Is the Death Penalty Justifiable?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

reasoning logic
 
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 06:48 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;132563 wrote:
? ..why would I kill my own mum? We got goverment to do that, given the scenario takes place in a state/country with death penalty.

Or ..did you mean something else?

What is the difference between directly killing and indirectly killing your mother? If you have voted for it than you should step up to the plate and do it yourself as you did state that you would not let your emotions determine your actions or something to that effect.Smile
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 07:03 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic;132566 wrote:
What is the difference between directly killing and indirectly killing your mother? If you have voted for it than you should step up to the plate and do it yourself as you did state that you would not let your emotions determine your actions or something to that effect.Smile
- if I did it, I would be a vigilante which is illegal.
- the concept of vigilante would only motivate others to do the same, and it would evolve to anarchy.
- I would most likely be traumatized killing a person whom I have know and loved for so long, which is why it's usually the goverment enforcing the law, if let to people alone, most would be hinderd by feelings and group think.
 
reasoning logic
 
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 07:06 pm
@HexHammer,
What is the difference between directly killing and indirectly killing your mother if you have voted for it?
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 07:10 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic;132579 wrote:
What is the difference between directly killing and indirectly killing your mother if you have voted for it?
You need to specify and clarify your question.
 
reasoning logic
 
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 07:14 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;132581 wrote:
You need to specify and clarify your question.

What is the difference between directly and indirectly?
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 07:18 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic;132583 wrote:
What is the difference between directly and indirectly?
That is just repeating youself.

Ok let me choose 1 of 3 answers to your question, you ask a psycotic question.
 
reasoning logic
 
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 08:21 pm
@HexHammer,
We do not understand all of what causes a child to act without empathy. When our children are born they are "very close to our hearts." [That is as long as our brains are functioning correctly] A very sad fact is that there are many mothers and fathers that see some of their children behaving very much differently than their other siblings.

Do you ever wander how grey this lack of empathy can be?
The grey may be what causes us to all have different digrees of morals. What I mean is that on one end you have a serial killer and the other end you may have someone that is so loveing that it could be unsafe [vulnerable] and a problem of some sort.

There are disorders caused by biology and psychology that we know of and can see the symptoms, but we do not understand these disorders completely. As we advance in neuroscience and psychology we will start to understand some things we never could understand.


It is sad when you know that these kids have no control over their biology and yet they will suffer from society because of it. Who knows we might find a cure for some criminals in the future. It could be as simple as insulin is to diabetes.
I wander how the people in the future will view are actions of the death penalty.:detective:
 
Insty
 
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 08:21 pm
@Shostakovich phil,
The death penalty makes perfect sense in principle. There are clearly practical problems with the way the death penalty is administered, but these aren't insurmountable.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 08:37 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic;132618 wrote:
We do not understand all of what causes a child to act without empathy. When our children are born they are "very close to our hearts." [That is as long as our brains are functioning correctly] A very sad fact is that there are many mothers and fathers that see some of their children behaving very much differently than their other siblings.

There are disorders caused by biology and psychology that we know of and can see the symptoms, but we do not understand these disorders completely. As we advance in neuroscience and psychology we will start to understand some things we never could understand.
It is sad when you know that these kids have no control over their biology and yet they will suffer from sociaty because of it.:detective:
Sorry to say ..you are babbeling. You don't know my age. You don't know my deeper reasoning. You jump to conclusions.

Some kids are born with disorders, and therefore their child/parent relation may be disfunctional, or the other scenario, one is raised with strong moral and ethics, therefore such philosophies can overwrite the instinct of child/parent relation.
 
reasoning logic
 
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 08:53 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;132623 wrote:
Sorry to say ..you are babbeling. You don't know my age. You don't know my deeper reasoning. You jump to conclusions.

Some kids are born with disorders, and therefore their child/parent relation may be disfunctional, or the other scenario, one is raised with strong moral and ethics, therefore such philosophies can overwrite the instinct of child/parent relation.

Why would you state that I do not know your age. It is a true statement but I am not sure where you are coming from. please explain.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 08:57 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic;132630 wrote:
Why would you state that I do not know you age. It is a true statement but I am not sure where you are coming from. please explain.
You assumed the role as interviewing me with a barrage of questions, and repeatedly would ask the same question. Then in your final post relating to that internview you would have that journalist smilie, as if conclusion on our interview.

That's why.
 
reasoning logic
 
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 09:05 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;132631 wrote:
You assumed the role as interviewing me with a barrage of questions, and repeatedly would ask the same question. Then in your final post relating to that internview you would have that journalist smilie, as if conclusion on our interview.

That's why.
Truely what I was doing was learning different points of views other than my own and I was also sharing mine with you and other readers that may come along.
When I read your last post I was sure that you had enough of me, so I just made a post to all readers so that they could know my opinon. If you notice, "that post was not a quote. It was not directed at you in any way.
 
manored
 
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 07:47 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;132501 wrote:
In China last year, it was reported that soliders and policement who would execute criminals would suffer trauma doing their office.

Also in USA where in past time it only befell 1 person to execute, he would get traumatized, later befell a panel of executioners to collectivly push a button, therefore noone takes the guilt alont of taking the live.

However, I don't know the situation about doctors giving the lethal injection.
Well, I dont really get it, I guess its because I understand that im not the killer if the decision was taken by someone else, but perhaps many people dont.

HexHammer;132501 wrote:

Not only will it often be slave like conditions, but also cause unfair competition towards other companies. With cheap labour they can outsell any other who has to pay expensive hires to union people.
Well with the proper administration it should be possible to prevent the work of prisions from interfering with the standart economy.

reasoning logic;132557 wrote:
I know that it is very unlikely, but if you mother lost her mind and killed a bunch of people, would you think she should be put to death?
Probally not, a person who merely lost its mind certainly can be recovered, or at least continue to live (and possibly work) under surveilance.

reasoning logic;132579 wrote:
What is the difference between directly killing and indirectly killing your mother if you have voted for it?
Wanting it or not, we do suffer with fear, disgust, shock, etc, then we see the blood and the dead, specially if we are the ones to cause it, even if it is unlogic.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 08:20 pm
@manored,
manored;133078 wrote:
Well, I dont really get it, I guess its because I understand that im not the killer if the decision was taken by someone else, but perhaps many people dont.
As I mentioned earlier, it has been proven many times, that innocent people has been put to death, it's that uncertanty that destroys the executioner when they find out, they have put innocent people to death, innocent person who had families, children who now are without a parent, who will cry ..such thought often destroys minds.

manored;133078 wrote:
Well with the proper administration it should be possible to prevent the work of prisions from interfering with the standart economy.
Such as?
 
manored
 
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 10:10 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;133091 wrote:
As I mentioned earlier, it has been proven many times, that innocent people has been put to death, it's that uncertanty that destroys the executioner when they find out, they have put innocent people to death, innocent person who had families, children who now are without a parent, who will cry ..such thought often destroys minds.
But it wasnt them, it was the state. I dont understand why they fell guilty if it wasnt their mistake.

HexHammer;133091 wrote:
Such as?
Having each prision produce something different to keep the impact in the market minimal, or, the opposite, having all prisions produce the same thing and let that area be theirs.

---------- Post added 02-27-2010 at 01:15 PM ----------

HexHammer;133091 wrote:
As I mentioned earlier, it has been proven many times, that innocent people has been put to death, it's that uncertanty that destroys the executioner when they find out, they have put innocent people to death, innocent person who had families, children who now are without a parent, who will cry ..such thought often destroys minds.
But it wasnt them, it was the state. I dont understand why they fell guilty if it wasnt their mistake.

HexHammer;133091 wrote:
Such as?
Having each prision produce something different to keep the impact in the market minimal, or, the opposite, having all prisions produce the same thing and let that area be theirs.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 12:42 pm
@manored,
manored;133219 wrote:
But it wasnt them, it was the state. I dont understand why they fell guilty if it wasnt their mistake.
If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is severly skitzofrenic. An executioner IS the state when he execute, it IS his hands who are doing the deed, he is doing his office as the state! ..thereby he feels the guilt.

manored;133219 wrote:
Having each prision produce something different to keep the impact in the market minimal, or, the opposite, having all prisions produce the same thing and let that area be theirs.
Yes, yes, this is good intentions ..but I have to ask once again, such as?

Leaders, be it in politics, buisness, warfare ..or anywhere else, are often struck by delusional thinking, where it may be the good intentions which rule their thinking. Such delusional ways is very terrible as it will most likely produce idiotic resulsts. These leaders will demand his employees to carry out his delusional thoughts.

And I'v worked under such kind of leader who lived in a dream, woh would get degradated from CEO, who would throw his ENTIRE wealth away. The sad thing is, he refuses to get professional help, but blames it on bad luck.
 
reasoning logic
 
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 01:15 pm
@manored,
manored;133078 wrote:
Well, I dont really get it, I guess its because I understand that im not the killer if the decision was taken by someone else, but perhaps many people dont.

Well with the proper administration it should be possible to prevent the work of prisions from interfering with the standart economy.

Probally not, a person who merely lost its mind certainly can be recovered, or at least continue to live (and possibly work) under surveilance.

Wanting it or not, we do suffer with fear, disgust, shock, etc, then we see the blood and the dead, specially if we are the ones to cause it, even if it is unlogic.


If we have a problem with killing our own love ones then maybe we should teach Honor killing or Honor suicide to be the norm like in other societies.
UNFPA) estimates that the annual worldwide total of honor-killing victims may be as high as 5,000. I have no clue what the numbers are with Honor suicide. This does seem to be more people than what we execute each year in the USA.

This could save the tax payers lots of money. It is [money] that we do want to save correct? I just thought that I may need to add that I am not serious. I am only trying to share other view points so that others may have more to add to their way of thinking. If I knew of a beter way I would use it instead of the poor examples that I use.:detective:
 
manored
 
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 11:18 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;133283 wrote:
If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is severly skitzofrenic. An executioner IS the state when he execute, it IS his hands who are doing the deed, he is doing his office as the state! ..thereby he feels the guilt.
I dont agree, he is not the state, he merely does what the state tells him. He kills people that would be killed at the same time and place with or without his interference. Feeling anger at the state for killing an innocent is comprehensible, but feeling guilty for being the one who pulled the trigger is something I dont understand. It would be like going to war with the prospect of throwing bombs on terrorists, but bombing civilians due to a mistake of your superiors, then felling guilty rather than angry at your superiors.

HexHammer;133283 wrote:

Yes, yes, this is good intentions ..but I have to ask once again, such as?

Leaders, be it in politics, buisness, warfare ..or anywhere else, are often struck by delusional thinking, where it may be the good intentions which rule their thinking. Such delusional ways is very terrible as it will most likely produce idiotic resulsts. These leaders will demand his employees to carry out his delusional thoughts.

And I'v worked under such kind of leader who lived in a dream, woh would get degradated from CEO, who would throw his ENTIRE wealth away. The sad thing is, he refuses to get professional help, but blames it on bad luck.
I dont understand why you say im being overly optimistic. The prisions will produce whatever the state tells then to.
 
exile
 
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 02:48 pm
@Shostakovich phil,
I think deliberate killing can only be justified in self-defence. This principle can be extended to justify killing enemies in wartime, and killing someone who is about to engage in a shooting spree in a shopping mall.

However, in a modern society, we have other ways of protecting ourselves against convicted murderers - and in many cases (crimes of passion) it's not clear the murderer is necessarily likely to kill again. So, we have to consider other reasons for the death penalty - deterrence and retribution. Deterrence may work in some cases (most likely murder associated with robbery etc) but not others (crimes of passions or terrorism). Retribution is a strong motive - and if the state does not allow relatives and friends of victims to obtain retribution there is a danger they may revert to old-fashioned revenge killings resulting in feuds (which is why the state took responsibility for justice in the first place). Islamic justice allows for this in a way which has some attractions.

My instincts are against allowing the state to deliberately kill people without extremely good reasons. In the UK we have lived without the death penalty for over 40 years. There is still pressure for it to be reintroduced in some cases (eg murder of children) and no doubt always will be.
 
manored
 
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 07:22 am
@exile,
exile;133622 wrote:
I think deliberate killing can only be justified in self-defence. This principle can be extended to justify killing enemies in wartime, and killing someone who is about to engage in a shooting spree in a shopping mall.

However, in a modern society, we have other ways of protecting ourselves against convicted murderers - and in many cases (crimes of passion) it's not clear the murderer is necessarily likely to kill again. So, we have to consider other reasons for the death penalty - deterrence and retribution. Deterrence may work in some cases (most likely murder associated with robbery etc) but not others (crimes of passions or terrorism). Retribution is a strong motive - and if the state does not allow relatives and friends of victims to obtain retribution there is a danger they may revert to old-fashioned revenge killings resulting in feuds (which is why the state took responsibility for justice in the first place). Islamic justice allows for this in a way which has some attractions.
I think killing for retribuition is not acceptable, and no one should want (or espect) retribuition. To me the only reason to give someone death penalty is if that person is considered too dangerous to ever be released again.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/02/2024 at 08:38:36