Death Penalty

[Sprocket Hole]

I am against capital punishment, and was debating with someone. They raised the point "if someone raped your 2 year old sister and cut her up, you wouldn't want him dead?"

I wondered for a bit between 'death would be too good' and 'the state shouldn't be given control over the sicko'

What do you guys think?

[Demogorgon]

This must be the third or fourth thread on the subject this week.

Anyway under those sort of circumstances you probably would want the perpetrator dead unless you have far more compassion and self control than most, but for very good reasons, we do not let bereaved people set punishment. Revenge and justice do not go together.

[Il Medico]

I would want the person dead at first. Probably take a while until I could forgive that sort of thing, maybe i would never forgive that sort of thing. However, I don't think that the government or society in general should decide who lives and who dies.

[21st Century Kropotkinist]

I am against capital punishment, and was debating with someone. They raised the point "if someone raped your 2 year old sister and cut her up, you wouldn't want him dead?"

I wondered for a bit between 'death would be too good' and 'the state shouldn't be given control over the sicko'

What do you guys think?

I think the debate should focus around one question: should the State be allotted the power to murder people, whether in wars or in "criminal" procedures? The argument, which is an appeal to emotion, that certain heinous acts are so heinous, that you must commit a heinous act against the perpetrator, i.e., strap them to a chair and electrocute them or give them a lethal injection while a bunch of vengeful people watch the person die.

First of all, it'd be hard to argue against the fact that said hypothetical individual who cut up and raped a 2 year old does not have something wrong with him, i.e., mental illness. It's debatable whether or not you could rehabilitate said individual, but I think there should be an institution for that person with psychiatrists and psychologists trying to figure out what went wrong with said individuals; I think an institution like this should exist in any society. And I believe that prisons should be abolished in any decent society, as they only house said indvidual with a population of extremely angry, alienated individuals because their liberty has been stolen primarily for non-violent offenses, i.e., criminalized drugs.

If the individual gets life in prison, then nothing has been solved; we don't know what is wrong with the individual or if such an individual has the potential for rehabilitation. So, prison is useless.

If prison is useless, for which I argue, then the death penalty is even more counter-productive. First, innocent people have been put on death row because judicial systems are like financial instutions: if you're wealthy, you'll have a much better chance of avoiding prison. If you're working-class, then you're pretty much fucked.

Also, what does executing a person with mental illness (which probably the majority of serial killers and sex criminals suffer from) solve besides revenge, which is an infantile emotion? I mean, if someone killed and raped somebody in my family, of course I'd want that person off of the streets. But I'd also like to know why thisindividual was driven to do this. What was happening in his mind or others who commit such atrocities, and how can we prevent this? It's analogous to 9/11: when it happened, no one could say "Perhaps there's a reason these people attacked the U.S." This was simply not tolerated. How do we solve the problem? Everybody agreed: kill those who masterminded the attack, as if it happened in a vacuum.

Well, nothing happens in a vacuum. So, said individual wasn't a "normal" individual who woke up one day and said "Gee, everything's going great in my life, but I think I'm going to rape and kill a little girl today." There's a very good chance this individual has chemical imbalances in his brain.

So, for me it's two-sided. First, I'm an anti-authoritarian, so being against the State's very existence, I of course don't favor the State committing any kind of violence. But secondly, capital punishment doesn't solve anything, and innocent people have been put on death row. It only serves people's emotions, but most people see beyond that. Your debater has demonstrated a silly, emotion-based argument.

[Sprocket Hole]

I think the debate should focus around one question: should the State be allotted the power to murder people, whether in wars or in "criminal" procedures? The argument, which is an appeal to emotion, that certain heinous acts are so heinous, that you must commit a heinous act against the perpetrator, i.e., strap them to a chair and electrocute them or give them a lethal injection while a bunch of vengeful people watch the person die.

First of all, it'd be hard to argue against the fact that said hypothetical individual who cut up and raped a 2 year old does not have something wrong with him, i.e., mental illness. It's debatable whether or not you could rehabilitate said individual, but I think there should be an institution for that person with psychiatrists and psychologists trying to figure out what went wrong with said individuals; I think an institution like this should exist in any society. And I believe that prisons should be abolished in any decent society, as they only house said indvidual with a population of extremely angry, alienated individuals because their liberty has been stolen primarily for non-violent offenses, i.e., criminalized drugs.

If the individual gets life in prison, then nothing has been solved; we don't know what is wrong with the individual or if such an individual has the potential for rehabilitation. So, prison is useless.

If prison is useless, for which I argue, then the death penalty is even more counter-productive. First, innocent people have been put on death row because judicial systems are like financial instutions: if you're wealthy, you'll have a much better chance of avoiding prison. If you're working-class, then you're pretty much fucked.

Also, what does executing a person with mental illness (which probably the majority of serial killers and sex criminals suffer from) solve besides revenge, which is an infantile emotion? I mean, if someone killed and raped somebody in my family, of course I'd want that person off of the streets. But I'd also like to know why thisindividual was driven to do this. What was happening in his mind or others who commit such atrocities, and how can we prevent this? It's analogous to 9/11: when it happened, no one could say "Perhaps there's a reason these people attacked the U.S." This was simply not tolerated. How do we solve the problem? Everybody agreed: kill those who masterminded the attack, as if it happened in a vacuum.

Well, nothing happens in a vacuum. So, said individual wasn't a "normal" individual who woke up one day and said "Gee, everything's going great in my life, but I think I'm going to rape and kill a little girl today." There's a very good chance this individual has chemical imbalances in his brain.

So, for me it's two-sided. First, I'm an anti-authoritarian, so being against the State's very existence, I of course don't favor the State committing any kind of violence. But secondly, capital punishment doesn't solve anything, and innocent people have been put on death row. It only serves people's emotions, but most people see beyond that. Your debater has demonstrated a silly, emotion-based argument.

Thank you. I admit to losing myself to emotion as well while failing to articulate this point. In a situation such as that, I'm sure I would lose it, but you are right.

[rosa-rl]

When I was in the 3rd grade my grandfather was shot and killed by someone. The man that was charged with the crime got death in Alabama. My mom and some otherrelatives were almost in a party mood around it. It was very sick because none of this was going to bring my grandfather back. There was no real justice, just another dead black man accused of killing a white man in Alabama. My questions to my mom about this were returned with, "he's going to pay for it".

But what was he paying for? He had just got out of prision and confessed so th.at he could go back to prision is what I was told. I dont know if this is even true or was part of the myth-making around my family.

But, I agree that people should not be put to death. They do need to be studdied and the ones that have emotional problems need treatment - not the kinda of situation where people are given psych meds to control their behaviour and make them 'sane' enough to stand trial or be executed.

Serial killers and serial rapists are different than strait up and murder. Most killers kill people they know like their wife (or husband), freinds and so on. Most people who kill do 'crimes of passion' and are not likely to repeat it. A crime of passion is always against someone you know and are one time events while serial killers usually stalk their victimes but do not personally know them. These differences need to be taken into account.

However I am not for having a state like this one carry out any type of capital punishment because there is no way to do it fairly under these conditions.

[Red Saxon]

Exile them all to Siberia!~

[ArrowLance]

I would never condone the death penalty, I think it is barbaric and gives too much power to the state. I like the ideas of labor camps, it removes threats from society while still providing them life.

The biggest opposition to this that I commonly run into seems to be that it's no better than 'slave camps.' Of course I disagree. Really all the labor camps would be is a separate workforce from the general populace, under more supervision.

[mel]

Why not limited, short-term confinement in a facility in which they receive mandatory psychiatric treatment and therapy, and then after some are released during they day, under gradually decreasing supervision, until they are healthy enough to be fully integrated into society? I imagine most violent criminals who were not wholly deranged (crimes of passion and the like) will be able to be rehabilitated in this way.

No state, nor group of individuals, should have the power to put people to death, it's far too subject to emotional tampering and clouded judgment. Nevermind the risk of putting an innocent person away.

[ArrowLance]

To an extent I agree, we want to help people, but I also think they should still be productive members of society. If you restrict it to 'short term' confinement, then you could release someone who is dangerous.

[mel]

What I mean by "short-term" confinement is short-term total confinement, to which point the person is safe enough to be let out during the day under close supervision (and nights in the facility) at first, gradually lessening until they're safe to be released completely.

[RedArmyUK]

I am against capital punishment, and was debating with someone. They raised the point "if someone raped your 2 year old sister and cut her up, you wouldn't want him dead?"

I wondered for a bit between 'death would be too good' and 'the state shouldn't be given control over the sicko'

What do you guys think?


http://www.infowars.com/images2/ps/china/220905execution2.jpg

Works for me, just look at the money that can be saved :D

[Stranger Than Paradise]

http://www.infowars.com/images2/ps/china/220905execution2.jpg

Works for me, just look at the money that can be saved :D

That's funny to you is it? Murdering someone. There is no way any murderer deserves to be executed. People do not kill for no reason, there are no people like the Joker in the real world. There is always a reason and rehabilitation of this person is the only solution for a free and peaceful society.

[RedArmyUK]

That's funny to you is it? Murdering someone. There is no way any murderer deserves to be executed. People do not kill for no reason, there are no people like the Joker in the real world. There is always a reason and rehabilitation of this person is the only solution for a free and peaceful society.

Hmmmm,, yer and you would be saying that if your kid was cut up into tiny bits, or your dear granny was beaten to death for the small amount of cash in her bag.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Yes I like to think I would say that even if those things had happened.

[RedArmyUK]

Yes I like to think I would say that even if those things had happened.

......... What ever your smoking......... Stop it!

[Stranger Than Paradise]

......... What ever your smoking......... Stop it!

So if these things happen to you it's alright for you to shoot the person. Is that what you are saying? It should not matter what the person has done to you, sure you would be angry but the community would help you to overcome this and help the perpretrator aswell.

[Communist Theory]

I'm for the death penalty.
Especially after the revolution, I mean we don't want to have people work harder to feed the prisoners unless we have something where you sign up to work harder to feed the prisoners but get nothing special in return. idk I'm basing my decision on the fact that I wouldn't want to work harder to feed or provide care for prisoners that chose to murder or rape.

[mel]

I'm for the death penalty.
Especially after the revolution, I mean we don't want to have people work harder to feed the prisoners unless we have something where you sign up to work harder to feed the prisoners but get nothing special in return. idk I'm basing my decision on the fact that I wouldn't want to work harder to feed or provide care for prisoners that chose to murder or rape.

Choices aren't made in a vaccuum, and murderers and rapists aren't just regular people who decided one day that they were going to up and kill somebody. They are people who need psychiatric care, and ultimately, it was a combination of mental illness and the choices that both the murderer/rapist and the community he or she lives in made that led the murderer or rapist to murder or rape. Nobody here is advocating for massive prisons like the ones which exist now, there will be no need, but a psychiatric facility in which the murder or rapist can be treated is leaps and bounds superior to the death penalty, especially if there is even the slightest chance that you have captured the wrong person. Do you really think that saving enough labor to feed one person is worth the possibility of executing an innocent person? Even if you do have the right person, what do you really solve by murdering them? A vengeful bloodlust? I imagine that if I were the relative of somebody who was brutally murdered, I'd probably want the murderer dead. However, that decision should not be in my hands, nor in the hands of the state. It's just too easy to abuse that kind of power, and death is an irreversible punishment.

[Dr Mindbender]

Wasnt there an exact thread of this a few days ago?

[ArrowLance]

I'm for the death penalty.
Especially after the revolution, I mean we don't want to have people work harder to feed the prisoners unless we have something where you sign up to work harder to feed the prisoners but get nothing special in return. idk I'm basing my decision on the fact that I wouldn't want to work harder to feed or provide care for prisoners that chose to murder or rape.

Why does everyone assume that 'criminals' have to be removed from the work force? Maybe in a separate work force, or in a heavily supervised one. But they can still be productive members of society!

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Why does everyone assume that 'criminals' have to be removed from the work force? Maybe in a separate work force, or in a heavily supervised one. But they can still be productive members of society!

Why can't they be part of the normal workforce? Putting them in a seperate one is solving no problems. They need to be cured with help from the community, isolating them in different workforces will have the same effect as prison.

[Rjevan]

I'm not really for the death penalty, I think some crimes should be regarded with death but I see the the problem of giving the state too much power and killing innocents because of judical "mistakes" is terrible. But I vehemently oppose the idea that every criminal is just misunderstood and has had a traumatic childhood and could be helped and "healed". Believe it or not, some people had an absoultely great childhood, loving parents and many friends but were still vicious murderes/rapists, who killed for fun and no, not because their father was a beating alcoholic, just because they were vicious bastards.
And even if my childhood is bad, well this is no excuse. I don't want to know how many people had a bad childhood and still lead "normal" lives. If they kill/rape/torture they know that they hurt other people and that they do something illegal, so why should I feel sorry for them and want to help them. They did their choice, nobody helped their victims and gave them a second chance. It's not my fault, if a lunatic decides to kill me, I would be the one to be pitied in that case, not my murderer.

I think labour camps (labour, not death!) would be the best solution; they harmed society, so they should give something back to society.


It should not matter what the person has done to you, sure you would be angry but the community would help you to overcome this and help the perpretrator aswell.
It is not only about what this person has done to me. I heard (and I'm sure I will hear) of crimes in which people were involved I've never heard of up to that day and I still wanted the murderers/rapists/torturers to pay for what they've done.
This is a serious question for I really can't understand it: does it really work that way, that people who argue that every criminal is misunderstood and needs help, hear about a criminal in the news, who kidnapped a 8-year old child, abused and tortured it and finally starngled or buried it alive and they think "Oh my god, what a terrible crime! What may have driven this person to do such a terrible thing? He needs help immediately!"?
What I think is: "Oh my god, what a terrible crime! What did the child feel in his/her last hours? How much did he/she suffer and how much does his/her family suffer now? This is barbaric, the criminal is like an animal, no, wrong, animals don't do such things, this is worse. I want him to pay for what he has done!"
If this would ever happen to my family and other people I love, I wouldn't rest till the person who did this pays. I'm very well aware of the fact, that killing the murdere brings nobody back to life but at least he is not alive anymore.

And about society helping me to come over it: nobody who didn't experience such a thing personally knows what he speaks about, so it's hypocritical if people tell me that hate and revenge are bad feelings and that I should forgive the murderer and help him. I remember a scene of Dostoyevsky's "The brothers Karamazov" where Ivan Karamazov tells his brother, who is a priest, that even if the bible is right and everybody will forgive everything and a murdered child, the mother of the child and the murderer will hug and love each other under teras of joy and regret, he doesn't want this to be true. He doesn't want that the forgive each other and the mother could never forgive that the murdere killed her child. She can only forgive him for the pain he caused to her but she could never ever forgive him in the name of her child. Though Ivan is a negaive protagonist and at the end has to realise that his theories caused terrible things and regrets, I agree with what he says in this scene: I can only forgive what has been done to me, I could never forgive somebody that he murdered, e.g. my sister.


Even if you do have the right person, what do you really solve by murdering them? A vengeful bloodlust?
No, not only, mainly you ensure that this particular person won't harm anybody anymore. ;)

[Forward Union]

I am against capital punishment,

Are you really? So you would have objected to this?

https://jspivey.wikispaces.com/file/view/Benito_Mussolini_Death.jpg

This is of course, Fascist Dictator Mussolini being executed by the Italian people. Essentially, if this doesn't bother you, then you hardly object to the death penalty in all circumstances. Ask yourself, would you have attempted to stop these events, or any similar. Of course not. Some ****s deserve to die.

Of course, in a society where the ruling class are in power, we should oppose the death penalty, we dont want it to be easy for them to execute dissidents or criminals or whatever. But workers power is supremely sovereign and can issue any penalties it wishes. It's not constrained by liberal slave morality. We should like, totally forgive people man, they've got feelings to.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I want the death penalty to be reomved from society as I feel that no group of people should have the power to execute someone, no matter what they have done. No one can DESERVE to die. You have to understand that people that commit horrible and disgusting crimes have not had good lives, and if you were a recovering criminal who had killed several people and realised you what you were doing was completely insane you would appreciate the understandning of the people around you and the help of these people to recover. If it was you, which it could be depending on how hard your life has been and what circumstances and personality you have then I am sure you would not want people to kill you.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

It's interesting that reason seems to dictate the death penalty is irrational. At the same time, our emotions appear to support it. We watch movies where criminals get "what they deserve," and we feel nothing but satisfaction. It's been suggested revenge causes long-term psychological damage. I'm not sure my position there. I'm also not sure revenge is natural rather than socialized. The question I would suggest, though, is this. If revenge is inherent to human nature, is denying our nature the real psychological damage?

I'm against the penalty because "I feel like it" isn't much of a justification for killing someone. There is the potential for more evidence on the matter, though. I have to admit. I really enjoy movies where vigilantes go around kicking ass by any means necessary.

[Forward Union]

It's interesting that reason seems to dictate the death penalty is irrational.

I don't think so. Killing someone is an incredibly efficient way of dealing with them. It's emotional impulses namely empathy, that lead to people opposing it. That's not to say opposition to it is wrong on that basis. I certainly don't think we should kill everyone that does something wrong. I hate the idea of it. But I can think of examples where I would support it.

There are reasons for opposing and supporting the death penalty.

[ArrowLance]

Why can't they be part of the normal workforce? Putting them in a seperate one is solving no problems. They need to be cured with help from the community, isolating them in different workforces will have the same effect as prison.

It's not about isolation, but I feel they need at least supervision.

[Forward Union]

I think Peado axe murders who have severe cognitive and psychotic disabilities which prevent them from clearly distinguishing between the voices in their head and reality should be free to work, perhaps as teachers, as long as revleft members volunteer to "supervise" them.

M'KAY?
http://style.popcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/charlesmanson.jpg

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I think Peado axe murders who have severe cognitive and psychotic disabilities which prevent them from clearly distinguishing between the voices in their head and reality should be free to work, perhaps as teachers, as long as revleft members volunteer to "supervise" them.

M'KAY?
http://style.popcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/charlesmanson.jpg

But don't you realise it would be ridiculous to execute someone with these problems. I wish to see them rehabilitated, not let into the community in this condition.

[Soldat]

Question: If somebody just killed my brother and then raped his wife for hours before killing. her why should my tax money and others tax money go to putting him in prison and feeding him for years or worse paying for rehab and food, etc so he can be free and possibly kill another innocent and productive person? Why should we spend anything more than 30 cents for a bullet?

Whats fair is fair, the person has proved they are a danger to society, they have hurt society, and most importantly they have taken innocent lives. People like that should die, they are a detriment to society. It is one thing to be disabled or something and need help from the state, be a "burden" if you will. It is something else when you are working against society.

im not talking "get in a bar fight, the other guy falls into chair when you hit him and breaks his neck and dies' = death penalty. Im talking beats an old woman to death for $4 to buy crack, or rapes and murders a 6 year old, or stabs a guy on his way to work to get his car. Thats over a line, that shows a lack of regard for human life. That is not compatable with society, and killing them is cheap, fair, and effective.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I don't think so. Killing someone is an incredibly efficient way of dealing with them. It's emotional impulses namely empathy, that lead to people opposing it. That's not to say opposition to it is wrong on that basis. I certainly don't think we should kill everyone that does something wrong. I hate the idea of it. But I can think of examples where I would support it.

There are reasons for opposing and supporting the death penalty.

Fair enough, but we tend to rationally consider empathy "legitimate" and revenge "illegitimate."

[ArrowLance]

Question: If somebody just killed my brother and then raped his wife for hours before killing. her why should my tax money and others tax money go to putting him in prison and feeding him for years or worse paying for rehab and food, etc so he can be free and possibly kill another innocent and productive person? Why should we spend anything more than 30 cents for a bullet?

Whats fair is fair, the person has proved they are a danger to society, they have hurt society, and most importantly they have taken innocent lives. People like that should die, they are a detriment to society. It is one thing to be disabled or something and need help from the state, be a "burden" if you will. It is something else when you are working against society.

im not talking "get in a bar fight, the other guy falls into chair when you hit him and breaks his neck and dies' = death penalty. Im talking beats an old woman to death for $4 to buy crack, or rapes and murders a 6 year old, or stabs a guy on his way to work to get his car. Thats over a line, that shows a lack of regard for human life. That is not compatable with society, and killing them is cheap, fair, and effective.

Thats why we keep them as a productive member of society while we rehabilitate them.

When you say "whats fair is fair" I don't understand how you get what I fair at all. How is counter-murdering fair?

Killing them I would argue is neither cheap, fair nor effective. It is expensive because it removes a potentially valuable member of the community. It is not fair to take any ones life. And as for effective, no more than rehabilitation.

[Decolonize The Left]

I am opposed to the state, and hence I am opposed to state-sanctioned murder.

- August

[Soldat]

Thats why we keep them as a productive member of society while we rehabilitate them.

When you say "whats fair is fair" I don't understand how you get what I fair at all. How is counter-murdering fair?

Killing them I would argue is neither cheap, fair nor effective. It is expensive because it removes a potentially valuable member of the community. It is not fair to take any ones life. And as for effective, no more than rehabilitation.

How isnt "counter-murdering", not fair? Once somebody has taken a life of another human in malice why should their life have any value? They have obviosuly shown their value for human life does not exist.

Killing a person costs a few dollars worth of ammuntion to give them the firing squad. You work on the false idea that people can all be rehabilitated. Thats some fantasy, because that just isnt how things work. Some people cant be fixed.

[ArrowLance]

How isnt "counter-murdering", not fair? Once somebody has taken a life of another human in malice why should their life have any value? They have obviosuly shown their value for human life does not exist.

Killing a person costs a few dollars worth of ammuntion to give them the firing squad. You work on the false idea that people can all be rehabilitated. Thats some fantasy, because that just isnt how things work. Some people cant be fixed.

So you say they don't see any value in human life, and then turn around and say their life has no value. Well I believe all life has value.

Not necessarily everyone can be rehabilitated, but damn close. And in the situations where they can't I still see no need to do anything other than keep them separated or heavily supervised.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I have to agree with ArrowLance. Human life is too precious, you cannot end someones life no matter what they have done and how you perceive them as a risk to society. Firstly if we are to be talking about the death penalty in a Communist society I think crime will be heavily reduced and I think a lot of the crimes mentioned in this thread will actually cease to exist, I also believe the people of a Communist society will not allow a death penalty to live on. Malatesta said something like "Communism will be a society where the inhabitants have profound levels of understanding". I agree with this statement as I feel the people of the community will come to realise that this is not the right way to deal with people and that curing them is realistic and is the libertarian solution.

[SecondLife]

Question: If somebody just killed my brother and then raped his wife for hours before killing. her why should my tax money and others tax money go to putting him in prison and feeding him for years or worse paying for rehab and food, etc so he can be free and possibly kill another innocent and productive person? Why should we spend anything more than 30 cents for a bullet?

Whats fair is fair, the person has proved they are a danger to society, they have hurt society, and most importantly they have taken innocent lives. People like that should die, they are a detriment to society. It is one thing to be disabled or something and need help from the state, be a "burden" if you will. It is something else when you are working against society.

im not talking "get in a bar fight, the other guy falls into chair when you hit him and breaks his neck and dies' = death penalty. Im talking beats an old woman to death for $4 to buy crack, or rapes and murders a 6 year old, or stabs a guy on his way to work to get his car. Thats over a line, that shows a lack of regard for human life. That is not compatable with society, and killing them is cheap, fair, and effective.

No, death penalty is wrong and fascist. You can't change miscarriage of justice after that. You can kill only in defense, as example in revolution, if opponent don't want to understand you with peaceful.
No one single human or even complete country isn't as important as humanism ideology and communism ideology that is against any retaliation.

[mel]

How isnt "counter-murdering", not fair? Once somebody has taken a life of another human in malice why should their life have any value? They have obviosuly shown their value for human life does not exist.

Killing a person costs a few dollars worth of ammuntion to give them the firing squad. You work on the false idea that people can all be rehabilitated. Thats some fantasy, because that just isnt how things work. Some people cant be fixed.

And you work on the false idea that "a few dollars of ammunition" is the only cost of state-sanctioned murder. When the state has the power to kill its people in the name of its people, the whole society suffers as a result. It is dangerous to have people willing to kill on command in a society, and the cost of training people capable of doing that is astronomical. Take a look the police and the military. They are groups trained to kill on command. I imagine that the cost to treat the psychological problems in this group of people (which would have to be quite large to support sanctioned murder in every community), would outweigh the cost to treat the murderer. In addition, there is the emotional cost to the friends and family members of the murderer, and the problem of setting a societal precedent for revenge killing. Especially if we're talking about an anarchist society, how can you say some individual is wrong to kill somebody who had murdered one of their loved ones, when there is another group out there who is authorized to do so? This sets up a structure in which there are a "privileged minority" who have the power to kill without consequence.

You say "some people can't be fixed", so your solution is to murder all people who commit a certain crime? There is a disconnect here in your reasoning. If you submit that some people can be rehabilitated, then it is our duty to attempt to rehabilitate them, as a person is far more valuable to society alive than dead, in every way, and for the reasons stated above as to the danger of having a group of people trained to kill on command of authority. If we have to try to rehabilitate every murderer, then we must do so at least until it is reasonable to give up hope that they can still be "fixed". For people with deep-seated psychological and emotional problems and mental illnesses, this may take many years to accomplish. We can't execute them unless as an absolute "last resort", and since there is no way to know when we have actually done all we can, we ought not execute them. Keep them under supervision, treat them, and if nothing works, so be it. It's better not to give any group the power to choose life or death for any other person.

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

Killing them I would argue is neither cheap, fair nor effective. It is expensive because it removes a potentially valuable member of the community.

By this logic, you should oppose abortion as well, right? The fetus is a potentially valuable member of the community, is it not?

[Rjevan]

But don't you realise it would be ridiculous to execute someone with these problems. I wish to see them rehabilitated, not let into the community in this condition.
But maybe you can't rehabilitate them. Maybe they don't want to be "healed".
There were several cases here in Germany where a murderer/rapist refused to go to therapy or pretended that he is cured and two weeks after he got out of jail - wonder, oh wonder! - he killed/raped again. Then it's always "Germany is shocked! How could a man who refused therapy/was wrongly declared healed be set free without even police occupation?!" Half a year later exactly the same happens again...

Well, what now? Force them to do a therapy? Make every psychiatrist personally responsible for further crimes of his "healed" patient?


No one can DESERVE to die. You have to understand that people that commit horrible and disgusting crimes have not had good lives, and if you were a recovering criminal who had killed several people and realised you what you were doing was completely insane you would appreciate the understandning of the people around you and the help of these people to recover.
Yes, if I would realise what I have done... but people who do such things planned (I'm not tlaking about some guy having a panic reaction, killing his best friend and afterwards bittelry regretting what he has done) tend to absolutely don't care about other peoples feelings. They sit behind their bulletproof glass, grin at the family of their victim and the only thing they regret is that they got caught.

And again, if you look at the childhood and lifes of murderers it soon becomes obvious that not everyone had a bad childhood/life. I gave this example already, but again, take Magnus Gäfgen, a student at a good university with a great childhood, many friends and wealthy parents; he kidnapped a 10 year old son of a banker (who had private lessons with Gäfgen), buried him alive and asked for a million € ransom, knowing, that the boy must be already dead. He got caught by the police and a police officer threatened to hit him, if he doesn't tell where he hid the boy (he told the police that the boy was still alife).

The result was that Gäfgen sued the police officer, who lost his job for trying to save the boys life and a huge wave of sympathy from human rights activists towards poor victim of police violence Gäfgen started... how cynical and vicious is this? The murderer is the victim who needs to be pitied and helped, who writes autobiographies and gets love letters in his cell and the real victim... well, his/her fault, why did he/she have have to draw the attention of the criminal towards him/her and be so stuipd to get murdered? Only because of this our poor murderer suffers in prison now, as if his life hadn't been worse enough! Shame on you for getting murdered!

This is the impression I get sometimes and honestly, I doubt that the life of people like Gäfgen is that precious and valuable that I need to pay taxes for this poor little darling, so that he enjoys a nice time in prison and a great therapy. Get rid of people like him and the world would be a better place.

[Vendetta]

I'm really only comfortable with the death penalty being punishment for people like Bin Laden or that one asshole, uh...Timothy McVeigh.

[#FF0000]

Question: If somebody just killed my brother and then raped his wife for hours before killing. her why should my tax money and others tax money go to putting him in prison and feeding him for years or worse paying for rehab and food, etc so he can be free and possibly kill another innocent and productive person? Why should we spend anything more than 30 cents for a bullet?

Whats fair is fair, the person has proved they are a danger to society, they have hurt society, and most importantly they have taken innocent lives. People like that should die, they are a detriment to society. It is one thing to be disabled or something and need help from the state, be a "burden" if you will. It is something else when you are working against society.

im not talking "get in a bar fight, the other guy falls into chair when you hit him and breaks his neck and dies' = death penalty. Im talking beats an old woman to death for $4 to buy crack, or rapes and murders a 6 year old, or stabs a guy on his way to work to get his car. Thats over a line, that shows a lack of regard for human life. That is not compatable with society, and killing them is cheap, fair, and effective.

protip: Capital Punishment costs more than lifetime inprisonment. That's because we try to make sure we're killing the right person. It helps with the guilt in the event that we get it wrong too.

But, hey whatever. It's not like I expect you guys to actually do a little research into this sort of thing and back up what you say or anything like that. And besides, a commune/workers can carry out any backwards, reactionary shit it wants. As long as it's not done by the state/bourgeoisie, it's progressive and totally consistent with anarchism/communism. :thumbup1:

[mel]

But maybe you can't rehabilitate them. Maybe they don't want to be "healed".
There were several cases here in Germany where a murderer/rapist refused to go to therapy or pretended that he is cured and two weeks after he got out of jail - wonder, oh wonder! - he killed/raped again. Then it's always "Germany is shocked! How could a man who refused therapy/was wrongly declared healed be set free without even police occupation?!" Half a year later exactly the same happens again...

Well, what now? Force them to do a therapy? Make every psychiatrist personally responsible for further crimes of his "healed" patient?


Yes, if I would realise what I have done... but people who do such things planned (I'm not tlaking about some guy having a panic reaction, killing his best friend and afterwards bittelry regretting what he has done) tend to absolutely don't care about other peoples feelings. They sit behind their bulletproof glass, grin at the family of their victim and the only thing they regret is that they got caught.

And again, if you look at the childhood and lifes of murderers it soon becomes obvious that not everyone had a bad childhood/life. I gave this example already, but again, take Magnus Gäfgen, a student at a good university with a great childhood, many friends and wealthy parents; he kidnapped a 10 year old son of a banker (who had private lessons with Gäfgen), buried him alive and asked for a million € ransom, knowing, that the boy must be already dead. He got caught by the police and a police officer threatened to hit him, if he doesn't tell where he hid the boy (he told the police that the boy was still alife).

The result was that Gäfgen sued the police officer, who lost his job for trying to save the boys life and a huge wave of sympathy from human rights activists towards poor victim of police violence Gäfgen started... how cynical and vicious is this? The murderer is the victim who needs to be pitied and helped, who writes autobiographies and gets love letters in his cell and the real victim... well, his/her fault, why did he/she have have to draw the attention of the criminal towards him/her and be so stuipd to get murdered? Only because of this our poor murderer suffers in prison now, as if his life hadn't been worse enough! Shame on you for getting murdered!

This is the impression I get sometimes and honestly, I doubt that the life of people like Gäfgen is that precious and valuable that I need to pay taxes for this poor little darling, so that he enjoys a nice time in prison and a great therapy. Get rid of people like him and the world would be a better place.

In a communist society, the motive for a crime like this one disappears. With no "elite" capable of paying out millions of dollars, most kidnapping cases would be of an entirely different cadre. (Either people who are mentally ill, or one parent taking a child from the other)

That said, with financial motives for crime out of the way, we are left with a different class of criminal. Those who commit crimes because they are mentally ill, which includes people who just "get their giggles" from the suffering and death of other human beings. I don't see why this ridiculous argument about how some murderers "have had a good life" comes up. "Having a good life" does not mean that a person cannot suffer from psychological problems or mental illness. These are people that, regardless of their family background, need psychological help.

Nobody has addressed the societal cost of training and having a trained body of people who are authorized to kill on command. Until that argument is addressed, I don't think I need to say anything further on why we ought not have executions (neither expensive 'humane' executions nor the firing squad).

[mel]

protip: Life imprisonment costs more than capital punishment. That's because we try to make sure we're killing the right person. It helps with the guilt in the event that we get it wrong too.

But, hey whatever. It's not like I expect you guys to actually do a little research into this sort of thing and back up what you say or anything like that. And besides, a commune/workers can carry out any backwards, reactionary shit it wants. As long as it's not done by the state/bourgeoisie, it's progressive and totally consistent with anarchism/communism. :thumbup1:

Did you mean to say "Capital punishment costs more than life in prison"? Because I'm pretty sure that's the truth. Anyway, this doesn't apply in the case of a firing squad.

[NoMore]

I say instead of worrying about how to punish someone who has done harm to a member of the community, we should try to rehabilitate them, and if that fails we should just kick them out of the community.

[etjusticepourtous]

Yes I like to think I would say that even if those things had happened.

Dude you're naive. Do some research on serial killers, sex offenders, pedophiles and sociopaths. People like this can't never be fixed, is like saying I can rehabilitate a gay man to being straight. There are people out there that if they encounter you in the middle of nowhere, they'll slit your throat in a heartbeat.

[mel]

Dude you're naive. Do some research on serial killers, sex offenders, pedophiles and sociopaths. People like this can't never be fixed, is like saying I can rehabilitate a gay man to being straight. There are people out there that if they encounter you in the middle of nowhere, they'll slit your throat in a heartbeat.

I implore you to do some research as well. There is still debate among psychiatrists as to whether or not serial murderers are able to be cured. Many believe they are, and I don't think I've seen much research that suggests that serial killing is genetic. However, current research seems to be leading towards genetic predisposition towards sexual orientation. With this in mind, I think it's safe to say that those two examples are entirely different.

[Rjevan]

In a communist society, the motive for a crime like this one disappears. With no "elite" capable of paying out millions of dollars, most kidnapping cases would be of an entirely different cadre. (Either people who are mentally ill, or one parent taking a child from the other)
Right, this was a bad example, it was just to illustrate the "not all murderers have had bad lifes"-argument. But I'm sure, if I look, I'll find a lunatic who killed out of fun and has had a good life aswell.


I don't see why this ridiculous argument about how some murderers "have had a good life" comes up.
Because this ridiculous argument about how all murderers "have had a bad life" came up.


"Having a good life" does not mean that a person cannot suffer from psychological problems or mental illness. These are people that, regardless of their family background, need psychological help.
Again, what if they don't want your help? What if they laugh in your face and tell you that they would do the same crime again and again? Of course you could send some psychiatrists in the cell and let them talk away, while the patient doesn't listen at all. But if this method is successful... I doubt it. And then? Forcing somebody to do therapy? How should this work? And who guarantees you that the patient didn't just play the cured sinner and goes on like always as soon as his therapy is declared successful?
Is it really worth thaking the risk of letting potentional murderers running around and maybe killing again because of my desire to give them a second chance, while their victims had no chance at all? Again, who helps future victims. Just imagine your daughter would be kidnapped, abused and then slit up by some guy who was just released and declared healed a few months ago. Would you burst into tears because this poor guy obviously didn't get a good therapy and is still confused and misunderstood and will again be hated by vicious and ignorant people like me, or would you cry, because nobody prevented that this lunatic could run around again and killed your daughter?


Nobody has addressed the societal cost of training and having a trained body of people who are authorized to kill on command. Until that argument is addressed, I don't think I need to say anything further on why we ought not have executions (neither expensive 'humane' executions nor the firing squad).
And nobody has adressed the societal cost of an army of specialised psychiatrist experts, who intensively care about every single murderer, rapist and lunatic constantly, till they are 100% cured, too. It won't work if you just walk in, say "Hey chap, you did something really terrible there, get a little empathy and besides, I'm sure your father loved you, no matter how hard he beat you, so cheer up, we all love you."


There is still debate among psychiatrists as to whether or not serial murderers are able to be cured.
Oh, great, I suggest some field studies to find out if they can be cured or not!

[mel]

Right, this was a bad example, it was just to illustrate the "not all murderers have had bad lifes"-argument. But I'm sure, if I look, I'll find a lunatic who killed out of fun and has had a good life aswell.

I stand by my point as to their family background not being of particular importance as it has nothing to do with their overall psychological health.


Because this ridiculous argument about how all murderers "have had a bad life" came up.

If I put forward that argument, then I didn't mean for it to come out that way, but I have never believed this. Just that all murderers have a serious psychological problem.


Again, what if they don't want your help? What if they laugh in your face and tell you that they would do the same crime again and again? Of course you could send some psychiatrists in the cell and let them talk away, while the patient doesn't listen at all. But if this method is successful... I doubt it. And then? Forcing somebody to do therapy? How should this work? And who guarantees you that the patient didn't just play the cured sinner and goes on like always as soon as his therapy is declared successful?
Is it really worth thaking the risk of letting potentional murderers running around and maybe killing again because of my desire to give them a second chance, while their victims had no chance at all? Again, who helps future victims. Just imagine your daughter would be kidnapped, abused and then slit up by some guy who was just released and declared healed a few months ago. Would you burst into tears because this poor guy obviously didn't get a good therapy and is still confused and misunderstood and will again be hated by vicious and ignorant people like me, or would you cry, because nobody prevented that this lunatic could run around again and killed your daughter?

There's a lot addressed here, I'll try not to miss anything. First, I think "forced" therapy is a reasonable reaction to murder. If the options are therapy, prison, or execution, I think honestly mandatory therapy is the most humane. It's not like forcing therapy on somebody who has done nothing wrong and could otherwise be walking freely around society. An uncooperative person would simply have to stay confined to the hospital for longer.

There are potential checks and balances to somebody pretending to be cured. We could help to minimize things like this by requiring multiple people to evaluate the person before their release, by putting them on heavy supervision for a period after their release, etc. I'm not saying that the details are perfect, but it's better than the alternatives (prison and death)

If a serial murderer killed and cut up my daughter, I'd be horrified, shocked, miserable, and most likely angry. I would probably want that person dead. What I'm saying is that it should not be up to me, and it should not be up to the "state".


And nobody has adressed the societal cost of an army of specialised psychiatrist experts, who intensively care about every single murderer, rapist and lunatic constantly, till they are 100% cured, too. It won't work if you just walk in, say "Hey chap, you did something really terrible there, get a little empathy and besides, I'm sure your father loved you, no matter how hard he beat you, so cheer up, we all love you."

This still doesn't address the problem that creating people who are privileged above the rest of society to kill on command introduces a privileged class with more power than the rest of the community. In a classless society, you cannot give one class of people the power to kill.

It is one thing to have trained psychiatrists whose duty it is to attempt to heal people, it is quite another to have trained murderers. Soldiers coming back from war have difficulty returning to society because training a group of people to kill on command requires a breakdown of normal boundaries. Having a group of people trained to do this is not a problem of monetary cost, but of actually keeping people with this sort of state of mind in society. The same goes for police. It takes a very special kind of mind to be molded into the shape of a police officer as they exist in capitalist society, and having a group of people with an authoritarian mindset and special privilege to kill on command, in a post-revolutionary society, is just dangerous for society.



Oh, great, I suggest some field studies to find out if they can be cured or not!

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with this. Murderers aren't given the psychiatric attention they need in this society so there is a lot that we don't know. I don't know what the best way to study this is, but maybe by the time the revolution comes, we'll have made advancements in psychology and science that will give new insights as to how to best handle this situation. I think current evidence suggests that serial killers would be curable, perhaps new evidence will arise that shows differently, but the subject isn't nearly as open and shut as has been suggested, and there's a lot of evidence to weigh on both sides of the issue.

[Soldat]

Capital punishment costs more than life imprisonment because they allow unlimited appeals and the scumbag to live on for years and take up millions in legal fees. If you lose your case of murder, you should get maybe one appeal, and if you are found guilty again be shot. It would be far cheaper if it was done right. Also, no, the wrong man is almost never ever going to be executed now that we have DNA the chance of an innocent being executed is extremely small.

Whoever suggested the death penalty is facist should be reminded just how many people the worlds first communitst state executed for far less than murder.

And the abortion point is valid. If you say every life is valuable and murderers are all potentially productive members of society dosent the same apply to an unborn child?

[mel]

Capital punishment costs more than life imprisonment because they allow unlimited appeals and the scumbag to live on for years and take up millions in legal fees. If you lose your case of murder, you should get maybe one appeal, and if you are found guilty again be shot. It would be far cheaper if it was done right. Also, no, the wrong man is almost never ever going to be executed now that we have DNA the chance of an innocent being executed is extremely small.

Sometimes we don't have DNA evidence to go on, and while DNA might put you at the scene of the crime, it doesn't always mean you were the one who committed it. There are countless possible ways for the wrong man to be found guilty.

Do you realize that despite these "endless appeals" the wrong people are still convicted over and over and over again, some only to be exonerated after their execution? It seems to me that if a person has this many appeals and can still be wrongly convicted this is a sign that we need to allow for more appeals, not fewer. No innocent person should be put to death, ever. Death is an irrevocable punishment, and it isn't one that anybody should have the power to deal out.


Whoever suggested the death penalty is facist should be reminded just how many people the worlds first communitst state executed for far less than murder.

What communist state was that, because as far as I know, there has yet to be one. There have been a few states that have declared themselves socialist, but it's up to debate whether or not they were idealogically sound experiments, and whether the sorts of executions that went on in them were the correct course of action to take.


And the abortion point is valid.

Not really


If you say every life is valuable and murderers are all potentially productive members of society dosent the same apply to an unborn child?

No. The murderer is an already born person who has skills, a personality, and a mental illness that needs treating. An unborn child is unborn, is not self-aware, has no personality, no skills. I could go point for point with you on this, and we could establish every differing property, but we are talking about two distinct classes of being here, and drawing a comparison between them because of they share "potential value" is silly. There are many other reasons it would be a mistake to go around executing people besides "potential value", such as the points above about creating classes in a classless society, inequality, and the danger of having a group of people trained to kill on command which suggest that even if a criminal is unable to be rehabilitated and killing them would be expedient, it is very likely that it's an overall good for society to keep them around, even if it's under heavy supervision and comes at great economic cost.

[Rjevan]

I stand by my point as to their family background not being of particular importance as it has nothing to do with their overall psychological health.
Same here, I totally agree! ;)


If I put forward that argument, then I didn't mean for it to come out that way, but I have never believed this. Just that all murderers have a serious psychological problem.
No, it wasn't you who put up this argument.


There's a lot addressed here, I'll try not to miss anything. First, I think "forced" therapy is a reasonable reaction to murder. If the options are therapy, prison, or execution, I think honestly mandatory therapy is the most humane. It's not like forcing therapy on somebody who has done nothing wrong and could otherwise be walking freely around society. An uncooperative person would simply have to stay confined to the hospital for longer.
Yes, of course it's the most humane, but how could you exactly force somebody to do a therapy? As I said, you could send a psychiatrist to my cell, maybe even chain me to the bed but still, I could count sheep in my head or remember my last holiday and absoultely block out what the psychiatrists says. If he asks me something I could just stay quiet or provoke him. How should this work? You would have to nearly brainswash somebody, to achieve success in therapy against his will.


There are potential checks and balances to somebody pretending to be cured. We could help to minimize things like this by requiring multiple people to evaluate the person before their release, by putting them on heavy supervision for a period after their release, etc. I'm not saying that the details are perfect, but it's better than the alternatives (prison and death)
I don't know... as I said, is it worth to take the risk that he murders again, because your checks failed? If he gets executed or imprisoned for lifetime you can be absolutely sure that this guy won't hurt anybody anymore.


If a serial murderer killed and cut up my daughter, I'd be horrified, shocked, miserable, and most likely angry. I would probably want that person dead. What I'm saying is that it should not be up to me, and it should not be up to the "state".
Ok, I get your point about being against the state to decide to kill somebody, but why should it not be up to you? I mean, it would be your daughter, who got killed, why don't you have the right then to say: "I want him dead."? It's not that you're just another mad murderer who deciedes out of boredom or becuase he needs a new kick that somebody should be killed, of course we couldn't let everybody decide who he wants dead and who deserves to stay alive but in this situation it's, in my opinion, legitimate to ask for the murderer being punished.


This still doesn't address the problem that creating people who are privileged above the rest of society to kill on command introduces a privileged class with more power than the rest of the community. In a classless society, you cannot give one class of people the power to kill.

It is one thing to have trained psychiatrists whose duty it is to attempt to heal people, it is quite another to have trained murderers. Soldiers coming back from war have difficulty returning to society because training a group of people to kill on command requires a breakdown of normal boundaries. Having a group of people trained to do this is not a problem of monetary cost, but of actually keeping people with this sort of state of mind in society. The same goes for police. It takes a very special kind of mind to be molded into the shape of a police officer as they exist in capitalist society, and having a group of people with an authoritarian mindset and special privilege to kill on command, in a post-revolutionary society, is just dangerous for society.
Well, correct me if I'm wrong but even the Anarchists speak of armed "workers militia", you will always need some armed people who protect you from murderes and lunatics, so they could execute them, you don't have to creat a "killer class" (if everybody would be armed, everything would be much easier, of course. I could shoot the murderer msyelf, as soon as he tries to attack me then. ;)).


I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with this. Murderers aren't given the psychiatric attention they need in this society so there is a lot that we don't know. I don't know what the best way to study this is, but maybe by the time the revolution comes, we'll have made advancements in psychology and science that will give new insights as to how to best handle this situation. I think current evidence suggests that serial killers would be curable, perhaps new evidence will arise that shows differently, but the subject isn't nearly as open and shut as has been suggested, and there's a lot of evidence to weigh on both sides of the issue.
I wanted to express, that I don't believe that every serial killer could be healed and released into society then. It's simpy not worth the risk, again, why should I help somebody who did such terrible things and risk that he does them again? Of course, I would not be too happy if I or one of my relatives or friends would be killed by a serial killer, because some psychiatrist has had a little mistake in one of his theories... dying for scinetifical progress has never been my thing...

[mel]

Ok, I get your point about being against the state to decide to kill somebody, but why should it not be up to you? I mean, it would be your daughter, who got killed, why don't you have the right then to say: "I want him dead."? It's not that you're just another mad murderer who deciedes out of boredom or becuase he needs a new kick that somebody should be killed, of course we couldn't let everybody decide who he wants dead and who deserves to stay alive but in this situation it's, in my opinion, legitimate to ask for the murderer being punished.

It shouldn't be up to me because I'm angry and not rational. Revenge is generally considered illegitimate justification for action, and I agree with this sentiment. I should not be allowed to decide fate for another human being based on a charged, emotional response.


Well, correct me if I'm wrong but even the Anarchists speak of armed "workers militia", you will always need some armed people who protect you from murderes and lunatics, so they could execute them, you don't have to creat a "killer class" (if everybody would be armed, everything would be much easier, of course. I could shoot the murderer msyelf, as soon as he tries to attack me then. ;)).

I think the worker's militia is important, they may be trained, but they are not trained to kill on command of authority, societal or state (obviously). I imagine they would be authorized to use necessary force to aid in an individual's self-defense, but this required force should rarely be lethal. They should shoot to maim when possible. I don't know if this is the stance of most anarchists, but this is the logical formulation I've come up with, maybe an anarchist would like to enlighten me if I'm wrong on this point.



I wanted to express, that I don't believe that every serial killer could be healed and released into society then. It's simpy not worth the risk, again, why should I help somebody who did such terrible things and risk that he does them again? Of course, I would not be too happy if I or one of my relatives or friends would be killed by a serial killer, because some psychiatrist has had a little mistake in one of his theories... dying for scinetifical progress has never been my thing...

I don't know if every serial killer could be healed and released, I think many could, and I think those that can't, or those that refuse to cooperate with therapy would be confined to their hospital until they are either releasable or they die there, I guess. I think life in a prison or mental hospital is better than execution, for all of the reasons I've already mentioned, and if some murderers are curable, I think it would be a terrible crime to execute them.

[etjusticepourtous]

I implore you to do some research as well. There is still debate among psychiatrists as to whether or not serial murderers are able to be cured. Many believe they are, and I don't think I've seen much research that suggests that serial killing is genetic. However, current research seems to be leading towards genetic predisposition towards sexual orientation. With this in mind, I think it's safe to say that those two examples are entirely different.

It is part genetic, and part environmental. The environment triggers the condition, or in the other hand it's already triggered in some cases.

[etjusticepourtous]

It shouldn't be up to me because I'm angry and not rational. Revenge is generally considered illegitimate justification for action, and I agree with this sentiment. I should not be allowed to decide fate for another human being based on a charged, emotional response.



I think the worker's militia is important, they may be trained, but they are not trained to kill on command of authority, societal or state (obviously). I imagine they would be authorized to use necessary force to aid in an individual's self-defense, but this required force should rarely be lethal. They should shoot to maim when possible. I don't know if this is the stance of most anarchists, but this is the logical formulation I've come up with, maybe an anarchist would like to enlighten me if I'm wrong on this point. If you want a less emotional response, it makes it safer for society.

melbicimni, most serial killers have higher IQ than your average person, how will people know when they are fit to go out into society? You can't label murderers to just murderers, there are different types of murderers. And you should still read some stuff one sociopaths and serial killers you'll find your answers there.



I don't know if every serial killer could be healed and released, I think many could, and I think those that can't, or those that refuse to cooperate with therapy would be confined to their hospital until they are either releasable or they die there, I guess. I think life in a prison or mental hospital is better than execution, for all of the reasons I've already mentioned, and if some murderers are curable, I think it would be a terrible crime to execute them.

That's the problem with people, they don't give a rat's ass if someone else dies who is not in no way related to them. I'm not sure of the name for phenomenon, but it has to have name. I personally feel remorse for any victim regardless if they are family or not.

You have to also step out of your absolutism, and put your self in the shoes of other people. There are different types of murderers.

In a personal opinion the murders should be killed in the same way it killed it victims but slower. Is not revenge, it's a point of view. Everybody knows morality is artificial, it's just there to keep us safe. What if we create a loop hole where we can eliminate morality with dealing with this types of criminals. People say life is so precious and so forth, in reality it is, because is the only life in where we exist, then have it taken it away in the most painful and traumatic way. And then cease to exist, no fucking afterlife bull shit.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Yes, of course it's the most humane, but how could you exactly force somebody to do a therapy? As I said, you could send a psychiatrist to my cell, maybe even chain me to the bed but still, I could count sheep in my head or remember my last holiday and absoultely block out what the psychiatrists says. If he asks me something I could just stay quiet or provoke him. How should this work? You would have to nearly brainswash somebody, to achieve success in therapy against his will.

I'd rather force someone to get better over forcing them to die. Therapy against someone's will is better than death against someone's will



I don't know... as I said, is it worth to take the risk that he murders again, because your checks failed? If he gets executed or imprisoned for lifetime you can be absolutely sure that this guy won't hurt anybody anymore.


What if you get the wrong guy. How would you feel if it was you wrongly accused? Also, do you believe in imprisonment for all crimes or just for these special cases?



Ok, I get your point about being against the state to decide to kill somebody, but why should it not be up to you? I mean, it would be your daughter, who got killed, why don't you have the right then to say: "I want him dead."? It's not that you're just another mad murderer who deciedes out of boredom or becuase he needs a new kick that somebody should be killed, of course we couldn't let everybody decide who he wants dead and who deserves to stay alive but in this situation it's, in my opinion, legitimate to ask for the murderer being punished.


No no ones life should be decided by anyone. People do not think completely level headed in these situations and some WILL want them dead. It should not be their decision. This person deserves their life, as does everyone, we need to heal this person so he can get his life back and so that he no longer harms anyone else.


Well, correct me if I'm wrong but even the Anarchists speak of armed "workers militia", you will always need some armed people who protect you from murderes and lunatics, so they could execute them, you don't have to creat a "killer class" (if everybody would be armed, everything would be much easier, of course. I could shoot the murderer msyelf, as soon as he tries to attack me then. ;)).

But surely you understand that crime will be greatly reduced in this society. Therefore murderers and lunatics in my opinion will be "once in a blue moon" sort of thing. I envision a society with very limited levels of crime, therefore everyone possesing arms would be sufficient.


I wanted to express, that I don't believe that every serial killer could be healed and released into society then. It's simpy not worth the risk, again, why should I help somebody who did such terrible things and risk that he does them again? Of course, I would not be too happy if I or one of my relatives or friends would be killed by a serial killer, because some psychiatrist has had a little mistake in one of his theories... dying for scinetifical progress has never been my thing...

You have talked about rehabilitation not working on everyone before but I believe it can work on anyone, especially considering the level of crime that is to be expected in Communist society. I guess we'll just have to accept we don't agree.

[ArrowLance]

In a personal opinion the murders should be killed in the same way it killed it victims but slower. Is not revenge, it's a point of view. Everybody knows morality is artificial, it's just there to keep us safe. What if we create a loop hole where we can eliminate morality with dealing with this types of criminals. People say life is so precious and so forth, in reality it is, because is the only life in where we exist, then have it taken it away in the most painful and traumatic way. And then cease to exist, no fucking afterlife bull shit.

Well, that personal opinion sucks ass. It sounds like the opinion of a murdering mad man. "If we just remove morality in this case," no you are advocating torture essentially.

[etjusticepourtous]

Well, that personal opinion sucks ass. It sounds like the opinion of a murdering mad man. "If we just remove morality in this case," no you are advocating torture essentially.

It is torture. I'm just saying therapy wont work on people who "raped your 2 year old sister and cut her up". People are getting off topic! There are CATEGORIES for murderers! Your placing all murders in same category.

ArrowLance, the opinion might be cruel, but it will only apply to people who cut the head of 34 victims and skull fucked them all.

[etjusticepourtous]

It is torture. I'm just saying therapy wont work on people who "raped your 2 year old sister and cut her up". People are getting off topic! There are CATEGORIES for murderers! Your placing all murders in same category.

ArrowLance, the opinion might be cruel, but it will only apply to people who cut the head of 34 victims and skull fucked them all.

Ok, I take the torture back, they are really sick in the mind. So they are technically mentally ill. Maybe dropping them in an isolated island sorrouned by great whites is more humane.

[ArrowLance]

Ok, I take the torture back, they are really sick in the mind. So they are technically mentally ill. Maybe dropping them in an isolated island sorrouned by great whites is more humane.

Instead of completed isolating them and removing them from society. Why not keep them heavily supervised and keep them productive in a labor force? All while rehabilitating them.

[Manifesto]

Many of the people that do that stuff aren't insane just evil and would try to get off on terms of insanity. They should be killed for it even if the victim wasn't related to me because there should be justice.

[mel]

Many of the people that do that stuff aren't insane just evil and would try to get off on terms of insanity. They should be killed for it even if the victim wasn't related to me because there should be justice.

Nobody is "just evil", that's a really superficial, petty, moralistic way of looking at the world.

[Rjevan]

I'd rather force someone to get better over forcing them to die. Therapy against someone's will is better than death against someone's will.
Yes, agreed, but again, forced therapy won't work. Somebody has to listen, cooperate and try to understand if the therapy should be successful and you can't force somebody to do so.


What if you get the wrong guy. How would you feel if it was you wrongly accused? Also, do you believe in imprisonment for all crimes or just for these special cases?
Nah, only for these special cases. If somebody steels a bubble gum in a supermarket, robs a bank without hurting anybody or evades taxes he doesn't need to be imprisoned, these people need help and as already said, such crimes will not happen in a communist society, so there are only the lunatics left, who need to be imprisoned in order to protect society from them.
And no doubt, if somebody is executed wrongly this is a terrible thing and I would go mad if I were to be executed, knowing that I'm not guilty and the real murderer runs around in freedom. But I think with the help of DNA we can get pretty sure about who's guilty and who not and of course a death penalty should be nothing to take easy, it is irreversible and undoubtly evidences for the criminals guilt are necessary; as long as that's not the case he should be imprisoned and further reserches should take place.


No no ones life should be decided by anyone. People do not think completely level headed in these situations and some WILL want them dead. It should not be their decision. This person deserves their life, as does everyone, we need to heal this person so he can get his life back and so that he no longer harms anyone else.
See, this is where our views differ, I say they don't deserve their lives, they ended or messed up the life of others, so they have had their chance, to live a "normal" life, but they decided against this and so they have to pay the price, which was something they had to calculate from the start on.


But surely you understand that crime will be greatly reduced in this society. Therefore murderers and lunatics in my opinion will be "once in a blue moon" sort of thing. I envision a society with very limited levels of crime, therefore everyone possesing arms would be sufficient.
Hm, as long as I'm not the evil guy, becasue I shot somebody who wanted to kill me, instead of trying to talk to him and help him, that would be ok for me. ;)


You have talked about rehabilitation not working on everyone before but I believe it can work on anyone, especially considering the level of crime that is to be expected in Communist society. I guess we'll just have to accept we don't agree.
Yes, your right, I don't think anyone can convince the other, but though I think they are false and a dangerous risk I get your ideas and hopefully you guys understand my points.

[mel]

Yes, agreed, but again, forced therapy won't work. Somebody has to listen, cooperate and try to understand if the therapy should be successful and you can't force somebody to do so.

I thought I had addressed this, but since it keeps coming up, I'll try to be clearer about this. Until the person has been determined to be cured, they will be confined to a secure psychiatric facility and under heavy supervision. You might not be able to force somebody to talk or listen, but unless they want to die in that hospital, it's in their best interest to try to get better or to convince other people that they're better. There will be checks in place to attempt to stop the latter from happening.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Yes, agreed, but again, forced therapy won't work. Somebody has to listen, cooperate and try to understand if the therapy should be successful and you can't force somebody to do so.

I am sure eventually they will come round and accept the treatment.



See, this is where our views differ, I say they don't deserve their lives, they ended or messed up the life of others, so they have had their chance, to live a "normal" life, but they decided against this and so they have to pay the price, which was something they had to calculate from the start on.

I don't think anyone who commits such crimes is in their right mind. I would also add that this person has most likey lived a quite traumatic life, but we disagree towards whether this affects someone. So considering this I think they deserve our help.



Yes, your right, I don't think anyone can convince the other, but though I think they are false and a dangerous risk I get your ideas and hopefully you guys understand my points.

OK, I understand your concern but I honestly feel that execution is inhumane.

[Rjevan]

I thought I had addressed this, but since it keeps coming up, I'll try to be clearer about this. Until the person has been determined to be cured, they will be confined to a secure psychiatric facility and under heavy supervision. You might not be able to force somebody to talk or listen, but unless they want to die in that hospital, it's in their best interest to try to get better or to convince other people that they're better. There will be checks in place to attempt to stop the latter from happening.
But see, your reason why they might agree with a therapy is that "they don't want to die in that hospital", so they are not doing a therapy because they feel like they really need it, or because they regret what they've done, but because they want to be released (and I'm pretty sure they they don't want to be released because they suddenly feel the urgent desire to become friendly gardeners or something like that).
And if somebody is intelligent enough it is pretty easy to find out what they want to hear from you and act like that, it's like your driving teacher asking you "Are you allowed to drive faster than the sign says?" Nobody will answer "Yes, who takes signs seriously!" but many will drive faster. And if you know that you should behave regretful and express that you want to live a normal life, you won't show serious signs of bloodlust or talk about rape fantasies, if you are checked by some psychiatrists on whose decision it depends, if your are set free or not.

[Chambered Word]

I would have killed the sicko myself. If I waited for the system to deal with such a depraved act, shame on me.

[mel]

Assuming the system doesn't find him first. Most acts like we've been talking about are ones that take a lot of detective work to uncover. If you take that work into your own hands, it's very likely that you find and execute an innocent man. Let's face facts here, no society is safe with 300 million vigilantes in charge of giving out justice. If trained detectives find the killer/rapist/etc before you do, you don't have the opportunity to "kill the sicko yourself". If you catch the person in the act, I think "self defense" is applicable. You may use sufficient force to stop the act from occurring or continuing. However, in most cases you won't catch the person in the act, and if you're the one in charge of seeking out revenge, society will be much worse off for it. Random acts of vengeance aren't a strong foundation for a free and safe society.

[#FF0000]

ITT: informed opinion vs. bad, moralistic arguments from internet tuff guise

[RedArmyUK]

I am sure eventually they will come round and accept the treatment.



I don't think anyone who commits such crimes is in their right mind. I would also add that this person has most likey lived a quite traumatic life, but we disagree towards whether this affects someone. So considering this I think they deserve our help.



OK, I understand your concern but I honestly feel that execution is inhumane.

Here captain soft, get your laughing gear round this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1190498/Betrayed-Britain-Tragedy-brilliant-French-students-tortured-psychopath-bars.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031917/Three-charged-murder-17-year-old-boy-tied-tree-forced-drink-petrol-set-alight.html


If you say that this evil scum has the right to live, then you really need to check in to a psychiatric clinic or something.

[#FF0000]

Here captain soft, get your laughing gear round this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1190498/Betrayed-Britain-Tragedy-brilliant-French-students-tortured-psychopath-bars.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031917/Three-charged-murder-17-year-old-boy-tied-tree-forced-drink-petrol-set-alight.html


If you say that this evil scum has the right to live, then you really need to check in to a psychiatric clinic or something.

Appeal to emotion. Use of the word "evil". Sounds like a shitty argument!

[#FF0000]

You guys understand that so long as capital punishment exists, the wrong people will sometimes be sentenced to death, right?

So, so far we have this:

1) life imprisonment is cheaper than capital punishment.
2) With capital punishment comes the inevitability of wrongful execution.
3) There is no evidence that capital punishment does anything to deter violent crime. In fact, all the evidence in the world says that capital punishment has fuck all to do with it.
4) You guys arguing in favor of capital punishment have totally shit arguments that are based 100% in moralism and 0% in fact or sense.

So answer these questions for me.
1) How many wrongful executions can you excuse?
2) How can revenge be a good basis for a justice system?
3) To the anarchists (read: inconsistent hypocrites): How would an anarchist society hand out executions with any degree of certainty? How would this society deal with the "Brutalizing effect"

Can't wait to come back and wade through the sea of rhetorical abortions you call arguments. :)

[RedArmyUK]

Appeal to emotion. Use of the word "evil". Sounds like a shitty argument!



What is shitty about the using the word "evil"?? so if your kid had been made to drink petrol and then set on fire you wouldn,t had seen that as evil?

[mel]

What is shitty about the using the word "evil"?? so if your kid had been made to drink petrol and then set on fire you wouldn,t had seen that as evil?
Evil is a useless, meaningless word you evil scum!

[RedArmyUK]

Evil is a useless, meaningless word you evil scum!

Hang on there son, I think your a little stoned or something, I,m not setting 17 year olds on fire,,

so your "you evil scum!" comment is a bit lost :confused:

[#FF0000]

Hang on there son, I think your a little stoned or something, I,m not setting 17 year olds on fire,,

so your "you evil scum!" comment is a bit lost :confused:

"Evil" is subjective, which is why you can't use it.

So, how about dispute the rest of my post instead of that one word

[RedArmyUK]

"Evil" is subjective, which is why you can't use it.

So, how about dispute the rest of my post instead of that one word

How about, no. I can,t be arsed

My view stands the same,, If your """"Evil""""" e.g setting 17 your olds on fire for fun, then you should be shot.

Its so fucking simple, if you like the idea of letting shit like that live then in my view you are very lost.

This "narrow" view is ONLY for people who kill, Not say for people who do other things

[RedArmyUK]

"Evil" is subjective, which is why you can't use it.

So, how about dispute the rest of my post instead of that one word


What would you call,, setting 17 year old on fire for fun then? if I can,t use a nasty word like "evil"

[mel]

What would you call,, setting 17 year old on fire for fun then? if I can,t use a nasty word like "evil"
I would call that "someone in need of psychiatric care".

Sarcasm is lost on you, sir.

[#FF0000]

^^^^ and evidently, so is sense.



My view stands the same,, If your """"Evil""""" e.g setting 17 your olds on fire for fun, then you should be shot.

Its so fucking simple, if you like the idea of letting shit like that live then in my view you are very lost.

Except it isn't that simple -- things never are. If a community has a policy of using capital punishment, there are conditions that go along with that. So long as a community uses capital punishment, it will be spending more in order to carry out countless appeals before executions. If you say "we should just limit appeals, then!", then you make it even more likely that innocent people will be wrongfully executed, which is already inevitable.

Where's your righteous fury and outrage going to be when an innocent person is put to death for a crime they didn't commit? Or does that not matter, so long as there are people who may be guilty being executed?


How about, no. I can,t be arsed

You can't because your position is baseless.

[Manifesto]

You guys understand that so long as capital punishment exists, the wrong people will sometimes be sentenced to death, right?

So, so far we have this:

1) life imprisonment is cheaper than capital punishment.
2) With capital punishment comes the inevitability of wrongful execution.
3) There is no evidence that capital punishment does anything to deter violent crime. In fact, all the evidence in the world says that capital punishment has fuck all to do with it.
4) You guys arguing in favor of capital punishment have totally shit arguments that are based 100% in moralism and 0% in fact or sense.

So answer these questions for me.
1) How many wrongful executions can you excuse?
2) How can revenge be a good basis for a justice system?
3) To the anarchists (read: inconsistent hypocrites): How would an anarchist society hand out executions with any degree of certainty? How would this society deal with the "Brutalizing effect"

Can't wait to come back and wade through the sea of rhetorical abortions you call arguments. :)
OK there will always be wrongful imprisonment no matter what the punishment is there is no way to prevent that. I also really don't see how capital punishment is more expensive than imprisonment. All you need is a gun, a bullet: done.

[#FF0000]

OK there will always be wrongful imprisonment no matter what the punishment is there is no way to prevent that. I also really don't see how capital punishment is more expensive than imprisonment. All you need is a gun, a bullet: done.

Wrongful imprisonment is, to a degree, reversible. All you have to do is unlock a door. If you kill somebody, there is no going back from that.

And, no, capital punishment isn't that simple. To say that all you need is a gun and a bullet is mind-blowingly naive. There is the bureaucracy to take into consideration. There is the due process of law to take into consideration. It costs money to support all of that, which is there to ensure that executions are handed out correctly and that innocent people are not wrongfully executed.

SOURCES (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty)

But that still happens, and it is inevitable that it will happen, because you are dealing with human beings, and mistakes will, and do, happen.

Since the 70's, in the United States, somewhere around 130 people were let off death row when DNA evidence proved they weren't guilty. Fantastic news for them. However, DNA evidence isn't always available. Had they been just slightly less fortunate, had a detective made a mistake and accidentally destroyed this precious evidence, they would have been killed for crimes they didn't commit.

[Rjevan]

Appeal to emotion.
So? Should I shut down every emotion and act "like a deep-frozen fish" (a Russian TV moderator on Putin)? Is it wrong to hate these criminals because hate is an irrational feeling and I have to realise that moral is just a human created concept? I promise you, if this would happen to anybody you know you would feel an emotion!


"Evil" is subjective, which is why you can't use it.
Aha... so you would call this not evil but a neutral deed of a person who expresses hereby that he needs help urgently? Wow, that's a point of view!


So answer these questions for me.
1) How many wrongful executions can you excuse?
2) How can revenge be a good basis for a justice system?
3) To the anarchists (read: inconsistent hypocrites): How would an anarchist society hand out executions with any degree of certainty? How would this society deal with the "Brutalizing effect"

1.) None. Counterquestion: How many killed/tortured/abused people can you excuse because of some "psychiatric mistake"?
2.) First, what's so bad about revenge, isn't it natural that you want somebody to pay for evi... sorry, horrible deeds? Nobody says that we all should act like some animals with acute rabies or like some mad Sith Lords, but this "way of the Jedi" about every emotion is bad and can't be used as the foundation of a decision, is also not hypocrisis, only those who have nothing personal to do with such cases are able to act totally cold, rational and free of every emotion and if this is the perfect way... I doubt it. Sorry for the Star Wars metaphores.
Second, what's your opinion on "justice". Is it justice if a mass murderer is given any possible excuse for his deeds and nothing is untried to ensure that he get's attention of psychiatrists and a nice comfortable stay in a special clinic (I assume prison or my favoured solution, a labour camp, is not wanted) and every possible help for leading a good life after he's "cured", while the parents and friends of the victim are suffering from their loss?

[#FF0000]

So? Should I shut down every emotion and act "like a deep-frozen fish" (a Russian TV moderator on Putin)? Is it wrong to hate these criminals because hate is an irrational feeling and I have to realise that moral is just a human created concept? I promise you, if this would happen to anybody you know you would feel an emotion!

So?


1.) None. Counterquestion: How many killed/tortured/abused people can you excuse because of some "psychiatric mistake"?If you can't tolerate any wrongful executions, then capital punishment is intolerable, as wrongful executions are inevitable.

And your counter-question is ridiculous, because giving someone a life sentence instead is certainly not "excusing" them.


Is it justice if a mass murderer is given any possible excuse for his deeds and nothing is untried to ensure that he get's attention of psychiatrists and a nice comfortable stay in a special clinic (I assume prison or my favoured solution, a labour camp, is not wanted) and every possible help for leading a good life after he's "cured", while the parents and friends of the victim are suffering from their loss?You mean, "is it justice that a mentally ill man who killed someone is given treatment rather than being executed for committing a crime that he can't be held responsible for"?

Yes. That is justice.

And the reason revenge is not a good basis for justice for the simple fact that the aim of revenge is just to satisfy anger. If you have a justice system based on revenge, it doesn't matter if justice is served or if the right person gets punished, but that somebody gets punished.

[Rjevan]

So?
So these cases appeal to emotion and therefore it's not that absurd that otherpeople's or my arguments partially appeal to emotion. If I'm told that these people are ill and need my help instead of harsh punishment and that innocent people are executed as well, you're appealing to my emotion, too.


If you can't tolerate any wrongful executions, then capital punishment is intolerable, as wrongful executions are inevitable.

And your counter-question is ridiculous, because giving someone a life sentence instead is certainly not "excusing" them.
Ok, if your for life sentence I have no problem with that, as I said before I would prefer some labour camps (no, no Gulags, can't say it often enough) where people who harmed society work for the sake of society, so that they pay something back but prison s ok, too.
I assumed that you're for "healing" them and then releasing them into society, which is calling as much for innocent victims as death sentence.


You mean, "is it justice that a mentally ill man who killed someone is given treatment rather than being executed for committing a crime that he can't be held responsible for"?

Yes. That is justice.
Well, who says that he can't be held responsible for this? If it's that easy and every murder which doesn't happen in the heat of the moment is something them murdere can't be held responsible for, Hitler can't be held responsible for the holocaust. Being mentally ill doesn't mean that you can't be held responsible for you're deeds, we're not talking about 3 year old children who accidentally shot their friends with a gun they thought that it was only a toy, in most cases these people are very well aware of what they've done and they knew that it was against the law and that they harmed and hurted others. So why should they be not responsible? Maybe you could convince me that Ed Gein was that crazy that he didn't realise what he's exactly doing and therefore can't be held responsible but a guys like in the examples before in this thread - no way!

[#FF0000]

Being mentally ill doesn't mean that you can't be held responsible for you're deeds,

That's actually exactly what it means.

[mel]

So these cases appeal to emotion and therefore it's not that absurd that otherpeople's or my arguments partially appeal to emotion. If I'm told that these people are ill and need my help instead of harsh punishment and that innocent people are executed as well, you're appealing to my emotion, too.

There's a difference between having emotions and "Appeal to Emotion" the informal logical fallacy. In short, in informal logic, there are a number of "fallacies" which are often made in argument to draw incorrect conclusions. "Appeal to Emotion" is a fallacy in which instead of making a logical argument, the person uses "loaded" words like "evil" in order to sway the person to their side.

There are people in this thread who, rather than actually confronting the logical arguments, simply rant on about how "evil" this people are and how they need to be "punished". They make no attempt to actually engage the points that are made.

[Rjevan]

That's actually exactly what it means.
So, again: Every single murder and similar crime, which happens not out of a lack of money or for similar reasons that would obviously not exist in a communist/anarchist society anymore, are a sign of mental illness and can therefore not be regarded as evil and it would be totally wrong to condemn them and hold you responsible for them, but they are simply a way of expressing that you have serious problems and need urgent help?
This means that nobody could be held responsible for anything criminal he does anymore and though I know (but don't believe in) the argument that death penalty isn't scaring people off, I grant you that this view would be almost encouraging crimes. "Hey, I just killed a few children, but well, I'm a lunatic, so don't blame me, we all know that lunatics are that way, it's not my fault, right? See, so now be nice to me, take good care of me and pay a lot of attention to me, I seriously need and deserve that, the poor misunderstood creature I am. Isn't it bad enough that I am the way I am? Who would think of a punishment for me, I'm punished enough with the burden of my crime (well, actually it was quite fun but best not to tell that)!" Seriously, is this they way it should be?


"Appeal to Emotion" is a fallacy in which instead of making a logical argument, the person uses "loaded" words like "evil" in order to sway the person to their side.
If your whole argumentation only consists of the fact that these people are evil and that's it, I see what you mean. But if I'm talking about such crimes and using the word evil during my post it is not out of some demagogic tactics, it's simply because I don't know how else to describe their dees. "Expression for an urgent need of help"? "Neutral deed which demonstrates that psychiatric care would be highly appreciated"? "Worrying behaviour of a person who obviously doesn't know what he/she does"? "Not really nice act of a slightly confused member of society"? ... this are watered-down and euphemistic paraphrases, which would put the most unapologetic politician to shame.

[mel]

So, again: Every single murder and similar crime, which happens not out of a lack of money or for similar reasons that would obviously not exist in a communist/anarchist society anymore, are a sign of mental illness and can therefore not be regarded as evil and it would be totally wrong to condemn them and hold you responsible for them, but they are simply a way of expressing that you have serious problems and need urgent help?
This means that nobody could be held responsible for anything criminal he does anymore and though I know (but don't believe in) the argument that death penalty isn't scaring people off, I grant you that this view would be almost encouraging crimes. "Hey, I just killed a few children, but well, I'm a lunatic, so don't blame me, we all know that lunatics are that way, it's not my fault, right? See, so now be nice to me, take good care of me and pay a lot of attention to me, I seriously need and deserve that, the poor misunderstood creature I am. Isn't it bad enough that I am the way I am? Who would think of a punishment for me, I'm punished enough with the burden of my crime (well, actually it was quite fun but best not to tell that)!" Seriously, is this they way it should be?

Nothing is that simple, but in all honesty anybody who gets their "giggles" from murder or torture is obviously ill and needs help. The point is not that there are no consequences for these crimes, but that the consequence is not death. There is no evidence that the death penalty deters these types of crimes (so there is no basis for you saying that eliminating the death penalty would "encourage" crimes). However, the consequence would be confinement in a secure psychiatric facility. These will be different from modern day prisons in that they will be designed with rehabilitation as the foremost goal, and not for punishment. You and I disagree as to whether or not these people can be helped, or how often they will be released without having been cured.

If I can boil down to the crux of this argument, I guess you and I disagree as to which is the greater injustice in the event of inevitable mistakes:

An innocent person executed by a maniac, or
an innocent person executed by the state.

The former is a tragedy to be sure, the system designed to keep them safe has failed them, and the worst imaginable fate befell them. A murderer was loose that shouldn't be, and somebody died because of it.

In the latter case, however. The system still fails them: it catches an innocent man. There is still a murderer loose that shouldn't be, but there is also state murder. The life of one innocent person has been taken from them in the worst possible way, and leading up to it they are stuck in a secure facility. In a society with a state, an apparatus for the murder of its own people now exists, this sets a precedent for the use of that power. In a society with no state, a "privileged class" is created: those with the power to kill on command. For all of the anarchists out there, this is clearly an issue for the "classless, stateless society", because where there is process of law and armed enforcement of those laws, there is a state. Where there is a static group of people in charge of enforcing those laws, you have police who now have a disproportionate amount of power to protect their own interests. And besides all of that: The original murderer is still on the loose, free to kill the person in the former case that they kill after being "cured" and let free.

I think if we assume that mistakes will be made, we do the best to minimize the number of them, it is more forgivable to set free a murderer than to allow the state to kill an innocent person. If the state captures and kills an innocent person, then they still have failed to protect people from the original murderer, and they've murdered someone themselves. If the state sets free a guilty person who is still not cured, then they have failed to protect people from the original murderer, but they have not murdered themselves. To me, there is one clear option, and that is that state-sponsored murder is indefensible.



If your whole argumentation only consists of the fact that these people are evil and that's it, I see what you mean. But if I'm talking about such crimes and using the word evil during my post it is not out of some demagogic tactics, it's simply because I don't know how else to describe their dees. "Expression for an urgent need of help"? "Neutral deed which demonstrates that psychiatric care would be highly appreciated"? "Worrying behaviour of a person who obviously doesn't know what he/she does"? "Not really nice act of a slightly confused member of society"? ... this are watered-down and euphemistic paraphrases, which would put the most unapologetic politician to shame.

The acts can be cruel, brutal, heinous, disgusting, disturbing, distressing or many other numbers of unpleasant words.

The person can be disturbed, deranged, ill, insane, frightening, or many other numbers of unpleasant words.

However, I believe that no person is innately "evil", and the word is a way of dividing a complex world into black and white categories that just don't exist. You haven't done this as much as others, but there have been people that come in with no argument other than "this person is evil, so they need to be punished". There is no such thing as a purely "evil" person. There are many people who do things we'd consider "evil", maybe even people that do more of those things than they do things we consider "good". The first example brought up whenever I say I don't believe there is a such thing as "evil" is Hitler, so I might as well address that before it's brought up:

Hitler was a complicated person who was power hungry to be sure, but also deeply disturbed and ultimately a product of his society as much as anybody else is. I think it completely sidesteps all of the issues when somebody will just blindly categorize Hitler as "evil", without looking into the causes leading up to his development into a world power and the things he did with it. When we ignore the complex parts of the situation, we ignore something that is important: understanding. If we can't understand why and how things happen, we can do nothing to prevent those things from happening in the future.

Black and white, moralistic categories like "good" and "evil" have no place in reasoned debate, and simply aren't helpful in a discussion of ethics. They have no place here.

[Manifesto]

There are such circumstances where killers are obviously not mentally insane. By saying that they all are you are saying that every mobster, every gangster, every soldier is also insane for killing.

[mel]

There are such circumstances where killers are obviously not mentally insane. By saying that they all are you are saying that every mobster, every gangster, every soldier is also insane for killing.

Most of those motives are economic and thus nonapplicable, the soldier example has been dealt with at length. This is a discussion about murder, not "killing". If you don't understand the difference between a soldier and a murderer, we really don't have much else to talk about.

[Rjevan]

An innocent person executed by a maniac, or
an innocent person executed by the state.

The former is a tragedy to be sure, the system designed to keep them safe has failed them, and the worst imaginable fate befell them. A murderer was loose that shouldn't be, and somebody died because of it.

In the latter case, however. The system still fails them: it catches an innocent man. There is still a murderer loose that shouldn't be, but there is also state murder. The life of one innocent person has been taken from them in the worst possible way, and leading up to it they are stuck in a secure facility. In a society with a state, an apparatus for the murder of its own people now exists, this sets a precedent for the use of that power. In a society with no state, a "privileged class" is created: those with the power to kill on command. For all of the anarchists out there, this is clearly an issue for the "classless, stateless society", because where there is process of law and armed enforcement of those laws, there is a state. Where there is a static group of people in charge of enforcing those laws, you have police who now have a disproportionate amount of power to protect their own interests. And besides all of that: The original murderer is still on the loose, free to kill the person in the former case that they kill after being "cured" and let free.
A very good point, indeed! I would go mad if I were to be executed, knowing that I'm not guilty of anything, while the real murdere runs around free, laughing and in safety, because it's likely that the truth is never revealed. And knowing that somebody was killed a few years ago and now it turns out that he was innocent is nothing, which can be seen as some sort of necessary evil. But it's the same with the releasing situation; I would hate a system which kills innocent people through mistakes, while the murderes run free and I would hate a system which fails to keep society safe from people who murdered once and are now given the opportunity to do the same again.


I think if we assume that mistakes will be made, we do the best to minimize the number of them, it is more forgivable to set free a murderer than to allow the state to kill an innocent person. If the state captures and kills an innocent person, then they still have failed to protect people from the original murderer, and they've murdered someone themselves. If the state sets free a guilty person who is still not cured, then they have failed to protect people from the original murderer, but they have not murdered themselves. To me, there is one clear option, and that is that state-sponsored murder is indefensible.
Sure, the state has not murdered themselves in the second case but the result is just the same:
First example: murderer kills somebody, state kills innocent, maybe the murderer gets caught, maybe not.
Second example: murderer kills somebody, state sets him free (one could argue that the state indirectly murderes through releasing a lunatic back into society), he kills an innocent, maybe he gets caught, maybe not and maybe he gets released again...
So you see, we have in each example the first murdere and then a second innocent person is killed, the only difference is that if you would kill murderer,at least this one would never present a threat to anybody anymore.

And for the mistakes: I think in the long run the number of mistakes which cause innocently executed persons will be smaller (thanks to DNA analysis and modern technics) than the mistakes, made by psychiatrists who are tricked by their patients or simply underestimate the danger and mental illness of some murderes. Sure, death penalty is irreversibel but so is a mistake which causes a new murder by an old "healed"patient. I think your chances are better to get cast iron proof that somebody is guilty than guarantee 100% that somebody is healed now and won't kill anymore. But as I said before, life imprisonment or labour camps would be totally alright, too, the main thing is that murderes are never given the chance of harming anyone anymore. ;)


However, I believe that no person is innately "evil", and the word is a way of dividing a complex world into black and white categories that just don't exist. You haven't done this as much as others, but there have been people that come in with no argument other than "this person is evil, so they need to be punished". There is no such thing as a purely "evil" person. There are many people who do things we'd consider "evil", maybe even people that do more of those things than they do things we consider "good". The first example brought up whenever I say I don't believe there is a such thing as "evil" is Hitler, so I might as well address that before it's brought up:

Sure, nobody is born "evil" or is trough and through "pure evil" but after some of their deeds it's really hard to see some people as neutral or simply disturbed. I think some deeds can't be just explained with "disturbed", I heard of "disturbed" murderes, like Gein, again this man was a monster, but ok, maybe he was really that mad that hedidn't knew what he did and didn't mean no harm but I saw murderes sitting in the court, smirking all the time whil the family of the victim burst in tears, after hearing how their son/daughter was killed and the the murdere was at the funeral and things like that. This is through and through disgusting and I would also say these people are evil, no matter what made them become the person they are now, no they simply are vicious.


the soldier example
Soldiers killing in war is something different, but how about these soldiers (http://www.revleft.com/vb/hersh-children-sodomized-t109061/index.html) (scroll a little trough the thread, there's a nice video, amongst other things)? Simply disturbed? Hell yes, so disturbed that they are vicious monsters!

[RedArmyUK]

Hitler can't be held responsible for the holocaust. Being mentally ill doesn't mean that you can't be held responsible for you're deeds, we're not talking about 3 year old children who accidentally shot their friends with a gun they thought that it was only a toy, in most cases these people are very well aware of what they've done and they knew that it was against the law and that they harmed and hurted others. So why should they be not responsible? Maybe you could convince me that Ed Gein was that crazy that he didn't realise what he's exactly doing and therefore can't be held responsible but a guys like in the examples before in this thread - no way!

Nuff said mate,, The Hitler comment says it all :)

[RedArmyUK]

I would call that "someone in need of psychiatric care".

Sarcasm is lost on you, sir.


Oh sorry I forgot, The good old US-of-A is top of the league when it comes to Sarcasm. :blink:

I tip my hat to you for pointing out we in little old England don,t understand it.
Thank You

[NecroCommie]

Summary executions for the bourgeoisie!!! :thumbup1: