Death sentence : an eye for an eye

[dazzerfong]

@ MB and HY:

 

HB's an idealist, HeyYou is pragmatic. You guys won't tick together, we've already seen that in the gun thread (we won't go any further).

 

@ Keanumoreira:

 

Everything is a bloody disorder these days, you know that? :) Fine, don't execute the mentally incapable, I'm perfectly fine with that; it's just that many of them try to get away with their sentence by proclaiming they're insane. And you know the problem with psychologists? Human brains all work differently!

 

@ marharth:

 

Newton's Third Law: every reaction has an equal and opposite reaction. If they did something they regret for the rest of their lives, well, should have thought about that. Using your mindset, I could go on a killing spree, and say 'I will regret it' just to get away with it. Treat others the same as they will treat you.

 

There's a problem (well, not really a problem) in Australia law: unless you are actually injured, you are not allowed to fight back. Pre-emptive measures are not to be undertaken unless you're already hit yourself. Although this law fixes up the potential to frame someone pretty easily, there's just something very wrong when a guy with a gun (turns out to be 'only' an X-26 Taser), in the middle of night, tries to rob a guy, and in the foray, gets stabbed and later killed by the guy because he was running away with a knife wound, even when the guy told him to stop. The guy got, I think, 6 years for manslaughter? So, in Australia, an 'eye for an eye' doesn't work well here.

[Syco21]

Should we execute the mentally incompetent? Yes.

 

Do I care about the pain and suffering of the executed? Not at all.

 

Are executions revenge killings? They can be.

 

Does it matter? Nope.

 

Don't want to be executed? Do not commit a heinous crime.

[Ghogiel]

The big difference is that the perpetrator had a choice which his victim never had, so forgive me if my pity is minimal.

You are assuming that Free Will actually exists. Which has yet to be proven and has very good argument against that even being possible in any stretch of reality. For example if you were born as that person, with their genes, their life experiences, their parents etc, the 'choice' to commit that murder even down to the neuro physiological process that makes the brain 'choose' is determined by prior causes. Determinism and random chance, or a mixture of the 2 seems to make more sense in this universe, To say that he might have acted differently, really means him in a different universe.

[marharth]

The big difference is that the perpetrator had a choice which his victim never had, so forgive me if my pity is minimal.

You are assuming that Free Will actually exists. Which has yet to be proven and has very good argument against that even being possible in any stretch of reality. For example if you were born as that person, with their genes, their life experiences, their parents etc, the 'choice' to commit that murder even down to the neuro physiological process that makes the brain 'choose' is determined by prior causes. Determinism and random chance, or a mixture of the 2 seems to make more sense in this universe, To say that he might have acted differently, really means him in a different universe.

Everything you ever do is decided by the environment. Your decisions are shaped entirely by your past experiences. I was going to bring this up myself but I doubted anyone would actually understand it.

Edited April 23, 2012 by marharth

[Marxist ßastard]

What does choice have to do with it? People who commit crimes get their rights taken away. If the State has the option to reinstate those rights, it should do so if and only if society benefits. But under no circumstances is it ever an option for the State to murder criminals because it's convenient.

 

In fact, I can't believe this is even an issue. Who else besides the US executes criminals? China, Iran, North Korea, Somalia, Saudi Arabia… What more will it take for people to realize the US is on the wrong side of history? Are some still holding out that in 20, 50 years every other industrialized nation in the world will reverse course and say human rights was a fad?

[Ghogiel]

What does choice have to do with it?

 

Absolutely nothing.

[HeyYou]

What does choice have to do with it? People who commit crimes get their rights taken away. If the State has the option to reinstate those rights, it should do so if and only if society benefits. But under no circumstances is it ever an option for the State to murder criminals because it's convenient.

 

In fact, I can't believe this is even an issue. Who else besides the US executes criminals? China, Iran, North Korea, Somalia, Saudi Arabia… What more will it take for people to realize the US is on the wrong side of history? Are some still holding out that in 20, 50 years every other industrialized nation in the world will reverse course and say human rights was a fad?

 

You seem awfully strongly in favor of the rights of the criminal. What about the rights of the victim that the criminal completely and totally violated? Should there not be redress?

 

And as for "murderer didn't really have a choice", terribly sorry, I don't buy into that horse hockey, and neither does a goodly percentage of psychologists. Sure, you can come up with a long list of names that say "this is so", well, as is typical for studies concerning human behavior, I can come up with an equal or greater number that say "no it's not". The drug addict HAS a choice, the rapist HAS a choice, simply don't do it. To say that their upbringing/experiences/social pressure FORCED them to do it is poppycok. Given that reasoning, there shouldn't be ANY laws, or cops, or prisons, as no one is really responsible for their actions. Which is what it really all boils down to. That trend in thought is what has brought society to what it is today. A sad shadow of its former glory.

[myrmaad]

I just wasted five minutes of my life reading this thread.

 

Criminals are irresponsible. The state should not be.

 

Marharth made a valid point regarding agism. Old fartz are just as likely to be wrong as young punx.

[Aurielius]

What does choice have to do with it?

Absolutely nothing.

So no one is responsible for any of their own actions? With the noted exception of the mentally sub normal and the clinically insane everyone is responsible for their actions. The Death Penalty is not applicable to anything other than first degree murder with the exception of 2nd degree murder by an inmate serving time for a capital offense. The definition of first degree murder is malice aforethought which is a CHOICE. You can parse it any way you like but the criminal had a choice and exercised it, we as a society have a choice also which is to legally terminate the existence of sociopaths. The only problem I have with the death penalty is that we have sanitized and hid it away so as not to offend the delicate sensibilities of the politically correct whingers who hold the rights of sociopaths higher than their victims.

[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.