Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Sayhey, Mar 1, 2005.
Once in a great while this Court makes sense.
Good for the court. America can finally join the rest of the civilized world in not executing juveniles.
Now you've just got the torture, abuse, universal healthcare, human rights and war crimes issues to deal with....
You've got a couple of those to deal with yourselves....
Don't I know it
First no death penalty for mentally handicapped people, and now none for minors? I'll bet this is frustrating the heck out of Texas!
Now we just have to to abolish the rest of the death penalty and fix our inherantly racist court system and we will be half way home
ahh good news...
i hope this means death penalty is finally on the way out
(skunk: torture is already banned since they ratificated the UN treaty ... and we all know that breaking those is enough for interventions, don't we ? )
I've just been watching a Channel 4 documentary on Torture, Extraordinary Rendition and the American Gulag. These people are completely out of control.
Glad you finally got your Mac: congratulations!
yeah was a long road now my setup is nearly complete...(yeah right )
luckily i got an additional screen from a friend because macosx is definatly screen estate hungrier than windows xp ...
now i've got more time for posting on macrumors again... even at the same moment when i'm playing games on my PC ... looks like a picture will follow in the 'post your setup' thread i nthe next few weeks
On the news I watched last night the anchor said, almost as an aside, "and this is worth mentioning: the US and Somalia were only countries in the world that allowed the execution on minors."
Damn right that was worth mentioning. Speaking of which, Somalia is barely a state. That's also probably worth mentioning, which would mean the US was the only country in the world (with a functioning central government) to allow the execution of minors.
You got that right.
Now, I thought that was not just the belief of the justices, but a self-evident fact.
I hoped somebody would pick up on that.
It's amazing how someone who advocates killing children can claim to seize the moral high ground. These guys would make great cartoon characters if the subject wasn't so deadly serious.
I actually wrote a paper on this very topic today. My case was about Scott Hain. When Scott was 17 he and friend were looking for something to do. They spotted a young couple in a parked car outside of a restaurant. They hijacked the car and went joyriding for a while with the couple in the back seat. Then they robbed them, locked them in the trunk, set the car on fire, and watched as the couple burned alive in the trunk.
Both got the death sentence. Scott was executed 13 years later, his friend still waits on death row. Scotts parents were alcoholics, and his father introduced him to pot at 9 years old. A screwed up kid to say the least.
I believe that punishments should fit crimes. However, when there's death involved, how do you differentiate between a serial killer and a single homicide??? My solution, abolish the death penalty.
Scott permanantly and willingly stole the rights of two innocent people. He should have his rights permanantly stolen from him. Solitary confinement is far better than the death penalty. 60 years alone in a dark room should give him plenty of time to think things over.
Brutal/premeditated murder should carry one uniform sentence: consecutive life sentences in solitary confinement. It's a good balance between justice and mercy. After all, it's a bit hypocritical for a prison to engage in the very activity it's meant to punish, don't you think?
Perhaps I will come off as too "bleeding heart" here, but I feel that 40+ years of solitary confinement constitutes cruel-and-unusual punishment in my book.
I do not think anyone should be subjected to that, no matter how heinous their crime.
My reasoning is the same as for my oppostion to the death penalty - that punishment should be meted out in a compassionate and judicious manner, as a reflection of the highest principles of society. The nature of the crime should determine the severity of the judgement, but not it's essential character.
I believe that we should institute work camps for prisoners to productively contribute to society within their limits of circumstance. They would not be in the manner of Stalin, as keeping with the above precepts.
I also believe that Prisons should not be privately run.
I also might entertain the possibility of a Foreign Legion type arrangement, where many convicts are given the option, or mandatory (depending) military service abroad. Again, these systems being well-run and thought-out.
I agree with your reasoning on this issue. Well said. I'm a fan of deep, dark holes when it comes to heinous crimes.
I'm currently taking a course on ethics. Very interesting stuff. Ethics isn't the study of right vs. wrong, but rather right vs. right. 99% of the time, in ethical dilemmas, we find that two of our deeply held values come in conflict. There are four basic paradigms at work here...
-Truth vs. Loyalty
-Self vs. Community
-Short term vs. Long term
-Justice vs. Mercy (the one in question here)
It's irrational to choose one over the other in every situation. Once you've identified which paradigm best reflects your dilemma, there are three thought processes that can help you make the best choice...
-Ends-based: Utilitarianism, greatest good to the greatest number
-Rule-based: Kant, act on a maxim that you would have it become a universal rule
-Care-based: Golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you
With proper analysis it's possible to act in the best way possible in any dilemma. However, the real trick is to train your mind to do this process VERY fast. "Intelligence at the speed of intuition."
Anyone who is interested further, I would highly recommend Rushworth Kidder's book "How Good People Make Tough Choices" It's a good philosophical type book, but not too "heady," if you know what mean.