Reply
Sun 27 Nov, 2005 10:15 am
"
..to be hanged until death for
.
Gee Angel!I'm glad you said that.
I agree, guevara. We kill a person to demonstrate that killing is wrong. How absurd is that? And if the purpose of imprisonment is rehabilitation, then how do we justify terminating a person who appears to have seen the error of his/her ways and seems to be rehabilitated? There's a thread elsewhere on this forum about the impending execuiton of the Crips gang founder Tookie Williams which addresses a number of these concerns.
Well, so far you're preaching to the choir, guevara. I recently had a similar discussion on another thread so I know there are some folks here who will take the opposite position. I'm with you all the way.
What then should we do with those violent few who are beyond rehabilitation? While capital punishment is certainly overutilized, and typically used as revenge, should it be done away with entirely or kept as a last resort for those whose violent tendencies cannot be changed?
Yeah-it should be done away with entirely.We have done and nobody is going to get into the EEC who thinks otherwise.
spendius wrote:Yeah-it should be done away with entirely.We have done and nobody is going to get into the EEC who thinks otherwise.
So what do we do with the pathologically violent?
Re: CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
guevara wrote:"
..to be hanged until death for
.."These are the usual words used by the judiciary to disguise the brutal act. Generally capital punishment is limited to criminals who have committed highest degree of sins such as treason and murder. Though the courts and judiciary justify the capital punishment, aren't they repeating the same act of murder in a legal way?'
While I agree with your general thought here the answer to your question is "No!". The definition of the word "murder" requires that the act be unlawful so it isn't possible to murder someone "in a legal way".
Says who? First of all, the aim of the judiciary is to carry out a fair trial and determine guilt. The overall criminal justice system would be the group responsible for anything more than that (the judiciary doesn't run the prison systems!). Secondly, there is no agreement within society that the purpose of the criminal justice system is reform. Third, even if teh aim was as you stated, there are people that are considered to be beyond reform.
Again, a bad claim. The Legislature decides if suicide is legal or not - not the judiciary.
Mills75 wrote:spendius wrote:Yeah-it should be done away with entirely.We have done and nobody is going to get into the EEC who thinks otherwise.
So what do we do with the pathologically violent?
Keep them locked up until they die in prison.
goodfielder wrote:Mills75 wrote:spendius wrote:Yeah-it should be done away with entirely.We have done and nobody is going to get into the EEC who thinks otherwise.
So what do we do with the pathologically violent?
Keep them locked up until they die in prison.
And would you consider that more or less humane than death? Being imprisoned has a horrifically negative psychological effect both on the prisoner and those charged with guarding the prisoner.
Mills75 wrote:goodfielder wrote:Mills75 wrote:spendius wrote:Yeah-it should be done away with entirely.We have done and nobody is going to get into the EEC who thinks otherwise.
So what do we do with the pathologically violent?
Keep them locked up until they die in prison.
And would you consider that more or less humane than death? Being imprisoned has a horrifically negative psychological effect both on the prisoner and those charged with guarding the prisoner.
I've only ever read about how capital punishment is carried out but it's alway struck me as being a cruel ritual - a cruelty inflicted on everyone concerned with it.
Capital punishment is ritualised killing by the state. It damages everyone involved and it damages society. I would prefer that any damage be limited to the offender. If that has to happen, then so be it.
As for those who are tasked with guarding the prisoner, without wanting to sound callous, they have been selected and trained for a difficult and dangerous job but if they can't do it then they should be helped to find another job.
i meant words cant express!
just take the side of the accused and think...
YOU 'll find that he committed the crime just because of the society or his surroundings..
What about the idea of damaging the persons brain or making him forget his past?,because of which he commiitted the crime!(seems a bit wiered)
YOU should kill the background which made the person... and not terminate the biological being..!
"A little capital punishment never killed anyone." I can't remember who said that but I always liked it. As to C.P. itself, I have mixed feelings towards it. Even though I am not specifically against capital punishment I find two major problems with it as it currently stands.
First off, most methods used to end the life of the criminal are too quick. They are not made to suffer and feel the level of fear and pain that their victim(s) did.
Second, why should the criminal get off with being put to death so quickly? Wouldn't a much more fair sentence be to let them rot in solitary for 30 years or more, with no amenities such as access to the outside world, television, books, etc. Just a bland meal each day and a hose down shower.
Come to think of it, what with all the appeals that the U.S. justice system has these days, some of those on Death Row do get a long term suffering...although they have far too many freedoms what with lawyer visits, an hour or 2 outside and other interminglings. Meanwhile the person(s) they killed have nothing and their loved ones have nothing. Back in the old days justice was swift and in that sense at least, so much better.
Torturing a person to death as part of their punishment has been off the books for quite a while now. Prison is no longer a place where a person was held to receive their punishment (torture and then death) but a place where someone is held
as punishment.
Given that torture and death won't bring back the victim does it have any redeeming features for society? Do we need to know that some criminals were tortured to death so we can feel that our need for retribution has been met?
On amenities is prison. I would worry about the safety of people working in prisons if we were to run them in the way you suggest Sturgis. I can understand it for sure but on a practical level it would cause far too many problems for the workers there.
But have you read J.S. Mill on the death penalty? I always find his arguments compelling although with the march of time they may have lost their practicality.
Mill's speech
Capital Punishment.
THE MORAL ANGLES
* Those who execute are no better than murderers.
*Those who are bereft have a right to "justice" but not "revenge".
* Life imprisonment is inhumane.
* Murder may be a form of insanity.
THE ECONOMIC ANGLES
* Imprisonment is expensive.
THE PRACTICAL ANGLES.
* Prisons breed criminality.
* Execution can establish martyrdom and trouble from followers.
* Most murders are committed within confined social situations.
Re: CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
This is a hoary canard. Suicide has
never been illegal.
guevara wrote:
i meant words cant express!
just take the side of the accused and think...
YOU 'll find that he committed the crime just because of the society or his surroundings..
If you kill someone with premeditated intent or for personal gain, you deserve death. Social surroundings aside, you take a life, your's should be forfeit.
Quote:What about the idea of damaging the persons brain or making him forget his past?,because of which he commiitted the crime!(seems a bit wiered)
YOU should kill the background which made the person... and not terminate the biological being..!
And how would one accomplish this? As of yet, we can't enforce proper parenting, we can't force people to adhere to a strong work ethic. Are you talking about something more Star Trekish, where we physically go in and wipe someone's mind clean?
I am a fence-sitter when it comes to Capital Punishment. I have no qualms at all about taking the life of someone that has taken the life of someone else. I DO have serious doubts about our judicial system, and it's ability to render a solid and un-tainted verdict.
I think I heard the most profound thing said about the death penalty on, believe it or not, an episode of In The Heat of The Night.
Chief Gillespie was asked to witness the execution of a man he had arrested after witnessing the man commit murder as a younger man. The man was tried, convicted, and given the death penalty. After all the appeals had been gone through and stays expended, the day of execution finally came about. The man had changed spiritually and was evident. This caused Chief Gillespie quite a bit of conflict and pain. He said (not word for word) that the most humane way of carrying out the death penalty would be to forgive the man, tell him he is forgiven and is free because he had shown he had truly changed. Then he said, because of the law and justice, when the man turned to walk away, to shoot him in the back of the head. He said, I know that sounds cruel, but that man was forgiven. He felt forgiven. He understood he was forgiven. But, the law had to be carried out for the betterment of society.
I have never forgotten that. I, too, have mixed feelings about the death penalty. I do believe there are those such as the likes of Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, The Green River Killer, BTK, etc., that most definitely deserved the death penalty. Their guilt was never at issue. I know there have been times that the innocent have been convicted. We do not have a perfect justice system. No one does. But, it is what we have and we have to adhere to it until we come up with something better.
The very fact that an innocent person could be executed is enough to condemn the death penalty. If an innocent person was executed shouldn't every person - from the police investigator right up to the government officers who carried out the death penalty and the politician who (perhaps) denied an appeal for clemency - be at least indicted. And if they were convicted of causing the death of an innocent person what should be their penalty? Should they be executed? Perhaps imprisoned for a lengthy period so as to deter the others?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace