[fluff]

I'm not trying to be on any high horse here. I'm simply trying to make my point.

Incarceration is not responding "in kind" when we use it as a means of punishment for many different crimes. The punishment for stealing is usually jail time, which is not 'eye for an eye'. So, why do we insist on 'eye for an eye' when it comes to murder? And, yes, regardless of how humane you do it, execution still results in death. Dead is dead no matter how you look at it, and we generally reserve death for those who are responsible for death first, which is the essence of 'eye for an eye'.

Incarceration would take this person out of regular society, thus making him unable to kill those who are still a part of society. You are correct in that it does present a problem for those who are similarly incarcerated, in that they are now at risk from this person. One might make the argument that they are outside of society and therefore are valued less, so who cares if they get killed, but I don't like that answer either. In truth, I'm not sure I have an answer that will satisfy you on that score, except to say that I think there are ways of keeping people apart besides using solitary confinement.

Would you be happier if I advocated the death penalty for rape or grevious bodily harm? What if we look at incarceration as the penalty for kidnapping and false imprisonment, does that make it revenge?

It only coincidentally happens to be an eye for an eye because it is the ultimate penalty and hence applicable only to the ultimate crime, it does not make it revenge.

If I were infallible, omnisicent and omnipotent and I was aware that someone existed who was going around cutting off the ears of everyone who had ginger hair and that they could not be fixed I would happily take the gift of life away from that person, not for the sake of revenge or retribution but for the sake of all the ginger-haired people of society.

 

[Transcend]

I just stuck my laptop behind the wheel of a friend's car. It crashed into the first wall it found.

If you ask the particle guy, it is because the government made it do it.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

No, I do actually respect Dawkins very much, especially when he talks about subjects he fully understands and looks at all aspects of it. Here he is starting from an assumption that the death penalty is entirely about retribution (which he equates fairly accurately as revenge, though they are not entirely the same thing). However as I would hope my posts show that it not the only reason for having the death penalty.

What I have tried to illustrate is that the principle of the death penalty for homicidal psychopaths is the best way to prevent them killing again. I have also pointed out the there is a big difference between the death penalty in principle and in action.

I am opposed to the death penalty not because it is unjust or unnecessary but because it is impossible to ensure that it does not result in the death of an innocent person and that the cost of one innocent victim is (in my opinion) too high. If you incarcerate for life then there is the ability to free someone should they be proven innocent, no one can be brought back from the grave.

If you look closely at my posts you will see that not only do I not support the death penalty in practice but even in theory I woudl only advocate it for people who cannot be 'repaired'.

Fluff, I get what you are saying. And, I think we are splitting hairs over this issue since we both oppose the death penalty.

Personally, I'm just not sure that we can separate the revenge factor from the act itself. I just have one question. If you reject the death penalty because you can't be sure that an innocent person won't be put to death, can you be sure that someone who can be fixed won't similarly be put to death?

 

[fluff]

If you ask the particle guy, it is because the government made it do it.

Please don't get him involved in this thread.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Would you be happier if I advocated the death penalty for rape or grevious bodily harm? What if we look at incarceration as the penalty for kidnapping and false imprisonment, does that make it revenge?

It only coincidentally happens to be an eye for an eye because it is the ultimate penalty and hence applicable only to the ultimate crime, it does not make it revenge.

If I were infallible, omnisicent and omnipotent and I was aware that someone existed who was going around cutting off the ears of everyone who had ginger hair and that they could not be fixed I would happily take the gift of life away from that person, not for the sake of revenge or retribution but for the sake of all the ginger-haired people of society.

I don't think we will be able to agree on whether it is truly for revenge or not. I think in our present society it most certainly is based on the idea of revenge. I think you would agree with that sentiment, else you would probably be more inclined to support the death penalty.

If you were all-powerful, I certainly hope that you wouldn't kill that person for cutting off ears, but would perhaps be pro-active and fix that person before they cut off peoples' ears.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Please don't get him involved in this thread.

Ditto that.

 

[fluff]

Fluff, I get what you are saying. And, I think we are splitting hairs over this issue since we both oppose the death penalty.

Personally, I'm just not sure that we can separate the revenge factor from the act itself. I just have one question. If you reject the death penalty because you can't be sure that an innocent person won't be put to death, can you be sure that someone who can be fixed won't similarly be put to death?

How many reasons do I need to reject the death penalty?

But to answer your question; who can decide who can and who can't be fixed? I know of no-one who is infallible (apart from the Pope if you're Catholic and Ohio if you hang around here) and what is seen as fact today could be seen as an old wives tale in twenty years from now.

But to turn the question around, how many chances are you prepared to take if you let someone who can kill a three-month old child go free?

 

[Transcend]

Please don't get him involved in this thread.

 

[fluff]

I don't think we will be able to agree on whether it is truly for revenge or not. I think in our present society it most certainly is based on the idea of revenge. I think you would agree with that sentiment, else you would probably be more inclined to support the death penalty.

If you were all-powerful, I certainly hope that you wouldn't kill that person for cutting off ears, but would perhaps be pro-active and fix that person before they cut off peoples' ears.

Sheesh, do you always have to be so literal; I said 'if they could not be fixed'. Ok, so arguably that means I would not be omnipotent but if I were infallible, omniscient and almost omnipotent and the only way to prevent suffering to ginger-heared people (after all have they not suffered enough) was to remove the perpetrator from the world then I would have no hesitation. The greater good of society and all that...

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Sheesh, do you always have to be so literal; I said 'if they could not be fixed'. Ok, so arguably that means I would not be omnipotent but if I were infallible, omniscient and almost omnipotent and the only way to prevent suffering to ginger-heared people (after all have they not suffered enough) was to remove the perpetrator from the world then I would have no hesitation. The greater good of society and all that...

I was sort of joking there, sorry that it didn't come across clearly....darned keyboard....I'm taking the keyboard out to shoot it.....................................................

OK, I'm back now with a new keyboard.

I was sort of touching on the "issue of evil" and how we as a society sort of look towards reacting vs. being pro-active, etc. etc. etc. It's probably a little too heady for either of us on a Monday.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

How many reasons do I need to reject the death penalty?

But to answer your question; who can decide who can and who can't be fixed? I know of no-one who is infallible (apart from the Pope if you're Catholic and Ohio if you hang around here) and what is seen as fact today could be seen as an old wives tale in twenty years from now.

But to turn the question around, how many chances are you prepared to take if you let someone who can kill a three-month old child go free?

You only need one reason. Didn't mean to imply that you need any more reasons. I simply wanted to point out that our same failings in the area of determining guilt would translate over to our abilities to determine "can't be fixed." The question could be re-phrased as, would you support the death penalty if we had 100% reliability as to guilt, but we couldn't be sure whether the person could be "fixed" or not?

Turning the question is fair play. I certainly don't think we allow this person out into society. Is killing him the only way we can keep him out of society? No. We could also seek to get him some psychological help as well, because anyone who could do what he did has some issues.

 

[fluff]

I was sort of joking there, sorry that it didn't come across clearly....darned keyboard....I'm taking the keyboard out to shoot it.....................................................

OK, I'm back now with a new keyboard.

I was sort of touching on the "issue of evil" and how we as a society sort of look towards reacting vs. being pro-active, etc. etc. etc. It's probably a little too heady for either of us on a Monday.

S'alright I saw the humour. Was that revenge on the keyboard?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

S'alright I saw the humour. Was that revenge on the keyboard?

Yes, it was....with extreme prejudice.

 

[fluff]

You only need one reason. Didn't mean to imply that you need any more reasons. I simply wanted to point out that our same failings in the area of determining guilt would translate over to our abilities to determine "can't be fixed." The question could be re-phrased as, would you support the death penalty if we had 100% reliability as to guilt, but we couldn't be sure whether the person could be "fixed" or not?

Turning the question is fair play. I certainly don't think we allow this person out into society. Is killing him the only way we can keep him out of society? No. We could also seek to get him some psychological help as well, because anyone who could do what he did has some issues.

At what point do we stop making excuses for the perpetrators of such deeds and accept that at the age of 33 you are responsible for your own actions? We all have issues of some kind, some of deal with them, others don't; if people aren't prepared to help themselves why should we bother with them? Society doesn't need more people, rationally this guy would be less of a burden dead.

To return to the question of fixability, if there was no doubt of guilt but any doubt of fixability then execute. Otherwise fix and put them to work repaying their debt to society in one form or another.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

At what point do we stop making excuses for the perpetrators of such deeds and accept that at the age of 33 you are responsible for your own actions? We all have issues of some kind, some of deal with them, others don't; if people aren't prepared to help themselves why should we bother with them? Society doesn't need more people, rationally this guy would be less of a burden dead.

To return to the question of fixability, if there was no doubt of guilt but any doubt of fixability then execute. Otherwise fix and put them to work repaying their debt to society in one form or another.

Fair enough.

I don't think we make excuses for people necessarily though. If someone has slipped through the cracks of society for years without their condition being detected, then society may shoulder some of the blame. The reason I say this is because of the societal stigma attached to things like mental health problems.