Are people who oppose death penalty naive?

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

I'd argue it's more humane to be executed than locked in a cell for fifty years.

Many sentenced to life without parole would agree with you, but it doesn't come close to the inhumanity of executing even one innocent person.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Craig234
So, one person changing their position doesn't prove anything about the broader issue.

Agreed.

Remember that I just said that I think many death penalty critics are naive. (And I'm sure there are a lot of morons on the pro-death penalty side.) You, Ted, Siddhartha and some others in this thread are among the hundreds of millions critics that are not naive.

I agree with some of your criticisms of Kant. I was only raising him as someone who is thoughtful and modern but who disagreed with a previous poster who suggested that anyone who supports it is primitive and barbaric. Kant's reasoning may make sense if you pre-suppose some sort of meta-physical reality. (In other words, the person is dead and gone but has been corrected on some other plane of existence or thought.) I don't need to go there. To me, I believe reciprocity engenders cooperation in society as a whole. That doesn't mean you rape the rapist (rape in jail is worse than the death penalty IMO), but it means you take his freedom or in some cases his life.

I don't feel that I am naive about the death penalty. I admit it is state-sanctioned killing and that it creates huge problems when applied to marginal cases. But if it fits the crime and procedure has been followed, I accept it. It's like the abortion issue. Women who use their right are killing a (future) human life. But I weigh that gruesome reality with the worse option of forcing someone to have something grow in them when they don't want to.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Many sentenced to life without parole would agree with you, but it doesn't come close to the inhumanity of executing even one innocent person.

That's true. I have a very hard time picking a position on the death penalty, unless the person is obviously guilty.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Craig234
So, one person changing their position doesn't prove anything about the broader issue.

Agreed.

Remember that I just said that I think many death penalty critics are naive. (And I'm sure there are a lot of morons on the pro-death penalty side.) You, Ted, Siddhartha and some others in this thread are among the hundreds of millions critics that are not naive.

I agree with some of your criticisms of Kant. I was only raising him as someone who is thoughtful and modern but who disagreed with a previous poster who suggested that anyone who supports it is primitive and barbaric. Kant's reasoning may make sense if you pre-suppose some sort of meta-physical reality. (In other words, the person is dead and gone but has been corrected on some other plane of existence or thought.) I don't need to go there.

I appreciate your comments up to this point - and as far as 'some' beingnaive, of crourse; since our population has many naive people, any issue will have naive people in part.

Now, I'm not all that opposed to 'naive'; I think some of the big errors come from misguided, self-satisfied people who think that not being naive makes them right.

People like Kenry Kissinger and others of the 'realpolitik' approach seem to pride themselves on how their ruthless policies are somehow better as not 'naive'. They seem to like nothing better than things like his arrangement with Indonedia to let them invade East Timor and kill 250,000, and lie to the 'naive' American public about it, and sleep well on the basis that he had just made some 'hard choice' that did good by strengthening the US's position, and thank goodness the idiot public had him there watchign out for them.

I'm not sure naive is the right word for your concerns.

To me, I believe reciprocity engenders cooperation in society as a whole. That doesn't mean you rape the rapist (rape in jail is worse than the death penalty IMO), but it means you take his freedom or in some cases his life.

I think you take an ugly turn here - I don't agree with reciprocity to begin with, so debating the finer points on it isn't the issue.

On a far more limited scale, I am in favor of creating empathy in the criminals who haven't learned it enough (just read my posts to the moral criminal war supporters here).

I mean things like the program that let the victim of theft show up at the thief's house a few times and take his possessions.

The purpose there hopefully isn't vengeance - though that can be icing on the cake - but rather the education of the criminal to understand the impact of his crime and stop them.

Failing that, there's always the 'it's more productive than jail' argument. But there are clear limits to that approach.

One technique that has been successful is the sending of prostitution customers to a class taught by former prostitutes in San Francisco that educates them to the harm they do.

This isn't about the larger issue of 'better' prostitution, but about the education of people to understand how many prostitutes are psychologically damaged by the act, so often to feed their drug addiction, financially supporting the 'pimp' abuses in so many cases - so they make better choices. It seems to have had a good deterrent effect.

I don't feel that I am naive about the death penalty.

Naivete, like bigotry, like intoxication, is something often undected by those affected.

I note you did not say a word, really , about what I said is the one central issue, and that suggests to me you have that blind spot - the issue of the sanctity of life.

I admit it is state-sanctioned killing and that it creates huge problems when applied to marginal cases. But if it fits the crime and procedure has been followed, I accept it.

There's a discnnect there between our arguments - you use phrases like 'fits the crime' that beg the question whether that concept has any sense to it, for capital punishment.

The original 'eye for an eye' was meant as a *limit* on punishment, to avoid people who would do more in revenge than had been done to them; and I think the phrase 'fits the crime' is generally a limiting phrase, used in the negative, as in 'putting a guy in prison for 20 years for smoking a joint is a punishment that does not fit the crime'.

As I said, either you appreciate the 'sanctity of life' position regaridng capital punishment, or you don't. You appear not to.

Which doesn't mean I'm saying worse about you, that you are some yahoo who wants to have a hanging BBQ and cold beer with it (hangings used to be city parties at times).

But it does mean that you do not share a moral value I respect,and that will lead us to different positions.

Frankly, I do think you could look more at the issue - what is it that, even if you don't share that value, makes it worth the expense of executing?

How are you not indulging and rationalizing revenge? Only a handful of societies in the world have not abolished capital punishment - perhaps there's a reason.

If that weren't the case, I'd proudly suggest the US should lead the way - but we're far behind them here, in our neighborhood of executers with China and the Middle East.

It's like the abortion issue. Women who use their right are killing a (future) human life. But I weigh that gruesome reality with the worse option of forcing someone to have something grow in them when they don't want to.

I've said the one issue I don't discuss here is abortion, but to address your point, what is the compelling need for executing analogous to the burden of pregnancy, than revenge?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Harvey

Many sentenced to life without parole would agree with you, but it doesn't come close to the inhumanity of executing even one innocent person.

That's true. I have a very hard time picking a position on the death penalty, unless the person is obviously guilty.

Scroll back to my post about the stats of those who were determined to be innocent after years on death row. Unless you're prepared to guarantee being 100% right each and every time forever and ever, you'd better contemplate how you'll live with yourself and your conscience the first time you're wrong.

Life without parole satisfies the requirement for "justice" and a deterent while leaving open the possiblity, no matter how remote, that someone wrongly convicted could still have their bare life at such time as their innocence is determined, and it even costs less.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I think you take an ugly turn here - I don't agree with reciprocity to begin with, so debating the finer points on it isn't the issue.

Yes, it is ugly.

Frankly, I do think you could look more at the issue - what is it that, even if you don't share that value, makes it worth the expense of executing?

I'm not sure if you mean financial expense or ethical expense. If you mean the ethical expense than I would say that the value is restoring balance in the criminal's relationship with society. If you mean the financial expense, then I admit I don't know. I am suspicious of the claims that it is very expensive to kill people but I don't have anything to refute it either. There is a financial cost at which point it would be worth not executing.

How are you not indulging and rationalizing revenge?

I am not Christian. Revenge isn't bad to me in itself. I prefer the words retribution and/or reciprocity but if you want to call it revenge that is fine too. But revenge suggests it's a private party taking action. I am not advocating that.

Only a handful of societies in the world have not abolished capital punishment - perhaps there's a reason.

We shouldn't indulge this argument for too long since there are a lot popular opinions that are dumb. (Why did so many Americans think Iraq was linked to 9/11?) With that said, I think one reason America is rare on this issue is that we really do see individuality differently, for better and worse. We let people reap amazing rewards and we let people suffer and be punished too. Those are two sides of the same coin.

I've said the one issue I don't discuss here is abortion, but to address your point, what is the compelling need for executing analogous to the burden of pregnancy, than revenge?

The compelling need is promote reciprocity and subsequently cooperation in society.

 

[JKing106]

Live prisoners are much more lucrative than dead ones. That's why they're kept on death row for years. Unless, of course, it's someone who pisses off the status quo (Timothy McVeigh, Aileen Wuornos, etc.) They get executed right off the bat, as an example of what happens to you when you fuck with the white male nationalist power structure.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: JKing106
Live prisoners are much more lucrative than dead ones. That's why they're kept on death row for years. Unless, of course, it's someone who pisses off the status quo (Timothy McVeigh, Aileen Wuornos, etc.) They get executed right off the bat, as an example of what happens to you when you fuck with the white male nationalist power structure.

Another possibility that McVeigh was executed quickly is that he dropped some of his appeals...

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: loki8481
there's a reason the victim's don't get to decide the punishment in our justice system.

Of course we don't want victim's acting as the jurors, but a big message by death penalty opponents in this thread seems to be, "hey, let's not consider how people feel about this." At the very least shouldn't victims' desires inform the debate in some way? We take it into consideration when we give people welfare (i.e., if I lost my job I would want to have benefits.) Why ignore victims of crime?

I doubt anybody has bothered to listen to the interview in the OP but basically you have a typical Democratic death-penalty opponent who actually experienced a loss from murder and changed her view of the system. (She also didn't used to see cops as good guys.) If people used a little more imagination and sympathy, I think they would realize death is a reasonable punishment for truly heinous crimes.

You fail to see the obvious logical flaw in your reasoning. If murder is a heinous crime than murdering the murderer is just an heinous, because that's what it amounts to the intentional killing of another human being. Not even the mind set is different because the only people other people kill are people they think deserve to die.

Hate is the mind killer. The devil always acts as a saint who tells you your rage is justified.

 

[Darthvoy]

my biggest concern with the death penalty is that it gives the government the power and the green light to kill. I'm just uncomfortable that idea for some reason. As with the poet, I am unsure how I would react if something similar happened to me.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Death penalty is not about forgiveness-- it's about providing a dis-incentive to future murderers. I'm not worried about forgiving the current criminals actions, I'm concerned about how this makes a future criminal less likely to restrain himself. Look at China-- hardly any homicides there, you can't get out of a murder no ifs-ands-or-buts.

If you want it to be about forgiveness then you should get a church involved, get the criminal coming, see if he converts and shows some real fruit of change. Otherwise no getting off death penalty; also, esp. if death penalty is cheaper than keeping people in prison for life, then they should be put to death.

Mmmm... No. It's a punishment. Plain and simple.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Darwin333
[because spending 20 or 30 years being forced to "squeal like a pig" or having all your teeth knocked out so you can't bite the "objects forced into your mouth" sounds sooo much better.

Those abuses are terribly wrong, and we have an obligation to prevent them. You should send a check, IMO, here.

Thanks for the link. I find it sort of ironic how many people are staunchly against the death penalty because of the possibility of executing an innocent person yet completely ignore what those innocent people "saved" from the death penalty will potentially endure for decades.

As I said earlier, if I were to be wrongly convicted of a crime that is eligible for the death penalty I would be begging for it (at least in our current system). I would think I would have a much better chance of being found innocent due to the lengthy appeals process.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Darwin333
[because spending 20 or 30 years being forced to "squeal like a pig" or having all your teeth knocked out so you can't bite the "objects forced into your mouth" sounds sooo much better.

Those abuses are terribly wrong, and we have an obligation to prevent them. You should send a check, IMO, here.

Thanks for the link. I find it sort of ironic how many people are staunchly against the death penalty because of the possibility of executing an innocent person yet completely ignore what those innocent people "saved" from the death penalty will potentially endure for decades.

As I said earlier, if I were to be wrongly convicted of a crime that is eligible for the death penalty I would be begging for it (at least in our current system). I would think I would have a much better chance of being found innocent due to the lengthy appeals process.

Who cares what you think. It's what I think that matters. I don't give a crap how much you want to die. You can probably find a way. What I care about is that I don't kill anybody. And life in prison as an innocent person has one advantage. You have your own self respect.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: loki8481
there's a reason the victim's don't get to decide the punishment in our justice system.

Of course we don't want victim's acting as the jurors, but a big message by death penalty opponents in this thread seems to be, "hey, let's not consider how people feel about this." At the very least shouldn't victims' desires inform the debate in some way? We take it into consideration when we give people welfare (i.e., if I lost my job I would want to have benefits.) Why ignore victims of crime?

I doubt anybody has bothered to listen to the interview in the OP but basically you have a typical Democratic death-penalty opponent who actually experienced a loss from murder and changed her view of the system. (She also didn't used to see cops as good guys.) If people used a little more imagination and sympathy, I think they would realize death is a reasonable punishment for truly heinous crimes.

You fail to see the obvious logical flaw in your reasoning. If murder is a heinous crime than murdering the murderer is just an heinous, because that's what it amounts to the intentional killing of another human being. Not even the mind set is different because the only people other people kill are people they think deserve to die.

Hate is the mind killer. The devil always acts as a saint who tells you your rage is justified.

I agree with you...... but. I think they're are people that are truly evil and should be put down as an example to other truly evil people. Sometimes the best way to fight fire is with fire.

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: themusgrat

I'm here, sorely hoping that this is a fine example of sarcasm. Also, it's very rare that someone is falsely executed. Don't try to pretend that it's all over the place. Our judicial system isn't prefect, but in the case of executions, we give alot of thought to the matter and people have alot of chances to prove themselves innocent.

What do you consider as a "very rare" number of false convictions? One? Five? One hundred? YOURS? :shocked:

ONE wrongful execution is one more than should ever happen again. Considering the absolute nature of death and the absolute fallibility of human beings, you're pretty loose about executing someone... as long as it's someone other than yourself. :roll:
<snip>

Our entire criminal justice and incarceration system is based on the ideal that a person is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That high standard basically allows that some innocent people will be found guilty, but more guilty people will be proven innocent.

Just curious. What standard would you propose? How many guilty people would you be willing to let go free in order to ensure that zero innocent people are found guilty? Do you have different standards for death versus incarceration?

As a separate case, would you support an execution if you, personally, witnessed a heinous murder, and there were a hundred collaborating witnesses, it was caught on camera, and the defendant openly confessed to the crime (i.e. in other words, there is absolutely no question in anyone's mind that the defendant is guilty)? I'm just trying to figure out if you're against the death penalty in general, or against it because there's a chance the person is innocent.

 

[Stuxnet]

Why have the government kill someone I'm perfectly willing to kill myself?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: loki8481
there's a reason the victim's don't get to decide the punishment in our justice system.

Of course we don't want victim's acting as the jurors, but a big message by death penalty opponents in this thread seems to be, "hey, let's not consider how people feel about this." At the very least shouldn't victims' desires inform the debate in some way? We take it into consideration when we give people welfare (i.e., if I lost my job I would want to have benefits.) Why ignore victims of crime?

I doubt anybody has bothered to listen to the interview in the OP but basically you have a typical Democratic death-penalty opponent who actually experienced a loss from murder and changed her view of the system. (She also didn't used to see cops as good guys.) If people used a little more imagination and sympathy, I think they would realize death is a reasonable punishment for truly heinous crimes.

You fail to see the obvious logical flaw in your reasoning. If murder is a heinous crime than murdering the murderer is just an heinous, because that's what it amounts to the intentional killing of another human being. Not even the mind set is different because the only people other people kill are people they think deserve to die.

Hate is the mind killer. The devil always acts as a saint who tells you your rage is justified.

I agree with you...... but. I think they're are people that are truly evil and should be put down as an example to other truly evil people. Sometimes the best way to fight fire is with fire.

If you want to fight fire with fire you can. All you have to do is to feel your rage. If you really were to feel your rage it would take you to the pain your is angry about. Your rage would change to deep sadness and that finally to grief. It is there that rage and sadness are trying to keep you from going. The rage and the sadness are armors you have to keep us from feeling the real pain, the experience of psychic death, the time as a child where we accepted the blame we were handed for everything bad that there is. It is there in the pit of abject suffering and final surrender that your broken heart can heal. To grieve, to really grieve for yourself, is to mend. It is the Phoenix that has completely defeated fire. For when you have become ashes there is nothing left to burn. It is why Jesus, on the cross, was reborn.

When you are not, HE IS, your true self emerges.

Everything is forgiven when you forgive yourself.

Father forgive us for we know not that we hate ourselves or that we are You.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If you want to fight fire with fire you can. All you have to do is to feel your rage. If you really were to feel your rage it would take you to the pain your is angry about. Your rage would change to deep sadness and that finally to grief. It is there that rage and sadness are trying to keep you from going. The rage and the sadness are armors you have to keep us from feeling the real pain, the experience of psychic death, the time as a child where we accepted the blame we were handed for everything bad that there is. It is there in the pit of abject suffering and final surrender that your broken heart can heal. To grieve, to really grieve for yourself, is to mend. It is the Phoenix that has completely defeated fire. For when you have become ashes there is nothing left to burn. It is why Jesus, on the cross, was reborn.

When you are not, HE IS, your true self emerges.

Everything is forgiven when you forgive yourself.

Father forgive us for we know not that we hate ourselves or that we are You.

... wax on, wax off, and so forth.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: jbourne77
Why have the government kill someone I'm perfectly willing to kill myself?

Internet Tough guy alert.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: jbourne77
Why have the government kill someone I'm perfectly willing to kill myself?

Internet Tough guy alert.

When I try to place myself in the situation of the aftermath of someone hurting my children, frankly, I see myself in prison... and in a 30 second clip of "Courtroom Outrages XI" on the Tru Channel.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: jbourne77
Why have the government kill someone I'm perfectly willing to kill myself?

Internet Tough guy alert.

When I try to place myself in the situation of the aftermath of someone hurting my children, frankly, I see myself in prison... and in a 30 second clip of "Courtroom Outrages XI" on the Tru Channel.

Yup, a tiny thread of your childhood trauma leaks up to consciousness and off you go into a daydream. It's called being asleep and it can happen in the garden on a perfectly beautiful day. Instead of the beauty of the garden your struggling with demons, rehearsing and stoking your hate. It's also called hell.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: jbourne77
Why have the government kill someone I'm perfectly willing to kill myself?

Internet Tough guy alert.

When I try to place myself in the situation of the aftermath of someone hurting my children, frankly, I see myself in prison... and in a 30 second clip of "Courtroom Outrages XI" on the Tru Channel.

Yup, a tiny thread of your childhood trauma leaks up to consciousness and off you go into a daydream. It's called being asleep and it can happen in the garden on a perfectly beautiful day. Instead of the beauty of the garden your struggling with demons, rehearsing and stoking your hate. It's also called hell.

Really? I thought it was just considering a hypothetical situation.

Oh well... I'm not so good at these deep philosophical discussions. I defer to Moonbeam. If he says I'm living in hell, then I must be .

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: loki8481
there's a reason the victim's don't get to decide the punishment in our justice system.

Of course we don't want victim's acting as the jurors, but a big message by death penalty opponents in this thread seems to be, "hey, let's not consider how people feel about this." At the very least shouldn't victims' desires inform the debate in some way? We take it into consideration when we give people welfare (i.e., if I lost my job I would want to have benefits.) Why ignore victims of crime?

I doubt anybody has bothered to listen to the interview in the OP but basically you have a typical Democratic death-penalty opponent who actually experienced a loss from murder and changed her view of the system. (She also didn't used to see cops as good guys.) If people used a little more imagination and sympathy, I think they would realize death is a reasonable punishment for truly heinous crimes.

You fail to see the obvious logical flaw in your reasoning. If murder is a heinous crime than murdering the murderer is just an heinous, because that's what it amounts to the intentional killing of another human being. Not even the mind set is different because the only people other people kill are people they think deserve to die.

Hate is the mind killer. The devil always acts as a saint who tells you your rage is justified.

I agree with you...... but. I think they're are people that are truly evil and should be put down as an example to other truly evil people. Sometimes the best way to fight fire is with fire.

I follow you for the most part --- just don't agree with killing some evil-arse sum bitch as an 'example' to others. That example is lost on the other evil-arse sum bitches who have no respect for human life, anyway.

I would prefer that the evil-arse sum bitch spend the rest of their time in an 8'x10' box contemplating their existence - only interrupted by a work regiment of pressing license plates in a 100-degree steel cage for $.50/hr with the funds going toward a victim restitution fund.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: jbourne77
Why have the government kill someone I'm perfectly willing to kill myself?

Internet Tough guy alert.

When I try to place myself in the situation of the aftermath of someone hurting my children, frankly, I see myself in prison... and in a 30 second clip of "Courtroom Outrages XI" on the Tru Channel.

Yup, a tiny thread of your childhood trauma leaks up to consciousness and off you go into a daydream. It's called being asleep and it can happen in the garden on a perfectly beautiful day. Instead of the beauty of the garden your struggling with demons, rehearsing and stoking your hate. It's also called hell.

Really? I thought it was just considering a hypothetical situation.

Oh well... I'm not so good at these deep philosophical discussions. I defer to Moonbeam. If he says I'm living in hell, then I must be .

It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with philosophy. It has to do with how practiced you are connecting what you think to what you are really feeling. It has to do with how unmerciful your will is to know the truth of your inner live. It has to do with how deeply curious you are or how badly you consciously suffer. Organs of perception appear with need. If you are driven by a burning desire or because you suffer great emotional pain new doors will open. Was it Jesus who said, seek and you shall find.

The story of the Princess and the Pea is an illustration of this:

Who was the girl of true royal blood, the one who could not sleep, the one who could feel a pea 39 mattresses under her.

What you call a hypothetical is a message to you from a hidden world, a burr under your saddle. You are letting the horse take the beating instead of seeing the horse is you.

I understand fully the smugness intended in your remark, by the way, and your defensive reaction to what I said and your need to flip me off but let me tell you you waste your time. I am just as much in hell as you and nothing you can say or do will make it worse.

We are the same. Hell is hell because the people there drag everyone else down to their level. Let me offer you escape by using my dead corpse to stand on.

 

[actuarial]

I can't support the killing of a human being. Intentionally taking a life, unless in self defense, is murder. The fact that it is done in a calculated manner for the purpose of revenge makes it MORE heinous, not less. We actually punish people who act like this more than people who get in a fit of rage and kill.

Haven't we as humans evolved past this old testament 'eye for an eye' yet?