Debate and Discussion

Capital Punishment.
Product Placement at 10:47AM, Sept. 6, 2009
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
Like many people I'm getting sick of seeing the same three topics in this category. So here's something else for us to chew on.

Capital Punishment: Is it right or wrong?

Should we allow people who made grievous errors in the past to have a second chance or should we all go Eye for and Eye like the Tanakh preaches? Do you think all criminals can become a working member of the community or do you think that some individuals are beyond repentance?

United states still practice capital Punishment while a requirement for becoming a member of the EU is to abolish the death penalty. Which government body is right?

Discuss.
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:51PM
therealtj at 12:28PM, Sept. 6, 2009
(online)
posts: 3,282
joined: 3-15-2007
When asking a question like this, you need to put yourself in the shoes of a victim's family. How would you feel if someone killed your dad/mom/brother/sister/ect. and then just got out of prison several years later? For one thing, I'd be pissed that he gets to live out the rest of his life, but my family member, who did nothing wrong, doesn't. Also, what if you testified against the murderer? I'd be scared he might go after me. Am I saying there aren't cases where murder might not deserve capital punishment? No. I think there are cases where a murderer truly regrets what he did, and where the murder may have been reasonable. If that's the case, then of course they should be forgiven. But if someone killed several people for no reason, and doesn't even feel sorry then I think capital punishment is too good for him.

“The only moral it is possible to draw from this story is that one should never throw the letter Q into a privet bush, but unfortunately there are times when it is unavoidable.”
-Douglas Adams, The Restaurant At the End of the Universe
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:28PM
isukun at 1:26PM, Sept. 6, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
Revenge is not a justifiable reason for the institutionalized killing of another human being. Somehow, after your responses in the religious thread, though, it doesn't surprise me that you would say that. It is the “pick and choose” Christians who live their lives by “an eye for an eye”.

People try to come up with all sorts of reasons to justify capital punishment these days, but therealj just pointed out the truth behind capital punishment. It is to bring personal satisfaction to people through the death of another human being. No matter how you try to pretty that up, though, it is ALWAYS an ugly thing.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
Orin J Master at 2:05PM, Sept. 6, 2009
(online)
posts: 437
joined: 12-16-2007
therealtj
When asking a question like this, you need to put yourself in the shoes of a victim's family.

wrong, they're the last people you need to put yourselves in the shoes of. you need to weight the odds of them committing the crime again, not how the victims felt about it.

for example, rapists should be executed. why? because they've got an emotional drive to commit the crime again if released. prison and rehabilitation are useless, because the base you need to change their behaviour isn't there. they didn't need to do it, there wasn't some reward outside the act itself that drove them to do it. they just wanted to rape people.

it's a compulsion, and they will go back to it again because it's something they want to do. rather than deal with that i'd rather they were killed off from the beginning.

conversely. robbers should not be executed under normal circumstances. it isn't something most want to do, it's a crime driven by their perceived options. weather through drug addiction, desperation, or simple idiot panic, they believe that if the don't rob someone to achive their ends they will fail and likely some disaster will befall them. they can be rehabilitated or simply given a better situation and understanding of how to handle those matters and the crime will not be repeated.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:22PM
ifelldownthestairs at 3:05PM, Sept. 6, 2009
(online)
posts: 432
joined: 7-4-2007
Orin J Master
for example, rapists should be executed. why? because they've got an emotional drive to commit the crime again if released. prison and rehabilitation are useless, because the base you need to change their behaviour isn't there. they didn't need to do it, there wasn't some reward outside the act itself that drove them to do it. they just wanted to rape people.

Why should rapists be executed? I agree with you fully that rape is about the worst thing a person can do to another, but how would that policy encourage people to not rape any more than it would encourage them to simply kill the person they raped? After all, the punishment will be the same, and there'll be one less witness to worry about. And as you yourself implied, they're going to do it regardless. So are you saying that anyone like this should just be executed outright? What about treatment? Unfortunately I'm posting this before checking statistics on treatment in this particular case (which is just dawning on me now, sadly.. I don't often post in this forum) but it seems that it should at least be attempted to see what exactly is wrong with them first.

I also agree that there's little reason to consider the victim's families; killing one more person isn't going to bring their loved one back, and I don't know personally but I can't help but question how much better it can really make you feel.
you know why birds don't write their memoirs? because birds don't lead epic lives, that's why. who'd want to read what a bird does? nobody. that's who.
http://www.drunkduck.com/i_fell_down_the_stairs
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:56PM
Hawk at 3:48PM, Sept. 6, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
I don't think Capital Punishment works very well as a deterrent or a revenge. People don't plan on getting caught when they commit a crime. I can't imagine a rapist or murderer thinking, “Maybe I shouldn't. They'll kill me if I get caught”. And while the death penalty does give the victims of the crime a certain degree of satisfaction, it's fleeting and superficial. The crime still happened and it has permanent consequences.

But a part of me agrees with therealtj. Some criminals should NEVER be able to have their life back. Their consequences should be as permanent as those of their victims. I don't know if that should mean death, but it seems like for some people, three square meals a day, visiting house, and weight-lifting seem too good for what they deserve.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:46PM
qqq at 4:27PM, Sept. 6, 2009
(offline)
posts: 122
joined: 8-10-2009
therealtj
When asking a question like this, you need to put yourself in the shoes of a victim's family. How would you feel if someone killed your dad/mom/brother/sister/ect. and then just got out of prison several years later? For one thing, I'd be pissed that he gets to live out the rest of his life, but my family member, who did nothing wrong, doesn't. Also, what if you testified against the murderer? I'd be scared he might go after me. Am I saying there aren't cases where murder might not deserve capital punishment? No. I think there are cases where a murderer truly regrets what he did, and where the murder may have been reasonable. If that's the case, then of course they should be forgiven. But if someone killed several people for no reason, and doesn't even feel sorry then I think capital punishment is too good for him.
Have you ever considered the family of the victor? How would you like it if your father got executed because he snapped one time in his life and killed a person? The point is that killers often have a normal life outside it, Hitler loved his dog, to his children, he's a standard father, suddenly he comes home angstly telling his family ‘I killed a man, put a gun against his head, pulled my trigger now he’s dead.' and in three months time your father's gone?

Capital punishment is naïve, it's not a punishment for the victor, it is a punishment for said's family and friends. Dying takes like 58 seconds, growing up without a father takes a lifetime. And that's some thing people always forget because never does the media place any attention to the family of the executed, only to the family of the victim.

Also, capital punishment, and zero tolerance in generally doesn't decrease crime rate, it's too easy thought, it doesn't work that easily, some things indeed grow stronger if you hit them harder.

Also, I believe in rehabilitation, for the simple reason that almost every person is a potential killer, you just need the right impulse, a combination of factors that day, a child to protect. You meet hundreds of people each day, live next to them you like that could have killed another man were they at the right place at the right time, maybe some did and never got caught? They always say on the news that they never suspected their neighbour to be a killer as he was just a kindly man. It's not as simple as in fiction that killers are emotionless cold blooded sadists who practically shout ‘Muahahah, I’m so evil.' every time they kill, most of them are a lot more complex and really kill because they had no choice at that point.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:57PM
Orin J Master at 9:18PM, Sept. 6, 2009
(online)
posts: 437
joined: 12-16-2007
ifelldownthestairs
Orin J Master
for example, rapists should be executed. why? because they've got an emotional drive to commit the crime again if released. prison and rehabilitation are useless, because the base you need to change their behaviour isn't there. they didn't need to do it, there wasn't some reward outside the act itself that drove them to do it. they just wanted to rape people.

Why should rapists be executed? I agree with you fully that rape is about the worst thing a person can do to another, but how would that policy encourage people to not rape any more than it would encourage them to simply kill the person they raped? After all, the punishment will be the same, and there'll be one less witness to worry about. And as you yourself implied, they're going to do it regardless. So are you saying that anyone like this should just be executed outright? What about treatment? Unfortunately I'm posting this before checking statistics on treatment in this particular case (which is just dawning on me now, sadly.. I don't often post in this forum) but it seems that it should at least be attempted to see what exactly is wrong with them first.

I also agree that there's little reason to consider the victim's families; killing one more person isn't going to bring their loved one back, and I don't know personally but I can't help but question how much better it can really make you feel.

i….i said why. it's in the quote to used for-

one more time….A Rapist should be executed because they have no reasonable chance of rehabilitation, which was the original point of incarceration (how that relates to modern prisons in a whole other story). any attempts to normalaize their viewpoints on other's personal right to their bodies are inclined to fail because they have a compulsion to to commit this crime regardless of what you tell them. if they cannot be released without them inflicting this assault out of their own compulsive desire again, and they cannot be rehabilitated as to lose this compulsion, the only real option is to dispose of them. you excecute someone because of the motivation, not just the crime. is this clear enough?
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:22PM
ifelldownthestairs at 10:13PM, Sept. 6, 2009
(online)
posts: 432
joined: 7-4-2007
No, you were perfectly clear in the first post, there was no need to repeat yourself.

What I was hoping for rather was maybe something other than personal thoughts for you being so dismissive of treatment. Maybe some evidence that advancements in sex offender treatment haven't reduced the rates of recidivism, or that the vast majority of rapists haven't had some traumatic event from their own lives, leading them to act the way they do, and that their compulsions are natural and so deep rooted that there is no possibility of them being removed. I think that there's a completely reasonable chance of rehabilitation, and while it's most certainly not perfect, it seems to be getting better.

I'm just suprised at how quick people are to decide that treatment will never work, so they may as well all be killed.

you know why birds don't write their memoirs? because birds don't lead epic lives, that's why. who'd want to read what a bird does? nobody. that's who.
http://www.drunkduck.com/i_fell_down_the_stairs
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:56PM
BffSatan at 12:11AM, Sept. 7, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,478
joined: 3-2-2008
Orin J Master
one more time….A Rapist should be executed because they have no reasonable chance of rehabilitation, which was the original point of incarceration (how that relates to modern prisons in a whole other story). any attempts to normalaize their viewpoints on other's personal right to their bodies are inclined to fail because they have a compulsion to to commit this crime regardless of what you tell them. if they cannot be released without them inflicting this assault out of their own compulsive desire again, and they cannot be rehabilitated as to lose this compulsion, the only real option is to dispose of them. you excecute someone because of the motivation, not just the crime. is this clear enough?
So do you have a degree in criminal psychology or are you just pulling shit out of your ass? I'd like to know what makes you an expert on the mind of a rapist aside from what you've seen on TV.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:21AM
ozoneocean at 1:03AM, Sept. 7, 2009
(online)
posts: 25,111
joined: 1-2-2004
I'll join in the vote for the negative. State sanctioned killing is far too problematic. If you can kill for one thing, why not others? The circumstances can broaden dangerously. This even happens in the US today. It's a continual gradual push and pull to keep things in some kind of reasonable order.

There are other factors to consider, most especially killing innocent people. And that happens more than you'd realise.

The only real argument for killing, apart from the ultimately meaningless motives of revenge, detterrance, and punishment, is expediency: It's the easiest way to “solve” the problem, deal with the issue.

The harder, far more difficult choice is to keep them alive. Long term incarceration isn't too much better, but it IS better in that you at least have the option of release if the person wasn't guilty or attitudes change to the nature of their crime- Often death penalties are applied on a wave of public hysteria to crimes where one would not normally think they'd apply.

Treatment and genuine rehabilitation is the hardest path by far. It is possible to treat and genuinely rehabilitate people, maybe not in all cases, but it is possible.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:35PM
qqq at 4:28AM, Sept. 7, 2009
(offline)
posts: 122
joined: 8-10-2009
ozoneocean
The only real argument for killing, apart from the ultimately meaningless motives of revenge, detterrance, and punishment, is expediency: It's the easiest way to “solve” the problem, deal with the issue.
Not even that I fear, it's ultimately in a lot of legal systems actually more expensive to put people do death due to all the fuzz around it to make sure you don't have innocents, and even then, 'tis hardly infallible.

ozoneocean
The harder, far more difficult choice is to keep them alive. Long term incarceration isn't too much better, but it IS better in that you at least have the option of release if the person wasn't guilty or attitudes change to the nature of their crime- Often death penalties are applied on a wave of public hysteria to crimes where one would not normally think they'd apply.
Like Holloway? That so showed a difference of culture, De Vries getting an Emmy in the US for his ‘solving’ of the case—putting a man high on drugs and then taping his ‘confession’ that's incoherent and inconsistent with all the evidence that's already there and not giving the tape to the police but first announcing it three weeks in advance and then broadcasting it enabling all the hard evidence to be destroyed as people were tipped off.—here, he was just criticized for his absurd methodology, it was't even enough to re-open the case.

But try this thought experiment, supposedly an eye for an eye. All right, take a person that is depressed and wants to commit suicide, but that's illegal, so what does that person do, he kills another man, confesses and gets his ‘punishment’?

The fundamental principle that's wrong with eyen for eyen and teeth for teeth is that not every one finds the same things as unbearable to undergo. It only works if you assume that individualism doesn't exist and all people are the same. And that's hardly true.

Treatment and genuine rehabilitation is the hardest path by far. It is possible to treat and genuinely rehabilitate people, maybe not in all cases, but it is possible.
It's a problem with no easy solution.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:57PM
imshard at 8:29AM, Sept. 7, 2009
(offline)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
Execution? No I don't think there is ever a reason for that. Its amoral and really it has the same effect as life in prison as far as the outside world is concerned.

I do believe in labor camps for criminals though. Let them do something useful other than sit around watching cable TV and try no to get corn holed. While locking some people up in a solitary cell and letting them rot has a certain mental anguish to it its a waste of resources that is becoming far more difficult with prison overcrowding. Nothing deters lazy Americans like the prospect of a life of hard labor. Inhumane? Slave labor? Remember we're still talking about murderers and rapists. Given the choice between breaking rocks and lethal injection I'm sure most would choose the rocks.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:59PM
Product Placement at 9:26AM, Sept. 7, 2009
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
I myself favor the idea of letting prisoners work for their meals. The penal system back home is overly criticized for being too lax. At best, criminals receive few years for serious crimes and the prisons are like a 3 star hotels. We're dealing with small time offenders that break the law again as soon as they're released so that they can come back to the prison.

Couple of things we should pay attention to. What kind of labor can we use the prisoners for? We should try and create positions where prisoners can contribute to the society that they wronged in the past. I supposed the auto industry could find cheap labor in prisons. Of course, with that in mind, we should be careful not to take any jobs away from law abiding citizens.

Then there's the danger of it going to far. If keeping the prisons full becomes a lucrative thing, the chances of someone taking advantage of it increases. Laws could be altered to allow stricter punishment for smaller crimes. More prisons would be built and the threat of a slave class being created becomes a reality.

As long as we stay vigilant for these things, prison labor should be pursued.
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:51PM
Orin J Master at 4:47PM, Sept. 7, 2009
(online)
posts: 437
joined: 12-16-2007
ifelldownthestairs
What I was hoping for rather was maybe something other than personal thoughts for you being so dismissive of treatment.

treatment of a mental condition requires the active cooperation of the suffering individual. they have to want to change, and i'm squarely in the school that a compulsion invalidates that.

BffSatan
So do you have a degree in criminal psychology or are you just pulling shit out of your ass? I'd like to know what makes you an expert on the mind of a rapist aside from what you've seen on TV.

the latter by your argument, and several years of independent research. not that i'd put any trust in anything that tries to suggest there's a difference between a criminal's and law abiding person's psychology.

Product Placement
I myself favor the idea of letting prisoners work for their meals-

then you run into the matter of prisoners that try to starve themselves in “protest”, who simply will refuse to work on top of that.

Couple of things we should pay attention to. What kind of labor can we use the prisoners for?

in the US they (at least used to) use prisoners for clean-up and mantainence programs like cleaning parks and digging fresh drainage ditches along roads and such, where they couldn't afford to pay the proper federal wage. the idea of putting them to work in private companies is RIGHT OUT, as crime cartels would simply set up or take over businessess to help arrange the esacape of their people.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:22PM
Product Placement at 5:22PM, Sept. 7, 2009
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
Orin J Master
prisoners that try to starve themselves in “protest”, who simply will refuse to work on top of that.
Don't we have prisoners like that already? I mean, those who starve themselves without being forced into labor?
Orin J Master
in the US they (at least used to) use prisoners for clean-up and mantainence programs like cleaning parks and digging fresh drainage ditches along roads and such, where they couldn't afford to pay the proper federal wage. the idea of putting them to work in private companies is RIGHT OUT, as crime cartels would simply set up or take over businessess to help arrange the esacape of their people.
Yeah, I've seen few movies where prisoners are taken outside to work on roads and stuff so I was aware that there was a prison labor program already present in the states. I don't like the idea of letting them out to do work outside the prisons because it increases the chances of them trying to run away (made apparent by those same movies)

As for private company concern. I don't think that companies with the slightest hints of ties with crime cartels would be allowed to make contracts with governments regarding the use of prison labor anyways.

Also. Don't they have factory wings in some prisons already, making government issued license plates and similar stuff?
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:51PM
Orin J Master at 8:21PM, Sept. 7, 2009
(online)
posts: 437
joined: 12-16-2007
Product Placement
Don't we have prisoners like that already? I mean, those who starve themselves without being forced into labor?

yeah, but having them slow up work would be something they'd want to accomplish.

Yeah, I've seen few movies where prisoners are taken outside to work on roads and stuff so I was aware that there was a prison labor program already present in the states. I don't like the idea of letting them out to do work outside the prisons because it increases the chances of them trying to run away (made apparent by those same movies)

movies tend to misrepresent the fact that there's a fair number of people there keeping an eye on them in favor of the single steely-eye warden.

Someone
As for private company concern. I don't think that companies with the slightest hints of ties with crime cartels would be allowed to make contracts with governments regarding the use of prison labor anyways.

Also. Don't they have factory wings in some prisons already, making government issued license plates and similar stuff?


yeah, but only for thing the government supplies, and then only with equipment that can't be snuck off with or taken apart. and really, do you think someone planning to use a company for something illcit would aquire it in a way that would invalidate it's potential for that use?
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:22PM
Product Placement at 9:15PM, Sept. 7, 2009
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
Orin J Master
yeah, but only for thing the government supplies, and then only with equipment that can't be snuck off with or taken apart. and really, do you think someone planning to use a company for something illcit would aquire it in a way that would invalidate it's potential for that use?
You're kinda proving my point there. I find it highly doubtful that some Yakuza crime gang could infiltrate and take over a fortune 500 company that has a contract with prisons and that they would do that just for the purpose of busting some of their pals out.

Anyways, my car company comment was just a long shot idea anyways and probably a bad one at that.

And the fact that they have factories complexes in prisons seems to prove that prisoners can be harvested.

But we're moving away from the original discussion. While some of us may agree or disagree whether or not prison labor is ethical/effective/productive/etc. We should refocus our attention towards the legitimacy of Capital Punishment.

As it's been stated, executing someone just to appease a grieving family is a rather flimsy argument. And even though the Death Penalty is revoked, I wouldn't worry about the criminal being on the streets any time soon either. If the crime warranted an execution it certainly warrants a life sentence as well. At least that way the criminal can attempt to repay his dues to the society, should he prove to be redeemable.

And yes. If anyone is gonna ask me the question of if I would kill the person that rapes and/or murders my daughter. Of course I would want to hunt him down and strangle him with his own arteries. That's why they'll probably won't accept me for the jury.
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:51PM
isukun at 10:44PM, Sept. 7, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
You wouldn't want to give criminals with particularly nasty records access to any heavy machinery. When people feel there isn't anything left for them, they're more willing to use whatever they can get their hands on to hurt others. I had a roommate a while back who was a guard at the local maximum security prison. The place was anything but a three star hotel and the prisoners only made it worse. I remember my roommate disappearig for a week. He apparently was hospitalized when one of the prisoners “shanked” him in the side.

What made the situation worse, was that the guards were incredibly abusive, often using physical violence to subdue prisoners even for the smallest offenses. It wasn't enough to simply threaten them, they often broke bones. The roommate I had seemed to really enjoy beating on the inmates. I'm kind of glad he didn't stick around for more than a couple of months. The guy scared me.

I also don't think rape is always a compulsion in the sense discussed here. Rapists generally have underlying reasons for doing what they do. It can be hard, but it is possible to rehabilitate them if you can find and address those underlying issues. Rape is not something people do looking for pleasure or a high. Nobody is compelled to rape just for the sake of raping. They always have clear targets whether those targets be an individual or a particular group.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
Aurora Moon at 6:17AM, Sept. 8, 2009
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
I'm kind of on the fence on this one, especially when I can understand where both sides are coming from, and I actually agree with both opposing sides if that's even possible.

on one hand– it's so easy to claim that the only reason for the death penalty is for revenge, etc. Which simply isn't true at all. There's actually logical reasoning behind what some people might see as barbarism. For one thing, not all criminals can be relibiated. Some criminals' beliefs or justification for the crimes are so deeply rooted within their psyche that it's next to impossible to even reason with them. As an result, they might even consider that what they did to their victims wasn't wrong at all. As an result they may be more prone to killing more innocent people if let out of prison within their lifetimes.
And then there's the prison breakouts… They're rare, but they can happen. After all, we are only human, and as an result we can't really design an flawless prison system where no dangerous criminals can escape. So even if an criminal was sentenced to stay in prison for their whole lives, there's still the chance that they could get out that way and start their murderous rampages again.
Take Ted Bundy, the most notorious serial killer… did you know that he actually escaped prison TWICE?? And every time he escaped, he would continue murdering people for his own twisted reasons. even though he confessed to only 30 murders, there was plenty of dead victims out there that had died within the victiny around the time he escaped the prisons. So it's suspected that the death count is actually over 100 victims. That's lot of lives lost.

No. It's not about revenge or wasting our resources on what we see as hopeless cases. It's about the SAFETY of our community. By killing dangerous criminals like Ted Bundy, we cut down on the chances that they could escape from prison and kill even more innocent people if they were sentenced for life.

now for the flip side–
Not all murders or other equally heinous crimes really deserve the death penalty.

For example, the mother who discovered that her husband was an pedophile who had been molesting their own children. So she kills him in order to protect her children, because she knows that currently pedophiles get only a 4-year sentence or something equally crappy for their crimes. and not only that, her children would still be minors unable to defend themselves from him should he get out within that time period.
While killing on an jerk-knee, emotional impulse like that is wrong (because then she'd go to prison, and thus there's nobody to take care of the kids save for relatives)…. that doesn't make her an really bad person. She did what she thought was the right thing in the heat of the moment.
She isn't likely to murder anybody else at all, and so she would only rate low on the danger scale.

And then there's the mentally ill. while more dangerous, they're still not really responsible for their own actions in a sense. Whenever it be killing because they heard voices telling them to do it, or something else, they're very highly suspicable to the elements around them… easily manipulated by so many factors at play.
For this reason, I wouldn't feel right giving the death penalty to somebody like that provided that the defense was able to prove that they were truly mentally ill.

So for the mentally ill, I'd say that they should be locked up at an asylum for the criminally insane. Which is just like a prison, expect that it focuses more on helping the mentally ill with their problems.

The way I see it– we should really be judging things on things basis by basis, instead of making generalizations that all murders equal the death penalty, etc.
The same with sex crimes. Not all sex offenders are rapists or pedophiles. In some cases it was just some horny 18-year-old who boned an 17 year old. some 18-year-olds are basically still 17-year-olds in mind and spirit… so the fact that they are expected to magically become mature, know better, etc the moment that they turn 18 years old is just silly.
However, I do wish that they would try to be more harsh with pedophiles out there. Some molest over five children, and they only get 8 years? WTF? they should be going away for an lifetime. :P

But that's just me.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
isukun at 8:56PM, Sept. 8, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
Here's the problem with your argument. Basically, what you're saying is that the death penalty is only excusable in cases of irreparable antisocial tendencies, aka mental illness, but the death penalty shouldn't be used against those who are mentally ill.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
Kristen Gudsnuk at 6:31AM, Sept. 9, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,340
joined: 10-4-2006
isukun
Here's the problem with your argument. Basically, what you're saying is that the death penalty is only excusable in cases of irreparable antisocial tendencies, aka mental illness, but the death penalty shouldn't be used against those who are mentally ill.

touche/good point.


In Connecticut, we have signs on the highway that say, “Let them work, Let them live,” in reference to prisoners. So they work here, at least. (there's my proof!)

But that's not really the point. What is the purpose of executing a criminal?

1. Revenge for victim
2. Deterrent for others
3. Punishment/ ‘an eye for an eye’

The government should not concern itself with matters of vengeance. That is something that is up to the individual, not the government. If you want the guy who killed your friend to die, you should either go do it yourself (and of course, pay the consequences) or accept the death and move on. Since it's an emotional matter rather than one of lawfulness (because killing is illegal, so the government shouldn't kill either) it should be something for the individual to work out.

Execution as a deterrent is likewise immoral. To kill someone to scare off potential criminals is not only ineffective, but unconscionable. A human life (any human life) is worth more than ‘a statement’.

I just do not want to live in a country where the government kills people. Even if someone has committed some sort of atrocious act, doesn't make their life worthless. Rehabilitation is so much more civilized, too.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:23PM
Aurora Moon at 9:36AM, Sept. 9, 2009
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
isukun
Here's the problem with your argument. Basically, what you're saying is that the death penalty is only excusable in cases of irreparable antisocial tendencies, aka mental illness, but the death penalty shouldn't be used against those who are mentally ill.

But there's plenty of serial killers out there who doesn't have an mental illness.

Many of them had very sane, albeit very twisted, rational reasoning for why they did those killings.

Ted Bundy wasn't an mentally ill person at all. He was doing it even though he KNEW it was wrong… but simply didn't care that it was wrong. He was just a creature who lived for carnal pleasures. That's why he was even into necrophilia and stuff. He was doing it because it simply pleased him to do so.

As horrible as it sounds… Ted bundy was actually just an otherwise normal man save for his crimes.

In fact, you'll discover that half of the serial killers out there were pretty much normal people save for the crimes that they commited.

In fact, take some female serial killers out there. They didn't murder because voices or whatever told them to do it.
There was one female serial killer in history, I forgot her name… who actively murdered her children, step children and all of her husbands for insurance money.
It was pure greed that motivated her to kill on such a large scale, not some mental illness.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
isukun at 10:53AM, Sept. 9, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
And yet, everything I've read suggests otherwise. Ted Bundy was an extreme sociopath (one could argue psychopath) and narcissist. These are not normal everyday human characteristics. People do not impulsively kill and rape others without some underlying mental illness. Ted Bundy was not just an average, normal Joe Schmoe except for his crimes. He was a manic depressive with severe ASPD coming from a family with a history of mental illness, depression and abusive behavior.

Some popular quotes:

“I have known people who…radiate vulnerability. Their facial expressions say ‘I am afraid of you.’ These people invite abuse… By expecting to be hurt, do they subtly encourage it?”

Those aren't the words of someone who knows what they are doing is wrong.

“I didn't know what made things tick. I didn't know what made people want to be friends. I didn't know what made people attractive to one another. I didn't know what underlay social interactions.”

Showing his ASPD. His actual relationships were a mix of attempts to make a lasting social bond and social experimentation. For the most part, though, he himself admitted he was just going through the motions and didn't have a clear understanding how these things worked.

In fact, you'll discover that half of the serial killers out there were pretty much normal people save for the crimes that they commited.

Seriously doubt it. In fact, there was a recent evaluation done by the APA where they did psych evaluations on a number of serial killers. All of them showed signs of ASPD along with a mixture of other psychoses.

It was pure greed that motivated her to kill on such a large scale, not some mental illness.

Male and female serial killers tend to have different motivations. For men, it is typically a desire for power over the victim and is often accompanied by sexual desire. Male serial killers tend to be more violent and hands on. Women kill for more “practical” reasons, but suffer from the same basic psychoses as male serial killers. Both groups lack the ability to empathise with other human beings (i.e. a conscience) and value their own interests over the lives and well being of others. They don't see what they do as wrong, no matter how the general public may feel, often creating their own set of rules that go outside the generally accepted standards for human behavior.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
Aurora Moon at 8:43PM, Sept. 9, 2009
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I've read up on people who had that syndrome, and not every single one of them turned out to be serial killers. nearly most of them ended up being jerks or some such thing because they weren't able to empathize with other people… but they never killed or committed a major crime in their whole life.

So to me there's a big difference between having an syndrome, and a mental illness.

There are so much more underlying reasons to the motivations of serial killers than “Oh, he/she's just crazy!!”

there are plenty of normal people out there, who's been abused and treated badly in the same way as ted bundy, yet they didn't go down the same path he did.

abused people still can be normal.

people with ASPD still can lead functional, normal lives.

Granted, mixing abuse of any kind with an person who has ASPD makes it difficult for that person to NOT have an outlook where they have the desire to hurt somebody as an retaliation…. but to me the facts above shows that there's so much more to it than meets the eye.

It's like pedophila, you know? Most pedophiles were raped/sexually molested as kids themselves. Yet, not all sexually abused kids grow up to be pedophiles. So what makes the few abused kids grow up to commit pedophila or rape?
the reasons are very simple:
1)they simply wanted to harm others in the way they had been harmed, so that they wouldn't be alone in their suffering. Misery loves company, after all.
2) or worse, they were groomed into thinking this sort of thing was normal, was okay.

The two following reasons aren't exactly mental illnesses or ASPD… the first reason is basically human nature at it's worse– where humans has an tendency to want to find some way to express their pain, and do it in the worst possible way.
It's like a immature five-year-old boy punching some innocent boy because he was in an miserable mood, and didn't like the fact that this innocent boy was laughing so happily as if he didn't notice the 5-year-old's bad mood.

the second reason is brainwashing, plain and simple.

So if an person with ASPD grows up in an family where abuse is the norm, then he's more likely to commit the same sort of abuse when he grows up.

however, living and growing up in a normal family, an person with ASPD flat out won't just do those things, unless he's been conditioned by outside forces such as another person to do so.

people with ASPD have been proven to know FULLY what they are doing, etc…. even if they felt that they were only going though the motions, feeling slightly puzzled as they did so. even people without ASPD feel like that at one point in their lives, if feeling pressured enough.

So a person with that disorder would definitely know fully that he/she was stabbing somebody with an knife, that this sort of thing was generally frowned upon by the masses. and of course just like with any other normal human being, they try to justify what they do.

like how the Jealous wife stabs her suspected cheating husband to death, and then afterward try to justify her actions to convince herself that she wasn't wrong to do it.

so it's only a factor, but not the one single thing that dissolves them of all responsibility.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
ParkerFarker at 8:52PM, Sept. 9, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,451
joined: 4-29-2009
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

“We are in the stickiest situation since Sticky the stick insect got stuck on a sticky bun.” - Blackadder
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:39PM
Kristen Gudsnuk at 11:29PM, Sept. 9, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,340
joined: 10-4-2006
oooh I looove that song…

Aurora Moon, I don't think things are as simple as you say. Just because SOME people with ASPD aren't serial killers, doesn't stop it from being a mental illness. There are varying levels, of course, and there's always free will, but it IS a factor in some individuals' ability to take the lives of others.

Aurora Moon
It's like pedophila, you know? Most pedophiles were raped/sexually molested as kids themselves. Yet, not all sexually abused kids grow up to be pedophiles. So what makes the few abused kids grow up to commit pedophila or rape?
the reasons are very simple:
1)they simply wanted to harm others in the way they had been harmed, so that they wouldn't be alone in their suffering. Misery loves company, after all.
2) or worse, they were groomed into thinking this sort of thing was normal, was okay.

I'm sure there are more than just two explanations for pedophilia.


it's not just psychological– antisocial tendencies are usually the result of a chemical issue. Some people's brains are just wired differently. Serial killers often have irregular frontal lobes. this article is about the man who developed pedophilic tendencies because of a frontal lobe brain tumor; the behavior stopped after the removal of the tumor.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:23PM
Product Placement at 6:41AM, Sept. 10, 2009
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
Looks like jokes are not allowed in the debate thread. The long arm of the mod seems to have cleaned this place up.

If anyone asks about the song that Kristen is referring too, someone jokingly mentioned making prison colonies and I responded with the song “The land down Under”.

Here's a scenario that people have not mentioned.

Many murders that occur are related to gang activity. In those scenarios it's not an individual that's responsible for the crime but the mob mentality. When the “cribs” and the “hoods” end up having a turf war, people do things that they would normally not do on their own.

I believe this to be similar if you were a soldier sent to an enemy country. In those scenarios, it becomes perfectly justifiable to take another life.

I don't think that the individual is that much at fault but rather the government/society. Gangs are born in slums and poor environments where equal opportunities are not readily available. The only way to deal with problems like that is to change the environment.
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:51PM
Orin J Master at 10:16AM, Sept. 10, 2009
(online)
posts: 437
joined: 12-16-2007
the problem with that angle it that there's groups that benefit from maintaining the enviroment that helps support (it's far from required, you know) gang activity.

it's often been said that it's expensive to be poor, and it's not too far off. the more downtrodden neighborhoods are often predated upon by check cashing schemes, immoral lenders, and unfairly devalued goods to keep their money flowing out of their hands and foster the desperate situations that lead to the majority of gang conscripts.

also the thread seems to have drifted entirely from weather execution is right or not, which makes sense as it's not a single-answer issue.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:22PM
PIT_FACE at 11:01AM, Sept. 10, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,592
joined: 4-21-2007
isukun
Revenge is not a justifiable reason for the institutionalized killing of another human being. Somehow, after your responses in the religious thread, though, it doesn't surprise me that you would say that. It is the “pick and choose” Christians who live their lives by “an eye for an eye”.


Isukun,very childish. im not putting down your view on the issue of capitol punishment,becuase it's a valid one. but i wanted to tell you i found that little pot-shot in bad taste. theraultj gave a reason why he thought capitol punishment could be an understandable thing and that reason was becuase he felt empathetic for the victims, which most people, REGARDLESS OF RELIGIOUS STANDING do. victims are of corse part of the issue as well, and instead of countering on that issue, you chose to pull up your fued from another thread and shit-sling in here. if you're as smart as you lead us all to beleive you might be, i think you'll understand what im saying.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:45PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved