Alan McDougall Posted January 10, 2014 Author Share Posted January 10, 2014 Not sure why this is in the Ethics section. The OP has also failed to mention the high Gini coefficient in South Africa which is more likely to have contributed to crime than the lack of the death penalty. You are right about South Africa having the highest Gini coefficient in the world, poverty in my my opinion is one of the prime causes of crime in SA, but I am not sure if all violent crime originates from this segment of the population, There gangs that highjack cash security trucks, often showing no mercy and shooting the driver and any other occupant, in the back while they are running away to excape. In my opinion there is a a segment of the criminal, for lack of a better word "community" who qualify for the death penalty, these are the depraved repeat child abusers, who carefully arrange so called group fun night "Parties" where they gather around a carefully groomed innocent small child, each taking his turn to in abusing the little person they have captured, both sexually and physically, not stopping in their "fun" until the child has perished, in their presence, due to the abuse, they want to see the child's slowly die, because that is a vital part of the fun and sexual stimulation. I saw this a while back on a BBC TV documentary and could hardly believe my eyes and ears at the time. They then discard/get rid of the little body, as if it were a lump of used up garbage, throw it out into the nearest convenient place. To achieve their sick depraved aims, they must plan long before hand, carefully select or groom a child for their night of fun. These reprobates come from all walks of life in the community, they are often respected members of society, such as medical doctors, lawyers, school teachers, ministers of religion and the thugs that roam the streets to capture their prey. If you don't believe me do some research on child abuse by groups of men! These people have lost the right to be part of society and if anyone needs to be exterminated it is these base beasts. You might say Oh! no" then you are bringing yourself down to their level, it is easy to take that position when it is another parents child/children, but you will quickly change your perceptive in one your own children or grandchildren, become victims of these hideous pedophiles. There is an ingrained intrinsic need in the human psyche, for vengeance and retribution, and if anything will bring it raging to the surface it is an horrific event like I have just described. Execute them at the first opportunity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 ... thus calling the murder of thousands a fallacy,... So, it's just as well that nobody did that . Check again. Nobody said that, did they? However suggesting that there's a causal link between the abolition of the death penalty and the rise in crime is a fallacy. And, here's where you suggested such a link " in my country of South Africa where the death penalty's been abolished from law crime is now rampant and risen to unimaginable heights" and again "my country has discontinued with capital punishment against the wishes of the majority and crime has worsened unimaginably. " and again "the banning of capital punishment in South Africa appears to have a clear correlation with increased crime, but one must have some idea of what this correlation is before one could sanction its reinstatement" http://xkcd.com/552/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan McDougall Posted January 10, 2014 Author Share Posted January 10, 2014 So, it's just as well that nobody did that . Check again. Nobody said that, did they? However suggesting that there's a causal link between the abolition of the death penalty and the rise in crime is a fallacy. And, here's where you suggested such a link " in my country of South Africa where the death penalty's been abolished from law crime is now rampant and risen to unimaginable heights" and again "my country has discontinued with capital punishment against the wishes of the majority and crime has worsened unimaginably. " and again "the banning of capital punishment in South Africa appears to have a clear correlation with increased crime, but one must have some idea of what this correlation is before one could sanction its reinstatement" http://xkcd.com/552/ John no matter what a i post, you counter with some inane remark to side step the issue and show how advanced your cognitive capacity exceeds my pathetic one, are you attempting to suggest you are more insightful than I am? For once get away from philosophy and calling everything a fallacy, it is extremely irritating, you seem to want to put me down in full view of the forum, until they become convinced by you that I am some sort of an uneducated idiot. Please stop posting all these links as if they were gospel truth, most of them are not reflection of the real situation, and are the compilation of statisticians remote from the front line of the crime epidemic, which still exists in South Africa. I did not initiate this thread to get into a long and protracted philosophical debate with you, but wanted the issue to be addressed as a moral ethic topic, not get down the convoluted infinite roads of philosophy that lead to nowhere and achieve nothing. I used the South African crime issue as a means to bounce off the thread. we can movie beyond SA and return to the topic of the morality of capital punishment and if there is ever a case that warrant this type of punishment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Cooke "Dirty Dozen"In the 1970s, Cooke and a group of pedophiles later dubbed by the media as the "Dirty Dozen",[1] began hiring rent boys and then taking young boys off of the streets, who were drugged and then raped and abused at group orgies.[4] By the mid-1980s, the group had acquired a flat on the Kingsmead estate in Hackney, East London,[4] which was also used for the torture of young boys.[1] Gang rape and murder of Jason SwiftIn November 1985, a group led by Cooke had each paid £5 to gang-rape 14-year-old Jason Swift in what the mainstream media described as a homosexual orgy.[4][5] After his body was found in a shallow grave by a dog walker, an investigation by the Metropolitan Police lead to the arrest of Cooke, along with three accomplices – Leslie Bailey, Robert Oliver[6] and Steven Barrell. Cooke was sentenced at the Old Bailey to 19 years in Wandsworth Prison in May 1989 for the manslaughter of 14-year-old Jason Swift.[4] Murder of Mark TildesleyLeslie Bailey had informed authorities that Cooke was among those who murdered seven-year-old Mark Tildesley in Wokingham, Berkshire, but Cooke's role in the murder was not investigated until 1999; by this time, Bailey was dead, having been murdered in prison in October 1993.[7] Mark Tildesley disappeared while visiting a funfair in Wokingham on the evening of 1 June 1984. He was lured away from the fair and his bicycle was found chained to railings nearby.[4] Bailey alleged that Tildesley was lured away from the fair by Cooke for the promise of a 50p bag of sweets.[4] Bailey and his lover, Lennie Smith, then met Cooke and the boy within the fair, before meeting a fourth man at Cooke's caravan. After Cooke gave Tildesley a glass of milk laced with muscle relaxant, the four men practiced non-consensual anal intercourse with Tildesley. After more muscle relaxant was applied directly down Tildesley's throat, the gang rape started again. Bailey stated that he knew that at this point that Tildesley was dead as he could not feel a pulse, but that Cooke had told him that he was fine and that he would take the boy home.[4][8] These are the type of base humanity that deserve capital punishment! Comment from a police officer on some of these investigation, " They are evil personified and as far as I am concerned they should burn in hell, forever, if there is such a place" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 I used the South African crime issue as a means to bounce off the thread. we can movie beyond SA and return to the topic of the morality of capital punishment and if there is ever a case that warrant this type of punishment IMO, capital punishment is moral in certain cases like you are describing. If a person is truly broken, then they are merely a predator animal that will kill again. Seems like it reduces suffering to eliminate it. It doesn't seem right to have people like this get better care than many poor people(food, shelter, healthcare, books, etc.) The problem is trusting a system to get it right. Keeping a few broken people alive and locked up vs executing a smaller number of innocent people. I reject it for this reason, that the state will make mistakes. Personally though, of course I would torture and kill anyone who did these actions, but I don't want a state acting like an insane person, which I would be in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan McDougall Posted January 10, 2014 Author Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) IMO, capital punishment is moral in certain cases like you are describing. If a person is truly broken, then they are merely a predator animal that will kill again. Seems like it reduces suffering to eliminate it. It doesn't seem right to have people like this get better care than many poor people(food, shelter, healthcare, books, etc.) The problem is trusting a system to get it right. Keeping a few broken people alive and locked up vs executing a smaller number of innocent people. I reject it for this reason, that the state will make mistakes. Personally though, of course I would torture and kill anyone who did these actions, but I don't want a state acting like an insane person, which I would be in this case. Thank you! At last someone has the courage to state agrees with me that under certain narrow conditions, capital punishment is moral and just! Edited January 11, 2014 by Alan McDougall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Thank you! At last someone who has the courage to state that under certain narrow conditions, capital punishment is moral and just! The morality wasn't really under discussion before. It was a factual discussion about whether or not it acted as a deterrent. One which you did not provided any evidence for. Calling it courage is an insult to anyone who disagrees, as it implies that instead of having a contrary opinion, the secretly agree and don't say so because they are cowards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Another open question is what we mean by "justice," and justice for whom? The justice of the victim or their family will be different than the justice of the criminal, and even different from justice of society itself... and different people may see justice differently. For some, the termination of the criminals life would suffice. For others, they'd want the criminal to feel more pain and experience some sort of torture in retribution and retaliation before they would feel they've received "justice." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan McDougall Posted January 11, 2014 Author Share Posted January 11, 2014 The morality wasn't really under discussion before. It was a factual discussion about whether or not it acted as a deterrent. One which you did not provided any evidence for. Calling it courage is an insult to anyone who disagrees, as it implies that instead of having a contrary opinion, the secretly agree and don't say so because they are cowards. You see hidden meaning in my comment when there is none I know my mind and you do not what I was actually thinking, I just put it out as I saw it! The original discussion was around discussing whether the death penalty was a true form of justice and by carrying it out on the offender, justice were served, if it is then it is moral and ethical, if justice were not served by capital punishment, then this punishment is both immoral and unethical. I regret! that I side tracked the topic, by bringing up the crime issue in South Africa, but my family and I have been so profoundly effected by it, I felt a compulsion to bring it up, it has achieved nothing and I will not mention South Africa again in the thread, if the thread continues to generate interest. I want to move away from trying to prove that capital punishment can be a deterrent to those contemplation murder/rape etc! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Alan McDougall, on 11 Jan 2014 - 01:28 AM, said: You see hidden meaning in my comment when there is none I know my mind and you do not what I was actually thinking, I just put it out as I saw it! The original discussion was around discussing whether the death penalty was a true form of justice and by carrying it out on the offender, justice were served, if it is then it is moral and ethical, if justice were not served by capital punishment, then this punishment is both immoral and unethical. The idea of whether something is just is an arbitrary one dependent on the moral system within a population. If a particular concept has the consensus of the majority it can be said to be just. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan McDougall Posted January 11, 2014 Author Share Posted January 11, 2014 The idea of whether something is just is an arbitrary one dependent on the moral system within a population. If a particular concept has the consensus of the majority it can be said to be just. Sort of subjective according to the laws of a particular country, state or country. China still executes people on a regular bases and many of those people would not be considered hardened criminal in western society. They use the corpses of the criminals they have put to death, as a means of obtaining organs for transplants. Another open question is what we mean by "justice," and justice for whom? The justice of the victim or their family will be different than the justice of the criminal, and even different from justice of society itself... and different people may see justice differently. For some, the termination of the criminals life would suffice. For others, they'd want the criminal to feel more pain and experience some sort of torture in retribution and retaliation before they would feel they've received "justice." Justice for the family members of the victims and lawful retribution by the State according to the applicable laws in its Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Alan McDougall, on 11 Jan 2014 - 04:47 AM, said: Sort of subjective according to the laws of a particular country, state or country. China still executes people on a regular bases and many of those people would not be considered hardened criminal in western society. They use the corpses of the criminals they have put to death, as a means of obtaining organs for transplants. Justice for the family members of the victims and lawful retribution by the State according to the applicable laws in its Constitution. Collectively subjective within any given culture yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan McDougall Posted January 11, 2014 Author Share Posted January 11, 2014 The idea of whether something is just is an arbitrary one dependent on the moral system within a population. If a particular concept has the consensus of the majority it can be said to be just. I am not saying it is just, it is justice by the subjective laws of the particular society or country, that have them on their statutes. Collectively subjective within any given culture yes. Exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 IMO, capital punishment is moral in certain cases like you are describing. If a person is truly broken, then they are merely a predator animal that will kill again. Seems like it reduces suffering to eliminate it. It doesn't seem right to have people like this get better care than many poor people(food, shelter, healthcare, books, etc.) The problem is trusting a system to get it right. Keeping a few broken people alive and locked up vs executing a smaller number of innocent people. I reject it for this reason, that the state will make mistakes. Personally though, of course I would torture and kill anyone who did these actions, but I don't want a state acting like an insane person, which I would be in this case. Are you in favour of killing al those with mental illness, or just those who you consider to be a threat? Alan, pointing out that you are wrong, or, at least, that you have provided no evidence to support your idea is not " some inane remark to side step the issue";. It is the issue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 You see hidden meaning in my comment when there is none I know my mind and you do not what I was actually thinking, I just put it out as I saw it! No hidden meaning. I can only go by what you actually wrote, but what you write has implications. I have not made any conjecture about your motives or agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BusaDave9 Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 2 Those who carefully plan their crime in order to avoid detection or prosecution. These people don't expect to get caught- so any potential punishment won't seem relevant to them. There's a big difference between not expecting to get caught and betting your life you will never get caught. I very much support the death penalty. In this overpopulated world I think we need to get rid of the worst of the worst. Putting them in prison for free room and board is too good for them. And what's with this debate abut the drugs used to put someone to death? We have drug addicts dieing from overdose and we can't seem to find a drug that puts someone to death without pain. I say who cares if there is a little pain. I am not advocating death should be painful. If a killer goes to prison for life he gets free dental care. If he experiences pain at the dentists where's all the outrage? People expect a a little pain at the dentist office but if a killer experiences the same amount of pain during execution everyone screams “cruel and unusual punishment”. Why does everyone think pain at the time of death is so much worst than pain at other times of life? So then we put murderers in prison because it's “more humane”. But how do we know these killers won't kill other criminals in prison? One thing about the death penalty: it sure cuts down on repeat offenders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 We know from psychology that risk of punishment does not tend to deter the worst crimes (especially violent ones). It merely teaches people to find ways to avoid getting caught (see also how people purchase radar detectors instead of actually following speed limits... further evidence that punishment leads to stealth not avoidance of the undesirable behavior). Overall, I find the argument that death penalty reduces crime entirely bunk. IMO, it's almost certainly about retribution, retaliation, and a desire to remove and forever ostracize certain people from society. More centrally, I find myself wondering... How do we teach people that killing is wrong by killing them? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 There's a big difference between not expecting to get caught and betting your life you will never get caught. One thing about the death penalty: it sure cuts down on repeat offenders. Everyone who commits a capital offence makes that bet, and there are enough of them to prove my point. Re. "One thing about the death penalty: it sure cuts down on repeat offenders." It has about the same success rate as life imprisonment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BusaDave9 Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Re. "One thing about the death penalty: it sure cuts down on repeat offenders." It has about the same success rate as life imprisonment. Once a killer is put to death it's impossible for him to kill again. If he is imprisoned he can kill other inmates. It happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Once a killer is put to death it's impossible for him to kill again. If he is imprisoned he can kill other inmates. It happens. I know. That's why I said "about the same". Did you have a point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelHDurso Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 To my opinion the word "Justice" is over used I believe with my opinion the real meaning of justice is to heal the emotions of the family of the dead family member but not by "revenge" that is replaced by the word "justice". Most people that believe in the death penalty want a form of "revenge" due to the death of their loved one(s). I believe that people that murder arn't always evil as they are appeared to be. Some are actual accidents and get harsh punishment due to lack of defense evidence. People also kill under extreme emotion of anger even though they didn't mean to harm the person. Does that make them evil? I don't so I think its just uncontrolled human emotion. That doesn't mean they should get death penalty to my opinion. Even some are actually mentally ill that could have been treated with medicine and everything would be fine. Medicine does wonders I use to be an angry out of control person till i got therapy and medications to resolve the problem. Does that make me evil? No it just something that was wrong with yourself that was out of your control. I do though say they need a punishment but i don't think death penalty is the right way of doing things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan McDougall Posted January 11, 2014 Author Share Posted January 11, 2014 Lets imagine a scenario, where you have just arrived at your homer, unnoticed home from work. You open the door that leads directly from your garage into your living room and find to your horror two men in the act of sexually abusing your child who is just little toddler of 7. They were performing acts unspeakable depraved on the body of your screaming baby The two pedophiles did not hear you arriving, because they had put on the radio as loud a the could, to muffle the screams of your little child. Assuming you have a gun on your person!. What would you do? (I will shoot both of them) Everyone who commits a capital offence makes that bet, and there are enough of them to prove my point. Re. "One thing about the death penalty: it sure cuts down on repeat offenders." It has about the same success rate as life imprisonment. And the families of the victims of murdered don't have to imagine them been fed, getting good medical, living in relative comfort, with a television in their cell, all paid for by the tax payer of which they are one of. They never get closer as long as the murderer remains alive. If the perpetrator has been executed, they can forget him/her get on with living as best they could because of the peace given by the final act of retribution giving them closer at last . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 "What would you do?" Who cares? Are you unable to distinguish killing someone in those circumstances from trying them, convicting them and then killing them in cold blood? Re." They never get closer as long as the murderer remains alive. " etc. I suspect that you are basing your ideas on guesswork. I'm making that assumption on the basis that, is you had done any research on "closure", you would, at least, know how to spell it. So, do you have any actual evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidivad Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Lets imagine a scenario, where you have just arrived at your homer, unnoticed home from work. You open the door that leads directly from your garage into your living room and find to your horror two men in the act of sexually abusing your child who is just little toddler of 7. They were performing acts unspeakable depraved on the body of your screaming baby The two pedophiles did not hear you arriving, because they had put on the radio as loud a the could, to muffle the screams of your little child. Assuming you have a gun on your person!. What would you do? (I will shoot both of them) And the families of the victims of murdered don't have to imagine them been fed, getting good medical, living in relative comfort, with a television in their cell, all paid for by the tax payer of which they are one of. They never get closer as long as the murderer remains alive. If the perpetrator has been executed, they can forget him/her get on with living as best they could because of the peace given by the final act of retribution giving them closer at last . i do not own a gun, but i do have a baseball bat. i would beat them unconscious and then castrate them and make sure that they lived to see their day in court. what better closure than public awareness, because in the hearts and minds of the people they are already dead. yet they must live on; this would be hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan McDougall Posted January 12, 2014 Author Share Posted January 12, 2014 (edited) "What would you do?" Who cares? Are you unable to distinguish killing someone in those circumstances from trying them, convicting them and then killing them in cold blood? Re." They never get closer as long as the murderer remains alive. " etc. I suspect that you are basing your ideas on guesswork. I'm making that assumption on the basis that, is you had done any research on "closure", you would, at least, know how to spell it. So, do you have any actual evidence? Closer, Closure, whatever like you say! I am fallible and sometimes the correct spelling of a word eludes me, you obviously used your brains and knew exactly what I meant! Address the scenario, I put forward in post 46 which I will repeat again below Lets imagine a scenario, where you have just arrived at your homer, unnoticed home from work. You open the door that leads directly from your garage into your living room and find to your horror two men in the act of sexually abusing your child who is just little toddler of 7. They were performing acts unspeakable depraved on the body of your screaming baby The two pedophiles did not hear you arriving, because they had put on the radio as loud a the could, to muffle the screams of your little child. Assuming you have a gun on your person!. What would you do? In this case I don't need to go and research "Closure" I would get immediate closure, while you would be out somewhere researching it. I would shoot them right there, this is not in cold blood, but out of the hot blood of righteous retribution. As far an closure goes, the victims family, of course never gets real absolute closure, because they will mourn, the loss of their beloved family member all the days of their lives. But in another sense there is a type of closure that the killer no longer exists and the can banish him/her from their minds. i do not own a gun, but i do have a baseball bat. i would beat them unconscious and then castrate them and make sure that they lived to see their day in court. what better closure than public awareness, because in the hearts and minds of the people they are already dead. yet they must live on; this would be hell. I would beat them to death, if this were possible, if not I would expect the state to execute like the inhuman monsters they are and get rid of them for good. Edited January 12, 2014 by Alan McDougall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 (edited) Well, since you insist I will answer your irrelevant question. I would do the same as David did (or something like it- depending on circumstances: I'm not sure about the castration. If I had a gun I would shoot to maim, rather than shoot to kill) Now, will you answer my point about the difference between killing in cold blood as you advocate and killing as the only way to stop a bad situation getting worse. Do you understand that there's a difference? Do you understand that one of them has nothing to do with capital punishment? Also my point about spelling was not to illustrate that you can't spell- who cares- as you say, I worked out what you meant. However I raised the point that you hadn't bothered to check what you were saying. (if you had done so you would have got the right word). Why do you post opinion as fact? Oh, BTW, this " I don't need to go and research "Closure" I would get immediate closure, while you would be out somewhere researching it." Is nonsense as you well know. I wasn't suggesting that someone who comes home to a disaster at home did the research. I was suggesting that you should find out what you are talking about. Edited January 12, 2014 by John Cuthber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts