Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Scott on April 29, 2010 at 7:23pm

I think its already been established that punishment used as a deterrent doesn't work. People will do what they want regardless of the repercussions. This is proven time and again all over the world. Since we make and set laws there has to be consequence for violating them. We call this punishment.
If this is fundamentally wrong, please show me an improved system to use. If you disagree with the death penalty because it takes a life, think of the life that was lost already. Is keeping the one that removed that life around really making the world a better place? I don't believe so.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Prentice on April 29, 2010 at 7:54pm

You say, on the one hand, that "punishment used as a deterrent doesn't work" but, on the other hand, you say "since we make and set laws there has to be consequences for violating them". The whole point of 'consequences' is to enforce the law, by encouraging compliance, through discouraging disobedience, which is what 'deterrence' means. What other possible point is there to punishment? Since we know that punishment doesn't work in the justice system, why do we have to follow failed techniques, simply because we don't yet have a thorough knowledge of what WILL work. We have insights, evidence and examples of success with such systems as 'restorative justice', but the culture we live in still promotes revenge as being the ultimate answer to crime.

We are still happier to see someone get their 'just desserts' than to spend the energy necessary to find a better way. How much thought have you spent on thinking outside the existing framework of justice and law? Imagine if everyone who just shrugs their shoulders and says "punishment isn't working - punish harder!" actually spent that same energy in scrutinising the flaws of, and developing new ideas about, our justice system.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Prentice on April 29, 2010 at 7:24pm

Totally agree John. The 'punitive' justice system doesn't work. As for a death for a death, Scott? What utter nonsense! The examples you refer to of recompense for theft or property damage are totally distant from the issue of 'eye for an eye'. The former case is about restoring the integrity of the victim. The latter example is purely based on revenge and was the norm in an historical, primitive culture. Let's not go back there huh?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arnold on April 29, 2010 at 11:44pm

Reparations or restitution are intended to compensate the victim for harm done. Killing the killer does nothing for the first one killed, nor does it give anything back to those who lost a loved one. The ones who are most likely to suffer lasting harm from the death penalty are the loved ones of the executed, who have not been found guilty of anything. The main beneficiaries are prosecutors who get judicial appointments or run for political office based on their conviction records.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bo R Moore on April 29, 2010 at 12:28pm

This really isn't about affirmative action: in fact, I believe that AA is a slap in the face of any minority. It says that they are not intelligent or talented enough to compete. Much of "liberal" engineering appears to be based in hidden racism.

Your decision to abandon any feeling for the circumstances of others is your option of course, but it does put you in the same situation of being abandoned by others.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arnold on April 29, 2010 at 11:25pm

I looked back in the thread and couldn't find anyone who had mentioned affirmative action, but since you brought it up -- affirmative action is appropriate as restorative justice. When individuals or classes are put at a disadvantage by the unjust acts of others, justice demands that the playing field be adjusted to undo the effects of the wrong. To give a very simplistic analogy: I inherit $100 million from my father and it is later revealed that my father stole the money that he invested to grow that fortune. I am not to blame for my father's actions, nor did he steal the entire $100 million, but if the persons from which he stole the seed money had had the use of it, the fortune would have been theirs, so they are entitled not only to what he stole, but to any profit he made from it. If the victims are deceased, then the right passes to their heirs. I have no legitimate ground to complain if that fortune is taken from me and given to the rightful owners, who may be the heirs of the original victims.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sandra L Fredine on April 27, 2011 at 4:26pm

I don't understand the problem with the death penalty.  I look at it as simply euthanasia of a subset unfit to live in society due to a clear danger.  Dogs that present a danger are 'put down', why not humans?  I fully understand the slippery slope nature of this attitude, I understand the impact of systemic racism, and regional politics.  That is reason for the appeal process and far more than a dangerous animal gets.  To me it isn't about revenge, it's about the relative security of the rest of society.  I don't even care if they are so-called mentally ill.  Psychology is akin to voo-doo and until the brain can be fully understood and effectively diagnosed it remains no excuse.  Do we save dogs made vicious with rabies?  Personally, I think the brain-washing of religion and systemic narcissism has placed humans on an artificial pedestal. 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Prefer Not to Say on April 27, 2011 at 4:50pm

You are very wrong about psychology. There's evolutionary psychology and mental disorders are real, research psychopathy, I knew a psychopath before, there are things he couldn't control like lying and being untrustworthy.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sandra L Fredine on April 28, 2011 at 5:06am

I'm sure I am wrong on many things, but you misunderstand my statement. I take no issue with neurology and psychiatry, I also take no issue with psychology in developing theory and behavioral analysis, what I am saying is that their is no exact science to formulate diagnosis, therefore treatment is by trial and error, observation and speculation. There is an exact scientific way to diagnose rabies, so what excuses the psychopathic human and not the rabid animal? Is the excuse that humans might be in error? Is the 'not being in control' the excuse? Well, then control must be our ultimate goal as humans? Well, by golly, religion controls now doesn't it? One must be careful in eschewing a falsehood called religion that one doesn't take up the same thing by another name. My position on the death penalty stands - if a human has presented a deadly danger to other humans it should be 'put down' like any other animal after the appeal process concludes due process.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MB on August 18, 2011 at 7:15pm

Maybe if the death penalty was applied to crimes where they arent often the result of a disadvantaged upbringing, or a moment of imflamed passion as many murders are then it would actually be effective as a deterrent.

 

Imagine if the corrupt shameless corporate sharks which caused the GFC had the death penalty hanging over thier heads instead of the hand slap they have gotten. Do you think the untold hardship and suffering the collapse of the economic systems around the world has caused might have been avoided if that was the sort of penalty these guys have faced?

 

it just seems to me that the people the death penalty affects are the least likely to be the ones who would think about it as a detterent before they commit the crime.

 

MB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joshua Billingsley on August 19, 2011 at 1:27pm

So, maybe I am weird, but I do not think the government has the right to kill its own citizens. That seems like a reasonable rule. An individual police officer may shoot a suspect during the commission of a crime or during an escape attempt or most understandably, in self defense. That is sad but does not really give execution power to a large bureaucratic system like the justice system.

Lock them in a phone for years like at Guantanamo Bay but why put them out of their misery?

I have always said that to execute an atheist is to simply end them. No real punishment there after the death. If one believes in Hell, life imprisonment allows for punishment to last for eternity plus the life sentence. Execution alone only allows for Hell. Life in prison is additional. Seems as punishment prison is always worse.

Maybe having tons and tons of violent criminals we need to house would get some of the non-violent offenders off the government doll and some idiot caught with a dime bag of weed is off my tax dollar.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matthew Shafer-Skelton on August 20, 2011 at 9:00pm

If we excuse every person for any circumstance outside of their control, no one would ever be convicted. That whole argument can only be believed in by the ignorant.

 

The punitive justice system does work. Our entire society is a punitive justice system. Human morals are the product of brainwashing as children. Time out, spanking, no allowance. All our morals are instilled in us by fear of punishment. Internalization of morals is when we accept that we have a very high chance of punishment if we commit a specific crime, and then cognitive dissonance causing us to "believe" that things are wrong because we can't accept that we have no control over our lives. Have you ever seen a kid who gets whatever they want always with no consequences? No morals. The punitive justice system is massively effective. There are also lots of people who don't commit crimes for fear of the cops and courts alone. That is called understanding consequences. The people who still commit crimes have other pressures on them that outweigh the punitive justice system. Racism, poverty, tyranny, deviations from the ideal of personality, sanity, and character, trauma, and many other things. Some simply fear consequences less based on their experience, and some are just more capable of getting away with things, while others are very entitled based on privilege like wealth, being male, being white, being christian, or one of the other dozen kinds of privilege. People who claim that punitive justice is useless are unable to view the world as it actually is, or are brainwashed by certain kinds of progressive or liberal thought.

Are there other things we can do IN ADDITION TO the punitive just system? Yes. Chip away at privilege, stop putting people in jail for marijuana possession, lower legal ages for alcohol. But claiming that punitive strategies are ineffective? No.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• Next ›
• Page