Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: blackhole on November 15, 2008, 04:47:48 pm
-
Jury finds father guilty in death of 4-year-old
A Spokane County Superior Court jury decided that welder Jonathan Lytle, 30, was guilty in the long-running torture that led to the death of Summer Phelps. The girl was beaten, bitten, burned and denied food for long periods before she died on March 10, 2007.
By The Associated Press
SPOKANE — A Spokane man was convicted of homicide by abuse on Friday for the horrific death of his 4-year-old daughter.
A Spokane County Superior Court jury decided that welder Jonathan Lytle, 30, was guilty in the long-running torture that led to the death of Summer Phelps. The girl was beaten, bitten, burned and denied food for long periods before she died on March 10, 2007.
Summer's stepmother, Adriana Lytle, has already pleaded guilty to homicide by abuse and is in the Spokane County Jail awaiting sentencing. She faces up to 20 years in prison.
Lytle was also convicted of the aggravating factors of deliberate cruelty, vulnerability of the child and the defendant violating his position of trust. Lytle faces a sentence of life in prison.
The jury deliberated only four hours before returning the verdict.
Summer's mother, Elizabeth Phelps, recently sued Child Protective Services for failing to protect her daughter. Phelps, of Poulsbo, had custody of Summer but allowed the child to visit the Lytles in Spokane for a month in August 2006 and never reclaimed her.
In closing arguments Thursday, Deputy Prosecutor Larry Steinmetz contended the Lytles turned their tiny apartment into a "torture chamber" where Summer was beaten, burned, shocked with an electric dog collar, forced to wash urine-soaked clothes, starved and dunked in a bathtub for punishment.
"Did the defendant have his head buried in the sand in that apartment and not know what was going on in the last few months of his daughter's life, or was he a willing participant in the brutal and violent actions that caused her death?" Steinmetz asked.
Defense lawyer Edward Carroll blamed most of the victim's bruises and other injuries on Adriana Lytle, saying Jonathan Lytle worked long hours to support his family and was gone when most of the abuse occurred.
He portrayed Lytle as an incompetent parent who was innocent of "extreme indifference to human life."
"He was ignorant, inept as a parent, but he was not indifferent to whether she lived or died," Carroll said.
Prosecutors said Lytle told detectives that he beat Summer with a belt on the day of her death for moving too slowly to clean up garbage before a nurse's scheduled visit to the apartment.
He took her out of the apartment that morning for a drive to Cheney so the nurse wouldn't see her head-to-toe bruises.
"By removing the child from the apartment on March 10, we know the defendant evaded medical care for Summer. If the nurse had seen those injuries, she would have called law enforcement," Steinmetz said.
It took Lytle an hour and a half to bring his daughter to the hospital after she was found underwater in the bathtub, where she had been forced to wash clothes for hours after she returned, prosecutors said.
This is the "Local News" section of my newspaper. :eek2:
-
I hate people.
-
Summer's mother, Elizabeth Phelps, recently sued Child Protective Services for failing to protect her daughter. Phelps, of Poulsbo, had custody of Summer but allowed the child to visit the Lytles in Spokane for a month in August 2006 and never reclaimed her.
I loved this line. Didn't care much about her daughter until there was money in it by the looks of it.
The whole of the UK is up in arms over a similar case (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7723042.stm) at the moment. Although in this case it's not just the fact that a kid was murdered but the fact that the council failed to act to stop it happening.
-
I'm not too keen on there topics but i'll just choose to not read.
-
I didn't read it, I don't have to. I've read too many cases that were very similar.
And yes, I hate people.
-
I didn't read it, I don't have to. I've read too many cases that were very similar.
And yes, I hate people.
Misanthropes unite.
...
Oh wait, I forgot. We hate each other.
-
This happened in 2005 but the trail just started a few days ago. Phoenix was only 5 years old.
Quote from: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/story/4249066p-4892492c.html
Phoenix Sinclair was being deprived of food and forced to eat her own vomit in the days before she finally succumbed to a prolonged period of abuse and neglect that included being repeatedly shot with a pellet gun and choked unconscious, jurors heard Wednesday.
"Some horrible things have happened to that little girl," a visibly distraught Cpl. Tara Clelland-Hall told the girl's mother, Samantha Kematch, near the end of a four-hour videotaped interview following her March 2006 arrest.
"It absolutely breaks my heart the things that little girl went through in her short little life."
Kematch and her former common-law husband, Karl McKay, are on trial for first-degree murder for the June 2005 death of Phoenix on the Fisher River First Nation about 200 kilometres north of Winnipeg. The killing wasn't discovered by police until McKay's teenaged son told his mother about what happened 10 months later.
The boy, now 18, took the witness stand Wednesday and pointed the finger of blame directly at McKay and Kematch, accusing them of countless violent and degrading acts and describing how Phoenix morphed from a "chubby" and happy child into a skinny child covered in cuts and bruises who would spend nearly every minute laying in her room without any food.
He wiped away tears as he told court how he tried offering a helping hand to his stepsister, who had been kept a virtual prisoner in her own home. He described trying to feed a starving Phoenix some bread and water only to be caught and threatened by Kematch.
"Samantha said what the f--k are you giving my daughter food for?" he said.
"I'd feel sorry for her. She would say 'I'm hungry'."
He said McKay repeatedly played a "game" with Phoenix that he called "chicken" which involved picking her up by the throat, wrapping both hands around her neck and "choking her out."
"Then he'd throw her to the ground," said the teen, noting visible finger marks would be left on her neck. "She'd make this weird scream. It was like someone had cut off her arm, like she was screaming to death."
McKay also liked to shoot Phoenix with a pellet gun, telling the girl to "run" and then shooting her repeatedly in the back and making her cry out in agony.
"He'd shoot her for the fun of it," he said, noting the abuse would leave pellet marks all over her back.
The teen said Kematch would often hit Phoenix with a metal bar and stool, especially when she'd urinate or defecate in her pants after Kematch refused to let her go to the washroom. Sometimes McKay and Kematch would throw Phoenix around, either to the ground or into furniture, he said. They also shaved the girl's head bald, court was told.
Kematch's lawyer, Roberta Campbell, suggested to the teen in cross-examination that it was McKay who was "most violent" with Phoenix. She also accused McKay of calling Phoenix degrading names like "f--king little baby" and "whore" while beating her.
"They were doing the same thing, equally," the teen replied.
"Isn't it true that sometimes he would hit Phoenix so much that she wouldn't even cry anymore?" asked Campbell.
"Yes," he answered.
McKay's lawyer, Mike Cook, suggested some of Phoenix's injuries could have been suffered during friendly "wrestling matches" that his client was having with the little girl. McKay's son said he believed the physical abuse was intentional, not accidental.
Earlier in the day, the 10-woman, two man jury watched the last portion of Kematch's video statement in which she blamed McKay for Phoenix's death and said he refused to let her go to police to disclose what happened.
"I feel ashamed. I feel stupid. She didn't deserve anything like that. I think about it every day," she said. "I didn't want to see my kid like that. It hurt to see her like that. He wouldn't let me help her. He'd get mad at me."
However, Kematch admitted to beating Phoenix at times for no clear reason.
"I'd hit her because I'd get mad at her. I knew that wasn't right," she said.
Jurors heard how Phoenix spent her last hours naked, with an injury to her buttocks, lying on a cold basement floor. Kematch says McKay pushed her daughter violently to the ground, causing the child to bang her head on the concrete the day before her death.
"I know it wasn't planned," Kematch said.
"We didn't do it purposely. It was just something that got out of hand. An accident. This wasn't supposed to happen. I never wanted this to happen."
She said McKay asked her to bring him a garbage bag to wrap the child in when they discovered the next day she wasn't breathing. She said McKay put Phoenix in the trunk of a car, and buried her in a hole in a wooded area near the dump at Fisher River reserve.
The trial continues today with McKay's youngest son expected to testify against him on behalf of the Crown.
-
Lethal Injection is too good for these people...
-
Lethal Injection is too good for these people...
In Canada we don't have the death penalty.
-
yeah but in Canada could you imagine what the other inmates would do to those assholes?
the best penalty for people like that would be no sentence at all because then they wouldn't last a day before someone killed or almost killed them.
-
I didn't read it, I don't have to. I've read too many cases that were very similar.
And yes, I hate people.
Misanthropes unite.
...
Oh wait, I forgot. We hate each other.
In this case "people" is a misnomer. It refers to people at large, or society that produces such horrific events. Obviously no one hates the kid, who qualifies as "people," but not in the sense that I'm referring to.
-
yeah but in Canada could you imagine what the other inmates would do to those assholes?
the best penalty for people like that would be no sentence at all because then they wouldn't last a day before someone killed or almost killed them.
What happened to lifetime imprisonment? Let the homosexual raping teach them a lesson.
-
Canadian prisons tend to be better than American once IIRC :nervous:
-
Canadian prisons tend to be better than American once IIRC :nervous:
Personally, I liked how that kind of creepy **** happened in prison. It offered more motivation not to do something that will get you in there to begin with.
-
It seems to me though that it encourages criminal habits within it [the prison system]. It seems to me, in order to be effective prisoners should be forced to do something constructive, like build something. Remember, something like 1% of Americans are behind bars.
-
Lethal Injection is too good for these people...
-
I`m from the US, and most the people in the Erie county prison system aren`t there for violent crimes, but for non payment of child support and DUI`s. :wtf: But its these, (non-violent) prisoners that are able to get out on work release.
Isn`t the reason for prison to re-habilate the criminal?
Our prison system just plain does not work.. :nervous: There are to many repeat offenders that end up back in prison.
-
Our prison system just plain does not work.. :nervous: There are to many repeat offenders that end up back in prison.
sad but true. atm though theres nothing better.
-
Yeah, second that. Hope Harper fixes the crime more than he says he will.
-
Bah Harper won't do nothin' the only reason people voted for him was because Dion was mentally confused and Layton belongs in an institution.
-
HAY!
I like Harper.
-
I've no problem with that. if i could i'd vote for him. but that doesn't change the fact that in my riding he is considered the lesser of 6 evils.
-
I`m from the US, and most the people in the Erie county prison system aren`t there for violent crimes, but for non payment of child support and DUI`s. :wtf: But its these, (non-violent) prisoners that are able to get out on work release.
Isn`t the reason for prison to re-habilate the criminal?
Only partially. It's also meant to be a deterrent and a punishment for committing the crime too.
-
Death is too good for those..."people".
Burn them..alive...slowly. :mad2:
-
Impale 'em in public and broadcast it on tv.
*sigh*
But in the end, nothing will prevent such things from happening, no matter what punishment such...people...get.
It could however reduce the number of cases.
-
I think Social Services needs a lot of help honestly. People in the state of mind it takes to kill a child for no good reason will not be deterred. The only way to make sure that kids in that situation are safe is by making sure that they never enter the clutches of such parents.
This also raises an issue because the adoption and foster system in the US sucks.
-
This is dark ****. And probably just a tip of an iceberg - obviously there are lots of children who get about the same treatment, but not quite enough to get killed. Who never get any publicity anywhere (except if they later end up making it to some gross news themselves).
-
I hate people.
Me too.
-
being repeatedly shot with a pellet gun and choked unconscious
Wow, that sounds sexy:P
-
Impale 'em in public and broadcast it on tv.
*sigh*
But in the end, nothing will prevent such things from happening, no matter what punishment such...people...get.
It could however reduce the number of cases.
It would too.
However, I'd do what china does expand that to officials/buisnissmen in high positions that steal from the people and misuse their power. Bring them out and put a bullet in their head.
that ought to give the buisnisses and politicians a shock.
-
I always find the thought of killing someone that killed someone disturbing and hypocritical when it's done in the name of justice. I know that events like this spark strong emotions but a little bit of objectivity and compassion is, in my very humble opinion, greatly preferred to a destructive outcome.
Having witnessed the behaviour of people who have psychological problems, I can't agree that a behavioural trait which might very well be outside of their control should damn them when they could potentially be treated. A fair percentage of the population have socio-pathic tendencies; Milligram's experiment show that even people who would normally be considered 'sane' can carry out fairly heinous actions with a level of distance when put in unusual circumstances; 'evil' is a poor excuse.
Also, deriding China's human rights whilst applauding actions that show supreme disdain for the aforementioned is disturbing. I hope you're happy with the idea of being put under the gun should a regime be unhappy with your actions Trashman.
-
I don't steal or kill, so I'm safe. :p
While there are some who have medical conditons that change the circumstances, I find that that these days everyone was suffering from temporary insanity, cronic depression or one affliction or another.
Trying to excuse everyone of their crimes by listing half the medical encyclopedia is not the way to go either.
-
I always find the thought of killing someone that killed someone disturbing and hypocritical when it's done in the name of justice. I know that events like this spark strong emotions but a little bit of objectivity and compassion is, in my very humble opinion, greatly preferred to a destructive outcome.
Having witnessed the behaviour of people who have psychological problems, I can't agree that a behavioural trait which might very well be outside of their control should damn them when they could potentially be treated. A fair percentage of the population have socio-pathic tendencies; Milligram's experiment show that even people who would normally be considered 'sane' can carry out fairly heinous actions with a level of distance when put in unusual circumstances; 'evil' is a poor excuse.
Also, deriding China's human rights whilst applauding actions that show supreme disdain for the aforementioned is disturbing. I hope you're happy with the idea of being put under the gun should a regime be unhappy with your actions Trashman.
I don't steal or kill, so I'm safe. :p
While there are some who have medical conditons that change the circumstances, I find that that these days everyone was suffering from temporary insanity, cronic depression or one affliction or another.
Trying to excuse everyone of their crimes by listing half the medical encyclopedia is not the way to go either.
The death penalty for everyone ( with psychological problems or without ) who has done a crime ( murder and such ) is probably the wrong way.
Throwing them in a cell for the rest of their life sounds more...human.
A year and a half ago, a group of teenagers ( the oldest was 15), beat a 40something year old man to a bloody pulp, without any reason. They kicked him multiple times on the head, while he was laying on the ground,
unable to defend himself.
He was for month in a coma, he wont be able to walk ever again, nor can't he eat alone.
He isn't able to do anything on his own.
What could be the reason for that?
Psychological problems? School stress? Beef with the parents? A bad childhood? A bad TV program? Boredom?
Is the fact that that someone has psychological problems a reason to leave "'em of the hook" and give 'em a mild punishment?
-
Who's talking about milder punishments?
I've never understood why people seem to assume in debates about the death penalty that death > *
If death really was the worst thing in the world you'd have to wonder why anyone ever commits suicide.
-
Trying to put words into my mouth makes for a poor argument. I suggested that there may be more than sheer nastiness to the acts and that killing people was a poor solution to an already ****ty situation. No mention was made that it should be used to absolve all crime but when a state is putting someone's life on the line it would seem only fair that they would put in enough effort to make sure that 'innocent until proven guilty' is rigorously tested.
A wise person once said something akin to "it is better to have ten guilty persons go free than one innocent man to be erroneously found guilty", i.e. it's not a perfect system but we should attempt to make it one with a low chance of failure. Whilst none of the people responsible for the torture and murder of a child (or other party) may be innocent in the strictest usage of the term, an act so contrary to another person's well-being and their own (if you consider the consequence of being discovered) suggests that perhaps they aren't mentally balanced and that, if there is a therapy, an attempt should be made to help them. That therapy might be an extended stay in jail or drugs; only careful deliberation by experts would present the most efficacious outcome. (I'm not suggesting that this happens though which is a depressing thought).
On a more personal level Trashman: You might not kill but you seem quite happy to advocate the practice, a case of do what I say not what I do? Your argument isn't even an argument; 'everyone', as in every criminal, is not involved here and never was. Give examples of the many people ('everyone'?) that you've found to be claiming a mental condition.
Kara: I know what you're getting at but a person choosing to die rather than having death chosen for them is different enough to warrant two views that may not necessarily concur.
(I forgot that it's dangerous to enter such an 'interesting' debate on HLP). ;)
-
The thing about Death is that it is an end to punishment, not a beginning of it. Personally, I think it could be considered far more 'vindictive' to help them than hurt them, that way they have to spend the rest of their life deprived of freedom, and knowing what they did.
-
The thing is, some of us really cannot concieve of something worse than death. It is for those whom the death penalty carries the most weight, and for whom it was written; they killed another, so it seems that death is the worst they could concieve of doing to someone. They have demonstrated they believe that death is the ultimate sanction, and so in a sense chosen what should be applied to them as the ultimate punishment. (This is, incidentally, a likely reason behind why only first-degree murder is subject to the death penalty in most places.)
And furthermore, what you describe as "vindictive" assumes they believe they have done wrong, as well as ignoring a key problem of human nature: punishment loses its force over time. The bottom line is you cannot punish someone forever. People are too good at adapting. Even torture ceases to have meaning after a year or two.
On a more personal level I view the death penalty as a social expression of absolute rejection; in commiting premeditated killing without justifible cause you have destroyed something of your humanity and hence have forfeited your membership in the human race and your right to live. This is why I can personally advocate the application of the death penalty to rape, but not to lesser forms of murder.
-
The thing is, some of us really cannot concieve of something worse than death.
Drag behind a horse and let the horse run frantically into the sunset (forgot the name for this). Or give an open gaping wound and release into the prison populace. Or, my favorite, implant a tiny explosive device on someones heart. And then set up a magic word for detonation.
There are some things worse than death. And these would be it. There's also another idea. Upon heinous act, trip to the hospital for automatic organ donation.
I do mean to make a joke here and an example. Someone should come up with a humane worse than death thing.
-
Drag behind a horse and let the horse run frantically into the sunset (forgot the name for this). Or give an open gaping wound and release into the prison populace. Or, my favorite, implant a tiny explosive device on someones heart. And then set up a magic word for detonation.
There are some things worse than death. And these would be it. There's also another idea. Upon heinous act, trip to the hospital for automatic organ donation.
I do mean to make a joke here and an example. Someone should come up with a humane worse than death thing.
All of this things also end with death. Only is slower and more painful. A quick death is at least somewhat humane.
@Maeglamor - I agree. Death penalty should only be reserved for the extreem cases, where guilt was proven beyond any reasonable doubt (like getting caught on video, or having direct DNA evidence and so forth)
-
Doesn't always result in death. The horse can always be stopped if there is a rider on the horse. The explosive implant leads to a life of silence. The gaping wound in prison can be solved with hunting down guitar wire or fishing line on the prison black market. And the organ donation would be leaving you with enough organs left to live.
EDIT: might be good to have prisoner organ donation though. easy stuff like taking a kidney, blood donors, marrow donors (given if healthy to done). maybe good for sentence reduction. or default for all prisoners. that certainly would be a good way to give back to society.
-
There are some things worse than death. And these would be it.
Way to miss the point.
I don't disagree there are things worse than death, though frankly I think you're failing epically at coming up with one; my point is that the current application of the death penalty, in the US, is based on the fact that the people it's being applied to have demonstrated they believe death is the worst possible thing that can be done to someone.
-
in commiting premeditated killing without justifible cause you have destroyed something of your humanity and hence have forfeited your membership in the human race and your right to live
Does one decide to destroy a part of oneselves humanity - is there a decision to let it go? If not, how can that be punished? I think that a premeditated kill is just the grande finale, it demonstrates a piece of humanity that didn't sufficiently exist in the first place. I think the emphasis on this matter is somewhat messed up - the primary task of the society should be to try and make sure that missing piece gets developed (before its too late). Of course, its a lot tougher than putting people down.
That said, it is clear that humanity doesn't have the wit to get by without killing, any time soon - but pretending it to be just (in any case) will only hamper the progress towards that goal (if it is a goal).
-
I forget where it was but they had a case where a mentally disabled person, he might have been scitzofrenic i forget, committed a heinous crime. Now it was clear that he was not in the right state of mind when he committed the crime so he was placed in a mental institution which is all well and good. The mental institution apparently treated him and eventually cured his illness. Now that he was cured the DA wanted to turn around and now push for the death penalty since he was no longer crazy.
Try that for fethed up logic. So was he off his nutter when he committed the crime? yeah. So you want to kill him because he's now sane for a crime he committed when he had no control over himself? uh huh.
-
I don't disagree there are things worse than death, though frankly I think you're failing epically at coming up with one; my point is that the current application of the death penalty, in the US, is based on the fact that the people it's being applied to have demonstrated they believe death is the worst possible thing that can be done to someone.
How has a rapist shown that death is the worst punishment?
What you're actually trying to do is claim that some crimes make someone sub-human in order to justify the death penalty. But the question then becomes who gets to decide who is human and who isn't?
EDIT: might be good to have prisoner organ donation though. easy stuff like taking a kidney, blood donors, marrow donors (given if healthy to done). maybe good for sentence reduction. or default for all prisoners. that certainly would be a good way to give back to society.
Read some Larry Niven right now. Any of the Gil the ARM books will do.
-
What you're actually trying to do is claim that some crimes make someone sub-human in order to justify the death penalty. But the question then becomes who gets to decide who is human and who isn't?
I'd assume the same people that decide weather to put him in jail or not.
If you go down the "what gives you the right" road, then why not go further? What gives us the right to lock someone up in the first place? What gives us the right to condem a person for his actions (regardless of what those actions may be)?
-
What you're actually trying to do is claim that some crimes make someone sub-human in order to justify the death penalty. But the question then becomes who gets to decide who is human and who isn't?
I'd assume the same people that decide weather to put him in jail or not.
If you go down the "what gives you the right" road, then why not go further? What gives us the right to lock someone up in the first place? What gives us the right to condem a person for his actions (regardless of what those actions may be)?
Is there actually a answer to that questions, that could satisfy everyone?
I think fear among other things.
Without rules, we would live in chaos.
People fear chaos, they don't want get murdered, roped, robbed.
People want to live their lives in safety, and most of them understand there is a need for rules.
So, if someone breaks the rules, you have to punish him ( what the punishment is in the end, is a different thing).
Not only to make that guy clear, he screwed up.
It also serves the purpose of making everyone clear that you can't break rules without getting punished.
If no one gives a damn, we have chaos.
And people fear chaos.
My poor attempt of an explanation :p:
-
Is there actually a answer to that questions, that could satisfy everyone?
No.
Weather you advocate torture, death, jail time, slap on the wrist or brotherly love, or anything in between - there will always be people who think it's the wrong approach.
Which raises another interesting question - Should you even care if people don't agree with your solution to the problem? What is the right solution? Who decides what is the right solution? What if it's the wrong solution? Is the majority always right? Can I go on like this all day? What is the meaning of life? What is the square root of 74732?
-
No.
Weather you advocate torture, death, jail time, slap on the wrist or brotherly love, or anything in between - there will always be people who think it's the wrong approach.
Which raises another interesting question - Should you even care if people don't agree with your solution to the problem? What is the right solution? Who decides what is the right solution? What if it's the wrong solution? Is the majority always right? Can I go on like this all day? What is the meaning of life? What is the square root of 74732?
Are there actually answers to your questions that will satisfy everyone? :p
-
I can answer two of them:
273.371542
That's the square root of 74732.
As for the meaning of life, you have to understand the 2 Basic facts of Life which are:
* Birth
* Death
The meaning of life is to put as much space as possible between the two.
-
You got one wrong there Flippy.
The meaning of life is to make something good come out of it. ;)
-
Way to miss the point.
My point was most things worse than death are inhumane.
-
I'd assume the same people that decide weather to put him in jail or not.
If you go down the "what gives you the right" road, then why not go further? What gives us the right to lock someone up in the first place? What gives us the right to condem a person for his actions (regardless of what those actions may be)?
None of that removes the persons basic humanity though. It's one thing to say "He's committed a crime and therefore is a danger to the public" and a completely different matter to say "He's committed a crime and therefore can't be considered a member of the human race any more"
And what I find ironic is the fact that I'm having to explain this important difference to someone who claims to be a Christian and thus believes in the idea of a soul and repentance. Let me put it this way. If you say someone who has committed a vicious murder is no longer human what happens if he repents?
-
Does one decide to destroy a part of oneselves humanity - is there a decision to let it go? If not, how can that be punished? I think that a premeditated kill is just the grande finale, it demonstrates a piece of humanity that didn't sufficiently exist in the first place. I think the emphasis on this matter is somewhat messed up - the primary task of the society should be to try and make sure that missing piece gets developed (before its too late). Of course, its a lot tougher than putting people down.
That said, it is clear that humanity doesn't have the wit to get by without killing, any time soon - but pretending it to be just (in any case) will only hamper the progress towards that goal (if it is a goal).
And yet...then you've just made my point in a different way. Once it happens it's too late, so they have to be dealt with somehow.
Humans are not killers by nature. There is plenty of evidence to support this, starting with the fact that most of us never kill another human and going on to the fact that even extensive training to do just that does not always produce someone who can. S.L.A. Marshall proved the point pretty conclusively.
How has a rapist shown that death is the worst punishment?
He hasn't. That's confusing my argument based on the foundations of the US legal system with my personal beliefs. I grant they were in the same post, Kara, but I did delinate them into two seperate paragraphs and even marked the belief-based one for what it was. These are seperate arguments and seperate points.
What you're actually trying to do is claim that some crimes make someone sub-human in order to justify the death penalty. But the question then becomes who gets to decide who is human and who isn't?
See above.
More than that, there is a reason why the death penalty cannot be applied unilaterally by the judge, only recommended by the jury and upheld or rejected by the judge.
EDIT: I could take umbrage at the "claim" part too...I know first-hand there are things that make someone subhuman, though we haven't actually touched on them here. In any case, it's not "crimes that make someone subhuman" in the sense you mean...
It's not a very rational thing to believe in the soul for an atheist, I suppose, but when an act has such an effect on a victim that it destroys something, or everything, of who they are, then I believe that things have progressed to the point where the perpetrator needs to be permanently removed. Until we develop Bablyon 5's Death of Personality punishment, killing them is pretty much all we have the toolkit for that.
-
None of that removes the persons basic humanity though. It's one thing to say "He's committed a crime and therefore is a danger to the public" and a completely different matter to say "He's committed a crime and therefore can't be considered a member of the human race any more"
That in itself is debatable.
It depends on how you define humanity, and, if the punishment you administer removes the humanity from him (assuming he had it). It also depends weather you consider life in prison better or worse than death.
And what I find ironic is the fact that I'm having to explain this important difference to someone who claims to be a Christian and thus believes in the idea of a soul and repentance. Let me put it this way. If you say someone who has committed a vicious murder is no longer human what happens if he repents?
What I find ironic is that you try to lecture me from a "holier than thou" position. You're starting from the (unsurprising) assumption that what you think is right is undeniably correct ( a universal truth if you will). Yet if I were to claim a similar universal truth, I'd get nothing but laughs from you.
I guess you feel that you're truth is backed by logic, that it's rational..Guess what - one can rationalize anything if one tries hard enough. Reasons both pro and contra pretty much any issue you can possibly imagine. Off the top of my head I can bring out a dozen arguments for and against the death penalty.
One more thing - don't forget, as I said before, that I often like to debate things and ask "what if" questions and jump from side to side. I like to look at things from various angles. Don't take it too seriously. You never know what I REALLY think about something. ;)
-
Beauty of the net, We're all granted anonymity of emotional context. :nod:
I wasn't too keen on the original subject matter, still not. But i like to observe a lively discussion. This one is doing quite well without overflowing into arguements. Well done people :D
-
And what I find ironic is the fact that I'm having to explain this important difference to someone who claims to be a Christian and thus believes in the idea of a soul and repentance. Let me put it this way. If you say someone who has committed a vicious murder is no longer human what happens if he repents?
ualuealuealeualeualuealuealeualeualuealuealeualeualuealuealeualeualuealuealeualeualuealuealeualeualuealuealeualeualuealuealeuale
So you're saying he isn't human even if he repents?
-
What you're actually trying to do is claim that some crimes make someone sub-human in order to justify the death penalty. But the question then becomes who gets to decide who is human and who isn't?
See above.
More than that, there is a reason why the death penalty cannot be applied unilaterally by the judge, only recommended by the jury and upheld or rejected by the judge.
EDIT: I could take umbrage at the "claim" part too...I know first-hand there are things that make someone subhuman, though we haven't actually touched on them here. In any case, it's not "crimes that make someone subhuman" in the sense you mean...
It's not a very rational thing to believe in the soul for an atheist, I suppose, but when an act has such an effect on a victim that it destroys something, or everything, of who they are, then I believe that things have progressed to the point where the perpetrator needs to be permanently removed. Until we develop Bablyon 5's Death of Personality punishment, killing them is pretty much all we have the toolkit for that.
You can take umbrage all you like but unless you can prove that someone committing a crime has caused a large scale genetic change you're going to have a hard time proving that he's no longer human. :p
As I said to Trashman earlier there is a big difference between locking someone up to prevent them being a danger or even killing them in revenge for their crime and killing them because you have relegated them to whatever category (animal/monster/sub-human) you see fit in order to justify the taking of their life. That's just a big exercise in sticking your head in the sand about the whole subject. Instead of being willing to accept that humans can do really horrible things you want to relegate anyone who does something like that to sub-human.
So yes it is a claim that they aren't human. And one I completely reject. They are human. If you want to argue that they are humans who aren't worth keeping alive that's another matter but don't expect me to blithely accept your belief that criminals who commit certain crimes aren't human. You'll definitely have to prove that before it's anything more than an assertion.
What I find ironic is that you try to lecture me from a "holier than thou" position. You're starting from the (unsurprising) assumption that what you think is right is undeniably correct ( a universal truth if you will). Yet if I were to claim a similar universal truth, I'd get nothing but laughs from you.
I guess you feel that you're truth is backed by logic, that it's rational..Guess what - one can rationalize anything if one tries hard enough. Reasons both pro and contra pretty much any issue you can possibly imagine. Off the top of my head I can bring out a dozen arguments for and against the death penalty.
One more thing - don't forget, as I said before, that I often like to debate things and ask "what if" questions and jump from side to side. I like to look at things from various angles. Don't take it too seriously. You never know what I REALLY think about something. ;)
Yeah. It's funny how you only ever say an argument is from the other side when it has been proved conclusively wrong though.
Nice try Trashman.
-
So yes it is a claim that they aren't human. And one I completely reject. They are human. If you want to argue that they are humans who aren't worth keeping alive that's another matter but don't expect me to blithely accept your belief that criminals who commit certain crimes aren't human. You'll definitely have to prove that before it's anything more than an assertion.
Of course they are human (from a bilogical standpoint).
The question is weather you believe if there's something more that makes us "human" other than genes.
That aside, severe criminals are human. One doesn't need to show them into a different category other than "humans that proven they can't be trusted and refuse to play by the rules and don't give a damn about them".
The thing about a moral highground is that you have to pick a set of morals to stand on.
Yeah. It's funny how you only ever say an argument is from the other side when it has been proved conclusively wrong though.
Nice try Trashman.
Proven wrong? When? How? By whom? You haven't proven anything bub.
I'd also appreciate you taking on the arguments instead of trying character assasination.
-
I still like how you didn't answer kara's question.
-
Trashman, I proved you wrong by pointing out that you can't believe in an immortal soul/repentance and criminals being sub-human at the same time. Feel free to style it out and claim that you were simply "asking "what if" questions and jumping from side to side" long as you wish though. I'm sure you can convince yourself if you try hard enough even if you'll completely fail to have anyone else believe you.
-
I think we label vicious criminals as subhuman filth because one its has a nice ring to it and secondly because they are acting so far out of the social norm and we want to separate them from ourselves. Are they really some scaly bridge troll from a Brother's Grimm tale? No. Even a brief travel through human history shows that we have a massive capacity for brutality. There is a nice short story written by a anonymous chopper gunner in Vietnam, Brutal Cannon its called and he sums it up quite nicely. With the right situation/indoctrination/training pretty much everybody can be turned into a wholesale killer. That said i still believe in the death penalty because even though i understand the reasons against it the cold unempathetic bastard in me still thinks pedophiles and serial rapists deserve a bullet in the brain. I make no excuses.
-
Trashman, I proved you wrong by pointing out that you can't believe in an immortal soul/repentance and criminals being sub-human at the same time. Feel free to style it out and claim that you were simply "asking "what if" questions and jumping from side to side" long as you wish though. I'm sure you can convince yourself if you try hard enough even if you'll completely fail to have anyone else believe you.
Who said I believed them to be sub-human? (depending on what you consider a sub-human in the first place)
But you're wrong in the belief that someone can't believe in a immortal soul and death penalty.
So let's talk about repentance. A severe murderer might repent..or might not. If he does, there's no way for us to know if it's not all just an act. Either way, for the society, repenting or not, nothing changes. The murderer will still spend the rest of his life behind bars.
Now, if you're talking about the difference repentance would make to the murderer himself - that is, that he might save his soul if he repents, and by killing him I robbed him of the opportunity to repent - that another matter completely.
First and foremost - a death penalty is not instant. He would have time to repent - months, years. If anything, being faced with imminent death does tend to entice people into re-evaluating their lives.
Chances are, if he didn't repent after being convicted, he wont' repent at all. Either way he would have plenty of chances to repent.
Not to mention that God might consider after-death repentance for him.
-
I didn't say you can't believe in the death penalty and a soul at the same time. I said you can't believe someone can be sub-human and have a soul at the same time.
-
I didn't say you can't believe in the death penalty and a soul at the same time. I said you can't believe someone can be sub-human and have a soul at the same time.
RLY?
I bet I can find you plenty of people who do.
Not everyone who believes in something like a soul believes in the same thing. I don't think it means the same thing to various people either.
-
Not being human, and having no humanity are two different things guys... :nervous:
-
Go ahead and explain the difference then.
I didn't say you can't believe in the death penalty and a soul at the same time. I said you can't believe someone can be sub-human and have a soul at the same time.
RLY?
I bet I can find you plenty of people who do.
Not everyone who believes in something like a soul believes in the same thing. I don't think it means the same thing to various people either.
I could find people who believe the world is flat too. Doesn't make them right.
As I said before you can't believe in the Christian view that every human has an immortal soul which can always be saved by repentance at the same time is believing that certain actions make you sub-human. If you claim to believe both you are lying and only really believe one of them.
-
Go ahead and explain the difference then.
Well being human is pretty obvious, in my understading of the term at least.... Homosapiens etc, mankind.. That whole shebang.
Humanity in the most widespread use as a term generally implies compassion or at least a sense (even on a basic small scale) assisting fellow "Humans" I.E. helping an old dear across the street or helping a mum up/down some stairs with a buggy. Even allowing a an old lady to have a seat on the bus. Basic things...
Everything that goths and Emos give up in other words :yes:
-
I could find people who believe the world is flat too. Doesn't make them right.
Doesn't make em wrong either unless you can provide proof.
As I said before you can't believe in the Christian view that every human has an immortal soul which can always be saved by repentance at the same time is believing that certain actions make you sub-human. If you claim to believe both you are lying and only really believe one of them.
Oh? So someone claiming it to be so is lying? And why? Cause you say so?
Really Kaj, just cause you can't seem to figure how can both be true doesn't mean it can't happen. But again, it really depends on what you mean when you say "sub-human".
For instance, one could interpret it that some action can indeed sully your soul making you "less human". Repentance might clense that, but until that happens you are not clean. One can get really creative here.
Not that I necessarily believe this stuff mind you.
Then again, you don't have to label someone or consider someone less-than-human in order to kill him. Happens in war all the time. It all depends on the moral framework you follow (and what exception to the do-not-kill rule you allow).
If there's no universal morality, then there is no right and wrong regarding death penalty, now is there?
-
I could find people who believe the world is flat too. Doesn't make them right.
Doesn't make em wrong either unless you can provide proof.
(http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/218/baltaranime008re2.gif)
-
I could find people who believe the world is flat too. Doesn't make them right.
Doesn't make em wrong either unless you can provide proof.
I hope you don't seriously expect me to provide proof the world is not flat.
Oh? So someone claiming it to be so is lying? And why? Cause you say so?
Really Kaj, just cause you can't seem to figure how can both be true doesn't mean it can't happen. But again, it really depends on what you mean when you say "sub-human".
Sub-human as in less than human and thus okay to kill. You know, the entire context of this discussion in the first place.
For instance, one could interpret it that some action can indeed sully your soul making you "less human". Repentance might clense that, but until that happens you are not clean. One can get really creative here.
Not that I necessarily believe this stuff mind you.
Find me a Christian who does then. Cause it goes against everything I've heard about the religion. Especially given the doctrine of original sin and repentance through Christ. If you're going to claim that a soul with sin on it is unclean then every soul is unclean. There is no level at which you say "This soul can not be saved"
Then again, you don't have to label someone or consider someone less-than-human in order to kill him.
Which is why I object to any attempts to dehumanise someone in order to kill them. If there is a reason to kill someone it should be able to stand up on its own without the need to do so.
-
I could find people who believe the world is flat too. Doesn't make them right.
Doesn't make em wrong either unless you can provide proof.
I hope you don't seriously expect me to provide proof the world is not flat.
No, I was speaking in general terms. In order to say someone's claims is wrong, you need to prove it. The shape of the Earth has been determined ages ago, so it's a non-issue.
Reductio Ad Absurdum does nothing to diminish the validity of what I said tough.
Find me a Christian who does then. Cause it goes against everything I've heard about the religion. Especially given the doctrine of original sin and repentance through Christ. If you're going to claim that a soul with sin on it is unclean then every soul is unclean. There is no level at which you say "This soul can not be saved"
As I said - you can interpret and rationalize things in many different ways (if I wanted to). That doesn't mean that the interpretation or rationalization is right - many a crazy sects can testify to that - but it still exists.
And since we are talking about death penalty in general, how would that apply to a non-Christians?
There are other religions out there and people without religion.
Then again, you don't have to label someone or consider someone less-than-human in order to kill him.
Which is why I object to any attempts to dehumanise someone in order to kill them. If there is a reason to kill someone it should be able to stand up on its own without the need to do so.
True. But then again, what you just said sadly remains only a opinion/belief.
-
As I said - you can interpret and rationalize things in many different ways (if I wanted to). That doesn't mean that the interpretation or rationalization is right - many a crazy sects can testify to that - but it still exists.
You can pull crazy cults out of your arse that believe in all kinds of crazy **** but the point I was making is that no one you would call a true Christian believes a soul can not be saved.
And since we are talking about death penalty in general, how would that apply to a non-Christians?
There are other religions out there and people without religion.
I wasn't talking about other religions. In fact the only reason I brought up Christianity was because you seemed to be making the ridiculous assertion that there were souls beyond repentance. If that's not what you claim then I'm basically done with the religious aspect.
-
You can pull crazy cults out of your arse that believe in all kinds of crazy **** but the point I was making is that no one you would call a true Christian believes a soul can not be saved.
I didn't say it can't.
But not by me, not by you. How exactly are you saving his soul by a life in prison? If anything, such a sorrounding can be a even worse influence.
The only one who can save his soul is himself. And if he didn't show compassion or regret or repentace during the trial or the time behind bars, then chances are he won't miracolously start showing it just one day out of the blue.
Either way, soul saving is not the domain of the state. Someone sentaced for life will never be a productive member of a society, repentace or not.
-
You can take umbrage all you like but unless you can prove that someone committing a crime has caused a large scale genetic change you're going to have a hard time proving that he's no longer human. :p
Honestly, no, I don't think I would. But then, as I said more or less, I don't see it the way you seem to believe I do. The criminal can be or seem quite human. I accepted that long before I came to this conclusion. The victim is my concern.
Having met, in person, a victim of long-term abuse (this girl was pretty much trained into being a piece of furniture, and I am not making this **** up), and seen that they have more or less lost their humanity, it is not difficult to believe a person can be reduced to less than human status. Somebody who manages to fall straight into the uncanny valley makes proving the point remarkably easy. This is not quite tangential, because it proves the other point; you can demonstrate that someone lacks the basic instincts or morality associated with being human. And as the saying goes, it takes two to tango. An abused needs an abuser; sociopathy is a diagnosisable illness.
To revoke willfully and knowingly someone else's own humanity, in a premediated fashion, for no seriously defensible reason, is an easy route to be being diagnosed a sociopath. Sociopathy is more or less defined as lacking something intrinsically associated with human beings. It's not that hard a concept. Of course, you wish to argue biology rather than pyschology.
As I said to Trashman earlier there is a big difference between locking someone up to prevent them being a danger or even killing them in revenge for their crime and killing them because you have relegated them to whatever category (animal/monster/sub-human) you see fit in order to justify the taking of their life. That's just a big exercise in sticking your head in the sand about the whole subject. Instead of being willing to accept that humans can do really horrible things you want to relegate anyone who does something like that to sub-human.
On the contrary. Sticking my head in the sand is what I did before this.
You've instituted a false dichotomy. If I believe one crime is the result of being subhuman, I believe all of them are =/= reality. I am perfectly willing to accept humans can do horrible things to each other. We murder without premeditation all the time. This is deplorable, but it doesn't prove much about the person doing it besides that they have a temper. We go to war with each other. We steal and litter and jaywalk and start fires that end up burning down half of LA. None of these intrinsically proves very much about the criminal. It takes something serious on a face-to-face first-name basis before one instinctively reaches for the less pleasant explanations.
So yes it is a claim that they aren't human. And one I completely reject. They are human. If you want to argue that they are humans who aren't worth keeping alive that's another matter but don't expect me to blithely accept your belief that criminals who commit certain crimes aren't human. You'll definitely have to prove that before it's anything more than an assertion.
Biology vs. pyschology again. But more than that, I don't really expect you to accept it, because I know you better than that. I do expect you to make a better attempt to understand it then you seem willing to. In a way I feel insulted; you treat my argument as if it was made by some of considerably less sophistication, and I think you should know better by now. This is not the first time this discussion has been had. Did you really think I was immune to the logic of the other twenty times?
-
No one offended by my statement? Pfft. An attempt at aesthetics ruined.
-
Of course, you wish to argue biology rather than pyschology.
I would have thought the :p would have been enough to allow you to recognise sarcasm when it was directed at you. Evidently not.
You're basically trying to prove a philosophical point i.e what makes a person human. Good luck trying to explain that one easily. People have been debating that one for thousands of years without coming to a conclusion. Forgive me if I don't think you've miraculously arrived as a good enough one that you can divide people into human and non-human easily.
Proving a biological change would be simple. But neither of us were seriously talking about that. Proving a psychological change isn't as easy but can be done. Proving that said change no longer makes them human? You're going to have to try a lot harder before you can convince me you can do that.
Having met, in person, a victim of long-term abuse (this girl was pretty much trained into being a piece of furniture, and I am not making this **** up), and seen that they have more or less lost their humanity, it is not difficult to believe a person can be reduced to less than human status. Somebody who manages to fall straight into the uncanny valley makes proving the point remarkably easy.
Again you're assuming your concept of humanity is universal when it most definitely isn't. If someone who has been abused is no longer human rather than simply a mentally ill human you raise all kinds of interesting questions. Would you consider a severely retarded person human? Someone suffering from a severe nervous breakdown? Someone in a persistent vegetative state?
So again, I reject your characterisation of the severely mentally ill as sub-human.
This is not quite tangential, because it proves the other point; you can demonstrate that someone lacks the basic instincts or morality associated with being human. And as the saying goes, it takes two to tango. An abused needs an abuser; sociopathy is a diagnosisable illness.
If sociopathy is a diagnosable illness (I've always understood it to be a grouping of several similar disorders actually, I think it actually depends on which psychologist you talk to, but lets assume you're right for simplicity) then if you are suggesting that it deserves the death penalty you are therefore suggesting we kill people we can diagnose as mentally ill. Now that definitely sets alarm bells ringing for me. But I'll wait for you to explain if you actually were suggesting the death penalty for sociopaths or whether they should be treated in mental health facilities before I continue down this path.
You've instituted a false dichotomy. If I believe one crime is the result of being subhuman, I believe all of them are =/= reality.
I never said that. You've set up a strawman.
My entire point was that you wish to relegate certain criminals to a new category of non-human. I'm not even interested in discussing which crimes or which criminals you feel would fall into this new category cause I'm perfectly willing to say that the entire concept of a sub-human is flawed and thus none of them fall into it.
I do expect you to make a better attempt to understand it then you seem willing to. In a way I feel insulted; you treat my argument as if it was made by some of considerably less sophistication, and I think you should know better by now. This is not the first time this discussion has been had. Did you really think I was immune to the logic of the other twenty times?
Actually this is the first time I remember the discussion on the death penalty focusing on whether or not the criminal is human or not. I have argued on the subject before but never about this particular aspect of it AFAIK.
And if you got insulted because I said your unsupported assertion that people can become sub-human was a claim then you really should ask yourself why. You gave no support for your argument other than your own personal opinion (and still haven't). If you said that I was claiming that there is no such thing as a sub-human I wouldn't be insulted because I've not supported my argument either (and probably can't anyway since as I stated earlier I feel it's basically a philosophical point).
-
Does one decide to destroy a part of oneselves humanity - is there a decision to let it go? If not, how can that be punished? I think that a premeditated kill is just the grande finale, it demonstrates a piece of humanity that didn't sufficiently exist in the first place. I think the emphasis on this matter is somewhat messed up - the primary task of the society should be to try and make sure that missing piece gets developed (before its too late). Of course, its a lot tougher than putting people down.
That said, it is clear that humanity doesn't have the wit to get by without killing, any time soon - but pretending it to be just (in any case) will only hamper the progress towards that goal (if it is a goal).
And yet...then you've just made my point in a different way. Once it happens it's too late, so they have to be dealt with somehow.
Humans are not killers by nature. There is plenty of evidence to support this, starting with the fact that most of us never kill another human and going on to the fact that even extensive training to do just that does not always produce someone who can. S.L.A. Marshall proved the point pretty conclusively.
Yes, exactly. That is why I said the emphasis is wrong - it should be more in the preventive action, rather than in dealing with it once its already too late. But we can't go and start to terminate people based on DNA tests or psychological screening... Instead, we should try to identify and minimize the structures and practices within the society (and oneself) which have the tendency to corrode humanity in anyone that comes into contact with them.
-
I think a world where people are identified as at-risk sociopaths, and given preemptive treatment is an attractive one, but one that could easily fall into some more dangerous paths - preemptively eliminating the threat.