expedient way of achievign an aim, rather than something you feel ethically should actually happen.
I suggest you douse it and switch to a different product. B)
:)
That may be the case, however anyone who puts such high stock on "common sense" deserves little attention given to their opinion. To believe that the death penalty is an effective deterrent, simply because you think it is logical and "common sense" is an untenable position.Quote:
Originally posted by Busyman@3 January 2004 - 20:16
Some of you have your nose so far into books and statistics that common sense is out the window.
Someone once said that common sense was just our collection of prejudices and preconceptions. That being the case, one man's common sense may not equate to another's.
I think you will find that the people here have a wide range of experiences in life. These discussions are not just based on things we have read. However we do not dismiss things, simply because we have only read them. As Kurt Vonnegut said, if you can read you can think the thoughts of Angels (I paraphrase).
I have dealt with various murderers, in real life and in person. I have dealt with a multiple murderer who killed a husband and wife, in cold blood, over a drug debt. I have dealt with people who based their businesses on punishment beatings and were capable of horrendous acts of violence, the results of which I have seen. Other people here have a great deal of life's experience and have made choices (for real) which have had far reaching effects on them, their families and others.
I for one do not appreciate condescension from yet another "common sense" merchant. It is the last resort of those who cannot support their position or opinion based on facts.
Your "analogy" posed to Biggles is totally flawed. Change it to, spend the rest of your life in a maximum security prison. Where your every move is controlled. You eat what and when you are told. You excercise when you are told. You see people when it is allowed. You lose any control over your own existence and you are in danger of getting buggered senseless on a regular basis. Then it is more valid than trying to defend your position by comparing it to the patently preposterous.
the death penalty is not a deterent, it is a punishment pure and simple. it doesn't stop capitol crime being comitted, but it certainly stops the person that is being executed doing the same thing again.
laws and punishment are supposed to be deterents and to a degree they are...obviously or many more would commit crime..however they are not 100% deterent.
if the objection to the death penalty is purely based on the fact that it doesn't deter everyone then the same could be said of all laws and penalties.
i do appreciate that most objections are not that simple so we don't need corrections to this.
the death sentence is the ultimate punishment and isn't handed out willie nilly...well not here at least..not only the crime is taken into account but all the circumstances that led to it.
i wish i knew the name of the person that said it but one person on death row stated that he was not sorry he comitted his crime, but he was sorry he got caught. he also said he didn't want to die but admitted he probably deserved to for what he did.
Thank you J'Pol
I shall attempt this with more than the recommended amount of Glenlivet's finest - having just returned from a belated New Year party.
Busyman,
The simple fact is that Al Capone and his contemporaries were the "organised gang crime" of 1920s Chigaco. Yes, other murders did occur, but mostly murders outside such gangland killings were crimes of passion. No penalty devised yet by man has deterred the latter.
So I believe the position I argued regarding the benefit of our penal codes to our respective societies stands.
Putting aside understandable emotions in the face of awful crimes, what serves our societies best? You may argue that executions are most effective but this can only be on the basis that it creates greater social cohesion and (to use an awful modern term) societal goal congruence. The argument that it deters murder is unproven as the EU, which has a larger population than the US, and no executions, has a lower murder rate than the US (by some considerable margin).
I cannot speak fot the US as I am not part of that culture and society, but I believe the EU position is right for the EU and I do support it. I think to re-introduce the death penalty after 40+ years would be a backwards step and achieve little and perhaps less than a little.
Looking back over the decades, in the UK in particular, a considerable number of innocent people would have been murdered by the State if we still had the death penalty. (The Guildford four and the Birmingham six to name but 10).
To be guilty of murdering the innocent makes the law no better than the common murderer thus diminishing its credibility and standing in the public eye. As I hold that law only works if most people subscribe to its basic fairness and applicability, then such a situation can only impair the social fabric that we need to cover ourselves. In short, the death penalty does not serve us well.
I appreciate this is a somewhat Utilitarian approach to the subject but I have considerable sympathy for J'Pol's position too; which I understand has a more spiritual context to it and is none the worse for that.
I do hope this makes sense, as the screen has become has blurred to my eyes as my brain has to the whisky (this has been proof read about ten times to get the typos out).
:unsure:
Do you know what a deterrent is?Quote:
Originally posted by Biggles@4 January 2004 - 06:26
Busyman,
The simple fact is that Al Capone and his contemporaries were the "organised gang crime" of 1920s Chigaco. Yes, other murders did occur, but mostly murders outside such gangland killings were crimes of passion. No penalty devised yet by man has deterred the latter.
If I kill someone, get the death penalty, and say that I'd do it again if I had the chance, you are then saying, "See it doesn't work." :lol: :lol:
You are looking at people that have already done the crime. What a joke.
The real study would be to poll people that have not done the crime.
Ask them if under certain circumstances would they do the crime.
Don't get me wrong, I some folks would abstain from crime due to their own morals regardless of the consequences of law.
@J'Pol -there are levels of deterrence.
Point taken about life in prison..
but there are those who have been in and out of jail their whole life but losing there life is out of the question. There is a big difference.
Life imprisonment is a deterrent
...but so is the death penalty.
To say it is an ineffective deterrent means it is still a deterrent and there still has an efffect.
edit @Biggles- I agree about crimes of passion- spur of the moment, or "I don't give a fuck about anything anymore" crimes.
Busyman
I understand what you are saying. However, I am working from the pespective that the overwhelming majority of people are stakeholders in a stable society and would not even contemplate stealing lost property let alone kill someone.
Perhaps I am too removed from the society you live in. By your logic the EU with "light penalties" should be over-run with crime. On the other hand, the US with harsher penalties should have much less crime. Is this in fact the case?
:clover: This has nothing to do with my argument above, it is for J'Pol and Lamsey - as a neutral I celebrate their happiness.
To say that the death penalty is no deterent is an obviously flawed view. I have sympathy for JP's view, but common sense, in some cases is obviously correct.
I myself plotted to murder someone in England many years ago, a paedophile. My good friends on this forum know this story. I intended it to look like manslaughter. Had I got away with it I would have spent a very few years in prison. Had it gone wrong, and I'd been found guilty of murder, the consequences would have been more severe, but manageable. Life imprisonment in England was 12 years, I don't know the situation now, but I believe you can get out now in less. It is not the rest of your life, except in exceptional circumstances. Now, had there been a risk of my being executed, I would not have taken the chance. I don't know how many people here have been to prison, I have, in England and Morocco. For some, prison is hard, for most it is easy. When you get in you find your place, your mates, and you suss out your surroundings, the rest is easy.
Now, if the death penalty would have detered me, and I'm only one of 6,000,000 people, common sense will tell you that it must deter others. I'm not putting figures on this, I don't care if it's only two of us, every time someone is detered, it saves a life.
This is not a pro death penalty post.
:)
this might have little to do with the death penalty and a lot to do with the shere amount of guns and the right to carry them in the USA.....just an observation not disagreeing with your post that said you quote for the entire USA population/murder rate but not all states carry the death sentenceQuote:
Originally posted by Biggles@4 January 2004 - 05:26
Thank you J'Pol
Putting aside understandable emotions in the face of awful crimes, what serves our societies best? You may argue that executions are most effective but this can only be on the basis that it creates greater social cohesion and (to use an awful modern term) societal goal congruence. The argument that it deters murder is unproven as the EU, which has a larger population than the US, and no executions, has a lower murder rate than the US (by some considerable margin).
All crime has to do with many more things than their penalties that's for sure.Quote:
Originally posted by Biggles@4 January 2004 - 07:01
Busyman
I understand what you are saying. However, I am working from the pespective that the overwhelming majority of people are stakeholders in a stable society and would not even contemplate stealing lost property let alone kill someone.
Perhaps I am too removed from the society you live in. By your logic the EU with "light penalties" should be over-run with crime. On the other hand, the US with harsher penalties should have much less crime. Is this in fact the case?
:clover: This has nothing to do with my argument above, it is for J'Pol and Lamsey - as a neutral I celebrate their happiness.
There's overpopulation (the most overlooked reason), access to guns, influence of television, blahblahblah.
Fix those parts of society and maybe we can get rid of the death penalty.
Maybe this can be Star Trek. :lol: (and btw wipe out poverty)
I know Biggles I knowQuote:
I understand what you are saying. However, I am working from the pespective that the overwhelming majority of people are stakeholders in a stable society and would not even contemplate stealing lost property let alone kill someone.
Quote:
Don't get me wrong, I some folks would abstain from crime due to their own morals regardless of the consequences of law.
So we've degenerated to "star trek", all geeks report to the stardeck thingey.
heres joniQuote:
Originally posted by hobbes@4 January 2004 - 06:32
So we've degenerated to "star trek", all geeks report to the stardeck thingey.
heres joni [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by creamer+4 January 2004 - 21:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (creamer @ 4 January 2004 - 21:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@4 January 2004 - 06:32
So we've degenerated to "star trek", all geeks report to the stardeck thingey.
:blink:
yeah ok my last post was very rushed and pretty crap(and a lack of time means this one will probably be too), anyway thanks for the definition.Quote:
Originally posted by clocker@3 January 2004 - 14:08
Since you don't seem willing to expend the minimal effort it takes to "actually look up the definition", I'll do it for you...Merry Christmas.
Why is the administration of punishment ( and, by implication, the granting of reward) ethically abhorrent?
On a side note: How do you reconcile your obvious Utopian world view with your sig?
but somewhere in that crap i had a theoretical point, if you ignore the crap about a better world, what i'm talking about is the idea that if punishment is not necessary do should it still be carried out. Basically i reckon all punishment is just a means to an end, whereas i get the impression that some people here see it as something that must happen. i.e. if someone intentionally does you harm, should some form of harm be visited on them.
How miserable should people in prison be made to be?
As to why ethically i don't like punishment, (while i accept 100% it is necessary), i just don't think retribution in itself does anything positive or useful, however, i can of course see how the threat of it works as an effective deterrent.
My sig is an example of self defence and proportionate force. :rolleyes:
Well, the poll looks like a pretty even split, which kind of surprises me, given this board's makeup. ;)
Sorry to butt in here, with a rather unrelated comment, but I watched a film the other day "The Life of David Gale", which i reckon all of you who have expressed a significant interest in this might like....its def worth a look, and is very thought provoking. also if you do try it, if you can, get the dvd-extras which are also really good - in fact i may buy it if i see it cheap :)
back on topic now :01:
IMO the death penalty is the equivilent of fighting fire with fire.
It is no punishment, just an escape for the criminal, where they don't have to suffer or think about what they have done.
Terrible analogy.Quote:
Originally posted by l_p_4_7@5 January 2004 - 17:14
IMO the death penalty is the equivilent of fighting fire with fire.
IRL, you DO "fight fire with fire" effectively.
Have you any proof to support the contention that criminals spend any time at all "thinking of what they have done" beyond "Damn, I wish I hadn't gotten caught"?