Capital Punishment, what are your views on it?

Page 8 of 9 [ 141 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Joined: 19 Dec 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 354
Location: pleasantly surprised to find myself here

05 Jan 2010, 1:14 am

techstep - I think it's important to question this idea as to whether or not someone's actions are irredeemable. After all, that might be the current view of society, but is it necessarily correct? Especially when we consider the origin from which this view is likely stemming from: iamnotaparakeets' bible. If the passages he quoted really come from this bible then it is one sick f*ucked up thing!! ! If your society finds capital punishment acceptable because the bible does then it is more f*cked up than I first thought!! !

And I doubt that I'm the one who's losing grasp of the broader picture.
There are other ways to punish someone that can still send a message to society that a crime is not to be tolerated. It's a relative thing - if the worst consequence for a crime is receiving life-imprisonment then that would be generally accepted as an undesirable consequence.

iamnotaparakeet - You have not convinced me of anything except a newfound dislike of this bible thing that gets talked about a lot.
Re: sick societies - I think we are yet to find a society that's not sick.
Re: your question as to where the value of life comes from - Obviously it's not in the bible.
Re: making their death a certainty - Death is already a certainty and no one has the right to set a limit on another's lifespan if they would otherwise have a potential to gain a more positive meaning from that life.

And yes, anyone who advocates a "less acceptable" mode of punishment is not using reason. It seems they're using the bible instead. IMO any intelligence that doesn't involve kindness, tolerance and compassion is not an intelligence worth having.

Re: innocence - The loss of this can be redeemed by regret and appropriate time and actions. Regardless of the cause of the loss of innocence. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not being fair on an inevitably flawed humanity.
Re: the exclusion of animals in this debate - currently humans are the only animal subjected to capital punishment if you haven't noticed.
Re: the question of releasing someone - This would certainly be difficult to determine - but this is certainly no justification to kill someone just because it requires more complex thought into the solution of the problem. That argument makes me sick actually.

And yes, call it what you will, but I stand by the idea that advocacy for killing is equally as bad as the action of killing.

NB. I didn't bother replying to all your points because it seems that your acceptance for this is far too ingrained in you - sorry but I don't see much hope. But I hope your bible helps you. And I also hope you never get wrongly accused...... So help you god.

_________________
happily reclusive

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

05 Jan 2010, 1:19 am

SporadSpontan wrote:

You questioned my theological reasons and I explained them. Hence involving the Bible. You are free to think as you wish, as is everyone. However, when you ask a question, expect an answer.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

05 Jan 2010, 1:20 am

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

SporadSpontan wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

SporadSpontan wrote:

Yeah, well I guess it's not possible for me to change others' views about this. I thought the word 'immoral' was a strong enough argument against it!! But I'll just say that even if the perpetrator is found without the slightest doubt to have committed a premeditated and heinous crime - once they have been captured this person becomes defenceless and vulnerable. For a group of people to take advantage of a vulnerable person - regardless of their history - to me, is just as heinous, and an abuse of their power.

Perhaps a better method of execution is to arm them and face off in a duel?

Why is there such an insistence on killing?! !! ! I thought that anyone with any intelligence would know that killing is wrong. So, no. I'm not looking for better methods of execution because I'm totally opposed to execution. But thanks for the ridiculous suggestion (and I mean that light-heartedly!).

Are you a vegetarian? If so, congrats on your stance on killing being wrong. If not, then realize that you finance the organized slaughter of millions of lifeforms. Really though, even though I do not like to see anything die, it is not killing that is wrong, but murder. Murder is the killing of those who are innocent.

Goodness gracious! what are all those cows and chickens guilty of?

IDK, I'm a college student and unemployed, therefore I eat Ramen noodles.

Well, anyway, whether you dine off their flesh or not, it's reassuring to know all those pigs, cows and chickens are murderers and deserve to die. No doubt reality TV would benefit tremendously to watch them face off in multiple duels to the death.I woul be especially fascinated in a sword wielding chicken in a cape beating out a fierce bull matador style or a shootout between a pig and a duck high noon simulation.

Nah, swords aren't weapons, you can't commit murder without guns. Just give each of the animals a firearm and then they can be considered murderers because they have guns in their possession.

And, of course, mounting machine guns on chicken and duck wings could give you great aerial battles. Missiles could be messy as heat seeking missiles to fly up overheated anuses wouldn't leave much to eat.

Missiles don't have to explode. Not etymologically at least.

techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,505
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

05 Jan 2010, 1:41 am

SporadSpontan wrote:

Surprised I'm still awake, I guess insomnia happens though.

A couple things though:

1) I'm not sure, if not from the bible, which book you read from. However if you're coming from the pure white light of atheism though its best to remember that your metaphysics warrant no such claims on the value of life, in essence its a metaphysical claim that makes fiat of everything rather than just doing so selectively.

2) The abortion issue is even closer to a valid comparison than the animal/meat issue. Still didn't get a clear response from you on that but again, I'll reiterate - its something on par in terms of selecting human life that occurs on even a far more extensive rate.

SporadSpontan
Deinonychus

Joined: 19 Dec 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 354
Location: pleasantly surprised to find myself here

05 Jan 2010, 1:57 am

My stance on abortion can be found in the last post on page 7 at the end of the first paragraph.

The value of human life can be known purely from realising that it's the one thing that each of us hold more dearly than anything else. And for that reason alone it is wrong to both legally and illegally take that away from someone.

This is different to taking away someone's possessions that they hold as dear. Possessions can be replaced somewhat. We cannot compare a life with anything else - once it's gone that person obviously has no chance at getting it back again.

This form of punishment is unnecessarily so final. What makes it inhumane is the lack of acknowledgement of the value of our own life, and what can be achieved by the fact our minds are actually so malleable once given the chance and the right conditions.

Would you prefer a society that maintained a hope for all its people, or one in which people are given up on and discarded as if they mean no more than an irrepairable piece of furniture?

Sorry about your insomnia. Perhaps if you set a limit on your coffee intake or something...

_________________
happily reclusive

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

05 Jan 2010, 2:02 am

SporadSpontan wrote:

Sorry about your insomnia. Perhaps if you set a limit on your coffee intake or something...

Actually, coffee/soda/caffeine is practically needed to stay awake during work hours if you can't sleep when you need to.

SporadSpontan
Deinonychus

Joined: 19 Dec 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 354
Location: pleasantly surprised to find myself here

05 Jan 2010, 2:06 am

I'm sure you're right. Which is why I suggested setting a limit rather than not having any at all. Anyhow, I was only trying to be helpful. I'm sure you were as well!

_________________
happily reclusive

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

05 Jan 2010, 2:34 am

SporadSpontan wrote:

I'm sure you're right. Which is why I suggested setting a limit rather than not having any at all. Anyhow, I was only trying to be helpful. I'm sure you were as well!

Ah, I didn't recognize that when I first read it. Perhaps decreasing caffeine intake is a good option, as some may be carried over when unnecessary, such as during bedtime. However, in a work environment situation anyhow, it is difficult to do quality work if one is not fully awake. Being fully awake via caffeine may require a high sustained concentration, which could feed into insomnia. Perhaps offsetting it with water to dilute it would help to enable the kidneys to remove excess caffeine after work is over? Not sure though.

I've been having difficulty getting back to staying awake during the day lately though, without much caffeine intake. Being awake during the night it is easier to focus on school and is much quieter in general. My fiancee works during the morning through late afternoon, 1st shift, so it is actually nicer to wake up around the time she is off work. For me, insomnia isn't so bad, in the sense of not being able to sleep at night. For techstepgener8tion, I don't know his circumstances, but it can be difficult to deal with if it is unwanted.

techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,505
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

05 Jan 2010, 3:03 am

SporadSpontan wrote:

My stance on abortion can be found in the last post on page 7 at the end of the first paragraph.

Ok, I see it - thank you

SporadSpontan wrote:

The value of human life can be known purely from realising that it's the one thing that each of us hold more dearly than anything else. And for that reason alone it is wrong to both legally and illegally take that away from someone.

This is different to taking away someone's possessions that they hold as dear. Possessions can be replaced somewhat. We cannot compare a life with anything else - once it's gone that person obviously has no chance at getting it back again.

This form of punishment is unnecessarily so final. What makes it inhumane is the lack of acknowledgement of the value of our own life, and what can be achieved by the fact our minds are actually so malleable once given the chance and the right conditions.

Would you prefer a society that maintained a hope for all its people, or one in which people are given up on and discarded as if they mean no more than an irrepairable piece of furniture?

I think what's confusing us is that you're taking something that we've almost all thought of, felt at one time or another, and raising it to an axiomatic level where those of us who didn't settle on that position in the end simply left the reservation or imbibed falsehoods about their reality.

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

05 Jan 2010, 3:29 am

Sand wrote:

SporadSpontan wrote:

Sand wrote:

techstepgenr8tion wrote:

SporadSpontan wrote:

What makes you so sure that the former can't be fixed?
And remember - death is final - there's no bringing them back once it's done to see if they might eventually have some remorse.
I've had disregard for certain things in the past - and that has now changed.
I've also felt glee for certain things in the past which has also changed.
Do you mean to say you've never changed your mind about anything before?

Are we talking about whether or not I like coleslaw or whether or not I've been ok with dragging someone down my basement, chaining them to a wall, and cutting off fingers and toes or performing sexual mutilation prior to killing them? It sounds like a surreal question for a good reason - it is a surreal question, quite likely neither you nor I (or at least I'd hope) can imagine being able to answer the later from personal experience, nor the train of thought processes that made it ok to begin with.

Changing your mind on fashion, 80's music, even political issues or religion - all of that's pretty normal. Ever deciding that it would be fun to rape and murder someone - that's really far gone; some actions you can't and shouldn't regain society's trust after engaging in them. If someone does that and makes peace with Jesus, believes he/she is forgiven for their sins - that's fine, however redemption again is not up to us - its between them and God (if such a being exists); in letting a career criminal of that sort out you do what Mike Huckabee did with the assailant who went into a Starbucks in Seattle and gunned down four police officers, at that point the people who let him out become liable and 'I thought we got through to him/her' isn't a reversible oops - as you said, death is permanent.

Well, maybe there are better uses for these monsters than lopping off their heads. Someone that far gone should be eligible for major nerve system modification. Let the researchers at them to see what radical surgery or psychological conditioning can do. Maybe that will benefit some body of knowledge as to how mutable people can be. Something along the lines of "The Clockwork Orange" without a reprieve.

Oh no!! !! I hope you're joking Sand.

I am not. Some radical monsters deserve to be research animals. I would have loved to see what inquisitive psychologists could have done with Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and perhaps Henry Kissinger, G.W.Bush, and a host of other callous bastards that need mental reconstruction.

I see this a little differently. I do not believe in 'pure evil' I think that if someone is able to commit violent and heinous crimes then there is in all likely hood some pathological neurology involved. I refuse to believe that you can, to quote Tech, "dragging someone down my basement, chaining them to a wall, and cutting off fingers and toes or performing sexual mutilation prior to killing them" and be classed as sane. Therefore my logic tells me that the insane person should be cared for as we would care for any sick individual, albeit in a maximum security hospital with little to no chance of release. If we start treating the criminally insane as sub human which category of neurology is next, or should we start upon the invalids.

Which then makes me think about the likes of Bush, Rice, Blair, Howard, and all the captains of industry and finance who pushed for and eventually invaded Iraq purely on an imperialistic motive. Are they criminally insane? I do not think so, why? I dont know and am arguing with myself as I write this :lol:

Are they just callous bastards as Sand suggests or do you have to be mad to do what they have?

_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx

SporadSpontan
Deinonychus

Joined: 19 Dec 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 354
Location: pleasantly surprised to find myself here

05 Jan 2010, 3:48 am

Very nicely stated Dent. I agree - no sane person would do those things. It doesn't make them less than human and therefore less deserving of compassion.

I also think the people who support things like capital punishment are not thinking rationally (I won't say 'insane'!) and are also deserving of compassion.

_________________
happily reclusive

zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

05 Jan 2010, 9:09 am

digger1 wrote:

opposed to it. I'm all for rehabilitation.

Sadly, it has been well-established that rehabilitation does not work for the vast majority of prison inmates. They just use the rehab system to get stuff they shouldn't have so prison life is more comfortable.

Only someone who wants to change their life for the better can be helped. Most criminals have no intention of changing for anyone.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

05 Jan 2010, 9:11 am

zer0netgain wrote:

digger1 wrote:

opposed to it. I'm all for rehabilitation.

That kind of generalization, of course, requires extensive information and research back-up.

zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

05 Jan 2010, 1:54 pm

Sand wrote:

zer0netgain wrote:

digger1 wrote:

opposed to it. I'm all for rehabilitation.

That kind of generalization, of course, requires extensive information and research back-up.

It's been done.

Find and read, Games Criminals Play and Inside the Criminal Mind.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

05 Jan 2010, 5:20 pm

I think Capital Ship punishment is much better, especially when using an Argonev space station:

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

05 Jan 2010, 5:43 pm

zer0netgain wrote:

Sand wrote:

zer0netgain wrote:

digger1 wrote:

opposed to it. I'm all for rehabilitation.

That kind of generalization, of course, requires extensive information and research back-up.

It's been done.

Find and read, Games Criminals Play and Inside the Criminal Mind.

You have any links?

Page 8 of 9 [ 141 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Jump to:

Capital Punishment, what are your views on it? Post Reply New Topic

Capital Punishment, what are your views on it?