Jump to content

Do you believe the death penalty is unethical?


Recommended Posts

 

 

No and I'm not going to look because it was meant as a counterpoint to the extreme example suggested by Gilga-flesh, as in 99% of any prison population won't meet of his example.

The less data one has, the more freedom one has to wave ones hands and tap-dance. :)

 

I shall respond to your other post later.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 445
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That post was responding to Disarray.     I...must.... stop.... responding. I don't go into this kind of discussion to'win' an argument; it's too serious a subject. I go in with the intention of t

Trying to find errors in the reasoning of some people in this thread is like shooting goldfish in a bowl. Easy but pointless and gets boring quickly. Clearly many people didn't form their opinion on t

Some nice, thinly-veiled, derogatory and hand-wavey dismissive adjectives there which is usually where discussions on this sort of topic end up. I'm going to be bigger that and refrain from reciprocat

 

Suicide could be a mistake. It can also be a good decision. Either way adults have the right to make their own decisions. It's not up to YOU to decide for them. You can advice, a psychologist might test to see if the desire for death is sincere. But only 1 person carries the actual right to decide: the person in question.

 

And no of course people who are depressed (true depression aka as in medical disorder) aren't feeling alive. That's pretty much what depression means. Children aren't as aware? I used to be a medical researcher with a fondness for psychology and I never heard that. At the contrary, children's minds are very active. My personal memories of childhood are extremely strong. I think I felt everything considerably stronger then. Like many adults I'm now more reserved, thicker skin. Less sensitive. Anyway a moot point.

You would recommend people to commit scuiside???!!! your saying its not always a bad decition meaning for someone it is a good decition??people should make their own decitions but up to a certain point, they should not be able to kill others and themselves. So would you have all the prisoners take a psycological test to make sure they don't have depression before you "allow" them to kill themselves? what if the person killed themselves and then you relize you had the wrong test, the person was actually depressed? then would you want children to make more of their own decitions if you think they are just as aware as adults? they would be able to drive a car or serve in the militery?what I meant when I said they were less aware is they do not know as much about the world as adults so they do not forsee the future and sometimes can make poor decitions. they also forget things pretty quick compared to adults. and babies and toddlers are very much less aware then adults. i dont remember anything from when i was a baby or todler, and i would classify that under children. I think scuidside is always a bad idea. not mentaly healthy people commit scuiside no one mentaly healthy would do that (in my opinion) and we should not let anyone commit scuiside, life is scared and it should be protected. would you let a friend commit scuiside? if you wouldnt why would it be any different for a prisinor? what if your friend was a prisinor at some point in the future?

Edited by Lyudmilascience
Link to post
Share on other sites

We ought not kill because we need not kill.

We are bigger and better than that.

 

"We"

Who's we? The government? The people? Everyone?

"Are bigger"

What's bigger? Our morals? Our population? Perhaps you?

"And better"

I beg to differ. Who gets to say what's better and what's worse? You?

"Then that"

Better then executing? There's a difference between murdering and executing, in case you didn't figure that out. One is for a reason, one is not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You would recommend people to commit scuiside???!!! your saying its not always a bad decition meaning for someone it is a good decition??people should make their own decitions but up to a certain point, they should not be able to kill others and themselves. So would you have all the prisoners take a psycological test to make sure they don't have depression before you "allow" them to kill themselves? what if the person killed themselves and then you relize you had the wrong test, the person was actually depressed? then would you want children to make more of their own decitions if you think they are just as aware as adults? they would be able to drive a car or serve in the militery?what I meant when I said they were less aware is they do not know as much about the world as adults so they do not forsee the future and sometimes can make poor decitions. they also forget things pretty quick compared to adults. and babies and toddlers are very much less aware then adults. i dont remember anything from when i was a baby or todler, and i would classify that under children. I think scuidside is always a bad idea. not mentaly healthy people commit scuiside no one mentaly healthy would do that (in my opinion) and we should not let anyone commit scuiside, life is scared and it should be protected. would you let a friend commit scuiside? if you wouldnt why would it be any different for a prisinor? what if your friend was a prisinor at some point in the future?

Ignoring all the Strawmen in your post, I have no intention of spending the last year of my life in a Nursing home. To what end? Having my family suffer through my dementia, spending down a lifetime of earnings and putting my wife in a difficult financial position in her old age, getting my diaper changed twice a day by someone making minimum wage?

I'm very happy with how my life has gone, and don't intend to go out with the indignity that is often found in the last stages of life.

Suicide is not for everyone, and it may not turn out to be the option for me, but I agree with Gilga-flesh; suicide can be a good decision, and whether or not I do it is up to me, not someone else.

Edited by zapatos
Link to post
Share on other sites

And Im a christian, and according to the bible, aka my culture, the death penalty is wrong. No argument, its wrong according to it. Now personally, I don't really know. Maybe ethically its wrong, but then again it depends on what your ethics are. If you think that killing someone in cold blood, in a horrific way, deserves death, then your ethics are fine with it.

LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gilga-flesh says that "Ironically plenty of inmates try to kill themselves, apparently agreeing with my viewpoint."

 

while

 

John's rebuttal is that "People on death row appeal the sentence hoping for life in prison instead. They presumably know more about it than you do."

 

On the face of it, I would suggest that Gilga's comment is more likely to have merit, simply because it refers to some inmates, while John's comment implies that all those on death row appeal (or presumably would appeal) their sentence hoping for life imprisonment instead...and hence is likely to be a false generalization.

 

Obviously thousands of inmates have attempted suicide, and thousands of inmates have completed suicide, for one reason or another. Some because they did not want to be hanged, for example, some because they were extremely ashamed and/or depressed, etc. In any case, they chose to end their lives rather than to continue living, and usually we don't really know whether they would have still wanted to end their lives if they had been given a lesser sentence, e.g., 20 years. Indeed, many Native Americans, for example, hang themselves in their cells from the sheer (arguably, somewhat culture-specific) trauma of being captured and enclosed while under the influence of the a depressant (alcohol), knowing full well that they would be released in a day or two given the nature of their "crime" e.g., disorderly conduct and drunkenness.

 

As for John's argument, I strongly suspect that not everyone on death row would appeal their sentence (of death) or would even choose to live if they had the the choice to do so. Obviously many people who are not incarcerated are so disenchanted with the idea of living any longer that they are willing to actively or passively end their lives as soon as convenient/possible even though they are not precipitously dashing themselves out some 12th story window, so it seems reasonable to presume that there are some inmates who, given the choice to live if only they made, for example, further appeals, similarly couldn't be all that bothered resisting death at the hands of prison officials, particularly if such a death was reputed to be quick and painless, thereby escaping a continuation of their futile, unendurable, and seemingly meaningless lives in prison. (Let us not forget that life in many prison cells is something of a subdued but prolonged form of torture. The reality is that a person who successfully gained a reprieve from the death sentence may later find prison life so unbearable, at least on some days, that he sincerely wishes he were dead...or had been put to death).

 

Finally, there may be the factor of self-determination, personal pride, autonomy, etc. It is likely that a person is willing to take his own life, given that he is calling the shots, whereas the same person would resist others, e.g., 'the establishment' taking his life.

 

Gilga comments that instead of letting the inmate decide, perhaps the victims and/or their surviving relatives should have a say instead: "They might veto to allow the criminal to suffer or might relish the notion that the perpetrator is dead far more so." I think it highly unlikely that this would happen (e.g., in the U.S.). For one thing, what happened to letting the legislative/judicial/executive aspects of government make such decisions...are we to willy-nilly let disgruntled and vindictive victims/relatives mete out punishments as they see fit? And what happens if vindictive victims think that the death penalty is the worser option while the inmate prefers death over life in prison? In any case, such a proposal seems to focus on the role of vengeance in our legal system, and I would have thought that our enlightened culture was moving away from that sort of attitude.

 

Nor can I foresee in the immediate future that the legal system would allow those convicted to decide their own fate, as giving them the option to choose between life in prison or a death sentence is tantamount to offering them the option of committing suicide. Indeed, in the sci-fi scenario where a society operated in this way, one could envisage the possibility that the legal system would make the prospect of life in prison so unpalatable as to encourage convicts to rush to the gallows (electric chair, gas chamber, or what have you) rather than deal with the harsh realities of life in prison. (Though in States where euthanasia is legal or 'virtually legal', one wonders who is to decide who has the right to have themselves euthanized and who doesn't....Would not an inmate who faces the prospect of life in prison unacceptably onerous, or indeed, who finds prison life unendurable after, say, a few years have passed, also have the right to end his own life? Where does one draw the line between suicide and euthanasia....shouldn't we all have the freedom to die when we want?)

 

Finally, I would point out that the prospect of death means different things in different cultures. I have read that some Easterners (e.g., Buddhists, Hindus) have the bizarre diversion of drawing straws to see who jumps out of an airplane to his death, and thus to the next incarnation. This tale may or may not be true, but it makes the point that not everyone fears death and for some, dying is no big deal. In some other societies, the death sentence could be construed as a form of torture, since it is hastens, for example, the (presumably guilty) inmate's descent into hell and everlasting torment.

Edited by disarray
Link to post
Share on other sites

If we look at violence in overall in countries without the death penalty and tha look at violence in countries with the death penalty what would be the average trend? Perhaps promoting that killing people is the right course of action if that person(s) deserved it isn't a good attitude to promote. Gavin Long thought police officers deserved to die in Baton Rouge. He was wrong but stands as an example of how everyone has their own definitions for who deserves what. In my opinion it is best for the Gov't to stay out of that business. Gov't should be using death as a last resort and never as a preferred option. If for no other reason than to set the bar high for society.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we look at violence in overall in countries without the death penalty and tha look at violence in countries with the death penalty what would be the average trend? Perhaps promoting that killing people is the right course of action if that person(s) deserved it isn't a good attitude to promote. Gavin Long thought police officers deserved to die in Baton Rouge. He was wrong but stands as an example of how everyone has their own definitions for who deserves what. In my opinion it is best for the Gov't to stay out of that business. Gov't should be using death as a last resort and never as a preferred option. If for no other reason than to set the bar high for society.

Society and government are two different things. Government has control, society is the people under its control. And society and government often do what they want, and the other doesn't really bother with the other. If the government executes someone, do you truely honestly believe that suddenly everyone will decide to murder? Its kind of an extreme View IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Society and government are two different things. Government has control, society is the people under its control. And society and government often do what they want, and the other doesn't really bother with the other. If the government executes someone, do you truely honestly believe that suddenly everyone will decide to murder? Its kind of an extreme View IMO.

Everyone, of course not. But the type of examples we set and the type of behaviors we justify do matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Society and government are two different things. Government has control, society is the people under its control. And society and government often do what they want, and the other doesn't really bother with the other. If the government executes someone, do you truely honestly believe that suddenly everyone will decide to murder? Its kind of an extreme View IMO.

 

You may be trying to talk 'realpolitiks' here, but that is not the concept behind a pure democracy or even a representative democracy last time I checked. What you described sounds more like a dictatorial or monarchic setup. (Unfortunately, in some countries, even here in the U.S. which purports to be among those countries that have carried the torch of democracy across the ages from Ancient Greece, the idea that people are in some sort of ongoing and multifarious conflict with their own government seems to be growing by leaps and bounds.)

 

But in a representative democracy, a representative of the people would supposedly attempt to help pass a law banning capital punishment if that were the overwhelming wish of the people he/she represented. In practice, yes, competent representatives of the people research issues, and perhaps bring such things as their expertise and knowledge of legal precedent to the table as well; but the essence of what they do is to expedite matters while implementing the values and opinions of their constituents.

 

In a country that supposedly holds life sacred (be it from humanitarian and/or religious reasons), and in a country that purports to reform and rehabilitate the wayward in an effort to successfully reintroduce them back into society, it would seem that its people and government should take the least invasive means of attaining such ends (unless one is 'into' vengeance' and 'scare tactics'). Furthermore, if such a society reaches the conclusion that an individual has committed acts that are so heinous that they should be permanently isolated from society, it still seems (to me) that the least invasive means of doing so should be instituted. Given the alleged sacredness of life that many societies claim to hold so dear, the least invasive sanction (as opposed to punishment) would be life imprisonment, as opposed to the death penalty. As to whether a person would choose to die rather than spend his/her life in a (perhaps maximum security) cell is, as I mentioned above, an issue that essentially comes under the umbrella of euthanasia.

 

On this basis, I agree with Ten Oz that a government that expeditiously dispatches human lives in order to punish or cull (apparently extreme) criminals, particularly in this day and age of DNA and other forms of testing that frequently exculpate the condemned, does not set a very good example or model for citizens.

Edited by disarray
Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone, of course not. But the type of examples we set and the type of behaviors we justify do matter.

And why do they matter?

You may be trying to talk 'realpolitiks' here, but that is not the concept behind a pure democracy or even a representative democracy last time I checked. What you described sounds more like a dictatorial or monarchic setup. (Unfortunately, in some countries, even here in the U.S. which purports to be among those countries that have carried the torch of democracy across the ages from Ancient Greece, the idea that people are in some sort of ongoing and multifarious conflict with their own government seems to be growing by leaps and bounds.)

 

But in a representative democracy, a representative of the people would supposedly attempt to help pass a law banning capital punishment if that were the overwhelming wish of the people he/she represented. In practice, yes, competent representatives of the people research issues, and perhaps bring such things as their expertise and knowledge of legal precedent to the table as well; but the essence of what they do is to expedite matters while implementing the values and opinions of their constituents.

 

In a country that supposedly holds life sacred (be it from humanitarian and/or religious reasons), and in a country that purports to reform and rehabilitate the wayward in an effort to successfully reintroduce them back into society, it would seem that its people and government should take the least invasive means of attaining such ends (unless one is 'into' vengeance' and 'scare tactics'). Furthermore, if such a society reaches the conclusion that an individual has committed acts that are so heinous that they should be permanently isolated from society, it still seems (to me) that the least invasive means of doing so should be instituted. Given the alleged sacredness of life that many societies claim to hold so dear, the least invasive sanction (as opposed to punishment) would be life imprisonment, as opposed to the death penalty. As to whether a person would choose to die rather than spend his/her life in a (perhaps maximum security) cell is, as I mentioned above, an issue that essentially comes under the umbrella of euthanasia.

 

On this basis, I agree with Ten Oz that a government that expeditiously dispatches human lives in order to punish or cull (apparently extreme) criminals, particularly in this day and age of DNA and other forms of testing that frequently exculpate the condemned, does not set a very good example or model for citizens.

I don't agree, but it was well put. +1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

No and I'm not going to look because it was meant as a counterpoint to the extreme example suggested by Gilga-flesh, as in 99% of any prison population won't meet of his example.

 

Except ofcourse, my "extreme example" actually exists many times over and yours is completely made up.

 

You would recommend people to commit scuiside???!!! <etc>

 

I would recommend people to allow people a degree of autonomy over their own life which also includes voluntary ending, if so desired. If a friend was sick and wished to die, and I determined his wish to be sincere and not a fleeting impulse, I would assist him. And I have several friends that would do the same for me.

 

You once again validate my conclusions. Some people think life is a duty. An obligation. But your opinion should only affect you. Not me. Understand?

 

 

 

---

 

Gilga comments that instead of letting the inmate decide, perhaps the victims and/or their surviving relatives should have a say instead: "They might veto to allow the criminal to suffer or might relish the notion that the perpetrator is dead far more so." I think it highly unlikely that this would happen (e.g., in the U.S.). For one thing, what happened to letting the legislative/judicial/executive aspects of government make such decisions...are we to willy-nilly let disgruntled and vindictive victims/relatives mete out punishments as they see fit? And what happens if vindictive victims think that the death penalty is the worser option while the inmate prefers death over life in prison? In any case, such a proposal seems to focus on the role of vengeance in our legal system, and I would have thought that our enlightened culture was moving away from that sort of attitude.

 

Nor can I foresee in the immediate future that the legal system would allow those convicted to decide their own fate, as giving them the option to choose between life in prison or a death sentence is tantamount to offering them the option of committing suicide. Indeed, in the sci-fi scenario where a society operated in this way, one could envisage the possibility that the legal system would make the prospect of life in prison so unpalatable as to encourage convicts to rush to the gallows (electric chair, gas chamber, or what have you) rather than deal with the harsh realities of life in prison. (Though in States where euthanasia is legal or 'virtually legal', one wonders who is to decide who has the right to have themselves euthanized and who doesn't....Would not an inmate who faces the prospect of life in prison unacceptably onerous, or indeed, who finds prison life unendurable after, say, a few years have passed, also have the right to end his own life? Where does one draw the line between suicide and euthanasia....shouldn't we all have the freedom to die when we want?)

 

Finally, I would point out that the prospect of death means different things in different cultures. I have read that some Easterners (e.g., Buddhists, Hindus) have the bizarre diversion of drawing straws to see who jumps out of an airplane to his death, and thus to the next incarnation. This tale may or may not be true, but it makes the point that not everyone fears death and for some, dying is no big deal. In some other societies, the death sentence could be construed as a form of torture, since it is hastens, for example, the (presumably guilty) inmate's descent into hell and everlasting torment.

 

 

Nor do I think that a system in which the victim has official power over punitive measures is realistic. Nonetheless if victim satisfaction is the underlying goal for death penalty then a veto is the only way to achieve this. Since not all victims will require the outcome to accomplish satisfaction. If mere punishment and/or imprisonment is the underlying goal, then no veto is required.

 

 

If we look at violence in overall in countries without the death penalty and tha look at violence in countries with the death penalty what would be the average trend? Perhaps promoting that killing people is the right course of action if that person(s) deserved it isn't a good attitude to promote. Gavin Long thought police officers deserved to die in Baton Rouge. He was wrong but stands as an example of how everyone has their own definitions for who deserves what. In my opinion it is best for the Gov't to stay out of that business. Gov't should be using death as a last resort and never as a preferred option. If for no other reason than to set the bar high for society.

 

A last resort, yes. But current death penalty isn't the first or preferred option. It is the last. Your statement seems, again, exaggerated. I understand you do not see punishment as a goal and (most?) proponents of death penalty do. And that almost all of you see death as worse than the, as disarray described time in many prisons, "a subdued but prolonged form of torture".

 

So it might help the discussion if you explained why punishment of criminals should not be a goal.

Edited by Gilga-flesh
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Except ofcourse, my "extreme example" actually exists many times over and yours is completely made up.

 

 

:doh::doh:

 

 

So it might help the discussion if you explained why punishment of criminals should not be a goal.

 

 

 

Because it's not justice. Now please explain why it should be and how that goal helps society.

Edited by dimreepr
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Gilga-flesh says that "Ironically plenty of inmates try to kill themselves, apparently agreeing with my viewpoint."

 

while

 

John's rebuttal is that "People on death row appeal the sentence hoping for life in prison instead. They presumably know more about it than you do."

 

On the face of it, I would suggest that Gilga's comment is more likely to have merit, simply because it refers to some inmates, while John's comment implies that all those on death row appeal (or presumably would appeal) their sentence hoping for life imprisonment instead...and hence is likely to be a false generalization.

 

 

Well, since you start off by being wrong, I stopped reading.

My assertion does not say "All people" does it?

It is true that there are people on death row who appeal against their sentence.

That makes it true that people on death row do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:doh::doh:

 

 

 

 

Because it's not justice. Now please explain why it should be and how that goal helps society.

 

Oh, you disagree that your statement that 99% of criminals can be rehabilitated is made up? Strange cause you admitted it yourself just a few posts later. The example you claim as extreme is, unfortunately, not even remotely exceptional. There are *many* serial pedo-raping child murders. Enough to start a society all by their own had that been a good idea. And I can't count the number of times that a trial came in the news because the pedo-murderer was laughing in court, even actively taunting the parents of the victims.

 

These are complete psychopaths, according to psychology completely without conscious. They like hurting others and either don't feel their pain or even like it. Some don't even understand why other people are all touchy and sentimental about things like raped and murdered children.

 

So tell me: what purpose did the facepalm smileys serve? In what way was my statement incorrect?

 

As for your 'second' statement, though the first barely deserves to be called a statement: I don't care either way. As I made clear in my earlier posts, I don't mind if criminals are punished or merely kept away from society. I don't care if they receive the death penalty or kept imprisoned for live either. None of these are per definition evil or good in my eyes.

 

I'm pretty much cool with any of these philosophies as long as they are approached consistently and in a rational manner. They usually aren't. And the badly mixed desire to keep society safe (isolate philosophy) and punish criminals (punish philosophy) at the same time has led to systems in which prisoners are tormented for long periods of time only to be released back in a society in which they can no longer function. Further increasing chances of relapse and harm to society. And death penalty is given even if the criminal desires death more than life and consider death a release. While other criminals beg for death and are kept forcefully alive as an act of 'kindness' rather than cruelty.

 

This does not make sense.

 

Ethicists abhor an ethical policy chosen on majority grounds. But if there is a strong favor among a public for either the punish or isolate philosophies then it might be better to just pick one and create a system which actually achieves what it set out to accomplish.

 

 

that's not the only reason to stop reading such bloviation.

 

Bloviation? His post could be more concise to match forum convention but it certainly wasn't empty of meaning.

Edited by Gilga-flesh
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A last resort, yes. But current death penalty isn't the first or preferred option. It is the last. Your statement seems, again, exaggerated. I understand you do not see punishment as a goal and (most?) proponents of death penalty do. And that almost all of you see death as worse than the, as disarray described time in many prisons, "a subdued but prolonged form of torture".

 

So it might help the discussion if you explained why punishment of criminals should not be a goal.

Last Resort - A final course of action, used only when all else has failed

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/last-resort

 

Punishment - The infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/punishment

 

 

The Death Penalty is not a last resort. It is retribution for an offense. Perhap you are okay with that. Perhap you think the gov't should kill as retribution. If so than argue that point. However the death penalty is not a last resort. It is not used only when all else have failed.

 

Whether or not life in prison is worse is relative. For me it is about what the criminal justice system is for and what I believe my gov't should or should not be in the business of doing. Retribution is not what I believe our criminal justice system should be used for. "Protect and Defend",& "Serve and Protect" are common law enforcment slogans. "Avenge and Punish" is not a slogan I learned growing up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The badly mixed desire to keep society safe (isolate philosophy) and punish criminals (punish philosophy) at the same time has led to systems in which prisoners are tormented for long periods of time only to be released back in a society in which they can no longer function.

 

I agree. I guess one train of thought might be to discuss whether any given negative sanction is ethical in some deontological sense above and beyond popular opinion. But that would most likely be something of a never-to-be-resolved discussion since people have various religious and/or secular ethical frames of reference, and therefore no resolution to such a debate is likely to be found....unless everyone adopts the same philosophy/religion, which obviously ain't a goin to happen. But yes, conflating various reasons for incarcerating or terminating the life of those who have been convicted confuses research on the issue by virtue of the sheer plethora of confounding factors (e.g., punitive, rehabilitation, deterrence, isolation approaches), and therefore reduces the likelihood that the effectiveness and efficacy of any approach will ever be enhanced, and therefore the unlikelihood that crime will be reduced in any given society, which after all, should be the ethical goal of any criminal justice system.

 

Thus one might ask what evidence is there, or what evidence/data could be collected to determine the efficacy of various approaches in terms of reducing crime, e.g.:

 

Does a guilt-increasing/public shaming approach (e.g., the sort of shaming done by TV judges such as Judge Judy and the like) effectively prevent people from repeating crimes or others from committing them? Note: This is a general question, but does have some relevance to the manner in which murderers are treated in a society, e.g., whether the justice system tends to treat murderers, for example, as individuals who are ill and need treatment, or whether they are treated as evil people without conscience who deserve no mercy or treatment.

 

Does a system that emphasizes the vindictive/punitive nature of incarceration/death (e.g., taking a murderers life because he/she took someone elses) effectively prevent others from committing them? Note: I would suggest that the question as to what percentage of inmates would prefer death or life imprisonment is only relevant here in terms of giving them what they would least prefer. Of course, a person sentenced to death cannot repeat their criminal acts, but is this fact offset by the number of people were innocent in the first place?

 

Does a system that emphasizes rehabilitation (e.g., counseling and treating recidivist heroin users, murderers, or rapists) instead of a death sentence effectively prevent people from repeating such crimes or others from committing them? Given that some can be rehabilitated, is it worth eventually taking the risk of letting them back into society given that there will probably always be a certain degree of recidivism, even after what appears to be successful rehabilitation? If not, should life-long inmates receive (more?) counseling and therapy, anyway, just in terms of being humane?

 

Unless one qualifies the question of the thread and parses out the possibilities for research, it seems unlikely that the justice system will change or improve.

 

 


Well, since you start off by being wrong, I stopped reading.

My assertion does not say "All people" does it?

Hmmm. Personally, I didn't realize that assumed misinterpretation on my part was such an egregious transgression.

 

It did seem to me that you were summarily dismissing Gilga's view point (i.e., that "plenty of inmates try to kill themselves, apparently agreeing with my viewpoint") by opposing it with your own observation(i.e., that "People on death row appeal the sentence hoping for life in prison instead. They presumably know more about it than you do") which could only possibly serve at all to refute Gilga's comment if you were blindly ignoring his use of the word "plenty" and assuming that he meant "all" and then referring to "all" yourself. Moreover, in logic, omission of the essential qualifying terms of either "some" or "all" traditionally means that one presumes that one is referring to "all" and thus making a generalization. Your failure to qualify your statement in the first place, which was essential unless you were just giving an obvious opposing example in a captious manner, prompted me to attempt to explore the ramifications of the issue in greater detail and length. Merely stating that one refuses to read further is hardly in itself dealing with the question at hand, but for the record, my humble apologies,

Edited by disarray
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gilga flesh"I would recommend people to allow people a degree of autonomy over their own life which also includes voluntary ending, if so desired. If a friend was sick and wished to die, and I determined his wish to be sincere and not a fleeting impulse, I would assist him. And I have several friends that would do the same for me. "

 

 

 

I was talking about someone depressed not just sick. and im not talking about medically assisted scuiside, thats another topic. how can you be determined its not an impusle?

Edited by Lyudmilascience
Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it is unethical because innocents get caught in the middle, and even though I would want the chair just to stop living a miserable existence in prison, there are people who would not want it.

 

Maybe they need to rethink this whole putting prisoner to death system to be more voluntary, to be seen as more humane. If your in for a life sentence then it would only save resources if people were given the opportunity to volunteer for assisted suicide. However, there would have to be restrictions so everyone doesn't do it like a minimum amount of years in or age like you have to be 50 to volunteer. However, this would no longer be a penalty or punishment.

 

In conclusion, I think it should be restructured to be more voluntary as in its current state it is completely unethical.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it is unethical because innocents get caught in the middle, and even though I would want the chair just to stop living a miserable existence in prison, there are people who would not want it.

 

Maybe they need to rethink this whole putting prisoner to death system to be more voluntary, to be seen as more humane. If your in for a life sentence then it would only save resources if people were given the opportunity to volunteer for assisted suicide. However, there would have to be restrictions so everyone doesn't do it like a minimum amount of years in or age like you have to be 50 to volunteer. However, this would no longer be a penalty or punishment.

 

In conclusion, I think it should be restructured to be more voluntary as in its current state it is completely unethical.

 

 

How would you guard against coercion?

Link to post
Share on other sites

After adding death sentence to codex.

It's just a matter of time when this punishment will be used to kill "traitors", anyone who is upset at the government,

which means killing the all democratic/non-democratic opposition.

 

In Turkey judges have been arrested or replaced, the rest terrorized, scared to obey orders or they will end up the same..

What meaning will have sentence given by such "judge" that remained in office.. ?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.