Capital punishment

[lancek4]

Maybe there has already been this topic

But let's get down and dirty : I believe people who meet certain criminal criteria through reasonable due process of law should be put to death, barring very limited appeal, immediately.

Let's just get rid if the riff raff.

[Impenitent]

certain criminal criteria justifies the mob to commit acts otherwise deemed criminal...

-Imp

[lennartack]

Maybe there has already been this topic

But let's get down and dirty : I believe people who meet certain criminal criteria through reasonable due process of law should be put to death, barring very limited appeal, immediately.

Let's just get rid if the riff raff.

Why does someone who did bad to others not deserve life? Criminals are what they are. They probably became that way because they failed to integrate into society, others did bad to them or were wrongly raised. People who do bad things may need as much help as their victims. But does it even matter why someone did bad? Putting someone to dead is not going to help the victim nor the perpetrator.

What if someone thinks what he is doing is right? Why does the democratic majority have the right to say he is not?

[lancek4]

Maybe there has already been this topic

But let's get down and dirty : I believe people who meet certain criminal criteria through reasonable due process of law should be put to death, barring very limited appeal, immediately.

Let's just get rid if the riff raff.

Why does someone who did bad to others not deserve life? Criminals are what they are. They probably became that way because they failed to integrate into society, others did bad to them or were wrongly raised. People who do bad things may need as much help as their victims. But does it even matter why someone did bad? Putting someone to dead is not going to help the victim nor the perpetrator.

What if someone thinks what he is doing is right? Why does the democratic majority have the right to say he is not?

If everyone is doing 'right' at all times, that is, doing the best they can morally given their influences and experience, then we are lost.

Life is the maxim of what may be done; it does not justify itself. We must determine life's worth by designating what qualities are beneficial, absolutely. And if everyone is doing their right then some of that right needs to be eliminated.

[fiveredapples]

Definitely a touchy subject. I would prefer if you would choose a specific case, real or hypothetical (but, then, you need to include the pertinent circumstances).

So far, nobody has said anything remotely intelligent or relevant to the OP.

certain criminal criteria justifies the mob to commit acts otherwise deemed criminal...

Unadulterated nonsense. This is a non-response. A ten-year-old could do better. Clearly Imp refuses to even think about the question. Let's move on.

Why does someone who did bad to others not deserve life?

Did bad to others? You mean like he stole someone's ice-cream? Are you asking why someone who stole my ice-cream deserves to die? Is that your question? Because it's not our question. Our question is more like this: Does a serial killer deserve to keep his life?

Criminals are what they are.

How deep. Next you'll try to convince me that socks are what they are, rubik's cubes are what they are, and puppies are what they are. Everything is what it is? No way! No effing way, man!

They probably became that way because they failed to integrate into society, others did bad to them or were wrongly raised.

Probably? Come on, are you turning into a calloused conservative on us? Strike that "probably" from your vocabulary: "They became that way because of society. They are victims!" Don't make me force feed you your Liberal cliches again. If society is to blame for why criminals are criminals -- and if this is supposed to matter in how we craft our legal system -- then why do we have any jails or police at all? If the guy raping your mother is a victim of society, with no responsibility whatsoever, then there's nothing to do but apologize to him after he's done -- and maybe hand him a towel. Don't call the police on the real victim -- the rapist!

People who do bad things may need as much help as their victims.

Nobody needs as much help as you do.

But does it even matter why someone did bad?

To you, obviously no.

Putting someone to dead is not going to help the victim nor the perpetrator.

So your advice is: If you're going to steal someone's wallet, maybe carjack someone, perhaps rob a liquor store, then go ahead and murder the victim too, because then there's no helping the victim in punishing you later. Great ethical and legal philosophy, buddy. You're wrong, though, even in cases where the victim is murdered -- as ridding ourselves of such cold blooded murderers often helps the alleged victim's loved ones and society. Addition by subtraction.

What if someone thinks what he is doing is right? Why does the democratic majority have the right to say he is not?

So if you say Jeffrey Dahmer is doing right in raping and murdering young boys, then that nullifies or somehow cancels out the opinion of the rest of society -- you know, all 300 million of us who think he's doing something morally heinous and undeniably illegal? It just takes one simpleton and his opinion to undermine our whole legal system? Wow. The power of relativism, folks!

Typical emotive responses from people who can't think beyond their feelings. Sad.

[Impenitent]

Definitely a touchy subject. I would prefer if you would choose a specific case, real or hypothetical (but, then, you need to include the pertinent circumstances).

So far, nobody has said anything remotely intelligent or relevant to the OP.

certain criminal criteria justifies the mob to commit acts otherwise deemed criminal...

Unadulterated nonsense. This is a non-response. A ten-year-old could do better. Clearly Imp refuses to even think about the question. Let's move on.

indeed... and tell us how the "democratic collection" or jury (mob) has the justification to execute (commit murder) themselves is a non-response? do you believe that the democratic collection is justified in whatever they have collectively deemed necessary for the benefit of society?

-Imp

[fiveredapples]

Indeed is right. You responded to the OP's question with word games. Let's recall what you said...

certain criminal criteria justifies the mob to commit acts otherwise deemed criminal...

So, you characterize your opposition, those of us pro the death sentence, as a 'mob', which implies 'mob mentality', which in turn implies irrationality. Great work. No philosophy. No ethical thinking. Just ad hominems.

You also treat the phrase "certain criminal criteria" as something the OP cynically uses to justify his beliefs, or as something we pro death sentence people use to justify our actions. But we aren't that cavalier about it. We're thinking of certain criminal criteria such as raping and murdering 17 young boys. So what you're actually saying is this: "Oh you guys think that because someone rapes and murders 17 young boys that he has forfeited his right to life." Uhm...yeah, we do. It's more intuitive than your view, which you give no argument for.

Finally, you characterize our action of putting certain criminals to death as 'criminal' action. Oh gee. I didn't know this debate was about trying to justify our murdering people. Of course, it can't really be illegal if we make it legal. It might be immoral even if we make it legal, but it can't be illegal unless it goes against the Constitution. So, what you're saying is that killing another human being is always immoral. False. What you said was that killing another human being is always illegal. False.

That's what your one-liner amounted to: a whole bunch of sophistry.

Now we get this...

indeed... and tell us how the "democratic collection" or jury (mob) has the justification to execute (commit murder) themselves is a non-response? do you believe that the democratic collection is justified in whatever they have collectively deemed necessary for the benefit of society?

Well, I can't tell you how a mob can justify murder. Doesn't murder come with the connotation that it can't be justified? So, aren't you really just poisoning the well again with your language? Of course you are. And why is a jury a mob? Do you not understand the difference between a group of people and a mob? Is your family a mob? When you go out to a restaurant with your family, do you guys practice mob mentality when ordering from the menu? Come on, dude, you're seriously not going to continue word games against me, are you? You're exposing yourself as terribly inadequate for the job of defending your views, let alone attacking mine. You're right, I haven't given my pro argument. But then I didn't try to trick people with puerile rhetoric, either.

You don't want a serious debate with me. Don't waste my time with your silly phrasings. Learn to debate with integrity and intelligence. Heck, integrity will suffice for now. Until then, I'll ignore questions that take 30 minutes to decode of Liberal claptrap.

[Notvacka]

The notion of "punishment" is immoral. Nobody deserves to be punished.

In fact, there is no way anybody could possibly "deserve" anything, be it punishment or reward. Criminals need to be locked up and treated. This should not be viewed as punishment, but as a way of preventing them from causing harm to others, and as an opportunity to rehabilitate them into society.

Even if you don't agree with this, there is one further problem with capital punishment; that it's final and irrevocable, while courts are fallible and it happens that innocent people are convicted.

[fiveredapples]

The notion of "punishment" is immoral. Nobody deserves to be punished.

So, you're basing your whole argument on a controversial notion (re: punishment is immoral) which you provide no argument for. Compelling stuff. No, really, simply compelling.

In fact, there is no way anybody could possibly "deserve" anything, be it punishment or reward.

Hmmm....more curious (that is, asinine) claims.

Criminals need to be locked up and treated.

Why are we locking them up? Isn't that punishment? Treated why? What is the purpose behind treating them? You're clueless because your premises are as empty as your intellectual trophy case.

This should not be viewed as punishment, but as a way of preventing them from causing harm to others, and as an opportunity to rehabilitate them into society.

Oh. So when child molesters and serial killers don't rehabilitate we can keep them in jail for 20, 40, or 60 years? Yeah, that's not punishment. Denied freedom = not punishment. Got it. I learn so much here.

Even if you don't agree with this, there is one further problem with capital punishment; that it's final and irrevocable, while courts are fallible and it happens that innocent people are convicted.

Losing my virginity to a Thai hooker was also final and irrevocable and you don't hear me complaining. Oh, people make mistakes? Whaaaat! We're not perfect? No way! I mean, really, innocent people get put in jail? Sure, does that mean we should let everybody out right now because some innocent people have been put in jail? All you gang bangers -- you're free to go. All you child molesters -- skeddadle. Rapists -- here are keys to my apartment. Our entire legal system was just undermined because you reminded us that we make mistakes.

I don't even eat anymore, because once I missed my mouth with the fork and instead got my eye.

truly,

The One-Eyed Philosopher

[Notvacka]

The notion of "punishment" is immoral. Nobody deserves to be punished.

So, you're basing your whole argument on a controversial notion (re: punishment is immoral) which you provide no argument for. Compelling stuff. No, really, simply compelling.

The moral stance is taking responsibility for your own actions. However, there is no moral ground for holding other people responsible for their actions. This conclusion is reached in the intersection between determinism and existentialism: We do what we do becasue of who we are, and who we are is beyond our control. (That's the determinist part.) To rise above this and become moral beings, we take responsibility for who we are and what we do anyway. (That's the existentialist part.)

In fact, there is no way anybody could possibly "deserve" anything, be it punishment or reward.

Hmmm....more curious (that is, asinine) claims.

We are all products of circumstances, internal and external. We don't choose our parents or place of birth; our genes as well as our environment are given to us/forced upon us. There is no free will, only cause and effect. How could anybody deserve anything?

Criminals need to be locked up and treated.

Why are we locking them up? Isn't that punishment? Treated why? What is the purpose behind treating them? You're clueless because your premises are as empty as your intellectual trophy case.

The notion of punishment suggests free will and responsibility. Locking them up should rather be viewed as an effect caused by their crimes. The purpose of their treatment should of course be for them to commit no further crimes once released.

This should not be viewed as punishment, but as a way of preventing them from causing harm to others, and as an opportunity to rehabilitate them into society.

Oh. So when child molesters and serial killers don't rehabilitate we can keep them in jail for 20, 40, or 60 years? Yeah, that's not punishment. Denied freedom = not punishment. Got it. I learn so much here.

Denied freedom is not a punishment if it's not intended as such. Besides, we are all prisoners one way or another.

Even if you don't agree with this, there is one further problem with capital punishment; that it's final and irrevocable, while courts are fallible and it happens that innocent people are convicted.

Sure, does that mean we should let everybody out right now because some innocent people have been put in jail? All you gang bangers -- you're free to go. All you child molesters -- skeddadle. Rapists -- here are keys to my apartment. Our entire legal system was just undermined because you reminded us that we make mistakes.

Oh, you are a tiresome little bunch of apples!

Can you even read? Not putting people to death is not the same as letting them go.

[Impenitent]

Indeed is right. You responded to the OP's question with word games. Let's recall what you said...

certain criminal criteria justifies the mob to commit acts otherwise deemed criminal...

So, you characterize your opposition, those of us pro the death sentence, as a 'mob', which implies 'mob mentality', which in turn implies irrationality. Great work. No philosophy. No ethical thinking. Just ad hominems.

not my opposition... I am pro death penalty... I used mob (democratic collection) because that is exactly what it is... ( http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mob "2.The mass of common people; the populace." )

You also treat the phrase "certain criminal criteria" as something the OP cynically uses to justify his beliefs, or as something we pro death sentence people use to justify our actions. But we aren't that cavalier about it. We're thinking of certain criminal criteria such as raping and murdering 17 young boys. So what you're actually saying is this: "Oh you guys think that because someone rapes and murders 17 young boys that he has forfeited his right to life." Uhm...yeah, we do. It's more intuitive than your view, which you give no argument for.

Again, where did I state my view? I am still pro death penalty...

Finally, you characterize our action of putting certain criminals to death as 'criminal' action. Oh gee. I didn't know this debate was about trying to justify our murdering people. Of course, it can't really be illegal if we make it legal. It might be immoral even if we make it legal, but it can't be illegal unless it goes against the Constitution. So, what you're saying is that killing another human being is always immoral. False. What you said was that killing another human being is always illegal. False.

All I did was ask a question about preforming actions... murdering the murderer is peachy in the mind of the mob, I merely was pointing to the irony...

That's what your one-liner amounted to: a whole bunch of sophistry.

no, it led to your creation of a strawman...

Now we get this...

indeed... and tell us how the "democratic collection" or jury (mob) has the justification to execute (commit murder) themselves is a non-response? do you believe that the democratic collection is justified in whatever they have collectively deemed necessary for the benefit of society?

Well, I can't tell you how a mob can justify murder.

This was my point.

Doesn't murder come with the connotation that it can't be justified? So, aren't you really just poisoning the well again with your language? Of course you are. And why is a jury a mob? Do you not understand the difference between a group of people and a mob? Is your family a mob? When you go out to a restaurant with your family, do you guys practice mob mentality when ordering from the menu? Come on, dude, you're seriously not going to continue word games against me, are you? You're exposing yourself as terribly inadequate for the job of defending your views, let alone attacking mine. You're right, I haven't given my pro argument. But then I didn't try to trick people with puerile rhetoric, either.

You don't want a serious debate with me. Don't waste my time with your silly phrasings. Learn to debate with integrity and intelligence. Heck, integrity will suffice for now. Until then, I'll ignore questions that take 30 minutes to decode of Liberal claptrap.

do you think your strawman has had enough?

-Imp

[reasonvemotion]

I saw a documentary on Richard Ramirez recently, commonly known as the Night Stalker. His known number of victims was around 14. He was apprehened in 1985 and languishes in prison today. This man should have been put death immediately after his trial and sentence, which was the death penalty. Why allow this man the luxury of life as there is no possibility of rehabilitation and anything short of execution would be madness. It should have been resolved immediately.

John Gacy, 33 murders, incarcerated for fifteens years before his death penalty was carried out. As far as I am concerned, death is the only suitable punishment and for those who do not agree, perhaps if I put it this way, death for Gacy and Ramirez was the most "humane" way to resolve their crimes. Final last words of Gacy "Kiss my ass".

[fiveredapples]

not my opposition... I am pro death penalty... I used mob (democratic collection) because that is exactly what it is... ( http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mob "2.The mass of common people; the populace." )

You are a liar. You used "mob" because it carries with it the connotations I noted.

All I did was ask a question about preforming actions... murdering the murderer is peachy in the mind of the mob, I merely was pointing to the irony...

It's not ironic because we're not murdering anyone. This is you, again, simply insisting that all killing is murder. But everyone -- except you in debates -- seems to recognize this. So, there's no irony in killing a convicted murderer. How could that possibly be ironic? And, again, it's "peachy" suggests that you think we're cavalier or cynical in our actions.

I don't care if you say you're pro or against the death penalty. You have misconceptions that make you say a bunch of silly stuff.

[fiveredapples]

Notvacka,

Please, don't waste my time with your gibberish. You're clueless about ethics. Try not helping yourself to determinism. Try not embracing both determinism and existentialism as that which, somehow, informs our ethics. And spare me the conclusions you draw from the "intersections of determinism and existentialism." Clearly, you've been playing at intersections too often.

I don't have time for people to tell me what conclusions their pet theories spit out. I don't need you to tell me what follows from determinism, what follows from anything in fact. I need to you defend your view that determinism is the case. That is, I need you to learn what's expected of you in an ethical debate. Until then, you're simply on a soapbox. Enjoy your own nonsense.

[Notvacka]

Please, don't waste my time with your gibberish.

Your time is yours to waste. If you think it's wasted here, you are free to go elsewhere.

And spare me the conclusions you draw from the "intersections of determinism and existentialism." Clearly, you've been playing at intersections too often.

The most interesting things happen where roads cross.

I don't have time for people to tell me what conclusions their pet theories spit out.

Somehow I doubt that your time is all that precious. You're still hanging around, aren't you?

I need to you defend your view that determinism is the case.

No you don't. If you doubt that determinism is the case, at least provide a plausable alternative. But here goes:

What matters is that the distinction between past and future is less than absolute. Any moment in time is both past and future, depending on our point of view. The distinction between past and future is made by "now", which is always subjective and never the same.

Any particular moment of "now" must be as valid as any other. If the past is set, so must the future be.

Since we have one past only, it figures that we can only have one future as well. And that future must be determined at some point in time. Hence, the future is as determined as the past.