Death Sentence - Best/Worst Alternative?

[Burnseyy]

Even if the person has no understanding of what they are doing and/or the ramification of what they are doing?

 

 

I mentioned that earlier. It seems rather cruel executing someone who has no understanding of what they've just done. I think those people should just be restrained or something.

 

Though I highly doubt there's that many murderers in the world with the same excuse.

Some people are quite knowledgable of what they've done, and that's quite scary.

[Web Rider]

Really? Is someone that has the mental capacity of a six-year old the same as a normal forty year old?

 

A lot of 6-year-olds are not morons. A good chunk of kids these days understand right and wrong, they know when they've broken the rules, and parents who teach their kids about guns and say "these are not for playing with" and make their kids understand, are not as likly to have an accident as a parent who has a gun and just keeps it "hidden".

 

Sure, a 6-year-old can't understand the greater complications of the world, but that does not mean a 6-year-old is stupid.

[mimartin]

Sure, a 6-year-old can't understand the greater complications of the world, but that does not mean a 6-year-old is stupid.

And your point? I never said they were morans. I was saying the system would not put one to death. Are you saying the isn't a difference in the mental capacity of a 6-year-old and a normal 40-year-old? Maybe we should allow 6-year-olds to drive.

[EnderWiggin]

But yes Ender, educate me.

 

I'm not trying to be annoying, just trying to get a lively discussion going

Well, I guess that my thoughts are simple. Like I said, it depends on the crime commited. For some crimes I think that they should get some help, while for other crimes I do not think that they should recieve help.

 

Why should someone so obviously in need of help not receive it? Are you saying if the crimes are not severe, they should receive punishment? or are you saying that if the crimes are severe, that makes them more "deserving" of life in prison?

I am not exactly sure how much this 'help' would 'help' them other than just keeping them out of trouble. If someone seriously has mental problems, there, as far as I know (I have limited knowledge in this area), they cannot be 'fixed', so to say. I guess that I could get cut from both sides because of what I think. However, we really cannot truly get into their mind to know why they would do something like this.

 

The mental illness that a person has is determined by the DSM-IV (type it into google). There are many, many things that are discussed in this manuscript. Many of the illnesses are managable with the right perscription medications or psychological treatments. However, you are right that for the most part they are incurable. By getting them professional help, it's possible for them to live relatively normal lives in some cases.

 

But to simply answer your question, I don't think that they should be treated any different than a 'normal' person just because they have mental issues. They really are no different than the rest of us. As I just said, I know that I can get cut from both sides because of my thoughts. I guess that it is a little hard to explain.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culpability

 

That's just it - they have to be treated than a 'normal' person because they are extremely different than us. They are physically unable to understand what they've done wrong.

 

You can't get mad at an amputee when he can't shake your hand.

 

It sounds to me like you've not really had much interaction with someone who falls under the specifications of the DSM. True?

 

I was saying the system would not put one to death. Are you saying the isn't a difference in the mental capacity of a 6-year-old and a normal 40-year-old? Maybe we should allow 6-year-olds to drive.

 

And luckily, at this point the legislation on the death penality rules it illegal to give minors or those mentally ill the death sentence. (In the USA, of course).

 

_EW_

[mur'phon]

Rev7: Look at the crime statistics of countries when they had the death penalty, then after they abolished it. The preventive effect seem to be around zero.

And while you think an eye for an eye is fair, to me it is extremely unfair to ruin two lives instead of one (the victims).

 

Achilles: I'm of a rather diferent oppinion of what should be punished how. "White collar" crime should be punished harshly because it is often a "well informed choice". For instance, I make the decicion to break safety standards on my factory, I know I can get caught, I know what the punishment is, yet I do it because of things like: I want to get promoted and I could use the cash. Now, if it was likely that I would get caught, and the punishment was harsh, I probably wouldn't do it (risks outweights the benefits).

Now, I don't think the woman who stabs her cheating husband in anger, or the druggie stealing for the next fix will be detered by the severity of the punishment simply because they aren't thinking about the consequences. And when the punishment dosen't deter others, then it should be focused on geting the criminal "back to normal", rather than making the criminal suffer.

[EnderWiggin]

Rev7: Look at the crime statistics of countries when they had the death penalty' date=' then after they abolished it. The preventive effect seem to be around zero.[/quote']

 

Yeah, there are no conclusive statistics either way at this point.

 

 

And while you think an eye for an eye is fair, to me it is extremely unfair to ruin two lives instead of one (the victims).

 

Wait, by killing the person who killed someone else we're ruining another life?

 

Don't you think that his life was ruined either way the moment he pulled the trigger?

 

_EW_

[mur'phon]

Don't you think that his life was ruined either way the moment he pulled the trigger?

 

Not neccesarly, while some people don't manage to, several people "get over it", some try to live a normal life, others are driven by a need to repent. Anyway, I still think it better that those are given a chance to put their lives together once they aren't considered a threat, rather than rob them of that chance.

[EnderWiggin]

several people "get over it"' date=' some try to live a normal life, others are driven by a need to repent.[/quote']

 

They "get over it"? Don't you think that's something that they shouldn't have the opportunity? They should ask God for forgiveness - but they should never "get over it."

 

And how does one live a normal life after 30 or so years in prison?

 

_EW_

[mur'phon]

Why shouldn't they have the opportunity to "get over it"?

 

And how does one live a normal life after 30 or so years in prison?

 

By not spending so long in prisson in the first place? If someone is ever to be considered safe enough to return to society, they would probably be regarded as safe far sooner.

[EnderWiggin]

Why shouldn't they have the opportunity to "get over it"?

 

He/she killed another human being. They should pretty much feel guilty for the rest of their life.

 

 

By not spending so long in prisson in the first place? If someone is ever to be considered safe enough to return to society, they would probably be regarded as safe far sooner.

 

25 to life. Minimum sentences.

 

_EW_

[mur'phon]

He/she killed another human being. They should pretty much feel guilty for the rest of their life.

 

Sure, and they most likely will, it dosen't prevent them from having a good life afterwards.

 

25 to life. Minimum sentences.

 

Well, a few posts up I argued for focusing on the helping rather than punishing such criminals, which would lead to shorter sentences for most, not that I think it will ever happen.

[EnderWiggin]

Sure, and they most likely will, it dosen't prevent them from having a good life afterwards.

 

 

I would assert that one cannot have a good life if they are wracked by guilt every waking moment.

 

Well, a few posts up I argued for focusing on the helping rather than punishing such criminals, which would lead to shorter sentences for most, not that I think it will ever happen.

 

Obviously you're not a proponent of the deontological viewpoint? That they deserve the punishment?

 

_EW_

[mur'phon]

I would assert that one cannot have a good life if they are wracked by guilt every waking moment.

 

And I'd agree if that where the case, many can "get over" their actions while still feeling guilty. A bit like I can "get over" the death of my great granny, yet I still miss her.

 

Obviously you're not a proponent of the deontological viewpoint? That they deserve the punishment?

 

Bingo:D

Feel free to convince me otherwise though.

[Darth_Yuthura]

I would assert that one cannot have a good life if they are wracked by guilt every waking moment.

 

Obviously you're not a proponent of the deontological viewpoint? That they deserve the punishment?

 

_EW_

 

My stand on the death sentence is not to punish the murderer... it's to ensure they don't kill again. It also has to provide a preventive measure to keep future murders from taking place.

 

I wouldn't mind it if certain people evade punishment, but if it leads to future crimes, the punishment must be enforced. The main reason why non-threatening individuals MUST be punished is to ensure others to not believe they could escape the consequences. If a murderer is murdered... the question is not if he deserved to die... if the one who murdered him had the right to do it.

 

Imprisonment is not for punishment... it's for prevention of future crimes.

[EnderWiggin]

My stand on the death sentence is not to punish the murderer... it's to ensure they don't kill again. It also has to provide a preventive measure to keep future murders from taking place.

So it's all about the utility? The good for society?

 

If a murderer is murdered... the question is not if he deserved to die... if the one who murdered him had the right to do it.

Are you saying the state is immoral for doing so? Or moral for doing so?

 

Imprisonment is not for punishment... it's for prevention of future crimes.

 

Depends on your point of view, friend Deontology says otherwise.

 

_EW_

[Darth_Yuthura]

So it's all about the utility? The good for society?

 

 

Are you saying the state is immoral for doing so? Or moral for doing so?

 

 

 

Depends on your point of view, friend Deontology says otherwise.

 

_EW_

 

Revenge is not the jedi way and it should not be our way. There is nothing gained by executing another... the dead are still gone. The best thing is to limit what is lost and try to prevent it in the future. I'm not siding one way or another on the death sentence. I'm just stating the reasons why to keep it or abolish it.

[EnderWiggin]

Revenge is not the jedi way and it should not be our way.

You can't use Jedi as an argument

And it's not vengeance - it's retribution. There's a difference. The state enforces just deserts.

I'm not siding one way or another on the death sentence.

I didn't either, did I?

 

_EW_

[Darth_Yuthura]

You can't use Jedi as an argument

And it's not vengeance - it's retribution. There's a difference. The state enforces just deserts.

 

Retribution can't be provided for a murder. Can anyone give life back to a victim? The only thing the state can do is act to limit the damage or keep future damage from taking place. Be reasonable... retribution can't apply to something that is irreplacible.

[Rev7]

Even if the person has no understanding of what they are doing and/or the ramification of what they are doing?

Well you see, I think that they should still be punished. We see this with little kids all of the time. If a very young child hits someone they get punished to know that is right from wrong, and to know that what they did was wrong. I think that the same thing should be used for people that don't know what they are doing just maybe not as severly. I guess that it depends on what age they are, and what the situation was.

 

<EDIT>

Just look at the rest of my post. I feel like I am all over the place! I guess that I am a little bit split, but I am learning a lot from this topic.

</EDIT>

I can’t either, but that is the reason there are people that are in the mental health profession and that is why there are hearings where evidence is presented to decide if the person is mental competed to stand trial. Yes, people sometimes plead insanity that are not insane, but there is a procedure in place to deal with that.

Yes.

What if it was a four year old picking up a loaded weapon and shooting his/her father?

I guess this is irrelevent, but who in the world would leave a loaded weapon accesable to a child?

Do you believe that child should also be punished just as any other normal person?

No, I don't think that he/she should be treated as any 'normal' person. I know that this is exactly what you wanted me to say, and I said it.

The reason we don’t is because a four year old does not have the mental ability to understand what they have done. The same can be said of some adults that have mental disabilities. It is up to the courts to decide if the person can even stand trial and we cannot execute anyone without a trial, can we? Really? Is someone that has the mental capacity of a six-year old the same as a normal forty year old?

However, you can teach a 4 year old what is right and wrong. Someone that has the capacity of a six-year old and is a legal adult is the same as everyone else, in a certain point of view. I'm sure that one point in their life they have been told that they are no different than anyone else. If someone has the capacity of a six-year old and is an adult should have some sort of help. That, I think, would help prevent something bad from happening in the first place. They need, and deserve guidence.

 

I know that I am flip-flopping around here. I am sorry for that, but as I have said in my earlier post(s) it all depends on the situation. We are talking about the whether or not the death sentance is the Best/Worse alternative, not people that suffer from mental problems commiting crimes and/or how they should be punished, no?

I'm not trying to be annoying, just trying to get a lively discussion going

Oh, I know that. I wasn't calling you annoying, and you aren't being annoying at all Ender. I was basically wanting you to educate me more on the subject.

 

Why should someone so obviously in need of help not receive it? Are you saying if the crimes are not severe, they should receive punishment? or are you saying that if the crimes are severe, that makes them more "deserving" of life in prison?

Someone in need of help most definately should recieve it. And who exactly are you refering to commiting the crime. If someone metally impared commits a "not severe" crime, they should be punished in some way to let them know that what they did was wrong. Would you say that murder should not be treated the same as someone that has shoplifted? IMO, no they should not be treated the same. I believe that it depends on the severity of the crime. I think that a reasonable punishment for someone that say, shoplifted could be community service. Then if the crime is committed again, the punishment should be more severe.

 

The mental illness that a person has is determined by the DSM-IV (type it into google). There are many, many things that are discussed in this manuscript. Many of the illnesses are managable with the right perscription medications or psychological treatments. However, you are right that for the most part they are incurable. By getting them professional help, it's possible for them to live relatively normal lives in some cases.

I agree. I think that a person that has a mental illness deserves (professional) help so that they can live somewhat of a 'normal-life'. I believe that they deserve this.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culpability

 

That's just it - they have to be treated than a 'normal' person because they are extremely different than us. They are physically unable to understand what they've done wrong.

Sometimes, yes.

It sounds to me like you've not really had much interaction with someone who falls under the specifications of the DSM. True?

Not much, but I have had interactions with some that do fall under the secifacations of DSM. In my interactions with them, it certainly seems that many of them know the basic right from wrong. They have said sorry when they know when they have done something wrong. But, these of just some of my experiances.

And luckily, at this point the legislation on the death penality rules it illegal to give minors or those mentally ill the death sentence. (In the USA, of course).

Yes, I agree.

 

Rev7: Look at the crime statistics of countries when they had the death penalty, then after they abolished it. The preventive effect seem to be around zero.

And while you think an eye for an eye is fair, to me it is extremely unfair to ruin two lives instead of one (the victims).

Well, you see the person that committed murder had already ruined his/her life, IMO. They made their choice to kill that person. Oh, and I really don't think that an eye for an eye is all that fair.

Imprisonment is not for punishment... it's for prevention of future crimes.

Really? Many crimes are still committed in prison. I have no link, but I have heard that in Japan people rarely commit crimes because of how they were treated in prision, if they committed a crime of course. They were punished, to what extent, I really have no idea. That is prevention and punishment. This is just what I have been told.

 

One form of punishment would be to take away (some) luxuries such as television, interaction, ect. This is used with children, so why could it not be implemented in the prison system, more than it already is?

[mur'phon]

EW:

So it's all about the utility? The good for society?

 

I'd say for the good of the people, but essentially yes.

 

Depends on your point of view, friend Deontology says otherwise.

 

Indeed it does, though I dislike their whole "holier than thou" atitude. Do what works, not what makes you feel good is my view, which isn't exactly compatible with theirs.

 

R7:

Well, you see the person that committed murder had already ruined his/her life, IMO. They made their choice to kill that person.

 

Errr, so because the criminals life is ruined by guilt, it is okay for us to wreck it because it's allready ruined?

First off, many manage to live decent lives afterwards when given the chance.

Second, what good does it do to wreck the criminals life?

[Rev7]

R7:

Errr, so because the criminals life is ruined by guilt, it is okay for us to wreck it because it's allready ruined?

First off, many manage to live decent lives afterwards when given the chance.

Second, what good does it do to wreck the criminals life?

What gave this person the right to wreck the life of the person that he/she killed?

[mur'phon]

No one, but why wreck his?

[Rev7]

No one' date=' but why wreck his?[/quote']

I understand where you are going with this, but do you not think that murder is unpunishable?

[mur'phon]

Err what? Please elaborate.

[Rev7]

Do you think that murder is unpunishable?