0
   

Is there a crime that would make the death penalty justifiable?

 
 
StochasticBeauty
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 02:42 am
@Alan McDougall,
Based on my biased perception the only living case I can think of other than extreme serial brutality would have to be the Bernie Madoffs of the world.

The amount of value that was taken from people's lifes was astronomical - tenets of death penalty is almost impossible to conclude. People value life mostly based on there position amongst others. I would have to say that the best way to determine something of this would be a voted mavens for each social class and/or ethnic minority.
Pepijn Sweep
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 03:26 am
@StochasticBeauty,
StochasticBeauty;142486 wrote:
Based on my biased perception the only living case I can think of other than extreme serial brutality would have to be the Bernie Madoffs of the world.

The amount of value that was taken from people's lifes was astronomical - tenets of death penalty is almost impossible to conclude. People value life mostly based on there position amongst others. I would have to say that the best way to determine something of this would be a voted mavens for each social class and/or ethnic minority.


+/- 10% of international bankers
Congress members who raised military spending in Reagan Years
Regan
US citizens with Swiss nbank-accounts
US companies with foreign Holdings to avoid American Taxes

No, I think it's wrong to kill for money. Even if it's a lot. Sue the B.
Every penny. I think US collective greed brought this crises. I believe a return on investment can be higher when financed with Own money, not with paying 5,6% to a bank. Internal rendement can still be 5% at least. Plus Good-will !

In Holland we can take any measure to defend person and property of ourselves or a third. If you hit to hard, it's called excess and you do not get punished. We have no death penalty in our civil society. Yust in Militairy and Maritime Law I think,

Mr student Pepijn Sweep, LL.A&BBA


Love from Old Europe to New World ! Do Good US All!

[CENTER]:bigsmile:
[/CENTER]
StochasticBeauty
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 03:12 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
From an economic perspective the amount of destruction that was done to the American people by 1 person (Madoff)was amazing. He's like the Steve Jobs of destruction.

To delineate damage based on "physical" damage is mainly a lack of understanding and *wrong* because it ignores the macro effects of decisions and psychopathologies.

I think the death penalty should not be an option *because* some people are less afraid of losing there lives and can often have untreated mental illness - explaining there prolific actions.

I agree that the sanctity of life is something which is a paramount freedom for Americans. In other countries this is not true.

BTW you are speaking from a socialist country (I side with gramsci, marx, hegel etc) but in America your rules don't apply - although, we are slowly getting there thank god.
Pepijn Sweep
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 04:45 pm
@StochasticBeauty,
StochasticBeauty;142716 wrote:
From an economic perspective the amount of destruction that was done to the American people by 1 person (Madoff)was amazing. He's like the Steve Jobs of destruction.

To delineate damage based on "physical" damage is mainly a lack of understanding and *wrong* because it ignores the macro effects of decisions and psychopathologies.

I think the death penalty should not be an option *because* some people are less afraid of losing there lives and can often have untreated mental illness - explaining there prolific actions.

I agree that the sanctity of life is something which is a paramount freedom for Americans. In other countries this is not true.

BTW you are speaking from a socialist country (I side with gramsci, marx, hegel etc) but in America your rules don't apply - although, we are slowly getting there thank god.

I think most humane is to give criminals an option. Life / Live
0 Replies
 
sjk
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2010 08:47 am
@Alan McDougall,
Something I have always struggled with are instances where the death penalty as a deterrent is not permissible, whereas the deterrent of electric fences that can kill is. Does this come down to a sort of Lockean view of basic rights and property rights?
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2010 10:35 pm
@sjk,
I really think that the death penalty is justified in the case of baby rapes that happened over here in South Africa.

In Tanzania there is belief if you kill an albino you will be blessed with great fortune in life.They cut off and use the limbs of these children as a sort of lucky charm
Pepijn Sweep
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 12:30 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;144390 wrote:
I really think that the death penalty is justified in the case of baby rapes that happened over here in South Africa.

In Tanzania there is belief if you kill an albino you will be blessed with great fortune in life.They cut off and use the limbs of these children as a sort of lucky charm


I changed my mind. I am not a Judge or on a Jury. It's none of my business. I am not Suid Africa's Law-maker. My opinion should not matter.

You can not punish ignorance wiyh Death penalty, I propose...

You can not have people raping baby's, I suppose...

First commune interests; life-long emprisonment as a start.
Like Yapanese; resposibiliies of sentencing Judge are also Moral, not yust Law (got that right)

I all-ways wanted to be Prosecutor because I dis-like people who think they superieur to others.

Pending.

Uw getrouwe,

PepI Sweep
:detective:
StochasticBeauty
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 01:30 am
@Pepijn Sweep,
That's barbaric to think about.

To know that a lot of the world thinks in terms of that nature is *very* scary to me.

It amazes me how malleable the world and ethics are to many around the world.

Death penalty would be a deterrent to actions of this nature.
Death penalty though falls short in addressing actions of this nature.

Perspective really is influencable. Reminds me of Hannah Arendt and diffusion of responsibility.
Pepijn Sweep
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 02:23 am
@StochasticBeauty,
StochasticBeauty;144421 wrote:
That's barbaric to think about.

To know that a lot of the world thinks in terms of that nature is *very* scary to me.

It amazes me how malleable the world and ethics are to many around the world.

Death penalty would be a deterrent to actions of this nature.
Death penalty though falls short in addressing actions of this nature.

Perspective really is influencable. Reminds me of Hannah Arendt and diffusion of responsibility.


I think a Judge should be obliged to execute Verdict. I could not all-ways.
We are barbaric, waiting 4 Salvation

A New Human Codex would by a recommendable UN Project. Starting with a Pre-ambule to state we're All Ignorant of the Thruth. This will be a sincer effort to Unite our Peoples.

Pepijn Sweep
:shifty:
0 Replies
 
Minimal
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 06:25 am
@Khethil,
Khethil;116435 wrote:
[INDENT]
  • Any system of justice invented would be instituted by humans
  • Humans are fallible
  • Therefore virtually any guilty verdict derived from such a system is subject to errorIt's never OK, in my mind, to purposefully execute someone based on a system I know to be flawed; which can't be escaped.

[/INDENT]
[INDENT]

Very interesting post Khethil, but I note what appears to be erroneous reasoning with the implications of your syllogistic argumentation from my perspective.

If one is to say it is undesirable to kill an innocent human, than why is it any more ethically permissible to let someone rot in a cell for the rest of their biological life because of a miscarriage of justice? Is it because there is the potential to rectify the situation if further evidence substantiates innocence? Is not being incarcerated for a long period of time falsely accused of a crime, as your life crumbles away, more cruel than death? Imagine the torment you would get from inmates if you were accused with a sexual offence of a minor. Is that humane?

If you merely do not like the absolute nature of terminating a life based on the potential it could be a miscarriage of justice (as the system is faulted), why sanction any criminal? Court proceedings have a burden of proof that the prosecution has to prove and that is that. Pragmatically, that is just how things go. I do not see that part of your argument is convincing in the slightest - but I am open to any further discourse ;-)

- Minimal.

[/INDENT]
StochasticBeauty
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 06:49 am
@Minimal,
Minimal;144532 wrote:

[INDENT]If one is to say it is undesirable to kill an innocent human, than why is it any more ethically permissible to let someone rot in a cell for the rest of their biological life because of a miscarriage of justice? Is it because there is the potential to rectify the situation if further evidence substantiates innocence? Is not being incarcerated for a long period of time falsely accused of a crime, as your life crumbles away, more cruel than death? Imagine the torment you would get from inmates if you were accused with a sexual offence of a minor. Is that humane?

- Minimal.

[/INDENT]


While the language of "rotting away" signifies a life so difficult and mentally erosive; in actuality, people adapt to nearly any environment aside from significant isolation. Philosophy is the refinement of an internal mentality - this mentality is plastic for adaptation. It is a *fallacy* to assume that a person would necessarily be happier in a less restrictive less structured environment.

I would however agree that the potentiality for happiness would be a limiting factor. I have read research that people tend to adapt/grow to be happy in any environment as long as quintessential ingredients are present (social, nutritional, routine etc). Another research showed that human's also have natural endorphin release mechanisms that make them happy even through such environment. I need the research which I'll look for.
Minimal
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 06:56 am
@StochasticBeauty,
StochasticBeauty;144543 wrote:
While the language of "rotting away" signifies a life so difficult and mentally erosive; in actually, people adapt to nearly any environment aside from significant isolation. It is a *fallacy* to assume that a person would necessarily be happier in a less restrictive less structured environment.

I would however agree that the potentiality for happiness would be a limiting factor. I have read research that people tend to adapt/grow to be happy in any environment as long as quintessential ingredients are present (social, nutritional, routine etc).


If I shoved you in a cell with a man who was a convicted murderer and he took his frustration out on you, I would like to see you adapt in a comfortable and meaningful manner. If they committed the crime, my sympathies are not really with them as it was their own doing that lead to such punishment. I never once stated that people should be placed in a less restrictive environment, so I am uncertain as to where you are trying to take this discussion.

- Minimal.
StochasticBeauty
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 07:03 am
@Minimal,
My point is that a man generally creates a philosphy which is congruent to his circumstances. This philosophy doesn't have to be malevolent.

*Many* have been very creative under such circumstances/solitude. Malcom X, Bertrand Russell. Now if the actions they chose is what they are brooding about than why would one have to be incarcerated to feel such aweful feelings. I admit in that environment it might be harder to alleviate but *not* necessarily.
Minimal
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 07:09 am
@StochasticBeauty,
StochasticBeauty;144548 wrote:
My point is that a man generally creates a philosphy which is congruent to his circumstances. This philosophy doesn't have to be malevolent.

*Many* have been very creative under such circumstances/solitude.


If you really believe that being falsely convicted of a crime, shoved in an environment with violent criminals, being physically and verbally assaulted by inmates and potentially guards, not seeing your loved ones or having restrictive rights to see them and/or the potential of being in solitary confinement a place where creativity flourishes readily - I think you are too romantic. Surviving and tolerating such an environment is completely different to finding pleasure. This is a matter of how we view one such sanction as more humane than another, mostly.

- Minimal.
StochasticBeauty
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 07:18 am
@Minimal,
I hope your right. I'm sure people hate the military to. Human exerience over time can adapt to find happiness and often does. Many in american prisons live much better than those in other parts of the world. You think that all the others in there are under different circumstances and never learn to assimilate/adapt - Wrong.
Minimal
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 07:21 am
@StochasticBeauty,
StochasticBeauty;144556 wrote:
I hope your right. I'm sure people hate the military to. Human exerience over time can adapt to find happiness and often does. Many in american prisons live much better than those in other parts of the world. You think that all the others in there are under different circumstances and never learn to assimilate/adapt - Wrong.


I never said they do not adapt, I said it is harsh and not a place where creativity/pleasure is readily found - at least not at the same level a being "free" allows one to be in most instances.

- Minimal.
StochasticBeauty
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 07:28 am
@Minimal,
I agree in that you are not a respected resource to society; this effects self-value (that is if you don't develop a personality disorder to compensate).

Humans are amazing organisms
0 Replies
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 09:43 am
@Minimal,
Minimal;144532 wrote:
[INDENT]

Very interesting post Khethil, but I note what appears to be erroneous reasoning with the implications of your syllogistic argumentation from my perspective.

If one is to say it is undesirable to kill an innocent human, than why is it any more ethically permissible to let someone rot in a cell for the rest of their biological life because of a miscarriage of justice? Is it because there is the potential to rectify the situation if further evidence substantiates innocence? Is not being incarcerated for a long period of time falsely accused of a crime, as your life crumbles away, more cruel than death? Imagine the torment you would get from inmates if you were accused with a sexual offence of a minor. Is that humane?

If you merely do not like the absolute nature of terminating a life based on the potential it could be a miscarriage of justice (as the system is faulted), why sanction any criminal? Court proceedings have a burden of proof that the prosecution has to prove and that is that. Pragmatically, that is just how things go. I do not see that part of your argument convincing in the slightest - but I am open to any further discourse ;-)

- Minimal.

[/INDENT]

This is not all True; warning: U waste Time readin'it

But i am in the slightest openn to any minimal father disc0;
US of cous-cous.

I can't be serieus any-way to-day any-moore.Laughing
Pepijn SH Sweep
Enkhuysen-Hoorn-Cherrie
Use Mac
L')
<
+
-
,
.
Excus 4 wasting Precious Time be-ing
LUV with Trojan Horse:surrender::flowers:
No, ABBA's Banana Song...

---------- Post added 03-27-2010 at 08:50 AM ----------

Could U explain how we can label someone with Personality Dosorder so Easily ? Ha, Dis-Order it should be.

Point is I am a patient without Rights. I have a Methally ill 2 Fight every move towards freedom and want to live a normal life. The last 12 Years of so I have been a medical experiment I feel.

My body is thoroughly tested. Blood samples, all. Humiliating. I have Mind/Body disconnections. That's not a DSMx% ill-ness. Incompetence rules the Science appoach.

I'll Fight letter by letter to get my medical report shreded, burned and recycled to papier Mache.

Love & Kindness PepI Sweep
Minimal
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 05:43 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
If I could read your post and comprehend what I read, I would respond with something more. What did I say that wasn't true?

- Minimal.
Pepijn Sweep
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 06:42 pm
@Minimal,
Minimal;144882 wrote:
If I could read your post and comprehend what I read, I would respond with something more. What did I say that wasn't true?

- Minimal.

:rolleyes:I just lost my replay
will try later:detective:
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 08/05/2020 at 10:51:22