Intellectual Debate - Murder, Prison, Death, Empathy

[Saya]

So you have no clue what you're talking about, but you're ready to speak of empathy and saying its only humane to kill people and classify whole groups of people as subhuman. Silly, silly old man who I hope never comes into any real power.

[Lochnar]

*facepalm*

[Saya]

Look dude, this is obviously something you thought of while smoking some nice pot, so by your own logic you're subhuman because you violated the laws of society that keeps us safe from your pot smoking. You saying that I'm okay with murder and r ape also is evident of your evil pot smoking ways. Ever stop to think that you deserve prison, that you're as bad as a wealthy lawyer?

[Random Havoc]

Saya, I can see this is something you're very attached to, the whole 'every life is sacred thing.' I'm not. I don't believe in the soul, or the right to life. Do we need to do everything we can to make absolutely sure that an innocent person isn't killed? Of course. Do we need to quadruple the amount of money we spend in the pursuit of one court case over another based on punishment? No. Everyone deserves EQUAL treatment under the law. Whether you shoplift, or commit mass murder, you are entitled to the EXACT same level of treatment by the court system. Anything less is unethical. Lawyers are overpaid as it is, the law is so convoluted that a man can confess his guilt, have no questions in anyone's mind that he is guilty, and walk out of the courtroom the same day on a technicality. Is this justice?

The legal system needs to be fixed, hiding behind an attack on capital punishment doesn't change that. It isn't enough to just say 'it's too expensive to fix it' and turn your back. We can argue the ethics of capital punishment until we're blue in the face, but if someone is coming from a strictly financial standpoint, the fact that the appellate court is horrifically increasing the costs doesn't change that it costs less than $50 to terminate a person's life, and more than $10,000 to lock that person up for one year.

I'm a former soldier. I've seen men die. I've seen men at their worst, and at their best. A man that kills another in cold blood has forfeited any sympathy I may have had for them. Do juries make mistakes, yes. Do police make mistakes, yes. Does that make it more ethical to put a man in a cage and feed him better than a lot of people eat every day for years on end? Do you sleep better knowing that while children are dying in the streets in some countries, a man who admitted to murdering an 8 yo girl can sleep quietly in his 10' x 12' room with a full belly? You see, I don't get bent out of shape about prisoner's rights. There are a lot of more deserving people in this world that get the short end of the stick, just because it makes us feel better to turn large sections of ground into well guarded zoos for the less favourable elements of our society doesn't make it right.

I hate violence, I abhor it. I would rather walk away from an insult than start a bar fight. I would willingly lay down my firearm and swear to never pick it up again if I knew I'd be allowed to live in peace. But for these people that feel no need to cooperate with society, that ****, murder, deal in narcotics to children, for them, I would personally pull the switch.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Random Havoc

Saya, I can see this is something you're very attached to, the whole 'every life is sacred thing.' I'm not. I don't believe in the soul, or the right to life.

I don't think anything is sacred and I don't believe in souls. What I do believe that all humans are essentially equal, if someone else cannot take a life, how can I take theirs as punishment?

Do we need to do everything we can to make absolutely sure that an innocent person isn't killed? Of course. Do we need to quadruple the amount of money we spend in the pursuit of one court case over another based on punishment? No. Everyone deserves EQUAL treatment under the law. Whether you shoplift, or commit mass murder, you are entitled to the EXACT same level of treatment by the court system. Anything less is unethical. Lawyers are overpaid as it is, the law is so convoluted that a man can confess his guilt, have no questions in anyone's mind that he is guilty, and walk out of the courtroom the same day on a technicality. Is this justice?

The thing is a shoplifter won't do much time, however the burden of the state executing an innocent man is so much dire than someone getting a few months or a few years in prison undeserved. Its a travesty when that happens, yes, but that person still has a life of freedom ahead of them, reparations can be given. Once someone is dead, you can't do a single thing to make it up to them. This is why equal effort in proving that a shoplifter is guilty isn't practical when compared to deciding whether a man should live or die.

The legal system needs to be fixed, hiding behind an attack on capital punishment doesn't change that. It isn't enough to just say 'it's too expensive to fix it' and turn your back. We can argue the ethics of capital punishment until we're blue in the face, but if someone is coming from a strictly financial standpoint, the fact that the appellate court is horrifically increasing the costs doesn't change that it costs less than $50 to terminate a person's life, and more than $10,000 to lock that person up for one year.

Fifty dollars for the injection, but again, you need to pay so much more as to make damn sure he is guilty, and he has rights to appeal. The reason its so expensive is because no one wants to be barbaric, no one wants to murder an innocent. If the state is hasty and kills a man and finds out later he is innocent, should the judge be executed?

I'm a former soldier. I've seen men die. I've seen men at their worst, and at their best. A man that kills another in cold blood has forfeited any sympathy I may have had for them. Do juries make mistakes, yes. Do police make mistakes, yes. Does that make it more ethical to put a man in a cage and feed him better than a lot of people eat every day for years on end? Do you sleep better knowing that while children are dying in the streets in some countries, a man who admitted to murdering an 8 yo girl can sleep quietly in his 10' x 12' room with a full belly? You see, I don't get bent out of shape about prisoner's rights. There are a lot of more deserving people in this world that get the short end of the stick, just because it makes us feel better to turn large sections of ground into well guarded zoos for the less favourable elements of our society doesn't make it right.

We can't base justice on injustices in other places in the world. Justice has to be blind and has to treat each case individually. Because children are starving elsewhere doesn't mean a man should be put to death in America. The injustice of world hunger isn't his fault, so why should it come into play?

I hate violence, I abhor it. I would rather walk away from an insult than start a bar fight. I would willingly lay down my firearm and swear to never pick it up again if I knew I'd be allowed to live in peace. But for these people that feel no need to cooperate with society, that ****, murder, deal in narcotics to children, for them, I would personally pull the switch.

Thats your prerogative, but again, justice is blind and impartial, at least thats what its supposed to be, and all humans have rights, even murderers.

[Random Havoc]

If the state is hasty and kills a man and finds out later he is innocent, should the judge be executed?

Of course not, we execute the jury. j/k

Look, I hear your arguments, I simply disagree. Yes, it is a crying shame for one innocent man to spend a single day in prison wrongly, and everything should be done to rectify the situation. Hell, we can keep every single man, and woman that is only convicted of a crime alive and incarcerated for appeals and it won't really irk me. Should the fate of the rest of the world be an issue though? Absolutely. The moment that someone admits that they are unwilling to live by society's laws, I lose any semblance of concern for their lives. There are too many that don't even get the chance to make those mistakes, giving sympathy to a man who willingly confesses to murder by keeping him sitting in a cell until the guy before him in line gets through the appellate court is a crime in itself. I'm not saying that those who proclaim all the way to the prison morgue dying of natural causes should be 'short changed' their day in court. Until it is proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, they may well be innocent. I'm talking about those who stand and claim their guilt.

Part of the problem with our legal system is the 'first come, first served' approach to the death penalty, and to the appellate court. Something a lot of people don't seem to realise is happening every day in this country. A man who is convicted, and given the death penalty will sit until everyone who was convicted before him has had their turn to either be released, sentence commuted, or executed. Whether they plead innocent, or guilty. We can cut a lot of costs in this process simply by moving forward the executions of those who aren't even waiting on their own appeals, just the appeal of the guy ahead of him in line. But we don't.

On the matter of 'equal justice isn't mandatory or practical' as you so eloquently said, justice is blind. Equal treatment regardless of crime. Anything less is unethical. Just because we've managed to make the legal system so complicated that it no longer functions in anything that can be considered swift does not mean that it can't be fixed. Simply saying that it currently costs too much isn't good enough to justify the gross incompetence in the system, it needs to be fixed.

You don't walk to work because your car has a flat tire. You fix the damned tire.

[Random Havoc]

And honestly, this discussion is wearing me out.. These types of debates, no matter how well discussed, or how civil they remain fail to reach the one group of this country that is actually in any position to do anything more than rail, rant, and protest. The politicians ignore this kind of discourse until it reaches a fever's pitch that they can't ignore, and I'm not convinced that any discussion between individuals on a message board on an internet forum will ever be of the quality necessary to establish that level of outcry.

[Lochnar]

Originally Posted by Random Havoc

And honestly, this discussion is wearing me out.. These types of debates, no matter how well discussed, or how civil they remain fail to reach the one group of this country that is actually in any position to do anything more than rail, rant, and protest. The politicians ignore this kind of discourse until it reaches a fever's pitch that they can't ignore, and I'm not convinced that any discussion between individuals on a message board on an internet forum will ever be of the quality necessary to establish that level of outcry.

It can be hard to get a quality discussion going on most forums. You never know when a closed minded moron will wonder in and lash out in the most uninformed and misguided manner possible. Ah well. Such is life.

Thanks RH, it was good to have a discussion with an adult.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Lochnar

It can be hard to get a quality discussion going on most forums. You never know when a closed minded moron will wonder in and lash out in the most uninformed and misguided manner possible. Ah well. Such is life.

Yeah, these fucks are always looking to get out of defending their stupid arguments when under pressure and just keep resorting to personal attacks and reductio ad absurdum. By the way, I totally dig how you refute arguments by saying "*facepalm*", I'm pretty sure I saw Chomsky do that in his debate with Foucault.

[Apathy's_Child]

Dude, for real...... if you're gonna troll, do it right.

[Lochnar]

Originally Posted by JCC

Yeah, these fucks are always looking to get out of defending their stupid arguments when under pressure and just keep resorting to personal attacks and reductio ad absurdum. By the way, I totally dig how you refute arguments by saying "*facepalm*", I'm pretty sure I saw Chomsky do that in his debate with Foucault.

The facepalm was all that a person deserves when they refuse to even listen to (read in this case) another's point of view but still want to criticize it. I'm happy to debate with people that read it but don't agree with it. It's really funny to me to see such people arguing for the same thing but not realizing they are "arguing" with someone that agrees with their major point because they were to closed minded to read the point of view in the first place. I just give them what they deserve, in this case it was the facepalm.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Lochnar

The facepalm was all that a person deserves when they refuse to even listen to (read in this case) another's point of view but still want to criticize it.

That's exactly what responding with "*facepalm*" makes it look like you're doing.

[Lochnar]

I give what I get...never said I was perfect

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Lochnar

The facepalm was all that a person deserves when they refuse to even listen to (read in this case) another's point of view but still want to criticize it. I'm happy to debate with people that read it but don't agree with it. It's really funny to me to see such people arguing for the same thing but not realizing they are "arguing" with someone that agrees with their major point because they were to closed minded to read the point of view in the first place. I just give them what they deserve, in this case it was the facepalm.

I read it after and wished I didn't. Its still messed up to label people as "subhuman" and speak of "humanely and empathetically" killing them. As in, you're full of shit if you think you're empathetic and a kind person for thinking that.

[Lochnar]

Originally Posted by Saya

I read it after and wished I didn't. Its still messed up to label people as "subhuman" and speak of "humanely and empathetically" killing them. As in, you're full of shit if you think you're empathetic and a kind person for thinking that.

Ok, so you are hung up on the word "sub-human" and you think I said I'm kind? All right. I never said I was kind. I did say that with the current condition of the American prison system, death is a kinder solution then living in those prisons. In other words, the prison system is worst then death. That is a bold statement but I feel it is true when you look at how awful the prison system is. This is a round about way to say that system must change. Here's the quote.

Originally Posted by Lochnar

We would also find that as our prisons stand today (at least in America) they are the more cruel of the options. What we do in prisons is unconscionable. By that I mean the animalistic situations prisons put people in thereby forcing people that already may not be as "human" as they could be to become less "human" then they should be. As it stands now, I think that in more situations then not the more humane choice is the death penalty.

As to the use of the word "sub-human". You seem to think that I mean it as a way to justify treating them poorly. That is not the case. I mean, as I have stated many times here, that the person has proven themselves, via the actions they have taken, to have a lower level of humanity. I even go on to say, it is MORE important for society to exercise its empathy with these people above all. Here is where I said that.

Originally Posted by Lochnar

I think a society that withholds it's empathy, even in this case, would be in danger of ceasing to grow it's empathy. Growing empathy is essential because with a high enough level of empathy the need for law is diminished and the number of citizens breaking the law should also drop.

It's good that you read it, that's a positive step to opening your mind. You don't have to agree with it and it's good that you don't. Have your own ideas but have the ability to look at what you detest with a rational eye so you can properly tear it down. Then you don't look like a dumb ass.

[JCC]

This is what happens when you live in a country with fiscal policies like America.

Dilemma: Prisons are bad.

Solution #1: Increase spending to improve prisons.
Solution #2: HANG EVERYBODY.

[Alan]

Rehabilitation is cheaper and more efficient than punishment, whether it be life sentence or death penalty.
Neither Lochnar nor Random Havoc have even mentioned that as an alternative, yet they believe they are 'intellectual' and believe to be tackling the issue at its base.
That's like having a bloody arm, criticizing those who say to put a band-aid in it, and suggest that the only possible options are to either leave it bloodied or rip the arm off so that the arm won't be bleeding anymore.

[Ben Lahnger]

Alan, maybe if we strap the arm down, attach electrodes to it and run thousands of volts through it ... perhaps the bleeding would stop. Or maybe the arm would stop caring. I joke, of course.

I spoofed this earlier, calling it an "ineffectual debate" in parody of the initial call for an intellectual debate. Mind exercises solely for the purpose of exercise (without hope of the peripheral benefit of increased ability) rarely engage me, and this is particularly true when the subject at hand is being discussed by parties who are unlikely to change their minds in a place that is unlikely to make any difference.

Allow me to point out the pointlessness of present parties continuing to discuss this by adding just one potential wrinkle. Brain mapping is making incredible headway (pun intended). We are SOON going to have a very good idea what areas of the mind are damaged in individuals who do not see the value of others or their own life. The question will soon become much more complex than just "life in prison VS death penalty".

[Lochnar]

Originally Posted by JCC

This is what happens when you live in a country with fiscal policies like America.

Dilemma: Prisons are bad.

Solution #1: Increase spending to improve prisons.
Solution #2: HANG EVERYBODY.

It's easy to throw money at some problem without helping at all. How do you spend the money? What actions are taken to improve the prisons? What's your idea for a solution #3?

Originally Posted by Alan

Rehabilitation is cheaper and more efficient than punishment, whether it be life sentence or death penalty.

I suggest that cultivating empathy within the society will lower crime rate but you are right in that I say nothing about rehabilitation. What can be done to change the prisons from an incarceration based system to a rehabilitation system?

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

The question will soon become much more complex than just "life in prison VS death penalty".

Where did you come across this? I'd like to read about it. Also I don't think this is completely useless. You never know what people will go on to do in life. Also, the act of talking about it with people from all over the world serves to get more perspective then one may usually get from local debate. I know it's a stretch, but that could even help the growth of global empathy I talked about earlier. I still think that empathy is key for social growth.

[alchemie]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

I was going to join this INEFFECTUAL DEBATE but then ... ooh, I just saw something shiny out the window!

LOL! I just hope that it wasn't an UFO or something....