One related to the joke thread controversy

[icedog]

I personally don't believe there is any effective deterrent to any crime. Man has a criminal component which allows even the most gentle, law abiding soul to go against the law when conditions become appropiate. The criminal justice systems devised by Man have been designed as punishment, society's retribution for the injury caused by the criminal. Some promote the idea of a rehabilitative penal system which will take in a criminal and release back into society a new, better person, a person who has learned a trade, who has seen the error of his/her ways and wants to become a contributing member of the population. We know the delivery of the punishment has never been fair nor swift. While some people are devoured by the system and become a victim of the system's weaknesses (i.e. Rubin Carter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and/or Damien Echols - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ), others are exonerated despite clear and abundant evidence of their guilt (like John DeLorean).

While it seems noble and progressive to change a draconian penal system from punative to rehabilitative, it is a myth. As I said earlier, Man will break any law when conditions becomee appropriate. Any rehabilitation process is flawed because it is incapable of reproducing all conditions on demand and therefore cannot address all possible causal factors. But this has nothing to do with the death penalty.

The excution of a criminal is neither a punishment nor a deterrrent. It seems to me that the death penalty is best justified as the surgical removal of a malignant tumor from the body of society. Its utility and efficacy is highly debateable. Certainly if the convicted criminal is guilty beyond all possible doubt he should not be allowed to ever walk freely again. However, what authority grants us license to end a human life? My attitude regarding execution is that society should not perform any act that cannot be reversed. In a previous post Alex wrote, "I'd rather execute 3 people wrongly if thereby I can make certain that 50 psychopaths are loosed upon society." I am sure he meant to say he'd sacrifice the lives of 3 innocent people to ensure 50 murderers were executed. Me? I disagree with all my heart. I'd rather the fifty murderers walked free than to mistakely execute one innocent person. I am certain the families of those innocents would agree with me.
Alex, let me take your proposal to your wife, "Hello Mrs. Emergency, how are you today? Your husband, in his remarkably magnanimous concern for the safety of society has said he'd gladly sacrifice three innocent lives in order to ensure that 50 killers are put to death. We, the government of the World have decided to let him help with his generous offer. We arrested your husband this afternoon on his way home from work. We are going to execute him tomorrow at noon. After his death, we will then proceed with the executions of 50 known psychopathic killers. If Alex doesn't die, those 50 killers will spend the rest of their lives in prison. Do you have anything to say about this Mrs. Emergency? Will you support your husband's wishes and allow him to die? Would you like your son to grow up without his father so those fifty evil men will be put to death?"

What do you think she'd say?

[gratewhitehuntr]

that is all well and fine when you think that everything can be talked out

I'm not so sure it can

we aren't talking about stealing to feed your family

some people are just rabid dogs suffering from acute lead deficiency

[LX_Emergency]

This is not about my wife's opinion Brad. Please leave my family out of this.


Also, there is quite the difference between misstakingly executing 3 people and consciously executing those same.

If you don't know the difference then I don't think we should be talking about this.

[LX_Emergency]

My attitude regarding execution is that society should not perform any act that cannot be reversed.

Then society can not perform any act but at all. No act can be reversed EVER.
You can not go back in time and reverse the consequences of any action.

You can not say to a man that was wrongly incarcerated for 20+ years, sorry....here's some money you now have those 20 years back that we took from you.

You can not say to a man that was wrongly fined a large sum of money "I'm sorry, here's the money back that we took from you." when the paying of the fine caused the downfall of the rest of his life, buisiness, mariage, and everything he loved dear.

Nothing can ever be reversed.

[icedog]

Then society can not perform any act but at all. No act can be reversed EVER.
You can not go back in time and reverse the consequences of any action.

You can not say to a man that was wrongly incarcerated for 20+ years, sorry....here's some money you now have those 20 years back that we took from you.

You can not say to a man that was wrongly fined a large sum of money "I'm sorry, here's the money back that we took from you." when the paying of the fine caused the downfall of the rest of his life, buisiness, mariage, and everything he loved dear.

Nothing can ever be reversed.

Of course you can't unring a bell but you can release a man from prison and you can restore him to his life as best you can but until we can create life itself, we should not be so arrogant as to take it away.

Regarding the other, it is the same. If you think it's okay to mistakenly take the life of an innocent while attempting to eliminate violent crime, I ask you, would you still feel that way if you were that inncoent victim? Would your family shrug their shoulders and say. "Well its not a perfect system and every now and then someone innocent must die in order to catch the guilty." If you want to limit the arguments to only those on your terms, well, I guess you are right, it is then your ball and we will have to play by your rules.

[LX_Emergency]

Of course you can't unring a bell but you can release a man from prison and you can restore him to his life as best you can but until we can create life itself, we should not be so arrogant as to take it away.

Regarding the other, it is the same. If you think it's okay to mistakenly take the life of an innocent while attempting to eliminate violent crime, I ask you, would you still feel that way if you were that inncoent victim? Would your family shrug their shoulders and say. "Well its not a perfect system and every now and then someone innocent must die in order to catch the guilty." If you want to limit the arguments to only those on your terms, well, I guess you are right, it is then your ball and we will have to play by your rules.

Actually, I would be ok with that.

It's a very different thing if now and then someone by a fluk gets caught up in the system. The thing is though that I might not be a good representative on this issue. This being because I very strongly believe that a person is not extinguished on death.

But that's a completely different topic.

[JimR]

I know I'm outnumbered, and that we as a species haven't progressed morally in the whole of human history. I'm resigned to being outnumbered.

But I'll leave this last bit of information and a question.

Since the death penalty was re-established in the USA in 1973, 130 men have been released after being sentenced to death because they were proved to be innocent. This proof was found by people who were OUTSIDE the justice system in almost every case. That's 130 people for whom the justice system failed, and their lives were saved only by the voluntary efforts of ordinary people. Far more than have of these have been in the last 15 years, with the growing acceptance of DNA evidence in the field of law. Before DNA, who knows?

In the cases of 10 people, there has come to light very very strong evidence that they were innocent AFTER execution. They will never be exonerated, though, because courts don't retry cases after people have been executed. Looks bad, donchaknow.

So the court systems do fail, and innocent people are sentenced to death, and very likely some of them die. And they get no retribution.

So how many is too many for you? How many wold it take for you to admit that the system is flawed beyond acceptable tolerances?

For me, it's one. But I'm meaningless.

[LX_Emergency]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that the system is right. I didn't say anything about the system.


I claimed that Death Penalty is a....hmmm....good doesn't sound right and acceptable sounds too cold....needed measure.

I do agree however that it's largely dependant on the justice system backing it up.

[JMS]

I know I'm outnumbered, and that we as a species haven't progressed morally in the whole of human history. I'm resigned to being outnumbered.

I'm sorry Jim. I didn't realize you were making an argument from a morally superior position. Silly me.

[JimR]

I'm sorry Jim. I didn't realize you were making an argument from a morally superior position. Silly me.

Ahhh, Mark. An excellent way to dodge the point.

*Golf Clap*