[NGTM-1R]

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.

[castor]

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).

[StarSlayer]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[TrashMan]

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)?

[Angelus]

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 :

[TrashMan]

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?

[Angelus]

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?

[Flipside]

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.

[TrashMan]

You got one wrong there Flippy.
The meaning of life is to make something good come out of it.

[S-99]

Way to miss the point.

My point was most things worse than death are inhumane.

[karajorma]

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?

[NGTM-1R]

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.

[TrashMan]

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.

[Colonol Dekker]

Beauty of the net, We're all granted anonymity of emotional context.

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

[redsniper]

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?

[karajorma]

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.

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.

[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.

[redsniper]

I still like how you didn't answer kara's question.

[karajorma]

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.