This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
The death penalty is unjustifiable
Over the past decades, the death penalty was abolished in most civilized countries. This has had no effect on murder rates (on the contrary, they keep dropping). Only some primitive societies still use that most heinous of crimes, which is the death penalty: barbaric states like those of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or China. They still hang, cut off heads, poison, shoot or butcher convicts. What's bizarre is that the U.S. is amongst those countries.
There is no justification for the death penalty. The death penalty is murder, plain and simple.
-There is no moral justification for murdering a murderer (if you think there is, please state which one).
-There is no legal justification for murdering a murderer (if you think there is, please state which one).
-There is no social justification for murdering a murderer (if you think there is, please state which one).
-There is no religious justification for murdering a murderer (if you think there is, please state which one).
Like all civilized countries, the U.S. should abolish the death penalty and get along with the age of Enlightenment.
jaeyun hwang
Yes murder is stupid but again your definition of murder is very big, It includes every species on the planet.
Yes, our species are the most thoughtless and cruel when it comes to murder.
I don't really know why you are talking about ideas, but i agree with you there.
No, your arguments were great just overly ambitious. You are casting the net too wide. (hope you understand this one)
Sanyu, not even i know how i will act in such an event. I know i will fight to live. But even i have my own code of conduct. For me collaboration is far better than confrontation but it just so happens that the world is full of "me first" and "me only". Laws holds us together and if they were to disappear believe you me it won't be pretty. I don't think that is possible anyway, making rules is in our genes but that won't stop many people from doing stupid things.
So the best thing for me to do, if such a situation were to happen, is to look for a nice cave and hide in it with lots of supplies, water and books. So the chances of me doing unspeakable things to you is pretty low.... I will be busy reading books and sleeping.
Sanyu Nagenda
Omni-Universal laws certainly exist. I mean, we're all here in Existence aren't we? We didn't create it, so there are many laws we are likely to be completely unaware of.
What is wrong with dreaming big? If I reach for the stars and I only reach half way, that is still higher than most people even dare to think of, let alone hope for. You'll find I have a "big" personality should we interact more. I cast my nets wide as protocol and when necessary. This topic is about why the Death Penalty should not exist. If you weren't looking to talk to people about "casting a wide net," you really came to the wrong topic of conversation.
I spoke about ideas because they are kind of the root of "ideals" and everything else we enjoy in this modern day existence that wasn't here before us.
Lastly, as someone pursuing a Masters in Global Criminology with a focus in Penology and Criminal Rehabilitation, I am very much preparing myself for a time where laws falls into the "grey areas." I am just hoping that I can rehabilitate criminals to do the same. This hope is ambitious, but it is mine and I will make it actual to the degree that I am personally able.
Jim Moonan 30+
Yes, it is highly frustrating (to say the least) NOT to kill the murderer. But it is not just. It is not ethical. Ultimately it is not what's best for the victims
In my mind, what IS just punishment within the boundaries of justice, ethics and punishment is:
-Life in prison w/o chance of release(except in the case of mistaken identity)
-Removal of all rights afforded those in our society
-Provision of only basic needs (food, clothing, shelter)
-Bare minimum of material pleasures (books, recreation, etc.)
Jim Moonan 30+
For every important issue, whether it be death penalty, civil rights, health care, human rights, etc., I believe their needs to be at some point a visionary, charismatic leader to bridge the gap between the problem and the solution. Not someone with all the answers. Someone with all the passion and vision to inspire the right people to come forward and together make the changes needed.
But as it relates to your concerns, I think what victims of viscious, violent crimes such as the survivors of the Norway tragedy need most is to be given the opportunity and the means to pick up the pieces and carry on... And one important way of doing that is to find and punish the murderer in such a way as to send a message to the victim that we have done everything within our power AND within our moral and ethical principles to bring justice to the victim.
Thomas Jones 100+
I answered your post below but because of the response hierarchy, it got moved way below your question so I am copying it here so you are more likely to find it.
-------------------
QUOTE: "Hello Thomas, correct me if I am wrong but in your conviction I sense a core of peace. Can you tell us perhaps a little about how your experiences have brought you to your insights."
Hello Wayne,
You are not wrong.
Your question is very touching. Thank you for asking.
In very simple terms: I have a deep and profound appreciation for life. My life. Your life. Life itself.
I seem to have come by this inclination somewhat naturally. That is, it seems to be an innate part of my character. But I have also spent a good deal of time and effort nurturing and developing my appreciation.
A long time ago, someone told me that what I was looking for was within me. I suspected he was right and have spent 40 years or so checking out this simple statement's veracity. So far, it holds up very well.
As my appreciation for my own life has grown, my appreciation for all life has grown.
Wayne Busby 30+
Thomas Jones 100+
I answered your post below but because of the response hierarchy, it got moved way below your question so I am copying it here so you are more likely to find it.
-------------------
QUOTE: "Hello Thomas, correct me if I am wrong but in your conviction I sense a core of peace. Can you tell us perhaps a little about how your experiences have brought you to your insights."
Hello Wayne,
You are not wrong.
Your question is very touching. Thank you for asking.
In very simple terms: I have a deep and profound appreciation for life. My life. Your life. Life itself.
I seem to have come by this inclination somewhat naturally. That is, it seems to be an innate part of my character. But I have also spent a good deal of time and effort nurturing and developing my appreciation.
A long time ago, someone told me that what I was looking for was within me. I suspected he was right and have spent 40 years or so checking out this simple statement's veracity. So far, it holds up very well.
As my appreciation for my own life has grown, my appreciation for all life has grown.
Jim Moonan 30+
We are debating capital punishment!
In my opinion it is morally/ethically unjustifiable - but this is only half my stance on the subject of what is and is not justifiable punishment for the worst of the worst murderers of human beings. I believe the punishment for such crimes should be nothing less than 1) mandatory life in prison, 2) solitary confinement, 3) provision of only the basic needs of food, clothing and shelter 4) minimal use of material pleasures.
This to me would be just punishment. Agree or diagree?
Andrea Morisette Grazzini 30+
I'd add the murderers hard labors should be directly confined to focusing on meeting the needs of other humans. Their punishment should be constructive to humanity which embody the society from whom murders steal lives.
This constructive justice should not be confused with restorative attempts to atone or amend the loss they perpetrated Nor should it be confused for paying back society for economic costs of their adjudication and incarceration, such as by manufacturing license plates.
Murder is quite literally the destruction of a human. Humanity, then, is what should benefit most. Not via abstract government pass-throughs or economic pay-offs, but by concrete and direct means that uplift humans and articulate clearly humanitarian outcomes.
As a bonus, healing might occur for both offender and offended. But this goal must for the course of the murderers existence be secondary to constructive labors for humanity.
Andrea
Jim Moonan 30+
I love your thinking about the destruction of humanity and the obligation we have to, in some small way, make the time spent in prison be spent paying back through work that benefits the very society they so grieviously violated. Again, these are cold-blooded murderers.
Your thought, too, about what healing might occur for both the victim and the offender rings true. This to me would be the ethical, moral response to first degree murder.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Andrea Morisette Grazzini 30+
This exchange we've had has been much on my mind as I think about the murders which happened in Norway.
And a colleague who has been/is deeply involved in human rights work in Olso. His group has been working with the UN to help change global constitutions, including Norways) to separate church from state, due to concerns countries might (and do) turn on their own and punish people who do not adhere to national religious doctrine.
The Norway assassin was a Christian fundamentalist who justified his actions as necessary to protect Norway from Islam. It appears he may connected with US groups like the Tea Party, that have fringe elements who share his beliefs.
And this echoes the assassination of a little girl, grandma and others during the shooting spree at Arizona congresswoman Gabby Giffords town hall meeting this past January.
What is haunting me is how I can support my colleague as he works with others to address this atrocity.
What do they do going forward? How do they (and us) address those to destruct the humanity of ideals-based groups in our Western culture?
Andrea
Philipp Wettmann
and as far as I understand it, death by definition can not be a penalty. First, because it is universal and second
because it is unexperinceable.
For something to be a penalty, there has to be a behavior by which it can be avoided.
There is nobody, who will live for ever, we all die.
You might say, that beeing killed makes life shorter, but after being killed, the person can not feel this shortness.
Emotionaly seen,
to use the killing of a person as something like a punishment is at least from my point of view an insult to everyone, who
has sacifised his life to provide us with freedom, security and wealth.
It means to treat someone, who has done horrible things in the same way, or in a better way, than JFK, Lincoln, Jesus,
Socrates, Martin Luther King...., have been treated.
In my opinion employing death penalty means to put many of my and possibly your personal heroes on the same stage
with murderers and rapists.
jaeyun hwang
Sanyu Nagenda
"The death penalty is not murder" because it was decided upon by a majority?!!!!
ANY premeditated killing is STRAIGHT UP MURDER, Jaeyun, including WAR. (This is my opinion, obvi).
By your statement minorities being systematically murdered throughout United States history were not actually murdered because they were in the minority of the population.
Your theory also would apply to the Muslims in Serbia and the Tibetans in "China."
And defining whether something is right or wrong based on whether it is "legal" is a questionable way to go about deciding upon what should and shouldn't be done.
By that policy, I, a female, first generation, pigmented person should never have demanded my rights because they were considered legally suppressed under voting laws, marriage laws, education laws, property owning laws and self-autonomy laws...
How about you reply to me and let me know how I cannot deduce such a conclusion from what you've said above.
Thanks!
Sanyu
Thomas Jones 100+
Is a local idiom and might not convey the same meaning in an international forum. Just sayin'
Wayne Busby 30+
As alluded by Thomas the spiritual, emotional and intellectual frustration that must by satisfied in disputing such issues is fundamental to our growth as a species. 'Life is a succession of lessons that must be lived to understand'.
In my professional career I have often used an argument similar to yours. For similar reasons I too am critical of laws, policies, rules etc... answer questions and question answers...
What are we to do?!?
jaeyun hwang
Wayne Busby 30+
2) Soldiers are trained killers. They don't have to be murderers however.
3) You are right, nature doesn't and perhaps never has cared about what we think is fair. Just what is s/he up to then?
Sanyu Nagenda
I don't know what baby and what bathwater you're referring to; but if I don't question everything I perceive, I'm likely to throw myself out with existence.
I agree that if I don't like something I must do my part to change it. I am doing that.
I'm not sure where I am "denying" laws simply by stating that some of them are stupid and many of them have been BEREFT of ANY form of truth, honesty or integrity. This is just a fact of our historical existence on this planet. It's something to be considered when thinking over any law currently implemented.
And yes, you're right. All soldiers DO ENGAGE IN MURDER. Even self defense is murder when it becomes clear that the attacker is giving you the option of your life or theirs. At the point that you decide it will be your life (and not everybody does), you have accepted that you will murder someone else to ensure your existence - though you were forced to because they would not allow for other options. It doesn't change the act from murder, it just makes it unwilling, unintended or unwelcomed murder.
If you think rehabilitating a "Criminal/Prisoner" and rehabilitating a War Veteran are any different, I suggest you do some research into what is required to rehabilitate ANYONE engaged in the taking of other people's lives.
Yes, I do believe killing animals is murdering them, specifically in that we do not kill them with integrity or respect for their existence. Indigenous American's were very respectful in killing animals for sustenance and they did not make an industry out of it. If you look in another conversation on TED you will see that I am currently making the transition to being a vegetarian actually.
Last but not least, I will judge people in any way I please. I find it ironic you'd call my position lofty. Is peaceful discourse rather than murder, "lofty?" I actually think murder is egotistical and self important, thereby making itself 'lofty" and even "honorable" in modern world societies.
jaeyun hwang
Sanyu Nagenda
That laws I strive to operate by are more the onmi-universal laws than the kind determined by our species. I will not get into what I believe the omni-universal laws to be here, but should the opportunity present itself I will do so on another occasion.
It's not even that murder is "wrong." It is that murder is STUPID. It solves nothing and it's not sustainable for the species' that take part in it. Particularly as our species takes part in it recreationally. It's petty, immature and teaches great lessons at terrible costs.
I don't know where you live, and honestly I'm not even going to bother to look. Society is built on ideals and ideas. The computer, the table, the shirt on your back and the ideas in your head did not "grow on trees." They were ideas that occurred to people that then were manifested into constructs that we NOW take for granted.
You clearly do not like the way I have presented my argument. It seems I have bothered you by not agreeing with you. That is of little concern to me, though I do appreciate your managing to write down your thoughts as opposed to killing me over the disagreement. Not that you could through the computer and all.
Should the time come that our species decides to learn the cost of ignorance, egoism and violence the EVEN HARDER WAY than history has already made EVIDENT, I will be sure to stay far away from you. You've made it clear what instincts you will resort to: no law, no reason to abide by them, right? No thanks.
Autumn Frisco 10+
"Rebellion is a knot of the heart not of the mind"-Stephen Covey
There is a significant amount of resources needed to help the prisons and America is not ready to even think about that.
It is distressful to me that we can cheer even the largest of american enemies dieing- like earlier this year. Death, like life is sacred and even if I believed it was the smart thing to do- I do not celebrate.
I would be happier to hear we change the programs available for prisoners to mend their souls than to just remove the death penalty.
Autumn Frisco 10+
Rebellion is a knot of the heart not of the mind
There is a significant amount of resources needed to help the prisons and America is not ready to even think about that.
It is distressful to me that we can cheer even the largest of american enemies dieing- like earlier this year. Death, like life is sacred and even if I believed it was the smart thing to do- I do not celebrate.
I would be happier to hear we change the programs available for prisoners to mend their souls than to just remove the death penalty.
Jim Moonan 30+
The constructive question is not "Is the death penalty justifiable?" but rather "What IS justifiable punishment for heinous murderous humans?"
I don't think there is any justification for the death penalty. But I do think there is justification for taking away their "life". By that I mean solitary confinement, elimination of material pleasures, provision of only the basics of food, clothing and shelter, and assignment of hard labor for their remaining years.
Adam Leeson
It doesn't quite seem like justice though, a mass murderer for example, being kept in a prison and fed for the rest of his life with (I'm not sure about this bit, I don't know what privileges they would have) games consoles (not government funded, of course...hah), books to read, things to generally keep them occupied.
To be very honest, the murderer of a loved one of mine would, at my hand, be locked in a room without food.
And if that's how I feel, how I can I say to someone else that the 'death penalty in unjustifiable'? Instinctively, I would say the death sentence should be abolished, but how can I say that when feeling the way that I have mentioned above? That, also, would be wrong of me. Sorry if this disgusts any one, but I must be honest.
Comment deleted
Thomas Jones 100+
Good idea.
An average of 15 or more hours of ANY kind of practice per week should keep most people out of trouble - fifteen hours of arts, crafts, reading, exercise, yard work, community involvement, dancing, ... anything positive.
Fifteen hours of drinking, gambling, TV, partying ... maybe not so much.
--------------
I am learning how to write (and speak) Chinese but my teacher got married and moved away. I'll find a new one soon.
Andrew Jensen
Thomas Jones 100+
Hmmmm ... something tells me there is a slight chance that just maybe you are not being completely and totally sincere.
It's just a hunch, mind you, but I like to think I am sensitive that way and can pick up on the subtle nuance and hidden messages that lie just below the surface.
Actually, there might be some validity to your suggestion that we "ask criminals what they think their penalties should be!"
I am not an expert on any country's legal system but, I think if you check, you will find that there is something along these lines employed in the Japanese system and it is, apparently, quite effective.
(BTW, they do have the death penalty too)
And, if you learned something, and I learned something (and I did) then I would see our exchange more as a win/win.
As I say, my intention was not to change your mind. Only you can do that - and I suspect that you didn't. My intention is to share my view, hear yours, and see what happens. We do not have to agree with one another's points of view to understand one another.
Anthony Murray
Socially and morally, there is a very strong and convinving argument against the death penalty. I find it very difficult for anyone to put a cogent argument to the alternative. Many try and fail but I don't think that the death penalty should be immediately dismissed as it is in contemporary Europe. Despite this and also despite Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights holding the right to life as paramount requiring all member states to abide, Belarus and Russia still maintain within their domestic law the death penalty. Just last year, someone was executed in Belarus with a single gunshot wound to the head as the states chosen method.
I won't and couldn't put together an argument convincing enough for the death penalty to be introduced into the UK whereas I could highlight many reasons why it should remain abolished. Despite this admission, if someone where to murder, rape, cause grievous bodily harm or maim a member of my immediate or even extended family then I would do everything in my power to see their life ended. Imprisonment is simply not enough. Can you not at least agree with that last point Laurens?
This topic always frustrates me when I think about it. I have sympathy with both sides but having read Law at University, my very nature would urge me to campaign for the continued abolition of any death penalty. That is my duty as a contemporary citizen and moral member of society. Conversely however, my human instinct cannot abide severe criminality going aptly unpunished.
Thomas Jones 100+
This point is indisputable. If that is how you feel, that is how you feel.
I would argue that, should the situation present itself, you might find yourself mediating your emotional impulses and embrace those more deeply held beliefs you have expressed regarding life and the application of capital punishment.
The "emotion" I do not think is in question. For example, I feel the same outrage, I am sure, others feel, when we hear about a particularly heinous crime - like the one in Norway, for example. I simply choose not to use such emotions as the criteria by which I make my decisions.
Taking a stand against capital punishment does not mean we "feel good" about the crimes that some purport warrant the death penalty.
I salute your "frustration!" ... It is on such struggles, overcome, that civilization is built.
Andrew Jensen
People love to bring up “an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind”. Extrapolating upon the above, people are essentially trying say that if it was a life for a life we would all be dead. Which would only hold true if we decided to either A) murder each other in such a fashion that through retribution we all ended up dead or B) if we all committed crimes worthy of the death penalty offed each other. The saying is a nice generalization but has little real world application.
I believe that the death penalty is not only justifiable but I would love it if it was reinstated in Canada. I think that some crimes are so heinous that the participants in the crime should be abolished from this world. Murderers, rapists and pedophiles should simply be erased if there is even a 1% chance that they will ever reoffend. Society needs to simply wash its hands of some individuals and move on. It is lovely to discuss the death penalty for a philosophical perspective but the reality is that something needs to be done to prevent people from reoffending and to stop the cycle of criminal heritage that often occurs.
Andrew Jensen
If we cannot rehabilitate and reintegrate criminals back into society then they should not be released and there is little point in keeping them locked in solitude forever. I would argue that a swift execution in many cases is more humane than eternal confinement. Currently the rate at which we execute people is inhumane. Justice should be swift and with cause.
I believe that as a Society we have set standards via laws in terms of what we expect of citizens. Failure to conform to these standards for the greater good of the whole should result in permanent removal from society. If you would like to save all this deviants Lauren then perhaps we could all just send them to your Belgium. Perhaps you could petition Yves Leterme for such.
Andrew Jensen
The justification of the death penalty is that it is for the greater good. It is the ultimate preventative step to prevent further murder and heinous crimes from possibly being committed. Ideally it would be nice if all crime could be prevented in the first place but we just aren’t that civilized yet. Call me primitive but I believe that at least for now, a bullet to the back of the head will have to do cases.
Andrew Jensen
Thomas Jones 100+
There are several points in your posts I could single out - like the relationship between incarceration and recidivism, the effect of capital punishment on crime rates and so on - but I think the main point is you think YOUR value system is comprehensive and inclusive enough to form the foundation of an ethical system that reflects the society within which you live, i. e. "The justification of the death penalty is that it is for the greater good."
Whose greater good? Yours? Mine? Society's?
Well, I would disagree with you. I do not think executing people contributes to the "greater good." I do think it satisfies a certain base emotional need for retribution that many of us have. And I don't think it is an attribute of an advanced society.
You do not have to agree with me.
You may have noticed, I live in China. What you espouse, matches very closely, what actually happens here. Perhaps you would like it if the rest of the world adopted the Chinese system of justice?
Many death penalty adherents, I have noticed, seem to miss this point: The reasons they offer for their position are essentially the same reasons most who have come before them have offered as justification for their particular forms of justice. We typically find our predecessors' "justice" and their reasoning to be deficient.
Of course, the big difference is: That was them; and this is us. Seriously.
What we think "makes sense" to us. It is ours. We find it almost impossible to accept that there might be any flaws in OUR reasoning.
That adherents work so hard to justify capital punishment is quite telling.
I trust you will notice I provide almost no reasons for my position. I simply state I find life to be of the utmost value and under no circumstance do I condone killing. I do not need to rationalize or defend my position. Nor do I need anyone else to share my opinion. It is enough (for me) that I do.
I feel no need to change anyone else's mind - even if I do disagree with them.
Wayne Busby 30+
Thomas Jones 100+
Andrew Jensen
I would not suggest that the rest of the world adopt the Chinese system of justice but I do believe that the death penalty in some situations is justifiable.The Chinese justice system is plagued by many other problems that are beyond the scope of this debate. I would define the greater good as what is good for the majority. Not mine, or yours or the governments but what is actually better for society as a whole.
Thomas Jones 100+
Pretty good. Taiyuan's weather is similar to Vancouver's except it gets colder in winter and hotter in summer. This year has not been so hot (which is good.) However, the air here is not very clean.
QUOTE: "I would not suggest that the rest of the world adopt the Chinese system of justice ... "
Nor would I.
QUOTE: "... but I do believe that the death penalty in some situations is justifiable."
Yes, you have made that very clear.
QUOTE: "The Chinese justice system is plagued by many other problems that are beyond the scope of this debate."
I agree. And I think most, perhaps all, justice systems are plagued with problems.
QUOTE: "I would define the greater good as what is good for the majority. Not mine, or yours or the governments but what is actually better for society as a whole."
Here, we are not in agreement. I would define the greater good as simply that which is good. Not as that which is good for "the majority," or good only for a sub-group within a culture.
You can see the problem - the majority might "inflict" their values on an unwilling minority. What if 51% of the population decided something you did not want to do (or have done) was "good?"
I think we all know what "good" is. But I believe many of us think, that under certain circumstances, it is acceptable to abandon good. The reasons are endless: justice, vengeance, pre-emptive retaliation (there's a good one!), religious doctrine, social cohesion, etc., etc.
For me, the challenge is to "do good" when everything else is saying "do harm."
There's a reason the "Golden Rule" is almost universally held. (I will post a collection of its various iterations in another window to convey the point.)
There's a reason many of the people who are central to our development as societies (whether they were "real" people or "imagined") espouse compassion, and acceptance, and reject killing (for any reason.) Think Buddha, Christ, Gandhi, MLK, etc.
Thomas Jones 100+
The Golden Rule
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Hinduism/Brahmanism
This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do not unto others what would cause you pain if done to you.
Buddhism
A state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?
Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
Christianity
So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them.
Confucianism
Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you.
Tse-kung asked, “Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?” Confucius replied, “It is the word ‘shu’ – reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.”
Humanism
Don’t do things you wouldn’t want have done to you.
Islam
None of you believes until he wishes for is brother what he wishes for himself
Jainism
A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated.
Judaism
What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary.
Ancient Roman Religion
The law imprinted on the hearts of all people is to love members of society as themselves.
(Continued)
Thomas Jones 100+
Sufism
The basis of Sufism is consideration of the hearts and feelings of others.
Taoism
Regard your neighbours gain as your own gain, and your neighbours loss as your own loss.
The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interest of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful.
Philosophy
What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others. – Epictetus
Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law. – Kant
May I do to others as I would that they should do unto me. – Plato
Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you. – Socrates
Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your superiors. – Seneca
Do not do to your neighbour what you would take ill from him. – Pittacus
Avoid doing what you blame others for doing. – Thales
What you wish your neighbours to be to you, such be also to them. – Sextus
Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others. – Isocrates
Management
So the best managers reject the Golden Rule. Instead, they say, treat each person as he would like to be treated, bearing in mind who he is. – Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman
Andrew Jensen
I also think sometimes that this issue has less to do with doing good as opposed to defeating evil.
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it."
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Jim Moonan 30+
The issue here is justifiable punishment for heinous murder. Here is what I think is justifiable punishment:
1. Solitary confinement for their remaining years on earth
2. Removal of all material pleasures for their remaining years on earth
3. Minimal provision of basic needs for their remaining years on earth
4. Hard labor for their remaining years on earth
Thomas Jones 100+
Thanks.
The list was fairly easy to compile. A lot of it came from Wikipedia. All I did was look for it.
I put it together as reference material for a training I do in China.
I do add material to it as I come across new references.
QUOTE: "... I would hold no ill will against society if someone wiped me off the face of the earth*. I hope that someone would have the decency to right a wrong.
We cannot "right" a "wrong." And I do not think killing is "decent." I accept that you do.
QUOTE: I also think sometimes that this issue has less to do with doing good as opposed to defeating evil.
One cannot defeat "evil." Evil does not exist. Evil is the absence of good. One "defeats" evil by being good. Much the way darkness cannot be defeated. Darkness is the absence of light. We do not defeat darkness by destroying it; we defeat darkness by providing light.
QUOTE: "He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it."
Martin Luther King, Jr.
"He who accepts evil without protesting against it ..."
Protesting against it.
Protesting against it; not "killing it."
---------------------
* You say that coming from the sense of certainty that you will never find yourself in such a situation. If you did find yourself in such a situation, you would (very likely) change your opinion.
Do not underestimate the mind's capacity to rationalize ANY belief. It is truly amazing.
Thomas Jones 100+
QUOTE: "As often happens in TED conversations, this one is having trouble staying on point!"
TOPIC: "The death penalty is unjustifiable"
QUOTE: "In my opinion it is morally/ethically unjustifiable - but this is only half my stance on the subject..."
Thomas Jones 100+
Afghanistan
Antigua and Barbuda
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belize
Botswana
Burundi
Cameroon
Chad
China (People's Republic)
Comoros
Congo (Democratic Republic)
Cuba
Dominica
Egypt
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gabon
Ghana
Guatemala
Guinea
Guyana
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Korea, North
Korea, South
Kuwait
Laos
Lebanon
Lesotho
Libya
Malawi
Malaysia
Mongolia
Nigeria
Oman
Pakistan
Palestinian Authority
Qatar
St. Kitts and Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Saudi Arabia
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Somalia
Sudan
Swaziland
Syria
Taiwan
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Trinidad and Tobago
Uganda
United Arab Emirates
United States
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Read more: The Death Penalty Worldwide — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html#ixzz1Sw0wbN9j
Julian Blanco 30+
A question to you, what do you think should be done with people that break the law?
First conceptually: punish, reeducation, etc.
Second practically: prison, community service, etc.
Regards!
JB
Thomas Jones 100+
That is a MUCH more difficult question than "is the death penalty justifiable or not?"
I am not a fan of "laws." I much prefer the conscious application of compassion on a case-by-case basis.
I do not support punishment nor do I think it is very effective. And I find the ideas of vengeance and retribution to be ... uncivilized.
Reeducation? That's a good idea but not only for "criminals" for all of us.
I accept there are certain people who are incorrigible and I think isolating society from them is a good idea. How that is accomplished is an interesting challenge.
The British shipped their "undesirables" to Australia and that worked out okay. An Aussie just won the Tour de France!
Institutionalizing our social interactions depersonalizes them. For example, when we have "laws" by which we evaluate and direct our relationship with other people, we are stripped of the very challenging need of having to deal directly with one another and with our own strengths and weaknesses.
Our institutions might appear to make it easier (of more effective) to deal with difficult situations but, in effect, they lock us into a developmental stage that we might grow out of if we had to "deal with things ourselves."
.... Gotta go. Bye for now.
Wayne Busby 30+
My position as influenced by my life experience:
There is a time to punish as there is a time to kill (NOT MURDER). For something to live something else must die. Thats just how it is.
I think that it is most important to be as objective as possible in defining what the pro and con of each execution portends for our maturing civilization as a whole but good luck with that.
Someone I once worked with said "All men are equal, just not at the same time".
Every life should be weighed in relation to (among other things) its benefit or potential for contributing to the longevity of an evolving universal awareness.
Some of those 'other things" begs the question is the individual open to change? Or more importantly(?) Will society evolve to embrace the ideas of an individual whose reasoning may hold the answer to potentially mortal social issues.
Sorry if this is disjointed. My post is less an affirmation of truth than an exploration of ideas.
I must admit I feel sick just thinking about it... not completely sure why...
Salim Solaiman 50+
What's your feeling about the recent Norwegian killer who indiscrimantely killed 87 innocent young lives ?
chad manderscheid 10+
Sanyu Nagenda
What do you have to say of that? Are you anti-war as well?
Sanyu Nagenda
Isn't it your location of residence, Laurens, that has put the DRC in the situation it's in today? I believe they called that "civilizing" Africa in the 1800's and 1900's. Though I would hardly call those colonizing Belgians "civil."
The truth of the matter is that "civilized" is a historically loaded, hegemonic and condescending term. What is "civilized" is a matter of preference. The definition of "civilized" means, "characterized by taste, refinement or restraint." That's an extremely subjective context for a word to come from. Some cultures prefer to eat with their hands. Does that make their country uncivilized? I hardly think so, but plenty of our Earth bound ancestors disagreed. Just as many of them disagreed that Aztecs should a) write books, b) be known for writing books and c) have any knowledge worth writing books about.
So in trying to speak for a humanitarian cause - Life - you use hegemonic, patronizing language to support your argument. The death penalty has nothing to do with people who are "civilized" or people who are "uncivilized." The death penalty has to do with societies not wanting to take responsibility for the outcomes of their societal actions; those outcomes being their actual citizens. Criminals don't raise themselves and most of them are not born in prisons. That means that society, in conjunction with the prisoner, has put the prisoner there. After all, it's society that determines what is and isn't "deviant" behavior. Clearly "deviancy" has morphed over time. At one point in history I might have been stoned for having sex out of marriage (the death penalty), yet we now live in a world where independence and freedom of choice are considered the hallmarks of "civilized" people.
The death penalty has to do with societal conditioning and conceptions of reform. Not being "civilized."
Julian Blanco 30+
Some comments on your comment :)
First of all (paragraph 2): your mistakes can’t be justified by someone else’s, example: “yes, I killed the guy and it was illegal, but other people killed more people, so they are worst than me, so, let’s change the subject”, if you did or do something wrong, what other people did does not change what you did.
(paragraph 3): I understand you may be offended, but I can also understand the common association between violence and civilization.
He is not talking about table manners, but about what a society does with people it doesn’t like. So, you can say that word is too strong, that this is only one aspect of your country, etc, but you can’t say the comment is completely out of place… also I think you will agree that as time passes violence levels tend to go down, compare the middle age in its level of violence with 100 years ago with today (there is even a ted talk about that).
(paragraph 4): “The death penalty has to do with societies not wanting to take responsibility… having sex out of marriage” totally agree!!!!!!!!
I think your ideas are in the right place but you are having an unnecessary nationalistic reaction to the intentionally built (I think) opening statement.
(remember Laurens started this as a debate)
Question to you:
Do you think that the perception is changing in the US?
Regards!
JB
Sanyu Nagenda
I would first like to say that you are making an assumption that I am "American" simply because I live in the United States. I am, in fact, a first generation United States citizen, but I was not responding to Laurens at all in a nationalistic way. I can say that with confidence because I actually believe "Nationalism" to be a form of bureaucratic fascism and therefore I have no interest in defending the rights of one country while neglecting the same rights in all the others.
Second, I can tell you that I dislike it greatly when people who do not know anything about me proceed to tell me what I'm doing "wrong," or "right." Wrong and right are subjective. Whether you like what I say or not is fine and well within your rights. But then make a statement that is, "First of all I think you are wrong" or "I think you are starting your response the wrong way." Otherwise I can't help but see the ego in your statement.
I am making a point about what "civilized" nations deem to be "civilized" and how that is a) hegemonic, b) subjective as most of the "civilized countries" that people tend to speak of wrecked INCREDIBLE SAVAGERY on "third world countries" and c) that what Belgium did in the DRC is a BONA FIDE FACT of what "civilization" can mean to the other party. It's said the losers do not write HIStory, I am making this point. If you read my very first sentence you will see that I DO NOT BELIEVE THE DEATH PENALTY IS JUSTIFIED.
That you can understand the "common association between violence and civilization" is understandable...yet, I am not making YOUR point, I am making MY point. I used table manners as a basic example. Would you like me to bring out the more relevant examples? There are hundreds of these. I was just making a point about how stupid the concept of "civilized" and "civilization" is and how many places in the world it has been applied to BY FORCE, which is contradictory at best as civilized interactions should be based on mutual DISCOURSE.
Sanyu Nagenda
I find the above sentence entirely confusing. Please elaborate.
Also, I do not agree with this statement, "also I think you will agree that as time passes violence levels tend to go down, compare the middle age in its level of violence with 100 years ago with today (there is even a ted talk about that)."
Perhaps proportionally speaking we are not killing with the same frequency as in the Middle Ages, but we are more populated and we are still killing on a regular basis on present day Earth. So either provide the link for the TED talk or for arguments of that regard. Just because we're not organizing all of our murdering into nicely titled wars does not mean people are not dying at the same rate. By the way, as I do happen to live in a country where more than 1/99 people ARE IMPRISONED, I can hardly agree with a statement that violence has gone down when I know recidivism to be a FACT OF PRISON LIFE IN THE UNITES STATES.
Lastly, as someone whose father is from Uganda and whose mother is from Belize and who was born in Los Angeles; I find your accusation of me being "nationalistic" to be laughable. I grew up with three worlds/countries in my house, I can hardly consider myself to be loyal to any one particular country when I consider myself a World Citizen first and foremost.
Perhaps you should consider reading over my original comment without lacing it with your presumptions. Then we could be debating about what I actually said rather that what you ASSUME I MEANT.
Julian Blanco 30+
Two comments before I start:
First, please don’t get angry, we are arguing, and neither you know me nor I know you, so my comments are only about your words (and my understanding of them, taking in account I’m not a native English speaker).
Second, before you commented I changed my comment a bit, hopefully I sounds nicer now :)
Now to your points:
First of all the link I didn’t add earlier http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html , I personally believe this to be correct.
The assumption you are American is because your TED profile says you live in America (high chance of being right) and because your first reaction is attacking the nationality of Laurence, instead of going for the answer. Agree that nationality is a very arguable definition… but that’s where I got my assumption from.
If you have a really loose notion of nationality, then Laurence comments would completely irrelevant to you, or that’s what I think.
I don’t claim to know anything about you, just commenting on my understanding of your words. And I always (or most of the time) start my statements about right or wrong with a “I think, I consider, etc” that is to imply that is only my opinion and not “the truth”, and I can fail and change my mind :)
Yes I have an ego, I think so do you, is that a problem? I’m far from a Buddhist monk or an enlightened being, sadly…
I did read your post, that’s why I say at the bottom that we agree regarding the death penalty. I also agree that the word civilization was used to do terrible things to different cultures.
Sorry for my bad English… I meant to say that I understood your could be offended, and that you could say that was only an aspect of the society, etc.
Hope this clarifies
Regards!
JB
Sanyu Nagenda
I'm not angry, I'm just sharp tongued. It can be a vital tool in debate, but it is not my ultimate aspiration.
I was wondering about whether there was a language barrier, but I didn't want to make an assumption because you speak and write English much better than I speak or write in your language. Therefore I think you actually understand a lot.
I was not attacking Belgium by stating a true fact about its history that relates EXACTLY to Laurens perceptions of "civilized." Laurens presents an argument that essentially says, "we here in these European countries are civilized, that is why we don't have the death penalty. What's your problem United States?" Ironically enough, Belgian's did, and perhaps still do, kill PLENTY OF PEOPLE. So the fact that they don't have a Death Penalty in their own country is certainly recommendable, but hardly classifies them as "civilized." Leopold II of Belgium was a brutal pig (I realize in saying this I'm insulting pigs) and he was a Belgian. So Laurens polarizing statements could use some perspective. (By the way, I don't call myself an American because there are 3 American continents aside from the US; Central America is debatable as a technical continent, but they certainly do their own thing).
I've seen that TED talk and actually don't much care for Steven Pinker's explanation as it is also largely hegemonic. You can see more of what I think about that here: http://www.ted.com/conversations/4089/what_can_science_tell_us_about.html (if you care to).
In case you don't know, plenty of non-US citizens live in the US and I'm sure they interact on TED. So I wouldn't make such assumptions if I were you.
Yes, I do believe ego is bad and certainly overrated on the planet Earth at present.
Don't apologize for your English. It's great. I suppose picking up on nuances is difficult via type.
Cheers,
Sanyu
Bill Walton
Thomas Jones 100+
What is this "justice" you speak of?
You "insist" there be the death penalty?
What if I defined "justice" in such a way that for it to be realized you would have to be executed?
What if I insisted on the death penalty?
"Oh," you say, "I have not agreed to the value system by which you measure justice. And, just who are you to insist on the death penalty (particularly now that it will affect me personally?)"
"Oh," and you say, "that is silly because the values 'I' use to insist on the death penalty make sense ... 'everybody' can see that; the values 'you' base your evaluation on are arbitrary and not universally held (and, I might point out, they affect me personally.)"
"Oh," I say, "too bad, my values trump yours and off with your head."
Or something like that.
Kenji Gerhardt
Morally, I feel that certain crimes are so dehumanizing in their nature that they strip their victim of every right as a human. Murder and rape are the best two examples, and when one commits those crimes, I feel that they are sacrificing their right to the rights they stole. In my mind, this classifies them as sub-human creatures where euthanasia is a perfectly acceptable option. To this end, the death penalty is akin to amputating a gangrenous limb; the removal of something that serves no good purpose but does cause harm.
Legally, there is little need for justification. the legal system is in place to judge whether crimes violating the law have been committed and to dole out appropriate punishment, not to question the laws that exist within the country where the crime took place.
Socially, prisoners are paid for by taxpayers. Assuming a more efficient legal system with fewer appeals allowed, the death penalty would reduce the number of lifetime sentences. In prisons that cost about 70000 USD per prisoner per year, the fewer prisoners present the better. More death penalties for murderers and rapists means fewer prisoners. Obviously not having crime would be better, but that is unimportant to this topic.
Lastly, as an atheist, I feel that religion should have no influence whatsoever in matters of state and law. Due to that, I agree that there is no religious justification for the death penalty.
Benjamin Torrence
Meaning, I totally agree with you. Except I don't have to be an atheist to do it. I think the best argument for religion is: If you don't want them on the earth, send them to God, and let him deal with them. :)
Andrea Morisette Grazzini 30+
I think it is inhumane to intentionally take another humans life, for any reason. I think any person or entity that supports killing is pathologically inhumane.
I intentionally use the term "pathological," by which I mean not necessarily "terminal." Pathologies, like humans, can evolve to improve for positive outcomes or devolve to escalate negative ends.
Andrea
Julian Blanco 30+
I would only take out the religious justification from your statement, as many religions did or do support death penalty, and that does not justify anything from my perspective (some even actively killed people as you know).
You reminded me of one line in the Zarathustra: “Evermore did he now see himself as the doer of one deed. Madness, I call this: the exception reversed itself to the rule in him.”
My understanding is: the person commits a crime and then he is a criminal, one act then defines the whole person (all other acts) from the past and the future.
Regards!
JB
PS 3 more quick comments:
1 life in prison seems more like torture to me
2 we are all part of a system, the shame is on us if we produce “criminals”, they are not an isolated and autonomous phenomena.
3 I come from a country w/o death penalty
Kyle Eppard
Robbie Smith
Benjamin Torrence
A big difference between Capital Punishment in the US and in the East, is how the death sentence is applied, and why it is carried out.
Comment deleted
Benjamin Torrence
Point in case, was that absolutely necessary? Trolling like that?
PS: If you are a satanist, please be informed (and inform your brethren) that an inverted cross is definitely not a sign of the devil.
Mucho respect.
Comment deleted
Benjamin Torrence
Furthermore: you are buddhist? doctor? hindu? you're passionate about the network of evil? you think HAIL SATAN is an idea worth spreading? your area of expertise is evil? Sounds trollish to me. And doesn't add up with the "worship life" and such.
No, I severly doubt you follow any of the branches of satanism (because, if you were a satanist, you'd know that satanism as a religion, has many sects, none of which propose the idea of behaving as ridiculously as you are). Also "I did LSD experiments" and "hail satan" are generally a recipe for "omg this guy is a lonely poser".
Again, much respect.
PS: "Satanists DO NOT WORSHIP THE DEVIL" ... "hail satan" posted around your comments and profile. Your trolling is conflicting.