Death Penalty

[Tetrahedrite]

As I have said before, would those of you who are pro-death be willing to personally administer the lethal dose to a criminal who has been sentenced to death???

[john5746]

As I have said before, would those of you who are pro-death be willing to personally administer the lethal dose to a criminal who has been sentenced to death???

 

Would those of you who are pro-life be willing to pay for all his expenses out of your own pocket? This goes for abortion too.

[Tetrahedrite]

Would those of you who are pro-life be willing to pay for all his expenses out of your own pocket? This goes for abortion too.

Don't be a fool. Read post #7.

[Coral Rhedd]

 

It's important to separate the two catergories. Mad and bad are different.

 

That is the crux of our discussion I think. It comes down to whether or not the prepetrator is aware of what he/she is doing. Madness would mitigate punishment and badness (as long was we were able to establish a decision to be bad) would not. Your contention that it is important to separate them is probably at the root of how we decide whether or not our society is just. If we do not separate them this way do you feel that this would undermine our very system of justice?

 

I think you have almost persuaded me -- given what we know today of madness and badness.

[Coral Rhedd]

I think the schizophrenic would be able to plead insanity, genetic insanity is different than genetic evilness.

 

The schizophrenic might plead insanity true, but it is a defense that is seldom successfully used since the law was changed when Hinkley attempted to asassinate Reagan. I think this was a bad change in the law myself.

 

I think the ground you are standing on is based on your assumption that evil is a matter of choice.

 

Perhaps we will have another discussion at another time that concerns comorbid conditions.

[john5746]

As I have said before, would those of you who are pro-death be willing to personally administer the lethal dose to a criminal who has been sentenced to death???

 

My answer to this question is yes. One bullet in the back of the head. Maybe 10 if I know the victim personally.

 

You didn't ask me would I be willing to pay for lawyers to fight over the idiot's life while he sits on death row. No I wouldn't. I am opposed to the death penalty as is because of the cost. That is one of the major benefits I see for the death penalty is saving money. If it doesn't save money, it isn't worth it, of course we could streamline the deal for obvious cases - video tape, etc.

 

I don't have a problem with it ethically.

[john5746]

The schizophrenic might plead insanity true' date=' but it is a defense that is seldom successfully used since the law was changed when Hinkley attempted to asassinate Reagan. I think this was a bad change in the law myself.

 

I think the ground you are standing on is based on your assumption that evil is a matter of choice.

 

Perhaps we will have another discussion at another time that concerns comorbid conditions. [/quote']

 

You know, If I start killing people tomorrow and don't know it and don't have a choice, PLEASE SHOOT ME! I don't want to live like that.

[Coral Rhedd]

I guess for me' date=' since the death penalty is more for getting rid of waste, I am not too concerned with mad or bad. I am concerned with threat potential.

 

Ok, the rabid dog wasn't the best example, so if ANY dog mauls or kills a child, then it needs to be killed. No need to keep it around, feeding it, etc. Did it know it was doing something "bad" - who cares, it might do it again.

 

And with the drunk driver, I am more concerned with someone who keeps drinking and driving than OJ Simpson. That doesn't mean I want to live near OJ, that just means the drunken driver is the bigger threat IMO. Both should be locked up forever or killed.[/quote']

 

Well there is a great deal of difference between "locked up forever" and "killed." One allows for the possibility of redemption and the other does not.

 

As for not being concerned whether someone is mad or bad, I can only assume you have not had much personal contact with the mentally ill people who suffer from pychotic disorders. They are quite different from sociopaths. To not be concerned whether or not a person who killed in a psychotic episode is punished as if they had total culpability is, to me, naive. Would you also be in favor of executing mentally retarded criminals? To exact capital punishment upon such a person is barbaric in my opinion.

 

Human life cannot be "waste" in a just society. Nor should economic factors determine who lives and who dies.

 

Although your mention of the murderer of Ron Goldman and Nicole Simpson does remind us of how often justice is not blind.

[Coral Rhedd]

You know, If I start killing people tomorrow and don't know it and don't have a choice, PLEASE SHOOT ME! I don't want to live like that.

 

You probably would not possess enough awareness or yourself or of reality to actually have that POV.

 

But it is nice you are on record, just in case you go mad.

[john5746]

You are correct, i don't have much contact with mentally ill, etc. I should narrow my broad strokes somewhat. I am not saying all mad people should be killed. I am saying that repeatability is also a concern. If a mentally retarded individual kills and seems likely to kill again - aggressive, etc. why should he be regarded differently than a normal person who is this way?

 

Now, if a psychotic or mentally retarded individual makes a "mistake" and isn't likely to do it again, that's a different story, although these things are difficult to say.

[john5746]

You probably would not possess enough awareness or yourself or of reality to actually have that POV.

 

But it is nice you are on record' date=' just in case you go mad. [/quote']

 

Yes, If I have the awareness, I would do it myself. Suicide can be a good thing, for adults of course. All those people that want to take others with them though, they need to just take themselves, leave everyone else alone!

[Coral Rhedd]

Yes, you are right. The best predictor we have of future behavior is usually past behavior. But too many mentally ill people who commit crimes are incarcerated when what would best serve them and the rest of us is long term care in a confined setting. In other words mental hospitals for the criminally insane. In fact, most mentally ill people who commit serious crimes don't want to go to a hospital for the criminally insane because they know that they are more likely to see freedom again if they go to prison. But prison is a bad place for people with mental illness or any other serious illness. Prisons do not offer proper treatment.

[Coral Rhedd]

Yes, If I have the awareness, I would do it myself. Suicide can be a good thing, for adults of course. All those people that want to take others with them though, they need to just take themselves, leave everyone else alone!

 

Many mentally ill people take themselves out every year. They are far more likely to hurt themselves than they are to hurt others. But that's another story . . .

[john5746]

Well, who says you can't beat a dead horse? Nice conversation Coral. Oh and to the cyber police - I am not trying to start a suicide ring! Bad timing on my part.

[Coral Rhedd]

I enjoyed the conversation with everyone here. I now think I not only understand everyone's thinking better, but I also am clearer on my own.

[Macroscopic]

That is one of the major benefits I see for the death penalty is saving money. If it doesn't save money, it isn't worth it,

 

The death penalty isn't cheaper, it's a lot more expensive than life in prison.

 

So then it's not worth it.

 

I don't have a problem with it ethically.

Neither do I. I am against it though because I think life in prison is worse, and because it's expensive.

[Newtonian]

The expense is due to how your law system works over there in the US,which obviously shows us it doesnt.Why should the CPS seek the death penalty in advance.One should maintain innocent until proven guilty,and the sentence should come at the end of the trial by the judge.Its farcical when guilty as sin serial killers (TED BUNDY) are allowed endless appeals.I would suggest your judicial system should be addressed.

Besides cost of gaining a watertight conviction should not even come into the debate.

[-Demosthenes-]

Its farcical when guilty as sin serial killers (TED BUNDY) are allowed endless appeals.I would suggest your judicial system should be addressed.

Besides cost of gaining a watertight conviction should not even come into the debate.

Appeals and the need for "water tight cases" are to protect the innocent, which I believe to be a worthy cause.

[Aardvark]

Madness would mitigate punishment and badness (as long was we were able to establish a decision to be bad) would not. Your contention that it is important to separate them is probably at the root of how we decide whether or not our society is just. If we do not separate them this way do you feel that this would undermine our very system of justice?

 

If we do not seperate the bad from the mad then it would completely undermine the principles of justice.

 

By the very definition of the word, it would not be 'just' to punish someone for actions they were not responsible for. People who are mad are those who have no understanding of the consquences of their actions. They should not be punished, they should be treated and, if necessary, isolated from the general public for reasons of public safety.

 

Whereas people who do understand the consequences of there actions are fully morally culpable. Therefore it is 'just' that they be punished. Regardless of whatever impulses or biological urges they suffer from, they still have the choice as autonomous moral beings.

 

To be crude, an overwhelming sex drive and high level of testosterone doesn't count as a mitigating factor if a man decides to commit rape. He still knows what he is doing and had the choice not to, however hard it might have been for him to deny his urges.

 

However, an understanding of the existence of these urges can be legimatimately useful in identifying potential problems before they arise and helping people confront and deal with their natures so as to prevent these crimes happening in the first place.

 

I think we are now pretty much in agreement here, do you agree?

[Coral Rhedd]

Aardvark you said: "it would not be 'just' to punish someone for actions they were not responsible for."

 

As long as we hold firmly to that principle, I believe we are in complete agreement about actions and consequences. Were we to get into hair-splitting details about what constitutes the ability to be responsible, we might find points of minor disagreement. As to what we have discussed previously in this thread, I would say we are in concordance.

 

Regards,

Coral