Capital Punishment/Death Penalties Debate

[HegemonKhan]

Unfortunately, I can't remember the authors' names, but they were on C-span quite some time ago now, lol.

(I'm going off of memory as best I can so much of this may be incorrect)

the husband was convicted of murder and served a very long sentence on death row, his wife went to law school, and eventually got him freed, though both were quite old by then. the husband learned law as well while being imprisoned, and after he got out, they both write this book together that explored the science and history of the death penalty and especially Americans' love of the death penalty.

I can't remember the book title, or their/the authors names, unfortunately, grrr. they were on c-span though for like the book tv program c-span does on sat-sun.

----

anyways, they found that the science of it goes all the way back to animals and their social groups. if an animal deviates from the group/pack, the group/pack of animals literally tears it to shreds (kills it) or banishes it/chases it out of the group/pack.

we see the same thing with us humans, with our society, those who deviate from our group (society), are ruthlessly attacked by society, branded as criminals and severly punished or killed.

and Americans (as a country) really enjoy/believe in the death penalty. but i can't remember what they said on why if they said why, as they want you to buy and read their book, lol.

they of course argue that since humans are no longer a small group/pack of animals desperately trying to survive, that we should do away with the death penalty, as why do we feel the need to kill, especially when they could be wrongly convicted/innocent, especially with all the prosecutors and/or cops who don't care about truth, and just want to get re-elected (Mike Nifong) or their own glory/fame/reputation/status/etc.

----------------

for me personally, *IF* the person is guilty of a crime that merits death, I got no problem with it, as nature ain't forgiving either, you mess up with nature and it kills you, the world and nature has no problems handing out "death penalties" when you mess up with it, so dishing out death doesn't bother me, as long as the person *IS* actually guilty of the heinous crime.

and also, I feel that imprisonment is completely inhumane (not that I have an alternative solution though). Diablo game: "No man should ever be caged". All life is about freedom, freedom of movement, caging life is the most evil thing you can do to life, be it animal* or human.

*if the animal is going extinct and you're trying to reverse/save it, than zoos/caging is acceptible, obviously as your trying to save it.

[faintsmile1992]

The death penalty is useful as long as its used responsibly, which its less likely to be when the media are involved in a publicised case.

I do however feel contempt for the sort of hypocritical fuckers who jump on the bandwagon of executing murderers, they're just an undignified lynch mob IMO. Anyone who calls for the blood of someone else who hasn't done any harm to them or their loved ones, usually before they're found guilty don't forget, is no different to a murderer themselves. And when people televise this shit like they do in America, the good people at home get the thrill of taking part in a murder by proxy, like people play sports by proxy if they watch sports on television.

Quoth Ayn Rand, before she started writing that stupid libertarian stuff:

"The first thing that impresses me about the case is the ferocious rage of a whole society against one man. No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the 'virtuous' indignation and mass-hatred of the 'majority.'... It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal...

This is not just the case of a terrible crime. It is not the crime alone that has raised the fury of public hatred. It is the case of a daring challenge to society. It is the fact that a crime has been committed by one man, alone; that this man knew it was against all laws of humanity and intended that way; that he does not want to recognize it as a crime and that he feels superior to all. It is the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul."

[Josef K.]

It is all to satisfy the majority, the sheer blood lust which dates from out primitive mind, I agree with Rand here to a degree, that primitive instinct is one thing but there is also the way they will appear to the others, generally you would think a man asking for the death of a serious criminal or murderer is a good man, a kind man, a good person, it's that "fame" that these people who are called the majority get, their social status, their role in society is greater. All those "The people vs (insert random name here)" are there for that goal, to gang up on someone who is a social outcast with making themselves look good.

Actually that does not prove that they are good, it does prove they are just as "guilty" as the murderer/criminal calling for the murder of another man, but it does not matter, as this is just one way to keep the fear floating, dangerous looking people on TV, it causes fear into a "normal" household or to a "normal" person, in actuality if these people are "moral" such a thing would not even be of interest to them. It's just a way to distract from other things that matter.

Well I also look at this form another perspective as well, that way I form my opinion, what is the goal of killing a person who has killed? Killing will only lead to more killing. If he is locked on an island somewhere, no chance to swim to dry land, plus he is in the basement or somewhere totally isolated within the prison (count of Monte Cristo) what are are the chances for him to escape? Seriously that is the worst thing that would happen if they do not kill the person, him to escape and repeat the act, it just shows how "safe" and "secure" the prisons are.

[Zeltrax]

Well..there's always the pros and the cons.
In singapore, murder always results in a dead sentence unless it is not deliberate.

What I think are the pros:
-Paying for their crime...they took someone's life..a life can never brought back.
-An example for the rest.
-Useful for people that will never change, even after serving sentence, after release they still will be sick.

The cons:
-Never get to repent even if wanted to.
-Never get the chance to change.
-Guilt that will follow maybe even after death.
-Pain and sadness of friends and family.
-It costs more.

Obviously there's more cons than there are pros. But can we say the same for people who are sick in the mind and who really, really does not deserve to live? But then.. who decides whether that person standing there deserves to live? No one can really say.
You guys are right about the judge and the jury and the burden.
Makes me think whether judges walk out of courtroom thinking that they carried out justice and rightfully sent a person to be executed and in doing so, they feel superior.

Anyway, went off topic. I side against "a long sentence" instead of "execution".
But it's not enough. Counselling, psychological counselling, etc must be given. Their mindset must change. They must really learn and repent.

[k-dom]

Obviously there's more cons than there are pros. But can we say the same for people who are sick in the mind and who really, really does not deserve to live? But then.. who decides whether that person standing there deserves to live? No one can really say.

Actually that was a huge debat recently in France, can we consider a person mentally sick guilty. Currently, the law discharge you and you are put in a mental institute instead. Following some terrible news items, Sarkozy wanted to change the law so that even mad people can be considered guilty (ie go to prison). I'm not sure if it was followed in the end.

Note : by mentally sick i mean real disease like schizophrenia or similar

[faintsmile1992]

I think you're referring to the insanity defence?

Like the 'crime of passion; legal defence, many argue that it makes nonsense of the law.

[k-dom]

Yeah that's it,
I found it in a French judicial blog

Le Code pénal prévoit des cas où une personne qui a commis une infraction prévue et réprimée par la loi n'est pas pénalement responsable, c'est à dire doit être acquittée si c'est un crime, relaxée si c'est un délit ou une contravention, ou bénéficier d'un non lieu dès l'instruction. Ces cas sont limitativement énumérés aux articles 122-1 à 122-8 du Code pénal.

Il s'agit dans l'ordre du Code : de la démence, de la contrainte, de l'erreur inévitable sur le droit, l'autorisation de la loi et le commandement de l'autorité légitime, la légitime défense, l'état de nécessité, la minorité de 10 ans.

Which quickly translated means that in France (i guess it is pretty much the same everywhere in democracies), penal code says that you might be declared criminally unguilty, only in one of the following cases:
Demence, constraint, unavoidable error on the law (no idea what it is), legal by law or authority, legal defense, necessity state, 10 years old minority
Another interesting point is that although you can be declared criminally unguilty (ie you don't go to prison), you can still be civilly guilty (means you still have to pay the reparation)

Ah ! I'm glad I didn't make law studies...

[faintsmile1992]

Reminds me of a point I derivated from this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOCUH7TxHRI

It's about the ability of emphathy, how it developes in growing children, where empathy is located in our brain and how it affects our judgements.
So, it contains a study:

Scenario: Grace and her husband visit a factory. She makes a coffee for her husband, and:
Situation 1: She finds a white powder labelled "Sugar" next to the coffee machine and puts it into her husband's coffee. The powder is sugar.
Situation 2: She finds a white powder labelled "Sugar" next to the coffee machine and puts it into her husband's coffee. The powder is poison, and he dies.
Situation 3: She finds a white powder labelled "Poison" next to the coffee machine and puts it into her husband's coffee. The powder is sugar, so he isn't harmed.

People were supposed to vote how much blame Grace deserves in each case, on a scale of 1 (little) to 7 (a lot), the average results were:
Scenario 1 (she thinks it's sugar and it is sugar): 1
Scenario 2 (accidentially kills him): 3
Scenario 3 (attempts to kill him, but fails): 6

During the tests of scenario 2 (Grace thinks she puts sugar into her husband's coffee, but it is poison), a special region of the brain associated with empathy was checked for activity (the region is called RTPJ). That graph showing the coherence of RTPJ activity and judgement how much grace should be blamed, is shown at 10:45:
People with low RTPJ response said that Grace should be blamed more in average. The higher the RTPJ response, the less the person blamed Grace for the accident.

This means: High RTPJ activity means, that the person judges an action more based on the intention of the action, and less on the outcome.
Low RTPJ activity means, that the person judges an action more based on the outcome, and less on the intention behind it.

Also, another test was done. This time, a strong magnetic pulse disrupted the probands' RTPJ. The average results (How much blame does Grace deserve, on a scale of 1-7):
Scenario 1 (Everything is fine): 1
Scenario 2 (Accidentially kills him): 4
Scenario 3 (failed attempt to kill him): 5

So, when the RTPJ is disrupted, people indeed do pay less attention to Grace's intention, but more on the outcome of her actions, when asked for how much they blame her

So, to bring in a link to the discussion about death penalty:
I have the feeling that people pro death penalty rather judge a crime on the outcome. They will say things like "Such a disgusting crime has to have suitable consequences" and so on.
On the other hand, contra death sentence rather argues focussed on the criminal: "There might be a motive/reason behind this" for example.
There have been quite a few cases of questionable death sentences in the past, where it seemed like the criminal's motives or other reasons were left out.

However, my point: Could it be that people pro death sentence -in average- lack empathy, and possibly have an underdeveloped brain region (RTPJ) for this?

There are five moral impulses and people with high empathy base their moral udgements mostly upon the first two. People with lower empathy tend to judge by the last three, but people with low empathy are better at understanding the moral perspectives of high empathy people than the other way around.

• Harm/care. It is wrong to hurt people; it is good to relieve suffering.
• Fairness/reciprocity. Justice and fairness are good; people have certain rights that need to be upheld in social interactions.

• In-group loyalty. People should be true to their group and be wary of threats from the outside. Allegiance, loyalty and patriotism are virtues; betrayal is bad.
• Authority/respect. People should respect social hierarchy; social order is necessary for human life.
• Purity/sanctity. The body and certain aspects of life are sacred. Cleanliness and health, as well as their derivatives of chastity and piety, are all good. Pollution, contamination and the associated character traits of lust and greed are all bad.

[HegemonKhan]

I'm just taking my very first "law" class ever, Bus. Law 101 (its actually 110, lol). So, I'm no means an expert/lawyer, lol. but in my understanding (which could be wrong), the way we (the U.S.) deal with mental illness such as skitzophrenzia (can't spell), is:

If you're sane (Aware of yourself and what you'are doing) in the moment of your act of crime, then you can be found guilty and sent to prison. Even if you're insane/skitzophrenic normally, if in the moment of the crime you're not insane/skitophrenic, then you'll be tried, and possibly convicted and sent to prison.

so that's how we in the U.S. deal with a mental illness such as skitophrenzia.

we don't care if you're changing personalities over the course of a day, we only care about your state of mind during the moment/act of the crime you're comitting. So, if your aware of yourself and what you're doing in the moment of comitting the criminal act, then you'll be treated like a normal person would be in court. If in the moment of comitting the criminal act, if you're not aware of yourself and what you're doing, then you'll be treated as a mentally ill person in the court (and sent to a "hospital" prison instead of a normal prison).

----------------------------

and we have the same thing:

criminal trials-punishments

civil trials-punisments

If gov. fail to win in a criminal trial for you, you can still sue and try to win in a civil trial as well.

---

criminal - a wrong against society. punishment: imprisonment, death, or fines

civil (tort) - a wrong against aother person(s). law suits (suing). punishment: money reparations or rewards (sue for money)

running a red light is a criminal violation (punishment is generally a fine)

running a red light and hitting-injuring a pedestrian, is both a criminal violation, and the pedestrian can civilly sue you too for restitution, money rewards, such as for punitive damages, paying for medical bills, and etc...

----

so, if someone commits a criminal crime against you, and if the gov fails the criminal case, you can still take that person to civil trial as well, trying to get money from them, as a form of justice.

for example, with OJ Simpson, the gov. failed to convict him of murdering his wife, but he was found guilty in the civil trial, and had to pay the victims family off with money. (O.J. Simpson is now in prison for life, as he comitting another crime, and was found guilty for it).

---------------------------------------------


some U.S. law links


my state (within the U.S.), California's, Penal Code:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/ca...odesection=pen

here's who/how people (including the mentally ill) get tried and found guilty in court:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/di...000&file=25-29

and here's some stuff about the mentally ill, I think with letting them out back into society after a trial+"hospitalization" prison:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/di...file=1600-1620

here's the UCC for business stuff:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/

here's a civil case, involving Eminem (on the right side click the red "Next" arrow to go to the next page, there's 14 pages):

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/ju...eminem-accuser

epic rap, by the judge or the judge's law staff/clerks, lol (see bottom of page):

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/ju...ccuser?page=13

---------------------

I wish I remembered the authors' names, or the book title, that I saw on c-span, but they researched capitol punishment (the husband was on death row and in prison for a long time, while his wife desprately tried to save him and get him out of prison over years and years, she eventually succeeded, and then they wrote their book on this topic), and this is a quite summary of what they found:

it goes back to animals, with their packs. any deviance/disobedience by a member from the pack-group is ruthlessly torn to shreds by the other pack members, such as with wolves and gorrillas.

And so we, especially Americans/U.S., continue on this animal pack-mentality, with our death penalty/capitol punishment. In other words, Americans in their love for the death penalty/capitol punishment, are still very clinging to our animal origins. We Americans are very animalistic in our love for the ultimate "punishment".

[Asarii]

In Japan, death row inmates aren't told when their execution date is (so they always have to live as if today will be their last), and their family isn't told until AFTERWARDS. That's messed up and counts as psychological abuse.

I don't want to get into a huge moral debate about whether capital punishment is right or not, but I don't want anything similar to what Troy Davis went through to happen ever again.

[HegemonKhan]

"Mother Nature" has no qualms about capitol punishment/death penalty, in fact "she" uses it even more liberally (frequently) than Texas does:

you jump off a cliff, you splat dead on the ground/water below you

you anger a lion/bear, it rips your head off

you don't kill the gazelle, you starve to death

------------------

Humanity's ugly dark side:

when a wild animal is loose, we humans shoot it dead on the spot

since we can't beat (physically abuse) our kids or take our anger out on someone, we beat (physically abuse) or take our anger out on our pets instead.

-----------------

Do we think we humans are the wiser, superior, better, more mature, and/or more compassionate than "Mother Nature" in our striving of the abolishment of capitol punishment/death penalty, of denouncing this part of "Mother Nature's and her Natural Laws/Laws of Nature" from ourselves, does this make us less animal, and more evolved or "transcendent", more human, more godly?

"Everyone is against the death penalty/capitol punishment, until its your child, your wife/husband, your friend, or other loved one, who gets so inhumanly victimized."

If you talk about "compassion" and how capitol punishment/death penalty should be abolished to Dr. William Petit (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44894512...home-invasion/), you're going to likely get beaten up, and NEVER be able to convince him to your view. He has lived-experienced the debate, you only have intellectually pondered at it.

[faintsmile1992]

For all that I'm cynical about the mentality of mobs, I can't help but think that "Everyone is against the death penalty/capitol punishment, until its your child, your wife/husband, your friend, or other loved one, who gets so inhumanly victimized" is a very good point, HK. So ultimately this comes down to Haidt's moral impulses, which correlate with Nietzsche's distinction between herrenmoral and sklavenmoral.

Liberals are more inclined to feel empathy for someones feelings, and therefore to oppose the death penalty on behalf of the criminal or his family. They can't feel sympathy for everyone though, so conservatives are quite correct to point out that liberals ironically ignore the families of the victims.

[blai]

They can't feel sympathy for everyone though, so conservatives are quite correct to point out that liberals ironically ignore the families of the victims.

Incorrect. There's a clear difference between being able to sympathize with someone and agreeing to take another person's life because of "revenge". When seeing the suffering of the victims family, why make another family suffer just as much? Two wrongs doesn't make a right.

[faintsmile1992]

But if the families of victims were ignored, low-empathy people would be more likely to stand for the principle of punishment than to show lenience. One cannot be both just and merciful. The more inclined a person is towards empathy the more inclined they are to feel pain rather than reward when they see a criminal punished. Liberals live in a different 'moral universe' than Conservatives.

[HegemonKhan]

"Revenge" is Justice, so are you denouncing Justice? Should we just ignore wrongs done by the powerful people to weak people, because any "retaliatory" action, just breeds more hatred and violence? We should just let people do whatever they want to other people, as because reacting/responding, just creates more and larger problems. Just "Turn the other cheek", live with it. Would not the world be better without our-this concept of Justice? Remove our concepts and desires of Justice-Revenge, and you make the world a far better place, right?

Should we not have those indignant protestors "revenging" against the wrong of the powerful corporate execs and their share holders? As, those protestors are just bankrupting the world even faster, and preventing more people from going to work and earning a wage that they, like the protestors, so desparately need to feed their families.

Should slaves have not "revenged" violently against their slave masters? Should Americans not have "revenged" against the slavery in the South, as all it did was lead to a civil war, an exremely bloody civil war, had we Americans just "Turned the other cheek", we could have avoided-prevented all that horribly and unneccessary bloodshed. By getting upset and "retaliatory" of those Southern Slave Masters, we just made the situation in the U.S. even worse, resulting in our bloody civil war.

Should we not have "revenged" against Hitler's Germany, "Turning the over cheek", as millions of Jews, Gypsies, and Homosexuals were genocided (mass murdered)? Should Britain have just let the Germans continue to carpet bomb Britain, as in "revenging", you just created more death, the death of Germans, as British Planes carpet bombed Germany in "retaliation".

Should we not do away with our concepts and emotions/desires, and thus reactions of and against our feelings of wrongs, heinous acts, abuse of power, bullying, victimizing, crimes, punishment, "crime and punishment", justice, revenge, retaliation, retribution, "wrongs vs rights", morals/ethics, correcting-stopping-preventing bad-criminal behaviors-actions, and etc?

Who cares about abusive governments' royalty or dictators, who cares about being bullied, who cares about abuse by the police, who cares about abuse by corporations or employers, who cares about workplace abuse, who cares about discrimination, who cares about racism-sexism-agism-rankism-disabilityism-religionism-etc, who cares what negative stuff people do to other people, who cares about the innocent, who cares about the guilty, who cares about the weak, who cares about the powerful, who cares about the poor, who cares about the rich.

"Just chill man, as it's all cool. Calm down and stop over-reacting man. Stop being so defensive man. Just let people do whatever they want to you man. it's cool man."

Because, any attempt to challenge this, just makes everything worse. We should NEVER become outraged and upset by anything. victimization is just a dillusion in our minds. there's no such thing as victimization, as being abused, as being oppressed, as being wronged, oh no, we are just making up these fanciful "feelings", as an excuse, for our "lust of revenge".