I think that this is the nub of our disagreement and did not want to accuse you of loving the criminals in our midst. FWIW, my wife is a practicing Thai Buddhist and would agree with you completely.
Agreed whole-heartedly. OTOH, there seems to be an excessive level of violent crime in the US. Something needs to change. Whether that is culture or law enforcement or just what, I have no idea. Any “cures” I could come up with seem worse than the disease. On yet-another hand, telling people to just “suck it up” and ignore it doesn’t seem appropriate.
I’m absolutely with you on almost all of that. In my mind, people like those referenced in the OP are a danger to the social structure we both value. As you point out, it is difficult to reason with such people, nor can they be taught to respect the lives and property of others. In my own mind this makes them little more than a dangerous reptile or a mad dog living around the house. In such a case, I’d kill the beast before it bites again. You, OTOH, would lock it up and hope it never got out. We each obviously believe our approach is best so I’m not sure how we could meet in the middle. I have enjoyed discussing it with you though.
You’re the one calling for faster executions, not me. Under your system, these guys would be dead.
So they’re lying?
You are correct that they oppose the death penalty, but they also recognize that the criminal justice system that metes out the death penalty is fairer and more open in some countries than in others. There are other societies that have the death penalty against which AI does not make the same accusations as it does against Saudi Arabia. You can’t simply dismiss their claims because they opposee the death penalty.
Offer some evidence other than your second-hand hearsay and you might have a leg to stand on.
Maybe faster executions should be coupled with a faster legal system.
I can honestly say that the horror-show they talk about doesn’t match my perceptions of the local legal system. As I say, I’ve personally known lawyers involved in DP cases in Saudi. If Amnesty Intl. claims that all DP cases are without lawyers, not notified they’ve been condemned, etc. then yes, they’re lying. If they claim it happens occasionally or some percentage of the time then we have somethig to talk about and they could be right.
Nope. This is my perception and that is what it is offered as. It is not “second-hand” though. I live here and have since the early '80s. I’m not claiming that the Saudi legal system is the ultimate in jurisprudence, simply saying I’ve noticed something that might be useful in other places. It could be coincidence, it could be the reverse of what I think; a low murder rate causing people to react very strongly and issue the DP due to horror at the act. There are many possible interpretations to what I’ve noticed. I do know which one I’d go for personally though.
In any event, I understand Lissa’s scruples about the DP, she is quite clear. I haven’t quite gotten a handle on yours. Do you simply consider killing someone to be an immoral act? Is it the lack of perfection in the trial process? Or some other thing I haven’t considered?
But even if the answer to the first question were no, i would still strongly oppose the death penalty because of the second. It is, i believe, completely sufficient.
The death penalty costs more than the alternative, it is irreversible, and even the best justice system gets things wrong on occasion. Any justice system is always imperfect, and leaving no room to reverse (or at least mitigate) the errors is completely illogical, especially when doing this involves virtually no cost (financial or otherwise) to society.
There are plenty of law-abiding citizens who contribute nothing to society, and leech its resources.
I believe that there are certain rights a human being has which can not be taken from them, no matter how heinous their crimes. My husband cannot beat or starve an inmate who ate babies and raped nuns, no matter what his personal opinion of what they “deserve.” Likewise, even if that inmate was scheduled to die in ten minutes, if he killed him, my husband would be charged with murder.
And, really, how is the death penalty a greater punishment than life in prison? I’ve never understood that claim. Unless you believe in an afterlife (which I don’t) the punishment is over the moment the inmate dies. So, in essence, an inmate gets ten or twenty years in prison for a heinous crime, rather than forty or fifty.
Personally, if I’m ever charged with murder, I’m going to BEG to have the death penalty, and refuse all appeals. Death is a mercy when compared to living in prison for the rest of my life.
I’m not saying to ignore it, not in the least. Something needs to change, yes, but I donn’t think it’s a problem which can be fixed on the judicial level. It’s a social issue, and legislation won’t fix that.
A human being is not a dog. We can euthanize a dog who is suffering from a medical condition, but can’t do the same for a human (in most areas, that is.) We can kill a dangerous animal because that’s what it is-- an animal. (Now, I do have notions of animal rights in that no animal should be made to suffer unecessarily, but I would not argue that killing an animal is as wrong as killing a human.)
I harbor no starry-eyes hopes that criminals can be shown the error of their ways and become good people. Most of them are too damaged for that, but I reject vehemently to the notion of “putting them down” as we would with a vicious dog. Like them or not, they are a human being. If you take the stance that your life should be respected, so should theirs.
The notion for making “exceptions” is part of what I think has led to the breakdown in our society’s social ethics. How can we blame people for being somewhat confused, when we tell them every day that there are rules, but there are exceptions to them? Mom tells Billy that cutting in line is wrong, but she does it with him in the car when she’s “in a hurry.” We tell children that hitting is wrong, and then hit* them* when they misbehave. We tell people that stealing is wrong, and then let white-collar criminals rob companies of millions and give them a mere slap on the wrist (while putting a poor black kid in prison for half of his life.) We tell children that lying is wrong, and then make excuses for politicians who do it. We teach them that adultery is wrong, but excuse it for people who had neglectful spouses.
Then we tell them that killing is the super-duper-supreme wrong, but it’s okay if we do it to someone who’s really bad.
Basically, we teach them that other people’s behavior can be an excuse for bad behavior of our own. Our culture has embraced that notion wholeheartedly.
And I have enjoyed it as well.
I don’t believe my approach is best-- I offer no solutions to the phenomenon of crime. All I want is to avoid being made a criminal myself through the actions of the State.
Lissa please don’t do this, you’re destroying my illusions! Here I am trying to kill somebody and you’re claiming to be meaner than me? It just isn’t right! :eek:
I agree with you on this and I think we at least touched on the subject somewhere up the page. There is no way to legislate a society into existance and using the police and courts to enforce it is worse than the disease.
Well, I agree with you that animals shouldn’t suffer. As far as the murderers, rapists, and other horrible individuals, I don’t believe they should suffer either but I feel no sense of kinship at all with them. Aside from us both being bipedal and usually male, I would hope to have absolutely nothing in common with them. I could feel more sympathy for an orangutan in distress.
When I read back over that it sounds cold as hell and I like to think that I am generally a caring and at least somewhat compassionate person but it is still true. I just don’t feel a sense of kinship with people who do the kinds of things we’re talking about. Maybe it’s the “brutalization” effect Mhendo cited earlier.
Alas! I was with you right up till that last part about killing always being wrong. OTOH, there may be some meat for a serious discussion on the idea that constant exceptions lead people to believe that there aren’t actually any rules at all that need to be followed. It sounds like a good point of view but I don’t know how someone would set about proving or disproving it.
I do know that if it were my child that had his face burned and his skull fractured I’d be out for revenge, plain and simple and no apologies for it. To relenquish that attitude would take something on the order of a religious experience. All the reasoned argument and statistics in the world wouldn’t stop me from pulling the trigger.
All the best to you and yours and the best of luck with your persuasion of others.
Well as long as they don’t kill anyone I’m ok with that. :rolleyes:
Well that would be vigilante justice and against the law.
Well if life in prison is so much worse, than why not take the more humane approach and execute? It seems hypocritical that you would be against the death penalty in any case except your own.
Lol on a sidenote, Testy I support the death penalty if certain reforms were put into place, but you are putting forth some of the worst arguments I’ve ever seen, stop while you’re ahead.
Here is the fundamental point of disagreement, and I don’t think we’ll ever resolve it. I believe that a human life is valuable, but that value is fungible based upon a person’s actions. I think on this issue, east is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet. I’m curious tho. I don’t remember you being especially religious (forgive me if I’m wrong), and absent a religious reasoning, what gives human beings this unalienable right to life? Is it just species hubris (you said you have no trouble putting down a mad dog) or something else?
I see it the opposite way: if I knew there was a heaven, I wouldn’t have a problem with the DP, as if there was a mistake, oh well, they’re up in Heaven now. Whereas if we only get one shot at this thing, why take life away from someone who did nothing wrong?
I really don’t see much of a difference, except for ceremony.
As I said, my objection to the death penalty does not stem from sympathy or pity for the criminal. I just think killing people is wrong. That said, if the DP applied to me, I would beg for it, rather than be locked up for the next fifty years. I’d prefer it didn’t exist at all-- if I killed someone, I would deserve to spend the rest of my life in a cage.
I don’t consider a human life as having a “worth” which can either be increased or lessened by a person’s deeds. Every human life is the same. Some people we may like and appreciate, and some people we may despise, but I don’t think a person’s existance should be dependant on our approval.
I am not religious at all-- I have no belief in the supernatural.
Call it species hubris if you like-- it’s as good an explanation as any. I believe every human has certain rights that are greater than those of an animal.
Thank you! After taking a look at my last few posts I’d have to agree with you.
I enjoy discussing it with people like the crowd that has participated. It is always interesting to hear someone else’s POV and Lissa reminded me of the “barbarian-family-picnic” aspect of things which I had known of but strangely never considered in this context. That made me at least consider things a bit.
OTOH, much better minds than my own have studied this far longer and can both attack and defend the DP. In all those threads someone may have changed their mind, but I missed it.
After taking a look at my last few posts I’d have to agree with you.