44 replies to this topic

[Oberon Storm]

I don't even think it always matters if they are "all there" or not. Charles Manson. Clearly a loon. He should have fried years ago.

I think it was David Berkowitz that claimed a dog told him to do it. Hang him.

Tim McVeigh. Not crazy. But definitly deserved what he got.

The mother of them all, Osama bin Laden. I can't wait to get the first whifs of him burning in Hell.

[Doopliss]

I'm an ultra hardcore determinist, so I don't believe that anyone is responsible for what they do, therefore no one should be punished and everyone must be always given another chance.

[MikePetersSucks]

I think Death Row should be allowed, simply because some shitbags really, really, really deserve it. As for "moral", I don't believe in such a concept in the same way other people do, but let's just go with "Moral enough", so whatever.

I also agree with Fire Storm. If your reasons for murder are things like "Because I can" or "Satan told me to do it" or "Da Gubment Stole M'teefs", fry the fucker.

However, it should be done in a painless method, to prevent any suffering.

[vodkamaru]

I'm an ultra hardcore determinist, so I don't believe that anyone is responsible for what they do, therefore no one should be punished and everyone must be always given another chance.

Don't you think that a punishment could influence a change in someone? Death wouldn't work obviously, but if someone is punished won't they want to not be punished again?

[Showsni]

I feel that I should forgive anyone, whatever they do. And I'm glad that we no longer have the death penalty. All life is sacred.

Edited by Showsni, 14 July 2007 - 06:05 PM.

[Fyxe]

I find it worrying that people think that the mentally unstable should 'fry' on the chair. Sparks of an element of hypocrisy too, I would say.

[Goose]

I"m glad the death penalty is no longer around. Barbaric it is.

[Selena]

Well, I'm mainly against it in almost all cases. The only time I'd consider it is if someone is so nutty and out of touch that they consistently try to kill or harm other inmates and staff members on a regular basis when amongst them and show no remorse for doing so. That's sort of a rabid dog scenario. In that situation, they'd never be trusted with any kind of human contact. So that would mean locking them up in solitary for the rest of their natural life, which would probably just drive them even more crazy, as most people can't take that for too long before snapping. And only for it if it's done quietly and professionally. None of that hanging/electric chair/firing squad business. But that's not too common, so hey.




Of course, we could always put the Colosseum back to proper use! No? Oh, fine.

[Doopliss]

I'm an ultra hardcore determinist, so I don't believe that anyone is responsible for what they do, therefore no one should be punished and everyone must be always given another chance.

Don't you think that a punishment could influence a change in someone? Death wouldn't work obviously, but if someone is punished won't they want to not be punished again?

Maybe, but as a determinist, I don't believe that anyone is guilty of anything, so I think that punishment is immoral. There may be better ways than punishment to make people change.

[LionHarted]

Essentially the only benefit of capital punishment is that those executed are removed from society, like prisoners, except without the trouble of keeping them alive.

However, life is one of those things that you just don't assume is expendable.

[Doopliss]

But if people think they could get away with anything they wanted... the world would be more chaotic than it is today. Wouldn't it? I mean, other than Positive Reinforcement, I can't think of anything other than punishment... and positive reinforcement can only help so much...

I agree with you. I'm not proposing a solution, as I haven't thought of any, and actually, I think that things should stay more or less as they are at this moment and that they should only change gradually. We aren't right at this moment, but we aren't prepared for a drastical change. However, maybe we'll find a better solution later.

[MikePetersSucks]

Maybe, but as a determinist, I don't believe that anyone is guilty of anything, so I think that punishment is immoral. There may be better ways than punishment to make people change.

But by that logic, no one can ever be immoral because they can't be held responsible for punishing someone. And no one can ever really "change" because they're just following the path set out for them.

[JRPomazon]

A crime is a crime. You can do it as an order from your Dog or out of your own free will, it doesn't matter. People have to be held responsible for what they have done, one way or another.

Edited by JRPomazon, 15 July 2007 - 12:50 AM.

[wisp]

If someone is too dangerous to be rehabilitated, I think the death penalty might be more humane than locking them up alone to go crazy. In most cases I am very much against it... death should not be used as a punishment... but if the person is clearly guilty and shows no capability of reform after a certain number of years and therapies, etc. then perhaps the death penalty is an acceptable option.

[Oberon Storm]

I find it worrying that people think that the mentally unstable should 'fry' on the chair. Sparks of an element of hypocrisy too, I would say.

I don't know where the hypocrisy is, but let me clear things up first. Game wanted me to post before I got a chance to think about what I wanted to say and how to say it. She also brought something up afterwards that I hadn't really thought of til recently.

Charles Manson has spent most of his life, not just his adult life, his life, in some form of custody. He never really wanted out. His family didn't care about him. The system gave him meals, shelter and everything else he felt he needed. He even told the judge, before he was released for the last time before the murders, he didn't want out.

That's where I lose my sympathy for him. Maybe he's just crazy. Maybe it was the drugs. Maybe it was both. He convinced a small group of young people he was the second coming and ordered them to kill. And they did. Twice. He himself was involved with at least one of them. Since then he has shown no remorse. He has blamed everyone and everything besides himself. Maybe if he had shown some sort of humanity years ago I might think differently. But no, he hasn't and I don't.

Maybe I was harsh about David Berkowitz. I think he made up the stories about the dog and stuff just to sound crazy, but I think he confessed as quickly as he did after initially being questioned probably because he wanted to be stopped. And since then he has done some good things from behind bars, where he will probably be until he dies.

But I draw a line between guys like this and others that are truley mentally disabled. If someone legitimately doesn't know what they are doing, or they don't know what they are doing is wrong, then of course I do not think they should be executed. It would be like executing a toddler for smothering their infant sibling while just playing with them.

I think I have softened in some areas. I used to think Andrea Yates should have gotten the death penalty. After meeting someone that has now become very important in my life, I think she really might have had a problem and needed help.

So I'm like most others. Execution should be saved for the most extreme cases. And not as a deterent but as a punishment.

[MikePetersSucks]

And that brings up another good point. If someone has shown that they're a pretty horrible and/or mentally unstable person and have no chance of reforming, why spend tax dollars keeping them alive in prison for eighty something years?

[Fyxe]

If people are faking mental disability to get out of a proper punishment (such as a very long jail sentence) then that's an issue with the legal system itself, not an issue with the method of punishment. Capital punishment won't stop that from occuring, unless you wish to kill those with legitimate mental disabilities as well. Widen the net as it were. Kill off everyone who's a 'problem' just to make sure you deal with the small percentage of genuinely horrible psycho-sociopaths.

I think you'll find that Lena's 'rabid dog' scenario is extremely, immensely rare. I've certainly heard nothing of the sort ever occuring, although I'm sure there must be a small 0.1% of cases somewhere that are that bad. In which case, yes, there's an argument for the death penalty, almost as a kindness to the wildly unstable person more than anything.

However, most cases of mental disability don't work like that.

This isn't to say I don't have an issue with the trend for psychiatrists to classify almost anything as a 'disorder', but that's a completely different issue.

Edited by Fyxe, 15 July 2007 - 12:09 PM.

[Oberon Storm]

No one said it should be used to keep people from faking it. I don't thik that is all together possible. But the stories should be taken with a grain of salt I think. I mean there's faking a mental instability and theres claiming the neighbors dog told you to do it.

[Fyxe]

Until you've actually talked to the person in particular or checked over the testimony from professionals, you're not able to comment on whether it's genuine or not just because it sounds crazy.

You know what, maybe it sounds crazy, because just maybe he's actually kinda crazy.

[MikePetersSucks]

I agree with Fyxe and Selena. If a person is really, really, really, crazy/sociopathic/irredeemable/totally evil, fry them, but to meet those standards of crazy/irredeemable, it must be super-dee-duper rare. The kind of rare that might only be executed every....like, century or so.

[Oberon Storm]

Until you've actually talked to the person in particular or checked over the testimony from professionals, you're not able to comment on whether it's genuine or not just because it sounds crazy.

You know what, maybe it sounds crazy, because just maybe he's actually kinda crazy.

I can say I don't believe anyone when they say the dog made them do it regardless of what "professionals" say.

[Doopliss]

Maybe, but as a determinist, I don't believe that anyone is guilty of anything, so I think that punishment is immoral. There may be better ways than punishment to make people change.

But by that logic, no one can ever be immoral because they can't be held responsible for punishing someone. And no one can ever really "change" because they're just following the path set out for them.

Well, yes, that's a difficult issue. I'm convinced about determinism, and I definitely believe that punishment is immoral for people that are born "naturally good" (according to traditional morals and philosophical ethics, this is, people who would be good if free will existed). I don't have a clear answer to this. All I could say is that life is an universal value for humans, and therefore we should make people change, not because they're morally bad, but because they're dangerous for most of other people. How to do this? I don't know.

[masterofwind]

A crime is a crime. You can do it as an order from your Dog or out of your own free will, it doesn't matter. People have to be held responsible for what they have done, one way or another.

I agree with Pom. I believe that everyone should be held responsible for their actions. "Mental," or not I really do not care, I just think it is a slightly corupt way of not getting put to death.

[masterofwind]

To be honest my opinion would probably change if I had to experience that type of condition. Currently though for whom I work for everyone is held responsible for everything no matter how big or small it is. So it is the type of mentality I have towards it.