|
Post by palaver on Jun 14, 2009 10:27:41 GMT -5
Could you please explain why you posted it? To me, it seemed that you were suggesting that there was no problem and hence, no solution. If you disagree with it, like you say, then you would believe that there's both a problem and a possible solution, so I don't understand why you would post a random quote that seems to want us to drop discussion by making it seem pointless. My position isn't important<--shocker ;D. I just like to see how people respond to their own reasoning/logic--test their consistency. It's how I get people to talk without being directly confrontational. If you can say this then what about this...My thoughts weren't about money, but about resources. We could do anything perfectly...if we had the resources. It's a question of priorities and the calculations are in terms of lives and money. Even ethical/political positions have to be translated into something material, otherwise, it is truly pointless. But that's probably my engineering/laboratory bias. Why dream it if you can't build it.
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Jun 14, 2009 10:32:09 GMT -5
Let's leave money out of it so it doesn't affect our moral position. Assume it's not an issue. Why? Or more precisely, what is the point of assuming money does not have an effect on the moral position of people living in a capitalist society that judges public services (the justice system included) on value for money or cost performance? Not a criticism - just curious about the reasoning behind your argument. Find the notion of abstracting reality when discussing a real life (and death) issue to be....rather strange, to be honest...imho On a sidenote - didn't vote because I didn't like the options but also because I don't really care about the death penalty. Am only opposed to it because of the fairly high chance of a miscarriage of justice and the high risk of sentencing poor, dark skinned people to it. One's ability to be punished lightly, if at all, largely depends on one's ability to pay for an effective defence. But that is a criticism that can be applied to the justice system at large. And can't consider one without taking the bigger picture into consideration. The real issue would seem to be inequality - not only in sentencing but also the kinds of crimes that are punished as well as one's chances of being caught, then put on trial and subsequently sentenced, as well as severity of sentence. peace
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on Jun 14, 2009 10:46:01 GMT -5
@palaver Heh, first you bring up the cost of death sentences, $90,000 - which I have already replied that a life sentence costs much more, as 5 years = ~$100,000, 20 years = ~$400,000 etc. But now you are suggesting life imprisonment despite this? What about saving money for the children who die of malaria palaver? Is it not what you so passionately brought up in this thread which is an issue in regards to justice not charity in the first place? Well, this is a very nice idea to be honest. Making them paralysed, leave them on wheelchairs, let them wear "I am a rapist" etc on their T-shirts. Let them go around town as an example of what happens when people cross the line. To be honest, I prefer this idea to actual death sentences, unfortunately, the only times such justice is served is on the streets illegally. And if such punishments were to be legal, it would still be more expensive compared to simply just cleaning them out. ChickenSodaHeh I wouldn't worry about that mate, prison is a freakin' joke. Sure we have the movies, etc that tell us otherwise. But in real life, you pretty much just work, go back to your cell, work, go back to your cell, and every once in a while, you got yourself some drugs to snort/smoke/inject etc - The prison guards won't give a crap, they know you have nothing else to do, they feel pity. So the smuggling goes on. Ne ways most rapes are done out of hate mate, not lust, I have a background in psychology - that's just how it is. Those who are born of rape, are born of hate, not love - as the saying goes. It's a sad reality for them.
|
|
|
Post by halfbreed on Jun 14, 2009 11:05:17 GMT -5
My position isn't important<--shocker ;D. I just like to see how people respond to their own reasoning/logic--test their consistency. It's how I get people to talk without being directly confrontational. If you can say this then what about this...Gotcha. My thoughts weren't about money, but about resources. We could do anything perfectly...if we had the resources. It's a question of priorities and the calculations are in terms of lives and money. Even ethical/political positions have to be translated into something material, otherwise, it is truly pointless. But that's probably my engineering/laboratory bias. Why dream it if you can't build it. Specifically, what are you dismissing as the impossible dream? Let's leave money out of it so it doesn't affect our moral position. Assume it's not an issue. Why? Or more precisely, what is the point of assuming money does not have an effect on the moral position of people living in a capitalist society that judges public services (the justice system included) on value for money or cost performance? Not a criticism - just curious about the reasoning behind your argument. Find the notion of abstracting reality when discussing a real life (and death) issue to be....rather strange, to be honest...imho I agree that money has an effect on our moral position, which is why I said to leave it out so it doesn't. Reasoning... I guess I want to abstract reality in an attempt to reach pure morals. Forgetting about criminal psychology, cost effectiveness, etc., and simply asking whether or not it's right. Like, maybe taking a life deters a criminal. Does that make it justified? What if it didn't deter the criminal? This way, it seems we're using lives as tools to influence the behaviour of other people. Is this (morally) right? Reality doesn't seem important to me at this point. 'What happens' and 'what's right/ what should happen' are separate issues. I'm just interested in what should happen.
|
|
cm
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by cm on Jun 14, 2009 11:28:05 GMT -5
We live in society's where we care too much about these murderers'/rapists' rights. You commit any of these heinous crimes, I strongly believe that one loses their right to be treated like a human. Rape and murder are part of are animal instincts. Those who can't control them shouldn't deserve the same rights as humans who could control them.
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on Jun 14, 2009 15:14:55 GMT -5
I agree with everything except the reference that they are "animals", hell I feel animals should have more rights then human trash. Trash should be disposed of, those which can be recycled should be recycled, but those that can not, should be rid of, for the sake of a much "cleaner" world.
EDIT: Sorry, I just read something else in your post I don't agree with. As I have mentioned previously, my first girl's dad was convicted of "murder" for killing off that rapist who raped his daughter.
Death penalty can be considered "murder" just the same way, but whether lawful or underground, I consider the morality of it in my own personal opinion, and sometimes justice involves the cleaning of human trash.
You said yourself we care too much about the rights of human trash, but do note that there are those with passionate morals who would oppose the law just to uphold justice that the law can not provide effectively. As such, some "murders" did good in my opinion.
However, there are still real murders such as those who kill their wives/husbands/family/etc or serial killers who kill out of fun. Killing of human beings must be punished just the same as rapists, but the cleaning of human trash, I can't see anything wrong with that.
Hell Palaver suggested turning them into vegetables, to be frank, I'll be first in line to work for free sledging their knee caps. Why pay me? It would be nice.
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Jun 14, 2009 17:25:49 GMT -5
I agree that money has an effect on our moral position, which is why I said to leave it out so it doesn't. Reasoning... I guess I want to abstract reality in an attempt to reach pure morals. Forgetting about criminal psychology, cost effectiveness, etc., and simply asking whether or not it's right. Like, maybe taking a life deters a criminal. Does that make it justified? What if it didn't deter the criminal? This way, it seems we're using lives as tools to influence the behaviour of other people. Is this (morally) right? Reality doesn't seem important to me at this point. 'What happens' and 'what's right/ what should happen' are separate issues. I'm just interested in what should happen. In which case, what 'should' happen is that people shouldn't hurt others. Sorry but still seems odd that you want to abstract reality when discussing how to punish people who in reality did something they should not have done. After all, crime and punishment is about how to deal with the reality that some people do not respect society's rules. Just a thought... peace
|
|
|
Post by Paddy on Jun 14, 2009 18:17:33 GMT -5
Sorry but still seems odd that you want to abstract reality when discussing how to punish people who in reality did something they should not have done. After all, crime and punishment is about how to deal with the reality that some people do not respect society's rules. I happen to agree with HB that discussion of the merits of capital punishment should not necessarily need to be bound by concerns for economics. Yes, in reality it costs more to keep someone incarcerated for life than to execute them, yes $1 will treat a child for diarrhoea and save his life. We are not going to find consensus here, nor are we going to influence penal policy throughout the world. Money distorts the ethics of the discussion. What is clear from the responses to the initial question is that by discussing capital punishment, our culture of crime and punishment in all its facets is put sharply into focus. I am not sure it's possible to talk of the death penalty without having doubts about the system from the bottom to the top. Under normal circumstances, if the western legal system finds you guilty, then you are just that. No question. Various safeguards and due procedure ensure that. The death penalty throws new light on such an ideal (for that is what western law is). If there is a miscarriage of justice - it is too late. They guy is now dead - killed by the benevolent state. So the question is asked - is the legal system flawed in its ability to serve justice in the first place? At what stage is the perpetrator of a crime guilty beyond unreasonable doubt? What is the threshold? Does that threshold shift under certain circumstances? Then you have to ask what is the purpose of prison. Is it to protect society? Or is it to reform the reformable? Perhaps it can be both. It would appear the emphasis is on protection of society as repeat offending is common place. Somebody mentioned that the role of prison was as a deterrent to crime. Fine. But when you are in there, then what? The public is 'safe' but what about you? Is it not an indictment of society's failings that you have found yourself marginalised from that which nurtured you. Surely, prison's key role must be one of reform and rehabilitation. There can be no doubt that many are not fit for reform, but it is a tragedy for hope to be lost on so many. We have to trust in a system that does its best by society to help those in need, be they victims or villains. If that system needs reform itself, then so be it, but ultimately, the onus is on society to empathise with individuals and for better support processes to be in place to minimise misdemeanors. The death penalty can be an effective deterrent, but yet 'heinous' crimes continue. The systems that are currently in place have to make do for now. The much more pertinent issue is that of the state of society. These problems are for our politicians, educators and parents to resolve by showing good guidance and leadership. The discussion of the penalty must ultimately be about the merits of society.
|
|
|
Post by palaver on Jun 14, 2009 22:19:03 GMT -5
^ The only economics I'm bringing up is the idea of trade-offs. People, society, make trade-offs whether they're conscious of them or not, i.e. more executions yields fewer exonerations. When someone says that they ethically value this over that, I try to find something of equal or greater value--using money as an intermediary exchange not an end value--and place it at the other end of the scale to see if it affects their position. If it doesn't affect their position or cause them to reconsider, then their original position/value judgment remains a false or inelegant statement. But if a person's value system cannot be reformulated into clear and consistent language, then there's no real communication in discussing anything ethical. I'm interested more in the scratch work than the answer. Gotcha. Where's your camera crew? I was just musing to myself. I don't have to dismiss anything anymore, since you already acknowledged that discussions like these don't have social value or practical outcomes. @ Sub I made up those compromises. They shouldn't be taken seriously or on face value. But I think you're moving on to a different discussion: reducing the cost of incarceration/death sentence. If you're advocating your support for the death penalty only if it costs less than $1 per execution then I might understand your reasoning. I appreciate such nuanced positions since it betrays a systematic genius behind the thought process.
|
|
|
Post by Groink on Jun 15, 2009 13:23:44 GMT -5
[/sarcasm]
|
|
|
Post by Uncle Hank on Jun 16, 2009 1:23:20 GMT -5
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnepropetrovsk_maniacs*make sure you scroll down and read the detailed description of their crime I'm far from a fan of Nancy Grace and her ceaseless Missing White Girl coverage, but: www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=10507735Rob Potter, convicted sex offender, released (should be reformed, right?) from prison... girlfriend and her 3yr. old daughter go missing. They were last seen together. It's more than unfortunate when people who have been executed are later found to be innocent through DNA exclusion. Although, I think there are worse penalties currently in use like Supermax 23hr / day lockdown (sometimes without television, radio or books) which I support. I really think the problems are in applying the correct sentence to the severity of the crime, and considering how irrefutable the evidence is; no takey-backies when shutting down a person's heart. I don't believe the death penalty should be used so liberally (eye witness testimonies). I do think it should be used for people who commit murder, show an inability to be reformed, serve time, then come out and kill someone else. People like that need to be excised from society, not allowed to hang on the tax payer's tit in jail. In my opinion, those Dnepropetrovsk teenagers who videotaped themselves slowly stabbing and bludgeoning some random guy (among many others) they happened to come across that night, deserve nothing less than to be put in a white-walled hole for the rest of their lives. Guys like these don't even deserve the opportunity to be reformed. It sets a weak posture on crime, and a bad precedent if society knows that you can torture people to death and still have hope for a future in society.
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on Jun 17, 2009 6:49:38 GMT -5
There is also something I guess people should be aware of here. Although I am supportive of death sentences, I know the reality of how it may not work as well. When people do crime, they don't always fear the punishment, but they fear getting caught. The police force isn't very reliable, at least here in Australia.
Corruption is at its worst in Sydney, hell people still get jumped on the streets, even witnessed a public carjacking at the traffic lights once. But back in Western Australia people get pulled into alleyways. Police response in W.A. is under 5 minutes tops, police response in N.S.W. I witnessed once took 40 minutes.
But hey, can't blame some of them, some coppers just don't want to get into a hotzone where their own safety is questionable. Just how it is. Professional criminals are always one step ahead of the police, for most cops, it's a 9-5 job. For criminals, it's do or die. And even if they do get caught - (as performing only one particular crime over years tend to leave a pattern) the present court of law is also not always effective.
Therefore, from what I've experienced I can't say I believe in 'passive' Karma. Sometimes for justice to be served it has to be done outside of the law playing the same game. Hell sometimes to find "proof" for a court case you even need to go outside the law just be 'lawful'. Most things are quite grey.
Hence, I believe in 'active' Karma. As for criminals in general - do note this too, most have nothing against paralysing and even killing a rapist or a pedophile in jail. Most criminals have very strong morals, but they just differ to the morals taught to those who never had to be pushed into such a life.
Sometimes I still get confused whether which world is really more moral, the legal world, or the illegal world. Funny too, I rarely encountered racialism on the streets, it was raw meritocracy. The legal world... it's... 'colorful'.
|
|
|
Post by Paddy on Jun 17, 2009 17:18:55 GMT -5
Therefore, from what I've experienced I can't say I believe in 'passive' Karma. Sometimes for justice to be served it has to be done outside of the law playing the same game. Where's the caped crusader when you need him??
|
|
fei
Full Member
Posts: 274
|
Post by fei on Jun 18, 2009 8:21:49 GMT -5
Superman have offday today, so i have over from here now. Kid remember stay away from drugs. Too much of the good stuff is good for you!! er...I mean bad. God i need to change my job! [im g][/img]
|
|
|
Post by Paddy on Jun 18, 2009 17:52:59 GMT -5
fei, you're not looking so good today. At least you look happy enough though. And Subs would be proud of you.
|
|