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.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JBL who wrote (39069)	3/17/1999 2:12:00 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 67261

<<I could not kill someone who would accept responsibility for their crimes, and feel genuine remorse for their actions. (I think the greatest punishment for a murderer is to realize how inhuman his act was.)>> On the basis of exacting compensation for the crime, I have to agree with you. Killing the murderer does not pay back the victims or as far as I know society for the murderer's crime. It does relieve society of carrying the burden of this individual. On the basis of punishment by living with the realization of your own inhumanity, I also have to agree with you. However, this realization is a matter of heart and soul and is not manageable in the justice system. It is far more typical that a member of long term incarceration assumes a new societal identity (one in line with the culture of the prison). I don't figure the death penalty debate should be focused on what society gets from killing or not killing the criminal. I also can't see that it necessarily effects the crime rate either way. It would have to be a much more common and relevent form of punishment for criminals to consider it in light of their behavior. Killing the criminal is not a satisfactory or predictable method of replacing the loss felt by the living members of society. While at the same time, forgiveness by the living isn't necessarily connected to granting a stay of execution. On the other hand, I think there are crimes that society is not equiped to manage and never will be. Murder in the quest for wealth, power, or self gratification (like rape), for example. The criminality in a situation like this is beyond what society can deal with on the surface; which is the only level we can effectively deal with any crimes. Such an unscrupulous person can typically be counted on to continue to use every resource to deceive and manipulate our systems for personal benefit in spite of the costs to society. Such calculating and evil persons quickly apologize and require your pardon as a course in their strategy of getting on with there agenda as efficiently as possible. Short of the death penalty, this type of person can no longer be dealt with on the surface of his criminal behavior. I don't believe that punishment in this case is even an issue. I would support the death penalty as a method authorized by God to allow human systems of justice to manage criminality at a reasonable level, and to be alleviated of criminal issues that are beyond human reasonableness. God can judge a person who has been given the death penalty. The all powerful and most merciful God would not allow us to mistakenly send an innocent to his death unless it was part of a broader plan that includes rewards for the innocent person in the after life. The court system is equiped to provide a merciful punishment based on unussual circumstanses of the criminal. When we proclaim our court system to be all merciful we have basically given it the responsibility for judging souls not just criminal behavior. To say that a criminal who lives is granted our mercy and forgiveness is highly suspect. It is more of an issue of avoiding responsibility that than providing mercy and forgiveness. When we forbid the death penalty as a strategy for human mercy and forgiveness we have assumed an outcome that we can not with confidence or authority proclaim. "Society" in the non-human political establishment sense of the word can make such claims but mercy and forgiveness are not manifestations of political machinations they are known to us only as they reside at the soul level of human existance. Even though punishment, mercy and forgiveness are always at the core of the debate for or against the death penalty; they are simply not manageable or relevent issues for some types of crimes.

To: JBL who wrote (39069)	3/17/1999 7:36:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>I could not kill someone who would accept responsibility for their crimes, and feel genuine remorse for their actions. (I think the greatest punishment for a murderer is to realize how inhuman his act was.)< Well you see all this is well and good for you, but it is impossible to measure any of it as a certain payment toward the imbalance of an ethical ledger. Hitler may have been a wonderful actor who could show a great deal of remorse for his murders, but his acting ability by no means could have ever served as a certified payment toward the logical disparity he created. On the other hand, payment of his life would have made such a certifiable payment, and it would have provided two additional benefits: 1.) The absolute assurance that Hitler would never again murder another human, 2.) The assurance that no one, neither Jew nor Gentile, would by the sweat of their brow be forced to feed, clothe and shelter such a fiend. Surely killing a murderer will not bring back a victim, but this is obviously not the goal. The goal is to evermore attempt striving toward the natural principle that one cannot get something for nothing. >Even the most hardened criminal carries in him the potential of being converted, and become a source of inspiration for society.< He may convert and still make a certifiable payment toward the grave disparity he created. And should he not convert before he makes his payment, as with the fiend in Jasper, then he merely demonstrates further the need for society to uphold the principle of blind justice. A civilized society will strive toward the correction of disparities. In this manner those who are unfairly harmed will be able to forgo the tendency to take the law in their own hands, trusting their society to hold to principle. Should their loved one be murdered in cold blood, this, with no mitigating factors, they will readily know that society has a built-in tendency to strive toward balancing the ethical imbalance. The murderer will give all (his life and thus his time) because he has taken all from another. You may claim on the basis of your subjective feelings that the murderer is remorseful and that this is payment enough and whatnot, but there is no fact that he has paid. With the death penalty, it is objective fact that a murderer who incurs such a penalty has made as much of a payment as he possibly can toward the imbalance he has created. It is fact and, unlike your solution, no one with reason can question it. >Also, forgiveness is probably the greatest source of healing for the victims.< Forgiveness can occur despite the payment status of the murderer. A murderer may pay for his crime and yet be forgiven by his victim. The death penalty has absolutely nothing to do with a victim's ability to forgive. As far as civilized society is concerned, there should always be a sincere attempt to certifiably rectify all disparities. Surely in some cases a legal forgiveness of a debt can be a possibility, depending upon the mitigating circumstances. But it is those mitigating circumstances themselves that serve to help correct the imbalance. In cases of murder with no such circumstances, a civilized society must pay attention to both sides of the ledger. Otherwise, it is being as derelict as the accountant who only concerns himself with how much money is being taken in, but not with how much is being spent.