Do you think it is ok to fatally harm someone because they are bad or killed someone?

[Tin Man]

Reon You summed up almost everything I posted.

As for the price of the death penalty versus the price of life in prison, that's not conclusive. I've read studies that said the death penalty is cheaper and ones that said life in prison is a cheaper. Many of these had biases and their information was fuzzy. If there is a definitive report on this matter, I haven't come across it.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

There is a common belief in our culture that killing people because they're bad or because they've killed someone is acceptable and justifiable. Many of these reasons are "justified" according to various views:

1) Self defense (protect self or others)
2) punishment of crimes against humanity
3) potential to harm (although that reason may be questionable)


And there other reasons, but can't think of them atm.

But what do you think?

1. In the case of self defense the intention is to defend oneself, utilising lethal force if necessary - so it is not so much an act of killing, but of defending.

2. Punishment can be seen various ways:
a. An act of retribution, "returning evil for evil"
b. An imposition of a penalty, "if you do x, punishment y will be imposed"
c. An exclusion from some aspect of society which they are corrupting, "if you can't use x with respect, you can't use it at all"

3. Preventative measure. This aspect can only be reduced to the principle of self-defense, which isn't exactly justified outside of immediate danger.


I don't agree with the death penalty except under the aspect of exclusion from society.

If one commits serious crimes against human corporate society, exclusion from serving as a ceo is a common punishment; as are fines for those who have conducted fraudulent transactions. However, when one commits serious crimes against the social fabric of a particular society, they should be exiled from that society. If, however, one commits serious crimes against humanity itself, the fabric of society, by murder, they should be excluded from among the society of humans by the death penalty.

This exclusion serves to preserve either commercial, social, etc society from corruption, or in terms of the most heinous crimes, it preserves humanity from corruption.

This is all predicated on the principle that the killing of the innocent is wrong.

 

[hush]

Define "bad."

 

[Billy]

All right then. Suggest another method that would cause less pain, less time and less money.

Permanent incarceration. Although I didn't use your criteria, I don't think less time or less money is relevant. If we want to pretend we are moral creatures we have to accept that some things are not going to be as efficient as they can be because morality is expensive. And that's the cost of being human and not a fucking android.

 

[arbygil]

The truth is, there is no easy answer - and there never will be. Unless you're in the situation where someone is doing harm to one you love, or you're in a situation where someone you love is going to be incarcerated you can only hypothetically judge.

I can say this much: Prisons are horrible places and they are not social clubs. You may have one crime that gets you incarcerated, but you have nowhere else to go once that's on your record. My cousin - bless his heart - is a good man who got involved with the drug scene. He was incarcerated for a time. He actually was one of the few who turned his life around in prison, but the problem was when his sentence was reduced and he was free he had nowhere to go. No one hires felons. No one rents out to felons. Felons can't vote. He became a non-person, and he ended up relapsing in drugs because he wanted to go back to his family. He wanted to return to prison because the world broke him!

I know this is off topic, but I have such a heart for people broken by the prison system. You either find a "pack" to help you survive or you get destroyed in there. And heaven help you if you're actually freed, because society abandons you. Prison itself is a torture device and the people who live in it from day to day - whether inmate or worker - are so irrevocably changed that it's hard to distinguish the inmate from the guard.

From what I heard, prison is probably worse than death. But no matter how you look at it, there is nothing kind about either keeping people alive in that hellhole, or killing them outright. All prison does is assuage the consciences of judges, lawyers, victims, and society. You can spin it a million ways from Sunday but it's a horror story without an end.

 

[acd]

I am concerned with innocents being put to death.
Innocent people are convicted of crimes, including murder.
Innocent people have probably been put to death.

However, I'm not totally against the death penalty or killing predators.
There was a man in Texas who beat his daughter's molester to death. He caught him in the act, and killed him.
The jury wouldn't indict him. I wouldn't have indicted him, either.
In fact, I probably would have done the same thing if I were in his situation.

The only tragedy in that situation is the psychological and emotional trauma the event caused for the father and daughter and their family.

 

[Tin Man]

Permanent incarceration. Although I didn't use your criteria, I don't think less time or less money is relevant. If we want to pretend we are moral creatures we have to accept that some things are not going to be as efficient as they can be because morality is expensive. And that's the cost of being human and not a fucking android.

Even if you look at from an altruistic perspective, is that really any kinder? Fifty or sixty years trapped in a jail. Doing this can also endanger both prisoners and guards. Is it worth it to salve your conscience?

 

[Rferraris]

The truth is, there is no easy answer - and there never will be. Unless you're in the situation where someone is doing harm to one you love, or you're in a situation where someone you love is going to be incarcerated you can only hypothetically judge.

I can say this much: Prisons are horrible places and they are not social clubs. You may have one crime that gets you incarcerated, but you have nowhere else to go once that's on your record. My cousin - bless his heart - is a good man who got involved with the drug scene. He was incarcerated for a time. He actually was one of the few who turned his life around in prison, but the problem was when his sentence was reduced and he was free he had nowhere to go. No one hires felons. No one rents out to felons. Felons can't vote. He became a non-person, and he ended up relapsing in drugs because he wanted to go back to his family. He wanted to return to prison because the world broke him!

I know this is off topic, but I have such a heart for people broken by the prison system. You either find a "pack" to help you survive or you get destroyed in there. And heaven help you if you're actually freed, because society abandons you. Prison itself is a torture device and the people who live in it from day to day - whether inmate or worker - are so irrevocably changed that it's hard to distinguish the inmate from the guard.

From what I heard, prison is probably worse than death. But no matter how you look at it, there is nothing kind about either keeping people alive in that hellhole, or killing them outright. All prison does is assuage the consciences of judges, lawyers, victims, and society. You can spin it a million ways from Sunday but it's a horror story without an end.

Yes, but if you have had somehow you love harmed, you ate all of a sudden endowed with the ability to know what others are going through, or what they have or may go through.

Prisons are rough places. Fighting in Afghanistan is a rough place. I'd rather be in prison. Actually have a better shot at stating alive.

But what is moral? Or what makes not killing a killer moral. Why can't it be you get what's coming. You steal from me, I take your eyes. You take a life, I take two.

 

[Rferraris]

I wonder how INFJs feel on this topic.

 

[Kmal]

[MENTION=5667]Jacobi[/MENTION] taking a life for taking a life is hypocritical. As well as taking someones life against their will is not sympathetic. Surely they will suffer more in solitary, but they will hold on to their wish to stay alive for deaths sake. If you wish to kill them, that is your own reason not theirs.

 

[WellNoWonder]

Another part of the reasoning as to why no suicide is allowed is due to Money.

This struck me.

It's weird how the government can say "You will die." (less money to spend on your criminal ass) yet a person is in a way held hostage by money in a life insurance policy if he/she decides "Enough of my time on this planet" and chooses to end life.

I haven't fully processed this thought, but this is one of the things about society that makes me ignore certain social standards.
Death is a damn money pawn around these parts. This really irks me.

 

[arbygil]

Yes, but if you have had somehow you love harmed, you ate all of a sudden endowed with the ability to know what others are going through, or what they have or may go through.

Prisons are rough places. Fighting in Afghanistan is a rough place. I'd rather be in prison. Actually have a better shot at stating alive.

I'm the other way - not all of Afghanistan is a war zone, and you're still free. I wonder what the odds are, really? Even if you have a better shot at staying alive in prison you might not want continue as the person you've become.

But what is moral? Or what makes not killing a killer moral. Why can't it be you get what's coming. You steal from me, I take your eyes. You take a life, I take two.

That only works if you're not the one on the receiving end, IMO. If I steal from your house because I'm hungry - and you have an abundance of food - and you shoot me and kill me, no one would convict you. But does it make the killing fair or right or just? Is that me "getting what's coming" to me?

I'm not trying to dissuade you of your opinion, though. I think it could be valid in certain circumstances. Again, we're all considering hypothetical situations; not one of us can possibly say this will happen or that will happen, because few of us experienced these things. If you ask me if a convicted child molester caught in the act should get the death penalty, I'll admit that I don't have a lot of love for him and I may want that for him. I agree that if I were the man in [MENTION=564]acd[/MENTION]'s example I might react the same and I wouldn't feel remorse while taking the law into my own hands. But that doesn't mean what I did is without consequence to me or to others...and I'd have to live with that.

We have to live with the best choice under the circumstances but sometimes there is no best choice. For anyone.

Tl;dr: Answer depends on the circumstance.

 

[Billy]

Even if you look at from an altruistic perspective, is that really any kinder? Fifty or sixty years trapped in a jail. Doing this can also endanger both prisoners and guards. Is it worth it to salve your conscience?

Its not salve. Its about being consistent. The guards get paychecks and know the risk, they don't have to be there. Yes it is kinder than putting them to death.
And since its going to be personal, I will just let you know up front that I am one of those inefficient types who wastes 20 minutes trying to capture the fly in the house so I can let it go instead of just smashing him, why? Because he deserves to live too. The only form of killing I accept as not so much necessary but definitely unavoidable is killing for personal survival. I know you will just say that putting criminals down is about our survival, and I still disagree. Once a criminal is in the hands of the system its no longer survival. Hes contained.

 

[Soulful]

Ultimately, no I do not support murder as a form of justice.

And I don't mean for this to sound inhumane, but one argument against capital punishment is that it's important that we keep individuals with psychopathy around so that their brains and pyschologies can be studied. The same goes for other individuals who commit heinous crimes. This isn't the entire argument against capital punishment, because of course only a handful of criminals are studied, but I believe it is a consideration to make. It is important that we learn how to deal with these social issues in ways that are more humane and productive, or if this is not possible, then to confirm that death or indefinite imprisonment are the only ways. I don't think the latter is true, but it would be ethical to - at the very least - explore this phenomenon. Without doing so, neither indefinite imprisonment nor a death sentence are ethical options; I don't know this for fact but I suspect they harken to a day and age when weren't capable of conceiving anything else. And it's astounding and a bit shameful that we continue doing what we've always done because we haven't (taken the time to figure out) figured out what is really happening and how we can handle it. We need to know more and understand more in order to respond better: more productively, more humanely, and more efficiently for everyone -- the public, taxpayers, and incarcerated individuals.

On that note, I do think prisons should be more humane places. Many people who commit crimes need help and need to learn how to heal. The punitive mentality behind prisons is disgusting, and Arbygil's point about society being at a loss with how to deal with ex-cons is also important. The social justice system is an incredibly under-developed facet of society because criminals are thought to be undeserving of compassion and help. Billy's point, that morality is expensive, is also well taken. It is. And you know what, there is money for it, it just happens to lie in off-shore bank accounts.

@JGirl @niffer Prison-industrial complex

 

[Rferraris]

[MENTION=333]ocean[/MENTION]

The only argument I can make for improving prison life is to rehabilitate those that might get out.

I'm not convinced most career prisoners are capable of being rehabilitated. I am more convinced once you're a dog you will always be a dog. It will take a lot of effort on your part to stay away from people places and things that will bring you back to being a dog, and you will need a LOT of support from those around you to keep from acting like a dog. Given that argument you either stay behind bars where your attitude can't hurt others. Or somehow we invest enormously into making you a good person. Somehow I have a problem with spending the resources on an idiot that is always on the edge and I haven't done time, but know a few that have. Or later went on to become violent cause they couldn't cope. These are people that faught for freedom, not politics. Maybe they were there cause they had no place else to go. Buy they still faught and took orders. Yet I wouldn't let them out. Some of us can't make it back. Seen things that made us different.
Never forget. These guys don't belong on the street. And if they get to rape or killing then that's what they get back.
The mind is gone and the conscience is gone. They are already dead. Finishing the job might be the nicest thing you could do.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Define "bad."

Something is bad when it is contrary to another.

Education is bad for ignorance and vice versa.

Capital punishment is bad when it is opposed to human life. However, some individuals, by their actions are themselves bad, or opposed to human life. In such cases, their removal by capital punishment is good for human life.

Capital punishment is the exacting action which imposes the reality of choice on certain criminals: if one has placed oneself in opposition to human life, then the first result should be that one forfeit what one has rejected.

 

[Quiet]

I dont think so. Its hard to answer because each situation is so unique and utterly subjective. It may seem like the easiest option or the most 'practical' but i dont think it means that its 'ok'. Overall, killing people in retribution, punishment or self defense will never approriately address the root of the problem. Its just a superficial band aid we put on a wound rather than healing the body and the reasons for the wound. We watch the wound fester, yet take no action. Somehow it seems out of our hand and not our problem, even though its happening on our own body and we can feel the pain raw and clear. We numb it with pain killers and distract oursleves further. Get another bandaid and another pill.

So in that sense killing is clearly not the most effective, effecient or practical way to address the problem, just the easiest. The problems will keep reoccuring because they have never been properly addressed. Constructing prisons, in our mind and in our communities. Barriers and walls to understanding and communication. Killing rather than trying to understand. Caught up in blind egotistical violence and self preservation. What sort of world do we want to create anyway? One where people are scared and we have gated communities? Or one with trust and where our children can play together. We are unwilling to make that effort or bridge that space that divide us. And we resent everyone else for it. Seems to hard to fix so we just dont, and then we get upset when see the problems keep happening. Seems a poor way to address conflict. Who wants to be the first? Someone has to extend their hand.

There is always a reason, that deep matrix in which we are involved and that we all create. Find and heal these reasons and heal the matrix, heal and create a better reality. We all create our reality, we all contribute to the problems in our society. We create killers. We endorse and accept killing and make it ok through our unhealthy cultures. Somehow we make war seem as if wasnt simply murder. Protect, defend, security, justice. WTF. Whatever. if you keep killing your neighbours children to keep your own children safe your children will never be safe. You will never be safe. Always afraid, constructing prisons and death in your mind, breeding fear and hate. If you love your own children, then please understand that all you need to do is to love your neighbours children to keep them safe. What could be a truer freedom than that?

I dont believe anyone is beyond help. Some people dont want help. Some have given up on themselves because everyone else has given up on them. We havent given most people a chance or enough chances. We havent tried hard enough. Everyone can be healed, all are worthy and deserving of Love and compassion. The question is whether or not we are willing to let down our walls and help each other.

To all those that believe that people are beyond help and the situation is hopeless- you are a part of the problem. Your complacency makes it so. There is always hope and the future can be anything we want it to be. All we need is belief, communication and effort. We need to try.

 

[Lerxst]

In an ideal society, where a person is found guilty of murder in a fair trial, I say, let 'em die (key word being fair). In our current society, there are too many irrelevant factors that factor into trials though (money, politics, influence, etc.) so it's impossible for everyone to get an equal and fair trial.

I see nothing wrong in taking the life of a person who is competent and aware of their actions when they did the same. Taking their life is protection from the unknown number of people they still have the potential to kill - taking one failed excuse fora life to save 50 others is a no-brainer. And even as a Buddhist, I'd rationalize it as simply pushing the "reset" button on their cycle of life; let them come back and try it over again since the last time was a miserable failure.

 

[Tin Man]

Its not salve. Its about being consistent. The guards get paychecks and know the risk, they don't have to be there. Yes it is kinder than putting them to death.
And since its going to be personal, I will just let you know up front that I am one of those inefficient types who wastes 20 minutes trying to capture the fly in the house so I can let it go instead of just smashing him, why? Because he deserves to live too. The only form of killing I accept as not so much necessary but definitely unavoidable is killing for personal survival. I know you will just say that putting criminals down is about our survival, and I still disagree. Once a criminal is in the hands of the system its no longer survival. Hes contained.

What exactly would replace them? They may be getting paid but that doesn't make their position any less dangerous. It's the same with fire fighters, the police and the search and rescue service. Why exactly is it kinder. They're going to die in fifty or sixty years anyway. You might say we all will but we have a chance to have a good fulfilling live, they don't.

Why exactly is this personal? I don't think any less of you for your opinion.

 

[Nixie]

I support the death penalty.

I don't buy into the idea that our individual rights trump the rights of society at large. Most tribal communities would banish/cast out people who did things that harmed the community as a whole. It is impossible to really do this anymore. I think that some people demonstrate by their actions that they are a risk to the community and the only way to protect the innocent is to kill them.

I also advocate for harsher means of interrogation to ensure that innocent people aren't incarcerated/killed. We have so many drugs and whatnot, why aren't they used more effectively?