The Death Penalty

[Bonham]

Would/do you support capital or corporal punishment? If yes, tell us why, if not, why not?

[3hrsoflunacy]

Did you think the board was getting a little stale and needed some spicing up with a hot topic?

I do support capital punishment, and they ought not take so long in getting it done after they have had their "x" number of appeals. It's an insensitive comment, but what's the point in keeping someone in prison for the rest of their life? At that stage, they are nothing but a burden to the tax payers. Save the money and divert it into better programs that might actually rehabilitate some of the lesser criminals for their return to society.

However, in this country where the percentage of people in prison compared to the overall population is much higher than other industrialized nations leads me to believe there are bigger issues that need addressing than the issue of capital punishment.

[Gainsbarre]

I do support capital punishment, and they ought not take so long in getting it done after they have had their "x" number of appeals. It's an insensitive comment, but what's the point in keeping someone in prison for the rest of their life? At that stage, they are nothing but a burden to the tax payers. Save the money and divert it into better programs that might actually rehabilitate some of the lesser criminals for their return to society.

Well it throws up an interesting moral dilemma, doesn't it?

If the judicial system says that murder is wrong, and yet the punishment for murder is death, well then that's a moral contradiction because the judicial system is as guilty of murder as the person who comitted it.

However, I think we tend to live in a society whereby morality suggests that killing someone isn't wrong, but killing someone without 'suitable justification' is...however then you also have morality issues over what justifications are suitable.

But then you also have a valid argument that to cut down on crime, what a person does to another person, should be done to them to teach them a lesson.

My own personal view on Crime and Punishment (and Dostoevsky novels... ) is that communities should play a larger role in it.

At the moment, someone commits a crime against the community, they are arrested by the Police, tried and sentenced by the judiciary and then housed in a penal institution (full of lots of other criminals)

So in the end what you have is a criminal with a hatred for the law and order establishments (police, judiciary, prison system) in a building with other like minded criminals. And that's all it results in in this hatred towards these institutions

What doesn't happen, and what should happen, is that criminals are not called to account for their actions by the community.

Criminals quickly find out the police and judiciary don't support their actions, but importantly they don't experience the community's disapproval.

For example, in China, during the Cultural Revolution, Mao wanted to reinforce complete obedience from the people, so the Red Guards were formed, and they would grab somebody who they felt was not obedient to Mao, and they would hold a big public meeting and publicly denounce that person. They would be forced to kneel in front of everyone, usually with a heavy sign around their neck, while everyone in the community shouted at them, basically. And in more brutal cases they would be kicked and punched.

As horrible as that experience was for a lot of people who sadly went through it, the brutal fact is it achieved Mao's goal, and everybody was 100% exactly sure on what behaviour was expected in the community.

Now, I'm not suggesting Red Guard-style denouncements of criminals, however, it is interesting to see the effect that it had on the public. Mao, like him or not, was very smart, and the Red Guard denouncements involved the whole community, not just the Red Guards or the Communist Party. That way, Mao was sure that the people being denounced would not just simply hate the Communist Party and the Red Guards (who were the establishment) but, because everyone in the village participated, those being denounced got the message that their actions were answerable to everyone. And by having everyone in the village participate, it also meant villagers had to get their hands dirty as well and side with the Party...

What the denoucements show is the power of the community that is achieved when the establishment and community are brought together to send a message home to people about what sort of behaviour is acceptable or not.

It's also a lot like the Mediaeval days...

If you took a habitual car thief, put them in the stocks in the town square, and held a public meeting where everyone could come down and throw tomatoes at them and show their displeasure, then it would have a far greater impact than prison, I believe.

[3hrsoflunacy]

If you took a habitual car thief, put them in the stocks in the town square, and held a public meeting where everyone could come down and throw tomatoes at them and show their displeasure, then it would have a far greater impact than prison, I believe.

Hence, the second part of my answer. Or, what I alluded to. Fixing some of the problems (and building up) our communities, and country as a whole, could have an impact on the number of people that end up in a capital punishment case in the future. But, it's kind of idealistic the way our country operates and how things are right now.

[Mangani]

I would support capital punishment in certain cases. I see no reason why the likes of Peter Sutcliffe and Dennis Nielson for example should be kept alive.

[Gainsbarre]

Hence, the second part of my answer. Or, what I alluded to. Fixing some of the problems (and building up) our communities, and country as a whole, could have an impact on the number of people that end up in a capital punishment case in the future. But, it's kind of idealistic the way our country operates and how things are right now.

Good point,

But I think you just need more community involvement.

I think in our socieites we have a tendency to shy away from criminals.

For example, if you're sitting on a train or a bus, and there's some asshole thug sitting in the back seat mucking up, then in our society we'll try to keep well away from them and not draw attention to ourself because we don't want to have to deal with that guy.

But in countries like India or China, especially very populous countries, quite a few people on that bus or train would've told that guy to shut up and behave himself

In those countries, the public plays a greater role in people's behaviour.

[Geralds Game]

Good point,

But I think you just need more community involvement.

I think in our socieites we have a tendency to shy away from criminals.

For example, if you're sitting on a train or a bus, and there's some asshole thug sitting in the back seat mucking up, then in our society we'll try to keep well away from them and not draw attention to ourself because we don't want to have to deal with that guy.

But in countries like India or China, especially very populous countries, quite a few people on that bus or train would've told that guy to shut up and behave himself

In those countries, the public plays a greater role in people's behaviour.

I think people need to be more involved. You know if he doesn't act decent throw his arse under the train. Now when I was younger I had a more idealistic viewpoint. But nowadays I see some people are just plain evil and need to be destroyed before they can destroy other people.

Makes sense no?

[Dzldoc]

Good point,

But I think you just need more community involvement.

I think in our socieites we have a tendency to shy away from criminals.

For example, if you're sitting on a train or a bus, and there's some asshole thug sitting in the back seat mucking up, then in our society we'll try to keep well away from them and not draw attention to ourself because we don't want to have to deal with that guy.

But in countries like India or China, especially very populous countries, quite a few people on that bus or train would've told that guy to shut up and behave himself

In those countries, the public plays a greater role in people's behaviour.

Also in China they don't waste money on housing,feeding,clothing and medical care

they just put a bullet in the back of their head and send the bill to the family.

Now "THAT'S" Progressive.

[TheZeppyWanderer]

yes on both counts.

as far as the death penalty goes, each case must be judged on its respective merits though.

ONE REASON WHY I support capital punishment - the alternative is to spend £1600 per week (or thereabouts, depending on which estimates you believe) keeping a worthless waste of oxygen living in better luxury and comfort than he could ever dream of if he chose the life of a law-abiding citizen.

[Evster2012]

An eye for an eye. If you take a life, the public shouldn't need shoulder the burden of feeding and clothing you until you expire at our expense in 50 years. You took a life. You go. I don't think that makes the guy who throws the switch on ol' Sparky, or sticks the needle in, the same as the offender. Guilty is guilty. And if mistakes are made, call my accountant. I know I've been screwed at least once. That's life. There's too much crime in the neighborhood, (at least where I live) and no amount of Cum Baya is going to remedy that. All you can do is make a positive presence. Present yourself as a grounded, positive presence in the neighborhood. "Hi, I'm a nice person. Sure, I'll watch over the kids while they're in the pool."

But if you kick in my door and violate the sanctity of my home I will put buckshot in you. No waiting. No apologies.

Here's a simple guideline: Don't fucking hurt anyone jackass!

Do unto others, or get what you do unto others.

Seems pretty simple to me.

[Geralds Game]

An eye for an eye. If you take a life, the public shouldn't need shoulder the burden of feeding and clothing you until you expire at our expense in 50 years. You took a life. You go. I don't think that makes the guy who throws the switch on ol' Sparky, or sticks the needle in, the same as the offender. Guilty is guilty. And if mistakes are made, call my accountant. I know I've been screwed at least once. That's life. There's too much crime in the neighborhood, (at least where I live) and no amount of Cum Baya is going to remedy that. All you can do is make a positive presence. Present yourself as a grounded, positive presence in the neighborhood. "Hi, I'm a nice person. Sure, I'll watch over the kids while they're in the pool."

But if you kick in my door and violate the sanctity of my home I will put buckshot in you. No waiting. No apologies.

Here's a simple guideline: Don't fucking hurt anyone jackass!

Do unto others, or get what you do unto others.

Seems pretty simple to me.

I wish we could all see it that way. Everyone thinks they have a right to disrespect others and hurt just because they think they can get away with it. I think much of it's about the basic nuclear family actually melting down instead of acting like a family.

What I mean is give and take instead of everything being about number one. Which makes what you said about watching the kids a perfectly good point.

How many guys will step in and babysit for a few hours?

Give and take, give and take.

[3hrsoflunacy]

There's too much crime in the neighborhood, (at least where I live) and no amount of Cum Baya is going to remedy that.

That fucking cracked me up. That's a sig worthy quote right there.

[Dzldoc]

[wanna be drummer]

Capital punishment in some cases...well many cases. Corporal punishment no

[Mattmc1973]

There are pros and cons.

- I don't think it's a deterrent. Nobody thinks they are going to get caught, and many crimes/murders are spur of the moment, so I don't think anyone stops and thinks "oh no, I'm going to get the death penalty"

- You have to be 100% SURE that the person is guilty. There are far too many cases where DNA has later exonerated someone who was convicted, and in some cases already executed. The death penalty is the one punishment that can't be gotten back once the deed is done, and the criminal justice system is too flawed to be totally sure in every conviction. It's an absolute certainty that there are people in prison today who are innocent, and there are almost certainly people on death row who are innocent. So what's the standard of proof to be sure that someone is worthy of being put to death?

- It's more expensive to execute someone than to keep them alive forever, so it's not a cost savings to execute them

So I don't think it serves any practical purpose other than to allow society some measure of vengeance. I'm not against it on moral grounds, I think the bottom line is, some criminals are so horrible that they need to be deleted from the earth, period. But it's a tricky business...

[maureen]

Well it throws up an interesting moral dilemma, doesn't it?

If the judicial system says that murder is wrong, and yet the punishment for murder is death, well then that's a moral contradiction because the judicial system is as guilty of murder as the person who comitted it.

However, I think we tend to live in a society whereby morality suggests that killing someone isn't wrong, but killing someone without 'suitable justification' is...however then you also have morality issues over what justifications are suitable.

But then you also have a valid argument that to cut down on crime, what a person does to another person, should be done to them to teach them a lesson.

My own personal view on Crime and Punishment (and Dostoevsky novels... ) is that communities should play a larger role in it.

At the moment, someone commits a crime against the community, they are arrested by the Police, tried and sentenced by the judiciary and then housed in a penal institution (full of lots of other criminals)

So in the end what you have is a criminal with a hatred for the law and order establishments (police, judiciary, prison system) in a building with other like minded criminals. And that's all it results in in this hatred towards these institutions

What doesn't happen, and what should happen, is that criminals are not called to account for their actions by the community.

Criminals quickly find out the police and judiciary don't support their actions, but importantly they don't experience the community's disapproval.

For example, in China, during the Cultural Revolution, Mao wanted to reinforce complete obedience from the people, so the Red Guards were formed, and they would grab somebody who they felt was not obedient to Mao, and they would hold a big public meeting and publicly denounce that person. They would be forced to kneel in front of everyone, usually with a heavy sign around their neck, while everyone in the community shouted at them, basically. And in more brutal cases they would be kicked and punched.

As horrible as that experience was for a lot of people who sadly went through it, the brutal fact is it achieved Mao's goal, and everybody was 100% exactly sure on what behaviour was expected in the community.

Now, I'm not suggesting Red Guard-style denouncements of criminals, however, it is interesting to see the effect that it had on the public. Mao, like him or not, was very smart, and the Red Guard denouncements involved the whole community, not just the Red Guards or the Communist Party. That way, Mao was sure that the people being denounced would not just simply hate the Communist Party and the Red Guards (who were the establishment) but, because everyone in the village participated, those being denounced got the message that their actions were answerable to everyone. And by having everyone in the village participate, it also meant villagers had to get their hands dirty as well and side with the Party...

What the denoucements show is the power of the community that is achieved when the establishment and community are brought together to send a message home to people about what sort of behaviour is acceptable or not.

It's also a lot like the Mediaeval days...

If you took a habitual car thief, put them in the stocks in the town square, and held a public meeting where everyone could come down and throw tomatoes at them and show their displeasure, then it would have a far greater impact than prison, I believe.

I couldn't agree more. And I'm very pleased with the fact that you know Dostoevsky, one of the greatest our writers ever People should stay peole. There is no more Medium Ages. We are not "animals" any more. There should be different methods of punishments, not murders. It was suitable in 15 cent. etc. Not in the democratic worls. To say "peace and love" is not suitable nowadays either, but still WE SHOULD BE POEPLE. that's all.

[Dzldoc]

There are pros and cons.

- I don't think it's a deterrent. Nobody thinks they are going to get caught, and many crimes/murders are spur of the moment, so I don't think anyone stops and thinks "oh no, I'm going to get the death penalty"

- You have to be 100% SURE that the person is guilty. There are far too many cases where DNA has later exonerated someone who was convicted, and in some cases already executed. The death penalty is the one punishment that can't be gotten back once the deed is done, and the criminal justice system is too flawed to be totally sure in every conviction. It's an absolute certainty that there are people in prison today who are innocent, and there are almost certainly people on death row who are innocent. So what's the standard of proof to be sure that someone is worthy of being put to death?

- It's more expensive to execute someone than to keep them alive forever, so it's not a cost savings to execute them

So I don't think it serves any practical purpose other than to allow society some measure of vengeance. I'm not against it on moral grounds, I think the bottom line is, some criminals are so horrible that they need to be deleted from the earth, period. But it's a tricky business...

I think this best echos my sentiments. I'm not so cold hearted I believe we should go around like a linch mob just because we THINK someone is the culprit. We need to be damn sure they're guilty and I agree there are some crimes that are so henious that we can't risk letting this person back into society, it's happened too often someone gets out and commits another murder or worse.

[zepyep]

Hi all,

Well said Matt.

We could also argue the Boethian view of evil De Consolatione Philsohiae as opposed to the Machicheaenism,or Dualism,....

KB

[Gainsbarre]

I couldn't agree more. And I'm very pleased with the fact that you know Dostoevsky, one of the greatest our writers ever

Of course I know Dostoevsky!

And Anton Chekov, Stanislavsky, Tchaikovsky, Tolstoy, Pushkin, Borodin, Maxim Gorky, Andrei Tarkovsky, Shostakovich and Aram Khachaturian...

I even know Alla Pugacheva and Поющие гитары

[Gainsbarre]

Also in China they don't waste money on housing,feeding,clothing and medical care

they just put a bullet in the back of their head and send the bill to the family.

Now "THAT'S" Progressive.

I see... you've missed my point, again...

[Dzldoc]

I see... you've missed my point, again...

I saw it

[ebk]

There are pros and cons.

- I don't think it's a deterrent. Nobody thinks they are going to get caught, and many crimes/murders are spur of the moment, so I don't think anyone stops and thinks "oh no, I'm going to get the death penalty"

- You have to be 100% SURE that the person is guilty. There are far too many cases where DNA has later exonerated someone who was convicted, and in some cases already executed. The death penalty is the one punishment that can't be gotten back once the deed is done, and the criminal justice system is too flawed to be totally sure in every conviction. It's an absolute certainty that there are people in prison today who are innocent, and there are almost certainly people on death row who are innocent. So what's the standard of proof to be sure that someone is worthy of being put to death?

- It's more expensive to execute someone than to keep them alive forever, so it's not a cost savings to execute them

So I don't think it serves any practical purpose other than to allow society some measure of vengeance. I'm not against it on moral grounds, I think the bottom line is, some criminals are so horrible that they need to be deleted from the earth, period. But it's a tricky business...

That sums up my view much better than I could have written it.

Very well said Matt.

[Electrophile]

Yes to the death penalty but only for certain crimes and only when there is 100% DNA-tested proof that the condemned is the person who committed the crime.

No to corporal punishment because I will not enroll my child in a school where the teachers are allowed to hit the students. Someone raises their hand to my child and I'll put my foot up their ass.

[maureen]

Of course I know Dostoevsky!

And Anton Chekov, Stanislavsky, Tchaikovsky, Tolstoy, Pushkin, Borodin, Maxim Gorky, Andrei Tarkovsky, Shostakovich and Aram Khachaturian...

I even know Alla Pugacheva and Поющие гитары

WOW..impressive!! But speaking about Alla Pugacheva...I hate her, it's a very bad pop-music... It's a shame somebody from adroad knows her....

[ally]

There are pros and cons.

- I don't think it's a deterrent. Nobody thinks they are going to get caught, and many crimes/murders are spur of the moment, so I don't think anyone stops and thinks "oh no, I'm going to get the death penalty"

- You have to be 100% SURE that the person is guilty. There are far too many cases where DNA has later exonerated someone who was convicted, and in some cases already executed. The death penalty is the one punishment that can't be gotten back once the deed is done, and the criminal justice system is too flawed to be totally sure in every conviction. It's an absolute certainty that there are people in prison today who are innocent, and there are almost certainly people on death row who are innocent. So what's the standard of proof to be sure that someone is worthy of being put to death?

- It's more expensive to execute someone than to keep them alive forever, so it's not a cost savings to execute them

So I don't think it serves any practical purpose other than to allow society some measure of vengeance. I'm not against it on moral grounds, I think the bottom line is, some criminals are so horrible that they need to be deleted from the earth, period. But it's a tricky business...

It is a tricky buisness. I look at it this way, if someone was to commit a heinous crime against a member of my family then honestly, I would want the ultiumate justice to be applied. The problem I have though is that in Canada, we have had cases where people have been cleared years after they were convicted. The death penelty would have been hard to overturn had it been applied. Having said that, I think that monsters like Clifford Olsen ( child killer ) should be strung up and left to rot