death penalty - TravelPUNK Backpacker College Student Budget Travel Message Boards!

**beergal** · 02-24-2005, 03:28 AM

so i thought id make a poll so we can have a discussion, im finding this stuff really interesting after doing a policy paper for uni...so whats your thoughts...please discuss

**Canadian Dude** · 02-24-2005, 05:40 AM

For undisputable crimes against Children ( sexual assualt , abuse, murder...etc)

**TheJake** · 02-24-2005, 05:47 AM

Yea crimes against kids people should die.

And I think they should start chopping off hands again for stealing/whatnot.

**TimmyJames1976** · 02-24-2005, 05:56 AM

I'd have to say no. It is costly, and it is risky. How many death row inmates get let off after DNA evidence proves that they were not the perpatrator of the crime in which they are charged? Also, murdering someone is wrong whether it is in the name of justice or not. Morals are not relative. I could go on about this for hours...should be an interesting thread.

**voyd** · 02-24-2005, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TimmyJames1976@Feb 24 2005, 07:56 AM
Also, murdering someone is wrong whether it is in the name of justice or not.* Morals are not relative.* I could go on about this for hours...should be an interesting thread.

Murder is defined as killing "without just cause."

Legally, killing is justified in many instances like self-defense or wartime to support different ideological beliefs. Are you against killing in ALL instances like these too? And while it doesn't necessarily make it "wrong" or "right," killing IS an essential part of the natural cycle of life out in the animal/plant kingdom. You cannot live without killing other animals and plants on a daily basis. And to flip it - if you kill someone, you are actually saving all the plant/animal lives that they would have continued to consume. So, a cow or chicken might even thank you!

I like this rule for being human:

Quote:

11. There is no right or wrong, but there are consequences. Moralizing doesn't help. Judgments only hold the patterns in place. Just do your best.

The only absolute exception I would have to that is true/false. There are inherently true/false statements, but every other value judgment is ultimately relative and subjective to a POV.

Realmofo · 02-24-2005, 07:06 AM

An eye for an eye is what I believe in. If some scum of the earth were to hurt one of my family members or friends or even someone I dont know to the point that it would be critical (death) then they deserve to DIE. Im sure many of the "the death row" is bad activists would change their mind if a close family member was coldbloodedly killed.

One example: In Florida up north, some girl didnt want to give some dude his Playstation 2, so what does he do? He hires 3 guys and gives them 3 bats each along with himself. In the middle of the night they bust into the girls house and while EVERYONE is sleeping they bash 6 or 7 peoples heads into mush, they all died instantly in their sleep with NO chance of survival, including a 12year old kid and her uncle.....

Those people need to be drenched in gasoline and incinerated so they die a slow painful death, not waste precious american tax dollars on keeping them alive living comfortably in a maximum security prison.....just my thoughts.....

**TimmyJames1976** · 02-24-2005, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by voyd+Feb 24 2005, 07:49 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(voyd @ Feb 24 2005, 07:49 AM)</div>

Quote:

<!--QuoteBegin-TimmyJames1976

Quote:

@Feb 24 2005, 07:56 AM
Also, murdering someone is wrong whether it is in the name of justice or not.* Morals are not relative.* I could go on about this for hours...should be an interesting thread.

Murder is defined as killing "without just cause."

Legally, killing is justified in many instances like self-defense or wartime to support different ideological beliefs. Are you against killing in ALL instances like these too? And while it doesn't necessarily make it "wrong" or "right," killing IS an essential part of the natural cycle of life out in the animal/plant kingdom. You cannot live without killing other animals and plants on a daily basis. And to flip it - if you kill someone, you are actually saving plant/animal lives that they would have continued to consume. A cow or chicken might even thank you!

I like this rule for being human:

Quote:

11. There is no right or wrong, but there are consequences. Moralizing doesn't help. Judgments only hold the patterns in place. Just do your best.

The only absolute exception I would have to that is true/false. There are inherently true/false statements, but every other value judgment is ultimately relative and subjective to a POV. [/b]

relative morality in ever so dangerous. in many african tribes female circumcision is culturally acceptable, but in any sense of human decency, it is indeed wrong. also, defining murder as "without cause" is a mess. the 9/11 hijackers killed with a cause that is accepting in their cultural beliefs, so many moral relativist would have to say the hijackers acted within moral ground to not contradict themselves. it was wrong, and it will always be wrong. any moral relativists out their should read some Kant, for his take on morals and ethics is some of the most comprehensive.

**beergal** · 02-24-2005, 07:31 AM

while completing this policy paper its just one of those times im glad to be european. I can appreciate peoples opinions on why they believe the death penalty should still exist for crimes against children but i think a more punishable experience for criminals who commit the offence of murder would be solitary confinement in a padded cell

What i cant comprehend is how the death penalty can still exist for robbery crimes and adultery

**voyd** · 02-24-2005, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TimmyJames1976@Feb 24 2005, 09:13 AM
relative morality in ever so dangerous.* in many african tribes female circumcision is culturally acceptable, but in any sense of human decency, it is indeed wrong.* also, defining murder as \"without cause\" is a mess.* the 9/11 hijackers killed with a cause that is accepting in their cultural beliefs, so many moral relativist would have to say the hijackers acted within moral ground to not contradict themselves.* it was wrong, and it will always be wrong.* any moral relativists out their should read some Kant, for his take on morals and ethics is some of the most comprehensive.

Well, a lot of 9/11 was Muslim retribution for half a century of US Zionism and other factors. Not saying either is wrong or right, but that they're both relative. Also, Bush has certainly capitalized greatly off 9/11 - and it has definitely been a "blessing in disguise" for his political agenda. So, even 9/11 was good/bad depending upon who you ask and on what criteria.

So, you avoided my question - are you against ALL killing - even in wartime? Are you a war protester? Or self-defense in a kill-or-be-killed situation? Euthanasia to stop end-of-life suffering at the patient's own request?

I personally am overall against female circumcision, but also realize that that's a personal judgment. And they do have their reasons for doing it, within their full cultural context. But yes, I do have my own set of values and ethics - I just don't believe they are absolute - but subjective and relative to my POV as a human.

And, I think "absolute" morality is actually more dangerous than relative morality. Because, who defines what's "absolute?" Therein lies the problem. The 9/11 hijackers believed they were obeying "absolute morality." The Catholics believed they were enforcing "absolute morality" in 356 years of their bloody Spanish Inquisition. The Christians killing "witches" at the Salem Witch Trials also believed they had defined "absolute" morality...etc etc.

**beergal** · 02-24-2005, 07:38 AM

Quote:

are you against ALL killing - even in wartime

i think that it in cases like this isnt it a case of kill or be killed

**TimmyJames1976** · 02-24-2005, 07:55 AM

actually, all of those examples are technically relative morality, i am sorry i can not get into more right now, i am at work. i understand that death is part of life, and i understand defensive killing, and unfortuatly war is something that should, but cannot be avoided. i do think what should be, and what has to be done tend to differ. theory and reality do not always gel as much as we would like. the simple fact is, that for a society, locking an evil person up is cheaper and just as effective as the death penalty. (man, this is a grwat thread, makes me feel like i am back at school!)

**voyd** · 02-24-2005, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TimmyJames1976@Feb 24 2005, 09:55 AM
actually, all of those examples are technically relative morality,

the simple fact is, that for a society, locking an evil person up is cheaper and just as effective as the death penalty.* (man, this is a grwat thread, makes me feel like i am back at school!)

Technically relative* yes, but to those believers they were absolute.

* Hence, back to my first post here, I said "every other value judgment is ultimately relative and subjective to a POV." Again, other than some true/false statements (1+1=2), there are no absolute morals. In fact, it's when people think their relative judgments are absolute that we often run into problems. Like you said, reality is gray and messy and you have to be extremely situationally fluid to handle it properly. Every scenario is different and laws are merely general rules of thumb. What's really more important is the INTENT, not the LETTER of these laws. Like, it may be illegal to exceed the speed limit, yet it would be the "RIGHT" (for you) thing to do if you were outrunning a tornado, for instance!

Now, I do agree that economically, lifeterms are cheaper than the long legal process required for the death penalty. And also you could have convicts wrongly charged. I was debating the death penalty more from strictly a philosophical standpoint, though.

So, to clarify - you would support indiscriminately killing an unarmed enemy with no direct threat to you personally in a war for oil but not a serial murderer about to rape and slaughter you and your family?

**TimmyJames1976** · 02-24-2005, 08:26 AM

HUH? WHERE DID YOU GET THE INDISCRIMINATLY KILLING AN UNARMED PERSON FOR? sorry bout the caps! I don't believe war is right, but is an extension of the kill or be killed theory. If someone invades your soveirnty then you have to defend yourself. Do I think it is okay to invade an obviously technologically inferior society using the excuse as "spreading freedom" to mask the true intent on stealing oil is right? Of course not.

**voyd** · 02-24-2005, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TimmyJames1976@Feb 24 2005, 10:26 AM
HUH?* WHERE DID YOU GET THE INDISCRIMINATLY KILLING AN UNARMED PERSON FOR?* sorry bout the caps!* I don't believe war is right, but is an extension of the kill or be killed theory.* If someone invades your soveirnty then you have to defend yourself.

Sorry, that was just an extreme hypothetical to determine your position.

So, you DO believe that killing humans is justified in certain instances - like self-defense, etc. Ok, was just wondering if you thought ALL killing was wrong...or not. I see it's the latter now. Gotcha.

So, then it just becomes a judgment call whether a particular killing is justified or not - i.e. situational ethics. But, isn't that all relative? Can you really draw an absolutely clear line completely demarcating right/wrong in all cases?

**TimmyJames1976** · 02-24-2005, 08:46 AM

Oh Mr. Devil's Advocate. Okay, here it is. Moral theory and applied ethics can never match. Theory is "in a perfect world." We do not live in a perfect world. I don't think there should be war, but unfortunatly their are war mongers out there, and you can't lie down and let them kill you. I don't think it's right in any situation, but it is nessasary.

**kingcrazylegs** · 02-24-2005, 10:00 AM

Oh brother...

My biggest problem with the dealth penalty is that it doesn't REALLY accomplish anything. Ok, you can say its Justice, and the family of the person who was murdered or such has been vindicated or some such crap...but I think that in reality this sort of justice is unhealthy. An eye for an eye leads to what? An eye for an eye for an eye for an eye......A law that promotes vindiction does just that, it gives people a little bit more of the notion in their head that they can go out and vindicate themselves...

There have been lots of studies that show this...one was a study done in Texas between 1984 and 1997 because of the high rate of death sentences there. Statistics show that the death pentalty did not act as a deterrent at all. Murder rates often stay the same or even rise in places that have capital punishment.

I think that the death penalty just legitamizes killing. If you agree with it or not, you become more immune to it b/c you have the idea that its justice, it makes it more of a possibility in your mind.

I'd be the first one to admit, that if someone killed one of my dearest loved ones, especial if it was a child, I'd want him/her dead...but it would be based on emotion. How many times are we "lead astray" by doing the emotion based decisions?

I've done work in prisions in the US, Spain and Italy (working with suicidal inmates)...and its a much different view from within those walls. I challenge anyone, go hang out with some people who are in prision, especially those who have a life sentence without a chance of parole and then decide which is a stiffer punishment.

Those are my two cents

**Sijuki** · 02-24-2005, 10:41 AM

I have my personal beliefs, but I have always also held the opinion that what other people do is their business unless it interfere's with my realm of existence.

Personally I don't like the death penalty. At least not in our "modern, safe technologically advanced" ways. If I were to be executed, there is only one way to go, firing squad. It is probably the cheapest and most human way to execute someone. But I feel that if someone has committed that bad of a crime, (murder, rape, etc. etc.) that they should be locked away, and forced to think deeply of what they have done. Really what should be done with criminals can't be decided by a blanket law anyways. Each case would have its own specific requirements. If you have someone that is completey 6's and 7's with no grasp on reality, wouldn't it be a better service to society to execute them so you don't risk the chance of them escaping and committing another crime. While someone who killed in the 'heat of the moment' could be counseled and may learn from their error so there is a chance of making them better. While they may never experience 'freedom' again they could become a somewhat productive member of society again.

Absolute and relative are two things that will never meet. People like to see things as absolute, even though nothing can ever be absolute all the time. Relative is the fairest way to conduct society. Our growth of statutes and laws in the 20th century created absolute law. if this, and this and this, then this. While Common Law left a lot to the relative situation. No wonder we have such crime and problems now-a-days. With absolute law everything is spelled out and you can easily find a loop hole and exploit it to your advantage. Relative law would not allow this as your situation would be analyzed and then based on the idea of say, killing is wrong, you walked into a store and shot the cashier because they didn't give you money. Given that scenario you obviously had intent and were willing to kill freely. While you could find some little error in the law like it is today and exploit that and have the case dropped. It happens all too often. But this is a bit off of the death penalty.

I am a very different person, and I put a lot of emphasis on personal responsibility. I believe that if someone breaks into my house, that that is trespassing, and by trespassing you present a threat to me and my family which grants me the right to stop you at any cost. I don't agree with these courts that imprison people because they shot some guy that broke into their house. That is ridiculous, protecting a criminal. Your responsibility is to stay out of private property, you violate that rule and you must deal with the consequince. Why is it that if someone walks into a retail store and steals something and they are caught and held or even tackled to be caught and something happens the people who caught the criminal are being questioned? This is ridiculous. People that sue because they were injured while stealing. Honestly, if this is the stance of our society, then what is the point of having a law? Law in this country is designed to protect the criminal, I have said it for years and I will continue to say it. While the good honest citizens get screwed and their freedoms limited. The criminals can find the loophole and extort it to gain against honest good people. Frankly, I blame the lawyers. Especially Trial Lawyers...

But back to absolute and relative beliefs of morality. Morals should be simple. Things such as the 10 commandments spelled it out pretty easily. Even "Thou shall not kill" is easy. You shouldn't kill people, but sometimes you come down to the wire and you have to make a decision. Which makes an absolute rule, very relative. Basically as absolute as anything could be it will always reach a point of relativity. "Thou shall not steal" But sometimes you might be flat broke and hungry and you might get the idea of stealing a loaf of bread. You shouldn't steal, but the relative part shows that without that bread you may die or become too weak to fend for yourself. So absolute law becomes relative when we have to decide whether or not we care more about our lives or absolute law. Perhaps some die hard religious people would choose to follow absolute law regardless of their circumstance. I don't know, but I am sure there are a few out there. Does that make you a better person? Or is there a mortality of morality where you choose to break a law for your own gain, even if that gain is your life.

Just some thoughts.

**afterlife3** · 02-24-2005, 10:45 AM

I feel that if someone is willing to take the life of another person then they are willing to live the most awful life possible. Death penalty is the easy way out and prison is too comfortable. I think we should develope a system of which we create a hell on earth for them.

arbiter13 · 02-24-2005, 11:37 AM

First, I love statements/questions that ask "Do you believe in..." something that actually exists. (not like the god question)

For example, my favorite line is "I don't believe in guns". I've always wanted to point one at them and ask "So I'm holding a drill?" But that's just the sadistic comic in me.

Anyways, punishment.
I like to look at it this way. If someone murders someone else, and they are sentenced to life in a hellish prison, how much does it cost to keep that prison running? To keep them fed and keep the guards paid and safe? To maintain the facility? That's money (resources) being wasted. Kill them. Firing squad. None of this "swab of alcohol before a lethal injection" crap. Bullets are cheap. I like to look at it from a objective standpoint. They've committed a crime and must be removed from this plane of existence so they are not a threat to others.

As for what crimes deserve the death penalty...that is another story. I'm still working on that.

I've been reading a lot of Ayn Rand lately, so my philosophical views have been thrown into disarray. Here's what I think at the moment. You have a right to defend yourself. If your life is threatened, you may defend yourself (or the lives of your family). However, you have no right to INITIATE force on another, only act in defense.

Also, I must add that relative morality is one of the most fatal mistakes in history.

**TheJake** · 02-24-2005, 12:43 PM

Ok fun times. First off careful there arbiter13 on dissing my God. There is a separate thread for that.

Ok Kids, Jake has been thinking about this for a bit now and I have come to decide that we need to go back to Robin Hood. Stockades and cutting off hands. I especially like the stockades idea for thiefs and whatnot.

Hands I think should go for murder, penis' and hands for rape.

That's what I think.

Furthermore Absolutes are set on what you believe in. If you do not believe in a perfect deity then what do you compare your absolutes too? Man-made ideas? Men are imperfect (thus this discussion) without Absolute Right (God, allah, etc) and an absolute evil (devil) then we have NOTHING to use as a measuring stick except history and those morals changed every couple hundred years.

I believe that killing people is part of life. War is neccessary (not over oil but well you know) and assassinations, well I would do it for enough cash probably.

Sij brought the ten commandments into the mix. I like Jesus' two commands better. Let me give you some background first.

The religious leaders of the day (Sanhedrin) were looking for a way to kill Jesus. They decided to try to trick him up with a question. If he answered wrong then by jewish law they could kill him for blasphemy. So they asked which is the greatest commandment? (by asking that if Jesus chose one out of the others that was the equivalant of saying God was wrong and therefore death to Jesus.)

Jesus replied with Love the lord your God with all your heart. mind and soul is the greatest commandment and
Love your neighbor as yourself.

By answering this way He encompassed all ten commandments and compressed them down to two. So these aren't a series of rules or absolutes. True love is never wrong, and if everyone focused on loving people then well there wouldnt be a whole lot of problems but unfortunately that's not how life works.

Basically to sum it all up it works out like this. Morals, without absolute right/wrong to base them on, are relative and NO man can condemn another for believing whatever he wants to.
Now on the other hand laws are in place that have to enforced to mantain order, and laws need some kind of disciplinary action to accompany them. Our current methods of discipline are lame and uneffective.