Illinois Death Row Clemency

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: I'd just like to mention the video game point that Cerek brought up.. he mentioned the games developed for children to play on Playstation, X-Box, etc. and then a bit later mentioned some titles. I know you were talking about the devaluation of human life as well.. But none of those games you mentioned are for kids (and i know you didnt directly say they were). They all have warning labels on them and if your kid is playing them and becomes violent or crazy because of it. I don't blame the games i blame the parent who bought it for the kid. Sorry for going off topic.. but imo this points to the fact that a murderous individual is not so much an individual but has become this way through many factors including parenting, society, key shaping events in their lives etc etc.. Openness and Education is the key.

These games do have warning labels. You're right about that, Djinn, but I've seen plenty of "undercover investigations" on the local news where the under-age teens were sent to various stores to purchase these games. Out of 10-12 stores (ranging from Wal-Mart to Toys R Us), only ONE store refused to sell a "PG17" game to a 13 year old kid. Most stores do not enforce the age restriction.

I'm not saying that any one game or movie will cause a kid to "snap" and go on a killing spree. I agree that it is a large amalgam of factors that lead any individual to that point in life. I also agree that responsible parenting is the biggest and most important factor in preventing children from following that path.

I am an avid fan of AD&D, so I know what it's like to have society "blame a game" for it's problems. But I honostly believe the amount of violence in these games is a contributing factor to the "de-valuation" of human life among the younger generation. I realize this doesn't apply to the large majority of people who play these games aren't going to "act them out". I also freely admit that this is just my personal opinion and that many others may disagree.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Talthyr Malkaviel: quote: Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: But the biggest culprit by far are the Big Screen Movies. Go to any action, drama, or thriller movie and what do you see? The "bad guy" killing people all through the movie...only to be killed themself in the end by the hero/heroine. And it usually is not enough just to kill the primary villain. No, he has to die in an especially painful and violent manner.

Hmm... you object to children seeing this sort of thing as it might influence them?
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that very similar to a real life situation, the bad guy kills a load of people (in real life often less than in a movie though) and then is killed by the "good" guy.
Now imagine the "good guy" is the state- you believe in a system of killing wrongdoers for their actions, yet in the next breath condemn the very same protrayed in a different context, and state it as influential.
If it is influentail in a bad way, applying that logic then isn't having a death penalty also influencing violence?[/QUOTE]An interesting analogy, Talthyr, but one that I believe is inaccurate.

In the movies and games, the "good guy" is an individual executing his own personal brand of justice.

With the death penalty, the "good guy" is the state government that is executing a sentence approved by the majority of the public voters in that state for a violation of the laws of the same state.

Again, I don't see how the death penalty would make my kids feel it's OK to go out and kill somebody themselves. If it influences them at all, it should do so in a negative manner. They should think "If I kill this guy, the state is gonna try to kill me." I dunno...maybe I'm just completely wrong, but that's the only logic that makes sense to me. I just don't see how the death penalty could make a person decide that it's OK to commit murder themselves.

[Talthyr Malkaviel]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: quote: Originally posted by Talthyr Malkaviel: quote: Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: But the biggest culprit by far are the Big Screen Movies. Go to any action, drama, or thriller movie and what do you see? The "bad guy" killing people all through the movie...only to be killed themself in the end by the hero/heroine. And it usually is not enough just to kill the primary villain. No, he has to die in an especially painful and violent manner.

Hmm... you object to children seeing this sort of thing as it might influence them?
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that very similar to a real life situation, the bad guy kills a load of people (in real life often less than in a movie though) and then is killed by the "good" guy.
Now imagine the "good guy" is the state- you believe in a system of killing wrongdoers for their actions, yet in the next breath condemn the very same protrayed in a different context, and state it as influential.
If it is influentail in a bad way, applying that logic then isn't having a death penalty also influencing violence?[/QUOTE]An interesting analogy, Talthyr, but one that I believe is inaccurate.

In the movies and games, the "good guy" is an individual executing his own personal brand of justice.

With the death penalty, the "good guy" is the state government that is executing a sentence approved by the majority of the public voters in that state for a violation of the laws of the same state.

Again, I don't see how the death penalty would make my kids feel it's OK to go out and kill somebody themselves. If it influences them at all, it should do so in a negative manner. They should think "If I kill this guy, the state is gonna try to kill me." I dunno...maybe I'm just completely wrong, but that's the only logic that makes sense to me. I just don't see how the death penalty could make a person decide that it's OK to commit murder themselves.[/QUOTE]I see your point, but this is assuming a person who would go out and randomly decide to kill someone would be using those levels of logic.
Now if they are influenced subconsciously, by anything, then that will influence them somewhat, and most in that situation wouldn't stop to run through the logic of their reasoning.
So, they may subconsciously be influenced by something and go and do it without even considering the consequences- which, depending on the crime and place, could mean death.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: [They should think "If I kill this guy, the state is gonna try to kill me." I dunno...maybe I'm just completely wrong, but that's the only logic that makes sense to me. I just don't see how the death penalty could make a person decide that it's OK to commit murder themselves.

Because: "If the Government, (full of idiots anyway right?) can kill people who piss them off, why shouldn't I?" They are already taking the law into their own hands by breaking it, why shouldn't they be the punisher as well.

It's a value system. Is human life sacred or not?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: God, we've gone to blaming MOVIES now? Movies, like records, tapes, D&D, video games, and Martha Stewart magazines are there to be brain candy. The only people they "affect" into doing things as drastic as killing are weak-minded sheep anyway. Such people will be affected by SOMETHING, believe me. Just because they happened to fixate on a Judas Priest album or the flick Natural Born Killers does NOT make that media source responsible for their actions. Sheesh.

Art REFLECTS societies values, yet also shapes society. This is a factual duality.

The manner and prevalence of killings in film, the death penalty, legal abortions, prevalence of suicide, hints towards euthenasia, and a high murder rate, all point towards a society that does not hold human life itself as something valuable.

Certain humans are considered worthy. One's that don't commit a crime, one's that are heroic, one's born at a convenient time, one's healthy and not of old age, one's not stopping a hero's progress, one's not trying to kill you.

It means that there are decisions over who should live and who should die. That means room for error, personal judgement and bias. Saudis think adulterers should die. Americans think rapist/murderers should die, some Germans think NeoNazi traitors should die, Chinese think Tibetan dissenters should die, a robber decides a potential witness should die. And so on and so forth.

Up the stakes. Remove killing as something ever justified. A necessary evil at times. Something unavoidable at others, but never something "right" or "just". If something wrongs someone it is a wrong.

An artist/filmaker/gamemaker therefore can either reflect the prevalence of murder in society, or they can choose to change society. They can be a slave to trends or a trendsetter.

[ 01-14-2003, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: God, we've gone to blaming MOVIES now? Movies, like records, tapes, D&D, video games, and Martha Stewart magazines are there to be brain candy. The only people they "affect" into doing things as drastic as killing are weak-minded sheep anyway. Such people will be affected by SOMETHING, believe me. Just because they happened to fixate on a Judas Priest album or the flick Natural Born Killers does NOT make that media source responsible for their actions. Sheesh.

Yes, Timber, that is how they are meant to be taken....and usually are taken by most people. But I was addressing Barry the Sprout's conclusion that our society seems to have placed a lower value on human life and that the death penalty was a mitigating factor in that decline. I agreed with his conclusion, but not his reasoning and suggested that increasing violence in movies and popular games was more to blame than the death penalty. Again, that is just my personal opinion, and you may agree or disagree with it as you wish.

[HolyWarrior]

Originally posted by Yorick:
The issue is, the rest of the western world has a huge problem with the punishment.
Call someone who gives a damn. I couldn't care less what a bunch of Eurotwits think.:sneer:

NO OTHER NATION IN THE WEST KILLS IT'S CITIZENS LIKE AMERICA. Saudi Arabia, China Iraq and America lead the world in numbers of citizens it's government kills.
Try living in Saudi Arabia, etc. before comparing our justice system to theirs. BTW, that should be "its". And since no other nation IS America, what's your point? :hmmm:

I for one see NO DIFFERENCE between murder and execution. Taking a life, is taking a life. In executing, the state becomes a murderer. Must you be a monster to punish a monster?
Can you not see that in repaying evil for evil you become evil?
{i]Jayzus, boy, look in the bloody dictionary. There is a BIG difference between murder and execution. Murder is the taking of innocent life. Execution is the elimination of those who murder, m'kay?:sigh:[/i]

The issue is not what the criminal gets, but what does society become.
Wrongo!
The issue IS and ONLY IS what the criminal gets. Criminal gets a swift execution for committing murder. Rest of society gets message.

What are you becoming? As part of the nation, you are as guilty as the executioner of taking human life. Of ending a humans existence.
Now. What if there's a mistake? Just say that the human you killed is innocent.
No guilt at all. The executioner sent a murderer to his just rewards.
Let me guess, you oppose war, and want to be a human shield in Baghdad

If this is the best you bleeding hearts can do, give up. [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img]

[Donut]

Originally posted by HolyWarrior: Originally posted by Yorick: The issue is, the rest of the western world has a huge problem with the punishment. Call someone who gives a damn. I couldn't care less what a bunch of Eurotwits think.:sneer: NO OTHER NATION IN THE WEST KILLS IT'S CITIZENS LIKE AMERICA. Saudi Arabia, China Iraq and America lead the world in numbers of citizens it's government kills. Try living in Saudi Arabia, etc. before comparing our justice system to theirs. BTW, that should be "its". And since no other nation IS America, what's your point? :hmmm: I for one see NO DIFFERENCE between murder and execution. Taking a life, is taking a life. In executing, the state becomes a murderer. Must you be a monster to punish a monster? Can you not see that in repaying evil for evil you become evil? {i]Jayzus, boy, look in the bloody dictionary. There is a BIG difference between murder and execution. Murder is the taking of innocent life. Execution is the elimination of those who murder, m'kay?:sigh:[/i] The issue is not what the criminal gets, but what does society become. Wrongo! The issue IS and ONLY IS what the criminal gets. Criminal gets a swift execution for committing murder. Rest of society gets message. What are you becoming? As part of the nation, you are as guilty as the executioner of taking human life. Of ending a humans existence. Now. What if there's a mistake? Just say that the human you killed is innocent. No guilt at all. The executioner sent a murderer to his just rewards. Let me guess, you oppose war, and want to be a human shield in Baghdad If this is the best you bleeding hearts can do, give up. [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img]

A well reasoned and well constructed post which has greatly added to the quality of the debate.

[Borvik]

Hey, I'm an Eurotwit... Cool ...

*where's my dictionary...*

[Donut]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: But I was addressing Barry the Sprout's conclusion that our society seems to have placed a lower value on human life and that the death penalty was a mitigating factor in that decline. I agreed with his conclusion, but not his reasoning and suggested that increasing violence in movies and popular games was more to blame than the death penalty. Again, that is just my personal opinion, and you may agree or disagree with it as you wish.

Cerek, the effect that BTS is getting at is known as 'brutalisation.

http://dpa.state.ky.us/library/advoc.../dppotter.html

Neither incapacitation nor deterrence theories are supported by the scientific research on capital punishment. In most public policy debates the burden of proof is on those advocating a measure to demonstrate its effectiveness. If that were the case in the death penalty debate adherents would fail miserably. But the fact is that the death penalty not only doesn’t deter murder, it encourages people to kill.

Studies of capital punishment have consistently shown that homicide actually increases in the time period surrounding an execution. Social scientists refer to this as the "brutalization effect." Execution stimulates homicides in three ways: (1) executions desensitize the public to the immorality of killing, increasing the probability that some people will be motivated to kill; (2) the state legitimizes the notion that vengeance for past misdeeds is acceptable; and (3) executions also have an imitation effect, where people actually follow the example set by the state, after all, people feel if the government can kill its enemies, so can they (Bowers and Pierce, 1980; King, 1978, Forst. 1983).

Once again the scientific research provides compelling evidence against the death penalty as public policy. The death penalty does, invariably and without exception increase the number of homicides in jurisdictions where it is applied. This has been proven in Pennsylvania, California, Oklahoma, Arizona, Illinois and other jurisdictions. The brutalization thesis is not mere speculation. It has been verified in study after study. If a legislature were looking at the impact of a pharmaceutical drug and only one study suggested that the drug killed more than it cured, legislators would no doubt ban the drug. The evidence with regard to the brutalization theory is far stronger, with at least eleven unrefuted, replicated and valid studies clearly showing a brutalization impact. In the case of the death penalty the cure is clearly worse than the disease, and like a dangerous drug, this cure should be banned.

[ 01-15-2003, 07:38 AM: Message edited by: Donut ]