The Death Penalty or Life Meaning Life

[Saheli]

I don't agree that doing the same thing to the perpetrator that he did to the victim, whether that be killing him, torturing him, or raping him, necessarily fits the crime. It simply mirrors it.

If we are to abandon our established penal systems in favour of handing the convict over to the victim (or his family), then we are abandoning justice in favour of revenge. That way lies chaos and anarchy.

As for filming it, I find the idea sickening.

I completely agree that doing to an offender what has been done by them is mirroring the crime, which in my opinion is the truest form of justice. Why is it that you feel that is NOT justice? What is your argument for that?

Not all establishments are always fair, but as I mentioned before they should be respected, and I don't think any convict should ever be handed over to the victim's family. That's not what I said or meant.

As for filming, I respect your opinion, but it is no more sickening to do to the convict what was done to the victim. If such a punishment were given (regardless of whether it was filmed or not), that would not be handing someone over to the victim or victim's family...so I'm not quite sure where you're getting that idea from. If you are saying it because you feel the satisfaction of the people who watch the mirrored crime negates the justice I would have to ask you to defend that idea to, because a side emotion has nothing to do with motive...It would be just whether anyone else felt anything.

If the cliche "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is what we consider justice, then I don't understand why you feel a punishment that mirrors a crime is justice.

[MMI]

I completely agree that doing to an offender what has been done by them is mirroring the crime, which in my opinion is the truest form of justice. Why is it that you feel that is NOT justice? What is your argument for that?

Mirroring the crime is tit-for-tat behaviour which might be appropriate for school playgrounds, but not for an advanced legal system, such as we have in England. It reduces the offence to somethng that can be cancelled out by an equivalent action, which is patent nonsense in a crime like murder. It brings judicial punishment down to the level of personal revenge, and it could lead to counter-retaliations and blood feuds. Look what happened in Iceland in Norse times.

Some offences are crimes against society: murder is one such. It is the duty of society to its citizens to capture murderers and to deal with them in a way that will protect society in the future. In doing so, they will set an appropriate penalty, or a range of penalties, according to acceptable standards, and they will sentence a convicted killer accordingly. Judicial punishment must be certain, measured and proportionate. It must be imposed dispassionately. Therefore the victim's family should not be allowed to influence that sentence, no matter how badly they feel about it.

That's justice.

As for filming, I respect your opinion, but it is no more sickening to do to the convict what was done to the victim. ... If you are saying it because you feel the satisfaction of the people who watch the mirrored crime negates the justice I would have to ask you to defend that idea to, because a side emotion has nothing to do with motive...It would be just whether anyone else felt anything.

I don't think it affects the justice of the execution one way or the other. I just think it's gruesome and I wonder who it can be shown to: the vicitm's family, to prove what was done, so they can get closure?

Just tell them. Knowledge of the death should be closure enough

Anyone else can only want to see it for reasons that are disturbingly macarbre, ghoulish and depraved.

[Thorne]

I don't think it affects the justice of the execution one way or the other. I just think it's gruesome and I wonder who it can be shown to: the vicitm's family, to prove what was done, so they can get closure?

Just tell them. Knowledge of the death should be closure enough

Anyone else can only want to see it for reasons that are disturbingly macarbre, ghoulish and depraved.

At one time in history, punishments were public and brutal, and intended as a lesson for aspiring criminals. While I don't propose making executions brutal, I sometimes wonder if making them more public might not benefit society more than putting criminals away where people can forget they exist.

[MMI]

At one time in history, punishments were public and brutal, and intended as a lesson for aspiring criminals. While I don't propose making executions brutal, I sometimes wonder if making them more public might not benefit society more than putting criminals away where people can forget they exist.

As noted above, England no longer has the death penalty, and its restoration is highly improbable. If calling for its return is futile, how much more so is suggesting public executions be brought back.

These events eventually became repugnant to English society, as far back as the seventeenth century, and executions began to take place within the prison walls rather than outside, in front of milling crowds, sometimes running into tens of thousands ... a spectacle at times as gory and hideous as the Roman arenas. Public executions appeal to our basest instincts, and encoursge behaviour I can only call depraved. Imagine the Sun Life Stadium filled with over 75,000 people braying for the blood of some convict or other, or, hopefully, more than one. They can't all be grieving relatives, so why would they be there? Just to watch a man die ... dangling on the end of a rope ... simply that ... disgusting!

Imagine the dvds on sale afterwards: $10.99, plus an interview with the hangman.


Thank God it'll never happen here - not in my lifetime anyway.

[IAN 2411]

As noted above, England no longer has the death penalty, and its restoration is highly improbable. If calling for its return is futile, how much more so is suggesting public executions be brought back.

These events eventually became repugnant to English society, as far back as the seventeenth century, and executions began to take place within the prison walls rather than outside, in front of milling crowds, sometimes running into tens of thousands ... a spectacle at times as gory and hideous as the Roman arenas. Public executions appeal to our basest instincts, and encoursge behaviour I can only call depraved. Imagine the Sun Life Stadium filled with over 75,000 people braying for the blood of some convict or other, or, hopefully, more than one. They can't all be grieving relatives, so why would they be there? Just to watch a man die ... dangling on the end of a rope ... simply that ... disgusting!

Imagine the dvds on sale afterwards: $10.99, plus an interview with the hangman.


Thank God it'll never happen here - not in my lifetime anyway.

In this case i really have to agree with you, and on all points in your post.

[Thorne]

Thank God it'll never happen here - not in my lifetime anyway.

Yeah, I have to agree. I wasn't advocating that we bring them back, just musing about it.

[Saheli]

Mirroring the crime is tit-for-tat behaviour which might be appropriate for school playgrounds, but not for an advanced legal system, such as we have in England. It reduces the offence to somethng that can be cancelled out by an equivalent action, which is patent nonsense in a crime like murder. It brings judicial punishment down to the level of personal revenge, and it could lead to counter-retaliations and blood feuds. Look what happened in Iceland in Norse times.

Some offences are crimes against society: murder is one such. It is the duty of society to its citizens to capture murderers and to deal with them in a way that will protect society in the future. In doing so, they will set an appropriate penalty, or a range of penalties, according to acceptable standards, and they will sentence a convicted killer accordingly. Judicial punishment must be certain, measured and proportionate. It must be imposed dispassionately. Therefore the victim's family should not be allowed to influence that sentence, no matter how badly they feel about it.

That's justice.

You could look at it as tit-for-tat, but like I said, it goes back to the 'eye for an eye' thing. As far as what happened in Iceland in Norse times I have no idea what you're talking about...I might look it up. You say "judicial punishment must be certain, measured, and proportionate..." which doesn't contradict my submitted idea. You go on to say that "it must be imposed dispassionately." I agree. Just because I feel it is justice in the truest sense for an offender to endure his own offense does not mean I believe that the punishment should be given out of passion, and I never mentioned anything about the family being able to influence the sentence. So it really seems like your definition of justice is not too much different than mine. You just disagree that an offender should endure his own offense.

Your arguments seem to be that if such a sentence were imparted, it would be a passionate rather than an objective one; that such a sentence would not cancel out the crime and therefore not a valid punishment; that such punishments could "lead to counter-retaliations and blood-fueds"; and that the victim or victim's family would have some influence in such a sentence.

-->I disagree that such a sentence would inherently be passionate. That argument would have to extend to the death penalty as well, saying that if the death penalty were to be imparted then the sentence would have been one of feelings and not merit.

-->No sentence cancels out a crime. The fact that this punishment wouldn't says nothing either way about the validity of the punishment...show me a punishment for which this argument doesn't apply.

-->I can't speak to your Icelandic example until I have some idea what you're talking about.

-->Lastly, why do you assume that the victim/victim's family would have influenced the punishment if one such punishment were to be imparted?

[MMI]

... I never mentioned anything about the family being able to influence the sentence.

I got that idea from earlier posts in the thread and continued to think that way when responding to you. I understand now that you were suggesting this kind of punishment be inflected deliberately and cold-bloodedly by people who are completely disconnected from the original crime. In front of cameras.

I deny there is any kind of justice in the system of punishment you propose.

... So it really seems like your definition of justice is not too much different than mine. You just disagree that an offender should endure his own offense.

I can see why you say that, but I actually believe that the offender should receive the degree of punishment prescribed by the law. The law does not need to submit the offender to the same treatment he gave his victim, and it does not have to be led by his actions. Modern society can protect itself without resorting to such brutal, primitive conduct, and it can exact retribution without taking an eye, or a tooth, or a hand or a foot, or even a life. We left that behind in the Dark Ages, and it is well that we did. In those days, life was much harder than it is now, and government was imposed by force rather than by democratic participation.

Your arguments seem to be that if such a sentence were imparted, it would be a passionate rather than an objective one; that such a sentence would not cancel out the crime and therefore not a valid punishment; that such punishments could "lead to counter-retaliations and blood-fueds"; and that the victim or victim's family would have some influence in such a sentence.

-->I disagree that such a sentence would inherently be passionate. That argument would have to extend to the death penalty as well, saying that if the death penalty were to be imparted then the sentence would have been one of feelings and not merit.

That is what I am arguing. I do not believe a sober-minded dispassionate person would stipulate that the crime of murder be subject to the death penalty when he considers the alternatives available. Only if influenced by emotion would he say that hanging was appropriate because there is not a single benefit to be gained from executing the murderer other than to satiate disturbed passions.

-->No sentence cancels out a crime. The fact that this punishment wouldn't says nothing either way about the validity of the punishment...show me a punishment for which this argument doesn't apply.

I agree. Crimes, once committed cannot be cancelled out or nullified. Yet an "eye for an eye" has every appearance of saying one bad deed can be cancelled out by another, and a "life for a life" carries exactly the same implication.

I can't speak to your Icelandic example until I have some idea what you're talking about.

In Iceland, during Norse times, there was no-one to enforce the laws made by the Alþingi, and those who sought redress for some offence against them were obliged to obtain it themselves, by force if necessary. Icelandic society became riven by feuding families, and was unable to develop as a result. This, I suggest is actual evidence of what happens when justice, equated with revenge, is left to individuals to enforce. It ceases to be even-handed, measured or certain and becomes haphazzard, excessive and random.

Lastly, why do you assume that the victim/victim's family would have influenced the punishment if one such punishment were to be imparted?

I was working on the premise that a punishment based on revenge could only be imposed by those who had been directly affected by the crime - the vicitm's family. Where the death sentence is to be imposed, I believe it is an act of revenge rather than a dispassionate judicial punishment.

It is common these days for victims to be allowed to address courts nowadays in an attempt to secure a harsher penalty for the accused, which can only be pandering to the revenge motive.

Why not allow the killer's family to submit special pleas on how badly they will be affected if he is hanged?

[DuncanONeil]

I only have one problem with your post.

"In those days, life was much harder than it is now, and government was imposed by force rather than by democratic participation."

Government is still imposed by force. The democratic process serves to choose the enforcers!

I got that idea from earlier posts in the thread and continued to think that way when responding to you. I understand now that you were suggesting this kind of punishment be inflected deliberately and cold-bloodedly by people who are completely disconnected from the original crime. In front of cameras.

I deny there is any kind of justice in the system of punishment you propose.




I can see why you say that, but I actually believe that the offender should receive the degree of punishment prescribed by the law. The law does not need to submit the offender to the same treatment he gave his victim, and it does not have to be led by his actions. Modern society can protect itself without resorting to such brutal, primitive conduct, and it can exact retribution without taking an eye, or a tooth, or a hand or a foot, or even a life. We left that behind in the Dark Ages, and it is well that we did. In those days, life was much harder than it is now, and government was imposed by force rather than by democratic participation.




That is what I am arguing. I do not believe a sober-minded dispassionate person would stipulate that the crime of murder be subject to the death penalty when he considers the alternatives available. Only if influenced by emotion would he say that hanging was appropriate because there is not a single benefit to be gained from executing the murderer other than to satiate disturbed passions.



I agree. Crimes, once committed cannot be cancelled out or nullified. Yet an "eye for an eye" has every appearance of saying one bad deed can be cancelled out by another, and a "life for a life" carries exactly the same implication.



In Iceland, during Norse times, there was no-one to enforce the laws made by the Alþingi, and those who sought redress for some offence against them were obliged to obtain it themselves, by force if necessary. Icelandic society became riven by feuding families, and was unable to develop as a result. This, I suggest is actual evidence of what happens when justice, equated with revenge, is left to individuals to enforce. It ceases to be even-handed, measured or certain and becomes haphazzard, excessive and random.



I was working on the premise that a punishment based on revenge could only be imposed by those who had been directly affected by the crime - the vicitm's family. Where the death sentence is to be imposed, I believe it is an act of revenge rather than a dispassionate judicial punishment.

It is common these days for victims to be allowed to address courts nowadays in an attempt to secure a harsher penalty for the accused, which can only be pandering to the revenge motive.

Why not allow the killer's family to submit special pleas on how badly they will be affected if he is hanged?

[DuncanONeil]

If the cliche "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is what we consider justice, then I don't understand why you feel a punishment that mirrors a crime is justice.

Surely this originates in the Code of Hammurabi. But it does appear in the Bible, twice. Once as law in the Old Testament. Again in the New Testament; "You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also" But this does not deal with punishment for having committed a crime but for individual actions between people.

[SadisticNature]

The difference in the military is that you make a voluntary choice to give up some rights to the control of the country/president/your superior officers in order to serve ones country. A prisoner is not doing anything of benefit by serving their sentence. They don't have prestige or respect. They also don't have the pay. A voluntary choice to temporarily give up some rights to better serve a cause you believe in is a far cry from giving up rights for an indeterminate and possibly lifelong period for no noble reason at all. Making noble sacrifices is often personally rewarding and can make up for the consequences of losing some rights.

On the other hand when the choice is taken away the military is often a miserable existence. Look at draft dodging (particularly during Vietnam) and the horrors of risking your life against your will for a cause you don't believe in.

So I do think my earlier point stands regardless of your somewhat inaccurate attempt to compare the rights of a prisoner to the rights of a soldier.

[DuncanONeil]

You do this quite often! Just who are you responding to with this post?????????

I think it is me but without the original reference you message make no sense.
Although I do not it does not support your original comment!

The difference in the military is that you make a voluntary choice to give up some rights to the control of the country/president/your superior officers in order to serve ones country. A prisoner is not doing anything of benefit by serving their sentence. They don't have prestige or respect. They also don't have the pay. A voluntary choice to temporarily give up some rights to better serve a cause you believe in is a far cry from giving up rights for an indeterminate and possibly lifelong period for no noble reason at all. Making noble sacrifices is often personally rewarding and can make up for the consequences of losing some rights.

On the other hand when the choice is taken away the military is often a miserable existence. Look at draft dodging (particularly during Vietnam) and the horrors of risking your life against your will for a cause you don't believe in.

So I do think my earlier point stands regardless of your somewhat inaccurate attempt to compare the rights of a prisoner to the rights of a soldier.