American Diplomacy and the Death Penalty

Originally posted by Hotpawn

Why enforce humiliating labor on someone? Just because he/she committed a 'crime'? In my opinion the enforcerer(is this good english) puts himself on the same level as the 'criminal' with this reaction: the 'criminal' becomes 'victim' and the enforcerer becomes 'criminal'.

I have to disagree very strongly with this point. I've always hated the idea that by punishing someone you are 'putting yourself on their level'. That's rubbish. Are you seriously saying that a punishment meted out by a high court judge to a convicted criminal is on the same level as said convicted criminal going out and raping and murdering a defenseless young girl? Come on.

Originally posted by Hotpawn
OK I will elaborate.

This was your posting:
"I'm not in favor of the death penalty, but I am in favor of life without parole for murder. Now, when I say "life without parole" I don't mean a life with cable television, professional ...[text shortened]... ther Theresa prevail and no one kills my grandmother...

Hotpawn

You still didn't answer my question. Is this question too irrational for you (or anyone) to answer? A simple answer to my question would suffice: What type of punishment would you give to offenders of the following crimes: Murder, rape, robbery, etc...am I beating a dead horse yet?!!

You are living on fantasy Island if you think evil doesn't exist. You justify Hitler's crimes as something "that was just good for him"? You are deluded...unbelievable!

Definition of evil: Richard Ramirez(Night stalker/murderer), John Wayne Gacey (33 boys bodies found under the crawl space of his house), oh, but he wasn't evil...he was "just doing what was good for him"...😲 🙄

Originally posted by chancremechanic
You still didn't answer my question. Is this question too irrational for you (or anyone) to answer? A simple answer to my question would suffice: What type of punishment would you give to offenders of the following crimes: Murder, ...[text shortened]... wasn't evil...he was "just doing what was good for him"...😲 🙄

I agree that murder is not good. Hypothetically, though, if you asked John Wayne Gacy ''Is murder good?'' and he said ''Yes'', what would your argument against that statement be?

I am just curious here.

Originally posted by royalchicken
I agree that murder is not good. Hypothetically, though, if you asked John Wayne Gacy ''Is murder good?'' and he said ''Yes'', what would your argument against that statement be?

I am just curious here.

I wouldn't ask JWG that question because it would be a moot point and I wouldn't care what his opinion of murder was. I would simply lock him up in solitary confinement in a desolate prison off the coast of Alaska to never be heard of again. The problem with the criminal justice system in the US and especially Europe is that we want to understand the "feelings" of the offender and want to "rehabilitate" or "work" with him/her so the crime wont be repeated again. The solution to the problem of wanton murder, rape, and child molestation is long prison sentencing (sometimes for life) which would eradicte the problem of repeat offenders if this solution was adhered to. Personally, I don't want to spend the time and $ trying to rehabilitate a "John Wayne Gacey"...do you? Do you think child rapists can be rehabilitated? (Hell no!) What about rapists in general? (Hell no!) If so, would you be willing to let one move in next door to you if you had little children and a pretty wife?

Originally posted by chancremechanic
I wouldn't ask JWG that question because it would be a moot point and I wouldn't care what his opinion of murder was. I would simply lock him up in solitary confinement in a desolate prison off the coast of Alaska to never be heard of again. The problem with the criminal justice system in the US and especially Europe is that we want to understand ...[text shortened]... ou be willing to let one move in next door to you if you had little children and a pretty wife?

I was trying to use an example to illustrate a point of view, so that I could see your argument for dismissing it. Apparently I did this badly, so I'll just ask this:

''Why is one person's idea about what is good more correct than another's?''

Note that I agree with you, but I would like to see your argument.

Originally posted by chancremechanic
I wouldn't ask JWG that question because it would be a moot point and I wouldn't care what his opinion of murder was. I would simply lock him up in solitary confinement in a desolate prison off the coast of Alaska to never be heard of again. The problem with the criminal justice system in the US and especially Europe is that we want to understand ...[text shortened]... ou be willing to let one move in next door to you if you had little children and a pretty wife?

There is much more difficult question. What do you do with the victims? Now that sounds rather ridiculous as they are the victims, right? Go to any prison and you will find that the history of all of these abusers is that they were abused, raped, sodomized, etc. These crimes are sometimes very predictable. I am not justifying their crimes, but rather explaining them. I know you don't want to spend one dollar on rehabilitation, but we sure as hell better be doing something (and yes it will take money) to address this abuse before the cycle repeats.

Originally posted by royalchicken

''Why is one person's idea about what is good more correct than another's?''

Note that I agree with you, but I would like to see your argument.

One person's idea of right or wrong doesn't neccesarily overrule another's. I'm not sure I follow your reasoning for an explanation of why one's idea should/should not be more correct than someone else's. That's not my argument...at least I didn't intend for it to be. RC, I just wanted my questions answered without having to resort to Freud or Jung or some other psychco-babble nonsense. I just want a common sense answer to my questions...I really couldn't give a crap about whether someone else's idea is more correct (politically?) than mine. That's not the theme of the post. How can someone justify Hitler killing 6,000,000 Jews because to him it "felt good" without even considering whether Hitler was evil or not...simple answers, that's all....please...😉

Originally posted by chancremechanic
One person's idea of right or wrong doesn't neccesarily overrule another's. I'm not sure I follow your reasoning for an explanation of why one's idea should/should not be more correct than someone else's. That's not my argument...at least I didn't intend for it to be. RC, I just wanted my questions answered without having to resort to Freud ...[text shortened]... out even considering whether Hitler was evil or not...simple answers, that's all....please...😉

I'm just wondering why you think that someone's justification for doing something you think is wrong is irrational. I also think that what Hitler did is wrong, but why, when Hitler disagrees, is he wrong?

I haven't read any Jung or Freud and am not interested in psycho-babble. I asked the first question in our exchange, and I'd be interested to hear an answer 🙂. This also has nothing to do with political correctness. I just want to know where you get your morals.

Originally posted by chancremechanic
One person's idea of right or wrong doesn't neccesarily overrule another's. I'm not sure I follow your reasoning for an explanation of why one's idea should/should not be more correct than someone else's. That's not my argument...at least I didn't intend for it to be. RC, I just wanted my questions answered without having to resort to Freud ...[text shortened]... out even considering whether Hitler was evil or not...simple answers, that's all....please...😉

Actually Jung, I think, had tremendous insight into this very issue.

Originally posted by kirksey957
There is much more difficult question. What do you do with the victims? Now that sounds rather ridiculous as they are the victims, right? Go to any prison and you will find that the history of all of these abusers is that they were abused, raped, sodomized, etc. These crimes are sometimes very predictable. I am not justifying their crimes, but rather ...[text shortened]... be doing something (and yes it will take money) to address this abuse before the cycle repeats.

I don't think there is a solution to breaking the cycle of violence unless it starts at the basic family level, i.e responsible parents spending quality time with the kids teaching them right from wrong [OK, prospective posters please dont ask me to explain what is right or wrong to teach a child...if you don't know, please don't have children], teaching them to respect the laws of the land and to have respect for their fellow human beings, going out of the way to being courteous, etc. I'm curious...why would it cost $$ to teach these basic rules for living? I don't recall my parents sending a check to pay for the rules that they taught me to live by. However, I do see your logic in saying that it will cost something because parents today (well, a lot anyway) are too busy working 50+ hours a week to raise children, so we have MTV, Nintendo, Internet porn, sorry public schools and a general decline in civility to contend with in regards to raising well-adjusted children in order to break the cycle of criminality. I'm not so conservative to deny that I don't enjoy some MTV or nude women, but society (parents) have to be the ones to break the cycle...no amout of tax $$ will ever solve the problem if parents don't take control...

Originally posted by chancremechanic
I don't think there is a solution to breaking the cycle of violence unless it starts at the basic family level, i.e responsible parents spending quality time with the kids teaching them right from wrong [OK, prospective posters please dont ask me to explain what is right or wrong to teach a child...if you don't know, please don't have children], t ...[text shortened]... eak the cycle...no amout of tax $$ will ever solve the problem if parents don't take control...

Good post. Now I can ask my question properly.

Why, for instance, would you say civility better than a lack of civility?

Originally posted by royalchicken
I'm just wondering why you think that someone's justification for doing something you think is wrong is irrational. I also think that what Hitler did is wrong, but why, when Hitler disagrees, is he wrong?

I haven't read any Jung or Freud and am not interested in psycho-babble. I asked the first question in our exchange, and I'd be interested to ...[text shortened]... so has nothing to do with political correctness. I just want to know where you get your morals.

OK...I understand where you're coming from...I think. You're going to like reading this, RC, especially after I hounded you for your "lack" of "religion". I acquired my morals from a conservative-Christian upbringing. I am NOT religious, but I believe in a higher power(God); at least I think he exists (agnostic?). So, I use logic and common sense when I weigh the issues and frankly I think common sense is sorely missing when our judges mete out punishment to criminals. I don't blindly follow set dogma (gettin' fancy with my jargon) simply because it is there, however I do obey the laws of society because without laws anarchy would prevail. So, I listen to my 6th sense (common sense to me) when I'm confronted with an issue that requires me to either do the right thing or do the wrong thing. I take responsibility for my actions unlike a lot of people without morals. I'm not saying my morals are better than yours or the next guys, but I wouldn't trade them in either. I hope I answered your question...if not, I don't know how much deeper I can get without making an appointment with a shrink...😀

Originally posted by chancremechanic
OK...I understand where you're coming from...I think. You're going to like reading this, RC, especially after I hounded you for your "lack" of "religion". I acquired my morals from a conservative-Christian upbringing. I am NOT religious, but I believe in a higher power(God); at least I think he exists (agnostic?). So, I use logic and common s ...[text shortened]... if not, I don't know how much deeper I can get without making an appointment with a shrink...😀

Thanks for answering 🙂. More to follow but I should go to bed as I've a final in the morning.

OK...how would YOU (or anyone else posting) punish EVIL people who commit mayhem, murder, rape, robbery, crimes against children and heinous crimes against society regardless if it was personal?....elaborate, please...🙄

OK a part of all of us wants revenge, Often pretty hard arguing with the "string them up" advocates because you find yourself defending some evil creeps.

One thing murderers have in common is disregard for the victim. The victim is in the way or they don't like them or they get satisfaction from killing them. Murderers have no respect for the value of a human life.

The problem with capital punishment is these reasons are often the same reasons we execute criminals. We certainly don't like them, prefer them to be dead instead of swaggering around a prison and it might just feel pretty good hearing them squeal for a change. So the majority of the world has decided capital punishment is uncomfortably close to murder carried out in our name. It would be murder of people we detest, murder of people we often hate to know are living in some basic comfort, murder of people who deserve it but it still would be murder. We refuse to descend to the same level as these scum. It is not always easy but we are better people than they are.

As for punishment - looking at a barred window for as long as it takes to render them not a threat. Time to think, maybe about knotting the sheets together as Doctor Shipman recently did.

Originally posted by chancremechanic
You still didn't answer my question. Is this question too irrational for you (or anyone) to answer? A simple answer to my question would suffice: What type of punishment would you give to offenders of the following crimes: Murder, rape, robbery, etc...am I beating a dead horse yet?!!

You are living on fantasy Island if you think evil doesn't ex ...[text shortened]... ace of his house), oh, but he wasn't evil...he was "just doing what was good for him"...😲 🙄

tough one. I'm not sure I can give an answer but I'll try. I would ask that you try not to be as immediately dismissive as you usually are though....

People don't do things because they are "evil". Thinking that bad things hapen because there are "evil" people makes it easy for us to dissosiate ourselves from them. This way we don't have to try to work out how humans, essentially exactly the same as you and I, are capable of doing these things because that raises the awkward question of what it would take/what would have had to happen in our pasts to make us do these things. (I expect most readers at this point to be offended, and start protesting "I could never/nothing could make me do..." but please read on, it may make some sense).

People do tend to do what's 'good' for them. When a person carries out an evil act they probably either don't see it as evil. As an example, a question asked of many murderers in a survey was:

A woman is at the funeral of her mother when she sees the man of her dreams. He leaves without her managing to talk to him or find out who he is. The next day the woman kills her sister - why?

The scarey 'correct' answer is "because the man might come to her funeral too". Many of those questioned had this answer. They aren't capable of empathising with the victim, of thinking "but they won't like me killing them", and therefore the small benefit that the man might reappear is justification enough to kill.
(nb. non-murderers came up with loosly rational answers like 'she saw her sister kissing him so wanted to remove the competition'😉.

Being unable to sympathis or empathise with others is the defenition of a psychopath (as I understand it). Does this mean that all psychopaths will be murderers? No, but it does mean that they'll be coldly ruthless, and that means that they are likely to be quite successful in the world. A study done of CEO's, Judges and other people who have reached the pinicle of their professions show that a much higher than average number of them are psychopaths, because although they may not have killed, they haven't had any qualms in stabbing people in the back or firing people etc if it was in their own interests.

Does this mean that all murderers (& rapists, child molesters...) are psychopaths? No. But it is true that they don't have empathy for the victim. When they shoot the guard during an armed rober they don't think "I've just killed a man, a man just like myself, who probably has a family who will now be crippled and in morning...", instead they think "I've just removed an obsticle to my goal". (this is why they advise kindnap victims to get to know the captors, because then they move from being objects to being people).

The question then remains, what causes a person to see people as objects? A road rage instigator will not be attacking the stranger who just accidently annoyed them, they'll be attacking the thousands of people who have annoyed them for years embodied in the stranger - they are attacking a concept not a person. A rapist isn't in his eyes destroying a girls life, he's sateing his lust using an object, one of those who have teased and rejected him for years.

Hitler - a good example. Is it more rational to believe that he was "evil', or that he had a warped view of the world. If he believed that Jews were sub human, a kind of ape in human form, and that they were destroying the purity of the human race, then from his perspective it could seem quite rational to eliminate them, like we would eradicate a parasitic species that was threatening to kill us. He didn't assosiate the millions he killed as people like himself. Did he attempt to force his ideals on the rest of the world because he was "evil" or because he thought that his vision of the world was the better one and that the world he created would be superior?

So, in short, there are no "evil" people. We class people as evil when we can't empathis with their actions because their mind set is so far from ours. There are people who can't realise either other people or strangers or people from a different walk of life than them as 'people'. There are people whos world view is so twisted that they can commit horrific acts, either for their own benefit or that of those around them.
If you accept that people are not evil but are instead screwed up then firstly there is a chance that they can be unscrewed up (rehabilitated) and secondly there will always be extenuating circumstances, be they physical, mental or psycological, as to how they became screwed up in the first place.