Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (81784)	6/14/2000 8:52:00 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

What "fits" depends on your level of humanity and what you can tolerate. After all, fitting justice used to involve torture. And confessions obtained via torture were considered okey dokey. Most people don't want to have that "fit" anymore- although there are always a few who would like to "bring back the good ole days". Strange.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (81784)	6/15/2000 1:00:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

What are the arguments?---- That it is a fitting response to heinous crime, and therefore validates the system of accountability and hierarchy of values reflected in the determination of offenses. It is expensive precisely because we bend over backwards to avoid mistake, and therefore shows the scrupulousness of the system. Whether or not it is a deterrent to murderers(and that is a matter of controversy), it impresses upon the minds of the populace the seriousness with which we take the administration of justice, and vindicates the moral order, and thus has a culture- forming value. And if the exercise of the death penalty is in itself a legitimate activity, and we have taken due precautions against mistakes, the fact that we may inadvertently execute the wrong person is no more momentous that the fact that people die due to otherwise legitimate activities all the time. You are quite right that we may change our judgement of the matter upon further reflection. However, it is not arbitrary, and must be congruent with the overall tenor of our moral reflection, or it is an assault upon the societal order. The death penalty is a fitting response to heinous crimes (not merely murder, but murder with aggravating circumstances) because we must preserve a sense of proportionality in sentencing, and in the schedule of penalties. By the time we reach simple murder, we exhaust our recourse to simple imprisonment as punishment. If we want to differentiate between the ordinary crime and even fouler acts, we resort to execution. We could, of course,chronically torture the inmates to achieve a similar effect, but we have decided that execution is more humane than torture. For these reasons, I think one starts with the assumption that execution is a fitting response to some crimes, and then asks if there is, nevertheless, reason to abstain. I have already said why I think the reasons of expense and concern for mistakes are insufficient. I should add that I think that calling it "barbaric" is somewhat absurd. There is nothing inherent in the notion of civilization that precludes execution for a restricted list of offenses. Civilization would preclude making the execution a "circus", instead of a solemn occasion, or executing for trivial reasons. It would dictate that the execution be relatively humane, as is the case with lethal injection, for example. But it would not preclude the act itself.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (81784)	6/15/2000 2:50:00 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

<<What are the arguments supporting it?>> Can you gaurantee that your cold blooded murderer will not kill, rape, or maime again while serving the life sentence. He could kill some white collar pencil pushing criminal that was not up for any capital offense. Or harm one of your dopers that committed a "victimless crime." This is not as rare as an innocent man being executed for cold blooded murder. In fact it is common and it is of your making. Once you have them in custody it becomes your responsibility to deal with the evil they represent. We are self aware and socially conscious creatures. I do not want to deal with cold blooded murders at all. I want to deal with decent people who consider my struggles as they consider their own in the context of fairness and day to day living. That is not how the cards are dealt. I am part of a large society that has in its make up cold blooded murderers and once in custody their course becomes our decision. So, can they be put in a place outside of decent society where they can no longer have their evil impact on us? No, any artificial warehousing you provide becomes a subculture of the larger culture. In addition, this subculture leaks into the main stream culture. Where ever you choose to put them, the problems they bring to our culture persist. The choice to be made once they are in our custody is how do we correct the wrong that they represent. If you can convince me that life in prison means that they never have an opportunity to influence the society that I am a part of again, fine; that seems equivalent to death to me. Unfortunately that is not, never has been and never will be the outcome of life in prison. How does the subculture that you've created in the federal prisons represent a just course of action to you? It seems to me to have no baring on justice at all. The reason we can't seem to clean up the mess is we haven't accepted our responsibility to create a healthy society. The bottom line is you haven't shown me a convincing argument that you can care for cold blooded murderers in a way that gives me the opportunity for what I want in a society. You simply have no way to deal with them. They used their opportunity at life to commit cold blooded murder etc. Who are you to say that that opportunity must continue?