The Death Penalty

[Dave]

Which has been the justification for every genocide, ethnic cleansing, pogrom, and "re-education" by every despot there has ever been.

Many tools were employed by despots.....

Of which the death penalty was one.

 

Ad hominem snipped.

[Dhampir]

What ad hominem?

[Asimov]

If it's beneficial (or even vital) to the sustainability of a society to have slaves, is it wrong? What if what is necessary to sustain a society is in conflict with the idea of mutual benefit? Which takes precedence?

 

It's not, because mutual benefit between individuals is a society. That would be an incoherent necessity.

 

It's not beneficial to have slaves, because slavery is involuntary. A society can't condone involuntary or coercive action. That would go against the reason why a society exists.

 

What if it's beneficial for a certain type of person to be a slave depending on the political/social/economic state/environment they live in?

 

And what would that be?

[Asimov]

Asimov, why wouldn't we just spray it with a fungicide/insecticide first? That might solve everything! For a little investment, that plant becoming healthy may add a lot of benefit to the garden!

 

Because it's not a fungus or instect that's infecting the plant.

 

The point is that when you have things that are problematic, such as a computer virus, you quarantine the files the are causing problems and then you destroy them. When you have an infected limb that spreads the infection, you cut it off. When you have cancerous cells, you destroy them.

 

When an individual is causing harm to people, you destroy them.

 

Sometimes reformed criminals can make major contributions to society! Look at that bounty hunter "Dog"... he reformed and went on to put other violent criminals in jail. The criminal he is famous for catching is the heir to a multimillion dollar make-up company, also a serial rapist who rendered his MANY victims unconscious before assaulting them and filming the incidents! Without Dog, he may have continued his twisted entertainment for the rest of his life in Mexico!

 

Dog has 18 arrests for armed robbery and 1 account of murder. He should have been executed. What he has done now has no bearing on the fact that what he did was murder someone and multiple accounts of theft.

 

A "maybe" isn't good enough to look back at what he himself has done and negate it. That person may have continued, or he may not. Maybe the next day Mexican authorities would have captured him.

 

What ad hominem?

He doesn't know what an ad hominem is.

[dibby]

[

Hi Dibby,

 

Could you please explain what you mean by "value them as a human being"?

 

That here is another human being who like me is aware of pain, suffering and happiness. The problem for the criminal is that they have become isolated from realising this in other people, they are unable to put themselves in someone elses position and empathize with them.

 

 

 

A criminal does not benefit other people except himself and other criminals. They leach off the populace in order to gain as much as they can without giving. That is lacking value.

 

That may, or may not , be true depending on the person involved. In fact, a thief (for instance) may be quite generous to his family and those people he includes in his circle of friends, and they may not necessarily be criminals. The problem, I feel, is that he limits his sense of community and fraternity to a small circle of people and not the rest of society.

 

 

 

No, feelings should not come into the decision. Making a decision based on a feeling is intuitionism, and morality does not come from that.

 

Actually isn,t that the basis for morality? The "do unto others" guide to morality is made precisely because we understand, or can imagine, what it FEELS like to be stolen from, or a victim of violence, or suffer the grief of the loss of a loved one. We also understand how good it is to feel safe, secure and to enjoy life. So should reason in moral issues be guided by our desire for happiness? And happiness is clearly a feeling.

 

 

 

 

The point I'm making is that you would kill that one Rose to maintain and preserve the lives of the other roses

 

Only insofar as removing the rose necessitates killing it by depriving it of soil, and therefore life. The argument doesn,t stand up because you can still remove a dangerous individual from society without killing them.

[Asimov]

That here is another human being who like me is aware of pain, suffering and happiness. The problem for the criminal is that they have become isolated from realising this in other people, they are unable to put themselves in someone elses position and empathize with them.

 

Not necessarily. They may be perfectly aware of that and still do the action. You can be perfectly sociopathic and still be a moral person who acts in accordance with mutual beneficial contracts.

 

That may, or may not , be true depending on the person involved. In fact, a thief (for instance) may be quite generous to his family and those people he includes in his circle of friends, and they may not necessarily be criminals. The problem, I feel, is that he limits his sense of community and fraternity to a small circle of people and not the rest of society.

 

Ok, but the point is that they are selfish in taking from an individual who is not voluntarily giving. In essence, he's forcing that person to sacrifice themselves and their property for another person or himself.

 

Actually isn,t that the basis for morality? The "do unto others" guide to morality is made precisely because we understand, or can imagine, what it FEELS like to be stolen from, or a victim of violence, or suffer the grief of the loss of a loved one. We also understand how good it is to feel safe, secure and to enjoy life. So should reason in moral issues be guided by our desire for happiness? And happiness is clearly a feeling.

 

No, that is the descriptive quality of morality. We've developed the ability to empathize in order to illustrate and solidify our relationships with other people better.

 

Reason should be guided by the facts of reality, not emotions.

 

Only insofar as removing the rose necessitates killing it by depriving it of soil, and therefore life. The argument doesn,t stand up because you can still remove a dangerous individual from society without killing them.

 

Depriving the rose of soil means that you are removing the burden of care of the rose from yourself and ridding yourself of the rose. Removing a dangerous individual from society completely would necessitate killing it:

 

1) We don't have the burden of care for a criminal.

2) We can't allow the criminal to roam free.

3) We can't give the criminal to another society to burden them with it.

[Amanda]

Asimov, you said that perjury should be grounds for the death penalty, so I'm curius to know... should President Clinton and Hillary been put to death?

[Asimov]

Asimov, you said that perjury should be grounds for the death penalty, so I'm curius to know... should President Clinton and Hillary been put to death?

 

Were they convicted of perjury?

[Amanda]

Asimov, you said that perjury should be grounds for the death penalty, so I'm curius to know... should President Clinton and Hillary been put to death?

 

Were they convicted of perjury?

Asimov, actually I thought he was... however, just that you questioned it caused me to research it... and found he avoided it by a narrow marginal vote. 55 voted not guilty and 45 voted guilty... a direct association to party lines. However, if there were only 6 more votes the other way, there would have been a conviction.

 

He supposedly committed perjury for telling the grand jury that he did not have sex with that woman. Once the true story finally came out, his defense was, it depends on what the definition of "is" is. Anyway, he should of just said it's not anyone's business. So, should he have been convicted of perjury... which he probably did, do you think he should have been put to death for that?

 

BTW, in Orlando Florida there is a guy, 17 years old, that stabbed another guy in school, same age, over a girl problem. The funeral was yesterday, and the 17 year old is being tried as an adult. Otherwise he could get out of jail when he was 18. Should he get the death penalty?

 

Also, Danny Rolling (sp?) will be executed this week for killing many college girls as they slept. He was found to have multiple personalities, once convicted he did not choose to take any appeals, and faced the judgement of the judge. His life story is so sad, and I wish there were efforts here to have preventative measures established at an early age. This guy Danny, lived his whole life in hell. He will probably be glad to die. The whole scenario is a terrible testimony about our humanity, IMO.

[Asimov]

He supposedly committed perjury for telling the grand jury that he did not have sex with that woman. Once the true story finally came out, his defense was, it depends on what the definition of "is" is. Anyway, he should of just said it's not anyone's business. So, should he have been convicted of perjury... which he probably did, do you think he should have been put to death for that?

 

Not really, like I said, in issues that do not involve violent offenses I think it's more productive to forego instant punishment unless that person reveals themselves as a repeat offender.

 

BTW, in Orlando Florida there is a guy, 17 years old, that stabbed another guy in school, same age, over a girl problem. The funeral was yesterday, and the 17 year old is being tried as an adult. Otherwise he could get out of jail when he was 18. Should he get the death penalty?

 

Yes.

 

The whole scenario is a terrible testimony about our humanity.

 

How so?

[Amanda]

The whole scenario is a terrible testimony about our humanity.

 

How so?

Well, the story of Danny Rolling is that he was emotionally abused, if not physically too, as a child. He was incredibly unhappy, hence the formations of multiple personalities to hold his pain. No one cared to help or intervene in his dysfunctional life as a child. It seems one personality of his fragmented psyche held all the anger, that eventually lashed out and went on a killing spree. I don't think he ever had a happy day in his life... now, this week he will be executed. I suppose that could have been anyone, he just ended up with the luck of the draw I guess.

 

It seems to me THAT speaks enormously of our time.

 

Asimov, no matter what the reason is he did it, he still has to accountable and responsible for his decisions. However, whenever anyone points a finger at someone... there's three pointing back at themself. What can we as a society do to stop this from happening in the future?

[Asimov]

It seems to me THAT speaks enormously of our time.

 

You mean like in a "our time on earth" type of idea?

 

Asimov, no matter what the reason is he did it, he still has to accountable and responsible for his decisions. However, whenever anyone points a finger at someone... there's three pointing back at themself. What can we as a society do to stop this from happening in the future?

 

You can't "stop" it unless you're aware of it, Amanda. You can't convict someone of something they haven't done and you can't help someone who doesn't want help.

 

It's not pointing a finger...this isn't "you took my toy!" "well you took my dolly first!" type of thing. This is murder, rape, abuse. There isn't much in those that I would call "finger-pointing" and more like "you f'ed up big time".

 

[Amanda]

It seems to me THAT speaks enormously of our time.

 

You mean like in a "our time on earth" type of idea?

 

Hi Asimov! Yes, 'our generation'... type of idea.

 

You can't "stop" it unless you're aware of it, Amanda. You can't convict someone of something they haven't done and you can't help someone who doesn't want help.

 

It's not pointing a finger...this isn't "you took my toy!" "well you took my dolly first!" type of thing. This is murder, rape, abuse. There isn't much in those that I would call "finger-pointing" and more like "you f'ed up big time".

 

If we pay attention and consider our own possible influences on what is happening around us, we can do something. If we teach people to have their own internal locus of control and self esteem based on their own values, instead of others... that would be a significant beginning. That, and teaching kids to respect and help each other, and to realize that each person is uniquely different in many ways may have stopped the Columbine incident. Maybe we could teach parenting skills in highschool, and the effects of emotional abuse as well as the effects of physical abuse. The problem is that the most powerful way to teach your child is by being a role model, and the dyfunction just passes from one generation to another. Maybe there could be a means that kids as young as junior high can participate in groups where their inner conflicts can be resolved and new coping skills be taught?

 

Sure, I know not all kids raised in dysfunctional environments turn out wicked, but each person has a unique set of genes and influences in their lives. Heck, we just found out fairly recently about many learning disabilities, and discovered these children are really more intelligent than we had thought... just different ways of processing their information.

 

I'm sure we can be thankful that Danny Rolling did not have children.... I think. :ohmy:

[Asimov]

Hi Asimov! Yes, 'our generation'... type of idea.

 

I don't think there's anything more or less wrong with "our generation" than there was in previous generations. The fact that many of us are realising the need for a new Renaissance, a new Age of Reason speaks volumes of the way things are right now.

 

If we pay attention and consider our own possible influences on what is happening around us, we can do something. If we teach people to have their own internal locus of control and self esteem based on their own values, instead of others... that would be a significant beginning.

 

That is precisely what Objectivism teaches.

[Amanda]

I don't think there's anything more or less wrong with "our generation" than there was in previous generations. The fact that many of us are realising the need for a new Renaissance, a new Age of Reason speaks volumes of the way things are right now.

I think each generation is progressing beyond our ancestors' view of civilization to a greater extent. I suppose they didn't think it wrong to burn witches at the stake or feed people to the lions at one time, yet those very actions speaks for the mindset of those civilizations then.

 

And yes, a new age of reason is emerging, and it does say volumes about our evolutionary state of being. Hopefully it will include a lot of deeper understandings, and with understanding each other brings tolerance, and hopefully compassion for those unable to cope with the world as well as others. Maybe people will be able to identify precursors to certain violent behaviors, intervene where necessary, maybe in abusive actions to children, stopping them, and ending their journey into violent outcomes. I think that could be established to a far greater degree, and maybe refusing to execute anyone may be a message that rings the loudest. IDK. Vigile Del Fuoco said that statistics show that executions increase the incidences of violent crimes. Maybe society is saying it is okay in certain situations is a subliminal message to anger managment challenged people, that killing is okay.

[Dave]

....And yes, a new age of reason is emerging, and it does say volumes about our evolutionary state of being. Hopefully it will include a lot of deeper understandings, and with understanding each other brings tolerance, and hopefully compassion for those unable to cope with the world as well as others......

I think you're asking too much. Look around, we still have people believing in ghosts, gods, souls or life after death, and killing other humans they don't like. They are right along side those that wish to enslave women, dumb down science, and turn our country into a theocracy. Some of us have evolved, but far too many have not.

[Amanda]

I think you're asking too much. Look around, we still have people believing in ghosts, gods, souls or life after death,

 

Oh boy! Dave.... you don't know me very well, do you?

 

 

If you did, I could take offense to that...

 

 

 

 

I can see we both have not participated in the same threads too much here.

 

 

 

And, no... I don't think I'm asking too much. The only way huge changes can be attained is by taking one bite at a time. It seems to me that we are headed in the right direction. The death penalty is obsolete in most countries. Even in the US, it is nonexistent in most states.

 

BTW, Danny Rolling (sp?) is being executed tonight in Florida. He has multiple personalities, probably from an abusive childhood. One side of him is really kind and 'kewl'... and obviously another side of him is horrific. He savagely slaughtered students in the dorm, while they slept. Surprising his attorney at trial, he pleaded guilty, and has not requested any appeals. I guess I feel a bit ambivalent about his execution. How about you?

[Dave]

I can see we both have not participated in the same threads too much here.

I simply cannot understand how people in this supposedly modern society with the science and knowledge we have today how people can still believe in the magical leftovers of religion. Believe what you want, but I just cannot understand why people still believe that stuff.

And, no... I don't think I'm asking too much. The only way huge changes can be attained is by taking one bite at a time. It seems to me that we are headed in the right direction. The death penalty is obsolete in most countries. Even in the US, it is nonexistent in most states.

For too many you are asking too much. They cannot grasp the value of human life. Part of the problem is many still cling to some of the old religious values; hating and killing those that they do not like or that are different from them. Religions typically devalue human life in favor of an eternal life after this one. That value, or lack of value, has been instilled so deeply in some that even when they dump the god stuff they tightly cling to the humans are worthless idea.

BTW, Danny Rolling (sp?) is being executed tonight in Florida. He has multiple personalities, probably from an abusive childhood. One side of him is really kind and 'kewl'... and obviously another side of him is horrific. He savagely slaughtered students in the dorm, while they slept. Surprising his attorney at trial, he pleaded guilty, and has not requested any appeals. I guess I feel a bit ambivalent about his execution. How about you?

He, nor anyone else, should ever be "put to death." It devalues humanity. However..... I have a hard time working up sympathy for some of these guys. Oh shit! Does that mean I'm imperfect?

[Asimov]

Vigile Del Fuoco said that statistics show that executions increase the incidences of violent crimes.

 

I don't think that's what he said. I think he said that it didn't reduce the incidence of violent crimes.

[Casey]

BTW, Danny Rolling (sp?) is being executed tonight in Florida. He has multiple personalities, probably from an abusive childhood. One side of him is really kind and 'kewl'... and obviously another side of him is horrific. He savagely slaughtered students in the dorm, while they slept. Surprising his attorney at trial, he pleaded guilty, and has not requested any appeals. I guess I feel a bit ambivalent about his execution. How about you?

(Emphasis mine)

 

As a matter of interest (from Florida media)

 

Reared Pentecostal, Rolling sought spiritual advice on his last day from a minister of the church. Prosecutors and Rolling himself said he swung between deep faith and pure evil.

 

At some point, Rolling later said, he vowed to kill a person for each of the eight years he had spent in prisons in Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi. In addition to the five Gainesville murders, Rolling is suspected of killing a family of three, the Grissoms, in his native Shreveport, La.

(Emphases mine)

 

It would appear from this report of the Rolling case

 

n the courtroom on February 15 there were very few members of the public or the media. The families of the victims were all present but no one from Rolling's family was there; his mother, suffering from cancer, was too ill to attend. The only person present to support him was his fiancée, Sondra London. None were expecting this stage of the proceedings to be of any great moment and the court settled in quickly. Rolling's announcement that he would be pleading guilty was received with shocked silence in the courtroom, while outside the reaction was explosive as the media converged upon the courthouse to get the latest word as the courtroom emptied. Daniel Rolling had taken sole responsibility for the murders of the five young students, all that needed to be determined by the jury, that was finally selected nine days later, was whether he would receive the death penalty or not.

(Emphases mine)

 

As you said Amanda, it is quite possible Rolling had issues owing to an abusive childhood. However, what of it? I myself have issues from an abusive childhood. I have never believed, nor will I ever believe, that such issues per se are any excuse for running amok, unless it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, that the individual concerned was criminally insane at the time he committed the crime or crimes for which he was tried. I don't think that to be true in this case.

 

I think it was Dave who said that if a condemned person wished to commit suicide, they should be allowed to do exactly that. In this case I should say the State of Florida agreed to the accused's wish, and gave him a little assistance.

Casey

[Dave]

I think it was Dave who said that if a condemned person wished to commit suicide, they should be allowed to do exactly that. In this case I should say the State of Florida agreed to the accused's wish, and gave him a little assistance.

That's what I was thinking about this guy too. He wants to die.

[Amanda]

Vigile Del Fuoco said that statistics show that executions increase the incidences of violent crimes.

 

I don't think that's what he said. I think he said that it didn't reduce the incidence of violent crimes.

 

Asimov... okay. Gosh, I must say, you really pay attention! I apologize to everyone, especially Vigile Del Fuoco 1, for being lazy and possibly misinterpreting what Vigile Del Fuoco 1 said. It made an impression on me, and perhaps I interpreted differently or beyond what he had said. The post read:

 

I should mention that I did a study when I was in the University in which the findings indicated that there was no correlation between the DP and violent crime. In other words, states with the DP do not enjoy less violent crime; strangly enough, just the opposite is true, though to try and correlate a cause and effect relationship in this regard would be spurious IMO.

 

I have heard this before too. Whatever is the reasoning behind these statistical revelations, they are what they are.

[Amanda]

I simply cannot understand how people in this supposedly modern society with the science and knowledge we have today how people can still believe in the magical leftovers of religion.

Dave, no... I don't think I believe in the 'magical' powers of a supreme being. What I do believe is that there is the ability to embody a sense of sacredness and give reverence to it. IMO, science and spirituality do not conflict with each other.

For too many you are asking too much. They cannot grasp the value of human life. Part of the problem is many still cling to some of the old religious values; hating and killing those that they do not like or that are different from them.

That may be stereotyping, as people like Asimov and Redross don't appear to fit into that category.

 

As you said Amanda, it is quite possible Rolling had issues owing to an abusive childhood. However, what of it? I myself have issues from an abusive childhood. I have never believed, nor will I ever believe, that such issues per se are any excuse for running amok, unless it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, that the individual concerned was criminally insane at the time he committed the crime or crimes for which he was tried. I don't think that to be true in this case.

 

Casey... a very informative post! Thanks!

 

IMO, these reasons contributing to violent outcomes do NOT excuse anyone, therefore can NOT be designated as excuses! However, I do think these aspects contributing to the criminal acts of this person, that happened beyond their control, and clearly not given the opportunity to resolve these issues with the appropriate coping skills, ought to be considerations in the penalty phase. Accountability and responsibility for one's actions still must remain, regardless... IMO,

 

Danny Rolling, as I understand it, could not be considered criminally insane. This, I think, must be established that he had totally lost a connection with reality. Such as believing there is a chip in his head and outside sources totally control him, or that he saw the person as a menacing monster, they would have to show signs of significant delusional mental state.

 

The local TV station here in Central Florida took a poll of those in favor or not in favor of the Death Penalty. Last night those results were shown, 87% in favor, 9% not in favor, and 4% undecided.

[Asimov]

Asimov... okay. Gosh, I must say, you really pay attention! I apologize to everyone, especially Vigile Del Fuoco 1, for being lazy and possibly misinterpreting what Vigile Del Fuoco 1 said. It made an impression on me, and perhaps I interpreted differently or beyond what he had said. The post read:

 

Unless they can directly link an increase in crime with the usage of the DP, I don't think that actually stands as a statement. That is my contention on it.

 

We could also look at the religiousity of the states and the amount of crime they had and probably find some kind of correlation too, or the amount of beans being sold as a correlation to violent crime.

[Dave]

For too many you are asking too much. They cannot grasp the value of human life. Part of the problem is many still cling to some of the old religious values; hating and killing those that they do not like or that are different from them.

That may be stereotyping, as people like Asimov and Redross don't appear to fit into that category.

They fit perfectly. You can see the hate in every post. That's why I plonked them.

IMO, these reasons contributing to violent outcomes do NOT excuse anyone, therefore can NOT be designated as excuses! However, I do think these aspects contributing to the criminal acts of this person, that happened beyond their control, and clearly not given the opportunity to resolve these issues with the appropriate coping skills, ought to be considerations in the penalty phase. Accountability and responsibility for one's actions still must remain, regardless... IMO,

You're right, past experiences do not excuse an act, but they can be seen as contributing to the persons mind set at the time. They should be looked at so that we can learn how NOT to make such a person again.

The local TV station here in Central Florida took a poll of those in favor or not in favor of the Death Penalty. Last night those results were shown, 87% in favor, 9% not in favor, and 4% undecided.

Was it a call in "poll"? Those are extremely inaccurate.

 

Mispelled words may have been added to annoy the spelling police.