If you have a faith of any kind, then you believe death is not the end.Originally Posted by melon
From that point of view the death penalty is
A) sending them to be judged by a deity
B) depriving them of the gift of life
C) but taking a life is deitys job, not yours
If death is nothingness then the death penalty is
A) an end to all suffering or punishment and so "an easy way out"
Chrome & Firefox addons for BBC News
TiVo: still the best PVR 10 years later TivoCentral.co.uk Follow me @twitter
I don't see how torture is any more ethical than execution. If we consider what is ethical by the extent of harm done, then torture is more unethical than execution. The dead can't suffer.
I'm not morally against execution for clear-cut butchers like this. But to avoid systematic errors in judgement we shouldn't allow it to avoid the state killing innocent people. I don't even trust politicians to pass any laws, much less laws which kill people.
Personally I don't see why we should put them down like rabid animals, when we could have far more "fun" with them while alive, one idea is a modern day Oubliette, throw in food once a day... nice and easy. we could even put on way glass on it so people can come see the animal.
(\__/) All I wanted in the end was world domination and a whole lot of money to spend. - NMA
(='.*=)
(")_(*)
of course not , there are already bits of us scattered across the universe.
m
Just make the punishment fit the crime is my motto.............I'd buy him a one way ticket to a Muslim nation with a leaflet drop of the locals explaining his reasons why killed all those people....that should do the job!!
I read the thread backward, and IronWarrior's reply stood out.
Though it is not stated explicitly, I took that as to mean that you treat prisoners "well" in order to be considered "civilised". Yet as I carried on reading...
[My view: The statement is easy to generically agree to, it still leave plenty of room to opinions. For instance, the line is drawn as slowly grinding the prisoners body from toe to head, others may object to even the most painless of executions, others yet may object to forced labour, etc. etc.]
Coercion is hardly a choice. What you conveniently call "euthanasia", is nothing like what it means. There is hardly done out of mercy, unless you consider it merciful to terminate someone's life and end their suffering when the suffering is a direct result of the punishment you dished out (i.e. the work you've allocated them). At very best, you could argue that you are given the prisoner a second chance. But let's not sugar-coat it, if you are arguing that death penalty is murder, then pushing the button detonating that collar is also murder. And if you still insist that they are making a choice to voluntarily die by not obeying the orders, then it's easy to argue that someone who chose to commit a crime punishable by death is making a choice to voluntarily die by not obeying the law.
Here, you sound pretty much against euthanasia, yet in the previous paragraph, you wanted it applied to those who disobey the rules (though I'll re-iterate that what you called euthanasia in the previous paragraph is much closer to murder than you probably want to admit). Regardless, applying something you seems so against towards prisoners would take the level of civilisation down a couple of notches if we were to believe that previous quote.
Perhaps we should opt for death by explosive collars then
Things can always go wrong. That also mean that the collar may fail detonate, and/or other measures fails and the prisoner go on another rampage. Personally, while I think that it is -preferable- that executions are swift and relatively painless, I would rather take the risk of a prisoner dying less peacefully than intended, than the risk of an escapee going on another rampage.
Yes I am very weary of the wrong person being sent to their deaths, and for me it is the most significant reason to be against the death penalty. But in situations where a murderer is caught red handed in the act, it only comes down to the moral argument of taking another's life regardless of the circumstances, and whether this particular circumstance calls for it.
If you have left it here, I wouldn't have seen any problem either. I see forced labour is a form of slavery, but I do not believe in giving mass-murderers much right, and certainly not the same right as non-convicted. The good some of the examples you've given make a good cause though I find others quite questionable (sci-fi and anime often have entertaining and intriguing settings, but also setting that are morally questionable and would most likely fail any 'human right' tests).
I do agree with the second part, I am quite sure it does not say "thy [shall?] not kill.. unless the person in question is convicted, been given a second chance and blew it".
What is striking to me is not your solution to the issue. If you had just left it at that (preferably without the explosive collars, but even with), I would've thought that you've justified your arguments. But you seem to have convinced yourself that your solution, which involves coercion, slavery (in uglier terms) and possible murder (so called "euthanasia") as an alternative is so civilised, that you deem it appropriate to be be "disgusted at" at those who would support the a plain death penalty.
Barbaric? If I believed that mass-murders have rights, I would've found your solution just as barbaric. I may deduct a point in "barbarity" because your solution involve a second chance, but I am going to have to add at least half a point for the coercion and means of execution if the prisoner does not play ball (subjectively, I find a gruesome death of decapitation via explosive collar more gruesome than death via needle injection and I am assuming that both means can go wrong e.g. the collar may not explode properly, leaving the prisoner bleeding to death). Dated? I can agree to that, though I'd argue that it's not relevant (so is locking someone up for life). It may not deter criminal behaviour (I would argue otherwise - not that it will always deter because it obviously does not, but that it -might- deter depending on the individuals, their sanity and other factors), but neither does your solution (any more than the death penalty). Pure revenge? Not necessarily, the intent entirely down to the individual. Your solution can every bit be as much as "revenge".
I will re-iterate though that it's not so much your solution that has caught my attention. Though I have called forced labour "slavery" (because by definition, it is - not unlike how you call the death penalty "murder"), some of the work you mentioned can better the world, and since I have not an ounce of sympathy for mass-murderers, I do would shed no tear if they are forced to do work, or indeed have their neck blown appart. But while it adds a practical aspect of the punishment, I definitely do not see your solution as so morally clean and above the death penality. More sophisticated? Yes. Less barbaric? Only half a notch if that.
Last edited by TooNice; 16-05-2012 at 04:08 PM.
Lock him up in solitary for rest of his life , death penalty is a cop out let him spend the next 60 years reminiscing of his evil deeds
Death isn't enough for him - he's already said that he didn't expect to survive the day. I think he's resigned to dying so it wouldn't be much of an issue for him. Personally, (and some of you might find this a little cruel and unusual), I reckon he should go to sleep on night, and wake up in the morning with an arm/hand missing/immobilised permanently, and then be locked up on his tod for the rest of his natural life. That I think would be far more of a punishment is his view, which has a lot more mileage than just topping him.
Tbh.. why this has even went to court... I believe in 'innocent until proven guilty' however, we know he done it. There solid evidence.
Throw him to rot in jail now, end of.
- Doesn't get the attention he seeks.
- Yeah it'll cost the state..
- At this day and age we don't do Capital Punishment.
Move on...
And the verdict is: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...87N09A20120824
Maximum sentence of 21 years. (With possibility of indefinite extension if he's deemed to still be a threat when due for release). As you can see he looks very upset about the whole thing.
On the one hand you get comments like this, apparently from some families of victims: "A lawyer for some victims and their families said they, too, were satisfied: "I am pleased, although that's not really the right word, and relieved. This is what we hoped for," said Mette Yvonne Larsen, who represented some of those affected in court.
"I have already received many messages from clients telling me this is justice served and they are happy it's over and will never have to see him again.""
On the other hand you get this: "Breivik will now be kept in isolation inside Ila Prison on the outskirts of Oslo inside relatively spacious quarters that include a separate exercise room, a computer and a television." And the fact that he had already said this, ""I stand by what I have done and I would still do it again.""
So, is this justice served on a man who intentionally and cold-heartedly murdered 77 innocent individuals to make a political point?
In my opinion, this sentence devalues human life.
Last edited by Galant; 24-08-2012 at 12:31 PM.
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
I had actually written a quite long reply, about what is justice, what is punishment, what is preventative measures etc.
But I'm sorry I just have to say this.
I don't like you.
Your intolerance of gays entitles you to treat them as less human, you where for people discriminating against them.
That devalues human life.
Killing does not. Living our lifes in a pathetic way makes them worse. Would human life have more value if instead of nice living conditions he was instead given torture every day? That in my mind does not just de-value it also debases human life.
My conclusion is, you have ideas about life, that I dislike, you believe its OK to behave badly, in a way that will reduce someone's enjoyment of life. That you can increase the value of life, by inflicting pain on someone.
So why did I say I dislike you? Because you are devaluing life.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
TeePee (24-08-2012)
How much is one human life worth? He ended 77 of them.
I don't recall suggesting torture at any time. Providing him with a separate exercise room, a computer, and perhaps worst of all, a TV? How would removing at least the TV and the computer be torture?
What sort of message does that send out to society? This man, in his right mind, with plenty of forethought, planned and executed mass murder. His freedom will obviously be restricted, but potentially for only for 21 years (a lot but not, I would argue, in light of his crimes), and during that time, he will be permitted the pleasures of TV and computer, and depending on the exercise facilities, perhaps even admission to a gym - providing more than the basics necessary for good health.
I am not advocating torture. I am suggesting that this specific sentence, even if Norway's maximum, does not fit the crime.
With regards to the death penalty my argument is simple. Human life is valuable, even invaluable, even as is human freedom. Both human freedom and human life are rights. However, just a the right to human freedom can be taken away due to commission of certain crimes, so too the right to one's own life can or should be able to be forfeit in certain cases. People are of course free to disagree, and for those for whom this is a matter of principle, perhaps no argument can be made. However, for those where the issue is a pragmatic one, a question of circumstances, this case in particular seems to be one which is clear cut and serves as a good case study.
Those against the death penalty have to defend the logic that human life is so valuable that even when many of those 'so valuable' lives are taken, the killer may still retain his. As for enacting the death penalty in certain cases, I believe it delivers a message to society about the limits of personal freedom, and the importance of human life. That where no other crimes may effect it, murder is special and will result in the forfeiting of one's own right to life.
I'm sorry you think I feel the need to rob others of pleasure, or derive some sort of pleasure from doing so. I don't. That's not me. As far as is good and just I wish all people to have the best lives possible. However, I believe pleasure is not a matter of legislation. That law and justice are important in forming a good and free society and that they set limits in society which enable liberty and pleasure. The patterns of law and justice should be orderly, should have a sense to them, and be established by logic and sound principle, for the good of society, and not based on personal whim. I believe that is important. I think part of the problem here is that you see these issues in a very different light to me, and that my opinions or reasoning somehow come across as inconsequential. I assume you don't like me because you feel I hold onto these 'inconsequential' views deliberately, despising the obvious truth as you see it - that I am someone who really doesn't value human life or society. That if the problem were that I was not smart enough to understand or had somehow been blinded to the truth, then you might still like me.
Sometimes I expect I do sound more interested in principles that I am in people. I apologise if it is ever the case that I seem to not value human life. I truly do value it. Perhaps the problem is misunderstanding?
Last edited by Galant; 24-08-2012 at 03:12 PM.
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
He already has a "gym" in one of the three cells has he been allocated, it has a running machine and another piece of equipment in there.
It didn't fall off, it merely became insufficient at it's purpose and got a bit droopy...
TheAnimus, since you mentioned your response and I hadn't responded, I will reply now. I had avoided doing so, and also commenting much in this thread, because I wanted to avoid a back and forth like has been seen before. Apologies if that seemed dismissive.
More dangerous than other murderers? Does he have to be? The point here was that people were talking about giving him a job to do. He might not attempt to take back his freedom if given the chance, he might not commit another such crime, but when he did have his freedom, he used it to plan mass murder and then enact that plan. He did so for political/societal reasons which show no signs of changing. If he did escape, or if he was paroled early and then at some point killed again - or attempted to - would that not be a massive tragedy, injustice, and failure of the system? The man poses a risk not because he committed a crime of passion, but because he despised human life and murdered 77 people to make a point. As far as we can tell, that's a point he would still like to make. I believe that's a risk that needs to be fully considered.
He should be permitted to live out his days because, "That's life?" How is that 'life'? This wasn't an accident. A wall didn't fall over on some people. This man went out and intentionally blew up/shot 77 people - more if he had had the chance. We should let him live because after doing that because.....that's life?
"The difference" is that part of the judicial system is to delineate right and wrong, and to do show showing the severity of different crimes. How society, in this case the judiciary, acts not only takes care of a single case, but it also sends messages - sets precedents - for the future. That is something that is plainly understood. Just as the justice system sets different punishments for different crimes, more severe sentences for more severe crimes, so too the severest of crimes should receive the severest of sentences. In some cases the judicial system says that theft might be severe enough to deprive someone of their hard-earned cash and force them to pay a fine. In other cases perhaps deprive them, temporarily of their right to freedom and incarcerate them. In still more severe cases they might be deprived of that right to freedom permanently. In the case of the premeditated taking of human life, why not therefore allow the judicial system to declare that the murderer forfeits their right to life? It sets the clearest precedent that human life is valued above all else, and the taking of a human life means you forfeit your own.
There were two parts here. The first part of the question was posed to consider the logic of those who say that capital punishment is 'barbaric' or 'too severe' yet who then say that something worse than the death penalty should be applied. Logically that just doesn't follow. If by 'barbaric' they mean 'impolite' or 'unpleasant' or 'offensive to modern sensibilities' then I would have to ask why 'impoliteness' etc. gained such priority. If however, they mean that the death penalty is unacceptable because it 'goes too far' or is unjust, then how can it be acceptable or just to 'go even further' and enact an even worse punishment? It doesn't follow.Because death is quite easy, there are things worse than it, if your basing your morality on something as primative as an "eye for an eye" then ultimately he can only be killed once. As such it seems rational to me that someone who is saying the death penality is for justice should be advocating the prolonged torture of the person? Rather than a swift painless passing? Because ultimately 77 deaths for 1, isn't 'piratically more just' than imprisonment, or rather, I can't see the argument.
The second part of the question is what you seemed to address, and your answer appears to be that the death penalty shouldn't be used for the most severe of crimes because it is not the severest of punishments. If that's the case then I have two questions and a comment. First, would you therefore be okay with using the death penalty for lesser crimes for which it would be a more suitable penalty? Second, if not, why not? Finally, the reason that the death penalty is just is not to do with how much pain it inflicts upon the individual, measuring pain is an impossible task. It is just because it equates the taking of life with the taking of life. If someone has taken another's life in this way then they have broken society's highest rule, highest value, the right to life, and so they forfeit their own right to that life.
A question - what is justice? What purpose does the justice system serve?
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
An article I read over the weekend raised an interesting question about justice. It cited an essay written many years earlier by CS Lewis - On Punishment.
Lewis' essay can be read here: http://www.angelfire.com/pro/lewiscs/humanitarian.html Be aware that the essay regularly includes the word 'desert', meaning 'what one deserves' (as in, "he got his just deserts" - more info here) - not a place with little precipitation.
For those not wanting to read the article, the summary is this:
The traditional concept of punishment and justice is based on balance - that punishment, should follow crime and that punishment should fit the crime.
So it is that we, society, can talk about punishments, and whether or not a punishment is just or fair. We can argue over whether a punishment is too severe or not severe enough, based upon this concept of just recompense for one's actions.
CS Lewis, some years ago, wrote this essay to look at and critique the emerging 'Humanitarian Theory' of punishment, which was concerned not with what it described as 'vengeful' or 'vindictive' punishment but rather with rehabilitation and deterrence. He argued that whilst rehabilitation and deterrence a good things to consider and include in sentencing, that society must never detach sentencing from the traditional concept of justice and just rewards. The reason is because without that concept and balance sentences and punishments (or 'compulsory rehabilitation' or 'deterrents') will have no check upon them, and any sentence can be 'justified' on the ground of curing or deterring.
With regards to Breivik, the article suggested that what we see if this theory becoming reality. That no-one believes that 21 years of incarceration are what the mass murder of 77 people deserves. The 21 year sentence is not a matter of 'just deserts' or a punishment to fit the crime. Rather, it is a sentence based upon a supposedly humanitarian philosophy of compulsory rehabilitation with no limits upon it. So it is that this 21 year sentence can be extended on forever, as long as Breivik is judged to no longer be a threat. The question is asked, how can a potentially unlimited sentence be just, or a matter of justice? We might feel that Breivik's crimes would justify any such 'punishment', so we might not mind. The concern, though, should be focused upon asking who decides who is fit or not for society? Who decides who is a risk or not? Where is the scale so that we can see what deserves what?
For Lewis this was a move away from justice and human rights and the beginnings, or the seeds, of future tyranny. Some quotes from the article:
"According to the Humanitarian theory, to punish a man because he deserves it, and as much as he deserves, is mere revenge, and, therefore, barbarous and immoral. It is maintained that the only legitimate motives for punishing are the desire to deter others by example or to mend the criminal. When this theory is combined, as frequently happens, with the belief that all crime is more or less pathological, the idea of mending tails off into that of healing or curing and punishment becomes therapeutic. Thus it appears at first sight that we have passed from the harsh and self-righteous notion of giving the wicked their deserts to the charitable and enlightened one of tending the psychologically sick. What could be more amiable? One little point which is taken for granted in this theory needs, however, to be made explicit. The things done to the criminal, even if they are called cures, will be just as compulsory as they were in the old days when we called them punishments. If a tendency to steal can be cured by psychotherapy, the thief will no doubt be forced to undergo the treatment. Otherwise, society cannot continue.
My contention is that this doctrine, merciful though it appears, really means that each one of us, from the moment he breaks the law, is deprived of the rights of a human being."
"when we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and consider only what will cure him or deter others, we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether; instead of a person, a subject of rights, we now have a mere object, a patient, a ‘case’."
"The distinction will become clearer if we ask who will be qualified to determine sentences when sentences are no longer held to derive their propriety from the criminal’s deservings."
"It will be in vain for the rest of us, speaking simply as men, to say, ‘but this punishment is hideously unjust, hideously disproportionate to the criminal’s deserts’. The experts with perfect logic will reply, ‘but nobody was talking about deserts. No one was talking about punishment in your archaic vindictive sense of the word. Here are the statistics proving that this treatment deters. Here are the statistics proving that this other treatment cures. What is your trouble?"
"The immediate starting point of this article was a letter I read in one of our Leftist weeklies. The author was pleading that a certain sin, now treated by our laws as a crime, should henceforward be treated as a disease. And he complained that under the present system the offender, after a term in gaol, was simply let out to return to his original environment where he would probably relapse. What he complained of was not the shutting up but the letting out."
"Which of us, if he stood in the dock, would not prefer to be tried by the old system?"
"If we turn from the curative to the deterrent justification of punishment we shall find the new theory even more alarming. When you punish a man in terrorem, make of him an ‘example’ to others, you are admittedly using him as a means to an end; someone else’s end. This, in itself, would be a very wicked thing to do. On the classical theory of Punishment it was of course justified on the ground that the man deserved it. That was assumed to be established before any question of ‘making him an example’ arose."
"If the justification of exemplary punishment is not to be based on dessert but solely on its efficacy as a deterrent, it is not absolutely necessary that the man we punish should even have committed the crime. The deterrent effect demands that the public should draw the moral, ‘If we do such an act we shall suffer like that man.’ The punishment of a man actually guilty whom the public think innocent will not have the desired effect; the punishment of a man actually innocent will, provided the public think him guilty."
"For if crime and disease are to be regarded as the same thing, it follows that any state of mind which our masters choose to call ‘disease’ can be treated as a crime; and compulsorily cured. It will be vain to plead that states of mind which displease government need not always involve moral turpitude and do not therefore always deserve forfeiture of liberty. For our masters will not be using the concepts of Desert and Punishment but those of disease and cure."
"The older view was that mercy ‘tempered’ justice, or (on the highest level of all) that mercy and justice had met and kissed. The essential act of mercy was to pardon; and pardon in its very essence involves the recognition of guilt and ill-desert in the recipient...the Humanitarian theory wants simply to abolish Justice and substitute Mercy for it. This means that you start being ‘kind’ to people before you have considered their rights, and then force upon them supposed kindnesses which no on but you will recognize as kindnesses and which the recipient will feel as abominable cruelties. You have overshot the mark. Mercy, detached from Justice, grows unmerciful. That is the important paradox."
Thoughts?
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
I just want to comment on one thing that was said in this thread.
"Giving him the death penalty is wrong because you are taking away his choice to live"
Sorry but that's just ridiculous, he took away the choice of life of 77 other people.
I believe in an eye for an eye whether some like it or not.
Norway does not have the death penalty so just take the guy, put him in a room, add the families of the 77 people who's choice of life he stole and lock the door.
That way his punishment is decided by the people most directly effected by his actions.
Seems the most fair way to do it to me
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
