I am opposed to the death penalty for some of the reasons others have mentioned.
It is without question not applied equitably across racial and socioeconomic lines. I don't think capital punishment deters capital crimes. And if the goal of the death penalty is to protect society from violent offenders, then that goal can be accomplished by a life sentence without parole just as well. To me it seems that the death penalty is vengeance, not justice.
And I guess I have an inherent distrust of the 'system.' I don't think it's worth what I call the moral risk that even ONE innocent person be executed. There have been many stories - I should go look for articles - of people being freed from prison when new technology can be applied to old evidence, etc.
Some people think that disapproving of the death penalty means that you have more concern for criminals than victims, but I disagree there too. Capital punishment doesn't bring back the loved ones that people have lost - the criminal dies, sure, but the violence is perpetuated and creates more victims. Now the family and friends of the criminal have lost a loved one violently too. I would prefer my tax dollars be spent intervening in the formative years and deterring people from turning to lives of crime - solve the problems of poverty and drugs and treat the mentally ill and you've gone a long way toward eradicating violent crime.
And who are we, as a society, to ask doctors, wardens, and the scores of other people involved in executions to actually *do* that job?! That's reprehensible, IMO.
If I die as a victim of a crime, I don't want the perpetrator put to death (and I need to put in my will so my wishes will at least be considered if there is a conviction).
I am completely opposed to the death penalty and have operationalized that in my life by refusing to live in a death penalty state. Maine is one of 12 states in the US without a death penalty statute; in addition, it is outlawed in the District of Columbia.
It is barbaric and inhumane.
Maybe you should think about moving, David.
L
What would you have done with Tim? I'm really asking because I don't know what I'd have done if it had been up to me. Didn't he ask for the death penalty?
And then---maybe whatever you or I would have done would be entirely different if we'd had a child in the daycare that day. Sometmes it's a matter of perspective.
I'm not sure how I feel about giving the Death Penalty to someone who asks for it Shasta. Does this suddenly make KILLING someone okay because they asked for it? I don't think so. Killing is killing.
I always found it strange that most of the people who support the death penalty also consider themselves Evangelical Christians. I thought one of the most important rules of Christianity was "Thou Shalt Not Kill"?
I feel this is yet another example of "Christians" bending and shaping the rules of their religion to suit their needs.
I fully agree with everything you said Lynne. Thanks for your comments! :)
My favorite (ironic-sense) embodiment of these sentiments are those who think it's completely logical to be both pro-life and pro-death penalty. WTF? :-\ ???
I've never touched mint chocolate chip ice cream again. And I never will.
Well, I have to hold to my slavishly ACLU-style adherence to overall principles as opposed to politics and say that, as I mentioned before, I don't think these two issues are comparable. From the pro-life, pro-death (!) position -- one which, as I said, I don't agree with -- I think you might argue that you're pro-life because fetuses are innocent human beings and therefore don't deserve to die, but serial killers have done something terrible and therefore DO deserve to die.
Again, please keep in mind that I don't subscribe to this view, I just think I have to distinguish capital punishment and abortion as two separate issues, because I'm the opposite -- anti-death penalty, pro-choice.
OK, so I'm out of the loop. What's the deal with mint chocolate chip ice cream?
I can understand the arguments they make, but is it 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' or 'Judge Not Lest.'? Inconsistent, IMO.
McVeigh's 'last meal' before his execution was mint chocolate chip ice cream. It's not that I have that much sympathy for him, it's just that I can never forget it - it's always in the back of my brain.
I believe the guy who kidnapped that little girl, sexually assaulted her, kept her in the closet for awhile, and buried her with her teddy bear--deserves to die.
The problem comes when someone thinks that he should have mercy because he had a bad childhood or something. I'm sorry for people who had a bad childhood, but it's no excuse to me. If you do something like that, you have to be accountable to whatever the justice system has declared.
And as to innocent people being sentenced to death--that's why there has to be no doubt when the death penalty is imposed. DNA, confession, etc.
Everybody who is pro death penalty accepts that innocent people are killed period.
Everybody--not just death penalty proponents--needs to accept that innocent people are killed every day because it's a fact of life.
The civilian people in the war zone are innocent.
Viable fetuses are innocent.
The victims of drive-bys are innocent.
Abused children who are beaten to death are innocent.
Innocents are killed every day, everywhere.
I'm sorry for people who had a bad childhood, but it's no excuse to me. If you do something like that, you have to be accountable to whatever the justice system has declared.
And as to innocent people being sentenced to death--that's why there has to be no doubt when the death penalty is imposed.
The civilian people in the war zone are innocent.
The victims of drive-bys are innocent.
Abused children who are beaten to death are innocent.
Well here I am on the opposite side of the fence again. Oh well here I go.
I think sometimes we need to thin the heard as I have heard it said. We have these horrible
mean and grewsome people. The kind like Charles Manson, John Wayne Gayce, and others of their kind that are in the society. If we just put them in prison for life. They are still a dredge on the society. They are often given conjugal rights, begat children who are then placed on the rolls of the state, and may then carry on the legacy of an unfortunate life.
We had such a case here in oregon. A man that was the son of a man on death row, killed and tortured several young teenaged girls...He deserves to die..in my opinion..He was so cold blooded that he murdered one young girl, and put her in a small refrigerator in his kitchen, and continued to make meals, and have friends over just the same as nothing was amiss. He then took her out and put her in a cardboard box in the back corner of his lot, and left her there with the rest of his garbage to be burned.
I dont feel that ridding society of those types of people...Is cruel or barbaric. I think it is plain good sense. You dont rehabilitate that kind of behavior from a person..In spite of all the forward movements in helping folks with mental issues.
I dont think it should be used very often, and not routinely for sure.....I think there are very few people that fit into these kinds of territory. But if we do find them...Like the Greenriver Killer..He murdered over 40 young women.
We should give them no quarter..They deserve the same choices they gave their victims...
Ok im done...except to say...I used to be on the other side. When I was younger I didnt think it was good to have a death penalty...However time has shown me, in some unique cases its required.
Killing is wrong whether it's done by John Wayne Gacy or the state of Texas.
OK-- you would kill them if they were attacking your family, but not if they killed your family?? I'm asking.
Did you mean it's wrong EXCEPT when they are attacking your family?
Society is better off without them and there are better things to spend my tax dollars on than keeping them in room and board the rest of their lives.
A Duke University study found... "The death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of imprisonment for life." ( The costs of processing murder cases in North Carolina / Philip J. Cook, Donna B. Slawson ; with the assistance of Lori A. Gries. [Durham, NC] : Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Duke University, 1993.)
"The death penalty costs California $90 million annually beyond the ordinary costs of the justice system - $78 million of that total is incurred at the trial level." (Sacramento Bee, March 18, 1988).
"A 1991 study of the Texas criminal justice system estimated the cost of appealing capital murder at $2,316,655. In contrast, the cost of housing a prisoner in a Texas maximum security prison single cell for 40 years is estimated at $750,000." (Punishment and the Death Penalty, edited by Robert M. Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum 1995 p.109 )
"Florida spent an estimated $57 million on the death penalty from 1973 to 1988 to achieve 18 executions - that is an average of $3.2 million per execution."
(Miami Herald, July 10, 1988).
"Florida calculated that each execution there costs some $3.18 million. If incarceration is estimated to cost $17000/year, a comparable statistic for life in prison of 40 years would be $680,000."
(The Geography of Execution... The Capital Punishment Quagmire in America, Keith Harries and Derral Cheatwood 1997 p.6)
Figures from the General Accounting Office are close to these results. Total annual costs for all U.S. Prisons, State and Federal, was $17.7 billion in 1994 along with a total prison population of 1.1 million inmates. That amounts to $16100 per inmate/year.
(GOA report and testimony FY-97 GGD-97-15 )
Execution costs more than life imprisonment.
http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html (http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html)
It depends on how old the criminal is. If he's an older man, it's more expensive to execute him. If he's a younger man and liable to live for 60+ years, then it's not.
"A 1991 study of the Texas criminal justice system estimated the cost of appealing capital murder at $2,316,655. In contrast, the cost of housing a prisoner in a Texas maximum security prison single cell for 40 years is estimated at $750,000." (Punishment and the Death Penalty, edited by Robert M. Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum 1995 p.109 )
"Florida calculated that each execution there costs some $3.18 million. If incarceration is estimated to cost $17000/year, a comparable statistic for life in prison of 40 years would be $680,000."
(The Geography of Execution... The Capital Punishment Quagmire in America, Keith Harries and Derral Cheatwood 1997 p.6)
Plus, it isn't about the expense. There are starving people who have done nothing wrong whatsoever who deserve my tax dollars more than some sociopath who is never going to reform.
Well, again, studies indicate otherwise. To requote a couple of excerpts from the material I already quoted above:
They're talking about 40 years, not 60. But do the math -- assuming these studies are correct (and I grabbed this quickly off the internet, but there was plenty to choose from offering the same conclusion), 60 years of incarceration does not cost more than execution.
Of course they do. Yet by paying for an execution, you're spending more of your tax dollars and have less left over to give to the starving people.
The study is over 16 years old now. Considering health care fo inmates as they get older gets exponentially more expensive, the economy has not gotten better and technology has advanced, I would like to see a newer study.
2005 Los Angeles Times Study Finds California Spends $250 Million per Execution
Key Points
# The California death penalty system costs taxpayers more than $114 million a year beyond the cost of simply keeping the convicts locked up for life. (This figure does not take into account additional court costs for post-conviction hearings in state and federal courts, estimated to exceed several million dollars.):
Not really. The less people to guard less people on death row means less overhead for the penal system and thus...[shrug] my focus as a taxpayers can be on social services and not providing room, board, health services, entertainment, conjugal visits what have you for convicted murderers.
Also, they have been permanently taken out of society and will never be a threat to anyone else. Yes, accidents do happen. Serial killers, rapists and child molesters do accidentally get released from prison. The death sentence puts that possibility to rest.
All I can is I'm saddened and sickened by the bloodlust that some members here are displaying towards their fellow human beings. Those who would gleefully seek the violent deaths of some members of society deemed criminal or immoral by that society are no better from a moral viewpoint than the objects of their homicidal loathing.
All I can is I'm saddened and sickened by the bloodlust that some members here are displaying towards their fellow human beings. Those who would gleefully seek the violent deaths of some members of society deemed criminal or immoral by that society are no better from a moral viewpoint than the objects of their homicidal loathing.
Here's a shock, I'm for it.
Until you have a family member that has been brutally murdered you can't know what it's like and I have had 2.
I think it's a load of crap that these people should be sent to prison for life or less. They sit in an institution where they get fed, healthcare and cable TV. They get a facility to work out they get to continue their education if they so choose and they are alive. What happens to the victim? They rot in a grave. Their familes are devastated and never recover. I'm not saying prison is a picnic but it sure beats rotting in a grave never having to opportunity to live your life to it's fullest extent. Prisoners get to have family visits and in come cases conjical visits. Victims families get to go to a grave.
These people made a choice to murder another human being. They stole the most precious gift someone has which is their life. They destroy families and the schock waves extend far outside of the family.
The punishment should fit the crime and I don't even thin lethal injection does that.
Their death should be painful and hard just like what they inflicted on their victims. Then the punishment would fit the crime.
Richard, I am very sorry to learn of your tragic losses. You do have the capacity to speak from experience on this issue rather than the abstract angle from which those like myself approach it.Scott, ;D
But I must still respectfully disagree with your stance. One way of reasoning out my argument could go like this...with every execution, the executioner arguably becomes a murderer in turn--he/she certainly becomes a killer, with all the moral anxieties that that term should invoke. Where does the cycle end? It can only logically end when the state no longer forces people into this position.
And I cannot condone the sadism, however latent it might be, in the attitudes I am reading of in this thread. Gleefully killing a gleeful killer makes one in turn a gleeful killer. Where is the morality or honor in that? I know I am setting myself up here for potential enmity or reproach, but I feel it is my responsibility as a citizen and a human being to acknowledge my observation, however inflammatory it may be, and to condemn it.
The term 'humanity' doesn't just encompass those things within our species that we like--it also includes those things that disturb us or can even destroy us. By recognizing these elements as being real, and acknowledging their perpetrators as human beings rather than folklore-level bogeymen, we can protect ourselves better and cultivate the more enlightened world that progressives and liberals supposedly endorse.
Instead of killing murderers who deserve to exist in the hottest corner of hell, we should place them in the most uncomfortable sort of prison for life that can be imagined.If that would actually happen, I'd be all for it!
Let me leave you with this one thought: While anguishing over the cruelties of others, be mindful of the potential cruelty that resides within yourself, and do not let it steer your life into a hell of your own creation. Hate begets hate, and love mirrors love. And it is never inappropriate to respond with love.I agree with you.
There seems to be a perennial human impulse to scapegoat people, render them less than human, and treat them accordingly. In Nero's Rome, it was the Christians; in late Ottoman Turkey, it was the Armenians; in Nazi Germany, it was the Jews. At this contemporary juncture of history, people deemed to be "terrorists" or "pedophiles" are especially vulnerable to this kind of treatment.
I voted the closest available option for my view, so I voted "no".
But what I really would have liked to have voted, is:NO!!!
That there is such a wide-spread acceptance and support - indifference at best - for the death penalty in the US astounds, depresses and discourages me. I can't understand it. In my view it's inhumane, cruel, unethical, open to errors that can never be redressed....it devalues human lives. It dehumanizes whoever sentences someone to death or carries out the sentence. Luckily, where I live the death penalty is so far off the political map that I can't conceive of it ever being discussed even as a remote possibility.
Interestingly, all these points are used frequently by anti-abortion proponents. I wonder if the strong feelings here against capital punishment also align behind the pro-life people?
Not for me they don't. Because the central issue in abortion is not whether it's OK to kill a person, it's whether an unborn fetus constitutes a person.
(Guess you figured the thread was getting dull and it was time to liven things up with a little controversy, hunh? ;) ;D)
Interestingly, all these points are used frequently by anti-abortion proponents. I wonder if the strong feelings here against capital punishment also align behind the pro-life people?
Oh what the heck.
I'll just add to the malestrom!
I am Pro-Life in terms of Abortion.
I see no reason to kill an innocent child for the sake of convienience! :)
I thought it was the other way around, in the US at least, though I have no statistics immediately at hand to prove it. I.e. that those strongly in favor of the death penalty by and large are equally strongly and vehemently opposed to women's access to abortion. Personally I think that this view on abortion many a time may have more to do with the wish to limit and control women and women's sexuality than with any concern for preserving human lives and with respecting the inviolability of human life on general principle. Clamoring simultaneously for the death penalty and against women's access to abortion points in that direction.
However I do agree that sentiments and arguments along the lines of my view on the death penalty may be entirely and sincerely relevant for someone who is opposed to abortion.
Perhaps there should be a separate poll on the views on abortion?
I see no reason to kill an innocent child for the sake of convienience! :)
I thought it was the other way around, in the US at least, though I have no statistics immediately at hand to prove it. I.e. that those strongly in favor of the death penalty by and large are equally strongly and vehemently opposed to women's access to abortion. Personally I think that this view on abortion many a time may have more to do with the wish to limit and control women and women's sexuality than with any concern for preserving human lives and with respecting the inviolability of human life on general principle. Clamoring simultaneously for the death penalty and against women's access to abortion points in that direction.
However I do agree that sentiments and arguments along the lines of my view on the death penalty may be entirely and sincerely relevant for someone who is opposed to abortion.
Perhaps there should be a separate poll on the views on abortion?
I don't think that the decision to have an abortion has anything to do with convenience. It's a gut-wrenching decision based on complicated factors. Bearing an unwanted child is no small thing to ask of a woman... it's a potentially life-threatening process that could ruin a woman's life on numerous levels.You speak for me in this.
To me the central issue in the abortion issue is who has the right to control a woman's body. And I think the only humane answer is the woman herself.
If I'm correct you're saying that people like me who are in favor of the death penalty for a horrible crime, say for instance when someone who rapes a baby, killing him or her, tjat I'm wrong to have a pro choice opinion on abortion?
Interestingly, all these points are used frequently by anti-abortion proponents. I wonder if the strong feelings here against capital punishment also align behind the pro-life people?
You speak for me. :)
On another note, I also think that life in prison may be more of a punishment for many abject criminals than the death penalty.
Ultimately it is the woman herself and noone else who has the right to decide what should happen to her own body. Abortion will never, never, ever be an "easy" decision....
Why not, though, if the only issue is who controls a woman's body? If the only interests involved are the woman's, and she doesn't want to have a baby, then it should be no big deal. It's not a difficult decision for a woman to get an appendectomy, for example, because no one believes that an appendix has rights or interests of its own.
To say that abortion is a difficult decision suggests that someone else's interests ARE involved, at least potentially -- presumably those of the fetus (and, of course, the father's, but setting aside that whole can of worms, at least for the moment ...). And if the fetus has interests, what does that then imply?
It's the flip side of the inconsistencies that delalluvia mentioned -- pro-lifers who make an exception for incest or rape. If the fetus is a human being, and an innocent one at that, why is it OK to kill it based on the circumstances of its conception?
To me, to be absolutely pro-choice is to shrug off abortion the way one would an appendectomy. To be absolutely pro-life is to oppose all abortions, under any circumstances (with the exception of saving the life of the mother, because then there is an actual life at stake).
But many people, myself included, fall somewhere in between ...
I'm pro-death penalty and pro-choice, so at least I'm consistent. ;D
As far as the abortion issue is, after many years of debating the issue with pro-life friends, we have discovered the chasm that separates our ways of thinking - BTW there is no middle ground for pro-lifers.
Pro-lifers are fighting for the rights/life of a baby. It's a criminal issue, murder of innocents.
"They're murdering helpless children! I'm never going to be in favor of that!"
Pro-choicers are fighting for the civil rights of women as people to have sovereignty over their own bodies.
"They're telling me that as a woman, I'm not a fully independent human being. That due to a biological change in my body, my rights are now gone and I'm a 2nd class citizen, the public/govt is now in charge of my body and not me. I'm never going to be in favor of that!"
NO one is going to budge from these two stances if they believe strongly enough.
Now, the puzzling part I find is that pro-lifers tend to be contradictory. They do not approve of abortion...but if you ask them about a woman's health being the issue - having/carrying the child will kill her, she's pregnant by incest or rape, then pro-lifers - not all of them - will agree that abortion is OK in those circumstances.
This is strange IMO. Either abortion is murder or it isn't. The circumstances don't matter. To me, if one truly believes that abortion is murder, then regardless of the circumstances of the pregnancy, to abort the fetus is murder.
I'm not sure how pro-lifers reconcile this.
But back to the death penalty - many many good opinions and POVs. Again, it's not the money issue, the people who've been convicted of heinous crimes pretty much have it coming to them.
There is something wrong with them and nothing is going to 'fix' them. The majority are not insane because most committed their crimes, then tried to hide it. They're well aware of right and wrong...but they did it anyway.
No, I don't believe the death penalty is a deterrant. That's been proven, I believe. However, neither is the idea of a long prison sentence either. As far as the U.S. is concerned, the crime rate either stays steady or rises. Obviously very little works as a deterrant if people are determined to commit crimes.
IMO, heinous crimes need to be treated with all the shock and horror they deserve. Much ado needs to be made of prosecuting the perpetrators. Their punishment should be as draconian as allowed. It's to show how deeply a society is shocked and will bend its own standards of acceptable behavior and conduct when faced with such a reprehensible act.
It doesn't diminish us as people, any more than war or self-defense does.
As far as the executioner and his mental health...well, technology is buzzing along and soon, there won't be the need for a human one. Even so, in most death penalty cases, you can almost always find someone ready to volunteer from the friends and family members destroyed by the murderer's actions.
I think the reason is because to be pro-choice is exactly that. A woman has a choice. She can have the baby and give it up for adoption, she can have an abortion. she can carry the baby to term and keep it. Thereby lies the statement about an abortion being a difficult decision. In a society where a woman has a choice, this doesn't make having to make the choice any easier. Plus, a woman rarely exists in a vacuum. She has pressures and considerations of her situation, health, family and perhaps the father and society at large. [shrug]
I think the reason is because to be pro-choice is exactly that. A woman has a choice. She can have the baby and give it up for adoption, she can have an abortion. she can carry the baby to term and keep it. Thereby lies the statement about an abortion being a difficult decision. In a society where a woman has a choice, this doesn't make having to make the choice any easier. Plus, a woman rarely exists in a vacuum. She has pressures and considerations of her situation, health, family and perhaps the father and society at large. [shrug]
Why not, though, if the only issue is who controls a woman's body? If the only interests involved are the woman's, and she doesn't want to have a baby, then it should be no big deal.
If the so-called "pro-lifers" have achieved anything they've managed to bring loud and persistent arguments into the field for the fetus being a human being from the first cell globule or so - and even if a woman does not ultimately agree with that, I can hardly imagine her being in that situation and not considering those views or arguments at all, turning them over, making sure she's addressed those concerns.... Debating with herself whether she should really remove what will, if brougth to term, become a human being. There *is* a personal dilemma in that which would never be there concerning removing some other random body part, and I can't pretend there isn't.
First, a baby is NOT a women's body. It is IN her body, but it is most definitely a separate human life.
First, a baby is NOT a women's body. It is IN her body, but it is most definitely a separate human life.
Second, the so-called government controlling one's body issue happens all the time; we are all victims and beneficiaries of it. A person cannot take prescription medicines unless the government says OK;
one cannot have an operation to remove an ear just because he or she may want to;
you cannot put alcohol in your body under age 21 or if you are in a car,
a man cannot quit his job and as a result default on child support payments, etc etc etc. Such controls are commonplace and all around our lives and each is intended to be in place to help the common good
In most pro choice dialog, the baby is not considered a person and hence has no rights.
This approach is a VERY slippery slop. Recall that Hitler rationalized the murder of millions because he believed it wasn't killing humans;
If I had to line up behind the most logical side it would be to support no death penality and no abortions after the first 4 months of the fetus' life. To deal with the results, I would have mandatory life sentences without parole (in mean prisons) for those who could have been executed and provide adoption services for all the would-have-been abortions.
OK, so you're saying that abortion is a difficult decision in the sense that it might be a difficult decision, say, whether to take a particular job -- that is, it's difficult because there's a lot at stake, and perhaps external pressures, but that none of these involve the possibility of doing something that's morally wrong or involves killing a human?
If that's all you mean, fine. I get that. To me, though, when people talk about abortion being a difficult decision, or say that it should be avoided if possible, it usually sounds as if they're implying at least a tiny bit of uncertainty about the ultimate morality of the procedure. And if that's the case, if the fetus is considered to be a being whose interests are in any way part of the equation, then it's no longer simply about a woman's body. It's about someone else's body (this potential human's).
Not to mention the potential offspring of the father which, not to open a whole can of worms, I also consider important.
I say this, BTW, as someone who also has had an abortion. It was a difficult situation as I'm sure it always is, but it wasn't a wrenching decision -- it was a very obvious one, to me, at the time. I've never felt a moment's regret even when, decades later, I had two children.
Still, I have come to see this as a very complex issue and, to me, one that, in principle, unquestionably extends beyond an individual woman's body.
Well, actually no it's not. That's part of the argument. A fetus only becomes viable - able to exist on its own as a separate being at about - you medical people can correct me here - six months. Before that, it is definitely part of the woman's body. If you 'disconnect' the fetus from the woman's body, it will simply die.
You can't get more obvious than that about the fetus being part of the woman's body.
That's not the same thing. Prescription laws deal with distribution of medication, not bodily sovreignty.
Well, yes you can. It depends on where you live. You simply have to find a doctor willing and the sufficient funds.
Sure you can. In some countries the drinking age is much younger than 21, in past eras, there was no drinking age whatsoever and I have certainly had alcohol and gotten in a car. If I was drunk, the someone else was driving, if I wasn't drunk but had a drink, it's still legal.
Yes, but none of these have anything to do with bodily sovreignty.
Your definintion of a baby is different than other people's definition.
Yes, but in reality, Hilter was basing his ideas of who was human and who wasn't on his religious background and personal biases - shall we do away with Christian religion?. It had nothing to do with what actually defined human or a person.
This has nothing to do with the pro-choice and pro-life arguments. Actually it's extremely offensive to compare pro-choice advocates to Nazis, thank you very much.
The problem with this argument is that most life-threatening birth defects are not discovered until after the first trimester. Limiting a woman to abortion options in the first trimester means forcing her to carry to term a child who will not live or will live with massive birth defects and with the knowledge that she is doing so.
I do not find a similar rationale to help understand the apparent disconnect of being pro choice and avidly anti death penalty. The main reason in some of these posts to help address the inconsistency seems to be the notion that abortion in not about loss of a life, rather a women's right to control her body. That "argument" is decades old and as science has progressed, it seems less and less valid.
A person cannot take prescription medicines unless the government says OK; one cannot have an operation to remove an ear just because he or she may want to; you cannot put alcohol in your body under age 21 or if you are in a car,
In most pro choice dialog, the baby is not considered a person and hence has no rights. This approach is a VERY slippery slop. Recall that Hitler rationalized the murder of millions because he believed it wasn't killing humans; to him they were sub humans, the Unter Menchen..not really people and hence had no rights. So, both in terms of rationalizing death penalites and abortion, many fail to observe the victims as human beings.
What Mikaela said. The pro-life and religious fundamentalist factions and of course the fact that in the U.S. we are still immersed in Christian morality in almost every facet of existence here - hence Jack and Ennis' issues - make not debating the morality/ethics of one's actions in choosing abortion almost unheard of. It does exist, as others have pointed out, so it's really as it should be - a personal decision and not one needing to be dictated by our government.
I don't believe an opinion that a fetus has a right to life has to be a religious matter at all. It often is, of course. But it also can simply be a person's independent opinion.
1) of course if you "disconnect" the fetus it will die. that's what premature births are.
Even at full term, a newly born baby will simply die from lack of food or other environmental causes very quickly without constant care. I don't get your point. Many premies are born at 4-5 months now.
2) of course laws inhibiting drug (legal and illiegal) use, unlawful operations, unnecessary operations, etc are about "bodily sovreignty". and being compelled to work at a job or occupation or trade that one does not want to is the same thing. They exist because government believes people can't make the right choices. The inability to view child bearing as something other than "bodily sovreignty rights" is the bias that inhibits another view outside the rigid pro choice, any time, any place, any reason mentality, I think.
3) my definition of a baby is like most (80%) americans. What's yours?
4) your counter point about Hitler validates my point exactly. He did NOT base his evaluation of humans on religion and scorned the Church.
You say "shall we do away with Christian religion?" the church is not pro choice and beieves abortion is murder. I apologize for offending you, but I have to say millions of others are offended daily by the rampant amount of annual abortions. Hitler was, by the by, an avid supporter of abortion.
5) I mentioned 4 months; the first trimester is 3 months.
And, abortions due to "massive birth defects" (a concept Hitler also introduced) are NOT the reason why the vast majority of abortions are performed each year.
95% of abortions are done as a means of birth control.
ONLY 1% because of fetal abnormalities. So, this point is somewhat mute since few would agree that (depending on what you mean by massive birth defects means) a child with such would not be a possible abortion option. However, you do know that "defects" such as a cleft pallet are reasons used to abort.
We still agree. :)
We're on a roll! So far, anyway ...
Well, because of all the issues that you and Mikaela mentioned, it seems to me disingenuous to claim that the abortion issue revolves entirely around a woman's right to control her own body. If, after considering all the evidence one way or the other concerning fetal rights, one still does not believe it has any, then it seems that should be the focus of the pro-choice argument. If there's a measure of doubt, then it still seems the pro-choice argument should somehow deal with it or risk sounding arrogant.
By ignoring the fetus' status
pro-choicers sound as if they believe a woman's right to nine months of bodily control, valid though that might be, unquestionably takes priority
over those of a hypothetical human to enjoy its potential life
one that she helped bring into being.
And weakening it slightly more, IMO, is the question of father's rights. I keep alluding to this only briefly, but actually I think it's very important -- should the father have any say in a woman's having an abortion? Should he have any say in whether she has and keeps the baby, knowing that means he'll be responsible for 18 years of support if she does? Why does the woman get all the power to decide on a matter that huge and life-altering?
I don't even really know what this means.Well, From everything that I have read ( I'll see if I can find exact statistics) very few abortions are preformed due to life threatening circumstances.
I don't think that the decision to have an abortion has anything to do with convenience. It's a gut-wrenching decision based on complicated factors. Bearing an unwanted child is no small thing to ask of a woman... pregnancy and childbirth are potentially life-threatening processes that can and sometimes do ruin a woman's life on numerous levels.
To me the central question in the abortion issue is who has the right to control a woman's body. And I think the only humane answer is the woman herself.
Well, From everything that I have read ( I'll see if I can find exact statistics) very few abortions are preformed due to life threatening circumstances.
While I agree, that it is a womans body, a choice should have been made earlier as to wether or not to have sex. It is not the childs fault the mother or father for that matter doesn't want it.Why destroy an innocent life for that reason? I know, people are going to say what if the woman had no choice IE rape. Well, those acount for one tenth of one percent of all abortions according to the NRLC.
Again, as terrible as it is, is it the childs fault? SHould we go kill the children of the rapist for what he did? No!
With as many couples treying to adopt it seems like a no brainer to me.
When does the right of the child come into play here? It is not a painless procedure for the child.
Dr Bernard Nathenson, an abortinist, filmed the abortion of an 11wk old inborn child. The child tried to get away from the light and as the procedure started could be viewed in what can only be described as a scream from the pain of the procedure.
I don't understand how people who are against the death penalty can view this as ok. As to the death penalty an adullt made a concious decision to take another life knowing the consequences of that action. Death is the punishment for said actions. In an abortion, an innocent child is either dismembered and sucked into a specimin jar or sink or burnt with a saline solution and forced out the birth canal! Both are barberic and both are done only because the child is not wanted for whatever reason.
I wonder how many people who are pro choice would want prostitution legalized. After all, it is a wpmans body!
I'm not trying to be mean or disrespetful. I am for full equality for women.I just think taking an innocent life is wrong!
Sorry if I made anyone angry. This is just my opinion andI repect everyones opinion even if I disagree.
11weeks
HEART IS BEATING (SINCE 18-25 DAYS)
BRAIN WAVES HAVE BEEN RECORDED AT 40 DAYS
THE BABY SQUINTS, SWALLOWS, AND CAN MAKE A FIST
THE BABY HAS FINGERPRINTS AND CAN KICK
THE BABY IS SENSITIVE TO HEAT, TOUCH, LIGHT AND NOISE
THE BABY SUCKS HIS OR HER THUMB
ALL BODY SYSTEMS ARE WORKING
THE BABY WEIGHS ABOUT 1 OUNCE AND IS 2 1/2 TO 3 INCHES LONG
THE BABY COULD FIT COMFORTABLY IN THE PALM OF YOUR HAND
As for the other statements, some are true, but can also be applied to plants as well.
There is always going to be a measure of doubt for some people for anything. Why should those doubts be focused upon? It would be like focusing our justice system on the possiblity that we may be wrong. While that is a possibility, we don't continually focus on our justice system that way.
Potentiality isn't something one should base rights upon. A woman may become pregnant, then spontaneously abort. The potentiality came to naught. Every pre-med student has the potential to be a doctor. The fact that the majority don't make it through med school and get licensed is an extremely important distinction.
So she can bring it into being, but as soon as she does, she no longer has control over it?
If the doubt is great enough, a justice system that ignored it would scary as hell.
Because what's at stake for her is about eight months of discomfort, a degree of emotional turmoil and a small risk (nowadays) of death.
Not inconsequential, I know. But what's at stake for the fetus is certain death. If the mother and fetus shared exactly the same human status (not saying they DO, I'm saying IF), then the fetus' interests should arguably outweigh hers.
The first is not a human decision. The second is too trivial, in comparison with life and death, to make a good analogy.
She does have control, perhaps as well as a degree of responsibility.
:'(
Well, From everything that I have read ( I'll see if I can find exact statistics) very few abortions are preformed due to life threatening circumstances.
While I agree, that it is a womans body, a choice should have been made earlier as to wether or not to have sex. It is not the childs fault the mother or father for that matter doesn't want it.Why destroy an innocent life for that reason? I know, people are going to say what if the woman had no choice IE rape. Well, those acount for one tenth of one percent of all abortions according to the NRLC.
Again, as terrible as it is, is it the childs fault? SHould we go kill the children of the rapist for what he did? No!
I wonder how many people who are pro choice would want prostitution legalized. After all, it is a wpmans body!
I'm not trying to be mean or disrespetful. I am for full equality for women.I just think taking an innocent life is wrong!
Sorry if I made anyone angry. This is just my opinion andI repect everyones opinion even if I disagree.
Well, From everything that I have read ( I'll see if I can find exact statistics) very few abortions are preformed due to life threatening circumstances.
While I agree, that it is a womans body, a choice should have been made earlier as to wether or not to have sex. It is not the childs fault the mother or father for that matter doesn't want it.Why destroy an innocent life for that reason? I know, people are going to say what if the woman had no choice IE rape. Well, those acount for one tenth of one percent of all abortions according to the NRLC.
Again, as terrible as it is, is it the childs fault? SHould we go kill the children of the rapist for what he did? No!With as many couples treying to adopt it seems like a no brainer to me.
When does the right of the child come into play here? It is not a painless procedure for the child.
Dr Bernard Nathenson, an abortinist, filmed the abortion of an 11wk old inborn child. The child tried to get away from the light and as the procedure started could be viewed in what can only be described as a scream from the pain of the procedure.
I don't understand how people who are against the death penalty can view this as ok. As to the death penalty an adullt made a concious decision to take another life knowing the consequences of that action. Death is the punishment for said actions. In an abortion, an innocent child is either dismembered and sucked into a specimin jar or sink or burnt with a saline solution and forced out the birth canal! Both are barberic and both are done only because the child is not wanted for whatever reason.
I wonder how many people who are pro choice would want prostitution legalized. After all, it is a wpmans body!
I'm not trying to be mean or disrespetful. I am for full equality for women.I just think taking an innocent life is wrong!
Sorry if I made anyone angry. This is just my opinion andI repect everyones opinion even if I disagree.
11weeks
HEART IS BEATING (SINCE 18-25 DAYS)
BRAIN WAVES HAVE BEEN RECORDED AT 40 DAYS
THE BABY SQUINTS, SWALLOWS, AND CAN MAKE A FIST
THE BABY HAS FINGERPRINTS AND CAN KICK
THE BABY IS SENSITIVE TO HEAT, TOUCH, LIGHT AND NOISE
THE BABY SUCKS HIS OR HER THUMB
ALL BODY SYSTEMS ARE WORKING
THE BABY WEIGHS ABOUT 1 OUNCE AND IS 2 1/2 TO 3 INCHES LONG
THE BABY COULD FIT COMFORTABLY IN THE PALM OF YOUR HAND
I think expecting a rape victim to carry the rapist's child with NO CHOICE in the matter (imagining a world where abortion would be dis-allowed to a rape victim) is simply re-victimization.
I also often wonder, from the perspective of people who are anti-choice... how far they'd be willing to go in forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies. In an anti-choice world... should women who have abortions be sent to prison? Should doctors be sent to prison? If a pregnant woman was known to desire an abortion, should she be locked up for 9 months under constant supervision to make sure she carried the fetus to term to make sure she would be unable/not allowed to find ways to induce an abortion? I really am curious about how extreme the measures would be from an anti-choice perspective.
lovely. So you think a baby is a living full person inside a mother...yet you want that fully human baby to live for nine months inside a woman that HATES it. You want it born to know it is the product of its mother's shame and pain...and its father is a rapist?
and the woman has to spend nine months watching her body being violated? Breasts sagging, stretch marks, vomiting....only to have hovering over her the knowledge that at the END of the nine months she will have to go thru the worst pain humans experience?
this is the reason why rape has become a favorite tactic for militias in third world countries....rape, the violence that keeps on giving.
Ouch! Awesome point, Jess. This especially happens in areas where a woman pregnant out of wedlock instantly condemns her as unmarriagable and to 'damaged goods' status even though she was the victim, where abortion is not an easily available option and if a woman does choose to get one, is yet another black mark against her.
Yes, we have this rosy view of childbirth. That every woman looking for an abortion is a selfish white woman with resources....and if carried to term the child will be born perfect and white and cute and there would be a line of loving parents BEGGING to adopt it.
The reality is different. Sure there are a bunch of couples out there looking for babies...but they don't want a handicapped, mentally challenged child. Or a crack baby.
And how many of these people that are so concerned about abortioin have adopted the children that are already here?
And suppose we do require all these aborted babies to be born? Typically the Pro Lifer's are Republicans (who are against social programs) sooo....what happens to the babies? Are we going to force poor women to surrender their babies or should we let them starve? Otherwise we are going to have to supplement their families...
"OK, so you don't support sex education, Planned Parenthood Clinics or any social programs that help parentless children/unwed mothers, but you're all for forcing me to have this child (hypothetically) and me picking up the bill for it even if I don't want it. What was I supposed to do?"
His answer?
Well, as a single, unwed adult/near adult woman, she was NOT supposed to be having sex in the first place. She was supposed to be 'waiting' to be made an honest woman.
I think someone on this board or I read it somewhere, reported how Italy was the biggest supporter of the Pope and the Catholic Church...but how they also had the lowest out of wedlock birthrate in Europe.Italy also has one of the lowest in-wedlock birthrates in Europe. Which points to Italian women taking charge of and controlling their fertility in and out of wedlock, whatever the Catholic Church has to say about it. Italy is known to be the country in Western Europe with the poorest social rights for women with small children; low kindergarten availability coverage, very limited maternity leave with pay, etc. The governmental attitude has been that once married, women are to stay at home and have babies. Italian women however have other ideas, and live their lives accordingly. Which clearly shows that women can be trusted to make informed and responsible choices concerning their own bodies and reproduction, if anyone were to doubt that...
I've been put in mind of a couple of quotes by Sir Winston Churchill. No, he didn't speak about abortion, far as I know, but I'm drawing the analogy nevertheless. Here's the first one:It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
Replace "Democracy" with "Pro-choice" and "government" with "dealing with unplanned pregnancies", and you see what I'm getting at. In practical life, what would a strict so-called Pro-life solution lead to except an abundance of human tragedies?
I don't really feel them. My gut's not in it. What my gut tells me is that extinguishing a mass of cells that that couldn't survive on its own
...and isn't aware of its own existence --
Or if it is, it's a mild and sometimes necessary evil.
But...when does that "mass of cells that coudn't survive on its own" become a life?
Most everyone here knows me as a very liberal thinking individual, but there is something inherently disturbing in this debate. Do we set ourselves so high as to determine when life begins?
Do we know this for a fact? Are we certain beyond the shadow of a doubt?
We have set that as our judicial standard for killing criminals. Why should we not apply it here?
No such thing.
Well, good for you. Me, I commit them on a regular basis. For example, I think it's wrong to lie, and yet, rarely but occasionally, I do -- thus, a mild and sometimes necessary evil. I think war and killing are evil, and yet I'd advocate them when confronted with a Hitler -- unquestionably necessary, though perhaps not mild.
I don't recall setting myself up as some example of a non-evil (mild or otherwise) doing human being. I simply said there is no such thing as a necessary evil.
Abortion is far to available of a choice. It makes it much to easy to abdicate responsability for one's own actions.
I think there's nothing particularly easy about obtaining an abortion in our society even if it is legal... nevermind any level of personal turmoil and psychological distress that might be involved for the woman making the decision.
And the whole question of personal responsibility goes right back to the whole question of where the responsibility of the straight man lies in all of this. The burden of this type of dilemma... an unwanted pregnancy... will always fall much harder on the woman (simply because it's her own body... and pain and agony involved in the pregnancy and/or abortion). If contraceptives were 100% effective and the burden of contraception feel *equally* on both the male and the female partner the whole question of personal responsibility might be easier for me to deal with in this context. Saying that an unwanted pregnancy has something to do with lack of personal responsibility on the part of the female partner is not fair. She just bears the physical consequences and turmoil in her life (given an unwanted pregnancy) that her male partner would never have to endure even if his personal responsibility in the situation was just as lacking.
I do agree that is much easier for the man to walk away with little or no emotional or physical expense, so how do we change that?if a man Wants the child and the woman doesn't, TFB! The man has no say. The woman can destroy his child if she wants to.
Perhaps I should have said that abortion should be a matter of necessity, not convenience, and no, I am not saying that all women who get abortions get them because carrying the baby to term would be inconvenient, but can you say that is the case 100% of the time, and what would be your acceptable losses?
Interesting twists on the points. to clarify, here are some responses
2) of course laws inhibiting drug (legal and illiegal) use, unlawful operations, unnecessary operations, etc are about "bodily sovreignty". and being compelled to work at a job or occupation or trade that one does not want to is the same thing. They exist because government believes people can't make the right choices. The inability to view child bearing as something other than "bodily sovreignty rights" is the bias that inhibits another view outside the rigid pro choice, any time, any place, any reason mentality, I think.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a very trite argument I think...personally I have never heard of the government forcing a person to
remain in a job they hated in order to pay child support. You have every right to change jobs...whenever.
You continue to bring the entire focus of this right into the realm of when or where a fetus becomes a
person..That is and will always be everyones individual decision. As much as you want to make it a scientific
proof..It is like proving there is a god...You can never prove there is one to those who are non believers...and you cannot prove he doesnt exist either..its a philosophical question..not a factual one.. And as for the difficulties
that any woman goes thru before and after they choose, or dont choose to have an abortion..It has many
different questions to consider. If you put societal and religious thoughts into the equation, it is only a more
difficult decision. It is however usually the male dominated society that is telling women what and why they]
should not be allowed to have this choice..Starting with the Catholic churchs mandates...no abortions period..no birth control period, etc..it is a lot of the way it is carried forth. It is thru teachings and further threats of hell and
damnation...All of these issues come to bear on her decision making. She has enough to think about without all the rest of us getting the govt. involved...
This always brings to mind the people that think the point of insemination is the beginning of the
live or not live argument... Ok then if that is the point of humaness, and it should not be allowed to be terminated. Or discarded. Why then do we not go one step further, and say that a man throwing his seed away is not the same thing.? I just dont understand why people want or try to get involved in other peoples private
business. And the Constitution itself gives us the right to "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.." Isnt this
a part of that freedom. It doesnt say unless, so and so is involved, or whenever others say its ok for you to do that. Or are women supposed, no entitlement to that freedom...That they are unworthy, or not discerning enough to make these decisions on their own behalf..Along with their doctors...
You continue to bring the entire focus of this right into the realm of when or where a fetus becomes a
person..That is and will always be everyones individual decision.
It is however usually the male dominated society that is telling women what and why they]
should not be allowed to have this choice
by the by...some posters have suggested that anyone can simply go to a hospital and have any surgical procedure done upon request. This is most definitely not the case. Any accredited hospital and their procedures are regulated by statute.
I'm confused, and I have some mixed feelings about when a fetus becomes a human, and I admit I'm not sure of the answer. But if a fetus is NOT a human being, why did they convict Scott Peterson of a double murder when he killed his wife and her unborn child. It seems to me if a fetus is NOT a human, he should have only been convicted of the murder of his wife. Don't you agree? It's almost as if a double standard is at play here. ???It is a double standard. If the woman wants it then it is a child if the woman doesn't want it, it's a fetus or mass of cells.
I'm confused, and I have some mixed feelings about when a fetus becomes a human, and I admit I'm not sure of the answer. But if a fetus is NOT a human being, why did they convict Scott Peterson of a double murder when he killed his wife and her unborn child. It seems to me if a fetus is NOT a human, he should have only been convicted for the murder of his wife. Don't you agree? It's almost as if a double standard is at play here. ???
yes we are talking about things that are very close to the bone aren't we?
I hope you know, Dev that we are not in ANY way talking about you or your decisions....we are talking big picture. I feel for you and believe you did the best you could at the time. We all have things in our lifes we wish we could revisit. Lort knows I do.
You know we love you here Dev.
{{{{Dev}}}}
I am sorry you are upset.
and I am glad you spoke up about your feelings. how can I help?
There's one thing that I witnessed that horrified me. There was a scene going on between two 20 somethings back when i was twenty something.. and the girl got pregnant by her boyfriend, and he was screaming and yelling and throwing a damn fit. He was demanding she get an abortion pushing her and just being a real jerk. It really upset me because I know that girl didnt want to give up her baby. And some of you have said that if a woman gets pregnant and chooses to have the kid and forces the FATHER to pay child support for 18 years that they are so wrong. Well Ill tell you what it takes two people to make a baby.
A father and a mother.. No one should be forced to have an abortion by a man or gov't. It is for a woman and hopefully a man together to decided. In my case way back when i had my abortion, the love of my life soon was out of my life..maybe because I killed his baby. Men want to have kids too. If he would have told me, honey lets have this baby, things may have been different. I guess in all honesty seeing it in black and white, I guess, as I assumed then, it didnt matter to him. See there's all different sides to this coin.. Just my 2 cents
Doctors in fertility clinics everyday dispose of viable zygots, because they have have used the ones they needed, and dispose of the rest..should we then carry this to the next step and force him to implant them or be tried for murder...This is an issue to be decided by the individual..in spite of the strong rhetoric that has been expressed here
that the government interferes in our every day life to our bodies...They shouldnt even tho they do..and they
certainly shouldnt in this case....Now I have extreme issues with partial birth abortions...I think it should only be
done in case of the mothers life or the childs..if you cant figure out what to do before that..you are stuck..as far as
im concerned...have the child and then place it for adoption if you are unwilling or unable to care for the child...its the
best for the child...
This society desperately needs its own Beccaria. I wish I could advocate my position as elegantly and intelligently as he; instead, I feel like I'm just talking in circles. I know ultimately we will have to agree to disagree, and hopefully can do so in as respectful a manner as possible.
Let me leave you with this one thought: While anguishing over the cruelties of others, be mindful of the potential cruelty that resides within yourself, and do not let it steer your life into a hell of your own creation. Hate begets hate, and love mirrors love. And it is never inappropriate to respond with love.
Given the sentiment of the quote above, which is arguably a very Christian, conservative teaching, and which I sense those who oppose the death penalty embrace,
I am curious how this view was exemplified relative to the killers of Matthew Shepard? I recall only cries for vengeance and the death penalty.
This has all been very enlightening to me. It has helped crytsalize how I feel on the subject. Thank you.
the basic biological injustic that women are the ones who have to carry the baby and give birth.
I will take the cowards way out and embrace my non breeder status and leave it up to someone else. Sorry if I wasted your time.
And remember, this could easily be restated as "women are the ones who get to carry the baby and give birth."
Given the sentiment of the quote above, which is arguably a very Christian, conservative teaching, and which I sense those who oppose the death penalty embrace, I am curious how this view was exemplified relative to the killers of Matthew Shepard? I recall only cries for vengeance and the death penalty.
Or, how should the killer of Jack Twist (hypotheically since I'm one who believes that scene was an illusion) have been treated if caught?
How would 'love mirrors love' resolved the issues in these cases?
I firmly oppose the death penalty based on a Humanist and strictly atheistic outlook, and I would not call myself a Conservative - certainly not in the US sense of the word.
Being a foreigner I did not follow the news at the time of Matthew Shephard's death, but I do trust that American Humanists did not clamour for his killers' death. If they did, that truly disappoints me. Those guys, and the hypotetical killers of Jack Twist, do not deserve the death penalty. Noone does, - they are humans and their lives should be respected as such however despicable and horrific their acts. But I have no quarrel with countries who would deem that the very worst crimes deserve a full life sentence, without chance of parole, if under reasonably humane conditions.
Along these lines, I have the text of Dennis Shepard's speach at the sentancing of his sons killers. I think it has been posted on bettermost before, but wtf, here it goes, it is a powerful thing.
Along these lines, I have the text of Dennis Shepard's speach at the sentancing of his sons killers. I think it has been posted on bettermost before, but wtf, here it goes, it is a powerful thing.
I tried to formulate a response to this several times yesterday but everything seemed too trite. So I will just say; thank you for posting this.
Berry asked for a delay at least until the court issues its decision in the Kentucky case. He claimed the mixture of deadly chemicals Mississippi uses would cause unnecessary pain, constituting cruel and unusual punishment.
I wonder if Mr. Berry knows the meaning of "ironic". >:(
Did he worry about the 'unnecessary pain' suffered by his victim?
He's only worried about it when it comes to himself. >:( >:(
They'll go forward.
I'm not in favor of the death penalty because I don't think the state should have the right to take the life of its citizens. The state can, and often does, make mistakes. And the state can misuse its power for political reasons.
I also don't think that the justice and penal systems should be about revenge, or judgement in the Biblical sense. I don't think human beings know enough to judge even themselves, much less others in this way. If someone has proven that he/she can't be trusted with his/her freedom he/she should be removed from the general population. I want to be protected from violent criminals. I don't want them hurt or abused. (But I can understand a victim or someone close to a victim feeling differently.) If there is a God, then let God be the judge.
Gary
dont believe they should be kept alive, simply because we find the carrying out of justice, distasteful..
You can judge whether or not someone is guilty of a violent crime, and therefore can't be trusted with his/her freedom, without judging that person's worth in the larger scheme of things.
You can look at a situation and try to decide what happened without comment on the basic humanity of the people involved.
And the way we set up our prisons in a way that allows the strong to rape and abuse the weak is an example of how we as a society have no respect for the humanity of our prisoners.
I don't find it distasteful, I find it just plain wrong.
Depriving a human being of his/her life is not within the rights of another human being. We can say, "You're not fit to live in civilized society," because we other humans have created that society and we can make the rules. So we can send them into exile or, more practically these days, lock them up. But we can't say, "You're not fit to stay alive," because we didn't give the person life in the first place.
I'm agnostic. But if there is/are God(s), I'm pretty sure he/she/they would say that's not our job...
I do see it as distasteful to have to provide food and shelter for someone who's done a horrible thing. But what are you gonna do? Unless there's a fantasy island available -- or a habitable planet -- where we can just dump all the bad guys and let them fend for themselves, that's what we're stuck with.
It worries me that on a message board at a site dedicated to the film BBM there are people who trust the state to decide who is and who isn't worthy of life.
Throughout history ordinary citizens have had much more to fear from their governments than any individual psycho.
And it was only just a few years ago that it was against the law to engage in gay sex in a number of states in the U.S. As a gay man I certainly want the likes of Jeffrey Dahmer removed from the streets, but I don't want the state to have the right to kill Jeffrey Dahmer because there's an awful lot of assholes out there that confuse me with Jeffrey Dahmer.
Someone mentioned Ayan Rand's quote, "Judge and be prepared to be judged." That sounds a lot like don't do anything you wouldn't want to see printed in the papers. HA! I do lots of stuff I wouldn't want to see printed in the papers, and if my neighbor were to find out about some of that stuff I wouldn't trust him to judge me with an eye toward fair play any more than I could throw the S.O.B.
And God help me if he had the state with the power to kill me on his side.
"Judge and be prepared to be judged" only works if you're in the majority. If you're part of a disdained minority you can judge all you want, but you had better be prepared to get stepped on like a bug by a group of people who think they are absolutely right in getting rid of you.
Well, If someone is threatening my life and the life of my friends or family, I most certainly think I can take them out of this life because that’s what they were planning on doing to me – or have done or plan to do to others.
I’m atheist/agnostic friendly, but in the end, I’m polytheistic/animist and believe the gods know life and death is quite natural, as is self-defense and protection in whatever form and I’m pretty sure they do not smile on anyone who commits heinous crimes against innocent people.
Well, see, those who support the death penalty don’t agree that you’re stuck with just a prison sentence. We support other options – the death penalty for heinous crimes.
But how about your neighbor? Or abusive husband/father? Don't forget, the person most likely to kill you is the person you love.
It's been documented in rape trials that jurors had a hard time convicting rapists because the woman just happened to be wearing a short skirt or had been divorced or was in a bar or - believe it or not - wearing animal print underwear. Some members of the jury found it hard to believe she was raped. Her underwear told them she was asking for it.
There was a time when committing gay sex was considered by the majority to be a heinous crime, worthy of the death penalty. Many still hold this view.
And yes, we do trust government to make war and protect our drinking water. And look at what a wonderful job they're doing.
The word faggot means bundle of sticks. Why are gay men called faggots? Because it refers to the pile of wood gay men were placed on top of when they were burned at the stake.
There was a time when committing gay sex was considered by the majority to be a heinous crime, worthy of the death penalty. Many still hold this view. And political winds can change quickly. Nazi Germany arose from a free and democratic society.
And I never claimed I had any dirty laundry at all. I meant that my neighbor may simply view what I do as dirty. But what does he know? Not a lot. None of us do. Like Socrates said, I know nothing but of my own ignorance. I certainly don't know who is worthy of life, and who isn't.
If someone was attacking me I would defend myself. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about the death penalty.
And the reason that so many rapes and assults take place in prison isn't simply because the people behind bars are violent. The way the prisons are set up allow, and subtly encourage this to happen. The way gangs are formed, and the way weaker men are prayed upon behind bars has been known for years. The reason nothing is done to correct the situation is because the state doesn't care. The state considers the abuse part of the punishment. And the result is petty criminals are sent to these over populated pirsons and they become violent criminals.
And yes, we do trust government to make war and protect our drinking water. And look at what a wonderful job they're doing.
But in both those cases, the killing is done to prevent further killing, not after the fact to punish someone for having killed.
Perhaps not. But that doesn't mean they encourage humans to take the punishment into their own hands. If God(s) disapprove of a heinous criminal, you'd think he/she/they'd have the power to mete out justice. Alternatively, the fact that heinous criminals do exist and can get away with such crimes suggests that God(s) don't exist, don't care, or plan to deal with the criminals later in their own way.
And that's an argument for wanting to see them fry??
And that's an argument for trusting juries to decide on whether people live or die??
Good point, Gary. Some countries even now hand out death penalties for homosexuality.
But do you think the perps of these heinous crimes are going to stop?
Or the gods are simply expecting humans to do it themselves. The gods won't do for humans what humans can do for themselves.
See?
Religious arguments don't really help in this type of discussion. Some people are Christian, some are not, some are agnostic and some are atheists to whom the idea of what a big invisible friend in the sky might think is absurd. We all have different ideas about what the gods - if they exist - might or might not do.
the only arguments one could bring against it were emotional arguments and not really suited for the logical structure of a debate.
Do you see rapists going free by the dozens? Some do, most don't. And why? Because people are being educated about women and rapists. That women aren't always the Virgin or Good Little Housewife and if they're not, doesn't mean they deserve whatever violence is done them.
And adultery, but I'm not about to compare them to the West and we are talking about the West, right?
Yes, because they'll be in prison. I'm not saying that the alternative to killing them is setting them free.
My point is that, IMO, killing people as punishment is wrong. It's not about being practical or impractical, fair or unfair, feeling sorry for the killers or loving the killers or hating the killers. It's not about whether I want to feed and house them or not.
I believe it's just wrong, in some larger, overarching sense of morality. So it's not really about gods. My point in invoking the concept of "god" was to suggest that it's about the moral laws to the universe. I know that even that concept, in itself, is often disputed. I happen to think that there are some moral absolutes, and one of them is that you don't kill people except in self-defense.
But that's not true. First of all, you can argue that it's wrong because inevitably innocent people wind up getting executed. And you can point out that death sentences are influenced by juror misperceptions, inadequate representation, gender, racism (from deathpenaltyinfo.org: Modern studies of the death penalty continue to find a correlation between sentencing and race. The studies consistently show that those who kill white victims are much more likely to receive the death penalty than those who kill black victims) and other inequalities.
And in practical terms, you can argue that capital punishment is not effective at deterring crime -- on the contrary, I believe it encourages crime. The United States, the only Western country that allows capital punishment, also has the highest crime rate among Western industrialized countries. And states where capital punishment is legal tend to have higher murder rates. Here's a chart ranking states by murder rates. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=169#MRord (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=169#MRord) The states with the highest murder rates are at the top. The states highlighted in yellow are those that DON'T allow capital punishment. You'll notice that the yellow states are concentrated at the low end of the list.
Fine, but that's a direct contradiction of what you said in the first place, that juries make mistakes in rape trials. So you could argue that, through education, they're improving. But your point originally was that they do make mistakes. I agree, and that's one problem with capital punishment.
No, we're talking about capital punishment. I don't think we specified a specific global region. Gary's point was that in very recent memory homosexuality was considered a deviant crime here. I added that, in some countries, it is still a capital crime.
I never knew that the reason gay men in the US are called faggots is because of the pile of sticks gay men were burnt on?? Thats terrible!!
Delalluvia, in the UK a "fag" is a cigarette, a "faggot" is actually something you eat, it,s a meat dish. Very nice is it too, smothered in gravy with potatoes. :)
I stand corrected. :laugh: That dish sounds wonderful, I don't recall seeing it on menus while I was in London. I guess it's not there for the same reason they're phasing out or renaming the dessert - "Spotted Dick". :laugh:
Here you go hun. Good old brains faggots. Heat them up in the oven for about 40 minutes, serve with mashed spuds, veg and gravy...yum.
Boy or Girl, the 18 year old today would be labeled a sex offender and required to register in the state he lives in. For the rest of his life he will carry this scarlet letter and be denyed housing, job discrimination or worse if his neighbors find his name on the list. Look how many sex offenders get their picture on the evening news whenever some neighborhood gets wind of them moving in. All because a horny teenager got laid.
But if they do get out of prison - and they do have chances at parole?
But what are morals? As you and Gary have pointed out, morals have fluctuated throughout the centuries. What is moral in one era isn't in another and vice-versa, so there aren't really any moral absolutes. There is only moral relativism. Something is moral or isn't moral simply because at the time, we say it is.
And what do you think about WWII or Bosnia? Was killing Nazis/genocidal Serbs immoral and wrong or in some cases is killing someone NOT in individual self-defense not as absolutely immoral as you say because at times it's necessary?
Yes, but you could say that about sentencing people to long prison sentences. They're innocent yet are punished for it, but I don't see the argument that because we're human and make mistakes and that all institutions are thereby flawed in some way, we need to do away with our justice system. Allowances are made.
As for the race issue, all that means is that the white person got off easy, not that they didn't also deserve the death penalty.
As for inadequate representation, well, if you were accused of a crime, wouldn't you get the best attorney you could afford? That's the capitalist system. You get what you pay for. To argue against that goes against what our country is based on.
1) you also point out that despite the highest rate of convicted felons in the world - sitting out prison sentences - that that hasn't deterred crime either.
the death penalty isn't supposed to deter crime. It's merely punishment for the most heinous of killers because we don't want to punish the convicted sadistic rapist/murderer of children the same way we do a guy who has stolen one too many cars - treating his crime as no better or worse than a property crime.
See above. We don't live in a perfect world. People and institutions make mistakes. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater because of imperfections doesn't make much sense.
True, but only in countries where religion plays a key role in government - or are theocracies. Most modern countries in the West have gotten away from judging people on moral standards and as you see, the punishment for such 'crimes' has diminished until they aren't crimes at all.
I think it's our understanding of morality that is relative, not the morals themselves.
Well put, Gary. I agree.
I think there are some moral absolutes, but not many. Gary's post inspired me to look up the Ten Commandments. Here they are:
I am the Lord thy God
Thou shalt have no other gods before me
Thou shalt not make for thyself an idol
Thou shalt not make wrongful use of the name of thy God
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
Honor thy Father and Mother
Thou shalt not murder
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house (or, just for Gary, ass)
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife
(There are 12 here because some of them are combined different ways in different religious traditions.)
Now, everybody's going to have different views on this. But IMO, there are only a couple of things on there that are wrong in some absolute constant sense (murder, bearing false witness). Stealing is almost always wrong, but there are those "stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving child" exceptions. A few more I think are usually no-nos, but again I can imagine exceptions: adultery, coveting the neighbor's spouse, honoring thy father and mother. For example, what if your parents were abusive? But if not, yes, by all means honor them.
And the others I don't consider requirements at all! But, as I say, others will have different opinions.
Well, you don't let them out if you think they are going to kill again. Now I predict you're going to say that institutions are fallible and there's no way of guaranteeing they won't kill again. You're right. But I'd rather take that risk than have the state do the killing.
There is not "only moral relativism" in my view. Human attitudes, such as those toward homosexuality, have fluctuated throughout the centuries. That doesn't mean homosexuality used to be immoral. It never was. People just thought, wrongly, that it was. Just like slavery was never morally OK, genocide isn't morally OK, etc. -- even though some people have thought they were.
In my view, there are some moral absolutes, and one of them is that killing is wrong.
At times it's necessary to prevent the killing of other innocents, which to me is the moral equivalent of self-defense. Now I predict you're going to say that's what the death penalty does -- keeps heinous criminals from killing other innocents. But there are other options of what to do with heinous criminals, mainly imprisonment, because you already have them in custody. On the battlefield, other options are more limited. However, you don't kill POWs.
Yes but I'd rather wrongly sentence an innocent person to prison. Not just because of moral issues, but also because you can always release someone from prison if you find out they're innocent. If you've already killed them, well
The race distinction isn't just white vs. black criminals. It's that people who kill a white person are more likely to get the death penalty than people who kill a black person. I'm not comfortable with that kind of race-influenced sentencing.
Don't get me started on the flaws in the capitalist system. But in this case, IMO the state should not create a system in which personal wealth determines whether or not you're allowed to go on living.
Well, a lot of those convicted felons are there because of the "war on drugs," not because of murder.
And in any case, it's fallacious to argue that we should go ahead and use something that doesn't work just because a different strategy also doesn't work. The answer is to find something that DOES work. And in the meantime, don't kill people.
Well, I would say it's worse to rape someone than it is to steal a car. Do we execute rapists, too, in order to make that distinction? Or maybe just cut off a body part? Do we have to find whole, distinctly different punishments for every category of crime?
No. The way you treat a murderer more severely than a car thief is by giving the murderer a longer sentence.
Allowing the state to kill innocent people is a pretty big imperfection.
Then why is marijuana illegal? The simple reason (kind of simplistic, I know, because there are also reasons involving culture and liquor lobbies and so on, but it's at least one reason) is that a lot of voters think drug use is morally wrong.
As for inadequate representation, well, if you were accused of a crime, wouldn't you get the best attorney you could afford? That's the capitalist system. You get what you pay for. To argue against that goes against what our country is based on.
In my view, there are some moral absolutes, and one of them is that killing is wrong.
Delalluvia, I suppose you belong to those who could afford a good attorney? I still can't believe that you actually meant what you said there.
And I wonder, do those who support death penalty ever think about the fact that it is not the state that gives the lethal injection, it is not the state that presses the button of the electric chair or causes the death of the sentenced person in any other way? It is always a person. What does the state to those persons?
But we don't speak about a movie star that's got hit by a paparazzo.
We talk about whether it is just that a person is more likely to be sentenced to death because they can't afford a good attorney.
We talk about life or death depending on money. I know that it depends on money in every day life, since poor people can afford only cheap food, and don't get the same medical treatment as rich people, I know. But it's still not just, and I argue against it.
To speak more clearly: In case you were innocent and sentenced to death bcause the attorney provided by the government was not as good as the attorney your rich counterpart can afford, would you still be of the same opinion?
A very clear NO from me!
Can of worms, David, can of worms.....
But a necessary one!
No, but you're talking about the same concept. One person is less financially able than the other. One less financially able sues the more financially able. Should the person most able to afford counsel for a defense, be denied that defense because the other person cannot?
And what are they on trial for? Prosecutors don't ask for the death penalty for jaywalking. It has to be a very serious crime with plenty of back up evidence - especially in this day and age of DNA evidence.
It's not just, but what is the alternative?
What crime am I accused of? If I butchered some innocent person for some sick fantasy of mine, I can't say what I would think because I'm obviously not a well person. [shrug] This is a very complex question and many ways to look at it, so I really couldn't say.
So basically you're making exceptions to the word of god. As you can tell from the writing of the Hebrew Bible, god didn't make any exceptions. He didn't say "Thou shalt not steal - but it's OK if a b or c". You didn't steal - for any reason - period. ...
You can't imagine allowing a child to starve, but you need to read the Hebrew Bible a bit more. He not only allows it, he even condones and orders the murder of children.
So in that case, if you make exceptions, then it's perfectly justifiable if someone else does as well, "Thou shalt not murder - but it's OK if a b or c."
OK, but I don't think the family of their victims would agree.
But you make exceptions - so it's really not absolute, not even in your eyes - see your below comment:
True, but then there are people who believe the rule is absolute - see the Amish in the recent horrendous murder of school girls - or the Quakers in any war. They don't believe in killing - for any reason - because they believe their commandment is an absolute.
Which is why I support long appeals process. Give technology plenty of time and their defense as many opportunities as possible to bring in new evidence, ask for new trials, ask for clemency etc. I certainly don't approve of convicting them in the morning and executing them in the afternoon.
I still don't see the issue. The white person is unlikely to get off with a light sentence for the same crime - he just didn't get executed. That doesn't mean he didn't deserve the punishment or that the black person did not. One just got it and the other didn't.
Everyone should strive toward the same - but seeing as not everyone has the same talents not everyone is going to make it and those that do make it, it isn't fair that they should have to have their rewards reduced for those who don't.
True, but they're not on death row. We're talking heinous crimes.
Well we do, don't we? People who write hot checks don't get the same punishment as those who rape children and dismember them.
So you do agree that we should find different punishments for every category of crime.
I think it's a Christian morality thing personally. The same reason they don't sell alcohol down in my part of the country or stores are closed on Sunday. Not really sure.
Stating what a particular person thinks is or is not moral, is a subject for a different debate I believe.
To state what any persons opinions on the moral tenants, are, as varied as there are people.
I resent that the quality of the defense, and therefor the outcome, depends on how financially able a person is. One possibility would be to make all attorneys governmental, so that everyone gets the same quality.
I don´t get your point of view here, sorry.
I said you are innocent, and nevertheless sentenced to death (that happens a lot, in case this has not yet come to your ears).
How do I manage to get accused of a heinous crime yet am completely innocent?
I'm not clear on what you're arguing in this entire post. Of course I'm making exceptions to "the word of God." I'm not religious in that way. Admittedly, my listing of the 10 commandments was a bit OT, so maybe that was confusing.
But as I thought I'd made clear, I don't believe the 10 commandments are "the word of God," I don't believe the Bible is the word of God, I don't necessarily believe in God and I don't agree that all of the 10 commandments are valid rules. So yes, I certainly do make exceptions to what, IMO, are the words of fallible human beings.
No, that would not be "perfectly justifiable" in my view. I'm talking about what are, IMO, moral absolutes. I'm not saying everybody can pick and choose which moral rules are right for them.
Obviously different people have different views on what those moral rules are. We talked earlier about people who think homosexuality is wrong, even deserving of death. That, to them, is a moral absolute. However, that doesn't mean they are right. Am I making myself clear? Do you see the distinction?
Let's see if I can phrase it differently. I believe there are moral absolutes. I believe different people have different ideas of what those moral absolutes are. That does not, however change the moral absolutes -- it just means some people are wrong.
Yes, it still is an absolute. The absolute moral rule, IMO, is: Killing is wrong, except for self-defense or to save other innocent people, as in WWII or to stop a genocide. There's no reason a moral absolute can't have exceptions.
But those are exceptions for particular kinds of killing, not exceptions for particular instances. In other words, to say "Killing is wrong except in self-defense" is a moral absolute.
This reminds me of another practical argument your friend could have used in her debate: Executions cost the state much more than life imprisonment does.
The issue is that it reveals the fallibility of death-penalty sentencing. You may think they both deserved to get a death sentence. But they didn't. If the system is that capricious, it is unconstitutional and morally intolerable.
Inequality is part of life. But it should not be part of the judicial system and government policy.
Of course, if you're talking length rather than kind. Del, do you remember what you said that I was responding to? You said we should have the death penalty so that a murder doesn't get the same punishment as a car thief. I said they shouldn't get the same punishment -- they should get different lengths of sentences. But they don't need whole different kinds of punishments, as you contended.
At this point, it has a lot to do with business lobbying. But yes, it is at least grounded in Christian morality. Do you remember what you said here that I was responding to? You said in this country we don't judge people based on morality. But we do.
OK, but you wouldn't necessarily get quality. All you would get would be attorneys willing to take the pay the government is offering. How would you equate skill so you could guarantee everyone gets the same quality of representation?
What I was saying is that not all cases are instantly death penalty cases. Some should be, but the prosecutors for whatever reason don't think they'll be able to get it, so they don't try. When people are accused of heinous crimes, the death penalty isn't always an instant option.
You'll have to be more specific. I am innocent - how? I was in the same room as my murderous boyfriend and did nothing to try and stop him from committing murder? I didn't actually pull the trigger but I also didn't turn in the person that did? I was so brow-beaten by my abusive sick husband that I didn't rescue any of the girls he kidnapped and tortured to death? How do I manage to get accused of a heinous crime yet am completely innocent?
The ones I hear of usually involve mistaken identities or false accusations.
I could not guarantee that, of course, yet it is a fact that attorneys payed by a private person are more ambitious than those the government pays for.
Girl you just don´t get it. I said you were innocent. Innocent. Are you actually so naive as to think that anything of what you wrote must happen so that you are accused to have commited a heinous crime?
You make it seem like they're all bloodthirsty crowds in an arena, happy to drag innocent people off the street, and based on no evidence whatsoever instantly convict them of a death penalty crime.
No, I didn´t say that. I said there are persons who are innocent and nevertheless sentenced to death (and I remind you that death is nowadays still irreversible), and every single one of them is an argument against death penalty, it does not depend on their number.
And I remind you that few evidences are infallible, not even "scientific" ones.
False accusations these days take a lot of evidence to prove. I'm not saying they didn't happen in the past, they obviously have, but those are becoming less a possibility these days.
OK, I'm just pointing out that because you do so means other people will as well and for the same justification so moral absolutes aren't really absolutes. They are to you, but not to others, so that makes them not absolute.
... It's no longer 'absolute', it's must be a run-of-mill moral.
The second you say 'except', that's an exception to the rule and therefore the rule is no longer absolute.
That's the only one we could come up with that wasn't based on emotional arguments and even she was going to have to determine whether the research done 10-20 years ago was still correct based on inflation rates and longer lives of prisoners.
So we should just do away with our justice system all together?
And you can separate our judicial system and government policy from the humans who run it - and are infalliable - how?
It's the same thing, though. Obviously, there are white-collar prisons - what they call 'country club' prisons and hard-time lockups. We do differentiate in punishments and the length of time and how 'hard' that time is ... We make distinctions.
Now as for your outrage about my thoughts on love, and your challenge that not even I could love Hitler and Stalin and their kind, and that I couldn’t possibly envision a God who would accept them if they didn’t repent first. All I can say is that yes, I can envision a God who would accept Hitler and Stalin, just as they are, or were as the case may be. I can’t truly love them, but I don’t claim to be a perfect person. But I do think people lash out at others out of hatred and self-interest, and that these things stem from a sense of isolation. I think we do bad things to one another because we feel alone. But if there is a God we are mistaken, and there is no need to try to save ourselves, because God will save us. If you have faith then you feel at one with God and the whole of creation. For a person of faith there is no need to strive toward anything, no need to climb over anyone to get to the top, because you would already have the world in whole, and you would believe that not even death would change this. Of course no one has perfect faith. Even the best of us will lash out sometimes. We all make mistakes, and people like Hitler and Stalin made monstrously huge ones. They hurt a lot of people, and I feel their victims’ pain and fury. And if I had been directly effected by them I’d want to beat them with a ball bat I’m sure. But that’s only because I’m not perfect. Jesus, according to the New Testament, did tell us to turn the other cheek you know.Gary, you display such impressive wisdom and compassion, and I marvel at your eloquence in conveying your ideas and feelings. We are so lucky to have you among us.
I can tell you that I want to stop the Hitlers and the Stalins of the world. Just as I want to stop gay bashing, either directed toward myself or someone else. I’d even use deadly force if I had to. And I’d have no problem with putting such people in prison. But guess what, quyst, in my better moments I don’t want even Hitler and Stalin to be consigned to hell. I don’t even believe in hell. I believe that if there is a God he will save us all. I think it’s love that turns us into better people. I think it’s love that informs morality. And if there is a God, and if he brought someone like Hitler or Stalin into his presence I think his love would transform them. As Paul said, according to the New Testament, “now we see in a glass darkly, but then face to face.” If there is a God, and if Hitler and Stalin no longer saw that dark glass they looked at in this life, but instead saw the face of God, I think they’d realize that there had been no need to try to conquer the world, there had been no need to see others as their enemy, no need to kill and push back, because they would realize that the competition had only been in their heads, and that they already had the world from the start. So in my view of things there is a place in heaven even for Hitler and Stalin.
As for your plea that I love you, quyst, all I can say is that you have made that rather difficult. You came to this site with the intention of going on the attack. Your posts contained not even a hint that you were interested in the well being of anyone here. So I, and others fought back. I know I used some pretty harsh language against you. But you presented yourself as someone who was utterly indifferent to my thoughts and feelings. I only responded in kind. Maybe a perfect person would have remained passive. Maybe a perfect person would have taken the blows without complaint. But I don’t claim to be perfect. However, I can assure you that even when I was burning with hostility toward you, I would not have done anything more than give you a good shake if you were standing right here in front of me, and I probably would not have even went that far. And I want you to know this, if nothing else I have said gets through, I don’t want you to be consigned to hell for disagreeing with me. I don’t want you to be consigned to hell for any reason. If there is a God, I hope that he saves you along with everyone else. And if we can’t be friends here, I hope we can be friends in heaven.
Gary
In the same vein, doesn't the US also use capital punishment in cases where the convict has such a low IQ that he/she must be considered obviously mentally handicapped / "retarded"? (Sorry if I am inadvertently using offensive words here - please bear in mind English is not my first language). I seem to recall rading of such a case.
I know you well enough to trust you, Ineedcrayons. However, if you suddenly weren't here anymore because you were carted off to the pokey after having murdered someone, I would be shocked by the news, but I wouldn't really be surprised. Not really. And I wouldn't hate you. I would probably even go so far as to send you letters in prison. ;D (Maybe even cartons of cigarettes. I hear they work like money behind bars.)
Hi Dagi and Gary,
I see what you both are saying. I really do. And I also try to take into account what circumstances might have made people the way they are. I don't think those can be ignored. I realize that someone who had a terrible childhood is likely to have a harder time becoming a good and productive adult than someone whose childhood was happy. In addressing crime, for example, I think one of the most important things we can do is help people have better childhoods -- kinder, less poor, more enriching, happier.
I also absolutely agree that we should try to understand what makes people do bad things. Of course! Is it genetic? Environmental? Is it preventable? And no, I'm not saying those people are inherently more evil than others. I don't really believe in "evil" in that sense. I'm not saying they're a different species or anything. We're all shaped by a combination of our genes and our environments.
But. On the other hand, I also believe people ultimately have to be held responsible for their actions. If they're not, then what do actions even mean?
I'm not saying I "hate" Jeffrey Dahmer. Hate is a stronger word than what I feel toward Jeffrey Dahmer. I don't want to kill him or even necessarily see him suffer. But I don't love him. I love my children and my relatives and close friends. How could I put Jeffrey Dahmer in that same group?
Or maybe we're talking about something other than love. Maybe "respect as a human being" or something like that. But even then, how can I respect Nelson Mandella and Jeffrey Dahmer equally? If I did, doesn't that give Nelson Mandella's achievements kind of short shrift?
Circumstances do, indeed, shape people. But I also think humans have some degree of free will. I've known people who grew up in terrible circumstances and turned out fine. If they hadn't turned out fine, it would be understandable -- even predictable. But they did turn out fine, and they should get credit for it. People should be lauded for doing good. The flip side is that they should be held accountable for doing bad.
P.S. Gary -- that was some really good advice from that author! I don't know about love, but I do think that an author has to empathize with his/her characters, that is to understand what makes them act the way they do.
P.S.S. I'm taking a big test next week. There's one section in which you have to critique an argument that's provided. I'm really hoping the argument involves 1) the death penalty 2) abortion or 3) circumcision or maybe 4) whether all straight people are homophobic. What better practice is there than these threads?
I'm still not making myself clear, then. I'm going to quote Gary again: "It's our understanding of the morals that is relative, not the morals themselves." That is, just because people disagree on what is right and wrong doesn't mean that whatever somebody thinks is OK for them. If that were the case, slavery and concentration camps would both have been just fine. No, the moral absolutes still exist, even if people interpret them incorrectly.
Sorry, but I have absolutely no problem calling "murder is wrong except in self defense or to defend other innocents" a moral absolute.
I wasn't attempting to do that.
But if you're asking how the judicial system and government policy differs from the rest of life, the answer is they are public institutions and, in a democracy, are expected to attempt to treat all citizens equally, regardless of race, wealth and other demographic differences.
Yep. That's what I said. That's why there's no need to kill anybody.
Thanks so much Scott for the kind words. I appreciate that.
I’ve been thinking of what you said about criminals having humanity, and how we should respect that. I don’t think very many people do have much respect for the humanity of the criminal element. Although I wouldn’t go so far as to question the motives of anyone here, I do think that in a general sense we do demonize people in an attempt to make us feel good about ourselves.
Gary
The overwhelming majority of American women -- WOMEN -- supported the Iraq war in the beginning. And I recall clearly seeing women -- WOMEN -- dancing in the streets in the middle east after 9/11 on television.
Women may be somewhat less prone to violence than men, and that probably has something to do with male hormones, or lack there of, but women have their dark sides. (Condolisa Rice has her fingerprints all over the Iraq war, BTW.) This idea that women are sweetness and light is crap. I've known a lot of hateful and vicious women. Some of the most cruel, hateful, and most homophobic remarks made to me in my lifetime have come from women. So please spare me this idea that men are the cause of the world's problems. ::)
If women were in charge of the world it might be a different place. But it would still be a very screwed up place.
And just so I'm clear here, I'd like to say that just because the state has accused someone of something, and just because they've been convicted, I don't necessarily believe they are guilty of anything. I am forever suspect of the state's motives and competence. Which I think is the duty of every citizen of a free and democratic society.
Let me put it this way, if one of your children grew up to be a murderer, would you stop loving that child?
I was saying that we should recognize that we are all in the same boat and that all of us are capable of doing horrible things if the circumstances are right. I never suggested that what Dahmer and Mandella did with their lives was in any way equal.
OK, I'm with you in the sense that in our society, we consider some things unacceptable. But I can't say that they're moral absolutes simply because it's only we that think so. We consider other people's morals wrong, but on what 'moral' high ground are we standing on to say so?
We live in a Republic more than a democracy. We have high goals of everyone being equal and treated equally under the law, but we're still a ways from that actually being the case, so injustices abound. But that doesn' t mean we should totally abandon the experiment.
Somewhat less? I'm sorry Gary you only need to read the statistics of the percentage of what gender is in prison and who in the world commits the most violence. That isn't a sweetness and light bias - which I never claimed in the first place. And note, you only had homophobic remarks from women. How many have actually offered you violence?
Exactly. That's why if there are inequalities in the system, we don't just shrug and say that's inevitable. We try to eliminate them.
But here's something I agree with you about, Delalluvia:
Women are waaayyyy less likely to commit violent acts. This is not to say women are morally superior to men in any (other) way. It's even possible that women support others committing violent acts -- war, capital punishment -- in equal proportions to men. They may have danced at 9/11. But when it comes to doing violence themselves, women are far less likely to do it.
(The one kind of violence women are more likely to commit is child abuse -- physical, not sexual. But one widely held explanation for this is that women tend to spend much more time around children than men do.)
and to me executing ONE innocent person negates any possible good that would come from executing a hundred guillty ones..
I dont like being generalized, and talked about like im not in the room....because I happen to be the soul
opposite person on this parade. I am not talking about all the criminals...I am only mentioning it in regards to
less than 1/2 of 1% of the entire criminal population that have done murder and mayhem...The ones in spite
of all the talk to the contrary...are not rehabilitatable. The evil ones...the compulsive one..many of whom dont
have the ability to control their own iimpulses. Some of them choose to die rather than fight for the appeals,
and court cases...They cannot stand themselves, and know that their mind is so screwed up they dont have
the ability to stop...Its not for everyone, to have this happen to them....Many of these people have killed lots
of people, and when they get in prison continue to do the same...what can society, do to protect the other
members of their society, in or out of the system....?? You cant just say oh well never mind........
And I thought I made it clear that I thought men were more likely to commit acts of violence. I only meant to point out that doesn't mean that women don't have dark impulses. I'm sorry if I can across as a little too blunt in my post. I was feeling a bit peevish. I've been trying very hard to put my thoughts into words, and I've written quite a lot here in the last few days. So to have someone show up, sift through all my posts and then came back at me and say simply that men are the ones who are warlike, as if that had anything to do with the main thrust of anything I had said, simply rubbed me the wrong way. (And I know that you're not the one who did it, so I'm sorry if I misplaced my anger.) And given the fact that I'm a man who has been talking about loving your neighbor, and not judging people, and how the death penalty is wrong... I was put on the defensive.
Sorry if my words came across as sharp.
Gary
Hey, when I spoke of my own personal views about love being the basis for morality, that was simply me sharing with you my view of the world. I wasn't trying to proselytize. And I've already admitted that I fall short of my own goals, so I certainly don't want to judge you for not being able to love the whole of humanity.
... Sorry if my words came across as sharp.
Of course, I'm not saying that we just ignore them. But inequalities in a system run by falliable humans are inevitable. To strive for perfection is a worthwhile goal, but it's also a foolish one because there is no such thing as achievable perfection. We should try to make something the very best that we can but we will never reach perfection. Mistakes, as they say, are the cost of doing business. You play you pay.
Agree. That's also why the authorities instruct parents to tell their children that if they ever get lost or need help and a family member isn't available and the child has to turn to a stranger for help, they advise that the child seek out a female stranger. The older the better. These women are least likely to offer the child any harm and will likely stay with the child until she is assured that the child is safe.
well, here is the thing...I do think there are some cases that are SOO clear cut...so beyond doubt that the person should be executed...our quintessential mass murderer, Jeffery Dahmer for example...but what galls me is these guys dont' GET executed...they get life in prison....I apologize to Delalluvia, and any other person that says they believe we need the death penalty for certain types of
that gets to me. and is one of the reasons I object to the death penalty the way it is applied now
I could support it under some circumstances...but they would have to be very narrow and a lot more rare than now. I think it should be saved for extreme cases...(I think we are in agreement on that?)
I apologize to Delalluvia, and any other person that says they believe we need the death penalty for certain types of
criminals.. I didnt mean to select myself alone as a student of this side of the arguement.
I dont like being generalized, and talked about like im not in the room....because I happen to be the soul
opposite person on this parade. I am not talking about all the criminals...I am only mentioning it in regards to
less than 1/2 of 1% of the entire criminal population that have done murder and mayhem...The ones in spite
of all the talk to the contrary...are not rehabilitatable. The evil ones...the compulsive one..many of whom dont
have the ability to control their own iimpulses. Some of them choose to die rather than fight for the appeals,
and court cases...They cannot stand themselves, and know that their mind is so screwed up they dont have
the ability to stop...Its not for everyone, to have this happen to them....Many of these people have killed lots
of people, and when they get in prison continue to do the same...what can society, do to protect the other
members of their society, in or out of the system....?? You cant just say oh well never mind........
Yes, you did come across as pretty defensive. Sorry, but I don't like women to be generalized especially when you are going on about the problems in this world and include women in sharing the blame for it when the majority of the blame for much of the violence in this world is clearly on the male of the species. Sorry if you took this personally, but so did I.Sorry, but women don't get off the hook on any of these issues and problems. Who gives birth to all the men? And who raises them? Who marries the men, often enabling them or looking the other way, or even actively supporting them? Who bears these men's children? Women are slightly more than half the species, and they fully participate in the human story, for both good and ill.
First, why do we think that children are inherently safer in the hands of older women? I think that's a pretty big assumption and doubt we really can find reliable and recent data to back it up. I've read somewhere that more and more violent crimes are committed by women. I think it's much more likely that women are only in recent times being tried and found guilty of their crimes instead of getting softer treatment from the so-called justice system....I have no data to support this, but it's a gut feeling - maybe I'll go see if I can find some data.
While in college I studied the German-American Christian theologian Paul Tillich. ... In his seminal work Systematic Theology Tillich points out that love is something more than mere emotion. In a philosophical sense it is far more important than that, and he defined it basically as the drive toward the reunion of the separated. ... Existential anxiety is really the key to understanding why people do awful things to one another.
According to the New Testament, Jesus told us to love our neighbor, he told us to love our enemies, and he told us to turn the other cheek. These are the things a person of faith would do. And that’s because to have faith is to be at one with the world, to accept the world, and everything in it.
I would be extremely wary of judging a person's moral character on the basis of their eyes, or any other external, physical trait. History is replete with people being demonized and victimized precisely on the basis of such dubious assumptions.
You can tell an awful lot about a person (although I hesitate to label hindley and brady as people) by their eyes. Look at this and tell me they havn,t got evil black eyes.Scary!! Seriously that bottom picture, she creeps me out.
Scary!! Seriously that bottom picture, she creeps me out.
Manson had some crazy eyes. So Did that Richard Ramierez.
have you ever seen Aileen Wurnoes(SP?) in an interview?
The showed one about the same time the movie Monster (based onher) came out.
She had some crazy eyes too.
Edgar Allen Poe had a very unusual appearance. And he even wrote creepy stories. Does that mean he was a serial killer? Who knew? ???
Edgar Allen Poe had a very unusual appearance. And he even wrote creepy stories. Does that mean he was a serial killer? Who knew? ???Well of course not! LOL
Gary
P.S. I've visited Poe's grave, and the house in which he lived in Baltimore a few years ago. ;D
He's in Baltimore,Lots of people I reckon! :laugh:
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=822
but who is buried in Charleston I wonder?
Edgar Allen Poe had a very unusual appearance. And he even wrote creepy stories. Does that mean he was a serial killer? Who knew? ???
Gary
P.S. I've visited Poe's grave, and the house in which he lived in Baltimore a few years ago. ;D
I just read an interesting statistic that October, 2007 was the first month in three years where no one was executed in the US.
Some say we are in the middle of an informal ban on the death penalty, pending a ruling by the Supreme Court on lethal injection.
For more:
http://www.slate.com/id/2176196/
"What a pity that Bilbo did not stab that vile creature, when he had a chance!”
“Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that he took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity.”
“I am sorry,” said Frodo. “But I am frightened; and I do not feel any pity for Gollum.”
“You have not seen him,” Gandalf broke in.
“No, and I don’t want to,” said Frodo. I can’t understand you. Do you mean to say that you, and the Elves, have let him live on after all those horrible deeds? Now at any rate he is as bad as an Orc, and just an enemy. He deserves death.”
“Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many - yours not least.
I don't see why those in favour of the death penalty are so dead set on its continuation. What harm to society is there in keeping even sadistical serial killers firmly behind lock and key - treating them humanely but certainly never letting them out into society again? When the very fact that they, even *they*, are treated humanly in prison serves to remind us all that society as a whole will and should demonstrably *not* sink towards their level in *any* way, shape or form: What they did in taking lives (not to mention the how and why and how often of it) was unconscionable and outside the realm of acceptable human behaviour, and the punishment in pointed contrast should be humane, though certainly not naive. "An eye for an eye makes the world blind".
Sorry, but women don't get off the hook on any of these issues and problems. Who gives birth to all the men? And who raises them? Who marries the men, often enabling them or looking the other way, or even actively supporting them? Who bears these men's children? Women are slightly more than half the species, and they fully participate in the human story, for both good and ill.
I think that it was abundantly clear that my comments were not meant to be offensive toward women. So if you wanted to make your point, you could have done so without singling me out, and responding to me directly with your curt little aside.
Gary
In the Pulitzer Prize winning book The Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, Annie Dillard writes of her observations of nature with the knowledge of a trained naturalist and with the passion of someone with deeply reflected faith. You might expect her to write of nature in glowing terms, but she doesn’t always. For instance, she might go on for pages describing in chilling detail how spiders sometimes eat their young, or how children will suffer while dying of cancer. Dillard does not shy away from the darker realities of life. She writes, “The universe that suckled us is a monster that does not care if we live or die – does not care if it itself grinds to a halt. It is fixed and blind, a robot programed to kill. We are free and seeing; we can only try to outwit it at every turn to save our skins.”
But this does not deter her faith, and this is made evident when she later writes, “I am a frayed and nibbled survivor in a fallen world, and I am getting along. I am aging and eaten and have done my share of eating too. I am not washed and beautiful, in control of a shining world in which everything fits, but instead am wandering awed about on a splintered wreck I’ve come to care for, whose gnawed trees breathe a delicate air, whose bloodied and scarred creatures are my dearest companions, and whose beauty beats and shines not in its imperfections but overwhelmingly in spite of them, under the wind-rent clouds upstream and down. Simone Weil says simply, ‘Let us love the country of here below. It is real; it offers resistence to love.’”
This is the world that’s been given to us, and, just like Dillard, I am in awe. It may shock me at times. I may not understand why it has to be so harsh. I may tremble at the thoughts of people who would do us harm. But whatever imagined perfection I have in my head it would be a pale and shallow replacement for this real place that dares to resist our love.
Gary
Secondly, I really take issue with Del's point about striving for a more ideal society being foolish:
With respect to the quote I highlighted, 'Damn, that's harsh.' That's not the kind of world I want to live in - no way, no how. I'll reiterate - in my view of the world, I'd rather a guilty person go free than one innocent person be put to death. The end. I agree that we all have our own individual concepts of what we consider morality; it is the consensus we reach from these concepts that form what passes for law in our society and has been since the beginning of civilization. It is a constantly evolving process and it is our RESPONSIBILITY (imo) as members of the human race to constantly question, requestion, and adjust -- or what's the point?!
Check out this website for The Innocence Project: http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/Browse-Profiles.php
Two hundred and eight people exonerated to date. Each and every one of these people have a story and that story is no more nor less than the story that each victim of crime has. And I'm sure that's only the tip of the iceburg - cases with high enough profiles and where there was enough scientific evidence still available to have cases reopened. I'd wager thousands upon thousands are still imprisoned wrongly. Penalties (death and otherwise) are not applied fairly across racial, gender, or socio-economic lines. There's plenty of evidence out there to support that.
AS far as I can tell there is no evidence that the death penalty deters crime. There's evidence in California that the 'three-strikes' law actually increases homicides because when a criminal has two strikes, he or she does not want to leave witnesses to incriminate him or her for the third.
I'm probably repeating myself (I do that! ::)) but I'd rather my tax money go to early intervention programs to keep people from lives of crime in the first place - food, shelter, medical care - especially mental health care, education, jobs. For the small percentage of sociopaths who won't be deterred from violence, I'm OK with imprisoning them for life. I'm not willing to give up this ideal just because 'perfection' is not practical - I'll gladly settle for a 95% success rate.
I don't agree with this statement at all. I have a 12 year old son, a loving, caring thoughtful boy. His dad is a wonderful man and my son looks up to him and respects him, but he looks up to me too and has equal respect for me.
We are both role models for all three of our children; our son and our two daughters.
Susie :)
They certainly are .. which is why we shouldn't tar them all with the same brush!
I have an older daughter already so I know all about teenage tantrums and raging hormones ... and I'll be there to pull him back when he crosses the line and pick him up when he falls flat on his face.
I can see that you're very cynical about men in general Dellaluvia, but there are plenty of gooduns out there, they're not all devils in disguise.
Susie :)
Did I read that right?
You sure did. Human rights and humane treatment should be extended to all human beings, however inhumane their own actions. Otherwise society loses its humanity piece by piece.
You sure did. Human rights and humane treatment should be extended to all human beings, however inhumane their own actions. Otherwise society loses its humanity piece by piece.
Schwab's execution was to be the first in Florida since the botched execution of Angel Diaz on December 13. It took 34 minutes for Diaz to die -- twice as long as normal -- because the guards pushed the needles through his veins.
..So to tell them that their actions contribute to society losing its 'humanity piece by piece' or that they're 'uncivilized' is not only insensitive but offensive...
Hi Lynne, I'm sorry you took that harsh, I guess it only read that way. Another way to say that is "you don't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs". Meaning, there are going to be things that happen in the course of any activity that are good and bad. You cannot escape it.
I certainly support programs such as "The Innocent Project". But remember, there are very few people on death row compared to the multitudes that are just imprisoned for life. We don't give drug dealers and car thieves the death penalty.
Everyone needs to remember we're talking about heinous crimes and very few juries give the death penalty on circumstantial evidence cases. They usually give life in prison sentences simply because they do give the benefit of the doubt to the person convicted.
But like Dahlmer, sometimes there truly is a smoking gun. Blood splatter evidence, blow back evidence, admission by the perps of things like "We were alone in the house and she killed herself" when the bullet is in the back of the victim's head kind of thing. Sometimes, it's just obvious.
As for perfection...well, striving for that simply gets you burned out people because you are reaching for something that doesn't exist. Look at your own job - don't know about you, but my bosses expect perfection because a mistake can be extremely costly, but at the same time, they don't like to spend money to hire more people and prefer that the people they do have sacrifice their personal lives so they can work 7 days a week.
So, perfection is expected at my place of employment. Do we reach it? Fuck no. Do I try? Nope. I simply try my best. If that gets perfection, great, if it doesn't? Oh well, I tried my best and that's the most you can expect.
I don't think this goes too far off-topic and I promise to bring it full circle. Let's consider crimes less serious than murder and just immoral behavior in general...
Take a teenager who shoplifts for the thrill of it, knowing it's wrong. S/he feels guilty, but the next time it's easier if s/he gets away with it and the feelings of remorse are likely lessened.
Take a person with poor self esteem who has sex with a stranger; s/he knows this is not good for the self-image. The next time, though, the self-esteem is even lower, so what the hell, do it again and again, each time with less angst - less in touch your feelings.
Take a solider or a police officer forced to take a life in the line of duty. I'm reasonably sure that the first time or two they experience a great deal of guilt and second guessing their decisions. Eventually, though, they have to compartmentalize. I know for a fact that snipers refer only to 'targets' - they have to dehumanize who they're about to kill.
I'm still tracking that we're talking about the most heinous crimes and agree with most of what you've posted here. I know that there's sometimes smoking guns and obvious evidence of guilt. Nonetheless, I am not willing to equate vengeance with justice. The death penalty cannot be 'cruel and unusual' so it's not as if we can actually make them suffer the way their victim(s) did. I like Mr. Shepherd's speech - makes me think that the death penalty is the easy way out; rather let them live with the knowledge of what they've done and know they owe their every very long day of a very long life to their victim.
The part I highlighted, though, I find very sad. What's the point of the process of living if it's not to take a journey to get in touch with what makes you human and unique and to become the best version of yourself??
I would argue that in all of these cases - losing a sense of right and wrong (remorse), losing touch with your feelings and self-worth, compartmentalizing so you're able to function in your job - are all examples of losing touch with our humanity. So to summarize, society is made up of individuals and there is collective damage being done to our psyches. I am still worried about the humanity of the people who administer the death penalty - what that must do to them - unless they are sociopaths themselves, I cannot imagine that they're unscathed.
So to tell them that their actions contribute to society losing its 'humanity piece by piece' or that they're 'uncivilized' is not only insensitve but offensive.
And I do personally find that societies with a legal system founded on the idea of "killing to demonstrate that it's wrong to kill" (not to at all mention those societies that practice killing because it's wrong to commit adultery, leave one's religion, be actively homosexual etc etc) is less civilized than those who do not administer capital punishment.
Citizens are socialized to see killing as within the bounds of reasonable human conduct.
I am not American, and I do not live in America, so I should of course be careful in making statements about public sentiment in the US. But Norway is fairly innundated with American culture; - we get most of the TV shows (even John Stewart now, whose program is very "internally American"), all the popular TV series, all the motion pictures.... So as far as it's fair to consider such cultural expressions as indicative of the attitudes in the American mainstream public, I've noticed this: In the American popular culture we are exposed to, the death penalty does not seem to be controversial at all. Though profoundly disturbing to me, it is presented on US TV as accepted and acceptable. As commonplace, a fact of life, nothing to spend mental resources on. That indicates to me that a certain dehumanizing effect from the use of capital punishment must have taken place in the US.
You may have noticed that I like to stress, when discussing the death penalty, that I don't shed any tears for the individual criminals subjected to it. That's because I don't think you should have to feel sorry for someone in order to object to their life being taken. I hate what heinous criminals do. But their actions do not provide an excuse for us to descend to their level.
I don't like most TV crime dramas because they tend to approach moral issues in an alarmingly simply way. In those shows most of us are good guys, the Cops are the heros, and they protect us from the bad guys. They tell us that we have to watch out for those meanies over there.
But being a moral and decent person primarily entails finding and correcting fault within ourselves. Most cop shows and shows like America's Most Wanted tell us we shouldn't be really all that concerned about policing our own behavior and motives. They tell us that bad things are done by bad people, and they are separate and apart from us. That way of thinking can lead to a kind of smug, self-rightous attitude I think. And sumg, self-rightous people can do a lot of harm, even if they operate within the bounds of law.
Gary
By and large I would think this applies to most or at least many opponents of the death penalty -in general also including me, as I trust has been apparent in my posts on this subject.
to be honest the more I read the more ambivilent I feel. On the one hand I do believe there is a place for capital punishment...but on the other I don't want my husband to be the executioner...This sentiment would suggest that you might do better to align yourself against capital punishment. That seems like a fairly good litmus test: If I can't do such and such, and can't bear my loved one to have to do such and such, then maybe such and such shouldn't be done by anyone.
Mikaela, to me this sentence expresses not only the moral problem with capital punishment, but the practical one as well. As long as a society promotes killing as an acceptable solution to bad behavior, there will be murderers who essentially think they can judge bad behavior just as well as the government does. They may not rationalize it quite that clearly in their minds, but in effect that's what happens -- citizens are socialized to see killing as within the bounds of reasonable human conduct.
For the same reason you don't teach children not to hit by hitting them, you don't as a society promote violence if you don't want a violent society overall.
You may have noticed that I like to stress, when discussing the death penalty, that I don't shed any tears for the individual criminals subjected to it. That's because I don't think you should have to feel sorry for someone in order to object to their life being taken. I hate what heinous criminals do. But their actions do not provide an excuse for us to descend to their level.
I do not think it's insensitive to voice my opinion, and I've tried to maintain a reasonable and calm tone in my posts - I'm certainly not trying to be offensive. However, in weighing the tender sensibilities of a person administering the death penalty against speaking up for someone about to be put to death, I have to chose the the latter even if the former is offended. I would think that someone who is able to live with the fact that he/she is a direct contributor to administering the death penalty would also be able to hear an opinion such as mine voiced without being hurt and taking offense.
This sentiment would suggest that you might do better to align yourself against capital punishment. That seems like a fairly good litmus test: If I can't do such and such, and can't bear my loved one to have to do such and such, then maybe such and such shouldn't be done by anyone.
This reminds me of my superduper rationalization against war: For any war, ask yourself, "Am I willing to die myself for this war?" If you cannot honestly answer in the affirmative, then any support you give to that war is hypocritical.
There are limitations to this kind or reasoning, of course. For example, I would rather die than ever pilot an airplane, yet airplane pilot is a useful and perhaps even necessary occupation. I'm glad someone can play that role, and that I'm not the one doing it.
But if they happen to support captial punishment - suddenly these people are at the same level as a heinous murderer?!?!?
I most certainly take exception to that and find that statement extremely offensive.
But you're a tough arguer, Del, so I hope you can see what I'm saying.
I'm not saying people on this discussion are being ugly or taking personal jabs, but yes, some things being said are offensive.
As for the above, I don't know where you stand on a woman's right to an abortion
....but pro-life activists take this same stance. They believe women seeking abortions are wrong and thus have no problem being offensive and insulting those women who are trying to exercise their legal rights. They're putting babies to death, you see and thus they feel that gives them the right to act as they do.
assumptions are being made about the people who sentence heinous killers to death. You make it sound like they have just a la-di-da, how was your day? attitude when that's not the case at all.
I remember one of my psychology profs telling us that not all psychopathes are criminals. Some of them find ways to operate inside the law....But however that may be, in all cases, the point is that they *do* do their job and so they have a direct responsibility for the death that follows - it is not possible to claim "they were just following orders / doing their job" to avoid that personal responsibility. If they believed that their job and those orders were wrong and inhumane, at a minimum they should walk away from it.
Pierrepoint became an opponent of capital punishment. The reason for this seems to be a combination of the experiences of his father, his uncle, and himself, whereupon reprieves were granted in accordance with political expediency or public fancy and little to do with the merits of the case in question. [ ] But Pierrepoint kept his opinions to himself on the topic until his 1974 autobiography, Executioner: Pierrepoint, in which he commented:
"I have come to the conclusion that executions solve nothing, and are only an antiquated relic of a primitive desire for revenge which takes the easy way and hands over the responsibility for revenge to other people...The trouble with the death penalty has always been that nobody wanted it for everybody, but everybody differed about who should get off."
Albert Pierrepoint resigned in 1956 over a disagreement with the Home Office about his fees. In January 1956 he had gone to Strangeways Prison, Manchester, to officiate at the execution of Thomas Bancroft, who was reprieved less than twelve hours before his scheduled execution, when Pierrepoint was already present making his preparations - the first time in his career that this had happened in England. He claimed his full fee of £15 but the under-sheriff of Lancashire offered only £1, as the rule in England was that the executioner was only paid for executions carried out – in Scotland he would have been paid in full.
Actually, the reason I specified New Orleans is because I didn't hear of them as often in Minneapolis. Why, I wonder? Perhaps because it's not as much of a gun culture -- despite the lack of death penalty? Part of it could be that I just didn't pay as much attention there -- with it no longer a professional requirement, I avoided the sad parts of the paper where stories like that normally run. (Ditto Chicago.) But really, I think they happened more often in LA.
Oh, well, of course. I agree. I just don't think these are as easily prevented by handgun laws.
Here, as I outlined ad nauseum in the Death Penalty thread, is where I would disagree.
Though of course you're somewhat of a self-selecting sample (how's that for alliteration?). The children who WERE tempted to mishandle their parents guns may not be here to post about it. But note that of the examples I listed in my previous post, the one you quoted, only one of them involved mishandling by a child.
Do we need to revisit that proud moment in American liberalism : Willy Horton? The early release of convicted murdered Willy Horton who decided that murder and rape was so much fun it was worth repeating, after the charming Gov Dukakis released him.
William R. Horton (born August 12, 1951 in Chesterfield, South Carolina) is a convicted felon who was the subject of a Massachusetts weekend furlough program that released him while serving a life sentence for murder, without the possibility of parole, during which furloughs he committed armed robbery and rape.
And to suggest that some potential murderers will not be dissuaded from murder by a death penalty that is swiftly and surely applied also defies human nature.
The problem, like most of the problems in the crime and punishment scene, are the liberals in public policy venues who prevent the swift and sure application of the death penalty. Get liberals out of the way, and the murder rate will plummet, along with taxes.
Oh, there probably are some murderers out there who would stop themselves mid-crime, think ahead to the future, assume that chances are they'll be caught, know they'll get that swift and sure death penalty, and put their gun away.
Trouble is, I see that as the exception to human nature. Most people don't want to do life in prison, either. Yet somehow they keep on murderin'.
Get liberals out of the way, and the murder rate will plummet, along with taxes.
Actually, the reason I specified New Orleans is because I didn't hear of them as often in Minneapolis. Why, I wonder? Perhaps because it's not as much of a gun culture -- despite the lack of death penalty? Part of it could be that I just didn't pay as much attention there -- with it no longer a professional requirement, I avoided the sad parts of the paper where stories like that normally run. (Ditto Chicago.) But really, I think they happened more often in LA.
Oh, well, of course. I agree. I just don't think these are as easily prevented by handgun laws.
Here, as I outlined ad nauseum in the Death Penalty thread, is where I would disagree.
Though of course you're somewhat of a self-selecting sample (how's that for alliteration?). The children who WERE tempted to mishandle their parents guns may not be here to post about it. But note that of the examples I listed in my previous post, the one you quoted, only one of them involved mishandling by a child.
Anyone who is so narcissistic as to think he can get away with a premeditated murder will not be deterred by the threat of capital punishment. People who kill in the heat of anger won't be deterred by it either, as they are out of control emotionally when they kill.
Get liberals out of the way, and there will be no one to stand between you and the needle when you are falsely and unjustly convicted of murder on the basis of testimony by unreliable witnesses and corrupt or lazy law enforcement personnel.
Oh, there probably are some murderers out there who would stop themselves mid-crime, think ahead to the future, assume that chances are they'll be caught, know they'll get that swift and sure death penalty, and put their gun away.
My contention is that if we weren't such a culture of violence -- including one that heartily approves of widespread gun ownership, jumps all over anyone who suggests tightening gun laws, and endorses legalized murder in the form of capital punishment (and, while we're at it, in the form of invasive war) -- there would be fewer would-be murderers created in the first place.
That, to me, explains why all the other industrialized countries have tougher gun laws, no capital punishment, no invasion of Iraq, in many cases even more liberals ;) -- and much lower murder rates.
Well, at least this is consistent with your view that the furlough program was not a failure since the murderer Horton only brutally assaulted, raped, and stole while on his weekend furlough - courtesy of Michael Dukakis.
It seems to me that if ONE innocent victim is saved from being murdered by a swift and sure death penalty for murderers, then it has served a great purpose.
I am often amazed at the apparent belief among the foes of the death penalty that the victim's life is not really important, I mean they are gone anyway, right? Flushed, over with, so why worry?
Essentially what you are saying is that the state taking of the life of someone like Horton is an unjustifiable killing.
Therefore "murder by legal means", which puts that killing on par with the original murder committed by Horton.
What you are also implying is that under your "enlightened" system, which you feel it necessary to call forth the criminal codes of other countries,
the life of the victim murdered by Horton is of less value than the life of the murderer Horton.
Now, you can claim that is not what you mean, but that is the underlying implication of having no enforceable death penalty. If the life of the murder victim was under the law as important to society as the life of someone like Horton, then Horton should die.
:laugh: talk about conflating issues, I thought I had reached the limit with the "taxes and hand gun murderers" conflation. But, you have me beat hands down on the conflation front when you link : handgun violence, death penalties, and the war in Iraq. :laugh:
don't you think that the unique history of this country, and its unique demography might explain much more about why some countries which do not have the death penalty have lower murder rates than the US? maybe the murder rates were already at much lower levels than the US rates when they abolished their death penalties?
that is the same error you made in comparing NO and Minneapolis. compare like with like and the analogies will work better.
Let me ask you, OFT, why is it that death penalty proponents seem to worry less about the lives of innocents hypothetically unjustly accused of murdering, than the lives of innocents hypothetically being saved by the capital punishment?
and so you know that the handgun crimes that you were discussing in an earlier post are all crimes of passion? :laugh:
and, if even only one of those crimes is premeditated and the killer is stopped by the thought of a noose around his or her neck, then the death penalty still sounds like a good idea to me.
I sincerely hope that more than "liberals" stand in the way of a miscarriage of justice, I do recall that there are both state and a federal constitutions that just might help me avoid the needle and the gurney in that situation.
the 'innocent' prisoner that is executed is just another piece of poor trash that we will be better off without ... if you dig enough they probably deserve their fate anyway.
Sure enough. However, as far as I can tell, it never seems to be conservatives insisting that justice has miscarried when someone is convicted, or doing the legwork to prove it.
As Del and David have correctly noted, there is a whole other thread about the death penalty. So I'll try ::) to minimize my philosophical views on that subject and simply point out the fallacies in your intepretation of my post, which is MUCH more on-topic about Charlton Heston. ;)
Your response contains a number of major leaps in which I say A and you take that to mean C. But more troublesome is your describing my post as "conflating" two things -- as in, treating them as the same thing, or at least moral equivalents -- and what my post intended to do, which was compare them, categorize them similarly, consider them as side-by-side factors in a common outcome.
Here are a couple of illustrations of what I mean. The economy might be declining because of a) a crisis in the subprime mortgage industry and b) lack of consumer confidence. That does not mean there is no difference between subprime mortgage overextension and nervous consumers. Brokeback Mountain is my favorite movie because Heath Ledger was a great actor and Ang Lee is a good director. Yet Heath and Ang are two different people, who by happenstance came together to make a masterpiece.
So let's get to the specifics.
Where on earth did I make any assessment of the success or failure of the furlough program?? I simply pointed out that Willie Horton didn't kill anybody while on furlough. Which, contrary to what you had said, he didn't. Of course, as the moms at the playground always tell their children, armed robbery and rape are not OK.
It seems to me that if ONE innocent person is murdered unjustly by a swift and sure death penalty, then it is fatally flawed from a moral perspective. And since studies have shown that has likely happened numerous times even with a slow and uncertain death penalty, I'd say that consequence is all but inevitable.
Let me ask you, OFT, why is it that death penalty proponents seem to worry less about the lives of innocents hypothetically unjustly accused of murdering, than the lives of innocents hypothetically being saved by the capital punishment?
Where on earth did I say this?? Again, this particular debate is better suited to the death penalty thread. But even on that thread, I can't recall any death-penalty proponent characterizing opponents in quite this extreme (and frivolous) a way. It's one thing to say that opposition to the death penalty doesn't treat the victim's life as important enough in contrast to one's horror of state-sponsored killing. Endlessly arguable, but a fair question. But how does opposing the death penalty equate in your view with considering "the victim's life ... not really important ... they're gone anyway"? That's misconstrues my point to an absurd degree. On the contrary, my view on the death penalty reflects the importance I place on ALL lives.
Yes.
No. See above. Even the legal system doesn't put all illegal murders on par with each other. For instance, premeditated murder is not treated the same way as impulsive murder, murdering a cop isn't treated the same way as murdering a civilian. So extend the categories and call them all murder.
Um, yeah, with the idea that it is not uninstructive to see how other similar societies handle a similar situation and consider why their systems work so much better -- why they don't have so many people in prison, let alone dead. You've disagreed with the reasons I've hypothesized. So what exactly do you see as the reasons?
No. See above. Their lives are of equal value. Are the two equally likable -- or, more to the point, are the two equally morally acceptable as human beings? No, probably not. But that's not the same thing as the value of life. The value of life is in a different category altogether.
I don't know where you'd get the "less value" thing anyway. Willie Horton killed somebody. So therefore that makes it OK for the state to kill somebody? How's that? Since when does our justice system have to revolve around a "tit for tat" mentality? Should we rob and rape him, too?
The law should consider all lives equally important, equally unnexpendible. It's not up to people to decide who lives and who dies.
Well, again, I wasn't "conflating." I was just saying all of those things (and no doubt others) are factors in the same product: a violent society.
I'm not sure what you mean by "unique demography" and I'm reluctant to wade into this any further until I do. Yes, our U.S. demography differs from those of Western Europe, and the Minneapolis demography differs from that of N.O. But I'm not sure what aspects of those differences you're referring to, and without having more specifics I'm going to hold back on debating this point.
WOW! I had forgotten about this thread! This is one target rich environment. I will have to reread all of these posts, it will take a few days. :) thanks for finding it again. Lots of people comment on this thread that I haven't heard from in while.
I voted no.I have thought long and hard about this .My husband was robbed at gunpoint 4 months ago and my oldest son was raped at scouts.
I know bith of these resulted in deaths but they were pretty heinous crimes which have had long lasting impact on our family.Both the criminals are still out and free.
It takes all my will power not to go to the supermarket where the rapist works as a bagger and tear him limb from limb.I too was raped when Iwas 15,by 3 boys So on the whole some pretty awful things have happened to me and my family.
Lives have been ruined,my rape resulted in permanant psychological damage.Y son is not much better.
Iam not a church goer and have not been for over 30 years,however I do think 2 wrongs do not make a right.If just one innocent person is killed by law,how can that ever be right.
I do believe however in life in soiltary confinement.No parole whatever,and that is as far as I would go.If people believe in the death penalty would they be able to do it themselves I wonder.i.e give the injection tie down the criminal,put the noose on the neack ets etc.I know I could not.
Good grief sweetheart no wonder your so depressed. ((((((((optom)))))))))) The things that have happened to you and your family are just terrible beyond words. I,m afraid your a better person than me then, because I would certainly want the death penalty for the scum that commited these henious crimes. I understand what your saying about two wrongs dont make a right, but for henious crimes so as these it,s the only thing they deserve. I sincerely wish you and your family all the love and luck in the world. I think you could all certainly do with some. I know I,m across the pond but I,m sending you all a BIG load of hugs and kisses anyway.
Souxi. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
And to those who say that the death penelty is a mean to scare people off from killing each other; We don´t have a high crime rate here in Sweden even though we don´t have the death penalty. Crimes are prevented through education, by a good social well-fare system and by trying to create a society where everyone can lead a decent life.
Isn't it nescessary in certain cases ?
It's kind of hard to educate career criminals who don't care if they live or die, and consequently don't care if you do either.
It's kind of hard to educate career criminals who don't care if they live or die, and consequently don't care of you do either. I disagree. The death penalty may not be a deterrent, but it is a solution.
Not to speak for Monika here, but I'm pretty sure she spoke of general crime prevention, not of convicted career criminals. At least that's how I understood her and that's what I agreed with.Yes, that´s what I meant.
In what way does it matter then if they spend their lives in jail instead of killing them?
Society should defend themselves aganst criminals, that should be the point of the court system, not to kill them off.
And I can see how killing criminals seems like an "easier" solution (if you could ever call taking a human life that) than to put money into resources to work proactive, to fight crime before it happens. That is much harder, but I for one is not willing to throw in the towl and go "naw, let´s just kill them instead".
And the death penalty really isn´t a solution. The crime has already been commited so it´s too late to do anything about that, and as has been proved in many surveys, the death penalty does not scare other people off from commiting crimes.
and..
it has been prooven that innocent people have been executed
and even criminals have families.
Up until 2005 it was even legal to execute 16 year olds in US, that has since then changed at least
It costs nearly 25K annually to house a federal prisoner as compared to $3,500 for them to be out on probation. I'm sorry but for convicted rapists, murderers, child molesters, terrorists, are not worth me as a taxpayer, spending that kind of money to keep them alive. I don't see the death penalty as an "easy solution" and to intimate that I would find the taking of life would be easy for me is wrong and unfair. I would grieve as much for the person and his/her family as I would for the victim, but in the end I would feel like justice was served properly.First; I´m sorry, I didn´t mean to imply that you personally found it easy
Well that brings up the other issue of prison overcrowding in those states that do not have the death penalty. No I don't think that common criminals should be put to death (they should be made to reimburse for their incarceration though), but for those who have committed heinous acts, yes, simply, they should die. You rape someone, you die, you molest a child, you die, you kill another, you will be killed. Believe me, this flies in the face of my otherwise liberal stance on most things, so it's uncomfortable for me, but if I am being honest, it's how I feel.
It is difficult to say about the death penalty, but it is also nessessary in certain circumstances !
Of course, there has been some or many innocent who have been hanged... and the guilty should have been instead ! And that is why some fear, as innocent, that they will be hanged !
So, there needs to be be ways to find out who is not guilty and who is !!
That Chinese foreign who was in Canada for four years and who murdered an innocent young man in front of many in that Greyhound bus, I think that he shoiuld be hanged, don't you ?
Au revoir,
hugs!
I can agree with that :)Me too! :D
I remember that, that was scary. I had been traveling a lot on greyhound buses (visiting BBM locations!)in Canada the week before that happened so I remember it clearly.
But no, I don´t think he should be hanged. He is clearly not mentally well.
I don't think they have the death penalty in Canada.good point :)
May I disagree with you, since I think that that greyhound murderer knows and knew what he was doing: murdering an innocent young man !!I don´t think he was mentally well because he choped a guy´s head off and proceeded to eat him. ;)
And, I feel that he likely murdered others in Canada, the USA and plus in China too !!
But why do you want him not to be hanged ? Mental or not, he did murder ! And after 10 years or so or before, he will be out on the streets to probalby murder again and again - don't you think ? !
Awaiting your reply from you and all,
au revoir,
hugs!
Texas does...they even have an expres lane.
Would be intersting to know the violent crime statistics for Canada versus the US.it is
I bet Canada's is lower.
I think higher in Canada NOW!I think they count the number of crimes commited, not the number of criminals
There are murderers murdering every day in Toronto or so, but they are NOT counted, because they are not caught !
Texas does...they even have an expres lane.Does this mean that they dón´t have as many chances to appeal?
it is
I think higher in Canada NOW!
There are murderers murdering every day in Toronto or so, but they are NOT counted, because they are not caught !
Yep !I agree. There are many mentally ill people out there that do not get the help they need.
I think it might have something to do with the easy access of guns here in the US.
And.... the fact that we really don't have very good services here for the mentally ill.
They just dump them back on the streets and wish for the best.
Of course you have the drug problem.
It is a not an easy fix.
We actually disagree about something...wow!!!
Does this mean that they dón´t have as many chances to appeal?
That's exactly what it means.
In Canada, now there are strange religions with their foreign ways, that destroy bodies they murdered, so police do not find those corpses, and so these cases are not counted !
There have been many documented TV show about that lately this year and last, showing that certain so-called religious persons kill their wives or daughter if they do not wear cloth over their face, etc, descriminating for all sorts of so-called reasons, even if they wife did not look at another man !
There is one case of a foreign MD that mother (and others) talks about often: he obviously killed his wife and is getting away with it !
The majority of felony criminals are not mentally ill, let's make that clear. Mental Illness is a serious issue in this country, and there are many stereotypes that we suffer under, just like other marginalized factions of society. Mentally ill does equal a criminal, or even a propensity for criminal behavior.of course I agree that mentally ill does not equal a criminal. I have family members that have suffered from mental illnesses so I know.
In Canada, now there are strange religions with their foreign ways, that destroy bodies they murdered, so police do not find those corpses, and so these cases are not counted !Aint´all religions strange? ;)
There have been many documented TV show about that lately this year and last, showing that certain so-called religious persons kill their wives or daughter if they do not wear cloth over their face, etc, descriminating for all sorts of so-called reasons, even if they wife did not look at another man !
There is one case of a foreign MD that mother (and others) talks about often: he obviously killed his wife and is getting away with it !
I find it "foreign way" , because these murders are now in the thousands and done because of so-called religions - remember that such did NOT happen often before in the USA nor in Canada ! It is now common more and more !
Al Capone, did not murder because of religion(s) ! Right ?
I sure would like to find out the reasons why some or many prefer that that Greyhound murderer not be hanged ! Will any or many reply ?
No, no, no
We haven´t executed anyone here in Sweden in over a hundred years, for which I´m very glad.
And to those who say that the death penelty is a mean to scare people off from killing each other; We don´t have a high crime rate here in Sweden even though we don´t have the death penalty.
Crimes are prevented through education, by a good social well-fare system and by trying to create a society where everyone can lead a decent life.
Texas does...they even have an expres lane.
Is that why Scandinavia now has more and more gangs selling drugs and murders galore even killing innocent citizens on the streets these days, because no more hangings in Sweden... so criminals, as in murderers, run these countries more and more ?
sadly, we don't have an express lane, it takes decades to execute the human debris that clogs our prison systems, meanwhile the tax payers continue to pay and pay for their legal appeals, meals, medical procedures and color tv's.
My brother works for the Texas Prison system, and the inmates are not provided TV's by the state.
sure they are, TDC has rec rooms that have wide screen TV's, which the perps not in lock down or solitary can use at designated times.
we need the prison farms back in operation! stamp those license plates and harvest that cotton!
No wide screens at the unit my brother is warden at.
Have you ever thought of running for public office?
You could fight for the reform that is needed in our
prison system.
I will run in 2012 only if:
1) you serve on my campaign committee
2) you get me some contributions
:laugh:
talk to Shasta, she may know the story on the 2012 score.
so, does Sweden resembles demographically and historically the US? well, maybe parts of Minnesota does, but not much else.I don´t know how much about Sweden you do know, but why you would compare it to Minnesota, I have no idea. Somewhat amusing, though.
logically you just can't make universal assumptions by comparing "apples" and "oranges".
do you promise to put those lazy people to work?
which lazy persons?
there are so many!
I will run in 2012 only if:
1) you serve on my campaign committee
2) you get me some contributions
:laugh:
talk to Shasta, she may know the story on the 2012 score.
I don´t know how about Sweden you do know, but why you would compare it to Minnesota, I have no idea.
What I was saying is that there isn´t a direct connection between death penalty and a lower crime rate, because then we would have a high crime rate (which we don´t)
Is that why Scandinavia now has more and more gangs selling drugs and murders galore even killing innocent citizens on the streets these days, because no more hangings in Sweden... so criminals, as in murderers, run these countries more and more ?
the prisoners!! you said you would run for office and reform the system!
Sorry, politics are too ugly for me.
demographically parts of MN closely resemble Sweden or Norway, due to heavy Scandinavian immigration and settlement in the last century and before.they can´t do it if they are in prison either. And I have feeling where this discussion is going so I´ll butt out. I don´t want a repeat of what´s going on in other threads.
yes, there is a connection between the death penalty and the ability to commit crimes.
an executed murderer has killed his or her last victim.
I know, its the "laws and sausages" syndrome - I am very sympathetic and understanding of your revulsion from politics.
I can't stop myself from dabbling, I am just into self-punishment. :laugh:
I live here and I dont know what you are talking about, sorry.
We haven´t hung people here for a long time, so it´s not exactely something new
Why is Sweden letting murderers go free to walk on the streets and murder again and again ??
they can´t do it if they are in prison either. And I have feeling where this discussion is going so I´ll butt out. I don´t want a repeat of what´s going on in other threads.
and I doubt that the demography in Minnesota is similar to the one inSweden any longer
I guess you could say all countries have that issue.
Yes, karen, and so why do we let murderers go back on the streets ? Can anyone say why ?
But why let murderers out back on the streets ? Why do we allow that ?