DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: 73109 on May 15, 2011, 06:55:24 PM
-
This is a great documentary on capital punishment and it raises a few great discussion topics other than "should we have capital punishment?"
https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/kill-human-being/
It is rather long for someone who just is sitting at their computer, but I found it very interesting.
The entire thing seems to raise the question of the morality of, not the act as a whole, but the commiting of the act. Should the punishment for the criminals be as painful as the way they killed their victims, or should the murder be as humane as possible. I personally agree with the second option, being against the death penalty in the first place. Anyways, interesting documentary.
-
I also heard the other day that the company that produced the main component for the lethal injection (a Dutch company IIRC) stopped producing it, and executioners have started using a component that has been banned for use in animals because it was considered too cruel to use ethically.
They had this guy call in (I think some governor from the South) who was suggesting to have firing squads, with the first shot being shot by a relative of a victim. I was speechless listening to it.
rumborak
-
I also heard the other day that the company that produced the main component for the lethal injection (a Dutch company IIRC) stopped producing it, and executioners have started using a component that has been banned for use in animals because it was considered too cruel to use ethically.
They had this guy call in (I think some governor from the South) who was suggesting to have firing squads, with the first shot being shot by a relative of a victim. I was speechless listening to it.
rumborak
Yea, aside from the craziness of that idea, I don't think the victim or their loved ones should have any say in punishment at all.
-
I also heard the other day that the company that produced the main component for the lethal injection (a Dutch company IIRC) stopped producing it, and executioners have started using a component that has been banned for use in animals because it was considered too cruel to use ethically.
They had this guy call in (I think some governor from the South) who was suggesting to have firing squads, with the first shot being shot by a relative of a victim. I was speechless listening to it.
rumborak
They started using a substitute for sodium thiapentol recently, possibly phenobarbitol, but I believe it's supposed to be an improvement. It's actually what vets actually use to put down animals. The controversy is in the method of using it as the first of three drugs. It's really only used to sedate the prisoner so he doesn't flip-flop all over the place because of the next two and upset the audience. I know that at least one state has started using one massive dose of the tranquilizer without the next two drugs, which should be a much more humane way of going about it.
While I'm not a fan of capital punishment, I'm not sure that having relatives of the victims being involved is such a bad idea. They certainly have more of a claim than the state does.
-
Yea, aside from the craziness of that idea, I don't think the victim or their loved ones should have any say in punishment at all.
Agreed. They shouldn't even be allowed to watch imo.
-
I also heard the other day that the company that produced the main component for the lethal injection (a Dutch company IIRC) stopped producing it, and executioners have started using a component that has been banned for use in animals because it was considered too cruel to use ethically.
They had this guy call in (I think some governor from the South) who was suggesting to have firing squads, with the first shot being shot by a relative of a victim. I was speechless listening to it.
rumborak
They started using a substitute for sodium thiapentol recently, possibly phenobarbitol, but I believe it's supposed to be an improvement. It's actually what vets actually use to put down animals. The controversy is in the method of using it as the first of three drugs. It's really only used to sedate the prisoner so he doesn't flip-flop all over the place because of the next two and upset the audience. I know that at least one state has started using one massive dose of the tranquilizer without the next two drugs, which should be a much more humane way of going about it.
While I'm not a fan of capital punishment, I'm not sure that having relatives of the victims being involved is such a bad idea. They certainly have more of a claim than the state does.
They have an emotional claim. And justice is reason free from passion.
-
^^^^
I agree completely. No matter what the person, everyone deserves a minimal amount of respect, and having a relatives go apeshit all over a dude is most certainly not giving that dude his respect, murderer or not.
If you watched the documentary, they were talking about how lethal injection is 3 different injections. One to knock you out, one to relax the muscles, and one to stop the heart. The problem that is coming up is that a woman was going to the doctor for a routine eye surgery and she needed the 2nd injection for it. Apparently, the doctors screwed up with the anesthetic and she was awake and paralyzed when they injected it into her, and it was insanely painful. She believes that anybody going through the lethal injection process goes through this because the anesthetic is meant to only last 5 minutes, while the average lethal injection takes about 12. So, she feels that most if not all of the criminals had to go through what she did, and she doesn't feel it is right, nor do I.
-
i think an old fashioned hanging is the best way to go, we have the materials to ensure a clean death with that.
-
Thing is, we don't. All in the documentary, my friend.
-
Yeah, I believe that even in a successful long drop, the prisoner still dies of asphyxiation. Breaking the neck renders him unconscious, but there's no telling just how unconscious he is.
Honestly, the single drug protocol seems like the best method. Junkies will tell you that OD'ing is a pretty damned pleasant way to go. Barring that, the Chinese probably have the best method (although they're switching to lethal injection, as well).
-
the company that produced the main component for the lethal injection (a Dutch company IIRC)
The Dutch, earning money at the cost of other peoples lives since spreading slavery :hat.
-
the company that produced the main component for the lethal injection (a Dutch company IIRC)
The Dutch, earning money at the cost of other peoples lives since spreading slavery :hat.
Sharon Den Adel, Anekke Van Giersburgen, Floor Jansen, Simone Simmons. Those names along exonerate any wrong doings your people may have done.
-
:lol
-J
-
It was very interesting how the reactions went when Hospira stopped manufacturing the drug. The right-wingers got all upset about it, but what they didn't realize is that the free market was actually rendering it's verdict on the death penalty...
-
Can I ask why we make the actual process of killing the person so complex? I don't understand why a bullet to the head does not suffice. It's quick, painless, and cheap.
-
Serious blue?
But anyway, we don't do that for a 2 reasons that I can see.
1) Lack of respect for the dude.
2) Not 100% effective
-
Serious blue?
But anyway, we don't do that for a 2 reasons that I can see.
1) Lack of respect for the dude.
2) Not 100% effective
It's less disrespectful than getting strapped to a table and forced to think under paralysis for ten minutes, and a desert eagle from 5 feet will always be 100% effective.
-
The reason is that the execution process is designed to go easy on the witnesses and the executioner, not the criminal and the taxpayers.
-
The reason is that the execution process is designed to go easy on the witnesses and the executioner, not the criminal and the taxpayers.
Pretty much. Not to mention the fact that blowing someone's brain out still sucks. I say they go with what is in the documentary. 15 seconds of gas, all the while you feel happy and euphoric, you pass out, then nothing.
-
Lethal injection lets us avoid confronting the brutality/reality of killing someone by dressing it up as a medical procedure.
-
Not even done by doctors...:lol
-
The reason is that the execution process is designed to go easy on the witnesses and the executioner, not the criminal and the taxpayers.
Pretty much. Not to mention the fact that blowing someone's brain out still sucks. I say they go with what is in the documentary. 15 seconds of gas, all the while you feel happy and euphoric, you pass out, then nothing.
Which gas? I've got the doc on a hard drive somewhere, but haven't been in the mindset to watch it.
I seem to recall that our foray into gassing people was fairly barbaric.
-
Yes it was, but this is different. In all honestly, I don't remember the name of the gas, but what it does is cuts off oxygen in the blood flow. What this does is, while still cycling blood to the brain, it deprives the brain of oxygen, thus giving off a euphoric feeling. The person's last moments are happy and without pain or suffering. In the documentary, this dude went into a chamber where it felt like the altitudes were like they were in space. He got giddy for a while and then kinda just say there chilling. They told him to put on his mask but he didn't give a shit. Another 30 seconds and he would've died. Then, some doctor in India started using a gas that gave off this same feeling to painlessly kill livestock.
I'll go try to find the chunk of the documentary that shows this, just so you don't have to watch the whole thing.
edit: Watch from minute 37 to the end. Only 12 minutes then. BTW, just you get what your watching, when oxygen does not get to the brain, the process is called hypoxia. The only time we used hypoxia in capital punishment is when we used cyanide pellets to kill people, and yes, it was barbaric.
-
So why do murderers, child molesters and the like deserve our respect when being put to death?
-
Because everyone know matter what their actions deserves respect. If they are being put to death for their crimes against humanity, the least we can do as a "civilized" society is to make sure they don't feel anything when we "rid the world" of their "kind."
-
So why do murderers, child molesters and the like deserve our respect when being put to death?
Because we are not beneath them.
-
You just took what I said and made it 10x better, in like 30 fewer words.
-
I don't think respect is the right word, and I don't think we're beneath the sick twisted individual who kills for fun by ridding such a monster from this world.
-
I don't think respect is the right word, and I don't think we're beneath the sick twisted individual who kills for fun by ridding such a monster from this world.
I believe that history has shown that human beings lack the ability to actually do what you want without overwhelming consequences.
-
You lost me.
-
You lost me.
You're creating standards by which we deem someone to be less than human and thus open to any form of treatment we wish on them. Lots of people have done that in history, it never works. You believe your standards are ideal and absolute, as did everyone else who did the same thing.
-
I don't think respect is the right word, and I don't think we're beneath the sick twisted individual who kills for fun by ridding such a monster from this world.
Well, let's pretend that ridding the world of this monster is the best thing to do in the first place, do you think that that monster should suffer for what he did or is not being around enough?
-
By the way, my idea of justice is removal of harm. I'm not above killing certain people, but if they're kept away from people already (in jail) then killing them serves no purpose in the slightest.
-
Ok, say I just slaughtered a bunch of children and laughed the whole time while doing it. I even filmed the whole thing and tortured some of them. Are you seriously going to give two shits whether I feel pain while receiving a lethal injection?
-
Ok, say I just slaughtered a bunch of children and laughed the whole time while doing it. I even filmed the whole thing and tortured some of them. Are you seriously going to give two shits whether I feel pain while receiving a lethal injection?
Yes. Passion obstructs justice.
-
Plus, many say that it is better economically to kill someone. No it isn't. After all the appeals and shit, the average cost to kill someone is about 14 million dollars.
Zook: Yes. I am going to give a shit. What you did was horrible but inflicting pain on you would put me at the same level as that killer.
-
I may be a hypocrite because I couldn't ever be the guy who does the injections or flips the switch. Hell, I most likely couldn't even watch, but I don't care if the guy getting shocked is feeling it. A man who kills for fun doesn't deserse an ounce of respect, or a plate of food, or a bed to sleep on. He only deserves death. Should we kill him in some brutal unecessary manner? No, but we shouldn't be sypathetic of a brutal killer's feelings either.
-
I may be a hypocrite because I couldn't ever be the guy who does the injections or flips the switch. Hell, I most likely couldn't even watch, but I don't care if the guy getting shocked is feeling it. A man who kills for fun doesn't deserse an ounce of respect, or a plate of food, or a bed to sleep on. He only deserves death. Should we kill him in some brutal unecessary manner? No, but we shouldn't be sypathetic of a brutal killer's feelings either.
You feel about the child murderer as the child murderer felt about children, you just lack his zeal.
-
Ok, say I just slaughtered a bunch of children and laughed the whole time while doing it. I even filmed the whole thing and tortured some of them. Are you seriously going to give two shits whether I feel pain while receiving a lethal injection?
What if he only killed 1? Or if it was a bunch of adults? Howzabout instead of torturing them, he read them Proust? Maybe rather than laughing he recited the Lord's prayer while huffing helium? As Adami correctly suggested, trying to figure out the severity of an execution based on how we feel about his crime isn't a task we're very well suited to.
-
I may be a hypocrite because I couldn't ever be the guy who does the injections or flips the switch. Hell, I most likely couldn't even watch, but I don't care if the guy getting shocked is feeling it. A man who kills for fun doesn't deserse an ounce of respect, or a plate of food, or a bed to sleep on. He only deserves death. Should we kill him in some brutal unecessary manner? No, but we shouldn't be sypathetic of a brutal killer's feelings either.
You feel about the child murderer as the child murderer felt about children, you just lack his zeal.
Exactly.
-
I may be a hypocrite because I couldn't ever be the guy who does the injections or flips the switch. Hell, I most likely couldn't even watch, but I don't care if the guy getting shocked is feeling it. A man who kills for fun doesn't deserse an ounce of respect, or a plate of food, or a bed to sleep on. He only deserves death. Should we kill him in some brutal unecessary manner? No, but we shouldn't be sypathetic of a brutal killer's feelings either.
You feel about the child murderer as the child murderer felt about children, you just lack his zeal.
The child murder is fucked in the head, targeting helpless children and making them and their family suffer. Killing him is not the same. We are eliminating a problem and a threat to society.
Because everyone know matter what their actions deserves respect. If they are being put to death for their crimes against humanity, the least we can do as a "civilized" society is to make sure they don't feel anything when we "rid the world" of their "kind."
Isn't putting them to death the ultimate for direspect to begin with? Why does it matter how we do it?
-
Isn't putting them to death the ultimate for direspect to begin with? Why does it matter how we do it?
Well, perhaps, but none of us are supporting the putting them to death part, either. For the second part, as cliched as it is, I like that maxim that you can judge a society by how it treats it's prisoners. Personally, I'd prefer to be recognized as one who's merciful, even to those who don't deserve it. Just a nice quality, IMO.
-
I may be a hypocrite because I couldn't ever be the guy who does the injections or flips the switch. Hell, I most likely couldn't even watch, but I don't care if the guy getting shocked is feeling it. A man who kills for fun doesn't deserse an ounce of respect, or a plate of food, or a bed to sleep on. He only deserves death. Should we kill him in some brutal unecessary manner? No, but we shouldn't be sypathetic of a brutal killer's feelings either.
You feel about the child murderer as the child murderer felt about children, you just lack his zeal.
The child murder is fucked in the head, targeting helpless children and making them and their family suffer. Killing him is not the same. We are eliminating a problem and a threat to society.
If they are already in jail, then they are eliminated as a problem and a threat, killing them is no longer necessary.
-
If they are already in jail, then they are eliminated as a problem and a threat, killing them is no longer necessary.
Indeed, I'm so glad that Ted Bundy was only put into prison once, and was never ever a problem when he was there.
-
If they are already in jail, then they are eliminated as a problem and a threat, killing them is no longer necessary.
Indeed, I'm so glad that Ted Bundy was only put into prison once, and was never ever a problem when he was there.
That's a problem with our jail systems. But in that case, why not just execute every single prisoner ever? They may escape, any of them.
-
If they are already in jail, then they are eliminated as a problem and a threat, killing them is no longer necessary.
Indeed, I'm so glad that Ted Bundy was only put into prison once, and was never ever a problem when he was there.
That's a problem with our jail systems. But in that case, why not just execute every single prisoner ever? They may escape, any of them.
Two reasons:
- The cost of most prisoners escaping into society isn't the same as actually killing one of them in a moral sense.
- The risk of wrongful execution always exists. In the case of virtually everyone but murderers, the cost of killing someone innocent is too high.
In a sense though, this is more a debate about human life and how/why you value it than anything. In my opinion, Ted Bundy had the same right to live as... well... nothing. Even ants build interesting organized civilizations. Inevitably, you might say that my inability to view Bundy as a human being is the same as him saying his victims 'invited abuse.' To which I say if you really think brutally murdering dozens of women and dressing pretty are even remotely comparable reasons to dehumanize them, then I'm not sure there's much to talk about.
-
As I said before, I view justice as removing harm with whatever means necessary. If it's not necessary, it shouldn't be done.
-
As I said before, I view justice as removing harm with whatever means necessary. If it's not necessary, it shouldn't be done.
Justice in-and-of itself is a completely subjective thing though. I don't really find it interesting. The whole point of the legal system is to reduce the number of murders, right? So why isn't the death penalty more effective at accomplishing this than life in prison? You can't escape prison when you're executed. And at some point the whole "capital punishment doesn't deter" argument makes no sense. Human beings are evolutionarily wired to avoid death. So... why is being alive in prison less tolerable than death to the majority of murderers? Beats me. I know I don't buy it though.
But I guess what I keep coming back to though is that I really just don't care about these people's right to live. There's no tragedy to Ted Bundy's death. So unless executing him would actually lead to a rising of murder rates, why NOT do it? Why does it matter?
-
Because he's a human being. I guess we disagree as to what constitutes a human being. You believe you can decide when someone is worthy of death, so do the murderers.
-
Because he's a human being. I guess we disagree as to what constitutes a human being. You believe you can decide when someone is worthy of death, so do the murderers.
I already asked this earlier though, how can my motivations to support Ted Bundy's execution and his motivations to murder young women even be possibly compared? Bundy's actions and the actions of the average college girl are universes apart.
-
Your deterrent argument is flawed for a couple of reasons. Evolution is, by it's very nature, unreliable. While you and I might be wired to avoid death, there are plenty who aren't. I grew up with a kid who had absolutely no regard for whether he (or anybody around him) lived or died. Scariest person I've even known. Plus, plenty of people who aren't concerned with living or dieing have been to prison and prefer death to confinement. Last, and perhaps most important, most people who commit crimes expect to get away with it. The truth is, it's just not a very good deterrent. People still kill each other in Texas, Saudi Arabia and China. People still commit adultery in Iran. People still smuggle hash out of Turkey.
-
That may all be true, but IMO, you are focusing on the exceptions rather than the "rule," so to speak.
-
Because he's a human being. I guess we disagree as to what constitutes a human being. You believe you can decide when someone is worthy of death, so do the murderers.
I already asked this earlier though, how can my motivations to support Ted Bundy's execution and his motivations to murder young women even be possibly compared?
Yes they can be. He had a motivation to see others suffer, those who support him suffering have a motivation to see him suffer, it's just a difference of degree and zeal.
-
That may all be true, but IMO, you are focusing on the exceptions rather than the "rule," so to speak.
Indeed, but there are plenty of exceptions. Put them all together and you find that it's just not an effective deterrent. Places with high probability of executing murderers don't see any real difference in murder rates.
-
The child murder is fucked in the head, targeting helpless children and making them and their family suffer. Killing him is not the same. We are eliminating a problem and a threat to society.
Question. If the murder is fucked in the head, wouldn't it be safe to say we should not kill him. I'm going to say some stuff here that may get me into some trouble but I feel as though I need to say it.
I think people that kill/rape children should not be put in jail, nor should they be put to death. Someone who wants to do that stuff is obviously fucked in the first place, and acting on there instincts just as we would a member of the opposite sex. I never understood why throwing someone in jail or killing someone was better than rehabilitation.
-
Yes they can be. He had a motivation to see others suffer, those who support him suffering have a motivation to see him suffer, it's just a difference of degree and zeal.
That's about 80% wrong. It's not about seeing him suffer. I wouldn't care too much if he suffered, but I wouldn't advocate it and I could never personally do it. If for some reason I personally had to handle his execution the best I could do would be to hit the button on the electric chair or pull the trigger on a gun. Relatively quick and to the point. My top priority is guaranteeing with 100% certainty that he can't kill again.
Your deterrent argument is flawed for a couple of reasons. Evolution is, by it's very nature, unreliable. While you and I might be wired to avoid death, there are plenty who aren't. I grew up with a kid who had absolutely no regard for whether he (or anybody around him) lived or died. Scariest person I've even known. Plus, plenty of people who aren't concerned with living or dieing have been to prison and prefer death to confinement. Last, and perhaps most important, most people who commit crimes expect to get away with it. The truth is, it's just not a very good deterrent. People still kill each other in Texas, Saudi Arabia and China. People still commit adultery in Iran. People still smuggle hash out of Turkey.
I never said the death penalty was a great deterrent or even a good one. But as much as murderers are universally characterized as thinking they'll get away with it, I'm not sure it's that simple. Part of the reason so many of them probably think they can get away with it now is because they think they can win in a long appeals battle and avoid the chair with a good defense. And then you have the guys who are very calculating about it for business or personal reasons. Chris Simmons used the unlikelyness of getting the death penalty to convince his accomplices. When you calculate the costs of doing something, you don't just think about the likelihood of punishment, but what happens if the punishment occurs.
I think people that kill/rape children should not be put in jail, nor should they be put to death. Someone who wants to do that stuff is obviously fucked in the first place, and acting on there instincts just as we would a member of the opposite sex. I never understood why throwing someone in jail or killing someone was better than rehabilitation.
Okay then, how do we stop child rapists and murderers from doing what they do?
-
Okay then, how do we stop child rapists and murderers from doing what they do?
Quite frankly, we don't. Part of the cost of living in a free society is that some asshole might stab you for the $12 in your wallet. What we can do is make sure that they can only do it once. This can be more easily accomplished by imprisonment and/or rehabilitation. Capital punishment is not an effective deterrent, and the expense of trying to be as judicious as possible with it, and we're not doing well enough in that regard by the way, is far more than it's worth.
-
The child murder is fucked in the head, targeting helpless children and making them and their family suffer. Killing him is not the same. We are eliminating a problem and a threat to society.
Question. If the murder is fucked in the head, wouldn't it be safe to say we should not kill him. I'm going to say some stuff here that may get me into some trouble but I feel as though I need to say it.
I think people that kill/rape children should not be put in jail, nor should they be put to death. Someone who wants to do that stuff is obviously fucked in the first place, and acting on there instincts just as we would a member of the opposite sex. I never understood why throwing someone in jail or killing someone was better than rehabilitation.
I'm not sure why you think that would "get you into trouble." But I'll just say in response that, while I understand your intentions are noble, I respectfully disagree, and I disagree because I've been around long enough to know now what I didn't know and didn't want to know at your age: rehabilitation largely does not work with people who commit certain kinds of crimes.
-
Okay then, how do we stop child rapists and murderers from doing what they do?
Quite frankly, we don't. Part of the cost of living in a free society is that some asshole might stab you for the $12 in your wallet. What we can do is make sure that they can only do it once. This can be more easily accomplished by imprisonment and/or rehabilitation. Capital punishment is not an effective deterrent, and the expense of trying to be as judicious as possible with it, and we're not doing well enough in that regard by the way, is far more than it's worth.
I understand the first part and completely agree. Unless you can gather evidence to conclusively prove intent, then you can't arrest people for maybe thinking of committing a crime. Doesn't work that way.
I'm assuming basically your argument is that performing capital punishment in a way that prevents wrongful executions is more expensive than the benefits we gain from it?
-
I think people that kill/rape children should not be put in jail, nor should they be put to death. Someone who wants to do that stuff is obviously fucked in the first place, and acting on there instincts just as we would a member of the opposite sex. I never understood why throwing someone in jail or killing someone was better than rehabilitation.
I really can't get behind this. I mean, I'd say that most people who kill another human being period without a strong motive are kind of fucked in the head. So, we'd make a distinction for people who killed/raped children, because it's a much more disgusting thing and therefore the person must be fucked in the head?
The Justice system is really also for people who are "fucked in the first place." It's not about making people pay for doing horrible things to each other as much it is trying to keep people from doing more horrible things to each other in it's own semi-dysfunctional way. So, even if a person is mentally unstable, in my opinion, you can't really make that distinction and not at least lock them away for the horrible thing that they did just under the assumption that they are too "fucked" to be dealt with in a way that would make everyone safer.
Given, I really only have a real issue with the fact that you mentioned "jail." Hell, I'm not saying that we should kill kill kill with an objective look into what the person did and disregard the mental state of said person, but in case you didn't know rehab isn't often a very effective system and sometimes, even if the person has mental problems to blame for it, they really need to be in jail, not for the purposes of retribution but for the purposes of keeping people safe.
-
Then in that case, why don't we put all the pedophiles in a special housing facility with a shit ton of child porn at their disposal. They are out of the way, and they still can get off to their inner sexual instincts. And, we wouldn't even need more porn. There is probably so much out there that some random dude who has a child octopi fetish would be set for life. And no, before you think it, I'm not joking.
-
So, you're basically suggesting that we have a special jail with child pornography available? I'm trying to get around the way that you said, "put all the pedophiles in a special housing facility" and I really don't see how this really differs from throwing them in jail.
-
It's pretty much a minimum security jail with child porn, yes.
-
Really, I thought you said you were against throwing them in jail. I'm a tad bit confused now.
Also, you seem to think that providing these people with child porn is going to somehow keep them satisfied. I don't think these people really work that way, which is why they go out and break the law in the first place. Also, if they ever want a chance at redeeming themselves and getting out, I don't think it'd really be conducive to making them into people who can live in society again and not fuck things up by simply putting them in a cage where they can feed their addictions.
-
I agree. I'm all for rehabilitation, and when they are being rehabilitated, they should not been thrown in jail, but they should be kept somewhere, I guess you could call it a jail, but it would be more like a community that you just can't leave. Only for a while. I'm rambling. My main issue is that I don't like seeing society stress people to repress their urges. No matter what they might be. If someone wants to go out and rape a 4 year old, should they? No! But instead of throwing them in jail once they act on their urges, we should help them.
-
I'm assuming basically your argument is that performing capital punishment in a way that prevents wrongful executions is more expensive than the benefits we gain from it?
I would say in a manner that prevents wrongful executions and is applied fairly and objectively is more expensive than the benefits. Yes.
edit: And your inbox is full. Got something to send your way.
-
I'm assuming basically your argument is that performing capital punishment in a way that prevents wrongful executions is more expensive than the benefits we gain from it?
I would say in a manner that prevents wrongful executions and is applied fairly and objectively is more expensive than the benefits. Yes.
edit: And your inbox is full. Got something to send your way.
Deleted a couple messages. Hit me up.
What you're saying is honestly fair. At that point it gets more into the details and minutia of the legal system and deterrent qualities, which is stuff I wouldn't claim to understand.
It's pretty much a minimum security jail with child porn, yes.
Minimum security my ass. If child-rapists aren't being kept in a security with guard towers then something is clearly wrong.
-
What is exactly so scary about a dude that wants to have sex? You stick em in a community to rehabilitate and on the border, you have guards.
-
What is exactly so scary about a dude that wants to have sex?
Lots of things, really, when it's with a child.
And also, I really don't see how looking at child porn all day is going to rehabilitate them.
-
It won't. I'm just saying if you don't want to rehabilitate them for whatever reason, at least let them enjoy their vices.
-
What is exactly so scary about a dude that wants to have sex? You stick em in a community to rehabilitate and on the border, you have guards.
Can I assume you don't have any children? I know I'm going so, so, sooo far out on a limb by guessing that, but it's the only explanation I have for your frankly shocking lack of empathy for people who want to make sure child rape doesn't happen.
And also, I really don't see how looking at child porn all day is going to rehabilitate them.
No, but I kinda get his point. If keeps them busy and away from real children, then maybe it's not a bad thing. It's why I never understood the issue with virtual/fake/drawn/animated child porn. The whole issue with child porn is that children are in it, right? Otherwise, yeah it's horrifying but I thought the point of the first amendment was to protect speech no matter how objectionable.
-
I'm 16, I have no kids, and I never said I wanted these dudes to rape small children. All I was getting at is that we are really lacking empathy by locking these guys up, never to try to even rehabilitate innate sexual urges.
-
o_O
-
It won't. I'm just saying if you don't want to rehabilitate them for whatever reason, at least let them enjoy their vices.
You wouldn't be saying that if it was your little girl/boy they were jerking it to, would you?
-
Personally, I'd be much more upset with whoever took the pictures. Of course the statistical likelihood is that it was probably the girls father, which would be me in this case, or the girl herself who was responsible. Fuck. Now what?
As much as I like discussing the irrational behavior of terrified parents and a society which thinks every child is at immediate risk of getting fucked by strangers, I've got to say I'm a bit puzzled what this has to do with the death penalty.
-
It won't. I'm just saying if you don't want to rehabilitate them for whatever reason, at least let them enjoy their vices.
You wouldn't be saying that if it was your little girl/boy they were jerking it to, would you?
I'm gonna take a huge leap of faith and assume that he doesn't have a little girl or boy.
-
I'M 16!!! :lol
But...back to the death penalty discussion.
-
It won't. I'm just saying if you don't want to rehabilitate them for whatever reason, at least let them enjoy their vices.
You wouldn't be saying that if it was your little girl/boy they were jerking it to, would you?
I'm gonna take a huge leap of faith and assume that he doesn't have a little girl or boy.
Yeah no kidding. I know that. But the point is, the kid has a limited scope of world view. If/when he becomes a father, I'm 100% sure his view on this matter will change.
-
To chime in on this thread...
I live in Connecticut and our state has been enduring the trial of two people who were involved in the 2007 Cheshire home invasion in which Dr. William Petit's family was murdered.
His wife and two younger daughters were brutally raped, then tied to there beds, doused in gasoline and set on fire. Its a story seared in to the residents of Connecticut's minds.
One man had his trial and was given the death penalty. The other mans trial has not started yet. He will no doubt also receive the death penalty as well.
This case has changed many a persons mind about their thoughts on the death penalty.
The following images are seared in our collective brains in my state.
(https://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2010/11/06/news/photos_stories/stephen_hayes--300x300.jpg) (https://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2010/10/20/news/photos_stories/cropped/joshua_komisarjevsky--300x300.jpg)
Be it right or wrong, if I'm being honest, I would have to say, I would like them both to experience a heinous and painful death.
What they did to this man's family, and to the man who must now live with the loss of his family and the thoughts of their torture for the rest of his days makes me want to see both of the men suffer, rather then be given a nice humane ending to their evil lives.
-
Why can't we just go back to nailing people on crosses? It would significantly decrease crime imo.
-
Yeah no kidding. I know that. But the point is, the kid has a limited scope of world view. If/when he becomes a father, I'm 100% sure his view on this matter will change.
I'm not a kid and I don't have a limited worldview, and I'm closer to his side than yours. One of the things that has always troubled me is the notion that since I've never "held my child in my own hands for the first time", or whatever other epoch-shattering child-related event is supposed to turn me into a completely different person, that my perspective on kids is somehow inferior. Objectivity is valuable, and I'd suggest that parents have absolutely no sense of objectivity left after the aforementioned event. They have a different perspective, which is quite valuable, but the same can be said of a person like me with no kids and no particular regard for them, either. People with kids shouldn't be the sole determiner of the nation's character as it pertains to them.
Be it right or wrong, if I'm being honest, I would have to say, I would like them both to experience a heinous and painful death.
What they did to this man's family, and to the man who must now live with the loss of his family and the thoughts of their torture for the rest of his days makes me want to see both of the men suffer, rather then be given a nice humane ending to their evil lives.
How does that fit in with your Christian values? I personally never agreed with the interpretation that God says the death penalty is cool as long as whatever government you're under says it is, but at least there's a semblance of validity to the position. I'm curious how one who's been admonished to be non-judgmental rationalizes a desire to be less humane towards admitted assholes.
And what does that say about you as a human being?
I'm not trying to single you out, Tick, and I'm not looking to give you shit about your honest opinion on the matter. It's actually quite understandable. But since you pointed out that it could be right or wrong in your statement, I'm curious if you actually have an opinion one way or the other.
-
Barto,
Are you actually suggesting, instead of punishing child rapists/molestors or child porn creators/gatherers/users, we should lock them up in a room with tons of child porn. Where did that child porn come from? It had to come from somewhere, and some child got taken advantage of in order for it to exist in the first place.
Numbers and Barto, are you really saying that this is OK in modern society? That its just fine to encourage these people to keep doing it? This might be one of the most insane notions I've seen put up on this board. How in the world could that possibly help anything? What does allowing this say about your character? I mean, its a terrible idea.
And regarding those Cheshire murderers. Yes they deserve death. I don't think it needs to be cruel and tortuous, but I can level- headedly say I believe they deserve to die for what they did. I think there are some things you simply cannot be forgiven for and you cannot come back from. Ex. these guys, Osama bin laden, hitler etc etc.
-
No, I think the idea giving them their own treehouse with a never ending supply of kiddy oriented wanking material is insane. What I called out was y'alls criticism of his idea based solely on his lack of kids. Insofar as my opinions on the crime itself, there are a shit-ton of gray areas that seem to get overlooked by parents who can't get passed the idea that every single aspect of it needs to be treated with the utmost severity. In your remark, you lumped in child rapists with child porn users. There are miles between the two. From my non-breeder perspective, the people on your side really seem to act out of panic more than reason.
-
What I called out was y'alls criticism of his idea based solely on his lack of kids.
Just to be clear, I think his idea sucks because it sucks. The thing he posted that obviously indicates his lack of kids was "What is exactly so scary about a dude that wants to have sex?"
I agree with you that "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" shouldn't be the sole determinant of how we handle criminal justice in this country, but 73109 clearly has no real understanding of what he's talking about.
-
Yeah no kidding. I know that. But the point is, the kid has a limited scope of world view. If/when he becomes a father, I'm 100% sure his view on this matter will change.
I'm not a kid and I don't have a limited worldview, and I'm closer to his side than yours. One of the things that has always troubled me is the notion that since I've never "held my child in my own hands for the first time", or whatever other epoch-shattering child-related event is supposed to turn me into a completely different person, that my perspective on kids is somehow inferior. Objectivity is valuable, and I'd suggest that parents have absolutely no sense of objectivity left after the aforementioned event. They have a different perspective, which is quite valuable, but the same can be said of a person like me with no kids and no particular regard for them, either. People with kids shouldn't be the sole determiner of the nation's character as it pertains to them.
Be it right or wrong, if I'm being honest, I would have to say, I would like them both to experience a heinous and painful death.
What they did to this man's family, and to the man who must now live with the loss of his family and the thoughts of their torture for the rest of his days makes me want to see both of the men suffer, rather then be given a nice humane ending to their evil lives.
How does that fit in with your Christian values? I personally never agreed with the interpretation that God says the death penalty is cool as long as whatever government you're under says it is, but at least there's a semblance of validity to the position. I'm curious how one who's been admonished to be non-judgmental rationalizes a desire to be less humane towards admitted assholes.
And what does that say about you as a human being?
I'm not trying to single you out, Tick, and I'm not looking to give you shit about your honest opinion on the matter. It's actually quite understandable. But since you pointed out that it could be right or wrong in your statement, I'm curious if you actually have an opinion one way or the other.
How does it fit in with my Christian values? It doesn't. My view on the whole thing is wrong.
What does my opinion say about me as a human being? It says, I'm as flawed as anyone.
When I think of me being the one who lost his wife and daughter viciously, it makes me want to see them suffer.
Vengeance is mine says the Lord. I am wrong in my feelings on the issue, but never the less, its how I feel about it.
I hope God changes my heart on this issue, as well as a host of others that I am off base on.
Sorry if you find this explanation lame.
-
On the contrary, I find it to be an excellent explanation and quite refreshing. :tup
-
My issue with everything is that we try to lump in child rapists with "monsters." Obviously, we don't want that shit happening, but if these people are doing this, they are fucked up in the head and deserve a shot at rehabilitation. If they can't, then stick them in a minimum security community. These people are not a threat to society unless they have kiddies in their area, and they are most certainly will not try to escape to get some tail.
-
Ya know, dude, even I think you're wrong on that. :lol
The problem is that you're lumping in people who just think kiddos are hot with rapists. A rapist, whether they prefer adults or youngsters, is a monster. If you want to say that people who want to bang kids consensually (and yes I'm aware that's a very questionable notion) aren't monsters and should be treated differently than actual rapists, then I'll agree with you (to a certain extent).
-
My issue with everything is that we try to lump in child rapists with "monsters."
I think that child rapists are some of the safest "lumps" we can make in the category of monsters. As I said, I don't see why an exception would be made for such a horrible thing under the assumption that they have something wrong in the head, when that can probably apply to murderers and the likes of which as well.
The thing is that raping a child is the result of more than just a fucked up fetish. It means that this person has no remorse for fucking up a child's life and harming that child in some sick ways. That's the distinction that usually, in my opinion, makes child-rapists pretty damn close to being "monsters."
-
Maybe I'm wrong here, and I should consult a psychologist, but it is obvious that sexual relations with children is a taboo subject, and if someone wants to go and rape small small boy, knowing what will happen and how the world feels, there is something wrong in general and we should not demonize people for people fucked up in the beginning. I basically said to someone I know that it is like demonizing a dude without arms who can't play catch. I say we put these people into intense psychological counseling instead of saying "well, they're fucked up, might as well throw them in jail where they'll get raped and possibly murdered."
And CC, don't you think that if a person can weigh all the options of raping a kid, fucking up his life, dealing with the consequences, and then jail with more consequences, don't you think anybody that can still do it has psychological issues in the first place?
-
Maybe I'm wrong here, and I should consult a psychologist, but it is obvious that sexual relations with children is a taboo subject, and if someone wants to go and rape small small boy, knowing what will happen and how the world feels, there is something wrong in general and we should not demonize people for people fucked up in the beginning. I basically said to someone I know that it is like demonizing a dude without arms who can't play catch. I say we put these people into intense psychological counseling instead of saying "well, they're fucked up, might as well throw them in jail where they'll get raped and possibly murdered."
And CC, don't you think that if a person can weigh all the options of raping a kid, fucking up his life, dealing with the consequences, and then jail with more consequences, don't you think anybody that can still do it has psychological issues in the first place?
People who have antisocial personality disorder have about a .00000000000000000001% chance of ever getting any better ever.
-
Alright, you are a psychologist thingy, I can talk to you. If you think somebody has this disorder, are the decisions they make rational? I'm not asking if they are smart enough to plan a plan, but do they see the possible consequences of their actions?
-
It's not really about whether they understand the consequences as much as it is about keeping children safe. At least, that's the way I see it.
-
So if it is about the safety of children, why throw them in jail? Why not stick them somewhere much nicer than jail, where they can't harm kids?
-
Because, quite frankly, I don't see why child rapists deserve a better place to be thrown in than thieves and murderers. I mean, they may be fucked up, but so are most of the other criminals who are thrown in jail for various other crimes.
-
Alright, you are a psychologist thingy, I can talk to you. If you think somebody has this disorder, are the decisions they make rational? I'm not asking if they are smart enough to plan a plan, but do they see the possible consequences of their actions?
Yes they do, unless they're also delusional, or mentally challenged or something like that. But just sociopathic, they lack the ability for empathy, they don't care in the slightest bit about anybody. And no amount of counseling is going to let them develop empathy.
-
Alright, now I'm just being a bleeding heart, but if they lack the ability to feel empathy, should we demonize them for not making a correct decision based on one of the primary decision making factors?
-
Alright, now I'm just being a bleeding heart, but if they lack the ability to feel empathy, should we demonize them for not making a correct decision based on one of the primary decision making factors?
I don't know if this is actually aimed at me since I never made any comments about demonizing them, and I will continue to not do so. I was just clarifying a point you were making earlier.
-
No, I'm just saying you, the royal you. As a psychologist, do you think something is mentally wrong with someone who looks at a 6 year old and wants to have sexual relations with it?
-
No, I'm just saying you, the royal you. As a psychologist, do you think something is mentally wrong with someone who looks at a 6 year old and wants to have sexual relations with it?
There is a vast difference between a man who wants to have sex with a 6 year old girl, a man who DOES have sex with a 6 year old girl, and a man who rapes a 6 year old girl. None of the above can be compared.
-
^ ninja'd
-
No, I'm just saying you, the royal you. As a psychologist, do you think something is mentally wrong with someone who looks at a 6 year old and wants to have sexual relations with it?
There is a vast difference between a man who wants to have sex with a 6 year old girl, a man who DOES have sex with a 6 year old girl, and a man who rapes a 6 year old girl. None of the above can be compared.
Alright, last question before I give up. :lol
If someone is sexually attracted to a 6 year old girl and they act on it, do you think they understand what they are doing and all of the possible consequences of the act?
-
Once again, assuming they are also not delusional and or mentally challenged, then yes they do.
-
One last one. :lol
What is the average ratio of delusional and mentally challenged people with ASPD to those who are normal?
-
One last one. :lol
What is the average ratio of delusional and mentally challenged people with ASPD to those who are normal?
I have no idea, they have nothing to do with one another. People with ASPD are most likely not more prone to delusional disorder or any mental disorders, I just had to preface my comments with it because.......well it's just proper. Most people with ASPD are fully functional and they have a full realization of what they're doing, they just don't care.
-
Alright then, I digress.
-
Alright then, I digress.
However, if someone has intense schizophrenia or a delusional disorder of certain kinds, they could do things like think someone is a demon trying to get them and kill them for that reason, or they might think someone has to be burned to rid them of disease that only they can notice. In cases like this, the person has no idea of the reality of the situation.
But those people don't usually go around raping 6 year old's.