<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.