Death sentence : an eye for an eye

[myrmaad]

I'm not buying that either.

 

I'm sticking with my own reasoning.

 

A criminal is irresponsible and should be held accountable for that irresponsibility.

 

However the state is not irresponsible, and must always act responsibly or abdicate their position as governors.

 

 

It is never responsible to kill, unless you are doing it in a moment of self-defense.

[Aurielius]

What does choice have to do with it?

Absolutely nothing.

So no one is responsible for any of their own actions?

Trying to construct a reality where you are the actual concious author of your actions is quite problematic. If you think you can in the next moment choose vanilla and instead of chocolate, and the source of that action stops entirely are your concious self.

Causality argues you can't actually separate cause and effect and random chance from a persons actions.

Stating someone has choice and suggesting that they have made aforethought, doesn't make it so.

 

1) Man arms himself...choice made..he could have not armed himself.

 

2) Man breaks into your house....choice made....he could have walked on down the street.

 

3) Man sees you inside and shoots you...choice made...he could have fled the scene.

 

No amount of sophistry changes any of those nexus points of decision making. Stating someone is not responsible for their actions does not make it so either but more than two millennia of legal precedent favors the accountability concept.

Edited April 23, 2012 by Aurielius

[ginnyfizz]

*Puts lawyer's wig back on*

 

I am not sure what rules on legal insanity operate in the USA, but in the UK and related jurisdictions we operate the MacNaghten rules, which state that in order for the defence of "not guilty by reason of insanity" to succeed, the defendant must be labouring under such abnormality of mind that he or she did not know the nature and quality of his/her actions, or alternatively, that they did not know that their actions are wrong. Thus, in British law, it is entirely possible to be both "mad and bad". Such murderers as Dr Harold Shipman, Peter Sutcliffe (The Yorkshire Ripper) and Ian Brady (The Moors Murders)would fit into this category, definite sociopaths/psychopaths of high intelligence (Shipman, Brady) and schizophrenic (Sutcliffe), who knew that what they were doing was wrong but just didn't care/didn't think that the rules applied to them. On this definition,it is likely that, for example, the defence would succeed in the case of a person who was suffering from a severe degree of autism or from learning disabilities, where the ability to distinguish between right and wrong is blurred. Nowadays of course no-one much cares to plead insanity since the rope was abolished, since a successful defence of insanity means life in a special hospital.

 

Shipman committed suicide in prison. Brady and Sutcliffe are now both being maintained in high security mental institutions at vast expense by the British taxpayer. Personally I think we aren't getting much of a bargain. Brady and his partner in crime missed an eight o' clock walk to the hangman's noose by a matter of months, we literally abolished it for murder a few months before his and Myra Hindley's trial. For those of you who think the death penalty is barbaric, I suggest you read an account of the crimes of Brady and Hindley. Hardened policemen and members of the press gallery, not to mention the less toughened members of the jury, wept/fainted/threw up when they heard those poor kiddies on tape being raped and tortured.

 

Nevertheless, I do think that some of the more "Modern" methods of execution, employed for example in the USA (and I mean no disrespect to you guys over there), such as the electric chair and lethal injection, have such a huge propensity to go horribly wrong,and are certainly NOT quick, unlike long drop, properly executed (pun intended) hanging and the messy but effective Madame Guillotine.

 

Those interested might like to check out a site called Capital Punishment UK, which actually discusses the worldwide incidence (and methods) of capital punishment, and takes neither a for nor against stance. It certainly mentions the Westinghouse vs Edison thing in regards Old Sparky.

[marharth]

Can someone explain to me what people mean by the whole criminal versus victims rights thing? I don't quite understand that yet.

 

Shouldn't criminals have a certain degree of rights? Isn't that the entire basis for our legal system? Allowing people a good chance to prove they are innocent, especially before permanently taking their life, seems like a good idea to me.

 

What exactly are "victims rights." Do you mean allowing victims to decide the punishment? Do you mean allowing victims to have funding to somewhat compensate for the crime that was committed?

[HeyYou]

Can someone explain to me what people mean by the whole criminal versus victims rights thing? I don't quite understand that yet.

 

Shouldn't criminals have a certain degree of rights? Isn't that the entire basis for our legal system? Allowing people a good chance to prove they are innocent, especially before permanently taking their life, seems like a good idea to me.

 

What exactly are "victims rights." Do you mean allowing victims to decide the punishment? Do you mean allowing victims to have funding to somewhat compensate for the crime that was committed?

 

If the victims rights hadn't been violated, the criminal wouldn't be in a position to worry about the death penalty in the first place. It seems a fair few folks are all for making sure the criminals rights are upheld, while the victim is ignored. Murderers take out a man. He happened to be a father, and sole bread winner for the family. The criminal has all sorts of folks/organizations making sure HIS rights aren't subsequently violated, meanwhile, back at the ranch, the family that now has no income, is SOL. Daddy/Husband is dead, but, there is NO ONE that will take care of them. They end up losing everything, and then living on welfare. All because the CRIMINAL violated one man's rights, by killing him.

 

My girlfriend was assaulted by a 75 year old man....... she was punched, put in a headlock, and dragged around that way. She now has permanent damage to her neck and shoulders. She is unable to work, or even lift her arms above her head. The old man got a couple months probation, my girlfriend didn't get anything at all. No restitution whatsoever. Now, we are stuck with north of ten grand in medical bills...... And the guy that caused it? He is out walking the streets, a free man.

[myrmaad]

And so you think you have the right to order his execution?

[saadus]

No, but if someone did that to my wife, prison would be the least of his worries.

I wouldn't kill him, but he wouldn't be able to use his hands again.

 

If he had killed her, then yes, HeyYou has the right to order the man's death.

[ginnyfizz]

"Members of the jury, unless you are satified beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty as charged, then you must find them Not Guilty."

 

I don't know about how you do it over there marharth, but that's how we do it here. Of course there have been miscarriages of justice and some very vocal campaigns, very often without the evidence seen by the jury or by the Home Secretary at the time. Sometimes the campaigns misfire badly,as in the case of James Hanratty, and evidence proves that the hanged "innocent" really was guilty after all. But juries do tend to prove remarkably true to the above guidelines and that was particularly the case in the UK of the mid 20th century when murder was still capital, and reprieves were relatively common.

[grannywils]

I cannot stay on long, as I have a rather important conference to attend regarding lollipops. However, although I have deliberately remained out of this particular debate I have now decided to step in just briefly.

 

I had a talk last night with a good friend who actually made some valid points for what I consider to be the other side of my position. Most of you know me to be what might be referred to as a "flaming" Liberal. And, yes, in general my nature opposes the death penalty. But this is a topic with which I have often struggled, as I do believe that their is evil in this world for which there is no recompense. Long before this debate I have debated with myself over whether or not these people might not just be better off removed from the planet. Better off not only for us, but for themselves as well. Living inside of such a body and/or soul has to be the epitome of misery, in my opinion. Someone brought up Charles Manson. To my mind he is such a person. I cannot even look at photographs of him without feeling as though I am looking into the soul of the Devil. However, I digress.

 

With respect to the OP's original thesis, I'm not sure about an eye for an eye, but in my conversation last night my friend used a phrase that got through to me. He pointed out that when someone commits a heinous crime against an innocent victim, he/she automatically gives up his humanity. He becomes somehow something less. When we, i.e. the State execute such a person, we must look at him/her under those conditions. In a sense we must step back our own moral judgements and look at this from a different perspective. I thought about this for awhile, and at first thought, well are we just trying to make it easier on ourselves. But, no I don't think so. I think that the perpetrator's behavior has in fact lessened his humanity in some very basic way. He is no longer "one of us", he has become something different.

 

I feel as though I need to stop now as I have become inarticulate. But I have tried to be as honest as I can on the subject....

[Ghogiel]

What does choice have to do with it?

Absolutely nothing.

So no one is responsible for any of their own actions?

Trying to construct a reality where you are the actual concious author of your actions is quite problematic. If you think you can in the next moment choose vanilla and instead of chocolate, and the source of that action stops entirely are your concious self.

Causality argues you can't actually separate cause and effect and random chance from a persons actions.

Stating someone has choice and suggesting that they have made aforethought, doesn't make it so.

 

1) Man arms himself...choice made..he could have not armed himself.

 

2) Man breaks into your house....choice made....he could have walked on down the street.

 

3) Man sees you inside and shoots you...choice made...he could have fled the scene.

 

No amount of sophistry changes any of those nexus points of decision making. Stating someone is not responsible for their actions does not make it so either but more than two millennia of legal precedent favors the accountability concept.

In either determinism or random event, those options cannot consciously be chosen instead in any case. I don't think anyone can point and say there is a moment where someone is the nexus point of conscious decision making.

 

All of those choices you are saying that the person is consciously the author of those choices, and in the next moment he could have chosen a different path. At the same time disregarding how the entire neuro physiological responses arise on how the unconscious brain actually makes a choice before you are even consciously aware you made it, How thoughts are the product of an unconscious web of neurons and chemicals, which you have no concious influence over, right down to cause and effect and preceding events shaping every facet of the universe.

 

If you can actually describe a reality where the choices you make are entirely formed and arise in your concious mind, and that process is self contained and stops in your conscious mind, then have at it. And come on, distracting with accusations of sophistry, is a rhetoric that seems very sophist.. when you are still merely asserting something is so, you haven't yet made any sort of argument for the case of free will. How droll. :thumbsup:

Edited April 23, 2012 by Ghogiel