The Death Penalty

[Asimov]

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

 

What's wrong with hate?

[Amanda]

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.

Dave, I don't know Redross, however, I've been posting with Asimov for over a year now... and he has never suggested a religous inclination that I've seen. I don't know if it is a sense of hatred so much as a perspective of justice. The Islamic are harsh too... however, would you consider them hating? Perhaps it is more a lack of compassion and empathy for those less fortunate. Some people think that everyone is just like them, and can not understand how they could commit such preversities.

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.

Dave, it seems that people were able to send their votes through the TV remote! Not sure how some of them were able to do that, as I have never participated. However, in checking their site today... the numbers have shifted from the statistics I got from the TV last night. It seems it is now 76% in favor of the DP, and 16% not in favor of the DP, and 8% not decided. The site is found here.

[redross]

Dave's an idiot. He only attacks people without justifying his opinions.

 

This thread has gone so far beyond its original intent it's not funny. People cannot understand the difference between hypothetical and actual. I hate where this thread has gone and I will no longer be a part of it.

[Casey]

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.

 

With respect, I have to wonder from a philosophical point of view whether we can learn how NOT to make a certain type of person.

 

Every person has memories of good and bad childhood experiences . Unless the bad (read abusive) experiences are such that they make a person truly insane, it seems to me they have a choice as to whether they will learn from experience just how bad abuse is and so desire not to repeat the cycle, or whether they will allow their lives to be driven by a desire for revenge on children, adults, or society at large. I don't think any amount of "social engineering" will change this simple fact.

 

As I said, for a sane person who is an abuse survivor, it is a simple choice. That isn't to say it must necessarily be the easiest choice in the world, but it is a choice nonetheless. I also think law enforcement people would agree that when truly insane perpetrators commit crimes, the crimes may be horrific but are rather more easily solved than is the case when a sane perpetrator commits a series of murders or other outrages for no apparent motive, because an insane perpetrator probably doesn't care if he is caught or not, whereas a sane one damn well does, deep down.

 

To put the matter somewhat humorously, consider an exchange between two characters in one of a series of novels written by the British author Ray Rigby many years ago. During WW2, Rigby had been a guest of the British Army's Glasshouse (American Brig or Stockade) a few times, and he afterwards wrote some books based on his experiences. One of his characters was a certain Jackson, who was what the British at the time would have called a "spiv" or what Aussies would have called a "jackman" (from the expression "Fuck you Jack, I'm all right!). What Americans call such characters I have no idea, but I imagine it's just as colourful.

 

Anyway, Jackson's greatest desire was to obtain his "ticket" (in other words to be medically downgraded on the basis of insanity) in such a way that he would be able to return home without being locked up. Eventually, after much planning and devious scheming, he was sent to a rear area (in North Africa I think it was) where some soldiers who were genuinely insane were confined, and convinced the docters that he was entitled to his ticket.

 

Now Jackson of course was as happy as a pig in mud when this happened and was virtually tap-dancing his way out of the place when a Scots Sergeant remarked, "Ye know Jackson, ye're a bluidy guid actor. Ye ought tae tak' it oop arter t'war, Ah'd pay guid money tae see ye on the stage ... but ye're forgittin' somethin', ye ken wha' it is?"

 

"No Sergeant", Jackson answered, wondering what it was he'd forgotten.

 

"Aye wull laddie, thim as belongs in thar, they're no' actin' ... 'cos they dinnae bluidy hav' tae!"

 

I'll admit to having taken a liberty or two with the original, but the moral of the story is I think, that the more exotic mental deficiences and abusive childhoods that are allowed to be pleaded in court, the more criminals will try to take advantage, or "work their ticket" as the saying went in those days. Just a thought.

Casey

[Dave]

Dave, I don't know Redross, however, I've been posting with Asimov for over a year now...

They are not the topic here.

Dave, it seems that people were able to send their votes through the TV remote! Not sure how some of them were able to do that, as I have never participated. However, in checking their site today... the numbers have shifted from the statistics I got from the TV last night. It seems it is now 76% in favor of the DP, and 16% not in favor of the DP, and 8% not decided. The site is found here.

I thought so. Those polls are unreliable. They can often vote more than once and they are biased towards the more emotional side since those are the ones most likely to reply.

 

 

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.

With respect, I have to wonder from a philosophical point of view whether we can learn how NOT to make a certain type of person.....

We can learn much from them. How they think. What they think. How that gets translated into actions or emotions. We can learn why they went one way and someone else that had been through similiar experiences went another way. We can always learn something if you're looking to learn.

[Asimov]

We can learn much from them. How they think. What they think. How that gets translated into actions or emotions. We can learn why they went one way and someone else that had been through similiar experiences went another way. We can always learn something if you're looking to learn.

 

That doesn't make the death penalty immoral.

[Amanda]

We can learn much from them. How they think. What they think. How that gets translated into actions or emotions. We can learn why they went one way and someone else that had been through similiar experiences went another way. We can always learn something if you're looking to learn.

 

That doesn't make the death penalty immoral.

 

Asimov, it seems to me, that taking all these midigating circumstances, culminating to the actual crime, one could then ascertain to what degree is their actual responsibility for that crime to have occurred.

 

Example: If I kidnapped you, used my extensive insights into mind control and by using severe coercive methods on you, molded and adapted you slowly but surely into a bank robbing, killing machine... and then to give me half the money... what would then be the extent of your actual accountability and responsibility for these bank robbing and murdering crimes you did?

[Asimov]

Example: If I kidnapped you, used my extensive insights into mind control and by using severe coercive methods on you, molded and adapted you slowly but surely into a bank robbing, killing machine... and then to give me half the money... what would then be the extent of your actual accountability and responsibility for these bank robbing and murdering crimes you did?

 

None, an action made under coercion isn't a moral action or an immoral action.

[Dhampir]

Asimov, it seems to me, that taking all these midigating circumstances, culminating to the actual crime, one could then ascertain to what degree is their actual responsibility for that crime to have occurred.

I wholeheartedly agree. I still think the death penalty is viable, but that it needs to be exercized with greater discrimination.

 

 

 

 

And I don't mean racial discrimination.

[Dave]

.....it seems to me, that taking all these midigating circumstances, culminating to the actual crime, one could then ascertain to what degree is their actual responsibility for that crime to have occurred.

Whatever the miditating" circumstances were, the persons actual responsibility is, in most cases, always 100%.... that is unless the person can be determined to be insane or mentally incompetent, to such a degree that they do not know or understand what they did. I don't buy that momentarially insane bit either.

Example: If I kidnapped you, used my extensive insights into mind control and by using severe coercive methods on you, molded and adapted you slowly but surely into a bank robbing, killing machine... and then to give me half the money... what would then be the extent of your actual accountability and responsibility for these bank robbing and murdering crimes you did?

Not likely to happen. I like to stick to real life stories like a guy I knew; he picked up anold friend he hadn't seen in awhile. Took him to a convience store to get some cigarettes. He stayed in the car while the friend went in. Unknown to the guy in the car the friend robbed, and shot to death, the clerk. He calmly walked out got in the car and left. Ahile later the guy that actually killed someone turned "states evidence" against the guy driving the car. The killer got 5 years and the driver got 15 to life. Who was responsible there?

[Dhampir]

Not relevant to anything : It's Mitigating,*Amanda, Dave*.

 

Sorry. Pet Peeve. Continue.

[Dave]

Not relevant to anything : It's Mitigating,*Amanda, Dave*.

 

Sorry. Pet Peeve. Continue.

I always add misspelled words to annoy the spelling pollice.

[Amanda]

Example: If I kidnapped you, used my extensive insights into mind control and by using severe coercive methods on you, molded and adapted you slowly but surely into a bank robbing, killing machine... and then to give me half the money... what would then be the extent of your actual accountability and responsibility for these bank robbing and murdering crimes you did?

 

None, an action made under coercion isn't a moral action or an immoral action.

 

Asimov, okay.

 

How about someone who ties their dog up outside, never socializes with it, and just hits it to release frustration every once in awhile, and the dog gets lose and bites someone... who's fault is that?

 

Now, what if that happened to a child turned adult?

 

Not likely to happen.

 

Dave, ever hear of Patty Hearst?

 

Not relevant to anything : It's Mitigating,*Amanda, Dave*.

 

Sorry. Pet Peeve. Continue.

 

Dhampir, OMG, thank you so much! Never apologize to me, and I appreciate the correction! I just have to stop being so lazy and check it out when I'm not too sure.

[Dave]

Dave, ever hear of Patty Hearst?

Stockholm Syndrome, yes I know about it. But as I said, it's not likely to happen. I did not say it doesn't happen. But like I also said, I like to talk about things more likely to happen. One can always come up with some outlandish scenerio and argue from there, but not many want to deal with scenerios more likely to happen. Forget Patty Hearst, and talk about some youngster that was beaten daily by either parent and then turns to drugs and then starts dealing to support her habbit and then kills someone that didn't pay her fast enough. Patty Hearst/Stockholm Syndromes come around come around once every 50 years or so. Drug deals gone bad happen daily.

 

That's all I'm trying to say. Keep it real. When talking about capital punishment people always bring in the Ted Bundys, Charles Mansons, and other high profile cases, but rarely bring up the thousands of not so famous cases.

[Asimov]

Asimov, okay.

 

How about someone who ties their dog up outside, never socializes with it, and just hits it to release frustration every once in awhile, and the dog gets lose and bites someone... who's fault is that?

 

Now, what if that happened to a child turned adult?

 

As long as they are aware that what they are doing is wrong, they are completely responsible. If they don't understand, or have no concept of morality, they don't have moral responsibility

 

Stockholm Syndrome is not coercion to do a specific action. By coercion I mean you force someone to act in a certain way.

 

The dog has no moral repsonsibility, so it's the owners fault. The child if he has moral responsibility and knows what he did was wrong, he is at fault.

 

 

 

That's all I'm trying to say. Keep it real. When talking about capital punishment people always bring in the Ted Bundys, Charles Mansons, and other high profile cases, but rarely bring up the thousands of not so famous cases.

 

Ah...because Ted Bundy, Charles Manson and others aren't real...

[Amanda]

What's wrong with hate?

Asimov, it only hurts the person with this emotion, NOT the person they hate! What could 'hate' possibly do to contribute to a positive outcomes in any way, to the person holding these feelings? It certainly fails to contribute to the state of peace in one's life!

 

As long as they are aware that what they are doing is wrong, they are completely responsible. If they don't understand, or have no concept of morality, they don't have moral responsibility

 

Stockholm Syndrome is not coercion to do a specific action. By coercion I mean you force someone to act in a certain way.

 

The dog has no moral repsonsibility, so it's the owners fault. The child if he has moral responsibility and knows what he did was wrong, he is at fault.

 

Asimov, people who are raised a certain way... think that is normal! If it is okay to get punched and kicked as a child, it's okay! If you have parents that teach it is okay to steal... it is okay. If it is taught to kill people, it is okay. If it is okay to live with gators in your back yard, it is okay! If it is okay to walk through fields with land mines, it's okay. See what I mean?

 

Not everyone was born into equal perspectives of our world....

 

 

Stockholm Syndrome, yes I know about it. But as I said, it's not likely to happen. I did not say it doesn't happen. But like I also said, I like to talk about things more likely to happen. One can always come up with some outlandish scenerio and argue from there, but not many want to deal with scenerios more likely to happen. Forget Patty Hearst, and talk about some youngster that was beaten daily by either parent and then turns to drugs and then starts dealing to support her habbit and then kills someone that didn't pay her fast enough. Patty Hearst/Stockholm Syndromes come around come around once every 50 years or so. Drug deals gone bad happen daily.

 

That's all I'm trying to say. Keep it real. When talking about capital punishment people always bring in the Ted Bundys, Charles Mansons, and other high profile cases, but rarely bring up the thousands of not so famous cases.

Dave, IMO, there is really very little difference in the Patty Hearst story and the scenario you suggest here. Very little difference... and maybe only worse, because this happens by their own ignorant parent... whom they were born with to trust them for such viable teachings.

 

But of course... their parents were probably born into worse circumstances.

[Dave]

That's all I'm trying to say. Keep it real. When talking about capital punishment people always bring in the Ted Bundys, Charles Mansons, and other high profile cases, but rarely bring up the thousands of not so famous cases.

Dave, IMO, there is really very little difference in the Patty Hearst story and the scenario you suggest here. Very little difference...

The difference is that one scenario is very commmon and the other happens only in, rare, high profile cases. It does not good to base an argument solely on something that rarely happens and ignore everything else. That's what these pro death people do. They look at a few emotional cases and make blanket statements about everything else based on that narrow view.

and maybe only worse, because this happens by their own ignorant parent... whom they were born with to trust them for such viable teachings.

 

But of course... their parents were probably born into worse circumstances.

Cycles like that can be broken, but not by killing people. That just creates another cycle of violence.

[Asimov]

Asimov, it only hurts the person with this emotion, NOT the person they hate! What could 'hate' possibly do to contribute to a positive outcomes in any way, to the person holding these feelings? It certainly fails to contribute to the state of peace in one's life!

 

No it doesn't. Hate is just an emotion of intense dislike, completely natural, completely fine, and completely normal. There is nothing wrong with disliking something intensely.

 

Asimov, people who are raised a certain way... think that is normal! If it is okay to get punched and kicked as a child, it's okay! If you have parents that teach it is okay to steal... it is okay. If it is taught to kill people, it is okay. If it is okay to live with gators in your back yard, it is okay! If it is okay to walk through fields with land mines, it's okay. See what I mean?

 

This is irrelevant, Amanda. Breaking a moral law requires that someone is aware of what they did, intended to do that action, and is aware of right from wrong.

 

We've already gone over this, at least twice.

 

Patty Hearst/Stockholm Syndromes come around come around once every 50 years or so....

 

Except you're wrong and Stockhom Syndrome occurs in domestic abuse cases all the time, rapings, kidnappings, etc.

 

whom they were born with to trust them for such viable teachings.

 

The only knowledge is self-taught, Amanda. If you don't question things that you are brought up to know, that's your own fault and stupidity.