.
your thoughts on the death penalty?
.
Last edited by hag; 04-11-2020 at 03:16 AM.
Oh, a tough philosphical question.
Personaliy I disapprove death penalty, because past events can not be undone... and I guess there are two reasons for the existence of it.
1. the ancient eye for an eye principle; an interpretation of compensatory justice.
2. to defer people to commit crime like murder
All member countries of the European Union mustn't impose the death penalty. Life sentence is the maximum punishment.
My impression is that the intention of death penalty is a relief for the people that suffer from to implications of a serious act of crime.
Since the death penalty in the U.S. is more expensive to implement than life without parole, I’m against it on practical grounds.
There is also the possibility that someone might later be shown to be innocent, and there is no legal remedy for the dead.
Morally, I should have a strong opinion but don’t. Some victims and/or their loved ones feel relief at the imposition of death, and others don’t want it. My own feeling when I’ve wished death on an enemy is that in some sense they have won, then, binding me to them.
On a broader societal level, criminologists apparently disagree on whether the death penalty has any deterrent effect.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
Generally, I'm against it for reasons @golden mentioned.
However, I find the worth of the death penalty somewhat debatable.
If we use prisons to rehabilitate criminals, what do we do for those who can't be rehabilitated? Ie. Psychopaths, and individuals who lack the ability to assimilate?
Do prisons generally serve to rehabilitate? Once someone is convicted, how easy does the legal system and our society make it for past offenders to gain employment and avoid a life of crime?
If prisons fail to rehabilitate, then does conviction really yield more beneficial results for society than the death penalty? Why or why not?
No, I don't think it should exist- except maybe in extreme circumstances. This is basically an abuse of State power. And being caught up in the system let me tell you that they for sure don't know what they are doing.
Killing a person doesn't even necessarily bring perfect justice, because like what @golden was hinting at - what if they are still inside your head all the time, even though their body is gone? People might say they can kill the person and also forget about them completely- but I don't buy that. The very fact that you are reveling in their demise means they are important to you and will be with you a long while. It is more noble and moralistic to put them somewhere where they can't harm anybody again, whilst the victims heal themselves. Attacking others isn't healing. Healing yourself is healing. And also 'two wrongs don't make a right/eye for an eye makes the whole world blind' etc.
The people we have to watch out for criminals are also in many times, way more fucked up than the criminals themselves. I mean did you read the news lately? There was a cop that just arrested for sexually grooming what he thought was an underage kid. Those that fight monsters often end up an even bigger monster themselves. And yeah, I'm supposed to buy that the police force and government is there to 'protect me.' LoL They always act like they are they are somehow the good guys when really they are the most corrupt and evil people you will ever meet. So they will pat themselves on the back for catching a criminal but then turn around and do something that takes away all our rights and freedoms as citizens.
Last edited by Hot Scalding Gayser; 09-30-2018 at 06:35 AM.
A man who as a boy sat behind me all school year in seventh-grade homeroom is on death row. I knew him before that, too, and I can’t remember a time when he was ever not creepy.
He raped and killed an innocent girl in a brutal, horrible way, and I can’t imagine what ever could be done to rehabilitate him. The death penalty was made for people like him. But his case has to work its way through appeals, state, and federal levels at public expense, and nothing is ever going to bring back the girl. There’s not a modern legal punishment strong enough to equal what he did.
Death penalty vs life in prison is apples, oranges here.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
killing bad people can be good, but one must make sure they're actually bad first. this is very difficult and if you screw it up it makes you the bad person. as a conservative measure often its easier to just take killing off the table, but this introduces other unwanted consequences, such as having to confine and provide for these people. people resent having to devote resources to people they haven't killed only because they don't want to wrongfully kill someone else, and when this resentment reaches a high enough pitch they're ready to kill again, innocent or not. death penalty is not really good or bad, its people that are good or bad. if this weren't so the death penalty question would be trivial
Last edited by Bertrand; 09-30-2018 at 06:19 PM.
what does it even mean for something to be wrong if you don't believe in good or bad people.. that is retarded. its like saying I don't believe in good or bad bodies, so we shouldn't terminate them, only good or bad acts. which is like, ok so my body kills your kids isn't that a bad act because it destroyed their body. its perfectly consistent to suggest this would warrant termination, especially if a person was not repentant. its just a massive waste of time and resources to dick around keeping someone unrepentant and clearly guilty alive in order to preserve some illusory moral high ground when you concede all that matters are bodies anyway i.e.: that there is no fixed high ground. if being anti death penalty is the one inalienable moral high ground people can cling to in good conscience it just goes to show how bad the conscience has really become. its like a morally decayed statement dressing itself up as some kind of triumph. I don't know my ass from a hole in the ground, but in my defense neither am I willing to act on my confusion!
It feels wrong to me. It's a subjective feeling.Originally Posted by Bertrand
is that how you raise your kids
No.
Harms are far greater than benefits. Absolute proof whether the case is tied to evidence or manipulation/mental health/etc of the suspect makes it far too subjective. Besides it is ultimately wrong way to deal with it. Harboring revenge is not very constructive.
Well, overall the penalizing system has become big business in US [if I have understood it right]. People want to win their cases big time and not to support the truth. Everyone can see what it means in essence. There is no need to go further.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
I don't think the state should have a punitive monopoly of this magnitude, but there are people who unequivocally deserve to die, whether for a crime or just because of what they are. So, when it comes to doling out this kind of justice, it's more about an awareness of the particulars of the case and a deliberation that goes beyond a one size fits all iron fist—an integration of a 'human element' in the proceedings. This kind of logic is often inappropriately exemplified by beta and so very difficult to effectively utilize—not just in a Te/Fi setting—so I ultimately think it shouldn't be resorted to most of the time.
4w3-5w6-8w7
If there is literal proof then yes, otherwise no. There is always the chance that the person could have been set up and we'd have blood on our hands, if we sentenced an innocent person to die.
I believe people can learn from their mistakes, I also believe that there are people who refuse to learn from their mistakes.
People who repeatedly torture people and animals should probably be put to death for the safety of society.
Mainly if they are serial offenders. A lack of initiative to do better or to learn from mistakes has consequences.
We are animals first and foremost. You protect the community before the sick after a certain point.
I realize this is an approach that lacks humanity but some acts are simply inhuman in the larger sense that
most humans do not partake in the action so a human response is not warranted.
Everything interests me but nothing holds me.
While on the one hand, I understand the argument the state shouldn't have power to end people's lives, I do consider that it has the right to put people in prison, at least with a fair trial. There are people who probably deserve to die both due to the heinious nature of their crimes and for the safety of society. Still, death is irreversible, and it is well documented that government makes alot of mistakes in convicting people, including some on death row. I'm talking this happening today, with modern science and forensics, not medieval methods of trial. It's bad enough these mistakes happen, but death penalty makes it irreversible.
So I oppose the death penalty, on the basis that criminal justice makes mistakes, not on ethical grounds.
Nah, it was a reasonable response.
I think Birdie makes a good argument that for a society that makes a norm of animal torture such a society would be justified in killing any members who refused to do so, since what is human is what most people do and failing to do what others are doing renders you subhuman and thus not exempt from state execution. honestly it makes sense, birdie is just apparently lucky to have been born now and not in some other time and place wherein she would just be a worthless failure in the eyes of society and deserving of death. such societies have existed and I have no doubt the birdies of the past were its primary victims. it does not seem unfair then that animal torturers get theirs. I wonder how common animal torture really is
6dollhttxfp11.jpg
Last edited by Bertrand; 09-30-2018 at 11:46 PM.
There should be a death penalty. Put the body into a cyrogenically frozen state with its own independent controls and write the symbol of life or death on it, which is an illusion that can be seen as the symbol of life, the symbol of death, or the symbol of life or death. People won't be able to help but only see one of the symbols at a time, and if they see the symbol of death, they will assume the person's dead, and the symbol of life, assume they're alive, and the symbol of life or death, leave them in there indefinitely. This projects the subconscious will of individuals, which is the judgement of the Self, or God in Jungian terms, and is never falsifiable purely empirically, only through Kantian intuition. In fact, the aforementioned symbol exists in our reality:
The manifestations of which are the Sinister Scythes, the Dexterous Wombs, and the Unfurling Germ as the Triune Judgement of God. However, there is a lack of belief in the rather arbitrary appearances of the symbol, unlike the infamous Blue and Yellow Dress and Yanny-Laurel.
hell no = long answer
No = short answer.
Pillars of "death penalty" meme are rotting.
Nation-state/s won't claim murder monopoly for long.
Sensenence is being scribbled out of the tablets of individual humans' fates.
"Death penalty" is ethically/morally weak, passes the buck for murder on multiple levels.
"Death penalty" is weak middle ground between "supermax prison" and "visceral eye-for-an-eye", already unsavory.
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
I don’t know details on how it works but I think it should be a thing under the following circumstances only:
- The criminal has killed or tortured people or animals or otherwise caused serious harm to people’s lives intentionally, without clear display of remorse.
- Bulletproof evidence has been gathered.
- The family/friends of the victim choose the penalty as the designated punishment for the criminal.
Would you, as an individual, kill a person out of revenge if it were legal? Don’t afford the state such a power just because it makes it easier. That kind of oversimplistic emotional reasoning and cold inhuman detachedness is the same kind of mentality that creates the problematic sociopaths etc in the first place. At least make it a conscious choice on the part of someone affected rather than the default of a system.
Not at all what I am saying. You seem to have misread my post.
Everything interests me but nothing holds me.
What about the waste of time and resources spent on death-row inmates working the system perfunctorily? (Estimated average $1.25 million to execute, estimated $750k to imprison for life.) Do you think that death-row convicts should just be put to death without delay?
I mean street justice would have been a lot more fitting for the guy who sat behind me who became a murderer. He doesn’t deserve, as an individual, the years and money that go into appealing. But the laws weren’t written around just one case.
ETA, animal torture arguably happens constantly on a mass scale for factory production of meat and other goods.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
When you get into the notion of killing people who torture animals and people and show no remorse, you’re talking about psychopaths, which I interpret to mean arguing for the elimination of a class of human beings, given they commit egregious crimes.
As it turns out, the brains of psychopaths are quite distinct. This book
https://www.amazon.com/Psychopath-Wh.../dp/0770435866
describes them, as does this article from several years ago, about the same research:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...uffering-souls
The author, who has been able to study the brains of psychopathic inmates, in the book goes into the question of how a psychopath is made—how the brain got this way—and also shows how early intervention can help prevent people from developing in this direction. The approach he found that helps the brains and behaviors of juvenile criminal psychopaths is a system where they are controlled (in a residence/facility) but then rewarded for what they do right once they’re there, rather than continually punished. Working the brain with a reward system alters its development.
So it may eventually be possible to rehabilitate many of these prisoners, but the system is not set up to do it now. What if someone is put to death in 2018, because they are psychopathic, but in 2022 a viable form of rehabilitation is developed for adult criminals with this brain profile? (Just for sake of argument; it won’t be that soon or that simple.)
And meanwhile, plenty of people with psychopathic behaviors are actually working in business and politics and being rewarded daily for being shitty.
Punishing people for character gets into murky territory around what character is, how it’s created and sustained, what responsibility society bears for producing underclasses who churn out proportionally more criminal psychopaths because of economic woes and environmental stressors, etc.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
actually I think there are plenty of "psychopaths" who don't do those things and so shouldn't be lumped in as "fit for elimination." (precisely because I don't believe in this "bodies" bullshit, rather acts) also my example was of a person who admitted guilt and was unremorseful, your objection is based on a statistical average not my given example
There are definitely many psychopaths who don’t engage in capital offenses and other obviously criminal behavior. That’s part of what I stated.
I’m not really objecting, I’m running multiple scenarios in my head because on one hand I have feelings about individual cases, and on the other hand “the death penalty” as a topic is about a larger codified and interpretive framework.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
The death penalty doesn't work as a means of rehabilitating criminals nor as a way of lowering the crime rate (the evidence actually suggests that times and places with the death penalty are more violent than those without). It also is not a cost effective policy. Of course there is the concern about executing the wrong people and also it being disproportionately being used against minorities. In addition, the death penalty does not encourage a person who has committed a capital crime to be arrested in a way that keeps the death count down.
In my view, if you want a peaceful society, you try not to kill people.
I'm not sure it's possible to prove that anyone did anything beyond a reasonable doubt. People have spent decades in prison for shit they didn't do. The justice system and our society are in such a way that they put pressure on people. The pressures of society are many times the ultimate cause of murder. Because pretty much everything is rigged against those who aren't filthy rich and powerful, there shouldn't be a death penalty.
Also, for every wrongful conviction, people should get $1 million for every year they spend in jail. This includes cases where people have to wait in jail for their case to be heard in court but are later found to be not guilty. If you think it's too much money, think about people who lose everything because they can't afford bail. (Either that, or make bail reasonable.)
Last edited by Aramas; 12-01-2018 at 06:42 AM.
...
Last edited by Kill4Me; 03-27-2019 at 10:05 PM. Reason: duplicate
I'm for the death penalty in all fifty states by congressional mandate because there is no reason to show mercy. If somebody killed or raped my family member, they deserve to die no questions asked. I'd enjoy it. I've got too much self-respect to let them live. Others deserve the same luxury. That said, I'm for an expedited, less humane form of the death penalty than what we have now. The death penalty we have now in the USA is too soft. Think of it. James Holmes is still alive....needed to be killed ages ago. Take him out back and end him.
Whichever cost less taxpayers dollars. I don't give a shit as long as wrong the people are kept out of the wrong places. If someone committed a very serious crime that effected me personally in some way, vengeance would only matter to me if I could do it up close and with my own hands. The state killing someone on my behalf would be absolutely meaningless to me if I wasn't able to physically partake in the execution somehow.
It should exist. In terms of justice, some people just have to die. In terms of social impacts, society needs to see that some crimes get the most severe punishment possible, as well as a degree of social catharsis for the worst cases. Japan has the right idea that when you're sentenced you sit on ice until they can kill you in a way that is helpful for the social fabric.
"I would rather be ashes than dust"
"Ultimately, man should not ask what the meaning of his life is, but rather he must recognize that it is he who is asked."
It has been known for a long time that it is much cheaper for the State to keep a person in prison for life than it is to support the cost of legal battles against those opposed to killing that person. The desire to kill the accused seems to be mostly driven by a thirst for vengeance, but recent DNA-based reviews of cases where the State executed people indicate that a significant number of those executed were innocent.
If you've ever had any dealings with the police, then you probably realize that that could happen to you.
There are many good reasons why the State has a monopoly on violence.
If people decide to act like monsters then they should be treated accordingly.
sheriff.jpg
human flesh tastes like pork
Hey, personally, I feel that anyone who harms someone I love should be fed, along with members of their extended family, into a tree grinder. Which is why I'm not working in politics or law enforcement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YzsWVUO-_o
My rational and visceral responses are at odds.
Thoughts on why we do it... One of the biggest reasons we have historically executed people is arguably victims’ families’ need for revenge (and to help discourage generational bloody family feuds, revenge was transferred to the power of the state). There are many interesting studies that show that, when harmed, people desire and mete out revenge that is many more times harsh than the original slight against them ever was. Their over the top revenge reactions can lead to violent feuds. The state executing people was an improvement and in many cases helped to prevent a lot of further bloodshed and prevent extended family getting physically involved.
Should we do it? In theory, child abusers and murderers and probably rapists should be killed because they cause so much harm as to devalue their own lives completely. Obviously we need absolute proof first for that to be truly a just punishment. Human error is just too great at this time (even with DNA advancements) but maybe someday that will change and then the death penalty will be justifiable.
I once read an extremely well-reasoned explanation of why it was a bad practice to allow the victims of crimes to make statements regarding their harm and grief (as opposed to statements of fact) against the accused during trails.
I wish I had paid closer attention to the author’s reasoning, but I have forgotten it. It did convince me of its truth and value in promoting a just society, and I now view the practice of making “victim statements” with some concern.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 03-28-2019 at 01:10 PM.
This is why we have a legal system. You’re describing how stuff like intergenerational feuds and lynchings end up happening and why government took over the “justice” function.
Last edited by golden; 03-28-2019 at 12:31 PM.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
Well, it's not much of a legal system when James Holmes eats and sleeps better than many Americans do. 12 dead, 70 injured. Meanwhile, three meals a day, comfy cot and pillow. Some call that justice, I call it a disgrace.
Last edited by Kill4Me; 03-28-2019 at 03:52 PM.
Yeah, I believe that families of victims’ statements have no place in a trial, no matter how poignant since they don’t prove guilt but provoke a desire for punishment in a jury, but on the other hand still living victims’ statements are important. I mean that’s just basically first person testimony.
Posting Permissions
