We Need to stop the Death Penalty

[stubeeef]

Wrong Man Executed? (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/12/execution.investigation.ap/index.html)
ST. LOUIS, Missouri (AP) -- Citing grave concerns that Missouri executed an innocent man, a coalition that includes a congressman, high-profile lawyers and even the victim's family pointed to evidence Tuesday that they said could clear Larry Griffin's name.
Prosecutors have decided to reopen the case of Griffin, who was convicted in 1981 in the murder of Quintin Moss, a 19-year-old drug dealer who was shot to death. Griffin maintained his innocence to the end, but was put to death in 1995.

Now, many people, including some members of Moss' family, believe him.

"What I have heard recently is very troubling and leads me to believe an innocent man was executed for this murder, while the real killers have not been brought to justice," said Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-Missouri, who spoke at a news conference Tuesday with other supporters of Griffin.

The news conference followed a report compiled by a University of Michigan Law School professor who discovered new information on the case in the last year. The report suggests that:

# The first police officer at the scene of the 1980 shooting, Michael Ruggeri, now says that the story told by the supposed eyewitness was false, even though Ruggeri's own testimony at trial supported what the witness said.

# A second victim of the shooting, Wallace Conners, has said he was never contacted by the defense or the prosecution. Conners, now 52, who was wounded in the attack, said the supposed eyewitness was not present at the shooting.

"I tell all you all, Larry Griffin did not commit this crime," Conners told reporters. "Larry Griffin definitely wasn't in the car."

It is a mess, and needs to stop!

[Don't panic]

It is a mess, and needs to stop!

it should be stopped even if they never made a mistake, but yeah, I agree

[mactastic]

We should get on this before Karl Rove finds himself in front of a firing squad, no?

[zimv20]

bias against minorities, sloppy prosecution and wrongful convictions are why former illinois governor cleared illnois' death row (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2649125.stm) a couple year ago.


"I'm going to sleep well tonight knowing that I made the right decision," said Governor Ryan.

"Because the Illinois death penalty system is arbitrary and capricious - and therefore immoral - I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death," he said.

a wise move, imo.

[anonymous161]

"I'm going to sleep well tonight knowing that I made the right decision," said Governor Ryan.

"Because the Illinois death penalty system is arbitrary and capricious - and therefore immoral - I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death," he said.

Hmm, the death penalty is immoral regardless of its capriciousness. Murder is murder, regardless of how many hands the blood is on.

[Peterkro]

I think it is a major sign of a communitys advancement if they have a death penalty or not.The US is right down there with Iran and China.

[eva01]

Just to play devils advocate because its fun

I know that people on death row end up staying there for a while and costing a lot of money, but back to my point cause its fun.

Why get rid of death penalty? It saves space in prisons so that more are not made which costs a lot in tax payers money. If you don't kill people then you have to get them a bed, food, and all the other fruits of being in prison. Which then means more and more people in prison for longer periods of time, which means less space in prisons already around, which means need to make more prisons, which costs a lot of money.

Now what we could do is just ship them off to a random island, ala Australia and pretend they don't exist. Or do with them what the French did with Napoleon.

[Don't panic]

We should get on this before Karl Rove finds himself in front of a firing squad, no?

why? i think life at guantanamo should suffice

[bousozoku]

Just to play devils advocate because its fun

I know that people on death row end up staying there for a while and costing a lot of money, but back to my point cause its fun.

Why get rid of death penalty? It saves space in prisons so that more are not made which costs a lot in tax payers money. If you don't kill people then you have to get them a bed, food, and all the other fruits of being in prison. Which then means more and more people in prison for longer periods of time, which means less space in prisons already around, which means need to make more prisons, which costs a lot of money.

Now what we could do is just ship them off to a random island, ala Australia and pretend they don't exist. Or do with them what the French did with Napoleon.

The U.S.A. was originally a dumping ground for English prisoners, as much as Australia became, after the revolt here. (The New Zealanders are fond of noting how their country was never a prison colony.)

Why not simply shoot to kill during the crime? It'll eliminate a lot of paperwork, public expense, and hospital/prison space. It's efficient and expedient.

[skunk]

Clive Stafford Smith has been on about this for years. The figures speak for themselves:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Stafford-Smith

Clive Stafford-Smith is a British born human rights lawyer based in the United States and practising US law. He is most famous for his tireless campaigns to have the death penalty abolished. In the 2000 New Year honours list, he was awarded the Order of the British Empire (OBE).
His early efforts, in the the final appeal of Edward Earl Johnson, were the subject of the acclaimed 1988 documentary, Fourteen Days in May.
In his representations of some 300 death row clients, he has had sentences overturned on all but four occasions. At present he is representing 45 inmates held at Guantanamo Bay.
Stafford-Smith had planned on leaving school to become a campaigning journalist, but after he spent a summer visiting death row inmates he resolved to learn and practise law as a practical means of acting on the sense of injustice aroused in him by the death penalty.

[eva01]

Why not simply shoot to kill during the crime? It'll eliminate a lot of paperwork, public expense, and hospital/prison space. It's efficient and expedient.

even better idea than mine

[miloblithe]

I know that people on death row end up staying there for a while and costing a lot of money, but back to my point cause its fun.

Why get rid of death penalty? It saves space in prisons so that more are not made which costs a lot in tax payers money. If you don't kill people then you have to get them a bed, food, and all the other fruits of being in prison. Which then means more and more people in prison for longer periods of time, which means less space in prisons already around, which means need to make more prisons, which costs a lot of money.

Well, it's an interesting theoretical argument, but it has no basis in reality. It costs more to execute someone than it does to keep them alive.

Other good reasons:
killing is immoral
the State should not have the right to execute its own citizens
the legal system is imperfect and executing an innocent person is beyond unnacceptable

[anonymous161]

the State should not have the right to execute its own citizens


Amen.

[skunk]

I find it very odd that so many people seem to find the Death Penalty an appropriate subject for humour.

[Applespider]

Since I don't believe in the concept of a Hell after death, I really can't see the point of killing someone. There's no sense of punishment.

I'd rather see them locked up and losing their liberty with the ability to be able to reflect on their crime for the rest of their life. There is always the possibility that they might be rehabilitated sufficiently not to be released but to give something back to society. Killing them achieves nothing - it's a waste of another life.

[feakbeak]

Hmm, the death penalty is immoral regardless of its capriciousness. Murder is murder, regardless of how many hands the blood is on.I'm don't think the death penalty is immoral/unethical. I believe there are crimes that deserve the punishment of death. I believe there are people who deserve to die. However, I am still against the death penalty - not because I believe it is wrong but because I do not believe it can be enforced without error and I do not trust any institution enough to possess that type of power.

I also believe a license should be required in order to have and raise children because the consequences of poor parenting are temendous upon society. Again though, I don't trust any institution enough to grant them that power.

[IJ Reilly]

I find it very odd that so many people seem to find the Death Penalty an appropriate subject for humour.

Gallows humor, a fine old tradition.

[anonymous161]

I'm don't think the death penalty is immoral/unethical. I believe there are crimes that deserve the punishment of death. I believe there are people who deserve to die. However, I am still against the death penalty - not because I believe it is wrong but because I do not believe it can be enforced without error and I do not trust any institution enough to possess that type of power.


I like to keep it simple: No person should be allowed to kill another person. I apply that to everyone, whether murderer or fetus. Life is the only thing we are given in this world and we should be allowed to keep it no matter what. If someone poses a threat to others then they should be removed from society but they shouldn't be denied the right to live.

[Desertrat]

I'm no humanitarian. I'm in accord with the old-time lawman who opined, "There are some folks who just need killing." Some people are plain and simple "Evil"; there's no other descriptive word. "Crispy? Or, extra fried?" isn't just gallows humor; it's a justifiable attitude against those who've denied their own humanity.

But I'm against the death penalty.

Too many instances of "Oops! He didn't dunnit!" One is more than enough too many.

Costs too much for all those appeals, compared to Life Without Parole. And, takes too long. We've created a horrible system of suspense, as well. The emotional ups and downs bug me. If you're gonna kill someone, do it; don't jack'em around.

The death penalty obviously hasn't worked as a deterrent. Maybe you could get a Bad Guy's attention with, "Hey, ya wanna spend the rest of your life in a steel closet?"

Go to Tombstone, Arizona. Go to Boot Hill. One of the markers there says, "Hanged by mistake". Reflect on it.

'Rat

[mactastic]

There's one of those in Gold Country in the Sierra Foothills... Hangtown I think the name was, now Placerville.

Gravestone reads "Lynched by mistake, the joke's on us." Talk about gallows humor. :rolleyes:

[IJ Reilly]

Looks like we found a topic that cuts across some of the usual ideological lines. ;)

[bousozoku]

Gallows humor, a fine old tradition.

Gallow can you go?

I hope that skunk wasn't referring to my post as humour. I meant it quite seriously. I think shoot first, ask questions later is a valid technique in law enforcement, esp. since our police in Central Floriduh aren't brave enough to stop people breaking the law under normal circumstances that wouldn't frighten a 12 year old.

[Desertrat]

bouzozoku, maybe you need to import some "attitudes" from the Villa Acuña, Mexico, police. (Across from Del Rio, Texas)

Sheriff Jim Wilson of Shooting Times Magazine was telling cop stories at lunch today. While Jim was sheriff over at Ozona, Texas, a pair of young-guy burglars stole some rifles and hied their way across the Rio Grande. ("Otro la'o del Rio") Unfortunately for the burglars, the cops weren't clueless. Jim already knew the police chief in Acuña; he phoned; the guys were caught and the guns recovered.

While setting up the return of the guns to the US, the chief asked Jim, "Do you want us to kill them, or what?"

That's cold.

'Rat

[bousozoku]

bouzozoku, maybe you need to import some "attitudes" from the Villa Acuña, Mexico, police. (Across from Del Rio, Texas)

Sheriff Jim Wilson of Shooting Times Magazine was telling cop stories at lunch today. While Jim was sheriff over at Ozona, Texas, a pair of young-guy burglars stole some rifles and hied their way across the Rio Grande. ("Otro la'o del Rio") Unfortunately for the burglars, the cops weren't clueless. Jim already knew the police chief in Acuña; he phoned; the guys were caught and the guns recovered.

While setting up the return of the guns to the US, the chief asked Jim, "Do you want us to kill them, or what?"

That's cold.

'Rat

Exactly. Why mess with the paperwork? "Dead men don't talk." and they don't enter appeals.

We have the exact opposite here, though. A woman who murdered her daughter and one of her daughter's friends and gave brain damage to another of her friends was recently let out of her two concurrent 15 year sentences while her appeal was being processed.

Considering that the car was somehow headed backwards into the tree when it struck, it's a bit obvious the woman didn't have full control. She didn't have control of the car, either. The judge had delayed the case, allowed her special treatment, and finally, after she went to prison, let her out during the appeal.

It's sad that this is so typical of the state. Yes, I'm harsh, because law enforcement here isn't.

[zap2]

i think it should be left up to the family( so if it helps the family to have the killer dead, after he is proven guilty, they kill him) , if i died and my family had that chose i would want them to let the killer live. BUt my opion is strting to chage to no-one should face that( after this case ad such) i'll think it over some.

[miloblithe]

I think "letting the family decide" doesn't make a lot of sense. Here are some of my reasons: it encourages a kind of blood fued mentality (We've come a long way from the Hatfields and McCoys, why go backwards), it puts a terrible moral burden (choosing a person's fate) on people who have already suffered through something terrible (the murder of a family member), it opens a huge can-o-worms about who the family is (imagine Schiavo II, or what do you do in a case where the mother wants the death penalty but the father doesn't? Maybe aunt Trudy also wants the death penalty but grandpa Joe hasn't wanted to deal in death again since the war), it doesn't really strike me as rule-of-law but rather as some kind of squishiness more open to abuse (would the parents of the murderer bribing the parents of the murdered be a crime, or justice?).

And so on. I think it'd just be a mess.

[zelmo]

The judicial system we have in the US does absolutely nothing to dissuade bad people from committing heinous acts against one another. The death penalty ought to be a severe enough deterrent to keep people in line, but the way it is(n't) enforced makes a mockery of itself. Court system, appeals processes, stays of execution, prison overcrowding, media, candlelit midnight vigils...ugh! We continue to be so damned wishy washy about enforcing the death penalty, it is pointless to bother having one. Fine. Get rid of it. But replace it with a system that works before we lose all semblance of self-control and discipline.
Some people are just brutal animals, and are gonna kill each other - always have, always will. No amount of re-education or community outreach is ever going to change it. The best we can hope for is to put enough fear into people to contain it to a minimum. Maybe one day we'll go from being a society to being a civilization, but that day isn't here yet, and I'm afraid we'll have to bottom out before we bounce back up.

"Love thy neighbor" is great in theory, but we don't live in theory. We live in the real world, where people do bad things because they know they can get away with them. Someone kills my kid, there won't be enough pain in the world for me to dish on them before I watch the light go out of their eyes. :mad:

[Xtremehkr]

There are two choices, we could as a nation, outlaw the death penalty or improve the Justice System.

If you believe in the death penalty and respect the sanctity of life, as much of a juxtaposition as it is, you would want to make sure that guilty means guilty.

As someone who doesn't believe in Heaven or Hell, I have always thought that the best punishment for the criminally evil is to spend the rest of their time confined to a small space with only themselves for company. I personally think that death is an easy way out for some of these people. The greater punishment being them locked in a small space with time to reflect and regret their sins. Though some are too insane to ever realize the depth of their crimes, they at least spend the rest of their natural time in this world in an uncomfortable cell where they have to face themselves.

Either way, considering what is going on lately, this issue is on the backburner for now.

[feakbeak]

"Love thy neighbor" is great in theory, but we don't live in theory. We live in the real world, where people do bad things because they know they can get away with them.I'm not going to argue that the system has its flaws. However, I disagree that people do bad things because they think they can get away with it or because they don't worry about the consequences. I believe people do bad things because, well that's what us humans do... we screw up, sometimes minor things, like stealing food to feed our hungry family. Sometimes we do atrocious things like try to wipe out an entire race/culture - worse, yet sometimes we are successful as we were with erasing almost everything related to the culture of Native American Indians.

I think most people are good and well intentioned and have the same needs and desires as everyone else. I think life can really mess with people's minds and most criminals have been through disturbed and troubled times. This is no excuse - I'm a huge proponent of personal responsibility. I think people should be rewarded and punished appropriately for their actions. Still, we must not forget that there are reasons of why things happen. Explanations and excuses are two different things but we should not become too judgmental. I believe that given the right set of experiences, environment and set of conditions each one of us is capable of horrible acts. Many people would deny this but I think to deny it is to ignore the darker side of humanity that is present in all of us.

Regardless of the reasons, society needs to be protected from those who seek to harm others and ignore the law. It's just a damn shame knowing that we cannot not carry out this task with 100% accuracy. These it goes again - our damn humanity rearing its ugly head.

[solvs]

i think it should be left up to the family
There's a reason why they don't put family or friends on the jury. Revenge doesn't bring back the loved one. I wouldn't want to be an innocent person leaving my fate up to a grieving person or people. Nor would I want to have that power over others. You already have 12 people who don't want to be there deciding what is going to happen to you.

I'm kinda torn with this. It does actually cost more to kill them than to let them rot in jail. And life in prison is a pretty good way to remove people from our society. Especially if they can later be proven innocent. But you know, sometimes I think that some people just need to die. It's just that it scares me that the government, or even the people, can decide who. Sometimes I don't think people really understand the ramifications of life and death.

[skunk]

Someone kills my kid, there won't be enough pain in the world for me to dish on them before I watch the light go out of their eyes. :mad:And if your kid kills someone?

[takao]

it has to go. period.

and for the "death penalty saving money" thing... even when they are executed on the spot it wouldn't change much in the US prison system
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_pri_per_cap
just look at the map...

[zelmo]

And if your kid kills someone?

If one of my children is found guilty of murder and receives the death penalty, he or she must pay the penalty, same as anyone else should. Then, I will spend the rest of my life with the realization that my parenting methods either directly contributed to this crime, or were insufficient to overcome whatever pressures created the breeding ground for it's occcurence. I understand that such sentiments are easy enough to express when the situation is not staring one in the face.

Absolutely, the death penalty is a flawed and practically impotent system as currently handled. We need to either find a better method of enforcing it so it can serve it's purpose, or we need to develop a better means of handling criminals. As long as we continue to coddle criminals, there is no deterrent in place to dissuade violent behavior. If someone has an effective alternative that does not require the taking of life, I'd be all for it.

*remembers why he usually stays out of the political forums*

[mactastic]

Our society isn't ruthless enough to punish people in a manner that is an effective deterrant. Actually I don't think there's ever been a society that could pull that off. No matter how ruthless the punishment, there will still be people willing to risk it for some reason or another. I don't know of any society that was able to stop crime through brutal punishment.

My belief is that people who commit crimes don't care about the penalty because they don't think they'll get caught. Part of the criminal mindset is a certainty that you are better than the system, that you can beat it.

We probably need to adopt a two-track prison system: one for people who we hope to return to society someday, and one for people who need to be away from society for the duration of their lives. The systems should have different goals, one rehabilitation, and the other to guarantee these people aren't going anywhere. Allowing lifers to mingle with low-level cons seems counterproductive IMO. You expose the low-level criminals to an influence that they feel they need to get respect from or face reprisals, and when you're facing a guy who already has nothing to lose you better toughen up quick or you'll be killed.

You see it in the CYA here, young kids go in for theft or vandalism and come out at 24 tough as nails and ready to commit murder in no small part because of their exposure to the worst of the worst.

[solvs]

As long as we continue to coddle criminals, there is no deterrent in place to dissuade violent behavior.
Who says we coddle criminals? You must not have any family members who work in prisons. Don't believe everything you hear, some prisons are quite tough. Some actually help to rehabilitate those who could become productive citizens again. But yeah, mixing in a kid who sold some pot with a guy who killed a bunch of people probably isn't such a good idea. Might scare him straight. Might toughen him up too much, creating another monster. I'm kinda glad we don't live in a society where revenge overtakes justice, but I wouldn't say we coddle them.

But on the plus side, I hear child molesters get beaten up quite regularly. :D

[ldburroughs]

Hmm, the death penalty is immoral regardless of its capriciousness. Murder is murder, regardless of how many hands the blood is on.

I agree that we should have no death penalty but I don't necessarily think it is immoral. It certainly isn't murder! Well, at least it doens't fit the legal definition of murder. In some extreme cases it may be the "kind" thing to do. In others, it may be the best solution for society. Again, I don't agree with the death penalty but I can see why it may be a necessary evil. Unfortunately, it's an evil we cannot control. We should find other, less extreme, solutions to society's problem, even it it costs significantly more in the long run. It's just not worth a single wrongful execution, no matter what the good to society ends up being.

[cooknwitha]

Now what we could do is just ship them off to a random island, ala Australia and pretend they don't exist. Or do with them what the French did with Napoleon.

Out of sight, out of mind? :)

I guess the new place would be somewhere in Space.

I swing more to the left in my views but I do see some instances where the Death Penalty serves its purpose. In the case mentioned above or in any instance where 12 people decide the fate of a human being then the flaws of the systems show there can never be 100% accuracy in the verdict.

However, there are instances where there is no doubt who the murderer is. In these instances, I see no reason why someone should be kept alive. I am not a religious person and believe for anyone to take the life of someone else is abhorrent as their existence has ceased. However, for someone to have killed in cold blood, they have no place in society or in life.

I know it might sound hypocritical but it is something I do feel strongly about.

But like I said, when there is doubt, the death penalty is unacceptable. And before some people jump on me, there are cases where there is no doubt who the murderer was. If there is 1% doubt then the accused must remain alive.

That's in my little world, anyway. But if I had my way, there would be no murder.

[cooknwitha]

Hmm, the death penalty is immoral regardless of its capriciousness. Murder is murder, regardless of how many hands the blood is on.

How do you feel about war?

Just so I don't come across as a trolling loon, I'm against war in almost every circumstance. The only wars that come to mind that needed to happen were World War II and the Battle for Middle-Earth. And when you have to move to fiction to have more than one example, I think it shows how pointless war is. :rolleyes:

[mactastic]

The only absolutes in life are death and taxes. There will basically never be a situation where you are 100% sure. Even a confession can be a fake given by someone seeking the ultimate 'suicide by cop'.

Maybe the only time you could be sure is if you caught the person in the act yourself, but I'd still be suspicious of anyone else who purported to catch someone in the act. Besides, for the few times that might be the case it's not worth keeping the machinery of death operational.

[broken_keyboard]

The death penalty shouldn't be used as much as it is, because people make mistakes. But it shouldn't be abolished either, because there are the cut and dried cases where you want to have that option.

[skunk]

The death penalty shouldn't be used as much as it is, because people make mistakes. But it shouldn't be abolished either, because there are the cut and dried cases where you want to have that option.Having the option debases the system.

[broken_keyboard]

Having the option debases the system.

I don't think so. The criminal justice system has elements of rehabilitation and elements of protecting society, but first and foremost it is about punishing people.

I don't see how having the ultimate punishment available to a punishment system could debase it. It just makes it more of what it is.

[zimv20]

The criminal justice system [...] first and foremost it is about punishing people.

it is? i thought it was about justice, as subtle as you may find such a distinction. i also thought it was about protecting society by separating out the criminal element.

[broken_keyboard]

it is? i thought it was about justice, as subtle as you may find such a distinction. i also thought it was about protecting society by separating out the criminal element.

Well, you thought wrong. :)

[skunk]

Well, you thought wrong. :)Well, perhaps you should call it the Criminal Revenge System, then.

[zimv20]

Well, you thought wrong. :)
care to back up your assertion, or are you content to throw out feckless comments?

[broken_keyboard]

Well, perhaps you should call it the Criminal Revenge System, then.

That would not be an accurate name. It does enact revenge, but it is objective revenge as opposed to heat of the moment revenge, and it's dishonest not to mention that in the name.

[broken_keyboard]

care to back up your assertion, or are you content to throw out feckless comments?

If you think the criminal justice system should be about more than just punishment - if you think it should be about rehab and isolating criminals then the burden of proof is on you to say why. I do not have to prove a negative.

[zimv20]

If you think the criminal justice system should be about more than just punishment - if you think it should be about rehab and isolating criminals then the burden of proof is on you to say why. I do not have to prove a negative.
you're not half as clever as you think you are.

[broken_keyboard]

you're not half as clever as you think you are.

care to back up your assertion, or are you content to throw out feckless comments?

[zimv20]

ignored.

[mactastic]

What is 'objective revenge'? I don't think I've ever heard that term in relation to crime before. Care to elaborate?

[skunk]

What is 'objective revenge'? It's when your objective is revenge. Obviously. :rolleyes:

[anonymous161]

How do you feel about war?

Just so I don't come across as a trolling loon, I'm against war in almost every circumstance. The only wars that come to mind that needed to happen were World War II and the Battle for Middle-Earth. And when you have to move to fiction to have more than one example, I think it shows how pointless war is. :rolleyes:

You might be able to tell from my posts in other threads, but I am against war. I am a simple person- I don't think anyone should kill anyone else.



I agree that we should have no death penalty but I don't necessarily think it is immoral. It certainly isn't murder! Well, at least it doens't fit the legal definition of murder. In some extreme cases it may be the "kind" thing to do. In others, it may be the best solution for society. Again, I don't agree with the death penalty but I can see why it may be a necessary evil. Unfortunately, it's an evil we cannot control. We should find other, less extreme, solutions to society's problem, even it it costs significantly more in the long run. It's just not worth a single wrongful execution, no matter what the good to society ends up being.

Exactly how is it moral to kill someone?

[mactastic]

Exactly how is it moral to kill someone?
When they are trying to harm me or someone around me. And by harm I don't mean a slap.

[broken_keyboard]

What is 'objective revenge'? I don't think I've ever heard that term in relation to crime before. Care to elaborate?

It's not a legal philosophy or anything. I was just trying to differentiate revenge in the usual sense from revenge in the courtroom sense.

In the normal sense, it would be the victim getting revenge - that would be subjective: he might think his stolen purse it worth the death penalty. Constrast that to the judge who is an outsider, a bringer of objectivity.

[skunk]

It's not a legal philosophy or anything. I was just trying to differentiate revenge in the usual sense from revenge in the courtroom sense.

In the normal sense, it would be the victim getting revenge - that would be subjective: he might think his stolen purse it worth the death penalty. Constrast that to the judge who is an outsider, a bringer of objectivity.Doesn't work for me. Seems you're confusing judgment and sentence. You can't have vengeful judges. Revenge has no place in a courtroom.

[skunk]

Exactly how is it moral to kill someone?You can't really differentiate, can you? If someone is trying to kill you, or your family, or your friends, or your countrymen, or your fellow humans, or your planet - none of it is moral. It's understandable or excusable to a greater or lesser extent, but in the end it surely isn't moral.

[broken_keyboard]

Doesn't work for me. Seems you're confusing judgment and sentence. You can't have vengeful judges. Revenge has no place in a courtroom.

It was you who originally suggested the justice system be called the revenge system. I just qualified it...

I think the Criminal Punishment System would be a good name. Justice is a bit too wide of a concept, because it also encompases the good getting what they deserve (e.g. a good, happy life), but the CJ system isn't really about that.

[anonymous161]

You can't really differentiate, can you? If someone is trying to kill you, or your family, or your friends, or your countrymen, or your fellow humans, or your planet - none of it is moral. It's understandable or excusable to a greater or lesser extent, but in the end it surely isn't moral.

Exactly.

[mactastic]

It's not a legal philosophy or anything. I was just trying to differentiate revenge in the usual sense from revenge in the courtroom sense.

In the normal sense, it would be the victim getting revenge - that would be subjective: he might think his stolen purse it worth the death penalty. Constrast that to the judge who is an outsider, a bringer of objectivity.

Revenge is an emotional response. There is no such thing as objective revenge. The words are incongrous. Objectivity requires the lack of emotion. Punishment can be objective since it seeks to modify behavior, but revenge has no behavioral modification component, except as a random side effect. Revenge is for the aggrieved person, it's an emotional release (that seldom provides any relief anyway).

[broken_keyboard]

Revenge is an emotional response. There is no such thing as objective revenge. The words are incongrous. Objectivity requires the lack of emotion. Punishment can be objective since it seeks to modify behavior, but revenge has no behavioral modification component, except as a random side effect. Revenge is for the aggrieved person, it's an emotional release (that seldom provides any relief anyway).

I don't believe that emotions and objectivity are mutually exclusive. Though they are not sources of knowledge in themselves, emotions can be very helpful to a thought process.

[skunk]

I don't believe that emotions and objectivity are mutually exclusive. Though they are not sources of knowledge in themselves, emotions can be very helpful to a thought process.I don't suppose there's any chance of your offering a rational argument, is there?

[mactastic]

I don't believe that emotions and objectivity are mutually exclusive. Though they are not sources of knowledge in themselves, emotions can be very helpful to a thought process.

Which emotions do you find helpful to decision making?

[broken_keyboard]

I don't suppose there's any chance of your offering a rational argument, is there?

Emotions bring images to mind - images of real, concrete things. As such they help you to stay focussed on reality and not go off building castles in the sky.

A good example is on the other thread where people were arguing over a dictionary definition when all they had to do was look at reality. In that case if people had gotten emotional, their mind would probably have filled with images of a preaching George Bush or Bill Clinton.

Given that, how could one fail to see truly what a liberal is and isn't?

[broken_keyboard]

Which emotions do you find helpful to decision making?

Like I said, anything that helps concretize a principle and save you from building castles in the sky. We can not percieve the future directly (unless we are the chick from Minority Report) therefore we have to decide based on principles. These are inheriently abstract, so it doesn't hurt to nail them down occasionally and emotions are a useful tool for that.

[skunk]

Like I said, anything that helps concretize a principle and save you from building castles in the sky. We can not percieve the future directly (unless we are the chick from Minority Report) therefore we have to decide based on principles. These are inheriently abstract, so it doesn't hurt to nail them down occasionally and emotions are a useful tool for that.I'm sorry, but I get the distinct impression that we are not from the same planet. I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about.
:confused:

[anonymous161]

Like I said, anything that helps concretize a principle and save you from building castles in the sky. We can not percieve the future directly (unless we are the chick from Minority Report) therefore we have to decide based on principles. These are inheriently abstract, so it doesn't hurt to nail them down occasionally and emotions are a useful tool for that.


???

Emotions are nothing but states of being. They are reactive and have no place in rational, concrete thought. Thinking about the future while mad or sad doesn't make the future any less abstract.

[pubwvj]

No. We need to execute more people. Take Donald Fell (Please!) who murdered several people in Vermont and New York because they were inconvient for him. There is no question of his guilt. His cohort thankfully killed himself in prison saving the government the cost of prosecuting him. Donald Fell should be executed and the sooner the better so that he doesn't ever hurt another innocent person.

Some people argue that we should lock him up for life but that is bogus. There is no prison that guarantees he won't get out this side of the death penalty. Gary Sampson broke out of jail many times and then went on a carjacking killing spree that left three innocent people dead and almost a fourth. He should be executed.

Which brings up another group who should be executed. People who are in prison and break out. They should be automatically executed. You do your time or die. No need to retry them. Capture them and execute them.

Yes, we do need to be careful. Executesions should be used only in cases where there is no question of guilt. Donald Fell, Gary Sampson, Son of Sam, BTK, Jeffrey Dahmer, Green River Killer, etc. There are many others and we would be much better off with offing them.

The death penalty is not about vengence. It is about prevention. Kill the killers so they don't kill again. Simple.

[Royal Pineapple]

The death penalty is not about vengence. It is about prevention. Kill the killers so they don't kill again. Simple.
kill the killers and we become the killers ourselves
execution of murderers makes as much sense as slapping a child to teach him not to hit people

[solvs]

kill the killers and we become the killers ourselves
Seems to me there was this guy that taught that to people a couple of thousand years ago. Peace-loving, hippy kinda guy. Walked around with these other dudes teaching love and tolerance. What was his name again? I forget sometimes. His Dad was kinda angry at something, as I recall, but he was a cool guy.

execution of murderers makes as much sense as slapping a child to teach him not to hit people
And that reminds me of a funny story. My Neice did something, I forget what exactly. She was about 3 or 4. So her Mom, my Sister, kinda gave her a tap on the hand. Told her not to do that. She smacks my Sister as hard as she can and says "no hitting, hitting is bad". That always stuck with me for some reason.

[stubeeef]

Killing the killer is a seperate issue from finding the killers. What about when we kill the innocent?

[skunk]

Killing the killer is a seperate issue from finding the killers. What about when we kill the innocent?Indeed.