Abortion vs Death penalty

[cappiej]

I'm new here, but as my username should let you know I'm a capitalist and by my own admission rather extreme, but my question here doesn't relate at all to the role of capital in society, although I'm sure someone will try to introduce "social inequality" into the debate.

I consider myself a libertarian, free marketer and I support the death penalty but not abortion. I support the death penalty because I believe its a legitimate, and the only appropriate, punishment for maliciously, willfully and unlawfully taking another person's life but I oppose abortion on related grounds.

If one is to have sovereignty over one's own life is it fair that someone should be able to decide before a child is born whether or not it should live? Unlike with those condemned to death by a court of law, excluding political prisoners of course, who made a conscious decision to rob an innocent person of life the foetuses that are aborted never asked to be killed.

Most libertarians frame abortion in terms of the encroachment upon the life of the mother, I view it in terms of encroachment upon the life, or potential life, of the foetus.

Anyway, my question is this.

If you are one of those people who believes murderers don't deserve to die but unborn children do, could you explain why? I'm being serious, I want to know why.

[Havet]

I'm new here, but as my username should let you know I'm a capitalist and by my own admission rather extreme, but my question here doesn't relate at all to the role of capital in society, although I'm sure someone will try to introduce "social inequality" into the debate.

I consider myself a libertarian, free marketer and I support the death penalty but not abortion. I support the death penalty because I believe its a legitimate, and the only appropriate, punishment for maliciously, willfully and unlawfully taking another person's life but I oppose abortion on related grounds.

If one is to have sovereignty over one's own life is it fair that someone should be able to decide before a child is born whether or not it should live? Unlike with those condemned to death by a court of law, excluding political prisoners of course, who made a conscious decision to rob an innocent person of life the foetuses that are aborted never asked to be killed.

Most libertarians frame abortion in terms of the encroachment upon the life of the mother, I view it in terms of encroachment upon the life, or potential life, of the foetus.

Anyway, my question is this.

If you are one of those people who believes murderers don't deserve to die but unborn children do, could you explain why? I'm being serious, I want to know why.

If unborn children do not deserve to die, and if you try to remove a cancerous tumor from your body, then i'll protest you and say: "STOP PLAYING GOD"

Also I don't get it where you get the "most libertarians frame abortion". Most libertarians i've seen are against a state saying what women can or can't do to their bodies.

[cappiej]

If unborn children do not deserve to die, and if you try to remove a cancerous tumor from your body, then i'll protest you and say: "STOP PLAYING GOD"

Also I don't get it where you get the "most libertarians frame abortion". Most libertarians i've seen are against a state saying what women can or can't do to their bodies.

Its not just their bodies is it? Its someone's life, or potential life.

As I said, most libertarians support abortion because they see it as simply a matter of someone ruling on what a woman can do with her body. If it was simply a matter of someone wanting to do something to their body that would not harm anyone else I wouldn't care, but its not.

[Havet]

Its not just their bodies is it? Its someone's life, or potential life.

Sperm is potential life. Should we prevent males from masturbating and waste potential babies?

Cancerous tumor IS life: it's a collection of cells, and i think we can agree cells are, although primitive, valid forms of life. Should we prevent people from removing them?

EDIT: also most abortions occur in a stage where the baby hasn't developed its central nervous system and is thus incapable of feeling pain, at least how we feel it.

[cappiej]

Sperm is potential life. Should we prevent males from masturbating and waste potential babies?

Cancerous tumor IS life: it's a collection of cells, and i think we can agree cells are, although primitive, valid forms of life. Should we prevent people from removing them?

EDIT: also most abortions occur in a stage where the baby hasn't developed its central nervous system and is thus incapable of feeling pain, at least how we feel it.

Sorry, I meant human life, terrible typo.

Yes, I agree with removing tumours as they are not human life in my view.

[Havet]

Sorry, I meant human life, terrible typo.

Yes, I agree with removing tumours as they are not human life in my view.

so what about sperm? its potential human life after all. You still need an "egg", but they are both potential.

[cappiej]

so what about sperm? its potential human life after all. You still need an "egg", but they are both potential.

Well, I have two choices, I can lie and say we should outlaw masturbation just to prove my point and not lose face or I can admit I framed my question badly and left it wide open for people to jump in on.

Also, the question isn't being answered, there are all these distractions, like sperm and the tumour, I never brought into the equation anything other than abortion.

[Bud Struggle]

so what about sperm? its potential human life after all. You still need an "egg", but they are both potential.

Exactly 1/2 of all that matters to be human life.

(Unless you're a feminist and it 98/100 of all that matters. :lol:)

[Demogorgon]

I oppose the Death Penalty because it is cold blooded murder.

I support abortion rights because complete reproductive freedom is a necessary part of complete gender equality. Unlike a condemned person, a fetus is not an independently existing being, having not yet been born, is not going to leave people bereaved by dying, is not going to experience the terror of waiting for death and so on.

Most abortions happen in very early stages of pregnancy anyway, when it really is just a case of expelling a number of cells. You can not compare that to killing a full person.

[cappiej]

I oppose the Death Penalty because it is cold blooded murder.

I support abortion rights because complete reproductive freedom is a necessary part of complete gender equality. Unlike a condemned person, a fetus is not an independently existing being, having not yet been born, is not going to leave people bereaved by dying, is not going to experience the terror of waiting for death and so on.

Most abortions happen in very early stages of pregnancy anyway, when it really is just a case of expelling a number of cells. You can not compare that to killing a full person.

Its cold blooded murder? Yeah, you say that, have you ever lost anyone to a murderer?

Its pure justice in my view.

Maybe the terror of waiting for death is something they had ought to feel, after the agony they have subjected the victim and the victim's family to.

[Demogorgon]

Its cold blooded murder? Yeah, you say that, have you ever lost anyone to a murderer?

Its pure justice in my view.

Maybe the terror of waiting for death is something they had ought to feel, after the agony they have subjected the victim and the victim's family to.Yes I have. And I don't imagine it feels any better to loose someone to judicial murder than it does to any other form.

[Havet]

Also, the question isn't being answered, there are all these distractions, like sperm and the tumour, I never brought into the equation anything other than abortion.

the original question was why do fetuses deserve to die. And i said they don't "deserve" nothing, it's the mother who is carrying the fetus that has the responsibility and legitimacy of deciding what to do with her body.

the sperm example is an example of how "killing" living things that can be a potential human life isn't a basis for your argument that its not the mother's choice.

[cappiej]

Yes I have. And I don't imagine it feels any better to loose someone to judicial murder than it does to any other form.

Maybe not for YOU, but how about other murder victim's families whose only bit of consolation is that the animal who took away their loved one will be put to death? Do you want to deprive them of that?

[Havet]

Maybe the terror of waiting for death is something they had ought to feel, after the agony they have subjected the victim and the victim's family to.

maybe the terror of waiting for death would be greater in a life sentence.

[Demogorgon]

Maybe not for YOU, but how about other murder victim's families whose only bit of consolation is that the animal who took away their loved one will be put to death? Do you want to deprive them of that?
That isn't comfort. Killing more people doesn't make the dead come back and bereaving more families will not help those already bereaved.

[revolution inaction]

even if we ignore the issues of a woman's freedom to control her own body and whether killing a murderer is any kind of justice, the fact is that a unborn human and even a new born is not a person, so killing it is not at all like killing a child or adult.
whereas executing murders inevitably means killing innocent people as well as the guilty.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

''I support the death penalty because I believe its a legitimate, and the only appropriate, punishment for maliciously, willfully and unlawfully taking another person's life.''

Do you believe murder is acceptable? The death penalty is murder and it really is as simple as that. How on earth is killing a human being an appropriate punishment for anything? Rehabilitation may be possible, but if you kill someone then you'll never know. A large number of serial killers have serious mental health problems. It can be argued that prison is actually a worse punishment than the death penalty; in prisons people have to spend their entire lives in horrible circumstances but when they're dead they're not experiencing anything. What about the person who carries out the executions of the criminals? Someone can murder a person and be murdered, but someone can murder twelve murderers and get money for it. I don't understand. And perhaps one of the strongest arguments against the death penalty - innocent people have been sentenced and because the justice system is fallible, it will happen again. Nobody deserves to die for a crime they didn't even commit.

Is it fair that someone should be able to decide before a child is born whether or not it should live? Who made a conscious decision to rob an innocent person of life the foetuses that are aborted never asked to be killed. If you are one of those people who believes murderers don't deserve to die but unborn children do, could you explain why?

It is fair because it is the mother who is carrying the foetus. It is her decision and nobody else's. Who are you to tell someone who is already alive what to do with some cells in their body? Foetuses are not killed - they have never been born. Someone has to be alive before they can be dead. Yes, it is stopping a potential life, but the mother is already alive and it's stopping her basic human right to be able to make a choice. What if the child was going to be severely disabled, or would die anyway soon after birth? What if the mother was raped? Would you force her to go through the added trauma of having her attacker's baby just to preserve an undeveloped embryo? Every day there are millions of 'potential' lives that are ended when an egg isn't fertilised. If you made abortion illegal that wouldn't stop it from happening, you know? It would only make it more dangerous. Bringing an unwanted child into the world isn't necessarily something that that child will grow up to thank you for either. Because the vast majority of abortions happen in the very early stages, most of the 'lives' are no more alive than the hundreds of tiny organisms you kill every day just by moving and walking around in the park.

[cappiej]

''I support the death penalty because I believe its a legitimate, and the only appropriate, punishment for maliciously, willfully and unlawfully taking another person's life.''

Do you believe murder is acceptable? The death penalty is murder and it really is as simple as that. How on earth is killing a human being an appropriate punishment for anything? Rehabilitation may be possible, but if you kill someone then you'll never know. A large number of serial killers have serious mental health problems. It can be argued that prison is actually a worse punishment than the death penalty; in prisons people have to spend their entire lives in horrible circumstances but when they're dead they're not experiencing anything. What about the person who carries out the executions of the criminals? Someone can murder a person and be murdered, but someone can murder twelve murderers and get money for it. I don't understand. And perhaps one of the strongest arguments against the death penalty - innocent people have been sentenced and because the justice system is fallible, it will happen again. Nobody deserves to die for a crime they didn't even commit.

Is it fair that someone should be able to decide before a child is born whether or not it should live? Who made a conscious decision to rob an innocent person of life the foetuses that are aborted never asked to be killed. If you are one of those people who believes murderers don't deserve to die but unborn children do, could you explain why?

It is fair because it is the mother who is carrying the foetus. It is her decision and nobody else's. Who are you to tell someone who is already alive what to do with some cells in their body? Foetuses are not killed - they have never been born. Someone has to be alive before they can be dead. Yes, it is stopping a potential life, but the mother is already alive and it's stopping her basic human right to be able to make a choice. What if the child was going to be severely disabled, or would die anyway soon after birth? What if the mother was raped? Would you force her to go through the added trauma of having her attacker's baby just to preserve an undeveloped embryo? Every day there are millions of 'potential' lives that are ended when an egg isn't fertilised. If you made abortion illegal that wouldn't stop it from happening, you know? It would only make it more dangerous. Bringing an unwanted child into the world isn't necessarily something that that child will grow up to thank you for either. Because the vast majority of abortions happen in the very early stages, most of the 'lives' are no more alive than the hundreds of tiny organisms you kill every day just by moving and walking around in the park.

I don't think people who are murderers deserve to be rehabilitated.

If you murder someone, that person is never coming back, their family will never get them back, so why should you ever be released? Allowed to regain your freedom while your victims still suffer? That's just shitting on a group of people who are already suffering, like I said it could well be the only consoling thing they have, to know the person responsible will suffer terribly for what they did, why do you seek to deprive them of that?

Also, if you murder and are executed you have no-one to blame but yourself, you chose to take an innocent person's life knowing full well the punishment that is prescribed for it where you live. Unlike a foetus who never agreed to anything.

I don't know if it should always be the punishment, that would depend upon the wishes of the victim's family, but it should definitely be available to sentencers.

[Demogorgon]

You still haven't explained to us why the murderer's family should be bereaved. Nor for that matter why you think it is good for a victim's family to have the murderer killed. It can actually be very unhealthy psychologically. And above all, why do you think the wishes of the victims family should set the punishment. This is not Sharia Law. A balanced justice system must remain impartial.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

Yes, the families must suffer and my sympathies will always be with them but at the same time, if the only consoling thing is knowing that another person is suffering...well...there's something wrong with that.

You are right that the family will never get the victim back, so therefore there is no reason to kill the criminal because it would make no difference to their situation. They're not going to suddenly become happy because someone else has died. And what about the family of the murderer? Yes, that person has done terrible things but his or her family haven't. Why leave two families grieving?

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

Oops, didn't realise Demogorgon made a similar point above!

[cappiej]

You still haven't explained to us why the murderer's family should be bereaved. Nor for that matter why you think it is good for a victim's family to have the murderer killed. It can actually be very unhealthy psychologically. And above all, why do you think the wishes of the victims family should set the punishment. This is not Sharia Law. A balanced justice system must remain impartial.

The murderer chose for his family to be bereaved when he committed the murder, if they want to take it up with anyone they should take it up with him or her.

I think its only fair that they decide the punishment, it is, after all, they who suffer the brunt of the consequences of the crime, the victim is deceased and while society in general will suffer its suffering will be nowhere near that of the victim's family.

A balanced justice system would see, "Right, this guy murdered someone, let's see how he likes it". May sound cavalier but I think most people in the UK would support the death penalty for at least some murderers.

[Demogorgon]

The murderer chose for his family to be bereaved when he committed the murder, if they want to take it up with anyone they should take it up with him or her.

I think its only fair that they decide the punishment, it is, after all, they who suffer the brunt of the consequences of the crime, the victim is deceased and while society in general will suffer its suffering will be nowhere near that of the victim's family.

A balanced justice system would see, "Right, this guy murdered someone, let's see how he likes it". May sound cavalier but I think most people in the UK would support the death penalty for at least some murderers.
So you are calling for Sharia Law? Indeed perhaps a more extreme form of it (Sharia at least places restrictions on maximum sentences).

[cappiej]

Yes, the families must suffer and my sympathies will always be with them but at the same time, if the only consoling thing is knowing that another person is suffering...well...there's something wrong with that.

You are right that the family will never get the victim back, so therefore there is no reason to kill the criminal because it would make no difference to their situation. They're not going to suddenly become happy because someone else has died. And what about the family of the murderer? Yes, that person has done terrible things but his or her family haven't. Why leave two families grieving?

Well by that rationale, let's not punish any crimes, after all it won't correct them. In fact, why outlaw them at all, lets all do as we please.........

I think its perfectly psychologically healthy to want to see someone who killed a loved one die. Retribution is natural, its even a stated aim of sentencing in this country, which is why it shocks me that we pay lip service to retribution and yet get rid of any punishments remotely resembling it.

The family of the murderer will suffer, but it will be the murderer's fault for committing the murder in the first place.

Ultimately, its up to them not to commit a murder.

I have no intention to committ a murder, ergo I have no reason to fear death being a punishment for it. The only people who have reason to fear the death penalty being implemented as a punishment for murder are potential murderers.

[cappiej]

So you are calling for Sharia Law? Indeed perhaps a more extreme form of it (Sharia at least places restrictions on maximum sentences).

No, I'm not a Muslim and thus do not want Sharia law.

I want criminals to suffer at least as much as their victims, most victims would probably agree with me.

[Demogorgon]

I have no intention to committ a murder, ergo I have no reason to fear death being a punishment for it. The only people who have reason to fear the death penalty being implemented as a punishment for murder are potential murderers.
How do you know you will never commit murder? The fact that you have such a blase view of killing those you see as deserving it indicates to me that all it would take for you to kill would be an unfortunate combination of a few drinks and meeting someone you thought deserved to be killed.

[Demogorgon]

No, I'm not a Muslim and thus do not want Sharia law.

I want criminals to suffer at least as much as their victims, most victims would probably agree with me.You are calling for a sentencing system identical to that of Sharia Law therefore I fail to see how what you desire is different. Of course it sounds to me that you would go even further, but we don't need to go into that right now.

You still have not given any good reason why the families of victims should be allowed to set punishment. The fact that they might like to is not good enough. The fact you like the idea of causing further suffering doesn't count for much either. If that is the sort of thinking that appeals to you, you might as well call for the abolition of courts and a return to the old Norse System of blood feuds!

You are getting a bit confused about murder and why it is wrong, I think. You seem to think that it is almost a gateway to let us unleash our more base fantasies on those who we believe have murdered rather than something that is a terrible crime that requires moral condemnation on all those who commit it, whether they think their victims are bad people or not.

[Il Medico]

Exactly 1/2 of all that matters to be human life.

(Unless you're a feminist and it 98/100 of all that matters. :lol:)
Do you have any idea what feminism is or are you just talking out your ass like usual?

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

The murderer chose for his family to be bereaved when he committed the murder.

Yes but the family didn't. So that means that more people will suffer due to the actions of the murderer.

I think its perfectly psychologically healthy to want to see someone who killed a loved one die.

Just because it is a common psychological response that doesn't mean they should be able to decide the criminal's punishment. The law shouldn't base punishments on the wishes of people who are bereft and in the middle of an extreme state of mental and emotional distress.

The only people who have reason to fear the death penalty being implemented as a punishment for murder are potential murderers.

I hate saying this, but in a way everyone is a potential murderer. Everyone is physically capable of harming another person and nobody can predict what their state of mind will be like in the future, which is why I bring back the argument of mental illness into the discussion. By putting everyone who has killed someone under the same heading you are undermining the complexity of the human mind and behaviour. It's not that black and white.

Well by that rationale, let's not punish any crimes, after all it won't correct them. In fact, why outlaw them at all, lets all do as we please.........

No. Prison serves a purpose. Prison keeps the people who make the world unsafe behind bars and it is an adequate punishment for anyone. Anything beyond that is just gratuitous.

[cappiej]

How do you know you will never commit murder? The fact that you have such a blase view of killing those you see as deserving it indicates to me that all it would take for you to kill would be an unfortunate combination of a few drinks and meeting someone you thought deserved to be killed.

Well, firstly I don't drink and secondly unless someone is walking down the street with MURDERER tattooed on their forehead I don't think I'd feel they should be killed.

[Robert]

If you are one of those people who believes murderers don't deserve to die but unborn children do

The predicate of your question makes debate difficult; there are opponents of the death penalty who oppose on grounds having nothing to do with what the defendant "deserves," and proponents of abortion rights who are appalled when an abortion occurs, but who still support the right of choice as a matter of the woman's bodily integrity.

I find the death penalty understandable and deserved in almost every case where it is imposed. Opponents should bear in mind that it's never imposed for a simple killing or rape; it's always for a killing plus particularly aggravating circumstances, such as rape followed by strangulation of a small child.

That said, I still oppose it in most cases for different reasons: one has to do with mental illness, and the other deals with erroneous identification.

Mental illness: Just as Joan of Arc may have appeared to be a heretic to her medieval English judges, but may instead have been a simple undiagnosed schizophrenic who heard voices generated by her own diseased brain, today's ultra violent killers may be suffering from a mental illness that science cannot yet identify. I don't want to take the chance that the defendant who committed a horrible offense suffered hideous abuse a a child that caused traumatic brain damage that we can't yet detect and for which there are no witnesses.

But here's a bigger problem: there have been almost 20 persons freed from death row, in my state alone, because DNA testing, unavailable at the time of their trial, proves that they could not have been the person who committed the offense.

What do you say to his family after you execute the wrong man?

[cappiej]

The murderer chose for his family to be bereaved when he committed the murder.

Yes but the family didn't. So that means that more people will suffer due to the actions of the murderer.

I think its perfectly psychologically healthy to want to see someone who killed a loved one die.

Just because it is a common psychological response that doesn't mean they should be able to decide the criminal's punishment. The law shouldn't base punishments on the wishes of people who are bereft and in the middle of an extreme state of mental and emotional distress.

The only people who have reason to fear the death penalty being implemented as a punishment for murder are potential murderers.

I hate saying this, but in a way everyone is a potential murderer. Everyone is physically capable of harming another person and nobody can predict what their state of mind will be like in the future, which is why I bring back the argument of mental illness into the discussion. By putting everyone who has killed someone under the same heading you are undermining the complexity of the human mind and behaviour. It's not that black and white.

Well by that rationale, let's not punish any crimes, after all it won't correct them. In fact, why outlaw them at all, lets all do as we please.........

No. Prison serves a purpose. Prison keeps the people who make the world unsafe behind bars and it is an adequate punishment for anyone. Anything beyond that is just gratuitous.

Its not an adequate punishment, if it was horrible then they would do one stretch inside and never go back.

I think the punishment must reflect the crime.

People will suffer due to the murderer's actions, well take that issue up with him. They will likely suffer if he goes to prison, he won't be earning any money so they'll be poor.

[Demogorgon]

You are going to meet some not very nice people in this life, some of whom you will think ought to be dead. With your casual disregard for life and tendency towards cruelty, I do see you as being the sort of person who may go to far. There are no shortage of murderers who think their victims deserved it after all.

My point though is, the kind of mentality you are showing is exactly what leads people to murder.

[cappiej]

The predicate of your question makes debate difficult; there are opponents of the death penalty who oppose on grounds having nothing to do with what the defendant "deserves," and proponents of abortion rights who are appalled when an abortion occurs, but who still support the right of choice as a matter of the woman's bodily integrity.

I find the death penalty understandable and deserved in almost every case where it is imposed. Opponents should bear in mind that it's never imposed for a simple killing or rape; it's always for a killing plus particularly aggravating circumstances, such as rape followed by strangulation of a small child.

That said, I still oppose it in most cases for different reasons: one has to do with mental illness, and the other deals with erroneous identification.

Mental illness: Just as Joan of Arc may have appeared to be a heretic to her medieval English judges, but may instead have been a simple undiagnosed schizophrenic who heard voices generated by her own diseased brain, today's ultra violent killers may be suffering from a mental illness that science cannot yet identify. I don't want to take the chance that the defendant who committed a horrible offense suffered hideous abuse a a child that caused traumatic brain damage that we can't yet detect and for which there are no witnesses.

But here's a bigger problem: there have been almost 20 persons freed from death row, in my state alone, because DNA testing, unavailable at the time of their trial, proves that they could not have been the person who committed the offense.

What do you say to his family after you execute the wrong man?

I'd say, blame the real murderer's who made the system of execution necessary. Actually I don't know what I'd say and I hope I'm never in that position.

Evidence is a big issue, but I do think if you're not SO 100% sure that someone is guilty of a crime as you would be happy to inflict upon him an irreversible punishment then you should find him not guilty.

[cappiej]

You are going to meet some not very nice people in this life, some of whom you will think ought to be dead. With your casual disregard for life and tendency towards cruelty, I do see you as being the sort of person who may go to far. There are no shortage of murderers who think their victims deserved it after all.

My point though is, the kind of mentality you are showing is exactly what leads people to murder.

WOW, I've been on this forum 5 minutes and cause I'm a little right wing I'm a potential murderer???

I have a tendency toward cruelty for those who are cruel. Its called justice.

Firstly I follow the law, it GENERALLY serves its purpose, after all I don't suffer crime 99 days out of 100 so it must be doing something right, secondly I'm not going to hang around people who I think deserve death.

[Demogorgon]

I find the death penalty understandable and deserved in almost every case where it is imposed. Opponents should bear in mind that it's never imposed for a simple killing or rape; it's always for a killing plus particularly aggravating circumstances, such as rape followed by strangulation of a small child.

More often than not, the imposition of the death penalty in America depends on the skill of the defence lawyer rather than anything else plus whoever the accused may be (if you are a black male you better watch out...) but that is beside the point. Maybe people who do particularly awful things deserve to die (and I include implementing capital punishment in the category of "particularly awful things) but why should we then kill them? I believe murder to be wrong, I think of it as a really quite awful thing, so why on earth should I then say "oh it is acceptable if I want revenge against someone". If I am going to maintain the moral high ground I can hardly call for killing myself, can I?

Of course, even besides the moral objections to the death penalty there are the practical ones you mention plus the fact that it has a brutalising effect on society. And as I have pointed out with some concern, people like the OP, who have such a lurid desire to kill those they see as deserving it are precisely the sort of people who are potential murderers themselves.

Back in medieval times it was not unheard of for pretty dodgy individuals to be given jobs as executioners as it was thought that at least that way they would be able to channel their desire to kill into legal avenues :lol:

[cappiej]

And as I have pointed out with some concern, people like the OP, who have such a lurid desire to kill those they see as deserving it are precisely the sort of people who are potential murderers themselves.

That's like me saying everyone who agrees with imprisonment is a potential kidnapper, its poor logic pal.

[cappiej]

More often than not, the imposition of the death penalty in America depends on the skill of the defence lawyer rather than anything else plus whoever the accused may be (if you are a black male you better watch out...) but that is beside the point. Maybe people who do particularly awful things deserve to die (and I include implementing capital punishment in the category of "particularly awful things) but why should we then kill them? I believe murder to be wrong, I think of it as a really quite awful thing, so why on earth should I then say "oh it is acceptable if I want revenge against someone". If I am going to maintain the moral high ground I can hardly call for killing myself, can I?

Of course, even besides the moral objections to the death penalty there are the practical ones you mention plus the fact that it has a brutalising effect on society. And as I have pointed out with some concern, people like the OP, who have such a lurid desire to kill those they see as deserving it are precisely the sort of people who are potential murderers themselves.

Back in medieval times it was not unheard of for pretty dodgy individuals to be given jobs as executioners as it was thought that at least that way they would be able to channel their desire to kill into legal avenues :lol:

In Texas, which executes more people than anywhere else, a defendant can choose to have either the jury or the judge set the punishment, I think it works the same in capital cases, so they can take advantage of whoever they think will be most sympathetic.

Black men are executed more than Whites but they commit more crimes in general so its likely, also, a study done on sentencing in Alabama found that juries tended to be more partial to Whites and judges tended to be more partial to Blacks when sentencing.

[Demogorgon]

WOW, I've been on this forum 5 minutes and cause I'm a little right wing I'm a potential murderer???

I have a tendency toward cruelty for those who are cruel. Its called justice.

Firstly I follow the law, it GENERALLY serves its purpose, after all I don't suffer crime 99 days out of 100 so it must be doing something right, secondly I'm not going to hang around people who I think deserve death.
I didn't say you were a potential murderer because you are "a little right-wing" but because you have such a frightening desire to inflict pain and death on people you think deserve it.

I certainly do not see how one can regard justice as inflicting cruelty. As soon as any "justice" system turns into something where can can inflict our more base fantasies of causing pain on others then it becomes nothing more than the modern version of a Viking blood feud. You might want a society built on violence. I want a civilised one.

And you are very naive if you think you will never run into very nasty people. We don't have the luxury of vetting everyone we will ever meet.

[Plagueround]

Do you have any idea what feminism is or are you just talking out your ass like usual?

Tom is here to provoke, not to think. I'll leave it to the individual to determine whether that's a good thing or not.

[Demogorgon]

That's like me saying everyone who agrees with imprisonment is a potential kidnapper, its poor logic pal.
No it isn't. I did not claim that anybody who ever supported the death penalty was a potential murderer (though I do think there is something gravely wrong with their moral compass), rather I think that someone with such a lurid desire to cause pain to others is very much a potential killer, whether they rationalise it by saying it is "justice" or not.

In Texas, which executes more people than anywhere else, a defendant can choose to have either the jury or the judge set the punishment, I think it works the same in capital cases, so they can take advantage of whoever they think will be most sympathetic.

Black men are executed more than Whites but they commit more crimes in general so its likely, also, a study done on sentencing in Alabama found that juries tended to be more partial to Whites and judges tended to be more partial to Blacks when sentencing.
A Jury must always set a death sentence in America.

Anyway a black person is statistically more likely to face death than a white person. This is not about who commits more crimes, but who is most likely to get a more severe punishment.

I think it is pretty certain that such a system, inclined as it is to cruelty, will also tend to racism.

[cappiej]

I didn't say you were a potential murderer because you are "a little right-wing" but because you have such a frightening desire to inflict pain and death on people you think deserve it.

I certainly do not see how one can regard justice as inflicting cruelty. As soon as any "justice" system turns into something where can can inflict our more base fantasies of causing pain on others then it becomes nothing more than the modern version of a Viking blood feud. You might want a society built on violence. I want a civilised one.

And you are very naive if you think you will never run into very nasty people. We don't have the luxury of vetting everyone we will ever meet.

No, but we can choose not to associate with those we dislike, or keep communication to a minimum if complete disassociation is not viable (eg in a work or school situation).

No, you're right, you can't vet people but you can improve your odds of meeting decent people. Don't hang around dodgy places, don't participate in activities which attract dodgy people and stick with what you know. Our social prejudices do act as a sort of sieve, if you see someone who looks like a thug, but who may not be one, you cross the street, yes you've just discriminated against someone but it could have stopped you getting mugged.

[GPDP]

Next you'll tell us you support torture. I wouldn't be at all surprised.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

People will suffer due to the murderer's actions, well take that issue up with him. They will likely suffer if he goes to prison, he won't be earning any money so they'll be poor.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you talking about the family of the prisoner or society as a whole? It wouldn't be out of the question for him/her to be given a job whilst in prison if that is going to be such an issue, and there are lots of people who are not in prison and don't earn any money, so it's not as though one person being in imprisoned suddenly makes everyone else poor. If he/she is dead then there's definitely no chance of earning money!


Back in medieval times it was not unheard of for pretty dodgy individuals to be given jobs as executioners as it was thought that at least that way they would be able to channel their desire to kill into legal avenues :lol:

Which brings up another question: What differentiates the executioner from the murderer? They have both killed someone.

[ArrowLance]

Maybe not for YOU, but how about other murder victim's families whose only bit of consolation is that the animal who took away their loved one will be put to death? Do you want to deprive them of that?

MAYBE NOT FOR YOU! But how about that victim whose only bit of consolation is that the animal who cussed him out be put to death? Do you want to deprive them of that?

But really, yes I do want to deprive them of that.

[ArrowLance]

WOW, I've been on this forum 5 minutes and cause I'm a little right wing I'm a potential murderer???

I have a tendency toward cruelty for those who are cruel. Its called justice.

Firstly I follow the law, it GENERALLY serves its purpose, after all I don't suffer crime 99 days out of 100 so it must be doing something right, secondly I'm not going to hang around people who I think deserve death.

If cruelty is justice, fuck it.

[Demogorgon]

Which brings up another question: What differentiates the executioner from the murderer? They have both killed someone.
Yeah, that really gets me too. Somebody who volunteers to kill for payment is a pretty sick individual frankly. An Australian newspaper managed to interview Singapore's chief Executioner a few years ago and he boasted of having killed over 500 people (and on one occasion 18 in one day).

Think about that a moment. Harold Shipman who is thought to have been the worst known serial killer killed around 350 people. Put that in perspective.

[Robert]

why should we then kill them?

That's a question for each jury to address in each individual case; it's not a good question to ask in deciding whether to include the death penalty as an option. And the juries who do vote for death can articulate plenty of reasons for their decision. Obviously they aren't satisfactory to categorical opponents of the death penalty.

As for whether blacks get the death penalty more than whites, that's a complex question and studies have revealed interesting stats:


Race and sentencing is another subject that the study shed light on. Conventional wisdom holds that African Americans constitute a disproportionately large share of those on death row, noted the authors. The study did reveal that the higher the proportion of murders by African Americans, the higher the proportion of African Americans on death row. However, it also showed that African-American murder defendants represent 50 percent of all murder defendants in the United States, but comprise only 40 percent of those on death row, and the gap is even greater where least expected -- in the South.

"Death row's racial disparity, however, is not the result of race-neutral application of the death penalty or a perverse form of affirmative action," they wrote, but rather a "racial hierarchy" that stems in part from prosecutors' reluctance to seek death in cases involving black defendants and victims and eagerness to seek death in cases involving black defendants and white victims. Because the murder victims of black offenders are nearly always black, this "reluctance to seek the death sentence when the victim is black reduces the number of blacks in general on death row and more than offsets prosecutors' propensity to seek death sentences for blacks who murder whites," they wrote.

Black defendants who murder white victims continue to receive the highest rate of death sentences across the board; whites who murder whites receive the second highest; whites who murder blacks receive the third highest; and blacks who murder blacks receive the lowest, the authors noted. "The existence of a broad race-of-defendant effect, found here in different death sentence rates for black defendant-white victim cases has been virtually undetectable in more that 50 previous empirical studies," they wrote.


http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicle/04/2.26.04/death_penalty_study.html

Interesting, no? If you are a white who murders a black person, you are more likely to get the death penalty in the USA than if you are a black! The race of the victim is thus as great a driver of death penalty stats as is the race of the defendant.

[Demogorgon]

That's a question for each jury to address in each individual case; it's not a good question to ask in deciding whether to include the death penalty as an option. And the juries who do vote for death can articulate plenty of reasons for their decision. Obviously they aren't satisfactory to categorical opponents of the death penalty.
Well as a categorical opponent of the Death Penalty I do not accept that it is a question for each Jury. To me it is an option that should never be offered. Fortunately the case in almost all Western countries-America being the exception.

It is a huge jump from the view that some people don't deserve life to the view that it is acceptable to empower people to kill them and to thus legally sanction murder. It is pure barbarism.


As for whether blacks get the death penalty more than whites, that's a complex question and studies have revealed interesting stats:

http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicle/04/2.26.04/death_penalty_study.html

Interesting, no? If you are a white who murders a black person, you are more likely to get the death penalty in the USA than if you are a black! The race of the victim is thus as great a driver of death penalty stats as is the race of the defendant.
Well that is well enough known. If a black person kills a white person a racist prosecutor and Jury has the maximum desire to seek full revenge.

[Robert]

What differentiates the executioner from the murderer? They have both killed someone.

No difference, eh? Consider these categories:

1. Child rapist who buries his victims alive and sells videos of the rape and burial on the internet.

2. Resistance fighter in WWII who blows up a German train carrying weapons to the front.

3. The executioner of #1.

4. The drunk driver who passes out while driving, crosses the center line, and kills the driver of an oncoming car.

5. Homeowner with small children who shoots a burglar entering his home.

6. Battered wife who shoots husband after 20 years of daily beatings.

And on and on. Each has killed someone. You see all 6 as morally identical?

[Demogorgon]

No difference, eh? Consider these categories:

1. Child rapist who buries his victims alive and sells videos of the rape and burial on the internet.

2. Resistance fighter in WWII who blows up a German train carrying weapons to the front.

3. The executioner of #1.

4. The drunk driver who passes out while driving, crosses the center line, and kills the driver of an oncoming car.

5. Homeowner with small children who shoots a burglar entering his home.

6. Battered wife who shoots husband after 20 years of daily beatings.

And on and on. Each has killed someone. You see all 6 as morally identical?No, they aren't. But the executioner can perhaps be placed as one of the worst. Only number one can clearly be viewed as worse in of itself. Though when you consider that the executioner will kill many...

The fellow in Singapore who has killed more than 500. Where would you rank him?

[Robert]

To me it is an option that should never be offered

Well, you're as entitled to your opinion as anyone else, but that's a lot different from asking "why should we kill him?"


Well that is well enough known.


What is? That whites who murder blacks in the USA are more likely to get the death penalty than blacks who murder blacks? That is not "well known" at all. The prevailing myth is squarely to the contrary, and flies in the face of your "racist prosecutor" theory. Ask 10 people at your workplace tomorrow if they knew that.


It is pure barbarism.


That's a colorfully expressed opinion, not an argument. You might as well say "it's sheer lunacy" or "it's rank stupidity!" I could with as much force complain that life imprisonment is "pure barbarism!" Or that keeping a person in a small cell for the rest of his life is pure barbarism. "Deny a person his conjugal visits forever? Torture!" Who is moved by such talk? And I find it demeaning to the victim's family, who have as much right to be heard on the subject as the defendant's family.


to thus legally sanction murder.


That is an oxymoron.

[Robert]

The fellow in Singapore who has killed more than 500. Where would you rank him?


I don't know, but I'm sure not going to equate him with Klaus Barbie without knowing something of his "victims." Did they just spit gum on the sidewalk, or did they abduct and torture 4-year-old children to death and make videos of it? Anyway, he's no more culpable than the lawmakers of Singapore. He's just their instrument. And I don't consider Singapore as barbarous, by the way.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

No difference, eh? Consider these categories:

1. Child rapist who buries his victims alive and sells videos of the rape and burial on the internet.

2. Resistance fighter in WWII who blows up a German train carrying weapons to the front.

3. The executioner of #1.

4. The drunk driver who passes out while driving, crosses the center line, and kills the driver of an oncoming car.

5. Homeowner with small children who shoots a burglar entering his home.

6. Battered wife who shoots husband after 20 years of daily beatings.

And on and on. Each has killed someone. You see all 6 as morally identical?

Of course they aren't all morally identical; however, I stand by my original point - they have all killed someone.

What about this?

#1's crime is so depraved that it's entirely possible he/she could be classed as criminally insane and therefore be exempt from normal consideration. Even if the criminal was declared 'normal', that doesn't mean he/she should die.

#2 was doing something that probably saved more lives than he had taken, whereas for #3 it is an unnecessary killing. #1 could easily be imprisoned for life without having to die and nobody else would be harmed.

#4 is an accident. However irresponsible the driver was and however sad the death, it was not an intentional murder. No. 3's was intentional.

#5 is protecting his property and his children. #3 is not protecting anyone by executing #1 - it is just in the name of 'justice'.

#6 - again, the executioner was not subjected to years of beatings.

So I actually think an executioner would come just after #1 in terms of how bad their crime was. That person is still a murderer.

[#FF0000]

Melbicimni posted a fantastic piece on his blog on the subject of revolutionary violence, and there was a passage on the death penalty and abortion. And I quote.


This also provides great insights into questions such as the death penalty and abortion.

When a murderer is in the act, about to kill a person and they act out in self-defense, killing the attempted murderer, that is justified because it is reasonable to believe that killing the perpetrator was the only viable course of action which would result in the saving of the victim's life.

However, after the act of murder has been committed and the murderer caught, killing is no longer the only viable course of action which would prevent the further perpetration of violence by that murderer (nor is it even the cheapest, or most practical) so the use of lethal force is no longer legitimate in light of the fact that the use of restraining force is sufficient to keep people safe from that murderer.

In the case of abortion: the fetus is, for all intents and purposes engaging in an act of violence against its carrier. The woman carrying the fetus, can reasonably either choose to consent to this violence (knowing fully the risks, and desiring the long-term consequences of doing so) or to, in an act of self-defense (in protection of her body, state of mind, etc.) abort the fetus. An ethical position on violence based upon the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate force seems to be the most consistent with our ideals, the best expression of our values, and can be used to justify the entirety of our long and short-term revolutionary goals.


I also want to point out how it's pretty interesting that a libertarian, someone who would hate to see the state aid the poor through welfare or other social services, thinks it is a-okay to let that government decide to kill.

[Demogorgon]

Well, you're as entitled to your opinion as anyone else, but that's a lot different from asking "why should we kill him?"

No it isn't. I am asking for a reason why we should ever get from "they don't deserve to live" to "we should kill them". It is a huge leap which requires us to view cold blooded killing of people can no longer be considered a threat as an acceptable tool.


What is? That whites who murder blacks in the USA are more likely to get the death penalty than blacks who murder blacks? That is not "well known" at all. The prevailing myth is squarely to the contrary, and flies in the face of your "racist prosecutor" theory. Ask 10 people at your workplace tomorrow if they knew that.

It is well known that the race of the victim matters. The fact is black on black violence simply doesn't cut as close to home as when white people are involved. A black person killing a white person is by far the most likely to face death though.


That's a colorfully expressed opinion, not an argument. You might as well say "it's sheer lunacy" or "it's rank stupidity!" I could with as much force complain that life imprisonment is "pure barbarism!" Or that keeping a person in a small cell for the rest of his life is pure barbarism. "Deny a person his conjugal visits forever? Torture!" Who is moved by such talk? And I find it demeaning to the victim's family, who have as much right to be heard on the subject as the defendant's family.
Well there is a strong argument that life imprisonment is also barbarism. A lot of countries have abolished both the death penalty and life imprisonment for that very reason and others restrict it to the most extreme cases.

But back to the death penalty. It is perfectly legitimate to call it barbarism, not least because the consensus has very much been towards abolition. Virtually all of Europe (Belarus being the sole exception), virtually all of South America, large parts of Africa, a fair few places in Asia and so on have all gotten rid of it for this very reason. It is hardly a mere rhetorical flourish to call the death penalty barbarism considering general attitudes towards it these days.


That is an oxymoron.
No it isn't. Unless you think if the law sanctions murder it becomes acceptable. If you do believe that however, I don't want to here any more about "Stalin's crimes" or whatever.
I don't know, but I'm sure not going to equate him with Klaus Barbie without knowing something of his "victims." Did they just spit gum on the sidewalk, or did they abduct and torture 4-year-old children to death and make videos of it? Anyway, he's no more culpable than the lawmakers of Singapore. He's just their instrument. And I don't consider Singapore as barbarous, by the way.
The majority of them will have been caught in possession of drugs. And I don't for one minute buy the "just following orders" excuse. He signed up for the job by his own admission for the money and keeps going because he likes it. How does that differ him from a murderer?

[Havet]

Melbicimni posted a fantastic piece on his blog on the subject of revolutionary violence, and there was a passage on the death penalty and abortion. And I quote.


awesome post

I also want to point out how it's pretty interesting that a libertarian, someone who would hate to see the state aid the poor through welfare or other social services, thinks it is a-okay to let that government decide to kill.

thanks for sharing that great post.

I also think its kinda strange he supports government force to kill murderers. I suppose that's why he has in his nickname "Libertarian conservative" which KINDA sounds like a contradiction.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I do not support the death penalty in most circumstances because of the risk of executing an innocent person. The justice system is not perfect. I only support the death penalty in cases where there can be absolutely no doubt about the guilt of the accused, such as if a man opened fire on the street in broad daylight and was caught right then and there.

I support abortion rights for a variety of reasons. One of them is the fact that it would be unreasonable to force a person to go through 9 months of physical hardship followed by an experience of intense pain for the sake of an entity which may or may not be human depending on one's definition.

But I have a question for you, cappiej. You said in another thread that you do not believe people have any obligation to help each other. In that case, why does a pregnant woman have an obligation to continue to provide a fetus with nutrients and the environment necessary for its survival?

[Robert]

It is well known that the race of the victim matters.

You're still not getting it. It isn't "racist" for a majority white society to execute more white than black defendants where the victim is black. Unless, I suppose, you have a black prosecutor on a mission to kill whites, which is not a realistic scenario.


And I don't for one minute buy the "just following orders" excuse.


Why is this one guy from Singapore the focus of all our indignation here? Would it be different if Singapore had a different executioner for every execution? Anyway, "just following orders" is a defense one makes while acknowledging that the orders from above are illegal but one was forced to obey. In this case, they are not. Anyway, no one here is raising the Nuremburg defense. Our much-maligned executioner is no more or less culpable than the government of Singapore and the citizens who support it.

As for Singapore, this appears to be the list of their capital offenses:

Penal Code
Under the Penal Code,[10] the commission of the following offences may result in the death penalty:
Waging or attempting to wage war or abetting the waging of war against the Government*
Offences against the President’s person*
Mutiny
Piracy that endangers life
Perjury that results in the execution of an innocent person
Murder
Abetting the suicide of a person under the age of 18 or an "insane" person
Attempted murder by a prisoner serving a life sentence
Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder
Robbery committed by five or more people that results in the death of a person
Drug trafficking
Unlawful discharge of firearms (firearms are heavily restricted in the city)
*In other words, treason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Singapore

The ones I have trouble with are drug trafficking and unlawful discharge of firearms, but i understand both. The rest are completely defensible, again assuming they NEVER execute the wrong guy and can be certain he is not mentally ill., which is impossible, really. I think the "perjury resulting in the execution of an innocent person" is particularly interesting.

As for world opinion, surely we aren't going to start deciding moral and legal issues based on what the majority thinks? What does the majority currently think of communism?

[Robert]

However, after the act of murder has been committed and the murderer caught, killing is no longer the only viable course of action which would prevent the further perpetration of violence by that murderer (nor is it even the cheapest, or most practical) so the use of lethal force is no longer legitimate in light of the fact that the use of restraining force is sufficient to keep people safe from that murderer.

Of course, but "preventing further perpetration of violence" is not the only reason jurors vote for death. It's what the jurors and the prosecutors call "justice," and what opponents of the death penalty dismiss as revenge. Both are values terms. Maybe "retribution" is a better term.

Many here insist that there is no such thing as human nature. I believe there is, and a sense of revenge is part of it. Is it righteous? Is it "reasonable"? Probably not, but that doesn't necessarily de-legitimize it in extreme cases of violent murder against particularly vulnerable victims.

[cappiej]

No it isn't. I did not claim that anybody who ever supported the death penalty was a potential murderer (though I do think there is something gravely wrong with their moral compass), rather I think that someone with such a lurid desire to cause pain to others is very much a potential killer, whether they rationalise it by saying it is "justice" or not.

A Jury must always set a death sentence in America.

Anyway a black person is statistically more likely to face death than a white person. This is not about who commits more crimes, but who is most likely to get a more severe punishment.

I think it is pretty certain that such a system, inclined as it is to cruelty, will also tend to racism.

I don't have a great deal of sympathy, if you commit a murder and you get the death sentence and a White man doesn't don't blame the system, look at why you were even in the position in the first place?

The trick is, don't commit murders.

[cappiej]

MAYBE NOT FOR YOU! But how about that victim whose only bit of consolation is that the animal who cussed him out be put to death? Do you want to deprive them of that?

But really, yes I do want to deprive them of that.

Alaska, you don't even have a life sentence do you? Isn't the maximum 60 years or something?

So you expect a murder victim's family to be happy that the person who killed their relative doesn't get killed?

Jesus, what's wrong with victim's rights?

[#FF0000]

Alaska, you don't even have a life sentence do you? Isn't the maximum 60 years or something?

So you expect a murder victim's family to be happy that the person who killed their relative doesn't get killed?

Jesus, what's wrong with victim's rights?

What's wrong is that the death penalty serves no other purpose but retribution. It is costly (even moreso than a life sentence is), and it makes for certain that innocent people will be falsely accused, convicted, and murdered by the state. How many innocent deaths is an acceptable number so people can have their blood lust satisfied?

[Robert]

Loveschach, what do you think of life in prison without parole as a punishment? Isn't there a danger an innocent person could effectively lose his life that way as well?

[Demogorgon]

You're still not getting it. It isn't "racist" for a majority white society to execute more white than black defendants where the victim is black. Unless, I suppose, you have a black prosecutor on a mission to kill whites, which is not a realistic scenario.

Again I acknowledged what you said and pointed out the evidence of racism. Prosecutors take black on black violence less seriously than other violence. But besides that black people are more likely to face the death penalty. Black on white violence being particularly hated.


Why is this one guy from Singapore the focus of all our indignation here? He isn't. He is just a particularly good example.
Our much-maligned executioner is no more or less culpable than the government of Singapore and the citizens who support it.Well I don't blame the citizens particularly. Singapore is a de facto dictatorship so the citizens have no say over Government policy. I heavily oppose their Government however.


The ones I have trouble with are drug trafficking and unlawful discharge of firearms, but i understand both. The rest are completely defensible, again assuming they NEVER execute the wrong guy and can be certain he is not mentally ill., which is impossible, really. I think the "perjury resulting in the execution of an innocent person" is particularly interesting. The drug trafficking one is the source of most executions most likely and let's not forget that a very low burden of proof is required for execution there. I don't think anyone denies innocent people are executed under those laws.


As for world opinion, surely we aren't going to start deciding moral and legal issues based on what the majority thinks? What does the majority currently think of communism?
We can reasonably gauge progress by how the world moves. Slavery could easily be identified as a barbarous relic by the nineteenth century because the world was moving away from it. We can see the same with the death penalty today.

[Demogorgon]

Alaska, you don't even have a life sentence do you? Isn't the maximum 60 years or something?

So you expect a murder victim's family to be happy that the person who killed their relative doesn't get killed?

Jesus, what's wrong with victim's rights?
How do victim's rights equate to the treatment of criminals? In what manner can a victim be seen to benefit from harsher treatment towards an offender? You have told us that it somehow provides comfort. I can tell you very clearly that for me at least I know it would do the opposite but moreover talking about "victim's rights" is a smokescreen here and you know it.

[brigadista]

Its cold blooded murder? Yeah, you say that, have you ever lost anyone to a murderer?

Its pure justice in my view.

Maybe the terror of waiting for death is something they had ought to feel, after the agony they have subjected the victim and the victim's family to.
you are presuming the person got a fair trial and proper representation -

[Kronos]

Isn't there a danger an innocent person could effectively lose his life that way as well?

Sure, but there is always that danger. What I'd point out to you, a capitalist, is that the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. It also has the most cases of corrupt judicial action, most the result of purposeful manipulation and deceit.

Now you might ask yourself why this is so. I can tell you why. Capitalism. Regarding crime, most instances could of been prevented by exercising greater authority, providing better welfare for the lower classes (which are responsible for the majority of crimes), or auditing and controlling the various conditionals in consumerist society that produce criminal psychology.

The judicial corruption rampant here is caused by incompetence and the selfish interests of those officials in practice. I have experienced this myself. I was convicted by a DA who had no concern for the "law" or "justice" and wanted only to increase her conviction rate and achieve good tenure. That, and she was motivated by money.

So forgive me for saying that I find it strange how any body who endorses capitalism could so foolishly pretend as if they have a concern for the justice systems which are as ridiculous as they are because of capitalism.

No matter how many angles someone tries to approach from in dealing with the justice system, none of them will accomplish anything. It is the very political superstructure that must be radically changed. All else is hot air.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

Loveschach, what do you think of life in prison without parole as a punishment? Isn't there a danger an innocent person could effectively lose his life that way as well?

There have been cases where someone has been sentenced to life and then found innocent and released; it's a terrible thing to happen, but if they were in a country that used the death penalty they would be dead and would have no opportunity to enjoy the rest of their life.

[cappiej]

How do victim's rights equate to the treatment of criminals? In what manner can a victim be seen to benefit from harsher treatment towards an offender? You have told us that it somehow provides comfort. I can tell you very clearly that for me at least I know it would do the opposite but moreover talking about "victim's rights" is a smokescreen here and you know it.


I think they can derive some comfort from seeing the person who made them suffer suffer.

As I said, every victim is different and some are staunchly anti-DP, which is fine, their wishes must be reflected in the sentence. Obviously the four principles of sentencing, in my ideal world, would be deterrence (general & specific), retribution and protection of the public ergo even if they didn't want the criminal punished at all the criminal would still possibly be detained to protect the public and deter others.

There's a good video on YouTube, from Journeyman Pictures, I'll post a link. It shows there's no consensus on the death penalty among victims.

I even saw a program, something like America's Toughest Prisons or Behind Bars, in which one man on death row said he still supported the death penalty, he basically said, what kind of man of principle would I be if I stopped believing in the death penalty just because I'm going to get it? I don't often respect murderers, but at least this guy had the guts to stick by what he believed in, he didn't make excuses for his crime, he didn't blame society, he didn't blame Whitey (as I recall he was White which may explain that), he didn't blame his parents, he took his punishment like a man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H9CAdwGMiU

[cappiej]

Sure, but there is always that danger. What I'd point out to you, a capitalist, is that the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. It also has the most cases of corrupt judicial action, most the result of purposeful manipulation and deceit.

Now you might ask yourself why this is so. I can tell you why. Capitalism. Regarding crime, most instances could of been prevented by exercising greater authority, providing better welfare for the lower classes (which are responsible for the majority of crimes), or auditing and controlling the various conditionals in consumerist society that produce criminal psychology.

The judicial corruption rampant here is caused by incompetence and the selfish interests of those officials in practice. I have experienced this myself. I was convicted by a DA who had no concern for the "law" or "justice" and wanted only to increase her conviction rate and achieve good tenure. That, and she was motivated by money.

So forgive me for saying that I find it strange how any body who endorses capitalism could so foolishly pretend as if they have a concern for the justice systems which are as ridiculous as they are because of capitalism.

No matter how many angles someone tries to approach from in dealing with the justice system, none of them will accomplish anything. It is the very political superstructure that must be radically changed. All else is hot air.

Most working class people seem to go through life without committing a crime, which sort of proves being poor doesn't mean someone will become a criminal.

Possibly it has to do with being stupid, a plain bad person, greedy or one who likes to push the boundaries. Or a combination of those factors.

[AnthArmo]

Most working class people seem to go through life without committing a crime, which sort of proves being poor doesn't mean someone will become a criminal.

Possibly it has to do with being stupid, a plain bad person, greedy or one who likes to push the boundaries. Or a combination of those factors.

Or it possibly has to do with being desperate, or hungry, or poor, or alienated and depressed to the point of insanity.

I would also like to point out that the more capitalistic a society is, the more crime you get.

[ArrowLance]

Alaska, you don't even have a life sentence do you? Isn't the maximum 60 years or something?

So you expect a murder victim's family to be happy that the person who killed their relative doesn't get killed?

Jesus, what's wrong with victim's rights?


I have no idea what you mean by 'what's wrong with victim's rights?' Do you think murder is a right now? They have a right to have someone murdered?

[ArrowLance]

I think they can derive some comfort from seeing the person who made them suffer suffer.

As I said, every victim is different and some are staunchly anti-DP, which is fine, their wishes must be reflected in the sentence. Obviously the four principles of sentencing, in my ideal world, would be deterrence (general & specific), retribution and protection of the public ergo even if they didn't want the criminal punished at all the criminal would still possibly be detained to protect the public and deter others.

There's a good video on YouTube, from Journeyman Pictures, I'll post a link. It shows there's no consensus on the death penalty among victims.

I even saw a program, something like America's Toughest Prisons or Behind Bars, in which one man on death row said he still supported the death penalty, he basically said, what kind of man of principle would I be if I stopped believing in the death penalty just because I'm going to get it? I don't often respect murderers, but at least this guy had the guts to stick by what he believed in, he didn't make excuses for his crime, he didn't blame society, he didn't blame Whitey (as I recall he was White which may explain that), he didn't blame his parents, he took his punishment like a man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H9CAdwGMiU

I think I would enjoy to see you suffer. . . But really, is that the way things should be? If you were to use inappropriate language around me, and i feel victimised, should I be able to hit you? I don't understand why the victims should be given more power.

[cappiej]

I think I would enjoy to see you suffer. . . But really, is that the way things should be? If you were to use inappropriate language around me, and i feel victimised, should I be able to hit you? I don't understand why the victims should be given more power.

WTF? You want me to suffer, why because I'm not a communist? You're screwed up.

Well maybe if those words become illegal you should, but they're not.

[cappiej]

Or it possibly has to do with being desperate, or hungry, or poor, or alienated and depressed to the point of insanity.

I would also like to point out that the more capitalistic a society is, the more crime you get.

Hungry? No-one is hungry here.

Poor? Well, someone has to be, or under socialism everyone has to be.

Alienated? Well, should we FORCE people to be your friend?

Depressed? They have pills for that.

Insanity? Tell the court that, I'm sure they'll take pity.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

Hungry? No-one is hungry here.

Oh really? Maybe not in the third world sense, but there are certainly a lot of people who struggle to make ends meet and that struggle causes extreme feelings of pressure and helplessness.

Poor? Well, someone has to be, or under socialism everyone has to be.

Nobody has to be poor and in a socialist society there would be no such thing as poverty. The concept wouldn't exist.

Alienated? Well, should we FORCE people to be your friend?

Alienation has nothing to do with how many friends you've got.

Depressed? They have pills for that.

It isn't always easy to access those pills within the constraints of a capitalist society. Health insurance doesn't cover everything. Also, I'm seriously concerned that you think pill = cure.

Insanity? Tell the court that, I'm sure they'll take pity.

What a statement! Insanity is a valid legal term and it has nothing to do with pity.

[cappiej]

Hungry? No-one is hungry here.

Oh really? Maybe not in the third world sense, but there are certainly a lot of people who struggle to make ends meet and that struggle causes extreme feelings of pressure and helplessness.

Poor? Well, someone has to be, or under socialism everyone has to be.

Nobody has to be poor and in a socialist society there would be no such thing as poverty. The concept wouldn't exist.

Alienated? Well, should we FORCE people to be your friend?

Alienation has nothing to do with how many friends you've got.

Depressed? They have pills for that.

It isn't always easy to access those pills within the constraints of a capitalist society. Health insurance doesn't cover everything. Also, I'm seriously concerned that you think pill = cure.

Insanity? Tell the court that, I'm sure they'll take pity.

What a statement! Insanity is a valid legal term and it has nothing to do with pity.

There's people who don't have access to haute cuisine, nobody is denying that. They have access to the basic things they need, protein, fruit and veg, some fat and some carbohydrates. And if they have dietary requirements the government even fits around them.

Oh I see, so you know there would be no poor people in a socialist society do you? Maybe they wouldn't be poor because everyone would have the same standard of living, its just possible that standard of living would be crap. Like in Soviet Russia for example.

No, I'm giving glib responses because of how aggressive you're being, its a debate for God's sake, its meant to be a mutually beneficial exchange of ideas, I'm not trying to convert you I just want to know how you think and I'm getting a picture of it. I know pills don't cure everything but my point is that some people will be depressed even if they have access to the best Doctors and the best medicine in the world.

Insanity IS a valid legal argument, but its open to abuse.

[Richard Nixon]

As for insanity and anger, it's a very thin line that blurs. For example how rageful do you have to be for you to be temporarily insane. As for the rest what percentage of poor, depressed, or hungry people actually commit murder? Even among them it's a tiny minority who will commit murder. Also what about rich slobs who commit murder out of pure sadism? As for the rest I agree 100% with the OP.

[#FF0000]

Loveschach, what do you think of life in prison without parole as a punishment? Isn't there a danger an innocent person could effectively lose his life that way as well?

Well, yeah. But if the courts fuck up and someone serves 20 years before it turns out they're innocent, you can do something to give that guy something back. Maybe a cheap apartment and a newspaper to catch up on things. That's still more than you can give someone that was wrongfully executed.

[#FF0000]

There's people who don't have access to haute cuisine, nobody is denying that. They have access to the basic things they need, protein, fruit and veg, some fat and some carbohydrates. And if they have dietary requirements the government even fits around them.

Or they have access to nothing but endless junkfood and empty calories. Malnutrition doesn't have to be starvation, you know~


Oh I see, so you know there would be no poor people in a socialist society do you? Maybe they wouldn't be poor because everyone would have the same standard of living, its just possible that standard of living would be crap. Like in Soviet Russia for example.

Yeah man. I mean, why can't a country that had hardly anything besides a backwards agrarian economy in 1917 meet American industrial power and quality of life in 30-40 years? :confused: It is a mystery~~~!

[ArrowLance]

WTF? You want me to suffer, why because I'm not a communist? You're screwed up.

Well maybe if those words become illegal you should. . .

And I'm the one that is screwed up?