Do you support Capital Punishment?
if not, why not? if so, why so?
i mean in cases of serial killers etc obviously not when it’s manslaughter/in defense
I apologise if this issue has already been done numerous times by the way
A state should not have the capacity to legally kill its citizens. Such a capacity is open to the most horrible abuses, and can lead to an ultimate method of silencing dissent. For example, a guy who witnesses a head of state doing something very illegal may simply be framed, locked away, and executed; problem permanently solved.
well yeh that’s a point but it sounds more like an example that would appear in a hollywood film/novel then likely to appear in real life. it would be easier and simplier to lock them up without trial then going through the fuss of capital punisment. anyway the state has to abide by the law, if they did what you said in your example, then it would be an example of a dictatorship not a democracy which would be difficult to keep underwrap in a democratic and free media orientated country.
i personally can’t read a website like this crimelibrary.com/serial_kill … index.html and think of any good reasons to oppose capital punishment. i believe that some people deserve to die when they commit certain crimes and the people on this website would definitely fit into that category in my opinion.
the question by the way is more about “should it be done?” then how it is currently done as i don’t agree with certain aspects of how it is currently done as i believe some aspects of it (the waiting period in it for example) are ludricous.
“Killing solves everything, no men no problem”
Some people just don’t disserve to live.
It happens all around the world today.
a. can you prove this? b. does it happen in a democratic society? (predominately thinking of parts of Europe and the U.S)
google.com.au/search?q=israe … arch&meta=
prisonactivist.org/pps+pows/ … lpha.shtml
google.com.au/search?q=israe … arch&meta=
prisonactivist.org/pps+pows/ … lpha.shtml
It really isn’t difficult to find thsi information. It’s on the news most days.
Deciding the life or death of anyone is the single biggest decision you can make. Why should certain human beings (who throughout history have proven their inequities and short comings) feel that they have the right to make that decision?
Cry me a river, survival of the fittest. No one has the right to do anything so why look for a right to kill?
Adam: although i believe that Vanunu is a good man and i agree with what he did, Israel was justified for their reasoning for imprisoning him as he was jailed for espionage and treason of national security (or at least he should have been). their methods (kidnapping, a secret trial) were illegal/wrong and should have had larger reprecussions as this was something the Iraeli government should not have done. i’d like to note that Vanunu should have gone straight to the U.N to deal with this issue first instead of just a british newspaper as the global reprecussions of Israel’s actions would have been greater and he might not have ended up in jail had he gone to the U.N with news of Israel’s nuclear program/for political protection. I believe that the U.S and Britain and similar countries (the U.N basically) should have turned the issue of his illegal capture and secretive trial into a bigger issue than it was.
in relation to your second link, i don’t know enough about the prisoners/why they are imprisoned so i cannot fully comment on the site. but i would like to ask since capital punishment is legal in the U.S why haven’t those people been executed like you said is supposed to happen, which was also your objection to capital punishment? i claimed they lock them up and throw away the key as it is easier but you claimed they have them executed. which of the people on the site have been executed through capital punishment in democratic countries?
thews: then who the fuck should if humans can’t? god, animals? i believe that humans should judge human issues, it’s as simple as that. your question has no relation or praticality when compared to real life issues/governance. it’s not necessarily that they have the ‘right’ to do so, it’s just that the decisions sometimes have to be made. i know for a fact that you prefer locking them up because you believe that prison is harsher for them and capital punishment is too much of an easy way out which i personally think is a decision that is more immoral/based on emotional judgement then the issues/morality of ending their life through capital punisment. i’d personally rather be dead then stuck in a prison for the rest of my life and therefore i believe the execution of people who face that choice is in fact a moral one and the more “humane” choice (as in it’s not a degrading way to life, but instead a simple way to die).
That’s my reasoning.
Crafe: Sorry man but you’ve kinda misquoted me there. I agree that in some cases that prison can be a far harsher punishment, but it doesn’t form any of the basis for my argument that capital punishment is NOT a good thing.
Also I think that my point was extremely relevant. If humans can lack the capacity to even figure out a decent solution to the most menial of problems then how can we be sure that they’ll make the right choice when faced with the life/death conundrum?
I agree that decisions do have to be made, but in the case of capital punishment the ramifications are too grave. I simply think that deciding life or death adequately is beyond our rational reach.
web1.pipemedia.net/~sar/bentley/db_story.html Check this out. Can you really risk getting it wrong?
you did use to believe that but your philosophy might have matured since then
i woudn’t agree that all humans “lack the capacity to even figure out a decent solution to the most menial of problems” so therefore i don’t think your point there is completely satisfactory as i don’t think all of us are completely stupid/useless monkeys.
that scenario was not only a complete mockery of justice (the biased report, the poor media coverage, the rejection of mercy from the jury) but it also occured over 50 years ago and the justice system has been trying to improve since then (with more human rights due to fuck ups in the past like this). i’d prefer a more recent example of a satisfactory objection to capital punishment as well as the court adding more judges (3 or so) in a court case in which Capital Punishment occurs to weaken the likely hood of the biased judgement (as in this case) occuring again (although i didn’t understand the basis of the “possibly to satisfy his depraved sexual appetites” accusation/explanation for the judge’s erroneous actions). to be frank, Bentley was a fucking moron for doing it and joining someone who carried a gun in a break in job is even more stupid as that’s only going to lead to trouble.
obivously i’m for capital punishment when it is done effectively and legally (duh) and when it is not, it shows a failing in the people but not necessarily in the system. on a personal note i prefer the concept of capital punishment being used for serial killers not in a first kill scenario (as your example was) as the first time an illegal act occurs it can be a mistake and therefore the person should have time to sort their life out in jail and “rehabilitate” into society (as does happen) upon reflection of this mistake. if it occurs again (i.e. a repeat offender) the action is not a mistake, the failure to learn from the mistake is though and this time the penalities should be more severe. the deeming of Capital punishment in your case was unjustified in my opinion and the legal transaction was erroneous (in my eyes, even for killing one policeman, someone should not be murdered). when Capital Punishment is justified to the crime and is commited fairly (Ted Bundy case for example) then i have absolutely no problem with it.
claiming that Capital Punishment is perfect when there are cases as completely fucked up as the one you show would be an ignorant claim on my behalf, but being completely against Capital Punishment when there are cases when it has been committed legally/justified seems to be just as ignorant to me as well.
would you mind finding a more recent example of Capital Punishment (in a preferably western society) that was as much a monumental cock-up as the one you showed in your example?
It seems to me that your rationale for supporting capital punishment is that some people have nothing good to give humanity (and indeed will only harm it) and ergo should be killed.
If that’s the case then I don’t really need to point out the inherent dangers of such a rationale. This kind of logic has been used in all manner of twisted and depraved ways (I’m NOT accusing you of anything by the way).
On a side note answer me this: could you be the one who pulls the lever?
yep, i’d shoot a mad dog if it was harming others so i don’t see why i wouldn’t do the same to a human.
i’ve already covered some of this in another topic somewhere with Adam. basically your rejection of rationale and justice in this way leads onto nihilisim (we have no fundamental reason to judge another/claim that our “justice”/morality is better then anothers) which is impratical. how would you make claim the basis and morality of fighting the nazi’s in WW2 if your idea of “justice”/morality is beter then theirs? I believe in someone being executed in the eyes of a fair and just law, the decision to end this persons life is logical as leaving the person alive is irrational (what reason does he have for continued living when he is going to be stuck in a jail cell for the rest of his life?) and his continued living only leads to more pain (no closure for the families of the innocent).
yes, easily. i have no doubt in my mind that i would pull the lever, pull the trigger, strangle the fucker if it meant ending the life of someone like ted bundy and ending the pain of the loved ones he left alive. supporting capital punishment and not being willing to do that would be hypocriscy and irrational so therefore i must do it if i claim to support it. in the same way that i eat meat and if i had to, i would kill a chicken if i desired to eat meat. you shouldn’t ask someone to do something you wouldn’t be willing to do yourself so i would pull the lever/flick the switch etc should i have to. obviously in the case of a not guilty man being executed, i would feel terrible, which is why i believe execution should be used in fairly extreme cases (serial killer, again ted bundy example) and be completely legal/justifiable (i.e. in an unbiased judgement of the court and maybe the addition of more judges in the legal precedings).
I couldn’t be so bold as to make that kind of a claim (that my morality is better than anyone else’s). The only honest response I could give is that my motives would be self-centred, rooted in my own egoism and an attempt to impose what I believe is right on other people. I don’t hold that I’m necessarily right in an objective sense.
You seem to be implying that certain ethical codes are objectively better than others. How then can you explain the Nieztche quote in your sig?
Good, I’m glad you’re not a hypocrite.
because i know that morality is only subjective and not factual (i.e open to interpretation) and any quick look at the ideas of morality over the years will verify that and to deny this would be ignorance on my behalf/judgement. my own personal ethical codes (what i deem as “good” etc) are surely only subjective (as they correlate to my [and only my] experience and judgement in the matter/life) but i try to look at it from a more objective point of view so it is easier for others to relate to and understand and to debate about in a logical manner. what i think is “right” is not fact as not everyone would agree with me so therefore Nietzsche is correct in that respect. because i am only one human being, i only care about how i “interpret” the world and it’s basic lack of “real” morality. i have no other way of showing why i think “my way is the right way” then by trying to look at it from an un-biased/objective point of view, even though this is fundamentally impossible for a human to do as my morality is only an interpretation of society and the world. the problem with this objection is a. i don’t care and b. there’s no other way of doing it (impratical argument here). i have implied my ideas of morality onto an ammoral world/existence therefore it can and forever will be subjective to me just as it is for everyone else on it.
i believe that my ideas of morality in this respect are better then the Nazi’s, but i can only go about this subjectively as i am not a Nazi/an impartial judge on my views. in the same way i believe that my ideas of morality in this respect are better then others from an objective point of view is still false as i cannot prove that everyone feels this way/it is universal. from this, the fundamentals/rationals of my way of thinking will degrade into nihilisim, which i believe is an impratical way of thinking and if it is an impratical/impossible way of thinking, that basically, i don’t care about.
that is why i have and try to justify my issues of morality. whether or not in someone else’s eyes they believe i am wrong, i do not care about as they are no better then me and cannot bring forth a better solution to the issue here (as they will have the same problems as me). my ideas are not fact, as i believe there are no moral facts in life so therefore morality has no factual basis behind it. this is why i chose to base some of my views in a more objective point of view through callous judgement of a person’s worth in life and death (the mad dog/justifiable death/utilitarianism basically as a more objective judgement/the law, legal system), understand the feelings of those who are hurt by the loss of someone (understanding the human emotions, as this is the basis of humanity/judgement [subjective judgement]) and the ending of the life of another (to bring a closure to these emotions [which i’d argue is an objective judgement]) and coming to a logical and rational decision through this in a somewhat (as some would argue) callous way of thinking. i, on the basis of the above, would argue that “my way” was the logical conclusion to come to in the circumstances.
in reality this is simpler then it sounds but the justification is difficult (see my note on the impraticality of the issue) and through this way of thinking, i believe in a justification of the rational, logical and as close to objective way of thinking in causing the death of a human being can be achieved/what purpose is there to it. with my conclusions through this i support Capital Punishment and similar acts.
[side note: there’s another way of interpreting what Nietzsche said in my quote in a more pratical manner which i wont go into here]
that is the basis of my morality.
(what reason does he have for continued living when he is going to be stuck in a jail cell for the rest of his life?)
Who are you to decide that? How do you audit his reasons for anything? And you have the audacity to decide for him that he should prefer death to his eight by ten cell.
(no closure for the families of the innocent)
So families don’t get justice unless there is an execution? No family would feel satisfied with life imprisonment?
You’ve got to do better than that, man.
i’d rather be dead then stuck in a jail for the rest of my life. that was the basis of my judgement. i believe that leaving him to die/rot in a jail cell is more immoral and unjust then ending his life, so therefore i choose the death penalty over life imprisonment. and to be frank, i couldn’t care less about what he prefers. if you don’t want to face the consequences of your actions, don’t do them. disobey the law and suffer the consequences. it’s as simple as that (this has mild, but not direct relation to my topic on treating the immoral morally).
some could and be genuinely reluctant about the death penalty, but to be frank they would most likely be of a religious group and therefore if they’re not calling for his blood then they are self-comforting/justifying their loss to themselves through their religious/irrational thinking (“it was his/her time”, “he/she’s with God now”), so therefore i don’t respect their view/justification of why his life should be spared in the eyes of the law. also the rule of capital punishment would have to be absolute, so exceptions could not be made since it is a law.
around certain killers (especially the most sadist and ones that i have in mind while justifying the use of capital punishment) there is a rather large bloodlust for their death. in some of the most infamous of executions, the police have shown pictures of the dead man to the press, families and angry mobs to let them know that “justice” (what they believe/deem to be justice) has been served. to let the person live in this case, would be seen in many eyes as an affront to justice and that the legal system does not work. with the death of the criminal, the family can move on and will not have to feel this way about the legal system etc.
as i see life imprisonment more degrading/immoral/pointless then Capital Punishment, i might argue that the families who want the man to stay in jail do so for what i see as immoral reasons (a slow, degarding and pointless death). i’m more interested in helping the families overcome their loss, then their somewhat potentially immoral and unjustified (in my eyes) belief that he should rot/pointlessly die in a jail cell or their irrational justifications of why he should be forgiven (the state does not recognise God as a deterrant of justice/the legal system and i am also an atheist so religious views do not have any substance in my argument here). with the death of the criminal in their mind, the victims families can get on with their lives. when he is in jail he is a constant reminder that he is alive while their loved one is not and was taken from them by that person. in my opinion the sooner they overcome that fact/burden in their life, the quicker they will be able to get on with it. that is why i justify the death penalty over life imprisonment.
That’s just as gross a generalisation as the first one Nanook complained about. Surely not ALL the families would be religious.
Surely to believe that something is inherently good or bad pre-supposes the fact that you believe these things are objectively valid? How can you hold any moral code which you know is only subjectively true?
To say that comparing two moralities in an unbiased/objective way will tell us which is better is surely fallacious as when you make moral distinctions you can ONLY do it terms of what YOU think is right (which leads us to moral relativism). The fact is that if you asked any number of people (from a broad selection of cultural backgrounds) to choose between two moral codes you’d not get a consesnsus.