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

Jacobi said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you don't know why its kinder to NOT kill someone vs KILLING them, then I don't know what to tell you. Again the firefighters and prison guards know the risk, they take it willingly and upon themselves and the system put into place. No one is forcing them to do that. By your logic, we shouldn't live in buildings because its dangerous to the carpenters who build them, which is indeed true, I knew many carpenters who died on the job. But as professionals we respect their ability to choose for themselves if the risks outweigh the benefits. Ethics and morality is drawing a line based on conclusions, I feel safe saying that showing mercy and simply isolating dangerous individuals without hurting them is the best and most evolutionary advantageous way to proceed. It establishes a better society morally and sets a tempo, removes the offenders from their ability to harm us, and cuts back on their ability to pass on their genetics. Depriving them of their life would serve no good on a cultural or ethical level, in fact would harm those levels. Killing instead becomes 1 of 2 things. Cold efficiency. OR vengeance. Neither of which are worth building our society upon if we want to continue calling ourselves humans, as utilizing mere logic or anger alone to arrive at a conclusion is both insulting to our species capability to think more complexly as well animal in the purest sense of thinking with a very old portion of our brian (the R complex).
 
good stuff @Billy. @Jacobi, @oceanbreeze had such a good point, that at the very least we should keep them alive to see the problem. if we kill them, that's just covering our eyes to the problem. "know the enemy as you know yourself." If you know what you're up against, you can better combat it. Letting them live would allow them to talk to a truly loving therapist everyday and feel love from another human being, something they may not have had much of ever. Not only that, our patience will outweigh theirs and we will be satisfied with what we've learned from them regarding their behavior and how to prevent it.
 
Last edited:
so.... Is exile still a form of capital punishment?
 
Billy said:
If you don't know why its kinder to NOT kill someone vs KILLING them, then I don't know what to tell you. Again the firefighters and prison guards know the risk, they take it willingly and upon themselves and the system put into place. No one is forcing them to do that. By your logic, we shouldn't live in buildings because its dangerous to the carpenters who build them, which is indeed true, I knew many carpenters who died on the job. But as professionals we respect their ability to choose for themselves if the risks outweigh the benefits. Ethics and morality is drawing a line based on conclusions, I feel safe saying that showing mercy and simply isolating dangerous individuals without hurting them is the best and most evolutionary advantageous way to proceed. It establishes a better society morally and sets a tempo, removes the offenders from their ability to harm us, and cuts back on their ability to pass on their genetics. Depriving them of their life would serve no good on a cultural or ethical level, in fact would harm those levels. Killing instead becomes 1 of 2 things. Cold efficiency. OR vengeance. Neither of which are worth building our society upon if we want to continue calling ourselves humans, as utilizing mere logic or anger alone to arrive at a conclusion is both insulting to our species capability to think more complexly as well animal in the purest sense of thinking with a very old portion of our brian (the R complex).
Click to expand...

If I was forced to choose either fifty years of imprisonment or death, I would choose the latter. I believe it's far crueler to be kept alive in a tiny cell, forced through the same routine, every day with no possibility of change. This is my own personal opinion.

I believe that humanity's future lies in altruism, that rehabilitation will one day become the main method of dealing with criminals. However, we should not completely dismiss utilitarian values. Perhaps one day we will have a method of dealing with excessively violent minds but that does not mean we should sacrifice the well being of other criminals and those guarding them. Oceanbreeze gave, to me, the strongest case for letting such people live. Through studying them, we might find a way to change the brain chemistry of future serial killers so that they can feel empathy.

At the end of the day, this argument is pointless. I believe one thing very strongly and you another. I enjoy debating but I can see neither of us is going to change the other's mind so this is a waste of time.
 
You want killers to feel empathy and yet you display none towards them. I find that ironic. Most people dont want to die, we do not get to choose if death is more humane while someone is still able to choose life for themselves.
 
I want them to feel empathy so they might not go on a murder spree. Some people shouldn't have that choice. I believe that if you've raped and murdered a five year old girl, then you have negated any right to humanity and any right to be treated as human.
 
Jacobi said:
I want them to feel empathy so they might not go on a murder spree. Some people shouldn't have that choice. I believe that if you've raped and murdered a five year old girl, then you have negated any right to humanity and any right to be treated as human.
Click to expand...
For humanity's sake, no one thinks that those who feel some people don't deserve to be treated as humans don't deserve to be treated as humans. The psychos are indeed humans and cautionary tales. We cannot react in fear and weakness when it matters most since we want to build a society upon decent values. Devaluing any human is not conducive to any greater goal than ones self. Killing one bee does not kill the nest, nor does it stop the pain from the sting. Let's not provoke the bees or react in fear or hate. We must stay true to what we want to manifest and that is love, mercy, grace, strength, understanding, and foresight. Let's not forget that the assailant is just a vehicle for the reasons.
 
Stormy1 said:
And what is the victim in this case?
Click to expand...

Undeserving of their treatment. Thankfully it is in the past and it doesn't have to destroy them or us. There aren't words to describe what some go through, nor consolation except that through their pain humanity as a whole can grow. It is unfortunate but unfortunate things happen, all the more reason to not lose sight of what we are creating.
 
Yea. I'm okay with the idea of killing them. All the fairy goodness in the world won't change my opinion on the matter.
 
Stormy1 said:
Yea. I'm okay with the idea of killing them. All the fairy goodness in the world won't change my opinion on the matter.
Click to expand...
You're just fine the way you are, no need to change anything. Justice will be served, rest easy.
 
The Doctor said:
so.... Is exile still a form of capital punishment?
Click to expand...

In many ancient societies, most notably in Roman society, and those societies derived from Roman culture, exile was offered as an option to some criminals sentenced to death. Exile in western society is closely linked with the death penalty; so that it was imposed of those who were guilty of a capital crime.
 
[MENTION=862]Flavus Aquila[/MENTION] Solitary confinement is about the closest to real exile you can get. In the older days, one could find another country to start a new life. Once you're behind bars nowadays in solitary you're sincerely fucked of all options.
 
Cedar said:
I am not sure how being in prison with other dangerous inmates or being in solitary confinement benefits the rehabilitation of a criminal, deters them from crime, or helps society feel better about their preparedness for the outside world just in case they have to return to it someday.
Click to expand...

^^yes.

i do not believe the prison system alone (counter-productive?) is a sufficient means to rehabilitate high-risk (sexual and violent) offenders. many of them require intensive rehabilitation to address underlying problems: cognitive, psychological and social. ideally, this should include on-going case-management and therapeutic services which tackle issues head on.

i don’t think people were born ‘bad’ --- sometimes these things manifest slowly, yet deeply, over the course of people’s lives. if we merely punish ‘bad’ people we cannot expect optimum change. but crime extends far far beyond the individual.

a mental health out-patient went to his mental health provider to tell him/her they are not feeling well. they said they were hearing voices telling them to do bad things. mental health professional made appointment in near future. shortly after patient heard voices again, and murdered his girlfriend. patient was admitted to forensic locked ward of mental health hospital.

child sex offender was released from prison and told local church pastor that consultant psychiatrist assessed him low-risk . local church pastor asked if he believed himself to be low-risk. sexual offender scoffed and said no.

professional assessment and rehabilitation methods are subject to human error and limited resources. i am not sure if all people can be ‘fixed’. this is very sad. it is troubling ---- i am hopeful, not convinced.

some people need miracles --- and even then, how can we ever accurately judge when miracle has taken place? and are we willing to test it? so imprison for life or kill them? both devastating, both have extensive personal and public consquences --- i lean towards life.
 
Last edited:
150237337539056262_58S8JR6Q_f.webp
When all else fails, Tolkien. ;)

I think for some people the question may be "what do they deserve?", while for others it may also be "what do I want to offer" or "what do I deserve to offer"?
Perhaps the other query is to consider what the humane response to some of the horrors committed by people may be. It seems we really have no idea of how to cope other than to seek to kill the person who contains what is seen as the abomination.
It sickens me that a lot of these horrors are preventable. Many people in prisons have indeed been through horrific things, and unfortunately were not part of the group who were able to "rise above". On the other hand, not everyone wants help and there's not much that can be done for people who don't want to help themselves or refuse to take responsibility for themselves, but they are as much a part of this world as we are and have as much inherent right to it as we do. If we decide we're going to lock them up because they're dangerous, then that is fine, but how do we conceive ourselves to be superior to them so much so that we justify their murder?
 
Jacobi said:
I want them to feel empathy so they might not go on a murder spree. Some people shouldn't have that choice. I believe that if you've raped and murdered a five year old girl, then you have negated any right to humanity and any right to be treated as human.
Click to expand...
I wholeheartedly disagree :)
 
I think I could excuse someone who committed a murder in the heat of the moment, you could say they were temporarily afflicted and not in possession of their rational mind. It's hard to give an absolute answer to something so varied though... let's face it, murders occur for a variety of reasons and in many different circumstances. I guess in a religious sense, murder (not accidental death) is ALWAYS wrong no matter what, and deserves equivalent punishment. But am I willing to accept the consequences of such a extreme viewpoint? Probably not. If I were to find myself in the shoes of a murderer, could I excuse what I've done?
I think I've gone off on a tangent here, apologies.

Second attempt:

  • Is it ok to kill someone because they are bad or killed someone?

1. "Bad" in this context would have to be explicitly defined and that definition consented to by all members of the affected party.
2. "Killed someone" would likewise need to be defined. Is accidental death the same as intention death? Is it different if the victim *wanted* to die and coerced the perpetrator into killing them? What exactly is meant by self defense? etc.

Personally I believe discussing such issues at a psychological distance is entirely different to discussing them when it affects you directly, for example if you're walking down the street with your baby sister and a stranger flips out and pushes her onto oncoming traffic. Would you care, then, that the man suffered from depression and had been beaten as a kid? Or would you want commensurate punishment, or at least tangible evidence that he won't be able to harm anyone ever again? I'd want him dead. Period. And I think whatever justifications I could come up with NOW for such behavior, in the moment I'd be consumed with grief and just want revenge. It's not logical, balanced, or ethical, but it's probably a more realistic appraisal of how I'd feel.

Did I answer the question or go off into another tangent there? whoops.. haha. My bad.
 
I disagree with capital punishment. I don't believe that anyone has the wisdom to rightfully take another's life, even if it is for the common good. Self defense is different, although there are grey areas. I believe that people can change; a person who has committed a felony is not necessarily forever a person with zero value to society. Judging from the interviews I've watched, it seems that, whether it's the change of environment or the surplus of free time to reflect on one's mistakes, spending time in prison can help people 'get back on track'. A lot of the long sentences they dole out these days seem kind of excessive, though.

I watched 'trial at nuremburg', and I agree with the judge's decision at the end. The concept of 'crimes against humanity' may be blurry, but some actions are too heinous to ignore. I still don't know how I feel about the death penalty even in those cases, however. Sometimes those verdicts seem politically motivated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top