<font color=deepskyblue>There is no doubt that a country's origins and history play a huge and defining role in the rules and values adopted by that society. However, that really isn't the point in this discussion, because I garuantee that you can find individuals in every single society you mentioned that do not go along with the norms or society's rules. I daresay that even in the conformist nation of Singapore, there are those individuals that still murder without remorse for their own gains or goals.

I was addressing the ideal you seek of raising the collective social conscious to a state where every person values the sanctity of every other life equally. As I said, it is a noble goal, but it is also an impossible goal. Human nature simply will not allow it at this time.

While the death penalty does often involve a measure of revenge or vengence on behalf of the victim's family, I believe the judge in this case made a very accurate statement when he said that "the punishment must fit the crime". This is another concept embraced by Americans and I think it is especially appropriate in this case.

When an individual murders another person for whatever reason, there is always anger and a desire for vengence on the part of the victim's family, but the murderer's actions rarely impact anyone else. In THIS case, however, it is safe to say that the entire nation was impacted by the actions of Malvo and Muhammed. Their reign of terror created a state of panic around our nation's capital, but they could easily have chosen any large metropolitan area. So there was a real sense this could happen anywhere in the U.S.

Because of that, the death penalty in this case is less about vengence and more about returning "peace of mind" to the nation as a whole. It's the same reason Timothy McVeigh was sentenced to death. Before that terrible day in April, nobody would have considered Oklahoma City to be a valid target for terrorism. McVeigh's crime made every person in a large city feel more vulnerable.

Also, when a person is willing to kill total strangers to further their agenda or create a state of panic...then there is no reason to believe they will ever change. So they represent a threat to society as long as they are living, because there is every reason to believe they would repeat their actions if they ever got out of prison.

In that case, the death penalty is the ONLY punishment that assures the general public they will never be terrorized by this individual (or individuals) again. It truly is a case where the punishment fits the crime.</font>

it's called an analogy, and one that was brought on by your trite suggestion that having to "think about it" was just punishment for first-degree murder.

if you want to suggest that taking away freedom is worse than death, then surely we can go further. how bout torture? how bout withholding food and water and medical treatment? yeah, let's really make them suffer! :rolleyes:

the point being: let's be careful before we start rationalising removal of freedom on the basis that it's somehow worse than the DP.

edit: added eyeroll to accentuate the sarcasm

[ 12-01-2003, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: sultan ]

I've perused my Nycomacien ethics and still can't find why there is a moral imperative to not kill criminals as punishment for a crime yet there is not one against imprisoning them for the crime. If you really are imprisoning them for life, I do not see how some magnitude of harm makes it acceptable for society to exact one of these wrongs but not the other.

In fact, since so many of you argue that imprisonment is a worse punishment,* seems to me the moral imperative is to kill them, and not make them suffer the torture of imprisonment. Let them pay their debt and be done with it. Or at least give all prisoners the hari kari option to fall on a sword if they prefer it. More humane. Plus, you'd get to keep a way cool wakizashi in all warden offices. Speaking of decorating.... oh, I'm getting way far afield now, aren't I?

* Note how I love to point out the "can't have your cake and eat it too" side of arguing execution is inhumane, but that we who are for it should take solace in how much the imprisoned many suffers. You can't have it both way folks. Be namby pamby or don't -- just don't be namby pamby about your namby pambiness. It's too confusing. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Lets be realistic.

Prisoners cost us money, dead guys don't.

Kill them all, cigarettes are getting expensive. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I don't exactly get your point.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/cost.html
;)

Timber: I think the reason why the people that are against the death penalty sometimes say that imprisonment is the worst punishment is because they think that's the only way they can convince the pro-death penatly people. Pro-death penalty people often see the death penalty as something which will punish the prisoner the most, so the other side try to satisfy them by saying that being in a cell for the rest of your life is worse - since the others think they deserve the worst punishment possible. [img]smile.gif[/img] But there are also some people which actually believe that life imprisonment is worse than death (I think that, but that's not why I'm against the death penalty ;) ).

<font color=deepskyblue>I agree with the judge in this case - the punishment should fit the crime. And there are certian situations where the only fitting punishment is the death of the criminal.

I don't agree that locking them up for the rest of their life will serve as fitting punisment by making them "think about their crime every single day". Sociopathic killers have NO SOCIAL CONSCIOUS!!!! They don't care that they just murdered someone and destroyed an entire family. The ONLY regret they will have with Life Imprisonment is that they are caught and confined...and they will have plenty of time to either adapt to prison life or try to escape. Since most sociopaths are concerned only with themselves, adapting the harsh, self-survival environment of prison really isn't that difficult for them.

I'm sorry, I simply don't believe the theory that life in prison is a worse punishment than death...and I also don't believe that life in prison is a "fitting" punishment for certain crimes.</font>

But that's the whole problem. Look, either imprisonment is worse or it's not. If you think it's worse than death, than refuse to imprison people. If you don't think it's worse, then don't try to give a pro DP person some BS argument about how bad sitting in prison is.

Even with this post, you seem to hem and haw. "We argue prison is worse because it will convince people, but many of us don't believe it, but I do, but it's not the reason I'm against the DP." Rambling a little, isn't it?

Here, let me point out your logical blunder:
1. Killing someone is a horrible punishment.
2. Imprisoning them is worse.
3. Ergo, the government can imprison, but not kill....

*XXX syntax error does not compute XXX*

....wait.... no that's not right. But, it's what you said.

I just want to see a non-DP argument that does hinge on "It is wrong to kill." Because it is also "wrong to imprison" and "wrong to take money (fines)." Soceity can levy punishments that are things that are wrong for us to do to each other, else how would they "punish." I dare you to find me one instance of a criminal punishment that is something that is not "wrong" for us to do to each other. Ergo, of course it is true that "It is wrong to kill," but that is meaningless in distinguishing why this one punishment gets a special place of honor as "prohibited."

Now, if you are into the "levels of wrong" and that killing is a worse wrong, fine, you've staked your position. However, don't lie to me by contradicting yourself and saying "but prison's worse." BS. Cause if it is, either it too should be prohibited, or both it and DP should be allowed. Any punishment of a higher magnitude than a "prohibited" punishment would certainly falter.

[ 12-02-2003, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Ahh, you see, but I don't think jails should be places of punishment, but places of rehabilitation, or, in some instances, to protect others from criminals which cannot be rehabilitated. So, you see, the way prisons are right now is, at least it would be for me, a worse punishment than death, but because I believe in rehabilitation I see the death penatly as something more wrong than imprisonment. And even if I didn't believe in the rehabilitation, I would still see the death penalty as "more wrong" because of things it does to other people. Because of the message it sends. Who will decide what crimes deserve death? Why do some people deserve death more than others (e.g. poor people)? Who will decide who deserves death? If "our" laws are allowed to decide when somebody should die, then why not other laws (e.g. religious)? Who are we then do decide that those laws are wrong? And not to mention the people which have to do the killing. Sure, you press a button and the person dies, but imho you cannot be a very healthy person to be able to sleep at night knowing you've participated in a killing, no matter how horrible the person was. And how about the prisoner's family? When will they get their revenge on the state? Surely it feels worse knowing the person is dead than knowing the person is in prison, where you can see them at least once in a while. At least that's how I would feel if, for example, it was my sister.

That is how I feel the system is today, in places where there still is the death penalty. But, if it was up to me, prisons would try to rehabilitate criminals, and not make them worse and traumatise them.
So I'm not really "BSing" since I don't believe in the "penalty system" as it is today. I'm sure I'll get a lot of complaints about this, but that is what I believe.

[ 12-02-2003, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: Spelca ]

I agree with you on this,Cerek. What I said was that the death penalty should only be used on very evil murders who have killed many people not somone who killed 1 person.

Loftis,your statement that murders should pay with their life still sounds like revenge thing.

It costs money to excecute people.

In any case, turn it around. Put lifers into work that benefits society. Societies of old made prisoners row galleys, or work mines, or build roads.

Why not do that? Use prisoner labour to build something, rather than spend money throwing that life away.

As to the whole idea of imprisonment, it is making a decision about society - that the individual is a threat to society and should not be free to exist within it. it is not making a decision about whether that individual should live or not.

Exile is a similar punishment, but who would take a criminal these days? It's virtually impossible to prevent a return as well.

Mind you. Aliens face exile as a potential punishment. Can be quite a deterrant. (Speaking from personal experience) I wouldn't want to put even the slightest foot wrong at all.

<font color = lightgreen>I think we all agree that the system of the death penalty is, as it currently exists, flawed. Are we going to talk it to death or try to do something about it? I challenge everyone, myself included, to come up with a logical and reasonable system that could be more balanced, equitable, and/or fair; however, please leave emotions out of the solution because it is a problem to solve, not a relationship to mend.</font>

[ 12-03-2003, 12:55 AM: Message edited by: Azred ]

It costs money to excecute people.

In any case, turn it around. Put lifers into work that benefits society. Societies of old made prisoners row galleys, or work mines, or build roads.

Why not do that? Use prisoner labour to build something, rather than spend money throwing that life away.

</font>[/QUOTE]<font color=orange>That sounds all fine and dandy, but what about that guy or gal who was working a construction job you just put out of work, so prisoners could do something constructive.

In the late 1800's the State of Tennessee went to the Coal Companies and offerred them prison labor to dig coal at a very cheap price. The Coal Companies, seeing what a good deal this was, got rid of all their coal miners (who made less than a pittance) and put these prisoners to work. Needless to say the miners didn't take this laying down and war between the out of work miners and the Coal Companies broke out in the East Tennessee Mountains, with the prisoners caught in the middle. This was one of the things that stated the UMW (United Mine Workers). I figure much the same thing would happen all over again if you were to do that.

It costs money to excecute people.

In any case, turn it around. Put lifers into work that benefits society. Societies of old made prisoners row galleys, or work mines, or build roads.

Why not do that? Use prisoner labour to build something, rather than spend money throwing that life away.

</font>[/QUOTE]<font color=orange>That sounds all fine and dandy, but what about that guy or gal who was working a construction job you just put out of work, so prisoners could do something constructive.

In the late 1800's the State of Tennessee went to the Coal Companies and offerred them prison labor to dig coal at a very cheap price. The Coal Companies, seeing what a good deal this was, got rid of all their coal miners (who made less than a pittance) and put these prisoners to work. Needless to say the miners didn't take this laying down and war between the out of work miners and the Coal Companies broke out in the East Tennessee Mountains, with the prisoners caught in the middle. This was one of the things that stated the UMW (United Mine Workers). I figure much the same thing would happen all over again if you were to do that. </font>[/QUOTE]You spend the government money to pay the workers to build something else. It ADDITIONAL labour, not replacement labour. Have you seen the state of New Yorks roads? Subways? They need all the help they can get.

If it's additional think of what could be accomplished. Why think of it in terms of replacement? With construction or roads or whathaveyou, unlike coal, you're not going to run out.

Alternatively, you could license out all plumbing work to prisoners and pay the existing plumbers to train and supervise. What plumber would prefer to NOT swim in excrement, and yet still get top dollar? ;) Give the prisoners implants so they can't escape or run away and set them to work.

Simply ideas that's all.

But think of all that manpower. That energy, untapped. Strong, energetic humans with a debt to society either being exterminated or rotting away doing nothing.

How about putting prisons on the electricity grid. Setting up treadmills and weights in prisons so that they produce electricity for the nation.

While we're at it, why not hook up every Gym as well?? All that human energy going to waste!!!

The Japanese had the idea (although they were barbaric in the extreme in it's application) they set prisoners of war to work on the Burma railway. Stalin had prisoners work the salt mines. Which was actually a death sentence.

Now, I'm not advocating barbarity and abuse, as human rights should bery much be in effect. Set up rewards systems. Time off sentence or rest rewards for good behaviour.

But still, scrap the death penalty and put all that energy into constructive endeavour.

Oh my god, I'm about to agree with Yorick. Eeeek! [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img]

<font color=orange>You also get piss poor work, because they aren't going to give a crap about how they do things. It would be like a draftee army trying to do the job of professional army. Professional is always better.

There is also that little thing called Public safety. Would you feel comfortable in letting Crips, Bloods, Vice Lords, Mexican Mafia, Neo-Nazi riff-raff out working on the street in front of your home? Most people are probably going to be a little leery of that. Most states have work details. I was in Stony Fork, Tennessee three weeks ago and saw a prison crew digging a grave. There were 7 or 8 prisoners and one guard armed with a pistol. Now these guys aren't rapists and murderers, which is what we are talking about, but probably theives, forgers or drug dealers. They don't allow the Death Row guys or the lifers out to do that kind of work, but that's what you are advocating.

If you want to reform prisons and make them institutes for rehabilitation, then in my opinion, you have educate the convicts. If they don't have a high school diploma, then they should be required to get their GED and then either take college course work or some sort of trade school, before they are allowed out on the street. At the sametime they should also take socialation courses, anger management courses and/or drug rehabilitation ( if they need it). Then they should be required to find a job and pay the Government for their education... like a student loan. They could remain on probation until their "loan" is paid off.

But that still doesn't take care of the death row inmates or the lifers. IMO, if they are sentenced to life in prison or death, then that's where they stay. They have been judged a menace to society and they should remain behind prison walls till they are dead one way or the other.

Which brings me to another point, Isn't a life sentence the same as death? Either way you ain't going to get out of prison alive. One is more cruel than the other. Care to take a guess which it the worst sentence? Some of you here say a Death Sentence is just a form of revenge, but isn't locking some one up in a 6'x9' cell for the rest of that their natural life and never letting them out revenge also?

<font color=lime>Sir Taliesin, you should close your HTML tags. ;) </font>

It costs money to excecute people.

In any case, turn it around. Put lifers into work that benefits society. Societies of old made prisoners row galleys, or work mines, or build roads.

Why not do that? Use prisoner labour to build something, rather than spend money throwing that life away.

</font>[/QUOTE]<font color=orange>That sounds all fine and dandy, but what about that guy or gal who was working a construction job you just put out of work, so prisoners could do something constructive.

In the late 1800's the State of Tennessee went to the Coal Companies and offerred them prison labor to dig coal at a very cheap price. The Coal Companies, seeing what a good deal this was, got rid of all their coal miners (who made less than a pittance) and put these prisoners to work. Needless to say the miners didn't take this laying down and war between the out of work miners and the Coal Companies broke out in the East Tennessee Mountains, with the prisoners caught in the middle. This was one of the things that stated the UMW (United Mine Workers). I figure much the same thing would happen all over again if you were to do that. </font>[/QUOTE]You spend the government money to pay the workers to build something else. It ADDITIONAL labour, not replacement labour. Have you seen the state of New Yorks roads? Subways? They need all the help they can get.

If it's additional think of what could be accomplished. Why think of it in terms of replacement? With construction or roads or whathaveyou, unlike coal, you're not going to run out.

Alternatively, you could license out all plumbing work to prisoners and pay the existing plumbers to train and supervise. What plumber would prefer to NOT swim in excrement, and yet still get top dollar? ;) Give the prisoners implants so they can't escape or run away and set them to work.

Simply ideas that's all.

But think of all that manpower. That energy, untapped. Strong, energetic humans with a debt to society either being exterminated or rotting away doing nothing.

How about putting prisons on the electricity grid. Setting up treadmills and weights in prisons so that they produce electricity for the nation.

While we're at it, why not hook up every Gym as well?? All that human energy going to waste!!!

The Japanese had the idea (although they were barbaric in the extreme in it's application) they set prisoners of war to work on the Burma railway. Stalin had prisoners work the salt mines. Which was actually a death sentence.

Now, I'm not advocating barbarity and abuse, as human rights should bery much be in effect. Set up rewards systems. Time off sentence or rest rewards for good behaviour.

But still, scrap the death penalty and put all that energy into constructive endeavour. </font>[/QUOTE]This is all well and dandy, but you're missing a few major points.

1) We already have programs like this implemented...they work very well...this is not a new concept.

2) We are talking about sociopathic murders and rapist here. People who molest little children. I don't want any of those animals within 100 yards of open ground. They are in maximum security prisons for a reason...your proposal is (once again) and ideal solution for an unideal world.

LOL! You're quite the conservative aren't you. Keep things the way they are. Just keep your head in the sand under the guise of "realisim".

Ever heard of chemical castration Pickachu? Achievement of the ideas is not the issue, its deciding to achieve them that are the issue. Imagine if people like you were around the Wright brothers, or Eddison, or Columbus? Or Ghandi? Can't do, can't do.

I make no apologies. I'm a "can do" person. Faith. Where there is a will there's a way. I live my life in faith. I see "the impossible" achieved regularly.

"Once again an ideal solution for an unideal world"..... Where do you get off saying that mate? I am part of this world. Idealism, and idealists, visionaries and dreamers are a part of this world. Without visionaries and idealists we would still be using stones to hunt animals and living in caves.

THINGS DO NOT HAVE TO BE THE WAY THEY ARE.

Society was not always and will not always be as it is.

Have you heard of that place called Australia? It was BUILT by convicts, deemed unfit for English society and expelled to the other side of the world. Prisoners. Theives and killers some, impoverished bread stealers the unfortunate others.

The reality remains that an entire country exists because prisoners were set to work building it. Descendents of these "uneductated swill" are now being called in to teach American and English students because the citizens of the respective nations aren't doing the job properly. ;) :D

No. One is a decision about a persons ability to exist in society. The other is a decision about a persons right to exist at all. Very big difference. Life imprisonment doesn't negate the humans right to life, but the right of the human to exist in the society he/she has damaged.