170 replies to this topic

[Timonthy]

Against because we can get it wrong. Innocent people have been put to death.

Capital punishment is too absolute for a system that can be so flawed.

Edit: Changed structure.

Edited by Timonthy, 13 February 2013 - 12:43 PM.

[Kazahel]

Mr Walker, on 13 February 2013 - 06:28 AM, said:

Why should my child (or I) be treated any differently to how I expect all/others to be treated?

I think thats the sad part.

Anyway the words 'Mercy over Murder' popped into my head and so I typed that into google to look for an image and this one stood out.



It gave me a laugh because its kind of in sync with my last lucid dream the other night.  (aqua man/post 790)

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=74640&st=780

[Mr Walker]

Kazahel, on 14 February 2013 - 01:58 AM, said:

I think thats the sad part.

Anyway the words 'Mercy over Murder' popped into my head and so I typed that into google to look for an image and this one stood out.



It gave me a laugh because its kind of in sync with my last lucid dream the other night.  (aqua man/post 790)

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=74640&st=780

Ah aquaman. Another tortured superhero.  Its fascinating how the evolution of american superheroes mirrored the evolution of american pschological condition as indeed does much american science fiction.  This applies from the thirties to the present day When americans are certain, so are their heroes. When americans entertain uncertainty, ambivalence and doubt about moral positions, and when they see shades of morality, so do their superheroes.   I grew up with the originals of most of these, although superman and The phantom slightly preceded me. I caught up on them all of course, and was lucky enough to share my early teens with all the classic and original  characters from marvel and DC. I have a phantom collection going back to the fifties and it is fascinating to observe even his evolution, although his character has remained more constant than most  over   more than 60 years  And the americans really messed around with him as well, in some incarnations.


Ps there is nothing sad about a consistent morality. Morality should be based on value lines which incorporate logic and rational thought. Then they (moral values) should be applied consistently.  It is illogical to put a higher value on myself than on another human being and so it would also be illogical to value my childs life more highly than that of another child. Not having children of my own, I work as hard as I can, professionally and personally, to help children around me and around the world live better lives.

[Frank Merton]

Thinking about it, even though I can imagine crimes where it would seem to be warranted, the reality is that no fail-safe system could be devised and we see executions everywhere where it is not warranted.  It needs to be completely abolished.

[Seeker79]

Frank Merton, on 08 February 2013 - 04:42 AM, said:

Huh?  Someone would have to have the power to initiate the process, and then you would in many jurisdictions have hundreds a votes a year.  This is better as part of an elected executive's job.

My point was that is exactly what we do do. We have jurisdictions called states. Each state decides if it has the death penalty or not. If it works properly, then the decision is left up to the majority, and if the minority dosnt like it, they can move somewhere where their views are reflected. Freedom is kind if nice that way.

[ouija ouija]

Seeker79, on 18 February 2013 - 02:16 AM, said:

.... and if the minority dosnt like it, they can move somewhere where their views are reflected.

Yeah! Life really is that easy .... not.

[Seeker79]

ouija ouija, on 18 February 2013 - 06:13 PM, said:

Yeah! Life really is that easy .... not.

It's not about "easy", but you still are allowed to. No one is stopping you.

[ali smack]

http://www.aclu.org/...t-death-penalty

interesting article.
problem with death penalty is you may get an innocent person. There's also no evidence it stops crime. Look at all countries with death penalty, they still have child killers, serial killers etc.
As much as I hate criminals and quite frankly couldn't care less if they threw them out in to the sea.
I don't see the point of death penalty, it's not helping victims. it's not stopping kids being killed or molested, not stopping people getting killed either.

[Mr Walker]

ali smack, on 24 February 2013 - 05:35 PM, said:

http://www.aclu.org/...t-death-penalty

interesting article.
problem with death penalty is you may get an innocent person. There's also no evidence it stops crime. Look at all countries with death penalty, they still have child killers, serial killers etc.
As much as I hate criminals and quite frankly couldn't care less if they threw them out in to the sea.
I don't see the point of death penalty, it's not helping victims. it's not stopping kids being killed or molested, not stopping people getting killed either.

But it is removing a certain "gene pool" from humanity. To me a better way of looking at it is WHY NOT execute certain human beings? I honestly can't find any moral ethical or logical reasons why we should not put to death people who behave in certain ways and do certain things. Individual human right to life is, and always has been, conditional, not absolute. We all have to earn, and continually work to maintain, our right to an existence as a human being, and a member of a society.

Edited by Mr Walker, 27 February 2013 - 11:43 AM.

[Paranoid Android]

Mr Walker, on 27 February 2013 - 11:40 AM, said:

But it is removing a certain "gene pool" from humanity. To me a better way of looking at it is WHY NOT execute certain human beings? I honestly can't find any moral ethical or logical reasons why we should not put to death people who behave in certain ways and do certain things. Individual human right to life is, and always has been, conditional, not absolute. We all have to earn, and continually work to maintain, our right to an existence as a human being, and a member of a society.

And what if people get it wrong and execute the wrong person?  To me that is reason enough to say "Why not execute certain human beings".  We might have it wrong!

[Mr Walker]

Paranoid Android, on 27 February 2013 - 11:52 AM, said:

And what if people get it wrong and execute the wrong person?  To me that is reason enough to say "Why not execute certain human beings".  We might have it wrong!

. But i said execute people who behave in certain ways. We often know for certain when someone is guilty.

In a separate argument I hold an unusual position. I think it is better to execute  some innocent people if it allows us to execute many guilty ones, or to put it another way, the fear of executing an innocent should not prevent us from executing many guilty humans.

I think there are probably thousands of human beings just in australia who should be executed for how they have caused great harm to others from murder to rape to child abuse etc.

Some humans simply do not deserve to live, for perhaps many decades, incarcerated. It is more humane, ethical, logical, and  moral to execute them .Even if a person who kills or rapes is completely refomed after 30 years in prison, the damage is done. The dead can not be restored, the rape victim can never be the same again,  the abuse victim will never be whole and sound; and so restorative justice cannot be put in place. as it can be for some crimes.

That person must remain in prison for life, even if we know they will never kill or rape again.The sentence is for the life they took. (physically or psychologically and emotionally) Better imo, to humanely execute them than keep them in a prison for all their life (In reality most get out of prison after a couple of decades at most.) I know a man who killed his infant son less than 20 years ago. He is up for release on parole this year, but his son will never regain his life. A  young man who killed a  family member with a spear gun was sentenced to less than 20 years effective gaol time and will certainly be released before he is 40, but his victim will be dead for ever. There was no dispute about the facts in these cases. Those people did kill the ones they were charged with killing. Not only were there witnesses but they freely admitted to the charges.

My question was, why not execute human beings who do kill innocent people, who abuse children and cause their death, who rape and torture .  ie certain types of people, or certain people who do commit these  sorts of crimes.

The assumption is that we know they are guilty. To not execute them for fear of executing an innocent is not logical. In those cases where their guilt is not disputed, what are the arguments for not executing them.

Edited by Mr Walker, 27 February 2013 - 12:16 PM.

[libstaK]

Mr Walker, on 27 February 2013 - 11:40 AM, said:

But it is removing a certain "gene pool" from humanity. To me a better way of looking at it is WHY NOT execute certain human beings? I honestly can't find any moral ethical or logical reasons why we should not put to death people who behave in certain ways and do certain things. Individual human right to life is, and always has been, conditional, not absolute. We all have to earn, and continually work to maintain, our right to an existence as a human being, and a member of a society.

I can think of one

Thou shalt not kill

When did we get the right to decide the moment of another's death exactly?  What great wisdom and profound perception have we been given that allows us the certainty that this is a correct means of punishment?  Death is irrevocable, there is no repentance, epithany or enlightenment available in the grave.  We can claim that a murderer is beyond the capacity to experience those states - but they are only claims, we cannot know, only God knows - I say this because I know you have often claimed that God walks by you as a physical companion, others such as atheists operate on different consistent sets of morals of course and this may not apply to them in the same way.

[Frank Merton]

I think the state under certain circumstances does have the right to execute someone.  A lot here depends on your philosophy of life and of society, and my philosophy is one of compassion, but not total tolerance.

That said, as a practical matter I don't think we should be doing it very often, if at all.  It is expensive, prone to error and distortion of justice, prone to becoming a circus and feeding off the public's sometimes unfortunate thirst for blood, and harmful to society in other ways.

[CrimsonKing]

If murderers can be proven 100% guilty then yes put them to death.Letting them keep their life after taking another then feeding them,clothing them,and virtually everything else they can get away with in prison is a burden on tax payers and the loved ones of their victims.Killing them with kindness by allowing all of this we teach others almost no lesson at all.Though not religious i believe in a eye for a eye,or do unto others as they have done unto you.As i said though only for the ones who can be proven without a doubt to have done this.

[Paranoid Android]

Mr Walker, on 27 February 2013 - 12:09 PM, said:

. But i said execute people who behave in certain ways. We often know for certain when someone is guilty.

In a separate argument I hold an unusual position. I think it is better to execute  some innocent people if it allows us to execute many guilty ones, or to put it another way, the fear of executing an innocent should not prevent us from executing many guilty humans.

I 100% totally disagree with you.  It is not logical to think that executing 1000 people is justifiable if even one of those people are innocent!  Your own argument explains my point.  I'll quote you, with perhaps just a tiny change of wording here and there:

The dead can not be restored, the rape victim can never be the same again,  the abuse victim will never be whole and sound, the unjustly executed can never be brought back; and so restorative justice cannot be put in place. as it can be for some crimes lesser sentences (eg, life imprisonment).

By your own reasoning, some crimes affect other people, and no matter if a person is reformed, the people will never be the same.  But unjust executions also affect people, family, friends, loved ones, not to mention the innocent person themselves executed.  An unjust execution affects the lives of other innocent people, and no matter that a person is posthumously pardoned, that pardon cannot bring them back to life.

Mr Walker, on 27 February 2013 - 12:09 PM, said:

The assumption is that we know they are guilty. To not execute them for fear of executing an innocent is not logical. In those cases where their guilt is not disputed, what are the arguments for not executing them.

There is a very large gap between definitely guilty and "beyond reasonable doubt".  Most judicial systems in our world today need only prove things beyond reasonable doubt.  How do we decide on a point where a persons' guilt is not disputed?  A confession?  With a confession it means that Timothy Evans was correctly executed, even though he was innocent (the Evans case was one of the watershed cases that led to the abolition of the Death Penalty in England).

Edited by Paranoid Android, 27 February 2013 - 01:10 PM.