Originally posted by Bardock42
Even though Manson never killed anyone himself?
I'd consider it in the same category as war crimes. Like putting Hitler or Mao and their subordinates on trial, for example. People murdered under Manson's direction. Manson and all of his followers would be culpable. He was the cult leader of a pack of serial killers and directed their actions. He had them convinced they were bringing about a holy race war Armageddon.
Originally posted by Surtur
This is why we need to work on advanced tech and medicine...we need a reliable truth serum. We give it to someone, if they confirm they killed someone..well the next day we can give them a different kind of serum if you catch my meaning.I..I just want truth serum to be a thing.
A different kind of serum? You mean a serum that rewires their neurology to make them kind, compassionate, and decent human beings once again? Sounds great.
Originally posted by Impediment
I'm pro-death penalty.I was a correctional officer for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for 5+ years and I've seen enough scum and treachery to be convinced that some human beings just don't deserve the privilege of life.
No opinion matters more than someone who actually had first-hand experience dealing with these scum.
Originally posted by Facee
Could the death penalty be violating the Bill of Rights ?You know, '' no cruel or unusual punishment".
No. I don't believe the death penalty was much of an issue when the Bill of Rights was penned. People in that time viewed it much more favorably. 18th and 19th century executions, even 20th century executions were much crueler than the more humane method used today. The idea that the death penalty is "cruel and unusual" would not have been part of the original intent of the framers of the Bill of Rights.
I will add that I believe the 'chair' was a method of execution that should not have been abandoned.
I'd rather be pragmatic than emotional in these cases.
If you let Rapists/Killers live there's still a chance they attack others inmates, guards, people that work there, etc. In rare cases they might even escape.
With the death penalty you prevent all of that from ever happening, the serial killers/rapists are beyond rehabilitation anyway imo.
Originally posted by Newjak
I do believe that if you belief in the preciousness of life for humans than locking a human away shows more maturity than wanting them dead.
Quite clearly, this is hotly debated. Some hold that it is extremely cruel and inhumane (and, consequently, against the constitution's 8th amendment) to isolate a dangerous murderer in solitary confinement. That a life sentence is much worse than the death penalty.
Basically, there is no moral high-ground, here, in this particular debate. One side cannot pretend that their approach is the most moral. That goes for me perspectives, as well: my supposed moral approach, which I think is the most well-rounded and well-formed perspective (obviously), it is still just an arbitrary moral line I've drawn in the sand.
Originally posted by Newjak
As to them killing in prison again that speaks more to the horrible state of our prison system than to someone's lack of compassion for human life.
Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't it be:
1. Some cases, the prison conditions are partially at fault.
2. Some cases, the prisoner being a cold-blooded murderer is at fault.
?
Originally posted by MF DELPH
Kind of like if there was a way to keep someone alive via life support but it meant that person being connected to a healthy person's vital systems and carried around in a harness for 9 months or that person would die, they'd have the right to say yes or no to that proposition.
I'd agree with that life-support comparison if the healthy person ended up having to connect to the unhealthy one because they had sex and there was about 7.4 billion pieces of evidence that the sex would directly result in them having to connect up to the life support person for 9 months.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, I am not sure we define punishment the same way, I would agree with you that vengeance as a motivating factor is barbaric, but punishment (i.e. the method of what to do to offenders) is necessary.
"Punishment" can also be a perspective. There are some instances of people committing crimes specifically so they can be put into prison. A bed, bathroom, food, occasional recreation, access to a library, access to the internet, the occasional TV program, and board games with others? That doesn't sound like a punishment at all for some people. That sounds like a miracle to help them out of their bad situation.
Still, others consider being cut off from the world to be a horrendous punishment.
But that's not really what we are talking about, right? Just simply creating laws and practices that specifically aim to punish a person for breaking laws is what I have a problem with. The system should aim to rehabilitate and reintegrated dangerous people back into society. The goal should never be punishment. Some may consider the "isolate from society" part to be a punishment. But it should not be intended or used in such a way (which is one of the criticisms of the US justice system: we use long prison sentences as form of punishment and our prison sentences are absurdly longer than our peers (such as the UK or France)).
Originally posted by Bardock42
Sure, we could and should do better with rehabilitation (we can, btw, in Germany the reoffending rate of violent offenders lies below 50%).
Norway is sitting around 20%, iirc. We can do better.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I would argue that I'm not relegating the foetus to a lower tier, but that it is on one just by its nature,
"I'm not relegating Jews to subhuman. They were born into their state as being below the human race. They were never humans to begin with."
Originally posted by Bardock42
...which is different to revoking a previously, undeniably human being's status as such.
"Forfeiture of the right to life via the malicious homicide of others is mutually exclusive to being a human being."
Here's another perspective: destroying a wasted human, because they maliciously kill and show clear signs that they will reoffend, is treating them like a human being. They did not lose any rights. Their status did not change. They never became subhuman.
See here, I'm treating this murderers like humans by saying they should be destroyed if they are beyond hope of reintegrating back into society. It is the humane and kind thing to do. It also prevents harm from coming to others. I'm trying my best to preserve all of the other humans' rights to person and life, as well. Look how amazing my benevolence is?
Here's another perspective: incarcerating an unrepentant murderer for life is treating the human as less than human. Their status has been changed to subhuman and they are now treated like cattle: forever chained up in an enclosure. This person previously had many many rights. We revoked them with our life imprisonment policy. Do you see what I'm doing here? There are more perspectives on what is humane, what is right, and what should be done. And these perspectives are not maliciously or unreasonable, as well. I think a normal, kind, person, could see the arguments I'm making and at least partially agree with them, even if they were strongly opposed to the death penalty.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Pregnancy is a strain on the human body that I do not think we have the right to impose on anyone and if a person wants to be free of this connection that should be their right.
Just to be clear, your argument, here, is factually incorrect. Therefore, it is malformed.
We are not imposing pregnancy on anyone. The man and the woman who chose to have sex imposed that pregnancy on the woman. I didn't have sex with her. Did you? I don't think you did. So we aren't imposing pregnancy on anyone. It is literally impossible.
Originally posted by Facee
Could the death penalty be violating the Bill of Rights ?You know, '' no cruel or unusual punishment".
As I pointed out, before, life in prison could be violating the 8th amendment, too. It could be considered "cruel and unusual punishment." It's all about perspective.
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
A sane person who does not value human life and kills people just for leisure/pleasure and refuses rehabilitation has no right to live.
This is a very normal and logical perspective. I don't comprehend why this is beyond some people to grasp.
Originally posted by MF DELPH
I'd remove the 'sane' requirement as well. I don't think psychological issues remove culpability for murder. If a person is incapable of knowing right from wrong and kills someone I'm not necessarily sure that medicating that person in isolation for the rest of their natural life is a practical solution. They could kill a member of the staff that's responsible for their care at the asylum or prison just as easily as they killed their victim that put them there in the first place.For example, I'd have executed Charles Manson if there was a recording of the crimes of the Manson Family.
Woe! Hold on there, Hitler. Killing the mentally ill was already tried out. meow
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
A different kind of serum? You mean a serum that rewires their neurology to make them kind, compassionate, and decent human beings once again? Sounds great.
Well I don't know...perhaps cyanide and things like that do make people a bit more kind and compassionate before the end? I would not know as I am unfortunately not a scientist
Originally posted by dadudemon
Woe! Hold on there, Hitler. Killing the mentally ill was already tried out. meow
I think you missed the qualifier on them being murderers. I'm not saying to arbitrarily execute the mentally ill. My position is that being mentally ill isn't a blanket "get out of execution free" pass.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Quite clearly, this is hotly debated. Some hold that it is extremely cruel and inhumane (and, consequently, against the constitution's 8th amendment) to isolate a dangerous murderer in solitary confinement. That a life sentence is much worse than the death penalty.Basically, there is no moral high-ground, here, in this particular debate. One side cannot pretend that their approach is the most moral. That goes for me perspectives, as well: my supposed moral approach, which I think is the most well-rounded and well-formed perspective (obviously), it is still just an arbitrary moral line I've drawn in the sand.
Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't it be:
1. Some cases, the prison conditions are partially at fault.
2. Some cases, the prisoner being a cold-blooded murderer is at fault.?
I'd agree with that life-support comparison if the healthy person ended up having to connect to the unhealthy one because they had sex and there was about 7.4 billion pieces of evidence that the sex would directly result in them having to connect up to the life support person for 9 months.
"Punishment" can also be a perspective. There are some instances of people committing crimes specifically so they can be put into prison. A bed, bathroom, food, occasional recreation, access to a library, access to the internet, the occasional TV program, and board games with others? That doesn't sound like a punishment at all for some people. That sounds like a miracle to help them out of their bad situation.
Still, others consider being cut off from the world to be a horrendous punishment.
But that's not really what we are talking about, right? Just simply creating laws and practices that specifically aim to punish a person for breaking laws is what I have a problem with. The system should aim to rehabilitate and reintegrated dangerous people back into society. The goal should never be punishment. Some may consider the "isolate from society" part to be a punishment. But it should not be intended or used in such a way (which is one of the criticisms of the US justice system: we use long prison sentences as form of punishment and our prison sentences are absurdly longer than our peers (such as the UK or France)).
Norway is sitting around 20%, iirc. We can do better.
"I'm not relegating Jews to subhuman. They were born into their state as being below the human race. They were never humans to begin with."
"Forfeiture of the right to life via the malicious homicide of others is mutually exclusive to being a human being."
Here's another perspective: destroying a wasted human, because they maliciously kill and show clear signs that they will reoffend, is treating them like a human being. They did not lose any rights. Their status did not change. They never became subhuman.
See here, I'm treating this murderers like humans by saying they should be destroyed if they are beyond hope of reintegrating back into society. It is the humane and kind thing to do. It also prevents harm from coming to others. I'm trying my best to preserve all of the other humans' rights to person and life, as well. Look how amazing my benevolence is?
Here's another perspective: incarcerating an unrepentant murderer for life is treating the human as less than human. Their status has been changed to subhuman and they are now treated like cattle: forever chained up in an enclosure. This person previously had many many rights. We revoked them with our life imprisonment policy. Do you see what I'm doing here? There are more perspectives on what is humane, what is right, and what should be done. And these perspectives are not maliciously or unreasonable, as well. I think a normal, kind, person, could see the arguments I'm making and at least partially agree with them, even if they were strongly opposed to the death penalty.
Just to be clear, your argument, here, is factually incorrect. Therefore, it is malformed.
We are not imposing pregnancy on anyone. The man and the woman who chose to have sex imposed that pregnancy on the woman. I didn't have sex with her. Did you? I don't think you did. So we aren't imposing pregnancy on anyone. It is literally impossible.
I love seeing DDM own people👆