Capital Punishment, what are your views on it?

Post Reply New Topic

Okay, so what are the negative consequences of not killing the perpetrator?
1) the victim might feel that justice has not been served
2) tax dollars to keep the perpetrator imprisoned, and for rehabilitation
3) the difficulty of determining a release date, if any

You're right - I can't think of any more. Can you?

At the current rate of things, since its used mostly in a symbolic sense more than being a reality for most criminals, these would be slight but a) uptick in vigilantism b) message to perps that society is softening. One positive - it might cause more people to feel the need to learn martial arts or to own a gun/learn how to use it; though when its more need driven than by individual desire that motivation is expensive on other aspects of a person's life and broader psyche.

I think with a lot of symbolic issues though, its rarely isolated, its really more appropriately one item in a battle of different systems of thought on the world, what it is, what we are, what we're worth or not worth, on what circumstances, and what the determining factors are if its the later.

Why would people feel the need to learn martial arts or to use a gun?
And why is this a positive?

I doubt it. Vigilantism is much less common now than it was a few hundred years ago, despite state-administered punishments being generally more lenient nowadays. I'm not sure what you mean by (b), but I assume you mean criminals would be emboldened. Again, the empirical case is strongly against this prediction.

I think he's implying that the lack of a deterrent in the form of capital punishment would embolden potential criminals, necessitating that ordinary citizens learn martial arts or carry a gun so that they can defend themselves.

I'm not sure why that would be considered a positive. Combat training is fairly useless in modern times, and the time could be better spent on other pursuits.

Justice will need to be enforced by their not being a victim in the first place.

The same reason as women having hand guns or mace - pick the wrong one and it could be a fatality for the perpetrator. With more martial artists and more people trained in self defense it would mean that it would be much more difficult to have any success as a serial killer or serial rapist.

I'm not sure what I think of our forward progress - ie. its good that we've obtained the mountains of knowledge and technology that we have, very bizarre on the other hand that we've alienated ourselves from the past so much in modern day as if book smarts are the same as wisdom. You may be right on the fundamental premise that we can lock these people up with no hope for escape (the logistical reasons for capital punishment are gone there), I don't know if that's all there is too it but we'll see in time I'm sure.

Although rape is probably fairly common in most societies where sexual repression is a cultural phenomenon or the military find it acceptable as a method of domination serial killings are probably something of a rarity but make great story lines for violent films and books. It no doubt indicates a psychotic personality and these things require special efforts.

More martial artists or gun owners (who know how to use them and can) do make things more complicated for them though, the martial arts and gun ownership is also a move to restore confidence in ones own ability not to be a victim (something that rectifies an internal need - though admittedly they're more often thinking about being accosted by someone less professional than a serial killer). Then again - this is really nothing new as of today or even as a hypothetical for the removal of capital punishment, things have been getting bad for a long time and for reasons largely do to a lot of very poorly thought out social experiments.

Okay, so my dictionary doesn't have 'emboldened' in it! lol So there goes my responding to that! But thanks anyhow Orwell.

I don't see that justice is not going to be served if capital punishment is no longer served. So training in martial arts and the use of guns as a deterrent would hopefully not be required. Because as Orwell said, we have much more worthwhile pursuits!

And forward progress can be known by the degree of peace we have in a society. The fact that we've not had any yet means we have to keep making changes based on informed decisions until we see an improvement. If we are not informed by our own morals then it can lead us to make some dangerous decisions. Capital punishment is in no way whatsoever in harmony with the morals we all hold to. And this really should not be a hypothetical debate for its abolishment, but rather something that should be acted upon as soon as possible.

Last edited by SporadSpontan on 04 Jan 2010, 12:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

If society was really serious about self protection with guns and martial arts they would be a standard part of all normal school training and all kids would be carrying protective firearms. The mayhem that would probably result would no doubt do much to reverse world overpopulation but it is not the kind of world I would prefer to live in.

Yeah, so anyhow I worked out what emboldened means - that criminals would feel more 'bold' in pursuing their criminal activities because they don't feel that they will be punished.
So anyhow, what I said before - no capital punishment doesn't necessarily mean no punishment at all.

In all probability those criminals who are too stupid to avoid criminal activity or too desperate for the gains involved are not deterred at all by the possibility of punishment. Professional criminals who know what they are about take all that into account. I doubt Bernie Madoff thought too much about legal consequences and guys who spend their lives doing illegal things successfully know what to do and accept the consequences. In the case of crimes involving killing it is probable emotion over rides any thoughts of consequences since I have heard that a very large proportion of violence and murder is involved with family affairs and what starts as a mere intense argument gets out of hand.

I'm not there and I don't know the details of the situation - but is that what's happening with capital punishment in the US? Are people being killed for losing their temper which causes them to then kill?

EDIT: Sorry for the poor phrasing - hope it makes sense!

For a typical murder or what Sand is talking about which falls more under manslaughter, non-premeditated, no. When its planned out at length and in detail - possibly more likely, if its both planned out and very gruesome in nature or involves torture, involves more than one person being killed under such circumstances by the killer - very likely sentencing to death row.

You always want to be certain that the person being executed has actually committed a capital crime, such as rape or murder. It needs to somehow be shown that the person being accused of such a crime has actually committed it and that the rhetoric of the lawyers is ignored. Hanging the lawyers may help, and if not then the judges too.