'We Shouldn't Stoop To Their Level'

[Xinoftruden]

Well, lets see, if they are being punished for something than the punishment should equal the crime. For me stooping to their level has always been a bit weird, what happens if I went past their level a long time ago?

[Elesjei]

If someone commits mass murder, he deserves to be punished by death. Yes, we are doing the same thing to him that he did to others, but we are doing it humanely and to protect others by preventing future crimes both by ending his life and by reinforcing the idea that murder is intolerable.

I have seen movies where a mass murderer is left alive by the protagonist because "I'm not going to become you". But that seems short-sighted. The man murders innocent people for horrible reasons, and there is no reason to believe he will not continue to do so.

It isn't stooping to his level if you take a life that has taken plenty, and if the reason is to stop him from continuing to kill.

*An important note is that I am assuming the killer is like most killers, where they have complete control over their actions (ie. Anders Breivik). I don't support executing someone like the mentally unstable man who was not on medication and beheaded a greyhound passenger because he was told to do so by voices that told him the guy was an evil alien.*

[Xinoftruden]

(25-09-2012 11:03 AM)Elesjei Wrote:  If someone commits mass murder, he deserves to be punished by death. Yes, we are doing the same thing to him that he did to others, but we are doing it humanely and to protect others by preventing future crimes both by ending his life and by reinforcing the idea that murder is intolerable.

I have seen movies where a mass murderer is left alive by the protagonist because "I'm not going to become you". But that seems short-sighted. The man murders innocent people for horrible reasons, and there is no reason to believe he will not continue to do so.

It isn't stooping to his level if you take a life that has taken plenty, and if the reason is to stop him from continuing to kill.

*An important note is that I am assuming the killer is like most killers, where they have complete control over their actions (ie. Anders Breivik). I don't support executing someone like the mentally unstable man who was not on medication and beheaded a greyhound passenger because he was told to do so by voices that told him the guy was an evil alien.*

So iif I kill someone in the name of God you're fine with it?

[kim]

16% of prison inmates will return to prison. Studies suggest the death penalty is not a deterrent to violent crime and 88% of criminologists agree with these findings. One might reason that if the death penalty were a deterrent, prisons wouldn't be overcrowded with violent criminals today.

When "life in prison" becomes 15 years - that seems to be where the system needs reevaluation. Prison for life without chance of parol would seem to be pretty clear, although, I have no idea about it being a deterrent.

"We shouldn't stoop to their level." is a positive beginning. The alternative of course, is the psychological perpetuation of that which we find so abhorrent. Some might call it revenge while others might think of it as justice.

Why kill someone who has killed? Perpetuation... it tells everyone that it's ok to kill... it just depends who's doing it.


BTW- you do know it's ok to kill, right? When your government tells you to, it's ok to kill... but that might be another thread.

[bemore]

(25-09-2012 12:07 PM)kim Wrote:  BTW- you do know it's ok to kill, right? When your government tells you to, it's ok to kill... but that might be another thread.

(eyes machette above my front door)



Sounds very conspiratorial kim.... a bit up my street of thinking

[morondog]

(25-09-2012 11:03 AM)Elesjei Wrote:  If someone commits mass murder, he deserves to be punished by death. Yes, we are doing the same thing to him that he did to others, but we are doing it humanely and to protect others by preventing future crimes both by ending his life and by reinforcing the idea that murder is intolerable.

I have seen movies where a mass murderer is left alive by the protagonist because "I'm not going to become you". But that seems short-sighted. The man murders innocent people for horrible reasons, and there is no reason to believe he will not continue to do so.

It isn't stooping to his level if you take a life that has taken plenty, and if the reason is to stop him from continuing to kill.

*An important note is that I am assuming the killer is like most killers, where they have complete control over their actions (ie. Anders Breivik). I don't support executing someone like the mentally unstable man who was not on medication and beheaded a greyhound passenger because he was told to do so by voices that told him the guy was an evil alien.*

Katsujinken

[kim]

(25-09-2012 12:32 PM)bemore Wrote:  

(25-09-2012 12:07 PM)kim Wrote:  BTW- you do know it's ok to kill, right? When your government tells you to, it's ok to kill... but that might be another thread.

(eyes machette above my front door)
Sounds very conspiratorial kim.... a bit up my street of thinking

Ha - no conspiracy - just making a point about killing being a relative term. I'm just noting that governments do ask their citizens to kill and with impunity. Governments direct their respective militaries to go somewhere and kill all kinds of people. Just because you call it something else, doesn't mean you aren't doing it.

Killing is technically not against anyone's laws -per se. Though one can certainly be prosecuted for it, "Thou shall not kill" is not in any government's constitution, as far as I know... I'd love to know if I'm incorrect about that.

Oooh... except maybe Tibet's government in exile - I'd like to know about that. Lazy trumps curiosity at the moment.

[cheapthrillseaker]

(25-09-2012 01:08 PM)kim Wrote:  

(25-09-2012 12:32 PM)bemore Wrote:  (eyes machette above my front door)
Sounds very conspiratorial kim.... a bit up my street of thinking

Ha - no conspiracy - just making a point about killing being a relative term. I'm just noting that governments do ask their citizens to kill and with impunity. Governments direct their respective militaries to go somewhere and kill all kinds of people. Just because you call it something else, doesn't mean you aren't doing it.

Killing is technically not against anyone's laws -per se. Though one can certainly be prosecuted for it, "Thou shall not kill" is not in any government's constitution, as far as I know... I'd love to know if I'm incorrect about that.

Oooh... except maybe Tibet's government in exile - I'd like to know about that. Lazy trumps curiosity at the moment.

The matriarchal part of their society was a-okay with it. Probably still is.

[Vipa]

Wouldn't we have to prove that the criminal actually was able to use free will first?
From my perspective it isn't right to kill someone for his bad genes and upbringing no matter the crime he did.
Sure we have to protect the public and therefore lock a person up who's too dangerous for society.
But as kim wrote there is no use for death penalty anyways. America is, as far as statistics go, a really good example of how useless this threat is.
Additionally there is always a percentage of people who get convicted although they are innocent.

Can a country really afford to kill innocent people (locking up is already critically enough I think..) as collateral damage even though the real criminals probably - as far as neuroscience goes - are technically predisposed by nature?
I'd say mercy is the way to go for all of them at the very least to prevent death row for the innocently convicted.

On a derailing note:
The USA already kills hundreds of innocent people as collateral damage with drone attacks, so at least as a country "we shouldn't stoop to their level" is out of question, because the usa is hitting rock bottom... so acutally feel free to kill whoever you want


But on a non-violent level I don't have much problem with talion

[GabrielSun]

(25-09-2012 09:14 AM)cheapthrillseaker Wrote:  I bet I'm completely off the ball, but here we go:

A person does a horrific detestable thing, and gets caught.

If there was an 'equally savage punishment' as Hughsie puts it, shouldn't the person giving the punishment also receive the same punishment? Or maybe the person giving out the order, if the Punisher (hehe) is exempt from it, should?

The rise to power of people wanting to escape the law, and yet still wanting to have sick fun would rise... ah, it would. Or it wouldn't, and I'd be too scared to leave the house.

"Step right up! Your turn to be receive equally savage punishment should be available in your lifetime. We haven't calculated it all, but suspect the numbers to grow proportionally."

This is the point I was going to make. As a society you have to ask what your society wants out of the treatment of criminals. Do you want to punish or do you want to rehabilitate? Punishment has never worked in the entire history of mankind. I think we need to take a look at our social responsibility as a society; that we created or allowed to create these kinds of people and make it better.