Supreme Court rejects death penalty for raping children

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

For the record, I haven't rebutted you because I don't disagree wtih your final outcome. I disagree with how you get there and I vehmently disagree with the way you present it.

That's pretty much it.
I agree with what you say evman, I also think you're a total ######bag.

[MolsonInBothHands]

I am a proponent of capital punishment as I have stated in the past. It is my belief, if you willingly destroy a life, your right to live should become forfeit. I don't understand how one could argue that a murderer's right to life is unassailable, when the offender has found it acceptable to revoke the victims right to live. To me this seems like a contradiction.

For the topic at hand - child rape - I am on the fence. I did not know until this topic came up it was possible to be put to death for such an offense. I was under the impression it was reserved for capital murder. In one sense, it is possible a life has been "destroyed", assuming the child has no chance of living a normal life. Does that mean the child should be euthanized? Being a father, I completely understand the drive for revenge if someone raped either of my kids. You think about the torture and pain you want to inflict, but pray you never have to face those circumstances in real life, and find out what you would really do. It obviously isn't as easy to do as it is to think about.

What is wrong with throwing murderers and rapists - offenders who should never reenter society - Clifford Olsen, Paul Bernardo, etc. - into a penal colony? Give them the "right to live" with each other. Seriously.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by MolsonInBothHands

I don't understand how one could argue that a murderer's right to life is unassailable, when the offender has found it acceptable to revoke the victims right to live. To me this seems like a contradiction.

I'll see if I can explain why I disagree.

First of all, there is the simple "Batman" reasoning that lowering oneself to kill a murderer makes one also a murderer. In the case of capital punishment it would be the whole of society lowering itself to the same level as the murderer.

Secondly, murder and capital punishment are, like war, incredibly lazy. Instead of seeking solutions to a problem, the decision is made to simply remove the problem. This is lazy and does nothing to advance our civilization, something that I think we should be striving for.

Thirdly and most importantly, if capital punishment is allowed, then the message is sent that, in some cases, it is acceptable to kill another person. If society says it's okay to kill a murderer, or let's say a child-rapist, then why isn't it okay for a grieving parent to kill that same person, who would have been killed by the state anyway? Once that door is opened, it becomes very hard to close. If the bar is set at zero, if the agreed upon standard is that it is never acceptable to kill another person, then those gray areas are eliminated.

Considering that the prohibition against murder is almost certainly the most widely agreed upon social convention - I know of no societies, theologies, or ethical systems where 'murder' is not considered a crime - it seems a contradiction to me to allow murder in any case.

And finally, to take a broad, idealistic view: if every single person woke up tomorrow and decided that they would never ever take a person's life no matter what, world peace would be the instantaneous result.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by driveway

And finally, to take a broad, idealistic view: if every single person woke up tomorrow and decided that they would never ever take a person's life no matter what, world peace would be the instantaneous result.

Does it make me a bad person that I laughed at that?

[driveway]

^ No. Not at all, it's a ridiculous idea that will never ever happen. But you have to admit that I'm right.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by driveway

^ No. Not at all, it's a ridiculous idea that will never ever happen. But you have to admit that I'm right.

Excellent post by the way. Not this one, the one before...not that this one is bad or something.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by driveway

^ No. Not at all, it's a ridiculous idea that will never ever happen. But you have to admit that I'm right.

That murder is the only thing preventing world peace?

You're not right, you're not even close.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Gozer

That murder is the only thing preventing world peace?

No, that if everyone decided to never kill anyone, we'd have it.

[MolsonInBothHands]

Thanks for the response driveway.

Originally Posted by driveway

I'll see if I can explain why I disagree.

First of all, there is the simple "Batman" reasoning that lowering oneself to kill a murderer makes one also a murderer. In the case of capital punishment it would be the whole of society lowering itself to the same level as the murderer.

Why can't we distinguish between murdering an innocent member of society, and executing a murderous wretch who has proven he/she does not value the lives of others? I can see one act being much lower on the morality scale than the other.

Originally Posted by driveway

Secondly, murder and capital punishment are, like war, incredibly lazy. Instead of seeking solutions to a problem, the decision is made to simply remove the problem. This is lazy and does nothing to advance our civilization, something that I think we should be striving for.

What you call lazy, I would call efficient. In our twisted system right now, monsters such as Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olsen are still able to reach out and inflict further pain on the families of the victims. IMO, they are weeds that need to be pulled before their poision spreads. That in itself helps to advance the civilization.

Originally Posted by driveway

Thirdly and most importantly, if capital punishment is allowed, then the message is sent that, in some cases, it is acceptable to kill another person. If society says it's okay to kill a murderer, or let's say a child-rapist, then why isn't it okay for a grieving parent to kill that same person, who would have been killed by the state anyway? Once that door is opened, it becomes very hard to close. If the bar is set at zero, if the agreed upon standard is that it is never acceptable to kill another person, then those gray areas are eliminated.

How many fathers would resort to vigilante justice knowing the perpetrator faces the death penalty?

I was serious about the penal colony. I would see this as a great compromise in the capital punishment debate. Let murderers and rapists live amongst and rehabilitate themselves.

[Flashpoint]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Courts make mistakes. With capital punishment, you don't even get the chance at fixing it.

People change. When someone is dead, they don't even have the slenderest hope of redemption, or any chance whatsoever to offer anything to society.

That's pretty much it for me. Warehouse em forever. Don't kill em. Hope springs eternal that even the worst criminal might somehow find their way.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by MolsonInBothHands

I was serious about the penal colony. I would see this as a great compromise in the capital punishment debate. Let murderers and rapists live amongst and rehabilitate themselves.

And end up with another Australia?!...no thanks mate

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by driveway

No, that if everyone decided to never kill anyone, we'd have it.

Removing murder from the conflict resolution 'toolbox' doesn't equal world peace (absence of conflict)

I think mankind would have to evolve a long ways from its primal/primate roots before world peace is an option.

[MolsonInBothHands]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Oversimplification. You can never expect to make the aftermath right, but the world is less wrong with one less murderer in it.

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Courts make mistakes. With capital punishment, you don't even get the chance at fixing it.

The biggest argument against in my eyes, but I think you mitigate by narrowing the scope and circumstances the punishment is used.

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

People change. When someone is dead, they don't even have the slenderest hope of redemption, or any chance whatsoever to offer anything to society.

Some sociopaths will never change, are without remorse, and will never seek redemption. They should win the grand prize.

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

That's pretty much it for me. Warehouse em forever. Don't kill em. Hope springs eternal that even the worst criminal might somehow find their way.

I could live with warehousing them forever, provided they are never in contact or reach of civilization again. Give them an island, or Edmonton , and blast anything that pokes its head out. Escape from New York style.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by MolsonInBothHands

Oversimplification. You can never expect to make the aftermath right, but the world is less wrong with one less murderer in it.

It's a cliche, but it sums up my thinking pretty well. Besides, if you kill a murderer, you just became a murderer. So the number didn't get reduced.

The biggest argument against in my eyes, but I think you mitigate by narrowing the scope and circumstances the punishment is used.

No step you could take would ever mitigate even one wrongful conviction where the death penalty was applied. Imagine a member of your family being killed and it later being discovered they were innocent. No argument can excuse that sort of error.

Some sociopaths will never change, are without remorse, and will never seek redemption. They should win the grand prize.

That's true, but you can't filter which ones are like that, and which ones aren't. A guy could go 40 or 50 years and then change. Unlikely to be sure, but as long as they are alive, they have that slim chance.

I could live with warehousing them forever, provided they are never in contact or reach of civilization again.

Agreed.

Give them an island, or Edmonton , and blast anything that pokes its head out. Escape from New York style.

No need to get goofy about it. Incarceration should be about giving inmates the chance to redeem themselves. Removal from society is the punishment. I'd like to see removal of any contact with the outside until inmates achieve a certain level of rehabilitation. Of course, our prison system isn't ideal for rehab, so lots of inmates emerge primed and ready to re-offend.

Most prison behaviour is brought on by the nature of prison. I recall a psychological experiment that had half a Psyc class act as inmates, and the other half act as guards for a couple weeks, and pretty soon both sides were taking on "stereotypical" prison behaviour.

Perhaps too far off topic at this point.

[CaptainCrunch]

[quote=Flashpoint;1358809]
Most prison behaviour is brought on by the nature of prison. I recall a psychological experiment that had half a Psyc class act as inmates, and the other half act as guards for a couple weeks, and pretty soon both sides were taking on "stereotypical" prison behaviour.

quote]

So did you get extra credit for shanking your classmates while pairing off and marrying the guy next to you in the cafeteria lineup?

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

So did you get extra credit for shanking your classmates while pairing off and marrying the guy next to you in the cafeteria lineup?

Yaa...

I kind of figured that post was going to spin off and go that way...

Here's a link to the experiment if anyone is interested.

The Stanford Prison Experiment

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

Wow ... um ... aren't you a born-again Christian? What happened to "do unto others"? What happened to mercy? I mean, really? If an error is made, oh well? Do you want the job of going to that wrongfully executed person's widow(er) or child and tell them, "oops"?

Perhaps you should go 'read' what the Bible says about the government and capital punishment before you ridicule 'born again Christians.'

It 'explicitly' points out that the government has the right to bear the sword.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by Azure

Perhaps you should go 'read' what the Bible says about the government and capital punishment before you ridicule 'born again Christians.'

It 'explicitly' points out that the government has the right to bear the sword.

....and own slaves too

times change

[driveway]

Originally Posted by MolsonInBothHands

Thanks for the response driveway.


Why can't we distinguish between murdering an innocent member of society, and executing a murderous wretch who has proven he/she does not value the lives of others?

The problem with this is that, if you allow for it to be 'right' to take a life under certain circumstances, then there will always be argument over what the appropriate circumstances are. If you allow for any gray area about when it is and is not okay for society to take a person's life then you allow room for people to make arguments increasing the scope of that area. I feel that the bar has to be set at zero.

What you call lazy, I would call efficient. In our twisted system right now, monsters such as Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olsen are still able to reach out and inflict further pain on the families of the victims. IMO, they are weeds that need to be pulled before their poision spreads. That in itself helps to advance the civilization.

First of all, efficiency is not a virtue. Secondly, I have sympathy for the families of victims, but their suffering is insufficient to warrant the taking of a life. ALL suffering is insufficient in my view. (Yes, even in the hyperbolic cases of genocidal maniacs and war criminals)

How many fathers would resort to vigilante justice knowing the perpetrator faces the death penalty?

This is not a reason to instate the death penalty. We haven't had the death penalty in Canada in decades and, off the top of my head, I can't think of a single example of this kind of vigilantism.

I was serious about the penal colony. I would see this as a great compromise in the capital punishment debate. Let murderers and rapists live amongst and rehabilitate themselves.

I have no problems with that. I think it would be a fine solution. Also, my opposition to capital punishment in no way means I am opposed to corporal punishment.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

Removing murder from the conflict resolution 'toolbox' doesn't equal world peace (absence of conflict)

This is getting off-topic and into semantics, but I don't consider world peace and complete absence of conflict to be synonyms. In my view a world where no one ever killed anyone else for any reason ever, would, by default, be a world at peace.