Capital Punishment: Should the Death Penalty Still Exist In A 'Civilised Society'?

convicted criminals != historically repressed minorities or genders imo

quite often they do though

i'd also like to amend my last lazy post- just the last one, mind- to not really arguing about the direction of progress (i'm well right of ilx on social issues, i'm aware, but i'm generally in favour of the ways things have been going since the 1400's) but i'm wondering if it can happen that the pace of change can be too far ahead of general public opinion at times, which i think causes the feedback loop of pub-backlash, media-backlash, FRENZY

xp stevie yeah fair point

the pace of change is nowhere near fucking fast enough, cf the length of time gay rights groups have been told to just wait for public opinion to inch incrementally forward

'progress' = again, 'movement in the direction i personally favour' though, why can't 'progress' be 'guilty, inject em full of lead' or 'bread and water for life, put the money towards war memorials'

One answer might be because it make's everyone's lives better. The death penalty is not a deterrent and treating prisoners like shit doesn't make them less likely to offend when they come out. So having the death penalty and treating prisoners like shit is more likely to make everyone's life more unpleasant.

well again yeah, there are things that are none of the general public's fuckin business, so i'm not gonna defend that either, lex, but i think punishment of violent offenders is more legitimately a public issue.

Though y'know that's in question too i suppose, as ledge and ronan and p much everyone else have said

It would also make everyone's lives as they might have been in the early nineteenth century, when the "might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb" principle of one-size-fits-all-crimes capital punishment applicable in English law at that time meant that, for example, if you robbed someone, well you might as well kill them into the bargain since you're going to get hung anyway. Did nothing to improve crime rates or people's understanding of crime.

...nor indeed their understanding of right and wrong.

xp it's likely to make prisoner's lives short and/or unpleasant, certainly

xp marcello, nobody's advocating that one-size-fits-all system, so i'm not sure i see that's relevant

xp it's likely to make prisoner's lives short and/or unpleasant, certainly

― 10/11 of a dead jesus (darraghmac), Friday, 5 August 2011 11:25 (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

The death penalty is for sure but, unless you're advocating killing them all (which you specifically say you are not), then you're just making prisoners lifes unpleasant. Are you advocating keeping these people in prison forever? Huge prisons full of lifers paid for by an increasingly begrudging populace (esp. when they see no decrease in crime)?

My problem is (and it's one that we're unlikely ever to reach a compromise on) is that I don't regard child molesters (or mass murderers for that matter) as evil.

i find it hard to conceptualise evil or call anyone evil. not that i totally am amoral or something, i just can't wield the word really, i don't know what evil means.

what the fuck at you two

really?

if you want some kind of working definition, i guess:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele

back in your box a second, i don't think we're saying the same thing, define "evil" then. it's not that i don't think certain acts are disgusting or patently wrong, i just think evil goes too deep into issues of someone's nature/intent that are hard to prove, it's not a v useful term.

x-post that's right, rely on the nazis for dismissal of moral relativism, what a cheapshot!

xp, nobody's advocating a one-size-fits-all position but the possibility of redemption and release exists for almost all criminals, barring a relatively small number who have either done something exceptionally horrific or are simply too dangerous to ever consider letting out.

The reintroduction of the death penalty in Trinidad amplified the scale of crime enormously. When people started to realise that drug / robbery related killings would get them the death penalty, they started targetting witnesses. They didn't shoot the one person they had a grudge against, they started killing three or four people who they suspected could identify them. Why wouldn't you if you had literally nothing to lose?

hey ned i'm a questions man not an answers man you're the guy paid for sorting this out, right?

and fuck no i'm not going near 'evil', i nearly drove grimly fiendish to murder on the shannon matthews thread before. It's not a helpful word.

i have no problem using the word 'evil.' it seems like a useful term for someone who's capable of intentionally, unapologetically committing acts that are beyond the pale. i'd use it to describe a rapist as easily as a nazi. i can't think of a better way to describe such ppl.

as a rapist or a nazi? seems better since it actually describes them and their acts.

nouns before adjectives

as obscure and relative as words like 'right', 'wrong' or 'progress' imo

I can take acts or behavior as evil but its more difficult for me to accept the concept of evil as applied to a person rather than the behavior, just like stupid or angry

Like if we say a person is evil when they are murdering someone...ok I'm fine with that...but are they evil two days later when they are making a cup of tea and feeding their rabbits...like are they evil right at that minute...what about when they are asleep?

i have no problem using the word 'evil.' it seems like a useful term for someone who's capable of intentionally, unapologetically committing acts that are beyond the pale. i'd use it to describe a rapist as easily as a nazi. i can't think of a better way to describe such ppl.

― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, August 5, 2011 7:52 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

thank you.

exactly...it implies knowledge of someone's thoughts as well as their deeds. in the case of systematic murder and degradation and torture like the nazis i feel it's the best possible case for it to be used, but again moreso because that entire system and its rules and structures seem suited to the word evil.

x-post there are two better words tho, see above.

What if they are capable of it some of the time? Are they evil only at those times?

I just think that "evil" tends to be such an unhelpful term when looking at the causes of "horrendous" crimes because it means so many different things to different people.

I mean, the thing I always keep in mind, when dealing with, specifically, child molestors, was reading an interview with someone who was working with abused children - and also with abusers - and how much the two groups *overlapped*. And they said something which has always stuck with me, which was "there are (sexual abuse) victims who are not yet offendors, but I have never yet worked with an offender who was not themselves a victim (of sexual abuse)."

That when you're dealing with people calling for the death penalty, working on an "eye for an eye" mentality, the problem is, that is often the same motivation or compulsion that is, in a way, driving the perpetrators of these crimes?

That is maybe very specific to one crime, and an emotive one, but it still colours my approach to the treatment of criminals.

lake otm

If you are capable enough of murder to have committed it, the amount of evil in you is sufficient to qualify you as an evil person, no matter how many rabbits you feed.

Like if we say a person is evil when they are murdering someone...ok I'm fine with that...but are they evil two days later when they are making a cup of tea and feeding their rabbits...like are they evil right at that minute...what about when they are asleep?

well, tbh, yeah. for me the very horror of such ppl lies in the fact that such mundanity, ordinariness, etc., exists side by side with the capacity to commit horrific crimes.

things are complex

the centre cannot hold

basically comes down to the age old thing

is it what we are

or what we do

I've read dozens of studies of *rapists* over the past year or so, there's been a small, but quite crucial kind of research into this - and it's really unhelpful to say that "ppl rape because they're evil" because that seems to give this protective halo to "oh but ppl who aren't evil can't possibly rape" when the fact is, ppl do not rape because they are "evil", but because they have a very specific and pernicious set of attitudes towards women, towards sex, and towards violence, domination and control.

Calling someone "evil" is just excuse making which completely evades the responsibility (both individual and on a cultural level) of actually looking at *why* ppl commit crimes. I'm not having it.

because they have a very specific and pernicious set of attitudes towards women

or men

If you are capable enough of murder to have committed it, the amount of evil in you is sufficient to qualify you as an evil person, no matter how many rabbits you feed.

― kkvgz, Friday, August 5, 2011

then can there ever be redemption?

Using the word "evil" sparingly and with great precision doesn't mean we shouldn't use it at all.

Calling someone "evil" is just excuse making which completely evades the responsibility (both individual and on a cultural level) of actually looking at *why* ppl commit crimes. I'm not having it.

Surely we can do both...?

OK, "towards sexual partners, or people they perceive as weaker than them" might be a phrase there, but the studies I was reading focused specifically on male rapists of females.

Karen OTM in regard to abuse and the use of the term 'evil'.

Some people are capable of crime of unimaginable brutality but what's never been clear is why that should be the case. There's obviously something wrong with them, mentally or emotionally, but using 'evil' as a shorthand doesn't really get us anywhere, even if it's a perfectly valid / natural personal response to their actions.

Using the word "evil" sparingly and with great precision doesn't mean we shouldn't use it at all.

― livin in my own private Biden hole (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, August 5, 2011

I have no problem with using the word I'm just more comfortable using to describe behaviour rather than a person

@ KDT The people I have known who were victims of child molestation have not gone on to molest children. I do not feel particularly sympathetic to the ones who continue the cycle of abuse.

Surely we can do both...?

I rarely see people do both. I see people file it under "evil" and not look at the other stuff. If you want to call an activity or a person evil, that's your mental filing cabinet for preserving your ideas about humanity, but it says nothing about why they do this stuff.

Alfred OTM

wanting to understand the reasons why someone acts the way they do is not the same as having sympathy for them

then can there ever be redemption?

― lake, Friday, August 5, 2011 8:04 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

Not for murder. Not as I see it.

I do not feel particularly sympathetic to the ones who continue the cycle of abuse.

That's the difference between you and me. The fact that they offend against others does not change their victimhood in my eyes, it compounds it. And "sympathy" is the wrong word, as Lex points out. It's about understanding.

Yeah, sorry I bought up the whole 'evil' thing now as, frankly, it's a distraction. What I meant was that because people tend to say X = EVIL therefore there's no point in trying to deal with them, treat them humanely, whatever, I tend to think that even people who you may think of as evil can be treated, rehabilitated, something...and that that's better in the long run than locking them up with only bread and water and/or killing them.

My experiences of people who have been through the CJS is that they are overwhelmingly mentally ill or poor or abused or have substance abuse issues (and any combination of the above). I see no point in abusing them further. And killing those people is even worse. You've only got to look at the cases of Timothy Evans or Derek Bentley or Stefan Kiszko or Barry George to know that.

The case of Sean Hodgson is a particularly depressing tale relevant to this. Found guilty of a murder he didn't commit, locked away for 27 years in prison (depite suffering from depression and schizophrenia, and despite someone else confessing to the crime 16 years before Hodgson was released, and despite DNA evidence suggesting he was innocent 10 years before he was released), he was released with no support and went on to assault a mentally ill woman in the care home he was in.

Not for murder. Not as I see it

Surely there has to be a recognition that not all murders / murderers are the same?

I mean, if you're talking about something like a self-defense situation?