Discussion in 'Every Day Debating' started by finrod, Dec 16, 2003.
now that is an argument I have not heard before. I like it and I can agree.
Killed someone else already. Murdered a defenseless baby. Right to life? Zero. This to me is one of those clear cut cases I talk about. No doubt, no questions, just the brutal killing of a defenseless baby. What benefit is there to society for this animal to go on living?
I have to wonder if we'll be reading another article in 10 years' time saying he's got out and then killed a third person.
to quote Brian from family guy D) "I support death penalty to show that killing is wrong"
No matter what an animal person is there is always chance for change and if that chance is miserable still it is more human of us to give it to him that just to take life, which is too easy.
If they deserve death, they deserve a SLOW and PAINFUL death, not one where they watch tv and get a nice tasty free meal before being made unconcious so that they feel no pain.
put them to work in the mines. better yet, put them to work as FDA test subjects or implied-consent organ donors. creatures that go beyond the point of redemption deserve NOTHING.
So much hate, I wonder what God would think of that.........
@wandering: Is that really your oppinion, or was that sarcasm?
If it is your oppinion, it sounds really self-righteous. Who are we to judge another ones life? Who are we to define exactly where the line between creatures and normal villains runs?
And if we do to them what they did to others, are we not exactly like them?
Not an ounce better indeed.
irredeemable = kidnaps, tortures, rapes and murders then eats children on a regular basis for fun and would gladly do the same to anyone. psychiatric analysis diagnoses criminal to be perfectly sane, just evil beyond redemption. this person does not deserve life. this person does not deserve a quick death. this person deserves a long time repaying humanity twenty years for every life he ended with twenty times the suffering he inflicted on children, on families, on friends, on neighbors and relatives, on society in general. and afterwards he can go to hell. and suffer for eternity.
Met in the middle, keep them alive so they still get to live, but make most of their life difficult. Some things are worse than death. Constant manual labor for criminals that show no sign of rehabilitation or that have slaughtered too many. Sure they will have down time but they will have to work for it under maximum security. Perhaps factory work or mining even, as long as they know if they try anything funny they don't get any down time.
No person deserves to die, killing for killing is hypocritical. Society also put so much effort into at least raising these people, to just kill them off would dump money and hard work down the drain. Not only will they suffer for their acts but they will still get to live and attempt to re-pay for whatever terror they brought forth even if they only can give so little compared to a life.
If they are too weak physically to handle the work, have them crunch numbers day in and day out, statistical work provided by people higher in their fields who are overwhelmed with data. If they show no sign of cooperation attempt to isolate, rehabilitate, or guilt trip them until they will at least do some form of work.
Even if there would have to still be a penalty, make it quick, revenge doesn't do anybody good but it does keep grief and hate alive. It is more healthy for people to try and move on than stare at the past swelling with regret.
Overall though you can't demonize these people or else they will just want to fit their label more, almost encouraging them. They at a time could have been just as normal as you or I, they were a kid too. Appeal to their humanity to try and bring them back to sanity rather than just dump their potential, let them know what they did was bad, but also that in some way they are atoning for their heinous acts.
Don't be caught up with so much hate that you become them.
Have you ever considered that the world is indeed not fair?
I wouldn't agree on kidnapping per se - as the motivation can be very diverse - but it seems that you imply that certain crimes forfeit humanity - at least temporarily. In reply, it seems, you want society to forfeit humanity as well? How exactly makes that society any better than the criminal at hand?
Also, do you think society will benefit in any way by the cruelty you seem to bestow onto these criminals? Is, in fact, the cure better than the disease? Let me remind you that some regimes are executing punishment in the fashion you suggest - and it appears that the general standard of life doesn't improve there. Quite contrary, actually.
Maybe I would also want to ask you what inspires such vengeful feelings, WM - but I'm sure that question is rather unfair. Maybe I should ask you to visit a prison and face a murderer. I might ask you to tell to his face the cruelty you have in mind. But maybe you might recognise that you are probably not facing a monster - but a mere human being. With feelings. Feelings of guilt, remorse, sorrow - or joy, even. And love. Maybe he might just miss his children.
I fear that that last suggestion isn't exactly fair either. But, apart from not fair, the world is complex as well...
in being sent to the factories and the mines they would be repaying humanity and furthering the progress of the world.
Go to Singapore. Look at the orderliness, the cleanliness. Guess how they maintain it.
Still above all recognize them as humans and still have a chance not to be deemed monsters. If you tell them that they are damned to hell and they can never truly pay back their crimes then what is their motivation? They could go along and just kill other prisoners for all they care if there is nothing to care for.
That is why my plan is still more broken up with breaks and more council between the work. The jail would be more like a simulation of the outside, they have to work for the breaks, but they still are seen as humans and would receive help to at least mentally "bring them back".
If society made them do the sick things they did then society can at least bring them back out of their twisted illusion. Even set possible release dates for aged criminals. They can't do the work and have had more than enough time to mull over their wrongs, they could even be spokespeople to help other people keep their sanity. Hate can't fix hate in the end though.
I am unaware of any mines in Singapore
To be honest, I don't know what keeps orderliness and cleanliness in Singapore. It might be the constitution and mindset of society that, on the whole, is not very susceptible to disorderning or filthiness. Or crime for that matter. It might be law enforcement and punishment. It might be something else entirely.
I am, however, unaware of any proof or, indeed, research indicating, that severity of punishment bares any relation to crime rate.
Furthermore, you seem to suggest a debt of some sort to society. Are you suggesting that, alternatively, a monetary punishment might be in place in stead of hard labour? Or does the statement merely refer to manual labour in punishment or, indeed, revenge?
However, in your retort, I completely miss an answer to the questions and matters I've laid down. Is there any chance you could give my previous post some consideration?
As a matter of fact, yes. This does not mean that we cannot change the world to a fairer place. Would you suggest we simply do away with the justice system altogether? If we wanted a world where we just left things as they were, unfair and all, perhaps we shouldn't touch it at all! I fail to see why whether the world in its natrual state is fair or not has any bearing in what society should do.
The criminal takes pleasure in hurting innocent individuals. Society sees justice in dealing out the punishment appropriate to the criminal act. If the punishment is hard labor and death, then so be it. It is more productive than simply offering them a comfortable life with free food, a bed and cable TV. Paid for by OUR TAX DOLLARS.
I happen to disagree with you on this. In Singapore, even small crimes such as spitting can warrant a thousand-dollar (or equivalent) fine and graffiti can warrant a physical caning. Observe that, in any given street in Singapore, not a single drop of spray paint or goblet of spit may be found. Punishment, if given swiftly and mercilessly, can in fact be a VERY good deterrent. It's almost the ONLY reason we bother to give punishments at all- it deters people from committing crimes.
Perhaps. And perhaps that criminal deserves to feel the loss of a life outside of the prison, the pain of separation from his loved ones, the tragedy of a child growing up never really knowing his or her father or mother. Perhaps he can then feel the pain of an orphaned child, a widowed mother, a victim of rape, a young girl or boy made permanently infertile by the criminal's deeds. Perhaps, in being thus punished, the criminal may understand exactly the damage he or she had inflicted on others, and others who think of doing the same may be deterred from ever even thinking of doing so.
Before you ask, yes, I have in fact visited prisons. And they are rowdy, disgusting, and abhorrant places full of scumbags who deserve to stay in there. And no, I feel no empathy for the people growing old in prison. They deserve what they got. Take a life, feel the loss. Watch the little girl scream for her mother. That's right, bitch, watch. And watch your own daughter do the same for you. Because now you know exactly what you did when you killed that woman.
Complex? Absolutely. But solutions are often quite simple. You break the law, you pay for it. You hurt someone, you also get hurt. Equivalent exchange and threefold rule. For every gain there is a loss. What ye send forth comes back to thee, three times in number, strength and power. FEEL THE ANGUISH YOU INFLICTED ON OTHERS.
A bit of an archaic deterrent, ruling with fear by punishing others with things like caning doesn't do much good. They know not to break the laws but not why what they did wasn't so hot, on top of that you have tons of paranoid common folk with a government that can bludgeon them with enough belief. Beating somebody won't clean up their graffiti, public service should handle stuff like that instead, have them clean their own mess. Then much like prisoners doing work they would also repay but more wholly.
When folkways turn laws and spitting gets you thousand dollar debts, something is a bit off.
Like I said before society makes these people like that, there isn't a serial killer gene. Society should be entitled to ring them back in, not let them know they are scumbags and eternally damned in society, it would only feed back into their hate making them entirely a lost cause. And after a person grows old in jail they can't do work and have had plenty of time to think, unless they show signs of being a loony still they should be released, not many poor old people can pull off a murder.
An eye for the eye and the whole world will go blind, if punishment ran off that method nobody would bother fixing the big problems and instead pluck out each criminal and bring them grief. It is like using an eyedropper to take drops out of the ocean, you can't get anywhere finding the root to their madness, a thing that if found can be used to prevent murder. By treating them like people and finding out why they did what they did, measures can be taken to prevent it, and in turn the murders could very well be saving lives.
Also I understand the passion behind your argument and I do agree that they should do work (but have some comforts), but the all caps referring to the reader as being a rapist murder stuff is getting a bit spooky.
Thank you for taking the time to answer some of my questions
In order for society to work, I think we do need a justice system. However, I truly believed this needs to be a measured affair between punishment, humanitarian handling and second chances (well, in most cases anyway). I really don't believe that a person a such can be considered the same person after ten years or so. And, as a person gains distance in time from the criminal that has commited the crimes, he should be granted the same chances as any human being in a free society should have.
Whether or not criminals take pleasure in hurting people is a gross generalisation, in my opinion. Some might - the incurable psychopaths and those with a sexual attraction at the loss of others. Others simply black out when they find their wife in bed with the postman - which is still the most frequent reason for murder in Europe. You can't judge motives for crime on a general scale, in my opinion. But a thought like that might go a good length in explaining your lack of mercy
Stick a banana in your ear and say it deters crocodiles. And what do you know, it works. No crocodiles to be seen for miles. The outcome of an observation of cause and effect can easily be biased. I am still unaware of any research suggesting that harder punishment results in less crime.
The assumption that he doesn't understand the repercussions of his crime is typical for your opinion. Yet, you need to conclude that the psychological damage the criminal does to his own family starts to equal that which he did to his victim (assuming such a crime). Worse, this is not inflicted by the criminal himself, but rather by society as a whole, in deciding the severity of punishment. As much as the son of a murder victim will miss his father, so will the son of the criminal in the case of a death penalty. Or the shame in the case of the severe punishment that you suggest. So much for his hope and trust in society...
Again, the generalisation... most people are, indeed, not locked away for murder or rape. The extreme cases you describe hardly ever see the light of day again - more than enough time to reflect on their deeds. And from what I understand, most do reflect on their deeds and by something called empathy are tormented by their acts for the rest of their lives.
There is a good way in which to make all prisoners rowdy, disgusting and scumbags. It's by maltreating them. It's actually a rather good way to make criminals out of people, if you accept that criminals are those individuals who have lost hope in society and, as a result, take its rules with a grain of salt. A few of my friends have been in prison for some time. And because they were treated as humans in prison, they came out as humans and are able to function on a normal level again in society - in stead of leaving prison dishearted and falling back into crime.
Reflecting, I am not entirely sure that we can discuss this matter on an equal base over such a cultural barier. Singapore works because of the culture it has - and part of that culture is how to deal with criminals. The Netherlands, in its own fashion, also has a way of dealing with the same problem. And this society, too, works. Pretty well, actually. And, if you take happiness as a measure for the functioning of society, the two are remarkably close, considering the radical differences in society.
There actually is proof of a relation, I'm still searching for the article though.
I read that the more violent the government punishes the criminals, the more criminals there are and the more violent the crimes committed become.
Nobody has to believe me though until I find that statistic. SO I guess it's not relevant for the debate.
There's a reason that the old testament says "an eye for an eye" and that Jesus added: "...makes the whole world blind"
You're probably not religious, or you are, I don't know, but still those lines are true.
What you propose is NOT called justice, they call it revenge.
And revenge intails more revenge. That's called a feud.
Nowadays not a family feud, but one of criminals vs government.
I don't think it's a conscious act on the side of the criminals, because they don't share a brain, but I can imagine it's something like that:
Gov: "You hurt innocents, we hurt you."
Criminals: "You hurt one of us, we hurt you more."
Gov: "You are violent scumbags, we'll beat that out of ya"
Criminals: "You are violent beyond measure, we can do that too..."
(Oh Tur already said that: "As much as the son of a murder victim will miss his father, so will the son of the criminal in the case of a death penalty. Or the shame in the case of the severe punishment that you suggest. So much for his hope and trust in society...")
It's a not ending cycle. And the ones who should break through it is the government when it keeps treating criminals as human being who failed, as everyone else does too. Only on a larger scale.
As Yuan said:
Society shapes itself and if it doesn't want serial killers, it needs to take steps to prevent them and not punish the ones existing harder and harder.
I disagree with the second part of the quote though: You can't simply release someone who was in jail for 30-40 years. They're lost in the outside world, confused about all the new stuff, don't know how to behave anymore and challenged beyong measure by this new situation. That could burn a fuse: and age and poverty don't really matter when it comes to 'pulling off a murder'.
They could still be released under some sort of surveillance, and if they get out they would make the best spokespeople against committing the kind of acts they got in for, rehabilitation would also have to keep them somewhat up to date. Perhaps old persons homes for criminals that take them out to town so they can indulge a bit on the luxury that they missed as long as they accept what they did as wrong.
Punishing old people won't prevent anything but letting them out there to express happiness of freedom and regret for their crime might let a few others think twice.
Though I don't have any solid knowledge of this being done before so I can't for sure say it could be abysmal, just an act of kindness to try and bring some more humanity to prisons.
I think I saw a story once of a prisoner who was sentenced for a life in prison when he was something around 25 and was released at the age of 70 because of evolving into a "decent" guy.
That is 40+ years of living in a seperate, not very complex, rules 'society' with clear structures.
And then being set free into an unknown, hectic, unorganized, unstructured world.
If I remember correctly he asked to go back to prison and when they didn't allow it he committed suicide.
I think it was in Denmark. Or Germany. Or Britain? I don't recall.
But I think Rehabilitation/ re-education is a good point. Prisoners should be re-integrated into society. At least those who are capable of re-integrating themselves.
i would reccommend this site http://www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html
He says: "Still another cliched argument abolitionists use is that we should value ALL human life, even the most violent and despicable ones. That philosophy indicates that there is nothing more to humanity than the physical traits that identify our species. I say they are wrong. There is an entire spiritual aspect to humanity that they tend to completely ignore. Anybody can be physically human. All that is, is an accident of genetics. It is the spiritual aspects of humanity that actually define who and what we are. Moral assesments are based on one's acts and character, not on his race or species, the latter which abolitionists often use as an excuse to canonize murderers. Allowing one's species to hold more weight than his character is the foundation of racism. When a culture develops the moral coherence to recognize humanity as more a spiritual thing than just some physical thing, they will have no excuse to allow, tolerate, or preserve evil and barbarism just because it hides inside a physical human shell."
He clearly thinks that it is nurture not nature that makes the most impact on our growth, while I think the opposite. Nurture shows the means but nature gives the instinct. And while nature is more difficult to alter, nurture is not, while he claims nurture is the problem.
Society changes how to nurture. This man is essentially giving up on people because he can't figure out how to "spiritually fix" them or fix their bad nurturing. Rather than re-train he says just kill it.
Also he spelled "assessments" wrong.
And he goes on about about Christianity. One religion shouldn't govern if giving somebody the chair is proper.
I don't really agree with him at all, demonizing people even if they have done sick things won't fix it in the long run. It just means that one person was wack, it doesn't give any means to prevention other than Machiavelli fear tactics. Sure you can keep killing killers as the easy fix but people still murder people so I don't quite see how it is working seamlessly to organize society with fear of the axe.
He also still demonizes people, if you get enough people to call you something you may as well become it. If everybody calls you a demon it just becomes a roleplay to fit the bar established, no hope going back, might as well go along with it.
Separate names with a comma.