The Death Penalty

Very simple really, serial killers, serial sex offenders, child molesters should either be hung, eletric chair or leathal injection (or possibly all 3). That's all there is to it, if they are repeat offenders then they're not going to change there ways, they're wasting our taxes and they're filling up the jails. No maybe they could be usful, why not have them used for medical experiments, save using animals right? That way ok they die, but their last act will be one the benifits the community (for a change!).

 

This is a delicate matter. Anyway, Sideshow, Monster and Michael have expressed what I feel about the issue.

So I hope I can keep this short and simple.

A) In small groups the killing (or expulsion from the group which amounts to the same thing) are very important because they clearly identify what must NOT be done, and gives cohesion to the abiding citizens, who therefore hate the criminals. That is an emotional response but it is socially useful inasmuch as it makes the group more cohesive and therefore more efficacious.

B) All the religions/ideologies except a few state that the good deed is an act that benefits the group. Therefore, it was all right to the crusaders to kill Arabs, as it was right for Hitler to kill Jews, and right for Stalin to kill about everybody that threatened the society (that was himself).

C) With time, and the growth of the cities, we began to understand that killing is just an emotional response, and it does not perform the group binding function anymore. So we humanely said: keep them apart, the society has a right to defend itself, but not to kill. That is how it now stands. (The same was thought about slavery – I am a proud descendent of the man that abolished slavery in the first place).

D) I am personally against the death penalty because
a) it performs no role unless the satisfaction of the bloodthirsty and the catharsis, or abreaction, of the frustrated. I understand that UK tabloids are very guilty in this aspect, and can only hope that people will be sufficiently educated in the future and cease to read them.
b) it actually condones the possibility of murder. If a human life is not worth a few €, £ or US$, then I don't know what does. Therefore, we just enhance violence by actually condoning it.

E) What crimes to punish by death?
a) Serial killers, psychopaths and the like are just not curable. They threaten other people's lives, so they must just be put away safely, perhaps not with good food, vintage wine and an oak paneled room, but they should be made useful to society in any way. There are various propositions.
b) But neither do homosexuals change their habits. This was once considered a horrible crime – 'a spiteful and God offending crime' – deserving death. Some people also think paedophiles should be killed. Well, Aristotle was a paedophile, as most of the Greek intellectuals. Should we hang them? There is a society where the pre-pubescent boys are supposed to perform felatio on older members – they received milk from their mother and sperm from their elders. Should we go there and hang them all?
d) This only shows that it is difficult to draw limits.

F) Conclusion: death penalty serves no function but the revenge of frustrated people and revenge is not an emotion I would like to see cultivated in any society. It is therefore to be avoided.

I state my case m'luds.

 

That's precisely the way Hitler thought about the Jews. You're in very good company

Or are you just jesting?

 

I'm interested in the confinement of our forum executioners to the mundane methods of killing as currently administered by our close relatives across the Atlantic. (I believe firing squads are still employed in at least one US state (Utah?), or at least were up until recently).

Even the most inert of imaginations should be capable of conjuring up more elaborate and satisfying forms of murder. We only need to witness history if we are lacking in the creative departments.

So why are we restricted to certain forms of execution?

Is it barbaric to stone somebody to death, but not so to hang them? Certainly, our enlightened western retentionists seem to think so. Of course this is in 2003. We only need to 'regress' a short time, to illustrate the erstwhile accepted forms of execution. But of course, they were unenlightened times, and each day brings us ever closer to the oracle. What is justifiable and 'normal' on a Wednesday, is a criminal act on Thusday, in light of new empirical data.

Should the criminal act of the guilty be administered in turn on the same individual? This could lead to some interesting alternatives, and may ultimately prove more satisfactory.

Does the elaborate internalised social morality of the individual, perceived as a conscience and conveyor of ultimate truth, hinder the true extent of his vengeaful and sadistic inclinations? Does the cloak of rationality mask and chain the instinctive animalistic tendencies of one of natures erstwhile children.

I feel the only non-contradictory, non-hypocritical thing to do, is to knife the offenders to death in a mealstrom of fury, only after a sufficient term of torture has been employed with the upmost relish.........

.......................................................................................................

If you repeatedly pay your taxes, you are never going to commit a criminal offence?

The Death Penalty as currently administered in the 'civilised' West, consumes more money per head than a lifer in prison, and fills up ample jail cells on the holiday inn that is comically titled Death Row. Considering most of its inmates don't even know when they are going to die, they are no different in this respect, than the rest of us.

Perhaps taxes are money well spent - like a voucher, allowing one to be left in 'relative' peace.

Of course, this is easily avoided, by administering a rapid execution as the court room seats are still warm. But this opens up the possibility of further 'miscarriages of justice', which you may or may not be concerned about, but is something to consider.

....................................................................................................

A stroke of irony. We administer the 'ultimate' punishment with the forced curtailment of life, while the rest seek ardently to prolong life. It seems death is still the only remaining enemy to Man's omnipotency, and continues to be an enigma.


In grid square 13, on the trailing edge of warp zone delta four, all is peaceful, and a fearless doctor prepares to write an adequate description of freedom in his new 'universal' dictionary.

......................................................................................................

“If a man lives well, he goes, after death, to live happily for ever in his star. But if he lives badly, he will, in the next life, be a woman; if he (or she) persists in evildoing, he (or she) will become a brute, and go on through transmigrations until at last reason conquers.â€Â

Platos cosmogony

......................................................................................................

And on the 8th day the Lord filed Humans under F, for Frustrated.

 

Simple - their fat dead worthless carcass helps to generate electricity... Then again, just use them for medical experiments THEN put then in the burner - double helping! Just make sure the "medical experiments" won't produce dodgy side effects when the body burns, or it'll be Return of the living dead all over again...

Send more cops...
BRAINS!!

 

erm....

.........I thought you were implying something more on an emotional or psychological level with regard to the benefits for the 'community'.


However, i cannot doubt your pragmatism and potential 'effectiveness' as a new generation politician and robust man of Action. You would give Alistair Campbell nightmares like he has never experienced.

 

We have here the 20 leading causes of death for the population of the United States in 1998

Rank Cause # of population affected

#1 - Heart Disease 724,859
#2 - Malignant Neoplasms (Cancerous Tumors) 541,532
#3 - Cerebro-Vascular (Stroke) 158,448
#4 - Bronchitis, Emphysema, Asthma 112,584
#5 - Unintentional Injury 97,835 -1
#6 - Pneumonia & Influenza 91,871
#7 - Diabetes 64,751
#8 - Suicide 30,575 -2
#9 - Nephritis 26,182
#10 - Liver Disease 25,192
#11 - Septicemia 23,731
#12 - Alzheimer Disease 22,725
#13 - Homicide and Legal Intervention 18,272 -3
#14 - Atherosclerosis 15,279
#15 - Hypertension 14,308
#16 - Perinatal Period 13,428
#17 - HIV 13,426
#18 - Congenital Anomalies 11,934
#19 - Benign Neoplasms (Benign Tumors) 7,933
#20 - Hernia 6,635

1 - 43% traffic-related
2 - 57% by firearm
3 - 66% by firearm

Notice that more people commit suicide than homicide.

 

I'm strongly opposed to the death penalty. Miscarriages of justice occasionally occur, and are often not known about until years later, by which time it's a little late for the fall guy.

 

I don't really follow politics, but if Alistair is one of those waste of air/water/carbon Labour MPs, SOMEONE needs to give him nightmares - thank god I wasn't taken in by their BS and spin in 1997 (and no, I didn't vote Tory either... - but I did vote - and NO, it wasn't the BNP either (if you cut out the Nazi aspect what have you got with them!?) - Green, believe it or not - a protest vote)

 

RdS..

Excellently put..

Of course the death penalty is just an act of revenge.. the people that say it's a form of justice are just attempting to justify their emotional reaction with a rational argument. Either that or they are deluding themselves or they feel guilty that the killing of another person should make them feel better in some small way.

One critical feature that allows societies to kill individual humans.. is that of dehumanisation.. if we strip these people of their humanity then we don't feel guilty about terminating their lives.
The only problem with this way of thinking is that dehumanisation is the first step towards genocide or mass murder.

Most paedophiles are incurable.. so what should we do? If we believe that it's justafiable to execute paedophiles.. should we terminate them upon thier first offence.. considering that it's generally considered that sexual offenses are like drug taking in that people that commit minor ones such as "flashing" are seen as potential fulll blown kiddy killers.. should we excecute them also as a preventative measure.. or when we find out that it's all triggered by some errant gene.. should we terminate them at birth after testing them for that gene?

The same fate could await those that may have the potential to commit any crime that we eventually feel worthy of the death penalty.

Given that I firmly believe that all human beings are capable of murder.. (and I mean murder not killing!).. given the right circumstances.. maybe we should just terminate the whole of humanity now.

GTM

 

Dom...it this comment for real . If so, you must be about the only person in the country who doesn't know who Campbell is, and "don't really follow politics" is the biggest understatement I've ever seen . Civil servants committing suicide..."Sexed-up dossiers"...."sources at No 10"...any bells ringing yet?

Ah..power to the people! (and No, he's not an MP!)

 

graham,
i'd like to know how your make the distinction between murder and killing. just because some authority sanctions / ed the killing of certain irishmen or iraqi's is this any different from another authority sanctioning the killing of a paedophile or murderer?

as for your extension that the whole of humanity is capable of murder. well i'd agree with you that under certain circumstances anyone is capable of it however it is our social concience and moral education in the context of the society we live in that prevents us. if someone is either incapable of supressing these 'urges' either by strength of will or medicinal help why should society not be protected from them. more to the point why should society pay to keep them in some sort of limbo where they cannot change and they cannot live their life? when people are being refused medical treatment and our children are unable to speak or write english correctly?

cheers


julian

 

Respect to all you guys. If the world was full of erudite folk like you then we wouldn't need the death penalty...

 

Um...I think you mean Gerard (i.e. GTM)

No probs....Justin

(BTW...the only occasions when I would make a distinction between killing and murder is a) when that level of violence is the only viable means of self-defence or b) you're temporarily mad. This would cover the "crime passionelle". State sanctioned frying of miscreants or illegal invasions of sovereign states on highly dubious grounds satisfy neither of those criteria and so fall in the same category as Shipman).

 

sorry graham,
my fingers were rebelling against my brain.


cheers


julian

 

OH YEAH!!! *That* one - of course - I remember hearing the reports but clean forgot his name - fair play - :SLEEP: mode off now!

 

Fickle male appendages - surely not!

Lucky your fingers weren't wielding a knife.




What is the basis of morality if one does not believe in God?

 

Dom Alistair Cambell is the 'Real' Prime minister 'Blair' is just a Cheesy Grin spin Puppet, who Campells hand is permently up his elementry passage, there's more :bs: :bs: :bs: in that cabinet office than at a Naim board meeting or a Tag Sales forcast briefing WM

 

cookiemonster,
morality or should i say accepted morality is heavily influenced by the society you live in. to me it describes the mores and rules you have to live by to be accepted by your peers. unfortunately most religions subscribe to the idea that morality is some form of universal absolute that holds true everwhere. tell that to the civilisations for whom ritual canibalism is morally acceptable.

as for the basis of morality if you don;t believe in god... well do what makes you feel good would be the case. however what makes you feel good is a product of your upbringing and your upbringing is influenced by the upbringing and moral outlook of your peers and parents and their parents ad infinitum.

cheers


julian

 

Human Justice?

As time goes by, values and people's concept of this changes also. When we define moral, how do we really go about it? Belief in religion or God has in fact to a great degree redefined the meaning of this term. A growing number of people have revaluated morality to the point of mass murdering people, in a wholesale or retail approach, in the name of God, but always in the service of politics.


regards