[Profit]

	Originally Posted by Warrior To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Who cares. Once again, the purpose of punishment is ot punish, not to prevent other crimes. The only questions that matters is whether the death penalty is appropriate punishment for a particular crime.

You have distilled a pretty complex philosophical and judicial question down to a single sentence that puts forth your understanding of the purpose of punishment.

Reasons for punishing criminals.

• They deserve to be punished.
• Punishment will stop them from committing further crimes.
• Punishment tells the victim that society disapproves of the harm that he or she has suffered.
• Punishment discourages others from doing the same thing.
• Punishment protects society from dangerous or dishonest people.
• Punishment allows an offender to make amends for the harm he or she has caused.
• Punishment ensures that people understand that laws are there to be obeyed.

Some of the possible answers to the question of why offenders should be punished may conflict with each other. This is because some answers are based on reasons having to do with preventing crime whereas others are concerned with punishment being deserved by an offender. When a court imposes a punishment on an offender, it often tries to balance the sorts of reasons for punishment noted earlier, but sometimes certain purposes of punishment dominate other purposes. Over time there have been shifts in penal theory, and therefore in the purpose of punishment due to a complex set of reasons including politics, public policy, and social movements. Consequently, in a cyclical process, an early focus on deter- rence as the rationale for punishment gave way to a focus on reform and rehabilitation. This, in turn, has led to a return to punishment based on the notion of retribution and just deserts.

[Warrior]

	Originally Posted by Profit To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Reasons for punishing criminals. • They deserve to be punished.

Yes.

	• Punishment will stop them from committing further crimes.

Usually not - only the death penalty can assure this, but this isn't relevent.

	• Punishment tells the victim that society disapproves of the harm that he or she has suffered.

No. This is what laws are for. Punishment is just the consequences of the action.

	• Punishment discourages others from doing the same thing.

Maybe, maybe not, but again, this isn't relevent.

	• Punishment protects society from dangerous or dishonest people.

No. Punishment exists specifically because something did not protect society.

	• Punishment allows an offender to make amends for the harm he or she has caused.

No. Punishment is simply the consequences of someone's (unlawful) actions. That individual can make amends, but that has no bearing on the punishment.

	• Punishment ensures that people understand that laws are there to be obeyed.

No. This is what parents are for. It's too late to learn that you should have obeyed a law after you have broken it.

Some of the possible answers to the question of why offenders should be punished may conflict with each other. This is because some answers are based on reasons having to do with preventing crime whereas others are concerned with punishment being deserved by an offender. When a court imposes a punishment on an offender, it often tries to balance the sorts of reasons for punishment noted earlier, but sometimes certain purposes of punishment dominate other purposes. Over time there have been shifts in penal theory, and therefore in the purpose of punishment due to a complex set of reasons including politics, public policy, and social movements. Consequently, in a cyclical process, an early focus on deter- rence as the rationale for punishment gave way to a focus on reform and rehabilitation. This, in turn, has led to a return to punishment based on the notion of retribution and just deserts.

There isn't any conflict. Punishment is the prescribed consequences of breaking the law. Period. Punishment isn't about deterrence, reform, rehabilitation, public safety, or anything else.

[PunkinA]

	Originally Posted by Warrior To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Who cares. Once again, the purpose of punishment is ot punish, not to prevent other crimes. The only questions that matters is whether the death penalty is appropriate punishment for a particular crime.

The purpose of a legal system is to protect the citizenry. If we escalate crime or murder in the community, the act of punishment defies the purpose of the legal system that allows it. The law does not intend to preserve justice. Instead its stated purpose in this country is to promote life and liberty. Punishment and justice serve as a means to reach those goals and do not represent the ends in and of themselves.

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	A crime like this is not just a crime against victims, it's a crime against the community. It's a crime against humanity. The community deserves to see justice done and it deserves to see it done quickly. There are no mitigating circumstances when killing is done for the sake of killing. My guess is that public hangings would have a profound deterrent effect on thrill killers.

Thrill killers act out of unreasonable motivations. By definition they are not acting logically. Reasonable deterrents have no effect on a man operating without reasonable capacity.

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Local communities should have the right to enforce this punishment to protect the innocent from future imitators. Let all the members of the community be the jurors. As far as equal treatment under the law, that should be up to each individual community to decide. If some communities decide they want to sacrifice the innocent for some lofty, theoretical purpose then so be it.

Local communities do have the right to enforce this punishment. However they must follow the law. The law is the way our rights are enacted. In this case, the overarching right is laid out in the fifth amendment. Every local community can enact punishments, as long as they are consistent with the personal rights provided by the constitution. If we are willing to throw away the constitutional rights provided every citizen, then the concept of rights for a local community become a meaningless farce.

The suggestion of lynch mob style justice corrupts the value of both individual justice and community justice.

[Aronnax]

	Originally Posted by Warrior To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If you want a thread about changing socioeconomic conditions that created young men (apparently women never commit crimes) and what should we do to fix the problem, I'm all for that. That question, however, is not relevent to the argument of whether the death penalty is appropriate punishment for those individuals that do commit crimes.

The 4 people mentioned in the original link were all young men, hence the "young men like this" statement.

The death penalty is more expensive than lifelong incarceration because of the 5th amendment (a grand jury is required in capital cases) and the appeals process necessary to prevent executing the wrongfully convicted. If the public is going to carry the burden of additional cost there should be some additional social value. When you look at per capita murder rates for nations with and without a death penalty the nations with a death penalty have a significantly higher per capita murder rate. In other words the is no tangible social benefit and if you insist on drawing a correlation between the two capital punishment increases murder rates.

The only discernible benefit of capital punishment is "it makes us feel good" which is a horrible foundation for any public policy, much less one that involves matters of life and death.

[Warrior]

Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The 4 people mentioned in the original link were all young men, hence the "young men like this" statement. The death penalty is more expensive than lifelong incarceration because of the 5th amendment (a grand jury is required in capital cases) and the appeals process necessary to prevent executing the wrongfully convicted. If the public is going to carry the burden of additional cost there should be some additional social value. When you look at per capita murder rates for nations with and without a death penalty the nations with a death penalty have a significantly higher per capita murder rate. In other words the is no tangible social benefit and if you insist on drawing a correlation between the two capital punishment increases murder rates. The only discernible benefit of capital punishment is "it makes us feel good" which is a horrible foundation for any public policy, much less one that involves matters of life and death.

Many things could influence murder rates other than having the death penalty. Simply showing a correlation between the two doesn't isn't justification one way or the other.

The other benefit is that it is the only punishment that suits some crimes. Who is the "us" that it makes feel good. I'm a huge supporter of the death penalty, but it certainly does not make me feel good when it has to be used.

[Talkahuano]

	capital punishment increases murder rates.

As Warrior said, this isn't necessarily true.

There are a lot more factors than the death penalty when someone chooses to murder. For example, a lot of men convicted of murdering women said they initially only planned to rob her. But she didn't fight back in any way, so they raped, got excited, and murdered. It's not an uncommon situation.
Those men weren't thinking of the death penalty, they were just getting carried away (and should of course be punished).

Each murder is different and each motive for murder is different, and I bet you most murderers won't think about the death penalty at all when committing the crime.

[aku chi]

	Originally Posted by Warrior To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Punishment is the prescribed consequences of breaking the law. Period. Punishment isn't about deterrence, reform, rehabilitation, public safety, or anything else.

Saying something over and over again doesn't make it right. Judges, politicians, and citizens have vastly different perspectives on the purpose of punishment. Your particular perspective is not universally shared (nor, I am confident, is it shared by a majority of the citizens of the US). Personally, I have the complete opposite perspective. I believe that the only proper purpose of punishment is deterrence (and some public safety in certain cases). I don't think there is anything you can say that would change my views on this matter but you certainly won't change my views simply by repeatedly proclaiming that your views are objectively correct.

With regards to the original post, I completely agree with Storm; making executions public and more archaic / dangerous / failure-prone / graphic doesn't serve any purpose from my perspective (deterrence).

(On another note, I'm seriously disturbed by people who would prefer harsher punishments for rapists (even child rapists) than murderers. It doesn't make much sense to me...)

[Warrior]

Originally Posted by aku chi To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Saying something over and over again doesn't make it right. Judges, politicians, and citizens have vastly different perspectives on the purpose of punishment. Your particular perspective is not universally shared (nor, I am confident, is it shared by a majority of the citizens of the US). Personally, I have the complete opposite perspective. I believe that the only proper purpose of punishment is deterrence (and some public safety in certain cases). I don't think there is anything you can say that would change my views on this matter but you certainly won't change my views simply by repeatedly proclaiming that your views are objectively correct.

I make no claim that my views are objectively correct. Clearly people disagree with me. I keep repeating myself hoping someone will come up with an argument I have not heard before that might change my mind. So far, no one has.

If you think the only reason for punishment is deterrence, are you always punishing yourself in hopes of preventing something? Why should we single out only law breakers? Why shouldn't everyone have to line up each morning for their beating in the hopes that it will deter someone from doing something bad?

	With regards to the original post, I completely agree with Storm; making executions public and more archaic / dangerous / failure-prone / graphic doesn't serve any purpose from my perspective (deterrence).

Nor does it really serve any purpose from my perspective either. I may support the death penalty, but it can still be quick and clean with minimal observation beyond those carrying it out.

[polaroid]

IMHO, quick death is too merciful for many criminals. I'd like to see the worst offenders (child abusers and rapists) locked up alone in windowless concrete boxes forever.

Murderers who can't be reformed might deserve capital punishment, though. I don't know, seems a bit barbaric, and it is very expensive.

[IrishGuy]

I've always been pretty ambiguous about the death penalty. I understand the logic that murder should be punished with murder, but that assumes a perfect legal system that we do not have. Capital punishment is an absolute punishment. I think you need absolute proof beyond a shadow of a doubt (as opposed to reasonable doubt) to justify that kind of punishment. That kind of certainty simply does not exist in most cases.

As for public hanging; the emotional shock value from witnessing a public hanging cuts both ways. Those related to the perpetrator may feel very angry that their loved one was given such a harsh treatment (especially if prejudice is suspected). This could lead to more crime. Also, the second someone is hanged extrajudicially, public outrage will skyrocket.

[SeaCzar]

I think the blame for this incident lies with the parents for raising these little bastards to think like this. I say let the parents swing with the kids. Too bad abortion can't be retroactive.

[Ray9]

This infuriates me:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Lucid]

The government shouldn't have the right to kill people. It's strange that many people in this thread posting in favor of giving the government the right to kill people have posted in other threads against giving the government the right to tax people, or prohibit guns etc. Your beliefs are inconsistent.

And I think it's because of emotions. Some crimes are, indeed, incredibly heinous. These crimes evoke in us an irrational, emotional reaction. All this stuff about deterrence is just so much justification. Likewise the "the government has to kill people so that private citizens won't take the law into their own hands!" Private citizens are rational beings capable of controlling themselves. The can and should be expected to do so even in the face of heinous crimes against their loved ones.

Lets use reason when making policy instead of emotion, especially when it comes to policies of life or death.

[LaoTzu]

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This infuriates me: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Stop watching the news...it's part of the problem.
It is sensationalized, and it gives the false impression that all there is to know outside your door is what could kill you.
At the very least, remove your emotion chip before watching. Today's media is more inclined to elicit an emotional response from you than an intellectual one.


As far as capital punishment goes, I would never support it. Removing criminals from society should be the only goal. Blood for blood does nobody any favors. You should be doing your best to stamp out the notion of revenge-killing; not publicly supporting it. I'd regale you with the statistics of how many on death-row have since been exonerated, but I'd prefer to acquaint you with this story:



One 14-year-old boy in the program had shot and killed an innocent teenager to prove himself to his gang. At the trial, the victim’s mother sat impassively silent until the end, when the youth was convicted of the killing. After the verdict was announced, she stood up slowly and stared directly at him and stated, “I’m going to kill you.” Then the youth was taken away to serve several years in the juvenile facility.

After the first half-year the mother of the slain child went to visit his killer. He had been living on the streets before the killing, and she was the only visitor (in jail) he’d had. For a time they talked, and when she left she gave him some money for cigarettes. Then she started step-by-step to visit him more regularly, bringing food and small gifts.

Near the end of his three-year sentence, she asked him what he would be doing when he got out. He was confused and very uncertain, so she offered to help set him up with a job at a friend’s company. Then she inquired about where he would live, and since he had no family to return to, she offered him temporary use of the spare room in her home. For eight months he lived there, ate her food, and worked at the job.

Then one evening she called him into the living room to talk. She sat down opposite him and waited. Then she started, “Do you remember in the courtroom when I said I was going to kill you?” “I sure do,” he replied. “I’ll never forget that moment.” “Well, I did it,” she went on. “I did not want the boy who could kill my son for no reason to remain alive on this earth. I wanted him to die. That’s why I started to visit you and bring you things. That’s why I got you the job and let you live here in my house. That’s how I set about changing you. And that old boy, he’s gone. So now I want to ask you, since my son is gone, and that killer is gone, if you’ll stay here. I’ve got room and I’d like to adopt you if you let me.”
And she became the mother he never had.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Warrior]

	Originally Posted by Lucid To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The government shouldn't have the right to kill people. It's strange that many people in this thread posting in favor of giving the government the right to kill people have posted in other threads against giving the government the right to tax people, or prohibit guns etc. Your beliefs are inconsistent.

I don't see anything inconsistent with those beliefs. They seem to be fairly unrelated. (Although I don't understand how anyone can argue the government doesn't have the right to tax people.)

And I think it's because of emotions. Some crimes are, indeed, incredibly heinous. These crimes evoke in us an irrational, emotional reaction. All this stuff about deterrence is just so much justification. Likewise the "the government has to kill people so that private citizens won't take the law into their own hands!" Private citizens are rational beings capable of controlling themselves. The can and should be expected to do so even in the face of heinous crimes against their loved ones.

I agree with the latter part of your statement, but there is nothing irrational about punishment having to fit the crime. In my opinion, the death penalty meets this criteria for some crimes.

	Lets use reason when making policy instead of emotion, especially when it comes to policies of life or death.

Reason and logic have their (important) place, but they are not the only factors. I agree that this issue is of extreme importance. So much so that I'm not willing to limit myself to only listening to the rational arguments. If someone has something to add, they should add it. Maybe I will agree, maybe not, but the issue is serious enough that ideas should be aired out.

[Lucid]

	Originally Posted by Warrior To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Reason and logic have their (important) place, but they are not the only factors. I agree that this issue is of extreme importance. So much so that I'm not willing to limit myself to only listening to the rational arguments. If someone has something to add, they should add it. Maybe I will agree, maybe not, but the issue is serious enough that ideas should be aired out.

But it's more than people airing their ideas. It's killing people as an emotional response. Logic isn't the only thing in the world and of course emotions should be considered. But I don't think they should be considered in cases of life or death.

That said, and before I'm predictably accused of bleeding heart liberalism, it's not that I have anything against killing people. It's that emotions are not enough of a justification to do so and our legal system is not and cannot be perfect enough to trust it with deciding who lives and who dies.

[Ray9]

	The government shouldn't have the right to kill people. It's strange that many people in this thread posting in favor of giving the government the right to kill people have posted in other threads against giving the government the right to tax people, or prohibit guns etc. Your beliefs are inconsistent.

	Here's my opinion of capital punishment: In theory I'm against it; in practice I support it.

You present the theory of reason over emotion. Now, in theory reason will always hold sway. But theory is sometimes lacking where the rubber meets the road. Life is not lived in theory, it is lived in practice. Life is tenuous, precious, it's everything. The life of one is connected and bonded to all others who are connected and bonded to it. It's all we have in this universe. There is nothing more important in this short life than the love we have for our families, friends and neighbors. Every life is woven into the fabric of every other life it touches, some more than others. When a life is removed by evil the wound is shared by all those other lives, especially the closest lovedones. The wounds are lifetime wounds. This is practice, not theory. There is no punishment that can account for this so in theory, capital punishment serves no purpose. But punishment is not the issue nor is deterence. The issue is to recognize evil and remove it from this world as you would any malignancy that in the future could come back.

[Lucid]

Ray, you don't know anything about my life or whether I have cause to have put my theory into practice or not. Just saying "life is theory in practice and reason isn't always enough" doesn't cut it.

Either you are a person who makes decisions about whether someone will live or die based on emotion or you are not.

Also, the point of law is to remove mob rule and emotional reactions from the system. Law is supposed to be impartial and based on reason over emotion. That's what it was created for and that is the role it fills in our society.

[Warrior]

Originally Posted by Lucid To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

But it's more than people airing their ideas. It's killing people as an emotional response. Logic isn't the only thing in the world and of course emotions should be considered. But I don't think they should be considered in cases of life or death. That said, and before I'm predictably accused of bleeding heart liberalism, it's not that I have anything against killing people. It's that emotions are not enough of a justification to do so and our legal system is not and cannot be perfect enough to trust it with deciding who lives and who dies.

Maybe I misunderstood you, but I'm don't mean the debate should happen every time there is a capital crime committed. I only mean when the debate is whether to have the death penality or not and if so, when it should be applied. I think people should speak their mind at that time, if only because they may have a point overlooked previously that could have a major impact on the discussion. After that, application should follow the rules and regulations laid out and the appropriate courtroom process.

[aku chi]

	Originally Posted by Warrior To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I make no claim that my views are objectively correct. Clearly people disagree with me. I keep repeating myself hoping someone will come up with an argument I have not heard before that might change my mind. So far, no one has.

Okay. There are several previous topics that have focused on this issue. I recommend checking out this
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. You could also take a look at this
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
that I contributed in.

To be honest, I'm not sure how I could convince you that deterrence is both effective and a legitimate purpose of the courts; it seems obvious to me. I will, however, try.

	Originally Posted by Warrior To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If you think the only reason for punishment is deterrence, are you always punishing yourself in hopes of preventing something? Why should we single out only law breakers? Why shouldn't everyone have to line up each morning for their beating in the hopes that it will deter someone from doing something bad?

Deterrence is used to discourage behaviors that other people dislike. Parents use it to influence their children's behavior, the strong use it to influence the weak, and most relevantly, laws, police, and the courts use it to influence citizens' behavior. Criminals are singled out because criminal laws define the behavior that law-makers would like to discourage. I would argue that these laws aren't usually arbitrary; they reflect certain shared values of the law-makers. I would also like to point out that punishment does not need to be applied directly to deter. Expected punishment can deter. For example, I have been informed through many sources that there is a possibility that I will be imprisoned by the State if I murder someone. As such, I would factor in this expected cost before considering whether or not to commit a murder.

There are, for example, several reasons we (society) would like to discourage theft. My favorite reason happens to be economic. In a world where theft isn't punished by the State, citizens have an incentive to take costly precautions to avoid being targetted by thieves (going out less often, carrying less cash, travelling in groups, purchasing home security systems and/or hiring guards, etc...). This is a waste; their money isn't going into anything productive and they are more inconvenienced and less happy. It would be ideal if there were fewer thefts so that citizens would rationally purchase fewer theft precautions. So, the law-makers make a law that punishes thieves, the police enforce it, and the courts arbitrate. Now, potential thieves are faced with a higher expected cost of thievery. They might be caught and punished by the state, which would be costly to them. As a result, fewer people will choose to steal (only those for whom the costs still outweigh the benefits) and those who do steal will steal less on account of being more careful. On the whole, resources will be redirected from citizens purchasing theft protection to (hopefully) more productive ends. How much should we punish thieves? The optimal economic option (I believe) is to punish them such that their expected punishment (chance of being caught * actual punishment) is close to the costs to the victim of the theft. After all, we don't want to discourage all theft; we merely want the thieves to take into account the costs to their unwilling victim.

On the (more related) subject of murder, we prefer harsher punishments. While there is some theft we would prefer to allow (let me know if you want an example), we might want to deter all murders. If so, we should offer a higher expected punishment (higher actual punishment and, more importantly, higher rates of convicting murderers). Potential premeditated murderers will only murder if they get more expected benefit out of the kill than the expected costs (which hopefully include a high chance of severe State punishment). Murders that are not premeditated (so-called crimes of passion) are less likely to be deterred. Expected punishment can still have some deterrant effect in these cases. Certain behaviors are more likely to lead to accidental 'in-the-moment' homocides (like picking fights at bars and committing armed robbery). Higher expected murder or homocide punishment will make such behaviors themselves have a higher cost.

[Lucid]

Originally Posted by Warrior To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Maybe I misunderstood you, but I'm don't mean the debate should happen every time there is a capital crime committed. I only mean when the debate is whether to have the death penality or not and if so, when it should be applied. I think people should speak their mind at that time, if only because they may have a point overlooked previously that could have a major impact on the discussion. After that, application should follow the rules and regulations laid out and the appropriate courtroom process.

I took you to mean what you describe here, but I also take such things as going without saying. Of course we should all give our opinions and ideas on any issue we're interested in. I didn't mean that we should all shut up about it or that anyone who disagrees with me should shut up about it. I just meant to express my own thoughts on the matter.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Tyrant Soup]

	Originally Posted by Valiyn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why? Is there a statistical correlation between killing someone and a decline in how many people are killed by other people (murder)?

Deterrence is a practical consideration, not an ethical one.





Tyrant Soup added to this post, 10 minutes and 33 seconds later...

	Originally Posted by Lucid To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's that emotions are not enough of a justification to do so and our legal system is not and cannot be perfect enough to trust it with deciding who lives and who dies.

Hypothetically, if guilt COULD be established with 100% accuracy, would you be in favor of capital punishment for murder?





Tyrant Soup added to this post, 22 minutes and 21 seconds later...

	Originally Posted by LaoTzu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	As far as capital punishment goes, I would never support it. Removing criminals from society should be the only goal. Blood for blood does nobody any favors. You should be doing your best to stamp out the notion of revenge-killing; not publicly supporting it.

You are simply stating a personal preference. It's not an persuasive argument.

	I'd regale you with the statistics of how many on death-row have since been exonerated, but I'd prefer to acquaint you with this story:

And I could present you with stats on killers who got off easy and the victim was left with the short end of the stick.

As for the feel-good story, I could probably present contrary tales where the unrepentant killer thumbs his nose at the victim's family.

[PunkinA]

	Originally Posted by Tyrant Soup To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Hypothetically, if guilt COULD be established with 100% accuracy, would you be in favor of capital punishment for murder?

I can't answer for Lucid, but I would still be against capital punishment for any crime, assuming the criminal could be safely detained. It's important to separate the difference between the two situations though.

Allowing capital punishment in a perfectly efficient legal system compromises my own values, but may reflect the values of my citizens. I don't like it, but it's kind of democratically legitimate. However, allowing capital punishment in a system that likely has convicted innocents compromises the whole system. Your values as well as mine get stomped upon when the government kills innocents. Killing innocents is the crime deserving of punishment. A government bound to commit a crime has no legitimacy.





PunkinA added to this post, 12 minutes and 48 seconds later...

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The issue is to recognize evil and remove it from this world as you would any malignancy that in the future could come back.

Continuing your theme Ray, evil is a nice theory, but in practice better tools can describe the phenomena. Abandoning old superstitious theories will offer more practical gains in preserving life, which we both value highly.

[Lucid]

	Originally Posted by Tyrant Soup To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Hypothetically, if guilt COULD be established with 100% accuracy, would you be in favor of capital punishment for murder?

I still don't think the government should have the right to kill people. But if you could establish with 100% accuracy I'd have much less of a problem with it and other than that whole government over extending its authority thing I'd be fine with it.

[yoginimama]

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This infuriates me: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by Lucid To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Lets use reason when making policy instead of emotion, especially when it comes to policies of life or death.

It's interesting how many people, despite self-identifying as INTJs, are going with the Ray9 "this infuriates me [therefore by implication it's wrong]" strategy of deciding how to punish crimes. It strikes me as odd that Lucid's plea to use reason in these matters is not getting more traction in the discussion.

Of course we're outraged by the horrible, senseless murder of that woman. That in itself does not mean (a) that the young men who have been arrested are in fact the right ones, (b) thatthere are not previously-unknown, legitimate mitigating factors like serious mental illness or histories of severe abuse, or (c) that, even if found guilty, the perpetrators should be executed.

I can acknowledge those realities at the same time as I'm also agonizing over what the victim's injured daughter must be going through, thinking "goddamn those little fuckers, if they're guilty then I HATE them, I HATE them, I HATE THEM."

And I do. Whoever killed that woman, whether it's the young men who were arrested or some other ones, I hate them for what they did. It was vicious, cruel, senseless, and--well--hate-worthy. So I accept their karmic invitation and I hate them and what they did with every fiber of my being. That does not mean they should be executed. I can hate them and what they did without believing that that must mean their case fits the legal conditions for execution. I can hate them and what they did without being mad if it doesn't. I can hate them and what they did without thinking I somehow need to fix the situation myself or the earth will crash into the sun.

I can hate them and what they did without thinking it's a good idea for the state to kill people. Because, imho, it's not.