*applauds marichko*
Outstanding. In fact I think you won me over too. I am behind you all the way !

This cae I remember very clearly. This was one of the occassions when I realised just how beastly ( and I mean that in it's literal sense) my own countrymen/women could be.

I watched it play out across my screen and inthe papers. First we saw again and again the footage the little toddler being taken off by the boys.....Then the trial.....the trail which has since been heavily criticised by the European High Court for being unfair.....why was it unfair? Because they tried and treated two children in the same manner as they would have tried an adult.

Murderers those boys might have been but they were also children. Not young men, children.

I have never in all my life felt quite so disgusted with my fellows than when I watched them hurl abuse and bottles and bricks at the Van carrying the two boys. Hurling themselves bodily at the doors and screaming ( many many of them) vengeance and death.....Grown men and women . Parents who have children of their own. ...So appalled were they at the murder of one child by two others, they sought to demonise the two boys to the point they were no longer children themselves.

What would they have done if the two boys had been thrown to them? Would they have kicked them to the ground and stamped on them? Would they have torn them limb from limb like the engared mob they appeared to be? I dont know. I do know the two children getting into the van and then getting out at the other end were terrified. One of them wasnt really sure why he'd followed his friend......but he was starting to feel quite sure he had just destroyed his life....if any of us had been able to step into that child's head for just a moment I shudder to think at the maelstrom we'd have found. .. Reading the descriptions of him crying into his mothers side whilst she held him after a particularly hard session of questioning left me in no doubt that this was a child. A killer yes, but a child also and a young one ( mentally) at that.

The good and decent parents who screamed for their blood and hurled glass bottles at their police van showed us al very clearly how much theyhated these murderous children. Why? I dont know . Perhaps they felt so shocked to find that children were capable of such things that sought to eradicate that posibilty from their mind. The children cannnot really be children they have lost their innocence....they are no longer protected by our knowledge of the world being so much greater than theirs....

I know, I know...They killed a little boy. A beautiful curly headed toddler who had done nothing but trust the two older boys who took him off to play......I know, they understood that what they did was wrong.....that whatthey had done was kill. These boys knew that killing was wrong. These boys knew that what they were doing was wrong at the time. .....But children dont really think like adults do. None of us can truly recall how our minds worked as children because we can only ever look back with the benefit of our fully developed cortex .....Children coceptualise in a different way....They may have known that they were killing and they may have known that killing is wrong and that death is final.....But I dont think they understood tjhose concepts in the same way an adult does. Children are too selfish to view it in the way we might. Even the best most generous and kind child is more selfish than their adult self ( Imo) ....They may have understood what they did in literal terms. But I dont think they related their actions to the consequences or extrapolated out the consequences beyond the immediate in the way most adults do.

I think ....the intensity of the reaction to a crime is proportionate to how much it disturbs our sense of the world as predictable. When children kill children ....it reintroduces us to our animal self and to a world which cannot be contained within law.

I dont think it would .. but I think it would be very close. The reason I said Europe and not the UK is that my country is often a little out of step with the continent. What I meant was that it is enshrined in European law as being an unacceptable solution to crime and the vast majority of European citizens agree....(.or did before the enlargement I dont really know how that may have affected the mix.)

On a personal level, in my own life I am acquainted with only two people who would vote for a return of capital punishment in this country.....two....out of everyone know, out of all the people I have worked and had the debate with ...and out of my large extended family, my friends and colleagues and neighbours....Two of them would say Hang em high. One of those is my Dad and frankly he has some kooky ideas to start with ( he witnessed a massacre in India when he was a child, I think it gave him a slightly skewed perspective on the world) and the other is My ex's new girlfriend *grins* she's a righty....he's a socialist....I am off to get popcorn for that :P

Something similar used to be said of Homosexuality . Usually it was said just before the offender was sent off to do two or three years of hardlabour.

Indidentally....not all sociopaths are murderers. Are they all capable of murder? Well yes I guess...but by that token we really should start locking up men in case they rape.

Given that ( in the UK) Mentaly ill patients are 6 times more likely to be murdered than the general populace I think we are focussing on the wrong people.

Do more innocent people get killed *with* a death penalty than do people *without* a death penalty? Aren't the victims of recidivist murderers innocent?

If we put to death those who have committed premeditated murder, they will never kill an innocent person again.

Anyone have any statistics on convicted murderers who killed again?

I'm just wondering how an innocent person sentenced to a life of prison rape, beatings and confinement is a less cruel thing...

"Hatred does not win over hatred
Only by love is hate defeated.
This is the law which is true for all time."

(Marichiko, you are a genius.)


Eye for an eye? Come on people, this is REACTION not RESPONSE. How can retaliation breed progress? It is as emotional and irrational in origin as any violent crime.

Would you agree that disorder should be treated with its logical antidote: order? If you have a messy desk do you replace it with more mess or do you tidy it up? Social disorder is no different.

You can fight fire with fire but you'll all end up burning. Treating crime with crime is incredibly futile, and capital punishment? Please tell me how this really benefits anyone. The only bearable argument is that the executed individual will not commit another crime. But this is treating the symptom, not the CAUSE! If you have spots, you can squeeze them, and you will never get a spot in that exact place again. But change your diet, drink water, and you wont get spots in the first place! Can we please start looking a little bit further than our basest human instinct: this ability (so-called intelligence) is what distinguishes us from animals. If you are advocating revenge (an emotional, irrational reaction) you cannot condemn these crimes in the same breath, because you are the same.

Hyperbole and metaphor aside, the satisfaction of revenge is fleeting and, because it is irrational, cannot restore true emotional relief (e.g. in victims' families). Ask anyone who has lost a close one to crime - they will tell you that the brief 'pleasure' of revenge cannot compensate for such a loss. The fact that many then dedicate their lives to making sure the same does not happen to others (by setting up support groups/awareness campaigns etc.) is testament to the transient productiveness of retribution, and the lasting power of criminal research, psycho-sociological study and reintegration.

And if all you can muster up for a response is 'soft on crime', 'letting them get away with it' and 'how would you feel if it was your sister' then you are incapable of objectivity and shouldn't be trying to talk rationally about something so important. Of course I do not advocate in any way the heinous crimes that warrant a death row sentence. Of course it fills me with anguish and many accounts of such crimes make me feel physically ill. And, of course, there is nothing I would value more than for every human to enjoy the basic right to live without fear.

I suggest we work with criminals (no, not sitting comfortably on some psychologists couch) to establish the root of the crime and eliminate the cause, not its product. We don't need to execute to prevent re-offence - this is what prison is for. If non-violent or 'petty' crimes did not warrant a jail sentence (e.g. community service) - this would free up cells and resolve the financial dilemma. I did not want to condemn the death penalty without giving consideration to an alternative.

Hatred does not win over hatred.

I wish the world agreed.


*phew. goes for a :joint:

The moral argument for the death penalty has nothing to do with revenge, or with deterrence, or hatred against the perpetrator of the crime. It is an issue of justice. Bear in mind that we are working in ideals here, not in realities.

The prime motivation in atonement justice is the reparation for the wrong done. If you steal something, your just punishment is directly in correlation to the value of the item stolen. If you cause a living thing unnecessary pain, your just punishment is directly in correlation to the social value placed on the living thing (we don’t punish for killing rodents, we do punish for setting the neighbor’s cat on fire). This is the principle behind the punishment fitting the crime.

So what value do we place on a human life? When that life it taken with malice, with forethought, with intent, and with purposeful action, what manner of reparation is appropriate? It must be recompensed with something of equal value – a human life.

As with most crimes, it is not only the victim who receives reparation, but society as well. A violation of an individual’s rights is also a violation against the social well-being. In the case of murder, the victim cannot receive reparation of any kind, but that does not alter the just demand that it be paid. It is therefore received solely by society, in the form of the state.


To argue against the ideal (again, not in practice but in theory) death penalty on moral grounds, you must either argue that justice makes no demand for equal reparation, or you must argue that a life lived out to it’s natural end in prison is equivocal with a life ended prematurely – that the value of any life is only in proportion to it’s freedom. To do the first is difficult, to do the second sets up a principle that, carried to its logical end, makes the con argument even more difficult.

-sm

quote:And sociopathy is evident by age 15 through a group of behaviors. This isn't something that was pulled out of someone's ass...this information is the result of study of these individuals. Sociopaths cannot be cured.



"Something similar used to be said of Homosexuality . Usually it was said just before the offender was sent off to do two or three years of hardlabour.

Indidentally....not all sociopaths are murderers. Are they all capable of murder? Well yes I guess...but by that token we really should start locking up men in case they rape.'"



I have already said that not all sociopaths are criminals. Some turn out to be politicians and lawyers. You'd be amazed how far you can get without a conscience to hinder you. I'm not advocating locking people up OR killing them UNTIL they commit crimes.



"Given that ( in the UK) Mentaly ill patients are 6 times more likely to be murdered than the general populace I think we are focussing on the wrong people."



Work with some retarded juveniles in a "last chance before jail" facility like I did. Work with some mentally ill people who've murdered their children, and/or murdered more than one person, like I did, and THEN give me an opinion.


"And if all you can muster up for a response is 'soft on crime', 'letting them get away with it' and 'how would you feel if it was your sister' then you are incapable of objectivity and shouldn't be trying to talk rationally about something so important. "

But that's exactly what part of it is about.


"I suggest we work with criminals (no, not sitting comfortably on some psychologists couch) to establish the root of the crime and eliminate the cause, not its product."

And how do you suggest we do that? Do you really think they're going to give us an accurate answer that isn't slanted towards them? This is part of the problem--being so worried about whether their mother gave them a dirty look when they were three and thus ruined them for life. What about taking people to task for their actions? What about holding THEM responsible for what they've done, instead of someone or something else? Plenty of people are poor. They aren't criminals. Plenty of people were abused as kids. They don't murder. People who murder have something missing. It's not the parents' fault, and it's not society's fault. It's all them. They make a choice. They should have to pay for that choice.


And tell me, how old were YOU when you realized the difference between right and wrong? Did it take you until after you were a teenager to figure that out? I doubt it. Those kids who killed that little boy were what, ten and eleven? By then you know the difference. What they did was premeditated murder of a helpless, trusting child. If you can do that as a kid, what are you capable of as an adult?


Incidentally, smoothmoniker, BRAVO!


Sidhe

If that's your main experience of mentally challenged people then I think I see why you feel the way you do. But thats because you were delaing with mentally ill criminals rather then the mentally ill who are 6 times more likely to be murdered than I am.

Its a little like saying, Work with some french criminals in jail and some french juvenile delinquents before you give me an opinion on the French.

Catwoman! Good post. The :joint: is well deserved.

Well argued. It raises an issue I have with so many other topics. Too many people are willing to lower the standards because it's easier than to strive towards the ideal. The ideal is almost unachievable, but the results are much more rewarding.

I think I am going to throw up.


1. The point was made by someone earlier that justice and revenge are not mutually exclusive. Retribution, punishment - call it what you will - its function is the same. It is reflective of an attitude of like-for-like; you hit me and I'll hit you. This is not constructive. It is cyclical and perpetual and does not achieve resolution.

2. 'We are working in ideals not reality.' So what's the point of this debate? I'm sure it's pretty real for the victims.

3. Does the value of a human life vary according to the individual? Why is it right to take the life of another person, because (*screaming child) 'he did it first' (*screaming child)?? Could YOU push the button on the electric chair? Someone's got to do it. Should they die too? It's PERPETUAL it is NEVERENDING you cannot overcome hate and fear with hate and fear. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?

Not true at all. What I'm trying to get across is the fact that mental retardation has levels of severity. A profoundly mentally retarded person is one thing; a person with minor retardation is something completely different. Yet people jump on the word "retarded," and think "profound mental retardation."

People are also led to believe that mentally ill individuals aren't dangerous, which is a bunch of baloney. Fully half of the patients I worked with in a state hospital were there for murder. One woman put her infant in the oven; one smothered her baby. Others were guilty of handgun murders. The adult facility was not a criminal facility. It was a plain old state hospital. When a mentally ill person refuses meds, you can't make them take them. OR, they'll take the meds and get discharged, then stop. These people have murdered once, or more than once. Being mentally ill does not make the murders any less real. It does not mitigate their dangerousness, especially if they're homicidal. It's not always possible to keep a mentally ill person in a hospital indefinately, and others deserve to be protected from them.


Sidhe

That is not possible. When a human life is taken, nobody gets it. The victim cannot be given reparation.

Well, it's primarily the dangerous ones who are forced into the hospital. That's hardly surprising.

"That is not possible. When a human life is taken, nobody gets it. The victim cannot be given reparation."


Perhaps. But we guarantee that that person will never again take another life. That's good enough for me.

People who murder don't just take the life of the victim. They ruin the lives of everyone who loved them as well. Think of the misery a serial killer creates in this context.

If you don't want to execute them, put them in a laboratory. It shouldn't be a choice. They should have to pay society back, one way or another.


Sidhe

And they're likewise the ones who escape, or are discharged. What's your point?

Sidhe

How about society getting reparation for its loss of a, ostensibly, productive member?

When someone's life is taken, society doesn't get it any more than the victim.

Why do you say that?

What if the victim was a doctor, a priest, an engineer, a teacher, a philosopher, or a taxpayer?

You make an interesting argument, but it all just boils down to "an eye for an eye." I don't beleive in that concept.

Let me ask you about this: We had a situation in my area a few years ago where a woman was contemplating suicide. She was going to jump off a bridge. This was a pretty major bridge. They closed the bridge for several hours while they talked to the woman. Pretty much everyone agreed that she chose the bridge as a location for getting the most attention. She delayed something like 50,000 people by a couple of hours. If you add up all the time she "took" from these people it comes out to like 12 years. Should she be sent to jail for 12 years?

Yes

No, I'm saying that if a murderer's life is taken, nobody receives it. Neither the victim, nor society gains a life by taking another.

Ah, gotcha.

So you're saying that instead of making a murderer pay the price for his actions we get to pay the price for his further existance.

I don't consider economics to be relevant when discussing whether to kill someone.

try not to hit the shoes

Quote:

2. 'We are working in ideals not reality.' So what's the point of this debate? I'm sure it's pretty real for the victims.

It's essential. Before we look at how we use the death penalty in real life, we have to answer the question of whether it is morally allowable. If it is, then the debate should focus on accuracy and equity. If it is not, then no argument based on deterrence, revenge, ‘closure’ or future crimes has any weight.

I'd rather look at first issues first, then deal with how they are instantiated in real life.

-sm

For most people economics is a proxy for time and effort. When you have to work for a living, the cost of supporting a convicted parasite on society is a legitimate issue.

quote:Originally posted by glatt


"You make an interesting argument, but it all just boils down to "an eye for an eye." I don't beleive in that concept.

Let me ask you about this: We had a situation in my area a few years ago where a woman was contemplating suicide. She was going to jump off a bridge. This was a pretty major bridge. They closed the bridge for several hours while they talked to the woman. Pretty much everyone agreed that she chose the bridge as a location for getting the most attention. She delayed something like 50,000 people by a couple of hours. If you add up all the time she "took" from these people it comes out to like 12 years. Should she be sent to jail for 12 years? "


She didn't KILL anyone. That makes all the difference in the world. Wanting to kill YOURSELF, as opposed to wanting to kill someone else (or a lot of someone elses) is not a crime against society, IMO. She wasn't preying on anyone else. You're trying to compare two entirely different types of people.

If it was such a big problem for everyone, hell, they should've let her jump. Then traffic could've gone on it's way, and no time would've been wasted.


Sidhe

I think that's what I have difficulty with. He is a person. he has done awful things and I can understand a desire to punish someone who has done awful things.....but they never do stop being people.

Didn't Jesus also tell people to sell their belongings and buy a sword? I seem to recall him saying "render unto Caeser what is Caeser's" as well---I read that to say that one should obey the laws of wherever one happens to be. Then there was something about, "I come not to bring peace, but a sword," or something to that effect.

The bible has too many contradictions to use it as backup for an argument. I'm not worried about the moral aspect of the death penalty. I'm worried about the lawful aspect of it.

The simple fact is, you'd have to live under a rock these days, to not know the penalty for murder. THEREFORE, if you decide to take the chance, you know what you're getting yourself into. You make the choice. No one twists your arm; no one makes the choice for you. Therefore, in the interests of protecting society, if you're caught, we (theoretically) eliminate the threat you pose to society.

I don't see the problem. It's not like we spring it on people. THEY KNOW. THEY choose to murder. I have better uses for my hard-earned money than paying for them for the rest of their lives.

Course, we could send them all to Europe, and let you guys rehabilitate them....


Sidhe

On that we agree, which, to my mind, makes it even worse.

People know better.

I like.

A member of the species Homo Sapiens

I only bring it up because Buddha was brought up.

You're preaching to the choir here.

I was preaching to whomever you quoted *grins*.

Sidhe

Like a friend of mine says, there's a difference between a human being and a person.

Any Homo Sapiens can be defined as a human being...but not everyone is a person.

And doesn't Homo Sapiens mean "thinking man"? This would imply that complex reasoning ability is the major difference between homo sapiens and other creatures, which means that because homo sapiens CAN reason in such a complex manner, that they should be held to a higher standard of conduct, and should be made to be responsible for that conduct.


Sidhe

Are we having fun yet? ;)

I would agree entirely

Kumbaya brother. **Group hug**:rolleyes:

What would you have the law do? Just keep warehousing them until most of our taxes go to their upkeep? What if one escapes? Then what?

I have a proposition for all these people who hold candlelight vigils before an execution: We'll let him go, but it will be into YOUR custody. You have to take him into your house, with your wife/husband and children. You're responsible for his behavior from now on. If he kills again, not only will we fry HIM, but we'll hold you as an abbettor to his crimes.

We can't kill 'em, we can't experiment on 'em, and they're an utterly useless waste of taxes...taxes that could be spent on schools, roads, or other things that benefit society.

What would you have us do?


Sidhe

Oh, oh, I have one. How about if one innocent person is executed, then you'll agree to be executed too, to make it all better! Life for a life thing, you know?

And something that seem to have been forgotten in this struggle for murderers' rights to humane treatment: the victims and their families are people too.

The mother who lost her child on those railroad tracks in England, or to a rapist/murderer is a person who will never stop hurting. Children who lose their mothers/fathers/siblings are people who will never stop hurting. Husbands and wives who lose their partners are people who will never stop hurting.

Screw the murderer. He gave up his rights to humane treatment when he abandoned humane behavior.

Like I said before: we put down rabid animals because they pose a danger. We should put down murderers the same way.


Sidhe

Oh, I am SO sick of this "innocent person being executed" argument. Anti-death penalty folks always fall back on that argument, much the same as they've accused us of falling back on the "an executed murderer will never kill again" argument.

What with the appeals process, DNA testing, and the like, PROVEN murderers rarely get executed.


Sidhe

Isn't that something you want to change?

The execution of innocents isn't something to "fall back on". It is the most immediate and practical problem with the death penalty. Arguing the fundamental morality of the death penalty can be interesting, but it is moot while innocents are on death row.

Ah, so us anti-dp folks ALWAYS do this, but when it comes to the pro-dp folks, it's just an accusation...interesting.

I enjoy debating a topic such as this, but when you blur the boundaries between opinion and fact then smear the opposition on top of it without provocation, a debate ceases being a debate. It becomes a shit-throwing festival.

Unless, of course, its you. I mean, seriously, if it IS you then won't you be glad we are here - fighting for your right? Or would you still just want us to wish away the anomolies in the interest of vanquishing the grey area between the end points. Do you really want to become one with the moss just to prove your point?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that. What I'm saying is that the antis' basic argument is that an innocent person might be executed; the pros' basic argument is that an executed murderer will never kill again. Where's the shit-throwing?



Sidhe

My life is so unbelievably boring that if ever I were accused of murder, I think I'd die of a heart attack before I got to trial.

Seriously...if OJ can't get convicted when there is ungodly amounts of DNA evidence to prove his guilt, then I think little carless ol' me won't have a problem. What are they gonna say I did? WALKED to the crime scene, killed someone just for shits and giggles, then walked home? I'm WAAAY too lazy to put forth that much effort, and I've got a busload of people who will testify to that ;) (right, TS?) If that doesn't work, I'll just say they're attacking me because I'm a Native American female. I'm sure somebody'll jump on the race and gender bandwagon. They always do.

Besides, one has a choice between a jury trial and a bench trial. You think I'd be stupid enough to put my fate in the hands of 12 people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty?


Sidhe

Of course I'd like to see it changed. I don't want innocent people to die any more than you do. But if we KNOW someone is guilty, I say FRY 'EM.

If people are so concerned with the idea that innocent people may be executed, then why don't they start a fund to do DNA testing on these people (or whatever they think will clear them)? DO something about it, and then we can execute the ones who AREN'T innocent.

Besides, unless you have an eyewitness to the murder, there's NEVER going to be a 100% certainty. You can't ask for 100%, because we don't have the technology to facilitate that...yet.

Like those kids in England. They're guilty. Everyone knows they're guilty. Charles Manson is guilty, and everyone knows it (for those who say that he never actually killed someone, the law says that if you hire a killer, or otherwise cause a person to be killed, that you are guilty of murder as well). If we know the individual(s) is/are guilty, where's the problem?


Sidhe

Here's a little info I found:


This year, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA), introduced the "Innocence Protection Act" (H.R. 912 and S. 486), a bill that would provide new safeguards in capital cases. 234 Representatives, and 25 Senators have cosponsored the House and Senate Bills respectively.

For more info on this, here's a website:
http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/legi...A?OpenDocument


Here are some stats on race, as of Jan 01, 2002:

Race--Number--Percent

White-- 1,701 -- 46.71%

Black -- 1,562 -- 42.77%

Hispanic-- 312 -- 8.54%

Native American -- 45 -- 1.23%

Asian -- 32 -- 0.88%


The average time between sentencing and execution is 9 & 1/2 years.



Sidhe

Andrea Yates anyone? Wasn't it told that she was a paranoid schizophrenic when she was a teenager or something?

Wolf said:
(There are two kinds of justice: Regular or Extra Crispy)

Precisely.

LS:
If we know the individual(s) is/are guilty, where's the problem?

Hell, I don't see any. Let the executions begin. :mad:

AND would get a transplant sooner than I would! :mad: :mad:

Quote:

The victim, most people forget, IS innocent. No maybe about it. The victim's family and friends are innocent. What about them? If a criminal is found guilty, and I think DNA should be mandatory, then eliminate him. Society is more important than one who preys on society. I sincerely believe that there are those who are such a danger to society that they deserve to be eliminated. I resent having to pay their bills. What's the point of warehousing them if we're not going to use them? Give them a choice: Death or the Lab. Either way they pay society back, rather than just getting a free ride. Sidhe

Can't really disagree with any of that. I'm just the revengeful type. God forbid someone did harm to Syc, his family or my family, and was 100% guilty (meaning there was NO room for error, misjudgments, etc.). :rar: :rar: :rar:

If you were savagely murdered, I would not want that person to receive the death penalty.

Hell fucking yes.

Quote:

THAT is justice. Do unto that fucker as he did to the victim.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

I quoted the Buddha, not Jesus. Making arguments about the contradictions found in the Bible when responding to the words of a Buddhist teaching is the equivalent of arguing about the declension of Latin nouns while taking a class in Swahili.

Well, yes, they should be held accountable, but in many situations, it *is* on the parents to be responsible enough to bring up their children in a safe, stable home, and therefore reduce the *risk* of those children turning to a life of crime.

So what then? Just make that person deny their true feelings for the sake of people who don't agree? IMO, feeling revengeful, etc. is part of being human...notice I didn't say that EVERY human has to feel this way, nor will they always act on that feeling, so why not let them have their "moment"? For some, that is quite theraputic (as opposed to keeping al that emotion bottled up inside).

Quote:

3. Does the value of a human life vary according to the individual? Why is it right to take the life of another person, because (*screaming child) 'he did it first' (*screaming child)?? Could YOU push the button on the electric chair?

If someone killed my family, loved ones..damn right I could.

Quote:

Someone's got to do it. Should they die too? It's PERPETUAL it is NEVERENDING you cannot overcome hate and fear with hate and fear. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?

Why is it so difficult to comprehend that some people are going to feel that way..period? Just because YOU wouldn't DARE feel that way, don't say that others don't have the right to do so.


"Your right doesn't make me wrong." (told to me by a very wise man)