View Full Version : Death penalty - Part 653
I was asked yet again in a recent thread about my views on the death penalty. Now my ideas on important things are constantly under review, but at the moment...
I am against death as a social control, as part of a judicial system. Why? Well, first, I don't give a damn about the people it kills - unless they happen to be innocent. There's a problem. It's too permanent a solution for i fallible system. Anyway, so the first problem is that some people are actually innocent. The second problem is that the death penalty turns the person who issues the order, and the person who presses the button, into a person who would kill a bound, defenceless human. No social mechanism should require any member of a society to become such a person. It turns the expediters of that social mechanism, into cowards and murderers themselves.
Now, I am not totally against killing. Killing is part of nature. Sometimes I think it's necessary or preferable within human societies. I just don't like it as a method of social control.
So, I ask the obvious: What method do you prefer?
If you mean for killing in general, not a legal death penalty... I suppose whatever suits the situation. Not that I would ever do such things. I'd rather not ever kill anybody.
PS: NOT a sniper rifle.
"I just don't like it as a method of social control."
So, I ask again: What method do you prefer?
Prison. For any crime that permanently affects a victim, permanent prison. And less money spent on prisons than is spent now.
"For any crime that permanently affects a victim, permanent prison."
????? Have you ever been the victim of a crime?
If so, were you not 'permanently' affected?
What lines are you attempting to draw?
Yes, I have been.
Anything which causes permanent physical or mental damage.
"Every time I look out my front window, Judge, and don't see the Tweetie Bird
whirley-bird my daughter made and gave to me as a birthday present the day
before she was hit by a car and killed, I'm emotionally shattered. I want that
miscreant to spend the rest of his life, even if he is fourteen years old, behind
bars. Or better yet, in solitary confinement."
Is that what you had in mind re. 'mental damage' Adam?
The person responsible, such as the one who killed the kid, would be in prison for killing the kid. Birdy-lad, having no connection to the case, would not be under consideration.
Ah, but his daughter ran out from between parked cars. The driver of the
car that killed her was not charged. The lad though, did intentionally steal
the whirly-bird and thus caused the mental anguish of a parent who was
able to accept that the driver was in no way responsible for the death of
Do you see what I'm driving at Adam?
Okay. Rape may not necessarily cause permanent physical damage, but most likely will cause permanent mental damage. I doubt anyone could rationally class that thief's actions with a rapists. I would think the division would be based upon the subject of the action. If you do something to a person (not to a whirly bird) which alters or damages the victim mentally, you go down. The kid you mention didn't do anything to a person, he did it to some small inanimate object. So I think the division must be that the action was directly against a person or not.
The point I'm trying to make Adam is that 'mental damage' is a slippery slope
that leads to perdition. I would far better leave it at 'physical damage and/or
material loss'. So much easier to qualify, and quantify for that matter. Have
you never heard the old saw: 'If rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it'?
Take care. Time to sack out (0030 hr. this neck of the woods).
Originally posted by Chagur
Have you never heard the old saw: 'If rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it'?
Unfortunately that seems very silly to me. I know several girls who have been raped, and there was no possible way for them to enjoy it, and they do carry a lot of emotional baggage from it.
I'm not sure such permanent jail terms should be judged on material loss, or loss of possessions. Possessions are meaningless crap in the long run.
Ooooh! Hey Chagur, bad joke if you're running for Texas gov:
:D :D :D :D :D :D :cool:
Who else but you? ... Where else but Texas?
Take care ;)
Yes, but Clayton Williams is best known for his "bustin' rocks" ads.
It seems to me that stealing a whirlybird is unimportant, even if it had subjective significance for the d00d in question. Accidental manslaughter in vehicles is too common and relates to the problematic nature of vehicles of individual conduction themselves.
In cases of murder or rape, it's simpler and cheaper to imprision for life. However, the person still uses resources and requires monitoring; my suggestion is that we recombine the need to reduce our population with the need to kill idiots, and destroy all people who are worthless or leading lives of multiple crimes. Under this model, someone who committed one murder with sketchy evidence against him would walk free, but those who are prone to commit violent crime would all be dead, and on his second likely murder instance the one-murder d00d would take a bullet.
America with only 33 million people would be a dream.
10-11-02, 11:48 AM
Adam -- it seems to me being put in prison and being subjected to gang rapes, and beatings, forced to eat shit, and drink piss, being mutiliated, etc. would be worse than being executed. So what if you were later released because it was found you were innocent? Talk about psychological damage!
I'm very much for corporal punishment. They just need to happen much more quickly than the average of 12 years or so that it takes in the U.S.