Humanist Approach to the Capital Punishment
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-05-2014, 11:35 PM
RE: Humanist Approach to the Capital Punishment
(28-05-2014 08:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(28-05-2014 08:08 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  How do you improve it so that's still honestly considered punishment?

Prison conditions of today might be considered a luxury back in 1789 or whenever the 8th ammendment was ratified.

You don't as such - and historical interpretations are irrelevant. Punishment at all needn't enter into consideration; I used the phrase, but it's an Americanism. There is no punitive component to the Canadian justice system.

Historical interpretations are always relevant by leftists when it comes to the 2nd ammendment, why not the 8th as well?

I am Canadian as well and i think you're being very dishonest to say there is no punitive aspect to the justice system. I've studied the laws and have had my share of convos with police. Don't ask lol.

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes djkamilo's post
30-05-2014, 12:31 AM
RE: Humanist Approach to the Capital Punishment
(29-05-2014 11:35 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  
(28-05-2014 08:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You don't as such - and historical interpretations are irrelevant. Punishment at all needn't enter into consideration; I used the phrase, but it's an Americanism. There is no punitive component to the Canadian justice system.

Historical interpretations are always relevant by leftists when it comes to the 2nd ammendment, why not the 8th as well?

I am Canadian as well and i think you're being very dishonest to say there is no punitive aspect to the justice system. I've studied the laws and have had my share of convos with police. Don't ask lol.

Well, if the prisoner is a Libertarian, then you've already imposed the worst punishment on them by restricting their 'freedom'. At least that's the vibe I get from Glenn Beck. Rolleyes

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2014, 04:15 AM
RE: Humanist Approach to the Capital Punishment
Psychopath - mandates death for a behavioural anamoly
USA - mandates death for a behavioural anamoly (also being poor and stupid)

Drunk again but still unsure of where the boundaries are

The secret to a happy life is lowering your expectations to the point where they are already met
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2014, 07:00 PM
RE: Humanist Approach to the Capital Punishment
Sorry if I'm necroing this thread, but saw this on the Colbert report, reminded me of this thread.

I love Stephen Colbert, he can tell me some of the most depressing stuff I've ever heard and still make me laugh. Sorry I couldn't post the actual video.

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/m8...-or-prison

Our prison system is in one very sorry state No

I hope that the world turns, and things get better. But what I hope most of all is that you understand what I mean when I tell you that, even though I do not know you, and even though I may never meet you, laugh with you, cry with you, or kiss you, I love you. With all my heart, I love you. - V for Vendetta
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2014, 06:56 PM
RE: Humanist Approach to the Capital Punishment
I'm glad it was brought back to life, because there is something that needs to be said about the death penalty.

See, whenever someone who is generally in favour of rehabilitation speaks in favour of killing prisoners, they always resort to saying that it should be reserved for those who cannot be rehabilitated.

This is nonsense.

There is no divine law stating that the very worst criminals can never be rehabilitated. You can certainly not say with absolute certainty that science is 100% incapable of figuring out a way, because that is something that you cannot prove.

What it really means is that you can't be bothered to even try. It's not down to anything but laziness, and the day we decide to off people, not out of necessity, but out of sheer laziness, is a day when it's been taken too fucking far.

Because you have to remember; the death penalty isn't used as a last resort. A last resort is something you use when you've exhausted every other option. The death penalty is always, in 100% of cases used as a very first resort, because it has to be decided at the point of sentencing. It's no more a last resort than a fine is.

If it was possible to sentence a person to attempted rehabilitation for years and years, finally ending with allowing the death penalty if nothing else works, then, and only then, would it be anything other than a first response because nobody really wants to bother with rehabilitating the worst offenders. Bloodlust has to be satisfied, and those who argue in favour of the death penalty on the basis of the 'eye for an eye'-principle ultimately put the satisfaction of their bloodlust above the good of society.

What kind of uncivilized barbarian would say 'Fuck society, WE WANT BLOOD!', sincerely?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2014, 10:15 PM
RE: Humanist Approach to the Capital Punishment
(16-06-2014 06:56 PM)Elcarch Wrote:  I'm glad it was brought back to life, because there is something that needs to be said about the death penalty.

See, whenever someone who is generally in favour of rehabilitation speaks in favour of killing prisoners, they always resort to saying that it should be reserved for those who cannot be rehabilitated.

This is nonsense.

There is no divine law stating that the very worst criminals can never be rehabilitated. You can certainly not say with absolute certainty that science is 100% incapable of figuring out a way, because that is something that you cannot prove.

What it really means is that you can't be bothered to even try. It's not down to anything but laziness, and the day we decide to off people, not out of necessity, but out of sheer laziness, is a day when it's been taken too fucking far.

Because you have to remember; the death penalty isn't used as a last resort. A last resort is something you use when you've exhausted every other option. The death penalty is always, in 100% of cases used as a very first resort, because it has to be decided at the point of sentencing. It's no more a last resort than a fine is.

If it was possible to sentence a person to attempted rehabilitation for years and years, finally ending with allowing the death penalty if nothing else works, then, and only then, would it be anything other than a first response because nobody really wants to bother with rehabilitating the worst offenders. Bloodlust has to be satisfied, and those who argue in favour of the death penalty on the basis of the 'eye for an eye'-principle ultimately put the satisfaction of their bloodlust above the good of society.

What kind of uncivilized barbarian would say 'Fuck society, WE WANT BLOOD!', sincerely?

Well said. But the only true test of rehabilitation would be to allow psychopaths back into society. The cost of failure is more innocent life. Who's blood would you like to have on your hands?

Until you can guarantee a perfect system of rehabilitation we still have to face reality and the gravity of our responsibility to protect the innocent and vulnerable as best we can. If it's a proven killer vs. the innocent public, sorry but I'd feel better not having the killer around anymore.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes evenheathen's post
16-06-2014, 10:43 PM (This post was last modified: 16-06-2014 10:50 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Humanist Approach to the Capital Punishment
(16-06-2014 10:15 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(16-06-2014 06:56 PM)Elcarch Wrote:  I'm glad it was brought back to life, because there is something that needs to be said about the death penalty.

See, whenever someone who is generally in favour of rehabilitation speaks in favour of killing prisoners, they always resort to saying that it should be reserved for those who cannot be rehabilitated.

This is nonsense.

There is no divine law stating that the very worst criminals can never be rehabilitated. You can certainly not say with absolute certainty that science is 100% incapable of figuring out a way, because that is something that you cannot prove.

What it really means is that you can't be bothered to even try. It's not down to anything but laziness, and the day we decide to off people, not out of necessity, but out of sheer laziness, is a day when it's been taken too fucking far.

Because you have to remember; the death penalty isn't used as a last resort. A last resort is something you use when you've exhausted every other option. The death penalty is always, in 100% of cases used as a very first resort, because it has to be decided at the point of sentencing. It's no more a last resort than a fine is.

If it was possible to sentence a person to attempted rehabilitation for years and years, finally ending with allowing the death penalty if nothing else works, then, and only then, would it be anything other than a first response because nobody really wants to bother with rehabilitating the worst offenders. Bloodlust has to be satisfied, and those who argue in favour of the death penalty on the basis of the 'eye for an eye'-principle ultimately put the satisfaction of their bloodlust above the good of society.

What kind of uncivilized barbarian would say 'Fuck society, WE WANT BLOOD!', sincerely?

Well said. But the only true test of rehabilitation would be to allow psychopaths back into society. The cost of failure is more innocent life. Who's blood would you like to have on your hands?

Until you can guarantee a perfect system of rehabilitation we still have to face reality and the gravity of our responsibility to protect the innocent and vulnerable as best we can. If it's a proven killer vs. the innocent public, sorry but I'd feel better not having the killer around anymore.

You can remove the person from the greater society without needing to kill them. As always, death is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Facepalm

The death penalty is state sanctioned murder and hypocrisy, which puts blood on all of our hands by proxy. So we don't like murder, don't condone it, do what we can to stop it. But if you murder someone, we'll murder you right back? How does that make us any better? Where is the higher path? It's nothing more than base retribution, and given the very flawed nature of our justice system, it is frighteningly misapplied. Given the two options, between no death penalty, or having a death penalty that results in the death of even one innocent; our answer has to be that the cost is too high and unjustifiable. If you are okay with that cost, if we as a society is okay with that cost; it is a damning revelation of our own barbaric natures. We know we have already killed innocents, I cannot see how people can continue to justify the practice.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
16-06-2014, 10:50 PM
RE: Humanist Approach to the Capital Punishment
(16-06-2014 10:43 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(16-06-2014 10:15 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Well said. But the only true test of rehabilitation would be to allow psychopaths back into society. The cost of failure is more innocent life. Who's blood would you like to have on your hands?

Until you can guarantee a perfect system of rehabilitation we still have to face reality and the gravity of our responsibility to protect the innocent and vulnerable as best we can. If it's a proven killer vs. the innocent public, sorry but I'd feel better not having the killer around anymore.

You can remove the person from the greater society without needing to kill them... Facepalm

Agreed. I didn't explicitly mention the need to "ultimately" remove the person. Of course I didn't explicitly say that it wouldn't be the better option. I'm not decided on the issue. As a humanist I know what I'd like to see us strive for, but I've got this realist streak in me that can clash with it at times. I'm not taking a hard stance either way at this point.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2014, 11:28 PM
RE: Humanist Approach to the Capital Punishment
(16-06-2014 10:43 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  We know we have already killed innocents, I cannot see how people can continue to justify the practice.

And to address this, I also agree that it's unacceptable to even take a chance at killing an innocent person. If I were to advocate the death penalty, it would be only for those who have killed in cold blood and have freely admitted to it. I do not trust a verdict from a jury in a matter as serious as this. There would have to be absolute certainty that the person committed the crime, and had taken responsibility for it.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2014, 11:31 PM
RE: Humanist Approach to the Capital Punishment
(16-06-2014 11:28 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(16-06-2014 10:43 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  We know we have already killed innocents, I cannot see how people can continue to justify the practice.

And to address this, I also agree that it's unacceptable to even take a chance at killing an innocent person. If I were to advocate the death penalty, it would be only for those who have killed in cold blood and have freely admitted to it. I do not trust a verdict from a jury in a matter as serious as this. There would have to be absolute certainty that the person committed the crime, and had taken responsibility for it.


That would be different, as I do support suicide, the right for someone to end their own life. If a person is sentenced to life in prison without parole, and they choose of their own volition to end their life, so be it; but it's not up to the courts or other humans to decide that.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: