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

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1756 of them)
also of course the belief in individualism overrides (in their minds) the need for any sort of community, and therefore civilisation as a concept, let alone a terminology, is not applicable. what they really mean is that they want the freedom not to pay any taxes and to go around shooting anyone whose dog pisses on their lawn, to paraphrase clint eastwood in magnum force (i think?).

Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 10 August 2004 07:59 (nineteen years ago) link

have a quick look at the history of the lebanon to see how beautifully a society works when you don't have to pay any taxes!

Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 10 August 2004 08:00 (nineteen years ago) link

I'm simply opposed to killing anyone except in self-defense or in defense of other innocent people, I find it a barbaric practise. A murderer who is jailed for life is not a significant threat to me or other people, so I can't see any reason to kill him or her. The "tax dollars" argument is utterly specious, as it seems maintaining the death penalty is more expensive than not. Even if that were not the case, I'd be happy to pay some infinitesimal amount of my salary to ensure that the state doesn't kill people who pose no threat. The possibility of executing innocent people is another plank to the anti-death penalty argument, but not the central one for me. The central one is that I condemn the whole idea of killing people who can be safely locked up.

Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 08:13 (nineteen years ago) link

Also, doesn't this run entirely contrary to the idea of "civilisation" - namely, if we kill murderers, then we're just as bad as they are, whereas the point of civilisation is that We Are Better Than That and are supposed to Show An Example?

Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 10 August 2004 08:21 (nineteen years ago) link

I have a strange, old fashioned system of morality that starts with "Killing people is bad." It's my cogito ergo sum - everything stems from there.

And of COURSE morality comes into it. Trying to look at positive/negative effects to society and the death penalty's economic viability are red herrings of the highest order - it's upside-down thinking, at least to my mind.

Johnney B (Johnney B), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 10:18 (nineteen years ago) link

What's the difference between morality and weighing positive/negative effects on society?

Fergal (Ferg), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 12:30 (nineteen years ago) link

Trying to look at positive/negative effects to society and the death penalty's economic viability are red herrings of the highest order

I agree with this! I think it's immoral NOT to shoot people like Henry Brisbon.

Fergal: Ethics 210. Utilitarianism
Categorical Imperative

TOMBOT, Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:00 (nineteen years ago) link

Westerners in conflating "civilized" with "having Christian morals" non-shocker.

I find it very funny that many of the same people wearing their Old Testament indoctrinations on their sleeves are the same people who will take any opportunity offered on ILX to ridicule and denigrate Christianity.

VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:02 (nineteen years ago) link

oh, come on. the belief that killing is wrong does not equate only with christianity.

lauren (laurenp), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:07 (nineteen years ago) link

So where do you think the vast majority of people in the Western world learned that killing was wrong? Is there a gigantic Hindu population controlling Western Europe and the US that I'm unaware of?

VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:09 (nineteen years ago) link

actually, yes. we'll tell you about it some other time, though.

dave amos, Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:16 (nineteen years ago) link

of course not. that's not what i was implying. i think it's disingenuous to claim that believing that killing is wrong means that one has to accept the rest of religious doctrine wholesale - especially when that doctrine that grants exceptions to the rule so that we can stone adulterers, keep slaves, etc. but please, i'm not trying to debate religion, here.

lauren (laurenp), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:18 (nineteen years ago) link

dan, that's silly.

RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:21 (nineteen years ago) link

Seriously though somebody explain to me why exactly it's totally wrong to kill. I really would like to hear a justified explanation for it. The moral high road of "Well I believe in a slightly more lengthy version of the First Commandment that doesn't have anything to do with YHWH mind you" is about as tiresome as you can get, someone tell me a real reason why we shouldn't be allowed to gas our psychopaths, seriously.

xpost what are you all arguing about?

TOMBOT, Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:24 (nineteen years ago) link

It is wrong to kill because you are not only punishing the criminal, but also relatives, partners, friends and other loved ones for crimes *they* did not commit.

Madchen (Madchen), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:25 (nineteen years ago) link

They aren't arguing about anything.

VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:25 (nineteen years ago) link

(xpost except Madchen)

VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:26 (nineteen years ago) link

first they came for the psychopaths and i said nothing

then they came for the shoplifters, ethically obtuse, .... etc etc

actually "why is it wrong to kill" is an interesting question.

dave amos, Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:27 (nineteen years ago) link

..which i see madchen has answered

dave amos, Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:28 (nineteen years ago) link

Madchen, how is that any different if we put the sonsabitches in solitary for life? People don't use that argument when it's time to put down a dog that bites!

TOMBOT, Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:29 (nineteen years ago) link

I don't get this, Dan:

I find it very funny that many of the same people wearing their Old Testament indoctrinations on their sleeves are the same people who will take any opportunity offered on ILX to ridicule and denigrate Christianity.

In the Old Testament, you've got the whole "eye for an eye" argument, which seems to bolster the pro-death penalty one, whereas the New Testament is where Jesus' "turn the other cheek" comes about. The two are not compatible, and obv. supply the greatest break between Judaism and Christianity.

I'd also argue that the European strand of anti-death penalty sentiment probably stems way more from the Enlightenment, Rationality and various post-French Revolution debacles than from Christianity itself.

hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:32 (nineteen years ago) link

The two are not compatible, and obv. supply the greatest break between Judaism and Christianity.

aside from, like, Jesus being the Messiah, too. But you know that.

hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:33 (nineteen years ago) link

I think it's different because if your child has been given a life sentence, you are still able to visit them, not a grave. Also, see arguments above suggesting that people sentenced to death may not necessarily be "sonsabitches" and may be innocent.

I don't think people and animals are comparible (one reason why I prefer to be referred to as 'a woman' rather than 'a female', but that's a whole nother rant).

Madchen (Madchen), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:37 (nineteen years ago) link

The two are not compatible,
yes
and obv. supply the greatest break between Judaism and Christianity.
This is ludicrous, there are far more drastic breaks between the religions, such as with the whole Messiah thing.
(xpost)
Still, I've never heard anyone cite this as a major diff. between the faiths.

Barry Bruner (Barry Bruner), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:38 (nineteen years ago) link

putting morality and the fact that the death penalty in the US is administered in a completely unfair and unjust way (pretty much across the board, every state, not just trigger-happy Texas), how does the death penalty not constitute "cruel and unusual punishment," as defined and prohibited by the Constitution?

hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:44 (nineteen years ago) link

I don't think people and animals are comparible

Aha, this is a point of contention which I think it is best not to argue here. I don't really think serial killers or child rapists qualify as "people," though. It's interesting to note that I actively try to avoid referring to certain types of criminals as human, in fact, I just realized I even do this in normal conversation.

Maybe I'm the crazy person.

TOMBOT, Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:45 (nineteen years ago) link

This is not to imply that I normally have conversations about this kind of morbid shit though I suspect that isn't going to convince any of you.

TOMBOT, Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:46 (nineteen years ago) link

(I like this thread because it goes quiet for a while, then suddenly there are half a dozen new posts, suggesting people are taking time to compose good responses)

Madchen (Madchen), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 14:48 (nineteen years ago) link

As a general principle, surely everyone can accept that people (or the state) shouldn't be able to kill whoever they want to. So if there are exceptions to the rule, they must be justified. "This person irritates" me is not a good reason. "This person is going to kill me" is a good reason, because it relates back to the initial principle of avoiding killing people. So it's up to the pro-death-penalty people to explain why certain people should be killed. And it's not up to others to explain why they shouldn't be killed, because not killing is the state of things we start with. Given all that, what is the reason for killing someone when you can safely lock them up?

Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 15:12 (nineteen years ago) link

I wrote a lengthy response to this and then it crashed.

how does the death penalty not constitute "cruel and unusual punishment," as defined and prohibited by the Constitution?

The same way jailing Eugene Debs until he was practically crippled and incapacitated was not cruel and unusual, the same way interning Japanese-Americans was not cruel and unusual: like pretty much everything about our purposefully ambiguous US constitution, it's all up to the interpretation of the Court. If the Court says that the "eye for an eye" concept is not cruel or unusual, then it isn't. That's how our system is set up.

I'm not saying I agree with the Court, mind you. The system really is completely fucked up (justice in being handed out unevenly shockah), and I think that until a better system is set up perhaps a moritorium on the death penalty, as was in the early '70s, is perhaps called for. Not that that actually fixed the system back then, though, and one could make the point that the amount of false imprisonments in general and people getting handed really strict penalties for what seems to be petty crimes (the 3 strikes law, for example, is a pile of bullshit being used to hand what I would deem cruel and unusual punishment to fairly inane, boring, completely unthreatening "criminals") would imply that perhaps our entire justice system should be on moritorium, following the logic to its extreme.

The system en totale is just not really great. I do theoretically agree with the death penalty (I mean, would anyone here argue that the handful of executions of Nazis post-WWII were unjust?) but in practice it hasn't exactly done anything worthwhile enough to balance out the problems we have implementing it.

Also, the Messiah thing is NOT the biggest breaking point between Judaism and Christianity! Jews for Jesus 4eva!

Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 15:21 (nineteen years ago) link

Supreme Court says all this shit.

Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 15:23 (nineteen years ago) link

this is a better answer to my rhetorical question, I found.

the Jews for Jesus dudes in the Broadway-Nassau stop freak me out. Who funds these wackos?

hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 15:23 (nineteen years ago) link

When did "killing someone for being convicted of a heinous capital crime" morph into "killing whomever the state wants to"?

(I am anti-death penalty, BTW.)

VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 15:23 (nineteen years ago) link

You didn't understand my argument, or I didn't make it clear enough.

Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 15:26 (nineteen years ago) link

You all should just go ahead and live in Castro's Cuba and see how you like your constitution then!!

(OK I fully admit I'm just saying this because it came into my head--my grandfather used to threaten my mother when she was stroppy with that exact line)

Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 15:27 (nineteen years ago) link

Castro's Cuba is, much like the US, a place where capital punishment is meted out fairly often.

hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 15:29 (nineteen years ago) link

Honestly, A) Jews for Jesus makes no sense to me, I have heard their arguments and still am unsure how exactly they reconcile their belief system, the whole "the apocolypse thing didn't mean an APOCOLYPSE but rather an apocolypse of the world as we know it" mantra is like an extraordinary level of trying-to-rationalize-your-idiocy B) I really am curious about the Nazi thing.

If we developed a way to prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that someone had really killed other people in cold blood, with malice, for pleasure, would the death penalty still be a bad thing?

Also it is worth noting, to Tom I suppose, that death penalty is not something generally (read: ever, see here) applied to rape. Actually, real punishment is not something often applied to sex crimes. God help you if you're a Puerto Rican talking on your cell phone in your car in NYC though, tombs for a weekend.

xpost that's what I mean, hsilly!

Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 15:35 (nineteen years ago) link

Obviously my question is completely theoretical, the shadow-of-a-doubt one, being as Dr. Xavier is merely a comic book character.

Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 15:36 (nineteen years ago) link

i have a friend, a retiree, who volunteers doing research to assist in mitigating sentences for criminals--mostly murderers. some of them are potentially up for the death penalty (though what this means in illinois at the moment is uncertain). she interviews the criminals themselves and, most of the time, their family and friends, former employers, etc. the crimes committed by these people are often heinous. but i admire her for seeing too that the criminals are human beings and the sentence should be given with some thought to their future, to the general good.... i'm not naive enough to think that the criminal justice system is only about "rehabilitating" people and that it is absent an instituionalized revenge mechanism. but i don't think that mechanism is the one that should be savored, or beefed up.

lots of xposts

are "jews for jesus" really jew? i mean, were they ever actually jews? or is it just an evangelical organization with a strange twist?

|a|m|t|r|s|t| (amateurist), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 15:36 (nineteen years ago) link

sorry for all the typos.

|a|m|t|r|s|t| (amateurist), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 15:37 (nineteen years ago) link

The idea that our criminal justice system is actually about rehabilitation and not pure revenge is a ridiculous one, actually. I mean, it's honorable and admirable and really noble but it's not even remotely what we practice in the United States (cannot say anything about other countries).

Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 15:38 (nineteen years ago) link

I'm still reeling from dave's "Incone tax is GREAT! We're all in it TOGETHER!" post upthread.

roger adultery (roger adultery), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 15:38 (nineteen years ago) link

my cousin is a jew for jesus. he started out as a regular jew, then became a born-again christian, then a jew for jesus. he's always been an asshole.

lauren (laurenp), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 15:38 (nineteen years ago) link

all my jewish friends hate them

Red Panda Sanskrit (ex machina), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 15:40 (nineteen years ago) link

I'd start a thread about Jews for Jesus if I thought it'd get any serious responses. I really am curious, it just makes no sense to me, even less sense to me than my own religion's fascination with the saints, which always kind of struck me as idol worship.

Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 15:42 (nineteen years ago) link

start a thread! and let's get back to capital punishment.

hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 15:43 (nineteen years ago) link

Its like you're culturally jewish... but christian

Red Panda Sanskrit (ex machina), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 15:43 (nineteen years ago) link

Jews for Jesus

Back to capital punishment.

Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 15:45 (nineteen years ago) link

yeah, that seems like a pretty accurate summation.

lauren (laurenp), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 15:46 (nineteen years ago) link

I am not trying at all to justify the way the death penalty is used in the United States. I am basically trying to convince people and myself I guess that I am not totally off my rocker because I want to shoot people like Gacy and Brisbon and their ilk in the face in cold blood, don't think I'd feel one bit bad about it, and can't see why I shouldn't be allowed to do so. Except Gacy's already dead. The horrendous methodology by which our justice system approaches the whole issue is stupid to me, too, but as I said upthread the issues with our laws and forensics are not what I'm arguing about, I'm arguing about the fact that I think that some people deserve to fucking die.

TOMBOT, Tuesday, 10 August 2004 15:49 (nineteen years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.