Capital Punishment

[Comrade B]

What are your views on capital punishment?

-This question is meant to be referring to capital punishment in your preferred government system, not the present system, which we all know favors the rich and white-

[Kami]

only for those beyond rehabilitation, and then not without due thought.

[Plagueround]

I am opposed to capital punishment a majority of the time due to the number of people that are killed and then later found to be innocent. Modern forensics has cut down on the instances where this happens, but it does still occur. Even so, I do think certain instances call for a person forfeiting their right to live.

Editing my post just a bit: When I say a person forfeits their right to live, this is not to say that I support a death sentence after they have been apprehended and are no longer a threat.

[Pawn Power]

This question has no context.

Who is deciding these crimes? How are they decided?

Under the current system I would say never. Convictions have been proven to be inaccurate and thoroughly racist.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

Never, never, never.

I never thought it was as effective as conservative pro-capital punishment supporters claimed, but I truly became anti-capital punishment about 2000.

I currently live in the St. Louis metro east (East St. Louis, which is actually in Illinois). In 1999-2000, due to modern forensic techniques (including, but not limited to, D.N.A.) 13 men in Illinois were exonerated.

12 others were pardoned POSTHUMOUSLY.

Every man (of the 25) except 2 were African American; one was Hispanic.

What do you tell the family of an innocent man killed? "Sorry, we were pretty sure the eyewitness was reliable, even though it was dark and they weren't actually at the scene of the crime"?

I would rather see a million guilty people sit in jail while the blood-thirsty, hypocritical "Christian" family of the victim ranted about how it was unfair that there wasn't ANOTHER killing hadn't been carried out then see a single innocent person killed when need not be.

F.Y.I., if you're a Yankee who enjoys your capitol punishment, here is the company you keep:
Executions are known to have been carried out in the following countries in 2007: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Botswana, China, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Kuwait, Libya, N. Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, U.S.A., Vietnam, Yemen.*

As of January 1, 2008:
92 countries had abolished capital punishment altogether, 11 have done so for all offenses except special circumstances, and 34 others had not used it for at least 10 years.
Only 60 actively retained the death penalty (only those listed above have carried it out).
More then two thirds of all countries have therefore abolished capital punishment either altogether or in practice.**

If you want to support an archaic form of punishment not sanctioned by nearly the entire developed world, go ahead. Just know who you support it with.

*http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT50/001/2008/en/b43a1e5a-ffea-11dc-b092-bdb020617d3d/act500012008eng.html
** http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty/abolitionist-and-retentionist-countries

[Vendetta]

I think it should only be exercised for people like Bin Laden or McVeigh.

[Dimentio]

Never. Banish those who are beyond care.

[R3V0LUTI0N(A)RY]

If someone has comitted a really horrible crime I suppose it is possible. But the problem is if ciurse that the person i nquestion can later turn out to be innocent. I suppose you'd need 100% sure evidence and not just a confesssion got trough torture or a racist judge. Maybe locking people up could work for the worst people, then you can set them free if the didn't really do it.This whole punishment thing is hard to decide over.

[Holden Caulfield]

it is entirely subjective, if somebody kills in a fit of passion say they come home and find their husband in bed with another woman and then kills them, that is not deserving of death,

but if it is calculated or out of sheer malice then maybe they do,

some political figures deserve death as well but it depends on the crimes, if any

[Dimentio]

The human being is an animal.

"Deservation" is only a primitive feeling of revenge, which the enlightened legislator should denounce. What our goal is, is not to make revenge, but to isolate the harmful elements from society.

[Holden Caulfield]

i disagree, we are conscious being and therefore take responsibility for our actions, unless our physiology up is a factor (the Oaklamoma city sniper had a tumor on the 'restraint' controlling area of the brain for example) the death penalty can be jusified on if it necessary,

in punishment there are the following; retribution, rehabilitation, incapacitation, and detterance, take away retribution and there still may be good reason to use the death penalty,

even if it is available im not suggesting throwing it around willy-nilly,

[BobKKKindle$]

we are conscious being and therefore take responsibility for our action

This is really the key issue in this debate. To what extent are we responsible for our behaviour? The death penalty is based on the implicit assumption that we can be held fully accountable for our actions. This a problem, because crime is never solely an individual decision - criminal behaviour (and any other form of human behaviour) is influenced by our position in society, and the way society is organised. For this reason, the death penalty should never be used as a punishment - attempts should always be made to provide support to the criminal so they can become a useful member of the community.

[The Feral Underclass]

This "are we responsible for our behaviour" argument is a red herring. Of course we are, unless you're deemed mentally ill by someone qualified to make the decision and then of course the question arises.

The death penalty is based on the assumption that people should be punished for their "crimes" (for want of a better word) and I don't accept that assumption.

I am totally opposed to capital punishment.

[Holden Caulfield]

This is really the key issue in this debate. To what extent are we responsible for our behaviour? The death penalty is based on the implicit assumption that we can be held fully accountable for our actions. This a problem, because crime is never solely an individual decision - criminal behaviour (and any other form of human behaviour) is influenced by our position in society, and the way society is organised. For this reason, the death penalty should never be used as a punishment - attempts should always be made to provide support to the criminal so they can become a useful member of the community.

i agree and disagree, to end a life to preserve more lives is a good thing, so serial killers etc, should be exsecuted (consideration to mental state must be the first action) for the safety of the society,

'position is society' type crime is rarely in my opinion the worse types of crimes and so the death penalty would not be used, in a feud that ends in a death the causes should be the main priority,

but being low down the social scale is not an excuse for some crimes, we are not barbarians in the slums we still have conscience and responsibility

[apathy maybe]

This "are we responsible for our behaviour" argument is a red herring. Of course we are, unless you're deemed mentally ill by someone qualified to make the decision and then of course the question arises.

The death penalty is based on the assumption that people should be punished for their "crimes" (for want of a better word) and I don't accept that assumption.

I am totally opposed to capital punishment.
Sometimes it isn't about punishment though.

OK, a scenario for you, a person wielding a machine gun walks into a crowded area and starts shooting, attempting to kill as many people as they can.
People attempting to get close are gunned down before they can restrain the person.

It just so happens that one of the people in this crowded area has a weapon, and successfully kills the person from a distance, thus stopping any more deaths.

Now, that isn't "capital punishment", I know. But are you opposed to that?

OK, another scenario. Person B goes and randomly kill a person in this crowded area. What happens?
Assuming they are let go after promising not to do it again. Next day, they do it again.
What happens?
Assuming that they are exiled, they come back and do it again.

They aren't killing lots of people, they are only killing one person at a time, otherwise they aren't a threat. But they don't stop.

How do you protect society from that sort of mad person?


Well, like you I object to punishment. However, in these cases it is about protection, self-defense. Do you agree with that assessment?

[Dean]

i agree and disagree, to end a life to preserve more lives is a good thing, so serial killers etc, should be exsecuted (consideration to mental state must be the first action) for the safety of the society,

'position is society' type crime is rarely in my opinion the worse types of crimes and so the death penalty would not be used, in a feud that ends in a death the causes should be the main priority,

I don't see any use for the death penalty. I agree with bobkindles:
"For this reason, the death penalty should never be used as a punishment - attempts should always be made to provide support to the criminal so they can become a useful member of the community."


but being low down the social scale is not an excuse for some crimes, we are not barbarians in the slums we still have conscience and responsibility

Yes, but you have to consider the role of society in creating situations which cause violent crime. I think its strange for so many Marxists to talk about punitive measures and responsibility, which are really superfluous concepts.

Marxists understand morality in the sense that our conditions define our actions, and humans in turn define their morals by their actions. So I don't think we should judge people on their actions except in an extremely limited fashion.

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

Never in peace time.

[hekmatista]

Now? Under our current class masters? Never, of course.
Under circumstances of revolution, by "us"... still, never, as the default option, though experience may force its use on even a genuinely workers' state.

[Jazzratt]

When a member of a society has behaved in a way to defend other members of that society and the legal organ for that society has done everything possible to rehabilitate them but they still persist in being dangerous to themselves and others then the death penalty should be considered, based on the threat level and other viable options. After this, if it is decided the threat cannot be dealt with in any other way they should be taken into a quiet room, played some relaxing music and shot through the skull.

[Demogorgon]

Under no circumstances should the death penalty ever be used.

[Svante]

Under no circumstances should the death penalty ever be used.


je consens,merci. if w e kill other people then we are like our enemy.

[cyu]

People who support capital punishment should be EXECUTED! :cursing:

All kidding aside... I believe killing another person is only justified if he is in the process of attacking someone. If he is not an immediate threat, then just arrest him, put him where he can't hurt anyone, maybe subject him to a little "re-education" / propaganda / "conversion" - though I'd argue it should be based on logical principles, such as why humans have formed cooperative societies.

Even if you can't "fix" him, I would still consider killing him a violation of the principle that those most affected by a decision should have the most say in that decision. As long as he's prevented from harming others, I don't see what the big deal is. Even unrepentent criminals can still contribute to society in other ways (even when generally separated from the rest of society) - you just need to convince them that they want to contribute - which just means you need good psychological / management skills.

If the guy is too insane or retarded for normal reasoning / marketing to work, well it's not really his fault for having a brain disorder.

[abrupt]

I have mixed views on it.


But if your talking bout Big Pun's Capital Punishment, it is classic shit.

[Peacekeeper]

I support the death penalty for dissidents calling for an end to socialism and also for murderers and rapists. All other crimes should be dealt with through labor camps or rehabilitation centers, depending on the crime.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

If you kill the killer, will you rape the rapist? Will you torture the torturer? Will you oppress the oppressor?

An eye for an eye is an obsolete form of punishment.

If you kill the killer, you have become one that you shunned, no different then when you throw down a brutal regime and replace it with another.

[apathy maybe]

I support the death penalty for dissidents calling for an end to socialism and also for murderers and rapists. All other crimes should be dealt with through labor camps or rehabilitation centers, depending on the crime.

And you call yourself a communist?

I suggest that to have "labor camps or rehabilitation centers", that you require a police force, and the rest of the state apparatus to support such a thing.

Fuck that.



Under no circumstances should the death penalty ever be used.
What about the circumstances I outlined above? Out of control maniacs, or slow and methodical serial killers?

Do you want to imprison them? :ohmy:

Prisons as well require states. And personally, I'm out for the end of states, police and all that crap.

I do however, believe in self defence.

[Mariner's Revenge]

In our current setup, I disagree with capital punishment in every scenario. We do have the resources to make sure a person fitting apathy's example does stay away from the public and even make use of that person.

In a revolutionary setup, especially anarchist, no punishment should be set in stone and should be variable depending on the situation.

[Peacekeeper]

And you call yourself a communist?

I suggest that to have "labor camps or rehabilitation centers", that you require a police force, and the rest of the state apparatus to support such a thing.

Fuck that.

Ah - anarchists. So amusing with your childish anti-authoritarianism.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

Ah - anarchists. So amusing with your childish anti-authoritarianism.
hmmm. . .I've wanted to say something like that, although I would have worded it a bit more diplomatically ;)

Since you brought that out in the open anyway, what's wrong with putting psychopaths into institutions (mental, not criminal).

If it keeps them out of situations that they could continue murdering, isn't that self-defense? Why add more blood, on your own hands nonetheless.

And don't anybody tell me anti-socials, psychopaths, sociopaths, et cetera don't benefit from institutionalization.
It's not oppressive, it's in their best interest, and if you disagree, take my job (where I deal with mental patients on a regular, frequent basis) for a while and see if you change your mind.

[redSHARP]

capital punishment? i prefer to call the accidents...

but no, i dont agree with it at all.

[Demogorgon]

What about the circumstances I outlined above? Out of control maniacs, or slow and methodical serial killers?

Do you want to imprison them? :ohmy:

Prisons as well require states. And personally, I'm out for the end of states, police and all that crap.

I do however, believe in self defence.
For those people who are simply too dangerous to be allowed into society and for whom rehabilitation does not work, they should be imprisoned, yes.

[apathy maybe]

Ah - anarchists. So amusing with your childish anti-authoritarianism.Ah Leninists, with your bullshit.

So you want a state in communism? I don't know why you people call yourselves communists, you just want an authoritarian state, and you don't want it to ever disappear...

Or at least, that is the impression that I get.


For those people who are simply too dangerous to be allowed into society and for whom rehabilitation does not work, they should be imprisoned, yes.
So, we need a police force to capture these people (and recapture them when they inevitably escape), then we need a judicial system (including judges etc.) to try these people, to pass judgement upon them, then we need the prisons, and the staff to look after the prisoners, then we need some way to raise resources to look after all these otherwise productive people, then we need some way of deciding what should be punished by imprisonment, and what shouldn't be, and most people aren't interested in such things, but maybe they could elect a representative, and so then we'll need a parliament building, and a team of clerics to look after all these newly elected politicians, and how will people decide who can best represent them? maybe some sort of party system, and oh dear, it appears as if we have built another state. With prisons, police, judges, politicians, parliaments, parties and taxes.

Fuck that shit.

[Demogorgon]

So, we need a police force to capture these people (and recapture them when they inevitably escape), then we need a judicial system (including judges etc.) to try these people, to pass judgement upon them, then we need the prisons, and the staff to look after the prisoners, then we need some way to raise resources to look after all these otherwise productive people, then we need some way of deciding what should be punished by imprisonment, and what shouldn't be, and most people aren't interested in such things, but maybe they could elect a representative, and so then we'll need a parliament building, and a team of clerics to look after all these newly elected politicians, and how will people decide who can best represent them? maybe some sort of party system, and oh dear, it appears as if we have built another state. With prisons, police, judges, politicians, parliaments, parties and taxes.

Fuck that shit.And who is going to capture, sentence to death, hold prior to execution and then execute the people you want to execute?

I am hardly a fan of the notion of imprisonment, but the simple fact is that some people are extremely dangerous individuals and I will never, under any circumstance, accept the death penalty, and prison is the only alternative that can be used that I know of.

If there is a better alternative fine, but it eludes me.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

So, we need a police force to capture these people (and recapture them when they inevitably escape), then we need a judicial system (including judges etc.) to try these people, to pass judgement upon them, then we need the prisons, and the staff to look after the prisoners, then we need some way to raise resources to look after all these otherwise productive people, then we need some way of deciding what should be punished by imprisonment, and what shouldn't be, and most people aren't interested in such things, but maybe they could elect a representative, and so then we'll need a parliament building, and a team of clerics to look after all these newly elected politicians, and how will people decide who can best represent them? maybe some sort of party system, and oh dear, it appears as if we have built another state. With prisons, police, judges, politicians, parliaments, parties and taxes.

Fuck that shit.
There's no justice quite like mob justice, is there?

[chegitz guevara]

Only for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

[Holden Caulfield]

what is a crime against humanity?

[apathy maybe]

And who is going to capture, sentence to death, hold prior to execution and then execute the people you want to execute?
Take the case of the quiet methodical serial killer. The current rotation of the people's militia can go and capture them, and then take them down to the jury hall where the facts can be read, they defend themselves (or get a lawyer), and the current rotation of the jury decides whether the person is likely to be guilty or not.

If so, they pass sentence, and the current rotation of the people's militia takes the person out and shoots them (if they are guilty).

No need for a police force (there is a big difference between a police force and a rotating, non-permanent militia), no need for prisons, judges etc. No need for laws (the right to self defence is sufficient), no need for parliament, politicians or parties, nor for taxes. No need for a state.


I am hardly a fan of the notion of imprisonment, but the simple fact is that some people are extremely dangerous individuals and I will never, under any circumstance, accept the death penalty, and prison is the only alternative that can be used that I know of.

Well, why don't you ever accept the death penalty? What about in the first case I presented, the out of control maniac who is physically killing people right there and then, with no way to physically disable them? Would it not be better to kill them, before they could continue to kill?


If there is a better alternative fine, but it eludes me.
The only trouble is, your alternative requires a state. States mean ruling class, hierarchy, etc. All the crap we are fighting against.


There's no justice quite like mob justice, is there?
There is also no justice in state justice. One reason so many people are against capital punishment today, but would be willing to accept it in a post-capitalist, post-state society is that there might actually be justice. Where as today, there isn't any (which is why in the USA there are far more "black" people on death row then "white", just as there are far more "black" people in prison generally).

[Demogorgon]

Take the case of the quiet methodical serial killer. The current rotation of the people's militia can go and capture them, and then take them down to the jury hall where the facts can be read, they defend themselves (or get a lawyer), and the current rotation of the jury decides whether the person is likely to be guilty or not. Execution without right of appeal, eh? You will note that your method of arrest and trial works equally well for sending people to prison as it does for executing them. Better indeed, as mistakes can be undone. Anyway I am not an anarchist, I accept the need for a justice system. It should not be one that favours the bourgeoisie of course, nonetheless even that is better than lynch mobs.

As for anarchists, you should support imprisonment using the same method of justice you outlined there


If so, they pass sentence, and the current rotation of the people's militia takes the person out and shoots them (if they are guilty).
That will have a good effect on the psychological state and character of people in the militia. Killing somebody, even if it is justified, is a terrible thing for the person doing so apart from anything else.


Well, why don't you ever accept the death penalty? What about in the first case I presented, the out of control maniac who is physically killing people right there and then, with no way to physically disable them? Would it not be better to kill them, before they could continue to kill?

To me the Death Penalty is one of the worst examples of abuse of power. Quite simply I view it as being on exactly the same level as pre-meditated cold-blooded murder. I will never accept that.

As for your example of an out of control maniac, well that is a self defeating example. Even many of the most execution happy states would not execute such a person due to the fact that their lawyers could easily prove them insane. They would be placed in secure psychiatric facilities. Why should we be more brutal than that?

[apathy maybe]

As for your example of an out of control maniac, well that is a self defeating example. Even many of the most execution happy states would not execute such a person due to the fact that their lawyers could easily prove them insane. They would be placed in secure psychiatric facilities. Why should we be more brutal than that?
I'm saying that they are out of control. You can't capture them. You can either let them kill everyone in area, or you (or someone else) can shoot them yourself. Either choose to kill one person, or let that person go on and kill many more. (Sorta like, would you have killed Hitler? (http://www.abyssandapex.com/200710-wikihistory.html))

As to being insane, it isn't about punishment, it is about self-defence. Locking someone up is punishment. By removing a person's life you are no longer punishing them, because they no longer exist. Whereas, if you lock someone up, you can punish them, and punish them, and punish them...
You say, "Why should we be more brutal than that?" Depriving someone of their liberty is brutal. And if done for any long period of time (such as to keep an insane person from continually killing others), then it is more brutal I would say, then merely shooting them.

Of course, you just stated that you weren't an anarchist. By this I take it that you don't want to abolish the state, hierarchy etc. Well, OK, I don't accept that position, and I'll fight against it. But if you are an anarchist, then prisons aren't an option. And what other options do you have for persons intent on killing others?

[mikelepore]

I assume the words "punishment" and penalty" refer to after-the-fact actions. Someone has been retained and processed. The person being dragged to the execution chamber isn't committing that crime _right now_. I'm against it in all circumstances. I would even oppose the execution of someone convicted of killing ten million people.

But if, at a given moment, slaves are in the process of rising up against their slavery, escaping from slavery -- and this includes wage slavery (capitalism) -- and if one of the members of the ruling class tries to block the doorway, or impede the slaves' rebellion in any other way, the uprising slaves are justified in shooting him dead on the spot.

The difference is: action of the latter type -- shooting the deposed master who tries to block the doorway -- isn't a "penalty" or "punishment", because it's not something that's done afterwards. Action of the latter type is immediate self-defense.

[Demogorgon]

I'm saying that they are out of control. You can't capture them. You can either let them kill everyone in area, or you (or someone else) can shoot them yourself. Either choose to kill one person, or let that person go on and kill many more. (Sorta like, would you have killed Hitler? (http://www.abyssandapex.com/200710-wikihistory.html))

As to being insane, it isn't about punishment, it is about self-defence. Locking someone up is punishment. By removing a person's life you are no longer punishing them, because they no longer exist. Whereas, if you lock someone up, you can punish them, and punish them, and punish them...
You say, "Why should we be more brutal than that?" Depriving someone of their liberty is brutal. And if done for any long period of time (such as to keep an insane person from continually killing others), then it is more brutal I would say, then merely shooting them.

Of course, you just stated that you weren't an anarchist. By this I take it that you don't want to abolish the state, hierarchy etc. Well, OK, I don't accept that position, and I'll fight against it. But if you are an anarchist, then prisons aren't an option. And what other options do you have for persons intent on killing others?
Come on, are you saying being put in prison is worse than being executed? I don't think prison should be cruel, rather it should simply be for keeping dangerous people away from situations where they can cause harm.

Yor example of somebody so out of control that you can't capture them is just silly. If you can't capture them, you can hardly execute them either.

[Uncle Hank]

Only if their (the being in question's) differences with the rest of society are irreconcilable and they are unable to be rehabilitated, and are still a threat to be an at-large criminal upon banishment, then and only then, should the death penalty be considered, let alone enforced.

[The Feral Underclass]

OK, a scenario for you, a person wielding a machine gun walks into a crowded area and starts shooting, attempting to kill as many people as they can.
People attempting to get close are gunned down before they can restrain the person.

It just so happens that one of the people in this crowded area has a weapon, and successfully kills the person from a distance, thus stopping any more deaths.

Now, that isn't "capital punishment", I know. But are you opposed to that?

AM I opposed to a community stopping someone from attacking their community using whatever means necessary? Erm, no...


OK, another scenario. Person B goes and randomly kill a person in this crowded area. What happens?
Assuming they are let go after promising not to do it again. Next day, they do it again.Grow up! When would that ever happened? When would a community just let a killer go back into the community in that manner?


How do you protect society from that sort of mad person?The fundamental principle that anarchsits come from is that we are free do to whatever we want providing the freedom of others is not encrouched upon. If a "mad" person is attacking a community and putting the lives of others at risk, we are justified in protecting ourselves; using whatever force is necessary.


Well, like you I object to punishment. However, in these cases it is about protection, self-defense. Do you agree with that assessment?

Yes, I agree with that "assessment". Punishment is a predmeditated reaction towards something that effects us. Revenge, which is what punishment is, is not a progressive way to deal - retrospectively - with people who do things that create negative or contradictory things to our societies. We have to find ways to deal with these problems so we can protect everyone and ultimately learn how to prevent them.

I'm drunk, so apologise if their's incomprehension.

[Andropov]

Never.
The justice system should be about rehabilitation, not retribution.
This right wing sentiment about vengence is purely destructive and does more harm to society than help.
If they are incapable of rehabilitation then confine them where they will cause no more harm to society again.

[The Feral Underclass]

I support the death penalty for dissidents calling for an end to socialism and also for murderers and rapists. All other crimes should be dealt with through labor camps or rehabilitation centers, depending on the crime.

How is this progressive? Explain to me from your "queer Marxist-Leninist" position how punishment is a progressive way to deal with negative dynamics in human society?

I want a detailed explanation. If your ideas are so mature and refined then I suspect that won't be too difficult...

Go on then...


Ah - anarchists. So amusing with your childish anti-authoritarianism.Listen to me. I'm 25 years old. Have been involved in the revolutionary left since I as 14. I've been an anarchist 5 years of that time. I am active and I am well versed in both the intellectuals and praxis of anarchism. If you think that you are facing school kids here then I suggest you re-evaluate that position because I am warning you - you are entering a dispute that I wager you will not win.

If you want to challenge me about my anti-authoritarianism then you are going to have to construct an argument that moves beyond "childish". That's not going to be tolerated by me.

Educate yourself or fuck off!

[The Feral Underclass]

On the question of prison.

Creating a space where individuals must be detained who cannot be rehabilitated is obviously necessary. If we call them prisons, then fine. The difference between a current prison and a prison in a communist society is that we are creating forcible detainment because we have no other choice.

Also, within that choice we have to continue to attempt to help those we are detaining. These prisons aren't based on punishment but on progression; on a recoginition that some human beings must be constantly supported by society and when they are better they can rejoin it.

Compassion, comrades.

[Comrade B]

I actually formed this poll in a way I could have done better on. I forgot to mention people with psychological problems, and placed murderers and rapists in the same section (I believe that rapists deserve harsher treatment than murderers, pending on the circumstances). I also put murder under one section. I also made political figures very unclear (I do not support the execution of dissidents or rebel leaders, but do support the execution of fellows like George Bush, Dick Cheney, Orlando Bosch, and Bin Laden). Apologies to all those who had to go with other due to that

[Marsella]

Yes, for all criminals and all cappie figures and class traitors, including, but not limited to, Stalinists, Maoists, Trotskyists, Leninists, Hoxhaists and various Anarchists and especially fat people.

[Dean]

What about the circumstances I outlined above? Out of control maniacs, or slow and methodical serial killers?

Do you want to imprison them? :ohmy:

Prisons as well require states. And personally, I'm out for the end of states, police and all that crap.

I do however, believe in self defence.

If the issue is between an organization of people using imprisonment, rather than killing, to defend themselves I obviously support the former. I don't oppose prisons as much as I oppose unnecessary killing.

[Plagueround]

I support the death penalty for dissidents calling for an end to socialism and also for murderers and rapists. All other crimes should be dealt with through labor camps or rehabilitation centers, depending on the crime.

Just a reminder...this is revleft.com, not reactionarymuslim.com.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

I assume the words "punishment" and penalty" refer to after-the-fact actions. Someone has been retained and processed. The person being dragged to the execution chamber isn't committing that crime _right now_. I'm against it in all circumstances. I would even oppose the execution of someone convicted of killing ten million people.

But if, at a given moment, slaves are in the process of rising up against their slavery, escaping from slavery -- and this includes wage slavery (capitalism) -- and if one of the members of the ruling class tries to block the doorway, or impede the slaves' rebellion in any other way, the uprising slaves are justified in shooting him dead on the spot.

The difference is: action of the latter type -- shooting the deposed master who tries to block the doorway -- isn't a "penalty" or "punishment", because it's not something that's done afterwards. Action of the latter type is immediate self-defense.
Good point, and I tend to agree completely.

[redSHARP]

killing osama would back fire. yes please! lets give them a hero to worship; a hero who died fighting the enemy. best plan of action for political figures is to
A. buy them off
B. sideline them
C. arrest them and give them no room to spread their message

[Colonello Buendia]

the death penalty is wrong. under no circumstances should someone be killed in a cold scientific manner. it doesn't achieve anything, the criminal is dead, has been given the easy route out, the victims are still dead/raped. I'm not opposed to a criminal being shot and killed in a fire fight or something but never should there be a death penalty.

[Kami]

has been given the easy route out
You'd rather lock them up the rest of their lives?
I suppose you think YOU'RE the 'humane' one?

[Dean]

You'd rather lock them up the rest of their lives?
I suppose you think YOU'RE the 'humane' one?

Some penal institutions are extremely humane. Iremember watching somethign when I was young about how U.S. citizens didn't want a jewish person who had killed some people to be nationalised in Israel, because his conviction there would land him in a much nicer prison. I don't remember what happened, but I remember hoping he was able to stay in Israel.

I am completely opposed to penal measures in any sense. I support preventative and rehabilitation measures. Those here who think its better to kill someone that to secure them and try to give them decent care have a serious problem with their priorities. I don't know about you, but my revolution is about humanity, not some purist "anti-authoritarian" concept where imprisonment is considered worse than death.

[RaiseYourVoice]

On the question of prison.

Creating a space where individuals must be detained who cannot be rehabilitated is obviously necessary. If we call them prisons, then fine. The difference between a current prison and a prison in a communist society is that we are creating forcible detainment because we have no other choice.

Also, within that choice we have to continue to attempt to help those we are detaining. These prisons aren't based on punishment but on progression; on a recoginition that some human beings must be constantly supported by society and when they are better they can rejoin it.

Compassion, comrades.
I fully agree, prisons are nothing but a last option. Also we have to work on how prisons are run. Isolation, torture, breaking prisoners cannot be the option. We want to protect those outside of the prisons, not punish those inside.

As for the humanity of death penalty compared to life long prison. In any socialist society it should be standard that you can, whenever you choose, end your own life and if you cannot do it yourself get help with that. The right to live includes the negative freedom to end your life. Thus the prisoner of course has the chance to end his/her life, as its just as safe for the society as imprisoning the person. Killing someone because YOU THINK its best for them, is anything but humane.


Just a reminder...this is revleft.com, not reactionarymuslim.com. The isn't the anti-Islam conference either.
The fact that the first thing that comes to your mind when you hear "labor camps" and death penalty for dissidents is "muslim" is at least interesting.

[Dean]

I support the death penalty for dissidents calling for an end to socialism and also for murderers and rapists. All other crimes should be dealt with through labor camps or rehabilitation centers, depending on the crime.

"Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of one party -- however numerous they may be -- is no freedom at all. Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently. Not because of any fanatical concept of 'justice' but because all that is instructive, wholesome and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effectiveness vanishes when 'freedom' becomes a special privilege."
-Rosa Luxemburg

[Zurdito]

I support capital punishment under a workers government for rapists and counter-revolutionary terrorists.

[Mariner's Revenge]

the death penalty is wrong. under no circumstances should someone be killed in a cold scientific manner. it doesn't achieve anything, the criminal is dead, has been given the easy route out, the victims are still dead/raped. I'm not opposed to a criminal being shot and killed in a fire fight or something but never should there be a death penalty.
Even though I absolutely disagree with capital punishment in modern society, I would not make it an objective moral.

In today's society there is absolutely no need for the death penalty because of vast state resources but in other scenarios, it is an option that might have to be resorted too. Assuming the decentralization of the state, if crazed killers ravage a small community with limited resources, they may need to resort to the death penalty in lack of a better solution. I hope this would be a rare occurrence and no one prematurely jumps to capital punishment but to cut it out completely won't help the situation either. Keeping our options open can never hurt unless we make decisions irrationally.

[Kropotesta]

Assuming the decentralization of the state, if crazed killers ravage a small community with limited resources, they may need to resort to the death penalty in lack of a better solution.
Federalism wouldn't necessary bring about small communities with limited resources, unless the participants wanted isolation. So I still don't think that would be a good rational decision.


Keeping our options open can never hurt unless we make decisions irrationally.
Can sentencing someone to death ever be a rational decision? Wouldn't it be more rational to simply remove them from society until deemed 'better'?

[Mariner's Revenge]

Federalism wouldn't necessary bring about small communities with limited resources, unless the participants wanted isolation. So I still don't think that would be a good rational decision.
I am making an example against objective morals so I only need a single example where capital punishment would be the best solution.

Lets take a "wild west" example. If we have a very small isolated population with very limited resources, what options are available to killers that will not get "better"? They can lock them up until they die, wasting 20-30 years of food, water, shelter, etc or they can kill them. The rational decision would be killing because that is one less mouth to feed, a big help in an isolated population with limited resources.

Because I am only trying to prove a point, I will use an even more extreme example. Lets say I, and ten others, are walking through a very isolated area trying to get from point A to point B so there is no one else around to protect or feed us. Now, for some odd reason, one of the ten snaps and decides that he or she will kill the other ten before killing his or herself. We can either risk losing our lives to make sure we do not murder this individual or we can take out the threat.

Remember, I am not trying to justify capital punishment, only change the idea that capital punishment is immoral 100% of the time to 99.99% of the time.

[Kropotesta]

Because I am only trying to prove a point, I will use an even more extreme example. Lets say I, and ten others, are walking through a very isolated area trying to get from point A to point B so there is no one else around to protect or feed us. Now, for some odd reason, one of the ten snaps and decides that he or she will kill the other ten before killing his or herself. We can either risk losing our lives to make sure we do not murder this individual or we can take out the threat.

The person wouldn't beable to put much of a fight against nine others, and thus would be easily restrained. Also the individual who 'snaps' is clearly mentally disturded and would benefit from some form of councilling, opposed to their death.
Also I would look at systematically taking someones life as irrational and consequencly immoral.

[The Feral Underclass]

I support capital punishment under a workers government for rapists and counter-revolutionary terrorists.

For what reason?

[Plagueround]

The isn't the anti-Islam conference either.
The fact that the first thing that comes to your mind when you hear "labor camps" and death penalty for dissidents is "muslim" is at least interesting.

Go read some of Peacekeeper's other gems of wisdom about women and race and get back to me on that one. I'm sure you would love the chance to jump on someone for being anti-muslim (which I'm not), but he constantly demonstrates chauvinistic and narrow views on the subject because he is a reactionary muslim...to the point where he informed a Catholic on our site they were going to hell and inferred that woman not wearing hijab wouldn't be able to find a husband, amongst other things.

[Peacekeeper]

Go read some of Peacekeeper's other gems of wisdom about women and race and get back to me on that one.
I challenge you to come up with any quote that would reflect badly on me.


A person who commits murder or rape has proven himself to be incompatible with socialist society - an anti-social element. A person who advocates violent overthrow of a socialist government is a counterrevolutionary, there is no denying that, and I would support a term in a labor camp for this.
The concept of a prison is inherently bourgeois. A prison is a place where social parasites live off of the bounty of the state, while producing nothing. Why should they be rewarded for their anti-social behaviors? They should be put to work for the good of socialism.
Also - the concept of revolutionary justice is ridiculously utopian and idealistic. In the deep south of the USA, "revolutionary justice" consists of lynching black men who look at white women, and beating/killing homosexuals, etc. I don't want a mob to determine justice, but a socialist vanguard party consisting of the revolutionary working class.
Of course, I support rehabilitation for those convicted of possession of illegal drugs, alcohol abuse, prostituting themselves, etc. In the Soviet Union, there was a comprehensive system of rehabilitation centers for such things.
To the Anarchists - You want a revolution, a spontaneous uprising of the oppressed masses to overthrow the bourgeois mode of production. If you manage to achieve this, then you will have the most revolutionary generation in history, and you will be able to maintain a communist society without the need for a socialist state and police force ("fuck that!"). I wish you the best of luck with your revolution, however I doubt very much that the generation capable of executing your revolution will this one or the next one or the one after that.
In the current state of things, I could see no other road to communism than through a temporary socialist state that would give complete power to the revolutionary workers and completely disenfranchise the capitalists and the bourgeoisie.
Also, just know that I have nothing personal against Anarchists (but they have something personal against me!), but I find their ideology hopelessly utopian and unrealistic. I've even had a couple male lovers in the Seattle Anarchist community. :blushing:

Reactionary Muslim... you can think whatever you want. I won't judge you, for only Allah knows what is in your heart.

[Plagueround]

I actually went through and found about 4-5 posts that were pretty offensive, but I think I've veered this topic too far off course already and I don't want to take it any further here. It was probably wrong of me to be so rude about calling you out and for that I apologize, but the reactionary stances you take on a lot of issues are aggravating to read.
Despite all that, I actually think you're pretty cool and you do have some good ideas. Some of the shit that flies out of your mouth and mind needs to go away though.

Getting this back on topic, why is it that you think a murderer or a rapist cannot be rehabilitated and must be killed or exiled/put in a work camp? What do they learn from that, other than more contempt for the society you've created? Not every murder is a result of a souless, mindless sociopath, and many rapists are people who have been abused in the past. Why are these people less deserving of our help than others? I understand they have victimized another person and, in the case of murder, taken that person's life, but what do we gain by forcing people into labor with no chance of working toward recovery? When they get out they're even more damaged than before...and if they don't get out and you force them to work for the rest of their lives...well, where I come from that's known as slavery (and I only live 3 hours away from you). I think a socialist/communist society can do a lot better than that.

On another note, I completely agree on the notion that the idea of mob justice is worse that the idea of a prison. Far too easy for the majority to oust people they don't like on charges they make up or use as an excuse.

[Mariner's Revenge]

The person wouldn't beable to put much of a fight against nine others,
Yes, but what if this person kills one or two in the process? Are their lives not worth enough to break some moral standard for a pointless cause? The guy isn't going to get better. The only options are you kill him or you risk more lives in the hopes of somehow restraining him, using resources and energy in the process.


Also the individual who 'snaps' is clearly mentally disturded and would benefit from some form of councilling, opposed to their death.You forgot my scenario. I am attacking the idea of objective morals. There are extreme examples where capital punishment might be a very valid option. As of now we have the resources necessary to restrain and council these people but there are scenarios where people don't, hence they need to consider more extreme options. It is possible for a small group to restrain a single person who went mentally insane but the risk and effort involved sometimes does not make it worth it.


Also I would look at systematically taking someones life as irrational and consequencly immoral.Do you consider abortion immoral?

Also, show me the logic that you used to consider capital punishment immoral.

[Kropotesta]

Yes, but what if this person kills one or two in the process? Are their lives not worth enough to break some moral standard for a pointless cause? The guy isn't going to get better. The only options are you kill him or you risk more lives in the hopes of somehow restraining him, using resources and energy in the process.
Two wrongs doesn't make a right as they say. Doesn't it seem somewhat hypocritical to murder someone to show them that it's wrong to kill?


There are extreme examples where capital punishment might be a very valid option. As of now we have the resources necessary to restrain and council these people but there are scenarios where people don't, hence they need to consider more extreme options.
So because the society hasn't progressed enough to accomodate people or may not fit the 'norm', those people should be murdered?


It is possible for a small group to restrain a single person who went mentally insane but the risk and effort involved sometimes does not make it worth it.
OK, but this group would be taking the same risk in attempting to combat this person as they would in restraining them.


Do you consider abortion immoral?

Also, show me the logic that you used to consider capital punishment immoral.
I believe that people should have control over their own body and life. So while a fetus is in a women, it is part of the women, therefore the decision lies with the participant.

[Mariner's Revenge]

Two wrongs doesn't make a right as they say.
If you are going to argue, please at least put one up instead of an overused cliche statement that brings nothing to the current argument.

In real life, there are times when people are faced with lose lose situations. Meaning that in certain scenarios, a "right" solution is just not possible. We cannot avoid these situations and have to make a decision because many times a decision will be made for us if we don't.

Going back to my example, lets say you are faced with a decision. A certain individual has vowed to kill as many of you as possible before this individual is killed. You can either do nothing and watch as your partners are killed, you can find this person and kill him, preventing further murders, or you can find this person and restrain him, risking the lives of your partners and wasting precious resources. This is a lose-lose-lose situation, assuming that making no decision is actually a decision.

In my eyes, I would find the second possibility the most rational decision because it will get rid of the threat and not use as many resources that will probably be needed later on.


Doesn't it seem somewhat hypocritical to murder someone to show them that it's wrong to kill?You don't murder someone to prove a point; you murder someone to prevent someone from murdering someone else.


So because the society hasn't progressed enough to accomodate people or may not fit the 'norm', those people should be murdered?When these people that do not fit the 'norm' hurt the stability of a society, then actions to restrain those people might be necessary. As a mentioned in my first post, there should be no objective moral or punishment because no single moral or punishment will fit every scenario. The majority of the time capital punishment will not be needed but there might be times when it is.


OK, but this group would be taking the same risk in attempting to combat this person as they would in restraining them.What? I can kill you by taking a rifle and sniping you from 100 yards away. To restrain you I need to first expose myself to you, disarm you, hold you down until I can tie you up (or other method), then keep you restrained for an extended period of time. The risks between the two are much different. Talk to a police officer if you don't believe me.


I believe that people should have control over their own body and life. So while a fetus is in a women, it is part of the women, therefore the decision lies with the participant.I am not going to get into an abortion argument here because I share the same stance but abortion is still systematically killing potential life. Its just that many consider that to be a lesser evil than forcing a woman to have a child or having a kid in less than favorable conditions.


Also I would look at systematically taking someones life as irrational and consequencly immoral.I am requoting this because I still want to see your logic that makes this immoral. I think this can lead to a very good discussion.

[Kropotesta]

Going back to my example, lets say you are faced with a decision. A certain individual has vowed to kill as many of you as possible before this individual is killed. You can either do nothing and watch as your partners are killed, you can find this person and kill him, preventing further murders, or you can find this person and restrain him, risking the lives of your partners and wasting precious resources. This is a lose-lose-lose situation, assuming that making no decision is actually a decision.
Fine if it's in self defence. However we're talking of capital punishment, not self defence.



You don't murder someone to prove a point; you murder someone to prevent someone from murdering someone else.
Yes, however, capital punishment is punishment, thus implying that the victim is 'wrong'. So yes, punishment is to prove a point.



What? I can kill you by taking a rifle and sniping you from 100 yards away. To restrain you I need to first expose myself to you, disarm you, hold you down until I can tie you up (or other method), then keep you restrained for an extended period of time. The risks between the two are much different. Talk to a police officer if you don't believe me.
Again, that is not capital punishment.
In regards to what I ment about the use of restraint was that, in the context of your scenario, then killing the person would be as dangerous as restraining them. You could say you'd brandish a knife but that could result in it being used on you.



I am requoting this because I still want to see your logic that makes this immoral. I think this can lead to a very good discussion.
I take that you mean in the context of capital punishment?

[The Feral Underclass]

To the Anarchists - You want a revolution, a spontaneous uprising of the oppressed masses to overthrow the bourgeois mode of production. If you manage to achieve this, then you will have the most revolutionary generation in history, and you will be able to maintain a communist society without the need for a socialist state and police force ("fuck that!"). I wish you the best of luck with your revolution, however I doubt very much that the generation capable of executing your revolution will this one or the next one or the one after that.
In the current state of things, I could see no other road to communism than through a temporary socialist state that would give complete power to the revolutionary workers and completely disenfranchise the capitalists and the bourgeoisie.
Also, just know that I have nothing personal against Anarchists (but they have something personal against me!), but I find their ideology hopelessly utopian and unrealistic. I've even had a couple male lovers in the Seattle Anarchist community. :blushing:

Reactionary Muslim... you can think whatever you want. I won't judge you, for only Allah knows what is in your heart.

Look, you lunatic, if you're going to write some polemic against anarchism at least have the decency to know what anarchism is before you start.

Yet again, some self-righteous prick has come here declaring his opinions as if they were the essence of originality. You make claims against anarchism as if you were the first person saying them and you do it badly.

I suggest you educate yourself about anarchism before continuing with your incredibly tiresome rants against it.

[Peacekeeper]

I actually went through and found about 4-5 posts that were pretty offensive, but I think I've veered this topic too far off course already and I don't want to take it any further here. It was probably wrong of me to be so rude about calling you out and for that I apologize, but the reactionary stances you take on a lot of issues are aggravating to read.
Despite all that, I actually think you're pretty cool and you do have some good ideas. Some of the shit that flies out of your mouth and mind needs to go away though.

Getting this back on topic, why is it that you think a murderer or a rapist cannot be rehabilitated and must be killed or exiled/put in a work camp? What do they learn from that, other than more contempt for the society you've created? Not every murder is a result of a souless, mindless sociopath, and many rapists are people who have been abused in the past. Why are these people less deserving of our help than others? I understand they have victimized another person and, in the case of murder, taken that person's life, but what do we gain by forcing people into labor with no chance of working toward recovery? When they get out they're even more damaged than before...and if they don't get out and you force them to work for the rest of their lives...well, where I come from that's known as slavery (and I only live 3 hours away from you). I think a socialist/communist society can do a lot better than that.

On another note, I completely agree on the notion that the idea of mob justice is worse that the idea of a prison. Far too easy for the majority to oust people they don't like on charges they make up or use as an excuse.

Reactionary stances... the only thing I can think of is my so-called "paternalism."

Frankly, I don't care why a rapist became a rapist. All I care about is that he is brought to justice. If you know someone who has been raped, or have family who have been raped, you will understand this. Whenever I hear someone talking about psychological help, etc. for rapists, all I hear is, "Ohhh the poor little rapist, he must have had a horrible childhood, let's let him become a parasite who produces nothing and sits and talks to a therapist!" The thing is, at the end of the day, once you've done your "good deed" and felt "compassion" for A RAPIST, there is still a girl somewhere who cries to herself because of what he did to her.

(Queue the claims of bourgeois emotionalism or some shit, from the same people who were talking about having compassion for their fellow man)

The thing is, I DON'T WANT a rapist or murderer to be rehabilitated. I want them gone. There is no place in society for a rapist who has "mended their ways." Because there is no way they can give back what they have taken from their victim.

In conclusion to that bit, I'd much rather have compassion for a victim of rape than a despicable criminal.

That bit about living three hours away from me creeped me out until I realized it shows my location next to each post I make.


Look, you lunatic, if you're going to write some polemic against anarchism at least have the decency to know what anarchism is before you start.

Yet again, some self-righteous prick has come here declaring his opinions as if they were the essence of originality. You make claims against anarchism as if you were the first person saying them and you do it badly.

I suggest you educate yourself about anarchism before continuing with your incredibly tiresome rants against it.

Fixed:


See here, (ad hominem deleted), please do not speak of the obvious flaws in the Anarchist theory!

Once more, some (ad hominem deleted) was attempting to state his respect for individuals who are Anarchists, but not their ideology! You were not attempting to be original at all, merely stating the views you hold! This is RevLib, we can't have that here!

My post has no substance, it is merely the babbling of an overly-defensive Anarchist who has it out for theists and anyone who even disagrees with them slightly! I love sectarianism!

[Mariner's Revenge]

Fine if it's in self defence. However we're talking of capital punishment, not self defence.
The only difference between what I used capital punishment as and what you define it as is if the offender is already restrained or not. I personally don't see much difference between your definition and a hit but lets take the same scenario and lets say we found him sleeping under a tree and we tie him up. The question now becomes do we let him go, keep him restrained, or kill him (leaving him there falls under this category)?

If we don't have the resources to keep him tied up, the people to make sure someone is watching him at all times, and enough food and water to keep him alive, capital punishment or letting him go becomes our two choices. Then we obviously don't want to risk him killing anyone else because our premise is that he wouldn't change so therefore we are almost forced to kill him.

To reiterate again, I am making a point against objective morals so I only need to prove one scenario.


Yes, however, capital punishment is punishment, thus implying that the victim is 'wrong'. So yes, punishment is to prove a point.You are going too far into definition and not enough in reality. If we have someone tied up and we kill him out of the self defense, it would still be considered capital punishment even though the intentions are different. If we are dealing solely with definitions, then you are right but in reality, I see self defense and punishment overlapping too much to completely separate.


In regards to what I ment about the use of restraint was that, in the context of your scenario, then killing the person would be as dangerous as restraining them. You could say you'd brandish a knife but that could result in it being used on you.That doesn't make sense in a real life scenario assuming there is no centralized justice system. What is the point of restraining him if you are going to kill him anyways? Either way, you still have to use resources to keep him alive.


I take that you mean in the context of capital punishment?Nevermind, I am going to start a thread on this later on in the theory section. I was going to make a point on centralized versus decentralized morality but if you check out that thread in a few days, you will see.

[The Feral Underclass]

See here, (ad hominem deleted), please do not speak of the obvious flaws in the Anarchist theory!

Once more, some (ad hominem deleted) was attempting to state his respect for individuals who are Anarchists, but not their ideology! You were not attempting to be original at all, merely stating the views you hold! This is RevLib, we can't have that here!

If you want to wallow in your own self-ignorance, then so be it. I was merely pointing out that you should know what anarchism is before you start attacking it. If you have such respect for individual anarchists perhaps you'd have the decency to know what they believe.


My post has no substance, it is merely the babbling of an overly-defensive Anarchist who has it out for theists and anyone who even disagrees with them slightly! I love sectarianism!I have nothing against people disagreeing with me but I think it's safe to assume that I am indeed sectarian towards Muslim Leninists.

[Zurdito]

For what reason?

regarding counter-revolutionary terrorists, I guess it's self-explanatory, and that's probably not what you were asking - I think we will need to wipe out a lot of reactionary forces who will actively fight against socialism, as part of a transitional government.

regarding rapists, well this issue is so complicated. I should have been cleaer, I don't hold it as a moralistic rule that all rapists should be killed, if in a transitional period we have the material means for mass rehabilitationa nd psychological treatment, this would be ideal.

However there will be certain parts of the struggle in certain parts of the world where there will be severe shortage, especially int he middle of a civil war (which can of course still continue when there is a workers government controlling most of a country)....in this case, I would say it would be permissable to bring ina death penatly for people committing crimes of oppression like rape, as this is not a case of economic motive (yes there are material causes, of course, there are material causes of all oppression) but in fact the highest expression of physical oppression you can cay out on another person, and it's a political crime because in every sense a rape is the antithesis of what a revolution stands for, i.e. to give back human dignity and independence to each person...the same goes for race-hate crimes, though I counted these withinc oounter-revolutioanry terrorism.

I'm not at my most lucid right now and this kind of discussion does have a tendency to make people sound a bit unhinged, but I hope that answered your question :)

[Plagueround]

Frankly, I don't care why a rapist became a rapist. All I care about is that he is brought to justice. If you know someone who has been raped, or have family who have been raped, you will understand this. Whenever I hear someone talking about psychological help, etc. for rapists, all I hear is, "Ohhh the poor little rapist, he must have had a horrible childhood, let's let him become a parasite who produces nothing and sits and talks to a therapist!" The thing is, at the end of the day, once you've done your "good deed" and felt "compassion" for A RAPIST, there is still a girl somewhere who cries to herself because of what he did to her.

(Queue the claims of bourgeois emotionalism or some shit, from the same people who were talking about having compassion for their fellow man)

The thing is, I DON'T WANT a rapist or murderer to be rehabilitated. I want them gone. There is no place in society for a rapist who has "mended their ways." Because there is no way they can give back what they have taken from their victim.

In conclusion to that bit, I'd much rather have compassion for a victim of rape than a despicable criminal.


Out of respect for my family and friends I won't type the list of people I know that have been raped. But, out of the people I know, I also know not a single one of them would feel better if the person who raped them was dead. I think it is possible to have compassion for the rapist and the victim. If we are to condemn people for their mental illness, especially those that are a result of past victimhood, where do we draw the line?

[Kropotesta]

The only difference between what I used capital punishment as and what you define it as is if the offender is already restrained or not. I personally don't see much difference between your definition and a hit but lets take the same scenario and lets say we found him sleeping under a tree and we tie him up. The question now becomes do we let him go, keep him restrained, or kill him (leaving him there falls under this category)?
Restrain them and take them into solitary confinement, if they really are that dangerous, and await a trial.



If we don't have the resources to keep him tied up, the people to make sure someone is watching him at all times, and enough food and water to keep him alive, capital punishment or letting him go becomes our two choices. Then we obviously don't want to risk him killing anyone else because our premise is that he wouldn't change so therefore we are almost forced to kill him.
Why on Earth do you think that federalism will lead to a lack of resources?
Merely inrole them in a psychriatic ward and try and understand the reasons why he flipped, hopely being able to make the person 'better'.


You are going too far into definition and not enough in reality.
No, if anyone here has misconstrued the meaning of a 'punishment', it is you.


If we have someone tied up and we kill him out of the self defense
Restraint means that you are out of harms way and are not in imediate threat of being attacked by the said individual, thus killing a restraint person, tied to a tree, is murder and not self defence.


That doesn't make sense in a real life scenario assuming there is no centralized justice system. What is the point of restraining him if you are going to kill him anyways? Either way, you still have to use resources to keep him alive.
Just because there is no centralised justice system, doesn't mean that each commune wouldn't have one. So in the end, after a trial, a rational decision would be thought up, not a quick irrational, understandable though, one by the people who may have been at threat made in panic.
On that the matter of resources, the same amount of resources would be produced as beofre, so what's the problem?

[Kropotesta]

regarding counter-revolutionary terrorists, I guess it's self-explanatory, and that's probably not what you were asking - I think we will need to wipe out a lot of reactionary forces who will actively fight against socialism, as part of a transitional government.

I hate state socialists.
What if a popular mass working class movement arose, would you let them run the show in a way they wanted?

[RaiseYourVoice]

regarding counter-revolutionary terrorists, I guess it's self-explanatory, and that's probably not what you were asking - I think we will need to wipe out a lot of reactionary forces who will actively fight against socialism, as part of a transitional government.
How is a punishment system based on oppression and revenge in any way progressive? Why not put them in jail under decent conditions, that way I'm sure they have a lot more problems gaining followers since they can make themselves martyrs.

[Svante]

How is a punishment system based on oppression and revenge in any way progressive? Why not put them in jail under decent conditions, that way I'm sure they have a lot more problems gaining followers since they can make themselves martyrs.

counter revolutonarys are the enemy.i f there excape from jail they will kill you.would you want t o be the martyrs?

[Zurdito]

How is a punishment system based on oppression and revenge in any way progressive? Why not put them in jail under decent conditions, that way I'm sure they have a lot more problems gaining followers since they can make themselves martyrs.

It's not about revenge, it's about recreating society, which takes at least a generation, at least.

You live in Germany my friend, I've been to Germany and have some good friends there: now tell me honestly, do you not think that a large portion of your middle class would right to the death against socialism? What exactly do you plan to do about that?

[crimsonzephyr]

i dont think anything should ever be killed period.

[Mariner's Revenge]

Ok, we really need to get something clear Kropotesta, I'm tired of you dancing around my answers so I'm going to address your argumental flaws directly.


Restrain them and take them into solitary confinement, if they really are that dangerous, and await a trial.
I mentioned many times before that this is a situation where a group does not have the resources to keep someone tied up. As I mentioned MANY times before, I am finding the most extreme example to counter the objective moral of no capital punishment. My situations do not represent the norm because they do not have too, I just need to find a single example.

I will show you my logic so you possibly can't misinterpret it.

First statement: capital punishment is always wrong
My reaction: I can find one example where capital punishment is the best solution
Solution: The First Statement is false

This is what I am trying to do. I will give an example.

First Statement: Tigers always have stripes
My Reaction: Here is a single tiger without stripes
Solution: The First Statement is false


Why on Earth do you think that federalism will lead to a lack of resources?I never said that federalism will lead to a lack of resources. I am simply using an extreme example that will not be the norm to prove a point. Using the tiger example, just because I can find one tiger without stripes does not mean that I think that the majority of tigers do not have stripes.


Merely inrole them in a psychriatic ward and try and understand the reasons why he flipped, hopely being able to make the person 'better'.I said this many times before, WE DO NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES TO PUT HIM IN A PSYCHIATRIC WARD!!!!

And I will say this again, I do not think this will be the norm. I am only giving an extreme example to prove a point.


No, if anyone here has misconstrued the meaning of a 'punishment', it is you.I presented my argument and you do not address it, just making a statement that has no backing. I said that even though my example technically isn't 'punishment' it will be considered punishment in real life so we should address it in that way in theory. If we went on your terms, there would be room for argument because the answer would be obvious but unfortunately, that doesn't work when you move from theory to reality.

If you want to argue, show me how you can completely separate true capital punishment and my example.


Restraint means that you are out of harms way and are not in imediate threat of being attacked by the said individual, thus killing a restraint person, tied to a tree, is murder and not self defence.You have to keep a person restrained, which takes resources and risk if you do not have a good defense. What if I don't have rope or something to tie the person up with? When this happens, you have to use defensive attack.


Just because there is no centralised justice system, doesn't mean that each commune wouldn't have one.I NEVER SAID THAT WOULD BE THE NORM!!!


So in the end, after a trial, a rational decision would be thought up, not a quick irrational, understandable though, one by the people who may have been at threat made in panic.You misinterpred what I meant by centralized justice system, which is probably my fault. What I meant is a structural order that someone has to go through to be convicted. You can still be rational and not have that structural order.


On that the matter of resources, the same amount of resources would be produced as beofre, so what's the problem?I am giving an example where you have limited resources. This is not going to be the norm.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It rather depends on whether you're talking about class society or classless society, doesn't it?

Under class society, capital punishment tends to be a long, drawn-out affair, with many appeals and such, and which also targets working class and coloured people more often than not. In other words, the ruling class uses capital punishment as a tool for suppressing the working class.

In classless society however, things are different. There is no money, so bribery is a non-issue. We won't have the horribly bloated legal system we currently have which is mostly devoted to enforcing class rule - a lot of bourgeouis law relates to property - we won't have prisons and the fascist prison gaurds that go with them, and we certainly won't have labour camps.

I think that execution is the best course for dealing with violent criminals such murderers and rapists. It won't be about deterrance, and it will not be about "making an example" or any other such rot. It will be simply about removing from society those who have actually demonstrated a capacity for being inhuman to others.

Consider the alternatives; we can either cage such people, with all that follows from that (prison culture), or we can exile them... but that is dependant on finding someplace willing to take our human refuse.

As for "rehabilitation", since we do not at present have any 100% reliable methods for rehabilitating people, any rehabilitation we do carry out will be effectively gambling with the lives of potential future victims of the criminal. Do you really want that on your conscience? "Oh, I'm sorry, it turns out he wasn't rehabilitated after all" - I'm sorry, but that will not do.

Dead murderers cannot murder again. Classless society is about freedom from violence and coercion and what is more violent and coercive than rape and murder? Most people, even in class society despite the pressures that accompany it, do not rape and murder others. Therefore it is in the interests of non-violent members of society that violent members of society are permanently removed.

Of course, there could be potential techniques and technologies in the future that are 100% reliable in reforming such people, but as they currently don't exist I argue from what is currently possible.

[Zurdito]

It rather depends on whether you're talking about class society or classless society, doesn't it?




What are your views on capital punishment?

-This question is meant to be referring to capital punishment in your preferred government system, not the present system, which we all know favors the rich and white-

;)

btw I'm reminded of the old quote that in a bourgeois society (the US specifically), capital punishment means "them without the capital get the punishment". I don't know who said it first, I believe it was a guy on death row. :(

[BobKKKindle$]

i dont think anything should ever be killed period.

Anything? What about killing animals for meat, or to produce clothing? What about a fetus? It is justified to kill anything which is not a human, because non-human organisms are not given rights, including the right to life. It is also justified to kill a human being when acting in self-defense against aggression.

[The Feral Underclass]

As for "rehabilitation", since we do not at present have any 100% reliable methods for rehabilitating people, any rehabilitation we do carry out will be effectively gambling with the lives of potential future victims of the criminal. Do you really want that on your conscience? "Oh, I'm sorry, it turns out he wasn't rehabilitated after all" - I'm sorry, but that will not do.

That's a red herring. Firstly, your assumption is that people who murder are likely to do it again. That's not true. Some cases of individuals doing it for pleasure will probably do it again, but that's very rare. Most people kill once and for inane or asinine reasons. You're trying to claim that people who kill others have a predisposition to killing. That's evidently not the case.

Secondly, we have people capable of understanding human psychology and how individual human beings are behaving. No one is suggesting we release people who are not cured and there's not reason to claim that we will not know whether that's the case.

The question of rapists is a different one because they are predisposed to commit rape again, usually and in those cases we will need facilities to deal with them

But in any case, we don't know what causes serial killers and rapists and in a revolutionary society, it may be that these things cease to exist. Rape is based on power and in a society where the powerless and endowed with authority over their lives, rape may end.


Dead murderers cannot murder againThat doesn't solve any problem, it just creates a culture of violence. Revenge is not a progressive way of dealing with problems like "murder". Take for example the individuals, young people mostly, who have been involved in this spate of knife deaths recently. Your plan of dealing with those people is take their lives away. That's just ridiculous.

Those young people aren't evil people, they made a mistake. A very terrible mistake, but it was a mistake and I suspect they understand that. I want to live in a society where we look on them with compassion and try to help them.


Classless society is about freedom from violence and coercion and what is more violent and coercive than rape and murder?Yet you want to use violence and coercion to solve the problem of violence and coercion.

[Kropotesta]

Ok, we really need to get something clear Kropotesta, I'm tired of you dancing around my answers so I'm going to address your argumental flaws directly.
By "arguemental flaws" I'll take that as differences of opinion.



I mentioned many times before that this is a situation where a group does not have the resources to keep someone tied up. As I mentioned MANY times before, I am finding the most extreme example to counter the objective moral of no capital punishment. My situations do not represent the norm because they do not have too, I just need to find a single example.

I will show you my logic so you possibly can't misinterpret it.

First statement: capital punishment is always wrong
My reaction: I can find one example where capital punishment is the best solution
Solution: The First Statement is false

This is what I am trying to do. I will give an example.

First Statement: Tigers always have stripes
My Reaction: Here is a single tiger without stripes
Solution: The First Statement is false
but you haven't been able, in my eyes, to prove that the first statement is wrong.




I said this many times before, WE DO NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES TO PUT HIM IN A PSYCHIATRIC WARD!!!!
Then that is still not a justification for murder. It merely highlights the faults of that society.



I presented my argument and you do not address it, just making a statement that has no backing. I said that even though my example technically isn't 'punishment' it will be considered punishment in real life so we should address it in that way in theory. If we went on your terms, there would be room for argument because the answer would be obvious but unfortunately, that doesn't work when you move from theory to reality.

If you want to argue, show me how you can completely separate true capital punishment and my example.
A true form of capital punishment is using the eletric chair after a trial. Capital punishment is 'official', what you propose is murder, tying someone up and then killing them. And self defence, attacking someone attacking/about to attack yourself or a group of people.


What if I don't have rope or something to tie the person up with? When this happens, you have to use defensive attack.
In your scenario the person was tied up. I didn't oppose self-defence.

[Ceaserian Øgly]

I believe that death penalty should primarily only be an option for political figures or other people high up in society, as it would make those who are in those positions think twice before unfairly exploiting people or nature.

This comes from my view upon "free will". I don't believe anyone has this "free will", but I believe that people with high education and lots of power still should take responsibility for their actions, as it is those who are most likely to understand the worst crimes. Having the option of death penalty open to them would, as far as I see it, benefit society in the long run.

When it comes to the common person in the street, they do not have the same power, and therefore not the same responsibility, so rehabilitation should always be the first option.

Of course, there are always exceptions. If someone generally is too dangerous to be kept alive, I think it is better to execute them, to save those lives that person could have taken, regardless of class or position.

[Sharon den Adel]

What are your views on capital punishment?

-This question is meant to be referring to capital punishment in your preferred government system, not the present system, which we all know favors the rich and white-

I'm against CP. I came to this decision after much thought. I just don't think it's right, or fair to execute someone, especially after that person has killed another. It's the 'eye for an eye' thing, you know. You kill someone, we kill you. That makes sense to me, but it doesn't seem fair. Why is the 'eye for an eye' phase only applied to convicted killers? Why don't we rape those convicted of rape, or steal from those convicted of burglary? Why don't the majority think it okay to do these things, yet see nothing wrong with taking a life of someone if they have first taken a life?

I have more to add, but I have to go to work now. I'll be back later to add to this.

[Dean]

It rather depends on whether you're talking about class society or classless society, doesn't it?

Under class society, capital punishment tends to be a long, drawn-out affair, with many appeals and such, and which also targets working class and coloured people more often than not. In other words, the ruling class uses capital punishment as a tool for suppressing the working class.

In classless society however, things are different. There is no money, so bribery is a non-issue. We won't have the horribly bloated legal system we currently have which is mostly devoted to enforcing class rule - a lot of bourgeouis law relates to property - we won't have prisons and the fascist prison gaurds that go with them, and we certainly won't have labour camps.

I think that execution is the best course for dealing with violent criminals such murderers and rapists. It won't be about deterrance, and it will not be about "making an example" or any other such rot. It will be simply about removing from society those who have actually demonstrated a capacity for being inhuman to others.
While your aims is purported to make society more humane, it is ironic that you prove more interested in utilitarian rather than humanistic methods. You don't really think that the ends can be demonstrably different from the means, do you?


Consider the alternatives; we can either cage such people, with all that follows from that (prison culture), or we can exile them... but that is dependant on finding someplace willing to take our human refuse.

As for "rehabilitation", since we do not at present have any 100% reliable methods for rehabilitating people, any rehabilitation we do carry out will be effectively gambling with the lives of potential future victims of the criminal. Do you really want that on your conscience? "Oh, I'm sorry, it turns out he wasn't rehabilitated after all" - I'm sorry, but that will not do.

Dead murderers cannot murder again. Classless society is about freedom from violence and coercion and what is more violent and coercive than rape and murder? Most people, even in class society despite the pressures that accompany it, do not rape and murder others. Therefore it is in the interests of non-violent members of society that violent members of society are permanently removed.

Of course, there could be potential techniques and technologies in the future that are 100% reliable in reforming such people, but as they currently don't exist I argue from what is currently possible.

I don't know if you assume that prisons must be inhumane, though yo useem to imply that there are only two alternatives here - to incur massive economic burden or to irrevocably doom a human being.

I think you are way off base here. Ther eare lot of reasons why capital punishment is inapplicable for a revolutionary society. I want to point out how the methods you use to achieve a "more humane" society are in fact contradictory to the character of the new society.

Socialism is about the subsumption of all economic activity in the end of general human betterment. In other words, the end of socialism is the dignity, freedom and capacity of the human being. Clearly, imprisonment is a damaging aspect to this end. But so is capital punishment, and in a much more sinister sense. To take the life of one human in the interests of humanity is to exclaim that the most basic human interest - to live - can be ignored in the interest of maintaining a more economically sound society free of the burden not only of the economic, but the social connotations for a system of imprisonment.

But you ignore completely the human element here. To tak ea humans life is to proclaim that the human is not worth the time of society, and specifically those who run society and the family members of the person. And it is to uproot and reinvent the interest of our revolutionary goals - the dignity and capacity of all humans - to a mediocre goal, the betterment of as many humans as possible, with a total disinterest in the betterment for those our society has drawn a thin blue line against.

What do you think the family members would say to an order or society which is more interested in killing their relative than rehabilitating them, or even giving them the right to visit their (hopeless?) relative? What do you think the response would be to an order which chooses the mroe destructive answer to an already sordid issue? Do you think that executions would not impact the methodolgy for which human beings try to solve problems day - to - day? You think that a social proclomation, "it is rational to kill if it solves a problem effectively," will not tell the people that they, too, just might be better off killing a person than resolving a conflict?

I think the support for capital punishment stems from a very maechanical view of society which ignores that human beings tend to emulate those things which they are impressioned with. I think it stems from a sense of pure economic revolution in methodology, rather than an attempt to create a social revolution. I find that really sad, and a clear indication that the proponents of these methods are clueless when it comes to understanding revolution.

[Revolutiondownunder]

Racists and nazis that cant be re-educated.

Everyone else can be saved.

[Kropotesta]

Racists and nazis that cant be re-educated.

Everyone else can be saved.
killing people who don't agree will you? Sounds pretty Nazi to me.

[Mariner's Revenge]

By "arguemental flaws" I'll take that as differences of opinion.
No, the difference in opinion I don't care about, it is the way you display your opinions. I said many times that I am using an example where resources are limited and you keep bringing that up and assume that I am talking about all federalist societies. For the punishment statement, I disagreed with the meaning of punishment and presented my argument and you just responded with "I think you are the one that is using the wrong definition" instead of presenting an argument to counter mine.


but you haven't been able, in my eyes, to prove that the first statement is wrong.Right now, I notice that we are not on the same page on two, maybe one, thing. We use different definitions of the term capital punishment. The second one might has to do with the logic used to prove my assertion but I can't tell because of the lack of a detailed response.



For the definition of punishment, I disagree that we have to use the strict definition for two reasons. One, the scenario I use would be placed under capital punishment even though it technically does not fit the definition and two, capital punishment technically requires a state so if we are using the true definition, this argument is pointless because both of us are currently focusing on non-state scenarios.

So, right now we are on the same page that capital punishment in its true form should not be used because it requires a state, which means resources will be available for more preferable methods and killing out of "revenge" or "justice" does not accomplish any goal to help the fitness of our society.

So, before I can go on, I need to see where you stand on my scenario. Instead of saying "I still disagree with you" or "it highlights the flaws in that society", argue what exactly you disagree with so we can have a true argument that will actually go somewhere.


Then that is still not a justification for murder. It merely highlights the faults of that society. For a closing statement, I disagree that this highlights the "faults" of that society because that society did not choose to have a lack of resources. That society can just make the best of what they have, which I will go into more detail later on a different thread.

[Kropotesta]

Right now, I notice that we are not on the same page on two, maybe one, thing. We use different definitions of the term capital punishment. The second one might has to do with the logic used to prove my assertion but I can't tell because of the lack of a detailed response.
I don't think that the scenarios you make up provide a justified moral reason for capital punishment. Sure, it would probably be more convenient for the poorly resourced community, yet this does not make the actions anymore moral.


One, the scenario I use would be placed under capital punishment even though it technically does not fit the definition
If it does not fit in under the definition, then surely it isn't capital punishment?



two, capital punishment technically requires a state so if we are using the true definition, this argument is pointless because both of us are currently focusing on non-state scenarios.
I agree, thus what you propose is not capital punishment, that I have been saying all along.



So, before I can go on, I need to see where you stand on my scenario. Instead of saying "I still disagree with you" or "it highlights the flaws in that society", argue what exactly you disagree with so we can have a true argument that will actually go somewhere.
Which scenario are you using because you have used more than one.


For a closing statement, I disagree that this highlights the "faults" of that society because that society did not choose to have a lack of resources. That society can just make the best of what they have, which I will go into more detail later on a different thread.
OK, poor wording. It highlights the inabilities of the community.

[Mariner's Revenge]

I don't think that the scenarios you make up provide a justified moral reason for capital punishment. Sure, it would probably be more convenient for the poorly resourced community, yet this does not make the actions anymore moral.
Ok, this is what I was looking for.

I am going to futher this discussion here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/centralized-ethics-versus-t80369/index.html?p=1161806#post1161806



If it does not fit in under the definition, then surely it isn't capital punishment?
If a person kills someone and I find the guy, tie him up, and bring him back to my community and we find out that we can not hold him due to resource issues and will be forced to let him go. If person A says "lets him because he is a murderer" and person B says "lets him because we do not want to risk him killing someone else", would killing him be considered capital punishment or not? By the definition, killing him because of person A would be capital punishment and killing him because of person B would not even though they have the same action and successfully mask each other. That is why I put reasons of person A and person B in the same category.

If you still disagree and have nothing more to add, then lets agree to disagree. If not, continue.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

If you still disagree and have nothing more to add, then lets agree to disagree. If not, continue.
Agreed ;)

Several posts (pages, even) I stopped contributing to this thread. Not because I quit reading the thread, but because I had my say, and nothing anybody else said could change my opinion, nor did I believe I could change another's opinion.

Respect my opinions, and I will in return respect yours.

[Kropotesta]

If you still disagree and have nothing more to add, then lets agree to disagree. If not, continue.
I think this is probably the best idea. ;)

[Sharon den Adel]

Racists and nazis that cant be re-educated.

Everyone else can be saved.

What makes you think that racists and Nazi's can't be re-educated? Even if they can't be, doesn't give us the right to kill them simply because we diagree with their opinions.

[luxemburg89]

When a member of a society has behaved in a way to defend other members of that society and the legal organ for that society has done everything possible to rehabilitate them but they still persist in being dangerous to themselves and others then the death penalty should be considered, based on the threat level and other viable options. After this, if it is decided the threat cannot be dealt with in any other way they should be taken into a quiet room, played some relaxing music and shot through the skull.

Hmmm, I must admit I'm a little upset you think this, seeing as I generally agree with everything else you've ever said and think you're generally a genius in life, I think you are wrong in this case though.

About 6 months ago I was involved in a debate on this, now I come from a very reactionary part of the world so I wasn't surprised I lost but the mainstay of my argument was thus:

1. Many physiological psychologists now reckon that the desire to kill could be based on an inbalance of hormones and therefore comes as a mental disorder, this person MUST then be helped.
2. Say 10 people have been killed, what is the point in making it 11 people? Other than petty revenge - which is a disgusting Christian idea. There is no point to revenge.
3. Along the same lines, rather than ending two lives, surely it is better to helpl recover one.
4. Humans are, in my opinion, not killers by nature but are driven to it, there is so much more we can achieve if we pull together to look after our weakest members, and people who kill are the weakest of all, they need the most help.
5. There is no such thing as a painless death and it is cruelty performed on the human body, I cannot justify this in any way.
6. Political figures are often the product of a number of things, i.e. Hitler was the product of European anti-semitism, and the desire of the new German country for an empire (amongst MANY other things), and another example is Paisley, the product of all Anglo-Irish history. Surely these people need help too.
7. I believe the greatest act of kindness is mercy and it is the best way to fight religion. I think religions are inherent killers, but I would not want, for one second, to punish indoctrinated religious people who carry out religious killings, it is not their fault. Do we blame the Taliban footsoldiers, or the average idiotic American soldier who believes fighting for his country is right?

I can't understand why anyone would seriously, joking aside, would actually want another human being dead. Or is pacifism not revolutionary enough?

[Carbonero]

Never!!!

[Comrade B]

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"

[Sharon den Adel]

Never!!!

Care to elaberate?

[Module]

I checked both 'Never' and 'Only for murderers, rapists, and the worst offenders'.
I think that 'capital punishment' should be avoided to the largest possible extent, and that 'the worst offenders' should be rehabilitated into society, rather than be punished for the sake of punishment.
However I accept the fact that sometimes capital punishment might be necessary, for, as said my apathy maybe, reasons of self defence by the community.

[Comrade B]

Yeah, I am still disappointed with my failure to put in certain options

[RaiseYourVoice]

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"
I highly doubt anyone with any common sense ever would apply this quite to justify state organised murder.

Also i love the whole "if we find someone and can't put him in jail due to resources" because its so fucked up. You really think, when not having the resources to imprison people, we have to resources to give people a fair trial? Certainly not. So how do you imagine people getting their penalty? Do you realize the consequences of that shit? No fair trial, and instead of putting people in jail where, though there could be innocents in jail, a fair trial is still, possible later you want to kill them off? What a nice society to live in really!



Racists and nazis that cant be re-educated.

Everyone else can be saved. IF THEY ONLY PRAISE THE LORD. Racists and nazis cant be re-educated? where did you get that from? Hobby psychology 1.0 or rather materialism 0.0?


By the definition, killing him because of person A would be capital punishment and killing him because of person B would not even though they have the same action and successfully mask each other.Bullshit. They are of course both punishment. Else we just kill anyone that doesn't believe in the church of velocijesus, its not punishment, we are only preventing them from infecting others with blasphemy lol.

I am thankful for this topic since it reveals so much reactionary garbage. Luckily I know that this tendency to justify organised murder by creating artificial scenarios is not dominant in the revolutionary left.

Reminds me strongly of how their used to pull you in for military service in Germany. You had to explain why holding a gun is not compatible with your conscience. They would ask you questions like "if somebody would rape your girlfriend and you had a gun, would you shoot him?" if you said yes you were ready for military service.


what is more violent and coercive than rape and murder?that's an easy one, state organised rape and murder since its usually on a much larger scale. Irony!


Interesting is also, that opinions here don't split along the lines of Marxists / Anarchists. Wanting a society without rulers right now, seems no barrier to wanting to kill of people in the name of a greater good.


Just now saw this:

It's not about revenge, it's about recreating society, which takes at least a generation, at least.

You live in Germany my friend, I've been to Germany and have some good friends there: now tell me honestly, do you not think that a large portion of your middle class would right to the death against socialism? What exactly do you plan to do about that?
Oh its not about revenge but about class cleansing? about just killing of all the bad parts in society? are you mad?

Large proportion of our middle class? hell right now a large proportion of our working class fights socialism. that is not the point though. During revolutions people die yes, that isnt the question either. The point is if you want organised death penalties during and after the revolution. And that is totally unacceptable for the reasons stated above.

[Mariner's Revenge]

Bullshit. They are of course both punishment. Else we just kill anyone that doesn't believe in the church of velocijesus, its not punishment, we are only preventing them from infecting others with blasphemy lol.
Holy shit I almost broke my leg falling down that slippery slope. Honestly, by what logic did you get my post to killing everyone that doesn't believe in what I believe?


I am thankful for this topic since it reveals so much reactionary garbage. Luckily I know that this tendency to justify organised murder by creating artificial scenarios is not dominant in the revolutionary left.I am not justifying capital punishment. I am justifying one instance where capital punishment (or self-defense, pick your choice) might be used. Honestly, I don't give a shit about set morals because morals say that their is a certain "right" or "wrong" in the world, which I honestly think is bullshit. We live in stochastic world and a set solution to every scenario will only provide different results. Every scenario requires a certain solution and set morals will sometimes result in more problems.

Here's an real example. In the Pacific Ocean, there is a small isolated island of Tikopia where a group of Polynesians lived for thousands of years before Europeans arrived. The island was less than two square miles in area and had a population limit of 1,200. To keep the population below this limit, along with many peaceful methods, the islanders used brutal techniques such as abortion, infanticide, celibacy, and even volunteer suicide. Then, Christian missionaries arrived to the island and were appalled by the organized murder on the island and instantly condemned it. Slowly, the population started to grow and they started fishing the waters around the island more. Then, there was a massive drought and to feed their population they overstripped their waters and their entire economy collapsed causing mass starvation and threatened the stability of everyone on that island. Because of globalization, many Tikopeans were able to be relocated to other islands but that was only a option because of outside help.

So what is your perfect solution to this problem RaiseYourVoice? Every year, the tribal leaders spoke to the entire island about controlling the population and even through peaceful and non-killing birth control methods, that was not enough. Leaving the island meant certain death and going above the population limit threatened the stability of the entire island.

Christian missionaries came to this island and enforced their set morals and that backfired because they did not consider the scenario they were in.

I am not saying everything is justifiable, that is something I very strongly disagree with, but that in certain extreme scenarios, extreme actions may be needed to prevent a further problem.


Reminds me strongly of how their used to pull you in for military service in Germany. You had to explain why holding a gun is not compatible with your conscience. They would ask you questions like "if somebody would rape your girlfriend and you had a gun, would you shoot him?" if you said yes you were ready for military service.Again with the slippery slope?

[RaiseYourVoice]

Holy shit I almost broke my leg falling down that slippery slope. Honestly, by what logic did you get my post to killing everyone that doesn't believe in what I believe?
You are completely ignoring the point so i guess i will just ignore your answer. The different between punishment and self-defence is NOT the justification. Self defence is defending yourself against harm currently being done to you, punishment is getting punished for having done something. You are mixing them up and that's bullshit.


I am not justifying capital punishment. I am justifying one instance where capital punishment (or self-defense, pick your choice) might be used.
You don't justify the action, just using it?


I don't give a shit about set morals because morals say that their is a certain "right" or "wrong" in the world, which I honestly think is bullshit. We live in stochastic world and a set solution to every scenario will only provide different results. Every scenario requires a certain solution and set morals will sometimes result in more problems.
Yes, make it a moralistic argument we can just ignore. Well it isn't. Fair trials are the very basis of a free society. And of course a trial cannot be fair if its result cannot be undone, considering the number of people that are guiltless in jail. Apart from that, I have yet to see a scenario where a fair trial is possible (very basis if you ever wanted to use capital punishment) but imprisoning people isn't an option.


Again with the slippery slope?
A reflection of the artificial scenarios in this thread that are only made up to, by any illogical means, prove the need for death penalties.

As for you little island. So you think those people should have (or could have even...) lived on in their oppressive system forever? They should have oppressed women till the end of day? Is stability of a system progressive to you? just wondering.

Also, we are talking about a society we want to achieve, not if something was justifiable at a certain time in history.

[Svante]

when you kill persons i n war this are murder. i f person rob a bank an d shoot sombody this are murder. i t is both killing people. the gouvernement kiill people.people there get kill in gitmo. this i s not good world that we live.

[Mariner's Revenge]

You are completely ignoring the point so i guess i will just ignore your answer. The different between punishment and self-defence is NOT the justification. Self defence is defending yourself against harm currently being done to you, punishment is getting punished for having done something. You are mixing them up and that's bullshit.
No, you can practice self defense by avoiding harm that can be done to you in the future. Avoiding harmful situations is an example of self defense. Taking down obstacles before they harm you is an example of self defense.

As I said earlier, my scenario can fall under both categories. You can kill him to protect yourself in the future or you can kill him as revenge for killing someone else. Technically, one would be self-defense and one would be punishment but you can make the argument that you are killing him because you know he killed someone before. Either way, I don't really care because they are just definitions.


You don't justify the action, just using it?I can't justify or not justify capital punishment in the same way that I can not justify or not justify killing someone for breaking into my house. If someone breaks into my house and I know he has the intent of killing everyone in there I will shoot and kill that fucker. If some desperate kid who doesn't want to start any trouble breaks into my house to steal something so he can eat the next day and I know that all I have to do is turn on the lights to scare him away, I will do that instead of shooting him. Now, I cannot justify or not justify killing someone for breaking into my house because my justifications depend on the individual situation.

I work the same way with all moral dilemmas including capital punishment. Lets take another example. Lets say someone kills another person and we catch and restrain him and give him a trial. What would be the verdict? Rehabilitation.

Now lets stray and play doctor for a second. You are a new doctor and your first patient comes in with symptoms A, B, and C. You then in turn look in your handy dandy medical book for the solution and find that person A has illness A and should receive treatment A. Now that works fine and both you and the patient are happy and feel good about the situation.

Then the next day person B comes in with symptoms A, B, and C. Learning from your past experience you know that person B has illness A and should receive treatment A. But this time person B gets even sicker and not only do symptoms A, B, and C get worse but now person B has symptom D. Devastated, you do not know what to do. After talking to another doctor you learn that sometimes illness B shows symptoms A, B, and C as well and for that the person should receive treatment B. Again, the patient gets better and after a brief awkward explanation on what happened both you and the patient feel good about he situation.

Then the next day person C comes in with symptoms A, B, and C. Treatment A worked for person A but not person B and treatment B worked for person B and after a bit of reading you find out that it would have not worked for person A as well. What treatment should be used? Well, we have to analyze the situation. Maybe illness B has a hidden symptom E that you didn't know to look for and now you can make a better analysis or maybe if the patient has symptom E they have a 75% of having illness A and 25% of having illness B, or maybe there is no way to tell the difference.

So, you decide to try treatment A again and patient C reacts badly towards it but in a different manner than patient B did. So you then do more research and find that it could also be illness C which requires treatment C.

So, if there is no way to tell the difference you try treatment A and see how that works and if it works, everyones happy, and if it fails you have to reassess and try something else but the overall point is that you should keep all your options open because you never know when you might need treatment B or treatment C.


Heres another example that has more do with ethics. Lets say you are again a doctor but his time you are in Africa and funds are running low. Patient A comes in with a bad infection on his arm and after reviewing the scenario, you come up with three possible outcomes. You can give the patient antibiotics to hopefully get rid of the infection, you can cut off the patient's arm and stop the spread of the infection to the rest of the body, or you can do nothing and the patient will die. The obvious ethical solution would be to give the patient antibiotics so s/he can survive and keep use of his or her arm.

But unfortunately, because of the low funds, the antibiotic is unavailable and now you either have to cut off the arm or watch the patient die. So, the next best solution would be to cut off the person's arm.

Looking back, we see that we were forced to use a previously unethical solution because of a lack of resources. Once again, we have to keep options open because we might not be able to rely on the preferable option.


We will have to use the same method when it comes to treatment of the murderer. Maybe murderer A gets rehabilitative treatment and comes out fine. But maybe murderer B gets rehabilitative treatment and it doesn't work so another solution may be needed. If that doesn't work you may need another solution, etc. Or maybe you have murderer A but you do not have the funds to properly rehabilitate murderer A and therefore you will be forced to use other options.

On this entire thread I keep seeing rehabilitation used as if it will work and be available for everyone. That is not even close to reality and other options will have to be explored.


Yes, make it a moralistic argument we can just ignore. Well it isn't. Fair trials are the very basis of a free society. And of course a trial cannot be fair if its result cannot be undone, considering the number of people that are guiltless in jail. Apart from that, I have yet to see a scenario where a fair trial is possible (very basis if you ever wanted to use capital punishment) but imprisoning people isn't an option.I just argued for a fair trial. If person A steals from person B, set morals would say that person is either right or wrong and deserves or does not deserve punishment A. The ethical solution I am talking about says that we have a trial based on the individual situation and decide a punishment based off the scenario at hand.





A reflection of the artificial scenarios in this thread that are only made up to, by any illogical means, prove the need for death penalties.Uh huh? So instead of attacking my argument directly you decide to go off topic?


As for you little island. So you think those people should have (or could have even...) lived on in their oppressive system forever? They should have oppressed women till the end of day? Is stability of a system progressive to you? just wondering.Definition of strawman:


A straw man argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument) is an informal fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy) based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#cite_note-book-0) To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#cite_note-book-0) A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric) technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man


Man, way to avoid everything I just said and use a horrible strawman argument.


So you think those people should have (or could have even...) lived on in their oppressive system forever? 1. When did I say that should live in oppressive system forever?

I gave the conditions of the island. I said that it was an isolated island and without the previous technology they used to get on the island and without knowledge of anything besides the island it is a valid premise to say that they cannot leave the island. I do not wish it but that is a condition.


They should have oppressed women till the end of day?2. When did I say anything favorable about oppressing women?

Again, I gave the fucking conditions of the island. I'm not going to get into an argument about this because it is completely off topic and has nothing to do with anything because it is a strawman argument fallacy.


Is stability of a system progressive to you?3. In what respect?

I am not a conservative and do advocate the taking over of failed and oppressive systems but I do not consider making a system so unstable that everyone dies from starvation progressive either.


Also, we are talking about a society we want to achieve, not if something was justifiable at a certain time in history.If you want to talk about a society you want to achieve go right ahead but I will talk about society that I want to achieve that is actually realistic.

[Comrade B]

Just to defend myself previously, when I quoted Mao, I was responding to the statement "is pacifism not revolutionary enough" By this quote I meant that the best way to take power in government is through revolution, I did not mean we should kill anyone that opposes communism

[Black Dagger]

Never, ever.

[Svante]

i dont think anything should ever be killed period.

i dont think gouvernement should kill people. what abaout revolution? many persons get kill i n revolution.

[Lost In Translation]

I don't like the idea of capital punishment. However, in this society, longer prison terms need to be implemented, especially in Canada. Up here, life is 25 years, and you still have a chance for parole much earlier. At least make a life sentence a life sentence, with parole after 25 years or something like that.

[Spasiba]

I actually feel weird about this, so I'd like to hear what you guys have to say:

What about serial killers and the like? If they're insane, and I'm playing devils advocate here, why do we keep them alive? To learn from them? And if they're not insane and don't show progress in rehabilitaion? Why keep them alive? What about rapists and other horrible offenders?

Ok it hurt to say stuff like that but I hear that all the time. So what do you say to that? What if you come home and your loved one is being raped/dead, w/e, do your feelings have any bearing on what would be done? I'd want them dead, but thats not really justice. But people seem so ready to throw justice out the window there. What if the killer is still there? Would you be justified in killing him right there, in a fit of rage?

[ipollux]

I'm against capital punishment in all instances. What does it solve? In the case of a murderer, it won't bring back the people(s) they murdered. If they can't be trusted around anyone at any time, they should be forced to live a life of isolation with an hour of exercise a day.

[Decolonize The Left]

Not only is the death penalty cowardly ("I don't want to kill this person myself, so I'll demand that someone else do it."), but it is also highly incoherent.

1. It is based around a retributive system of punishment ("an eye for an eye"). This system is highly illogical, as when taken to its logical continuation it crumbles under its own weight.
2. It is unjustified. Please, give me your best arguments as to why you, as a member of some government/state/organization, are justified in taking the life of another conscious individual.
3. It's pathetic. We can't figure out a better way to deal with people then kill them? What are we, capitalists? :laugh:

- August