|
|
|
|
#1
11-28-2007, 09:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
You said it sent a weird message if we said "listen children, its wrong to kill so sometimes when people do it we kill them".
This is no different than saying "listen children, its wrong to rob people from their freedom so sometimes when people do it we rob them from their freedom". Whatever reasoning you have for imprisoning people it still is taking away their freedom, no matter how noble your motives for doing so are. 
|
|
#2
11-28-2007, 10:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
[ QUOTE ]
This is no different than saying "listen children, its wrong to rob people from their freedom so sometimes when people do it we rob them from their freedom". Whatever reasoning you have for imprisoning people it still is taking away their freedom, no matter how noble your motives for doing so are. [/ QUOTE ] True, but you have a very strong argument for taking away their freedom: The safety of people/society. However, assuming a 0% probability of the inmate escaping from prison, that argument doesn't hold for death sentences.
|
|
#3
11-28-2007, 10:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] This is no different than saying "listen children, its wrong to rob people from their freedom so sometimes when people do it we rob them from their freedom". Whatever reasoning you have for imprisoning people it still is taking away their freedom, no matter how noble your motives for doing so are. [/ QUOTE ] True, but you have a very strong argument for taking away their freedom: The safety of people/society. However, assuming a 0% probability of the inmate escaping from prison, that argument doesn't hold for death sentences. [/ QUOTE ] Im aware of the differances of being dead and being in prison, I just reacted to what I saw as a weird statement based on weird logic. I fully understand how someone can be in favor of sending people to prison for kidnapping while still being opposed to the death penalty for murder.
|
|
#4
11-28-2007, 10:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
[ QUOTE ]
You said it sent a weird message if we said "listen children, its wrong to kill so sometimes when people do it we kill them". This is no different than saying "listen children, its wrong to rob people from their freedom so sometimes when people do it we rob them from their freedom". Whatever reasoning you have for imprisoning people it still is taking away their freedom, no matter how noble your motives for doing so are. [/ QUOTE ] I don't really care for your semantic hogwash about two sentences that look alike. I could explain to kids that the man murdered a man, and therefore he should die - that isn't the point. And yes the sentences look alike but they are not. Punishment and revenge are two different things, and if you can't see that I have no idea why you are even in this thread.
|
|
#5
11-28-2007, 10:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] You said it sent a weird message if we said "listen children, its wrong to kill so sometimes when people do it we kill them". This is no different than saying "listen children, its wrong to rob people from their freedom so sometimes when people do it we rob them from their freedom". Whatever reasoning you have for imprisoning people it still is taking away their freedom, no matter how noble your motives for doing so are. [/ QUOTE ] I don't really care for your semantic hogwash about two sentences that look alike. I could explain to kids that the man murdered a man, and therefore he should die - that isn't the point. And yes the sentences look alike but they are not. Punishment and revenge are two different things, and if you can't see that I have no idea why you are even in this thread. [/ QUOTE ] The principle is exactly the same, and Im pretty sure you know it too. And why do you make the assumption that my reasoning for the death penalty is based on revenge, and not punishment? If you read through the thread you will find a post where I point out that I do not think that "but someone might feel that being executed is getting off softly, and life in prison would be far worse" is a good argument, because its not about me wanting the convicted to suffer as much as possible (which would be revenge), its about the solution I feel is best for society. If I was in favor of revenge as a form of punishment I would also be a proponent of torture and rape of those who have committed those crimes, but I can assure you I am not.
|
|
#6
11-28-2007, 10:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
[ QUOTE ]
The principle is exactly the same, and Im pretty sure you know it too. [/ QUOTE ] Huh? Now I don't even know what we are talking about anymore. I certainly don't think criminal punishment is about revenge, that is a principle most civilized societies left behind hundreds of years ago. Though I'm sure many get their kicks out of believing it is and like it.
|
|
#7
11-28-2007, 10:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The principle is exactly the same, and Im pretty sure you know it too. [/ QUOTE ] Huh? Now I don't even know what we are talking about anymore. I certainly don't think criminal punishment is about revenge, that is a principle most civilized societies left behind hundreds of years ago. Though I'm sure many get their kicks out of believing it is and like it. [/ QUOTE ] I was talking about the principle that the two sentences was based upon, which you argued were different. If you saw the text that I had written that was under that line that you chose to quote you would see that I had clarified my view on punishment/revenge, so Im quite surprised that you missed it. But Im sure you didnīt ignore it on purpose...
|
|
#8
11-28-2007, 12:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The principle is exactly the same, and Im pretty sure you know it too. [/ QUOTE ] Huh? Now I don't even know what we are talking about anymore. I certainly don't think criminal punishment is about revenge, that is a principle most civilized societies left behind hundreds of years ago. Though I'm sure many get their kicks out of believing it is and like it. [/ QUOTE ] What's wrong with revenge exactly? Not that I think the criminal justice system should be about "revenge" entirely, but ask yourself what "justice" means in this case...
|
|
#9
11-28-2007, 12:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
Clearly, revenge/retribution are a component of the criminal justice system. The question is what weight should we give to it. For what it's worth, I would say that the four main justifications for criminal justice are/should be:
1) Removal (public safety --- remove criminals from society to prevent further harm) 2) Retribution/Revenge 3) Rehabilitation 4) Deterrence Capital Punishment does not accomplish #1 any better than life in prison w/out parole, it accomplishes 2, does not accomplish 3, and it is HIGHLY questionable whether it helps with 4 in any appreciable way greater than prison terms. So, ultimately, it boils down to retribution.
|
|
#10
11-28-2007, 12:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The principle is exactly the same, and Im pretty sure you know it too. [/ QUOTE ] Huh? Now I don't even know what we are talking about anymore. I certainly don't think criminal punishment is about revenge, that is a principle most civilized societies left behind hundreds of years ago. Though I'm sure many get their kicks out of believing it is and like it. [/ QUOTE ] What's wrong with revenge exactly? Not that I think the criminal justice system should be about "revenge" entirely, but ask yourself what "justice" means in this case... [/ QUOTE ] I don't think retributive justice (crudely referred to as 'revenge' here) is necessarily something to scoff at. I'm happy when people who do bad things are punished, and I suspect most other people are too. Imagine a hypothetical world where we could find some terrible criminal monster like Dennis Rader and give him some kind of ankle bracelet that we could know, with 100% certainty, would prevent him from killing again. Let's say we've also concluded, somehow, that Rader is 100% un-rehabilitatable. And by some magic, we've also managed to conclude that it's completely impossible someone will ever repeat his crimes. Given this, should we allow him to live a free and unencumbered life, sans punishment, despite the fact that he's caused so much pain, suffering, and misery in his community? Our hypothetical has magically addressed the concerns about deterrence and rehabilitation -- but I many people would be comfortable letting Rader go free in such a hypothetical. And I think the answer is clear as to why most people wouldn't be comfortable, and it's because I think a 'just' society would necessarily have to punish someone like Rader, justified by the simple notion that he deserves it. And I would be surprised if many people would disagree with this. That isn't to say I approve of severe forms of physical punishment, but I'm a firm believer that getting what's 'deserved' is part (and probably only a part) of achieving justice. Having said that, I think especially important for a moral society to try to balance desert with fairness. For example, I may think a rapist deserves to sit in prison for 10 years for their crime, but if we've only been punishing other rapists to 1 year in prison, we should probably take that into consideration. There are other factors to take into consideration as well. But I think desert is one of those factors we should take into consideration, and I think we can defend retributive justice once we accept the Rader-type hypothetical and the concept of just desert.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
