How many strikes before your out?

[Will]

I don't see why the death penalty is uniquely barbaric.

I believe it to be barbaric because of it's use in a system intended to be about justice, prevention, and treatment for the benefit and stability of society. Consider what it is to sentence someone found guilty. We remove people from society temporarily both as a way to deter the individual from acting in such a way again and to deter such behavior from others. It is, like any other punishment, a way to correct behavior.

What behavior does state murder correct? It certainly doesn't correct the behavior of the guilty, as the guilty lacks behavior after death. And, as studies have repeatedly demonstrated, the death penalty in no way deters crime. In fact, perhaps coincidentally, it's in states with the death penalty that we see the highest rates of murder.

There are generally two arguments aside from this which are supplied to defend the death penalty: permanent removal and the so-called justice argument.

The permanent removal argument essentially states that there are some individuals who by their very nature are so counter to the stability of society that our only choice is to kill them lest we see them damage society further. I don't buy this for two reasons: 1) we have life imprisonment, and 2) many of our our prisons lack even the most basic psychological or sociological or behavioral treatment. It's not like we try to fix people before sentencing them to death. We stick them in a building with bars and we essentially forget about them, even though it's been documented than many people on Death Row are of low IQs including people who are legally mentally handicapped.

The justice argument, I think, is the most dangerous argument. Essentially, the justice argument is one pulled right from ancient Abrahamic traditions and religions: lex talionis, or 'an eye for an eye'. This argument goes that because these people took a life their life is somehow automatically forfeit. I would argue this is a rationalization of vengeance, and that vengeance has no place in the justice system because justice is for the good of the many whereas vengeance is about satisfying our baser want for violent reciprocation.

There are also, of course, many instances of innocent people being put to death because our system is imperfect. A wrong imprisoned man can be set free; a dead man cannot.

same goes for Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gadhafi, Bashar Assad etc etc. I've got to agree with you, Stevil, SD and others. If someone's committed mass murder or many violent crimes, I don't see why the death penalty is barbaric. But only in cases of extreme or persistent violence where there can be no doubts over someone's guilt.

What purpose does it serve? It doesn't work as a deterrant. It doesn't bring back those they've killed, it just brings us a little closer to their level, as they carried out their mass murders often with the permission of the state.

[Too Few Lions]

same goes for Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gadhafi, Bashar Assad etc etc. I've got to agree with you, Stevil, SD and others. If someone's committed mass murder or many violent crimes, I don't see why the death penalty is barbaric. But only in cases of extreme or persistent violence where there can be no doubts over someone's guilt.

What purpose does it serve? It doesn't work as a deterrant. It doesn't bring back those they've killed, it just brings us a little closer to their level, as they carried out their mass murders often with the permission of the state.

I don't personally think that killing a mass murderer brings us any closer to their level at all. People like the above have murdered thousands just for disagreeing with them or wanting some level of personal freedoms. I don't feel the need to uphold the basic human rights of people who don't believe that anyone else deserves the right to life.

I guess it should be down to what victims and their families want in these cases, if I'd have been brutally tortured by a dictator or members of his secret police or a sadistic mass murderer or had members of my family killed by them for no good reason, I don't know how I'd feel. But if people who have suffered such things want to see the perpetrators dead I don't see any problem with that. I doubt too many in Libya shed a tear for Gadhafi, or too many in Iraq for Saddam when they were killed. I don't see this as an issue of taking any moral highground, merely of making sure that victims of such people feel that justice has been done. That would be the purpose of such a sentence. If victims generally didn't want the death sentence, then let the dictator or mass murderer live.

I also don't think wanting an eye for an eye is any more down to Judaism than turning the other cheek is due to Christianity, both philosophies are centuries older. I think justice is an innate human concept linked to a desire for fairness, scientists have observed similar behaviour in monkeys

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3116678.stm

[Stevil]

I am not in the least worried about someone's subjective opinion of human rights. Everything is a right in my opinion, and our society leaders must infringe on our rights in order to have a stable and functional society.

The safety of ourselves and our loved ones must be paramount to all other decisions. As members of society, we want our society members to be safe. There are some people, it seems that will always create undue danger to the average person in society. What purpose does it add to society in locking these people up in a prison for their entire lives? The economic cost is huge, lets say $50K per year for 30 years = $1.5 Million dollars. That money could go a long way towards helping out some of the victims of violent crimes, or towards helping the homeless, or towards rehabilitation clinics for those people that are not beyond help.

[Will37]

same goes for Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gadhafi, Bashar Assad etc etc. I've got to agree with you, Stevil, SD and others. If someone's committed mass murder or many violent crimes, I don't see why the death penalty is barbaric. But only in cases of extreme or persistent violence where there can be no doubts over someone's guilt.

What purpose does it serve? It doesn't work as a deterrant. It doesn't bring back those they've killed, it just brings us a little closer to their level, as they carried out their mass murders often with the permission of the state.

I don't personally think that killing a mass murderer brings us any closer to their level at all. People like the above have murdered thousands just for disagreeing with them or wanting some level of personal freedoms. I don't feel the need to uphold the basic human rights of people who don't believe that anyone else deserves the right to life.

I guess it should be down to what victims and their families want in these cases, if I'd have been brutally tortured by a dictator or members of his secret police or a sadistic mass murderer or had members of my family killed by them for no good reason, I don't know how I'd feel. But if people who have suffered such things want to see the perpetrators dead I don't see any problem with that. I doubt too many in Libya shed a tear for Gadhafi, or too many in Iraq for Saddam when they were killed. I don't see this as an issue of taking any moral highground, merely of making sure that victims of such people feel that justice has been done. That would be the purpose of such a sentence. If victims generally didn't want the death sentence, then let the dictator or mass murderer live.

I also don't think wanting an eye for an eye is any more down to Judaism than turning the other cheek is due to Christianity, both philosophies are centuries older. I think justice is an innate human concept linked to a desire for fairness, scientists have observed similar behaviour in monkeys

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3116678.stm

I'm friends with a Bosniak (Bisnian Muslim) girl.  She's really a very kind, funny person.  Very good humored.  At least during the day.  At night from what her roommate says, she still occasionally screams in her sleep.  I've never heard her say a bad word about anybody, including the Bosnian Serbs (led by Mladic) who tried to murder her family.  But when Mladic was captured the first facebook status update from her that I saw was a picture of him and her comment: 'Why isn't this animal in chains!?!' 

It's bad enough that Mladic gets an international platform to spout his dribble and proudly proclaim that her was merely 'defending his country' by raining hell down on cities full of woman, children, and unarmed men.  But that's justice.  THAT separates us from men like Mladic.  The fact that we will give him a platform to attempt to prove his innocence.  An opportunity never given to the hundreds of thousands of raped, tortured, and murdered victims of the regime and army her served so faithfully. 

Putting an end to our burden,and the burden of his living victims, of having to share the same plane of existence as a man like him does not put us on his level or bring us anywhere closer to it.  And to suggest it does is absurd.  There is no comparison between legally executing a man who has brought unspeakable evil to our world and continues to use every opportunity afforded him to defend and promote his villainy (not an insignificant thing in in the current political climate in Bosnia still) and the indiscriminate mass murder of innocent people.  Totally different.  Both in the aim and the process.

[Too Few Lions]

^great post Will37, I agree 100%^

[Crow]

same goes for Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gadhafi, Bashar Assad etc etc. I've got to agree with you, Stevil, SD and others. If someone's committed mass murder or many violent crimes, I don't see why the death penalty is barbaric. But only in cases of extreme or persistent violence where there can be no doubts over someone's guilt.

But how do we determine which leaders would get the death penalty? All leaders should live by the same rules, so would it be only those who give orders against their own people or would it also be leaders that give orders against other nations when innocent civilians are murdered. Also should leaders from nations that enable the mass murdering psychopathic leaders be subjected to the same scrutiny as those who commit the actions. I personally think leaders should be highly accountable for the deaths of civilians or those that enable horrendous events to take place, if they were we would probably not face half the military problems we do now.

[Too Few Lions]

same goes for Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gadhafi, Bashar Assad etc etc. I've got to agree with you, Stevil, SD and others. If someone's committed mass murder or many violent crimes, I don't see why the death penalty is barbaric. But only in cases of extreme or persistent violence where there can be no doubts over someone's guilt.

But how do we determine which leaders would get the death penalty? All leaders should live by the same rules, so would it be only those who give orders against their own people or would it also be leaders that give orders against other nations when innocent civilians are murdered. Also should leaders from nations that enable the mass murdering psychopathic leaders be subjected to the same scrutiny as those who commit the actions. I personally think leaders should be highly accountable for the deaths of civilians or those that enable horrendous events to take place, if they were we would probably not face half the military problems we do now.

that's a very good question Crow, like all things in life the issue isn't black and white. I'm just saying on a personal level I don't have a problem with the death penalty in extreme cases of mass murder, repeated violent brutality or crimes against humanity. Quite where you draw a line with defining that I don't know. I agree that people who fund, arm and tacitly support such brutal dictators should also be held to account.

[xSilverPhinx]

I wouldn't kill him. I'd lock him up and have him do at least 8 solid hours of work a day in order to earn his 'board'. Prisoners who were dangerous offenders used to be put to work building things, constructing things, doing manual, menial jobs. Now, it seems like they're just stuck in a cell and allowed to read, write, or watch TV. Is it any wonder so many of them prefer jail? Send this idiot someplace that'll make his time useful.

I couldn't agree more. Slave labour

[Hector Valdez]

No. NO. Everyone has the potential to mature and change, till the day they die. I hate to be quoting Jesus on this, but we shouldn't forgive this man 7 times. We should forgive him 77 times. 777 times. There is no tipping point.

I probably won't pray for him, but I believe that he can become a better person.

[Sandra Craft]

Definitely perfect in the case of Australia, it was America that went wrong 

Oh that was a low blow -- you know ours were mostly religious loons!

[The Magic Pudding]

Definitely perfect in the case of Australia, it was America that went wrong 

Oh that was a low blow -- you know ours were mostly religious loons!

The Simpson's episode featuring Australia makes me ponder a bit, we're portrayed dishing out the corporal punishment even though we don't do it, don't do torture or capital punishment.  Ye I know it's the Simpsons and Sweden probably doesn't have naked females directing traffic either.  It's doesn't bother me, I just find it a bit odd, incongruous I suppose, us being portrayed this way in US popular culture when the US is so much harsher.

[Stevil]

No. NO. Everyone has the potential to mature and change, till the day they die. I hate to be quoting Jesus on this, but we shouldn't forgive this man 7 times. We should forgive him 77 times. 777 times. There is no tipping point.

I probably won't pray for him, but I believe that he can become a better person.

Would you like to be the one to appologise to the victims?
Well he had committed rape 776 times but we thought he might change so we forgave him, let him free and hoped for the best

[Sandra Craft]

It's doesn't bother me, I just find it a bit odd, incongruous I suppose, us being portrayed this way in US popular culture when the US is so much harsher.

It's your accents -- they're so damn macho and, to us, macho means two-fisted, blood and guts, take no prisoners, shoot first ask questions never, etc, etc.  You're victims of vocal stereotyping.

[Hector Valdez]

No. NO. Everyone has the potential to mature and change, till the day they die. I hate to be quoting Jesus on this, but we shouldn't forgive this man 7 times. We should forgive him 77 times. 777 times. There is no tipping point.

I probably won't pray for him, but I believe that he can become a better person.

Would you like to be the one to appologise to the victims?
Well he had committed rape 776 times but we thought he might change so we forgave him, let him free and hoped for the best

Yes. I will apologize to the victims. In time he may apologize too, or he may not. But I will not, I will NOT destroy him. No man shall be deprived of the chance to change and mature. No man is beyond redemption. It is the victims, after all, who have not forgiven him, but only they will be able to do so. Once he has become a better man, he is free to go.

[Stevil]

Yes. I will apologize to the victims. In time he may apologize too, or he may not. But I will not, I will NOT destroy him. No man shall be deprived of the chance to change and mature. No man is beyond redemption.

So when you set free this man whom has raped 776 people, he then goes into society and rapes No 777
You will go to No 777, tell them that it was you who let this person go, you will tell them that you valued this rapist's potential for change more than the safety of the public.
You will tell the 777 victim that it is unfortunate but sometimes the offenders do repeat again, but that you are not giving up on the rapist and that you will let them go into society again and hope that they have changed and do not rape No 778?

Once he has become a better man, he is free to go.

How can you judge that he has become a better man? How can you know that he won't re-offend? Is messing up the life of the next victim worth it?

If you were the government, is it your job to ensure individuals get ample opportunity to change or is it your job to keep society functional and safe?