Death Penalty

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 1:45 am

Diuretic wrote: I always get a bit sus when I read, "so you're saying that...." because it screams out 'straw man' to me. And that response K is such a good straw man it would be a terrific scarecrow

No, I said nothing of the sort. I said that I think that the prohibition on killing a member of one's in-group goes back further than religion, that it may have something to do with ensuring the group's survival by making sure that productive and useful members of the group aren't killed in inter-group conflicts.

There we are, that clears that particular straw man up.

It clears up that you hold animalistic behavior as a virtue as opposed to morale obligation to me...but that's your prerogative.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 1:49 am

Pythos wrote: The death penalty for serial rapists would be acceptable to me as well. Rape is such a violent devistating crime, that the victim is never the same.

What about for someone who violently attacks and perhaps maims another?

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:00 am

Bill Sikes wrote: What about for someone who violently attacks and perhaps maims another? Fair point.

Some people get over being raped.

I think its only as bad as hacking someone’s limbs off with a machete. Certainly it's not a bad as murder.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:05 am

Diuretic wrote: And you're entitled to your opinion of course. You see me as holding "animalistic behavior as a virtue...." You see it in me but it's simply not so. There's a small problem with lack of evidence in your charge against me. If you ask me a straight question rather than make serial assumptions based on not much evidence at all then we could really understand each other's points of view I'm sure.

Diuretic wrote: I think the prohibition on humans killing other humans (at least in the immediate in-group) is older than religion and is probably about group survival and not about morality at all.

In this statement alone you are saying that you beleive killing is only a direct result of fearing for imediate group survival and that love for another human being serves no justice in killing to preserve their life, but to ensure the well being of what benefits the group as a whole. This says rather simply that this is a beleif that does not hold morale virtues which undoubtedly illustrates, by my personal observation, animalistic characteristics.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:09 am

Bill Sikes wrote: What about for someone who violently attacks and perhaps maims another?

Hmm...I would say no to that. No to killing the attacker. Prison time, sure.

I choose death for rapists because of the way I view sex. What it means to me. I know they say now it's a crime of violence and not a sexual crime, but that seems asinine to me. It's both! I just see it as raping the victim's soul as well. This is difficult to explain. Being forced to take an evil, cretinous deranged human into one's body and soul in a violent manner, often at knifepoint, is abhorrent to me. I don't think a rapist deserves to live after ruining another human being in this fashion.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:15 am

Bored_Wombat wrote: Fair point.

Some people get over being raped.

I think its only as bad as hacking someone’s limbs off with a machete. Certainly it's not a bad as murder.

I've known my friend since we were 11 and 12 years old.

When she was 18 she called me up and told me some dude had raped her as she was walking home from work. I remember the sound of her voice when she told me. I remember the sick feeling in my gut when she said it. She's married now. Whenever she has sex with her husband, she thinks of that SOB who got her in the park.

I was almost going to say Wombat, that only a guy would think a woman (or a man, since that happens too) "gets over it." But that would be unfair of me.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:15 am

Bored_Wombat wrote: Fair point.

Some people get over being raped.

I think its only as bad as hacking someone’s limbs off with a machete. Certainly it's not a bad as murder.

Please expound.

Pythos · Post by **Pythos** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:17 am

K.Snyder wrote: And we're making exceptions for different types of murders is that it? What about the families who've lost someone they dearly love because of it? These people who will never get to share a laugh, a smile, a kind gesture, a sense of presence that is as beautiful as anything imaginable, a cry for that matter,..this is excusable?

I dare hear what I'm seeing. My heart weeps like that of a child who misses their mother. My god.

I'm so utterly sad by what I'm seeing I can do nothing but just leave this thread.

Exceptions no. Realizing that the are sometimes mitigating circumstances, and that every case is not on par with the likes of Jeffery Dalmer. Excusable no, but a debt that can be paid by serving time in prison. If not what would be the point of even having prisons? If they can't pay for their crimes should we just take em out behind the court house shoot em them?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:19 am

Pinky wrote: I'm failing to understand how you can compare the two or even come to that conclusion.

How is hacking limbs off less of a crime than murder?

A little trouble with empathy...seems to be the case throughout this thread.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:23 am

Pythos wrote: Exceptions no. Realizing that the are sometimes mitigating circumstances, and that every case is not on par with the likes of Jeffery Dalmer. Excusable no, but a debt that can be paid by serving time in prison. If not what would be the point of even having prisons? If they can't pay for their crimes should we just take em out behind the court house shoot em them?

That has been the entire debate up and to this point. I can't see how one can establish the differences between murderers. So one happened to kill more than the others, is that exceptional? Can one honestly feel comfortable with releasing someone known to have committed murder to society, making the assumption that they won't do it again? Prove that anyone who has committed murder won't do it again purely out of coincidence. The risk is too grave, and if it were anyone opposed loved ones in question I bet they would feel differently.

Pythos · Post by **Pythos** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:23 am

Diuretic wrote: Just on the death penalty for rape. Bored Wombat has already pointed this out but it's bad policy. If a rapist was going to be executed for rape then he may as well murder the victim. This would be a perfectly rational act. A rape victim who is left alive will frequently provide the police with a lot of information which may identify the rapist and provide sufficient evidence which may lead to a successful prosecution. A rapist facing the death penalty for his rape offence would then be well advised to murder the victim so as to increase his chances of escaping conviction.

That is what I was responding to. My point is that even though the rapist isn't facing the death penalty, when he gets out the next time he murders the victim so as to increase his chances of escaping conviction.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:26 am

Pythos wrote: Exceptions no. Realizing that the are sometimes mitigating circumstances, and that every case is not on par with the likes of Jeffery Dalmer. Excusable no, but a debt that can be paid by serving time in prison. If not what would be the point of even having prisons? If they can't pay for their crimes should we just take em out behind the court house shoot em them?

Pythos,

Prisons are for thieves, embezzlers, batterers and the like. You might could pay for those crimes.

Why not take them out and shoot them? What good are they to society? WHY should we keep them around?

I could forgive someone for stealing my car or even burning down my home, God forbid. But INTENT speaks volumes! Maybe you really were cleaning your gun when it shot off out your window and hit my grandmother in the head. That's an accident.

Getting in your car when you are soused, and taking out a family of five is unforgivable. One should die for that.

Dismembering people in your house is an unspeakable actrocity against all that decency holds moral. That kind of evil cannot be remedied or "paid for."

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:27 am

Pythos wrote: That is what I was responding to. My point is that even though the rapist isn't facing the death penalty, when he gets out the next time he murders the victim so as to increase his chances of escaping conviction.

Then we don't let him out. We expire him instead. Problem solved.

Pythos · Post by **Pythos** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:36 am

RedGlitter wrote: Then we don't let him out. We expire him instead. Problem solved.

Thats the point I was trying to make. If he faces the death Penalty he murders the victim. If not he murders the next victim.

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:38 am

RedGlitter wrote: I've known my friend since we were 11 and 12 years old.

When she was 18 she called me up and told me some dude had raped her as she was walking home from work. I remember the sound of her voice when she told me. I remember the sick feeling in my gut when she said it. She's married now. Whenever she has sex with her husband, she thinks of that SOB who got her in the park. I feel great sympathy for your friend, And I have no doubt that not everyone gets over rape. Especially in the (relatively rare) case of a violent attack by a stranger.

And it's a sad story all around, generally. Occasionally these attacks are simply power motivated - such as race motivated: but generally this kind of attack is cyclic in that the perpetrator is sexually ****ed up by being the victim of sexual attacks in their past. (Which obviously they have not got over.)

But some people do.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:42 am

Pinky wrote:

[quote=Bored_Wombat]

Fair point.

Some people get over being raped.

I think its only as bad as hacking someone’s limbs off with a machete. Certainly it's not a bad as murder.

I'm failing to understand how you can compare the two or even come to that conclusion.

How is hacking limbs off less of a crime than murder?

Because the person is still alive. Damaged to a degree (I didn't actually mention

hacking off limbs in my post), but alive. How well they get over being attacked

depends on the individual as well as the nature of and results of the attack.

That was my point in mentioning someone being "violently attacked and perhaps

maimed", re. the call for capital punishment for rape.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:44 am

Diuretic wrote: But the next rapist will kill his victim when he sees what happens to the previous rapist.

When you let the judicial system dictate the behavior of criminals you don't mitigate that judicial system,..it creates those very same crimes in question susceptible to probability, so i'm failing to see where you're going with this.

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:45 am

Pinky wrote: I'm failing to understand how you can compare the two or even come to that conclusion.

How is hacking limbs off less of a crime than murder? Hi Pinky!

Well ... I figure: they're alive, right?

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:46 am

Pythos wrote: [quote=RedGlitter]Originally Posted by RedGlitter

Then we don't let him out. We expire him instead. Problem solved.

Thats the point I was trying to make. If he faces the death Penalty he murders the victim. If not he murders the next victim.

I think an earlier post has been misunderstood - IIRC the point was that if the

penalty for rape is the same as for murder, then a would-be rapist may have no

compunction in killing his victim, rather than raping and leaving it at that - the

penalty being the same.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:46 am

Bill Sikes wrote: Because the person is still alive. Damaged to a degree (I didn't actually mention

hacking off limbs in my post), but alive. How well they get over being attacked

depends on the individual as well as the nature of and results of the attack.

That was my point in mentioning someone being "violently attacked and perhaps

maimed", re. the call for capital punishment for rape.

Well yeah, that may be true if the woman never decides to have SEX again.

Have someone who has had their limbs "hacked" off work in a lumber yard...see how they feel then, eh?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:49 am

Bored_Wombat wrote: Hi Pinky!

Well ... I figure: they're alive, right?

Wow...

Empathy: feeling of concern and understanding for another's situation or feelings. Also, an emotional feeling of identification or understanding of a work of art.

www.worldimages.com/art_glossary.php

The imaginative projection into another's feelings, a state of total identification with another's situation, condition, and thoughts. The action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without explicitly articulating these feelings. Fern empathizes with Wilbur; Charlotte empathizes with Wilbur.

theliterarylink.com/definitions.html

understanding another person's feelings by remembering or imagining being in a similar situation.

www.lymphomainfo.net/lymphoma/glossary.html

Appreciation of another's problems and feelings without experiencing the same emotional reaction. To be distinguished from sympathy, which is usually nonobjective and noncritical.

www.dphilpotlaw.com/html/glossary.html

a faculty and a virtue, is a combination of Imagination and the Love of God that gives complete understanding of what others are feeling. Develop empathy, which is born of Christlike Compassion, because self-based sympathy invites life to kick your teeth in.

miriams-well.org/Glossary/

is interpreted as the ability to take oneself out of oneself and put oneself into another person's world.

www.mountainquestinstitute.com/definitions.htm

More than feeling compassion or sympathy “for another person, empathy puts you in their shoes to feel “with them or “as one with them. First used in English in the early twentieth century to translate the German psychoanalytic term EinfÃ¼hlung, meaning “to feel as one with, though in practice more closely translating the German MitgefÃ¼hl, “to feel with someone.

www.jansen.com.au/Dictionary_DF.html

The reader understands closely what the character is feeling; "feeling into" (University of Victoria Writer's Guide).

www.baylorschool.org/academics/english/ ... terms.html

Audience members' identification with dramatic characters and their consequent shared feelings with the plights and fortunes of those characters. Empathy is one of the principal effects of good drama.

highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0767430077/student_view0/glossary.html

the capacity to feel emotions similar to those felt by another person.

www.njsbf.com/njsbf/student/eagle/winter05-glossary.cfm

While empathy is becoming a more common dream symbol than it was even ten years ago, it still remains a fairly rare element to come across in the dreaming experience. To acknowledge a feeling of empathy in a dream or, to have a dream character speak to you in terms of empathic knowing, suggests that you are being developed and refined on both emotional and spiritual levels.

www.katiestanley.com/resources/dd/e.htm

Demonstrating an understanding of a customer's point of view and feelings about a situation by using phrases such as "I can imagine this must be very upsetting".

www.flexiblelearning.net.au/toolbox/dem ... ls_idx.htm

A psychological sense of understanding and "feeling for" another person's situation.

highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072486694/student_view0/glossary.html

feeling others' emotions

www.clearstone.net/definitions.html

understanding and entering into another's feelings

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Empathy is the recognition and understanding of the states of mind, including beliefs, desires and particularly emotions of others. This concept is often characterized as the ability to "put oneself into another's shoes". However, this metaphor is ambiguous concerning whether one imagines actually "being" the other person, with all their beliefs and character traits, or simply being in their situation (such as being the prime minister). ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy

Pythos · Post by **Pythos** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:51 am

RedGlitter wrote:

Pythos,

Prisons are for thieves, embezzlers, batterers and the like. You might could pay for those crimes.

Why not take them out and shoot them? What good are they to society? WHY should we keep them around?

I could forgive someone for stealing my car or even burning down my home, God forbid. But INTENT speaks volumes! Maybe you really were cleaning your gun when it shot off out your window and hit my grandmother in the head. That's an accident.

Getting in your car when you are soused, and taking out a family of five is unforgivable. One should die for that.

Dismembering people in your house is an unspeakable actrocity against all that decency holds moral. That kind of evil cannot be remedied or "paid for."

As there are different degrees of lesser criminal behavior. There are different degrees of murder. The law differenciates between them. Was there clear intent? Was it pre-meditated? While every murder is a crime, not every murder is act of unmitigated evil. Not everyone rises to the level of a capital offense that can not be remedied or paid for. It isn't always a clear cut black and white issue. The justice system recognizes this and tries to charge and sentence appropriately

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:57 am

K.Snyder wrote: Well yeah, that may be true if the woman never decides to have B]SEX again.

OK, what about the penalty for someone who rapes a prostitute, then?

K.Snyder wrote: Have someone who has had their limbs "hacked" off work in a lumber yard...see how they feel then, eh?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Please stand still for a minute.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:59 am

Diuretic wrote: You can slice it how you like - murder is still the most abhorrent crime, everything else comes second.

I can't buy this. I would explain myself here but it would end up going to religion so I will pass.

I also am not buying the notion that it's a proven fact that the death penalty turns rapists into murderers.

And so what if it does? If he gets out and murders his next conquest, *hopefully he'll be caught* and executed. Why let him off the hook in the case of him doing it again when he gets out?! Why the hell is he getting out if there's a chance he might do it again?!

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:59 am

K.Snyder wrote: [quote=Bored_Wombat]

Hi Pinky!

Well ... I figure: they're alive, right?

Wow...

B]Empathy: feeling of concern and understanding for another's situation or feelings.

(*HUGE* snip)

What has all that material got to do with this thread? Please explain. You must

mean something by it, because it must have taken a minute to cut'n'paste!

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:03 am

RedGlitter wrote: [quote=Diuretic]

You can slice it how you like - murder is still the most abhorrent crime, everything else comes second.

I can't buy this.

Neither do I.

RedGlitter wrote: I also am not buying the notion that it's a proven fact that the death penalty turns rapists into murderers.

I don't believe that would happen *in every case*, either. I do think it's pooible

in some cases, though.

RedGlitter wrote: [(snip)Why the hell is he getting out if there's a chance he might do it again?!

Surely the same goes for people who cause death by dangerous driving, and all

sorts of other things?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:05 am

Pythos wrote: As there are different degrees of lesser criminal behavior. There are different degrees of murder. The law differenciates between them. Was there clear intent? Was it pre-meditated? While every murder is a crime, not every murder is act of unmitigated evil. Not everyone rises to the level of a capital offense that can not be remedied or paid for. It isn't always a clear cut black and white issue. The justice system recognizes this and tries to charge and sentence appropriately

Ok, I'm not arguing with this. I agree that all murders are not equal. Which is partly why I can justify killing a murderer.

By intent, I was pointing out the difference between an accident and fault.

I can accept a prison sentence for the woman who kills her infidel husband. I can understand that. I will not accept that a person who hired a hitman to off their spouse wouldn't do it again and should be rehabbed.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:06 am

Bill Sikes wrote: OK, what about the penalty for someone who rapes a prostitute, then?

What about the penalty for someone who rapes a prostitute?

What's the difference in the similarities of this and executing someone who is a known murderer?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:08 am

Bill Sikes wrote: OK, what about the penalty for someone who rapes a prostitute, then?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Please stand still for a minute.

Bill...why would it be less heinous to rape a prostitute? Because she already has sex with strangers? Because she said NO. And last I checked, that was all a woman had to say. A whore does not have an obligation to be violated just because sex is her trade.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:12 am

K.Snyder wrote: What about the penalty for someone who rapes a prostitute?

Is that an "I'm clueless" from you then, or what?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:13 am

Diuretic wrote: Let's look at two theoretical jurisdictions.

In one jurisdiction the penalty for rape is a maximum (not mandatory) of life imprisonment. In that same jurisdiction the penalty for murder is death. Now person A commits a rape well knowing that he could be imprisoned for a period up to life. A has to calculate his chances of being apprehended and punished. He knows that he won't be executed for rape but he may get a long prison term. I maintain that he will probably not kill his victim to enhance his chances of escape because he doesn't want to be executed.

In the second jurisdiction the penalty for rape is death. In this jurisdiction the penalty for murder is death. A rapes a woman. He decides that to increase his chances of not being apprehended and convicted and sentenced to death, he will kill the victim. He kills her. He has nothing to lose.

I am arguing that using the death penalty for rape will encourage rapists to murder their victims.

You find a country where the penalty of rape is execution and you'll find a judicial system that I don't agree with. Is the penalty for rape in America death? I have said numerous times I only support the death penalty when there is a legitimate reason to fear for anyone's life as a direct result of the persons in question. I don't know how many times I have to say that.

Bored_Wombat · Post by **Bored_Wombat** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:15 am

Diuretic wrote: No I said it preceded the ideas of religion and morality and I'll argue that it's an evolutionary survival response (I can only suggest it because I'm not at all schooled in that area).

Humans are quite capable of killing each other, we just make up rules about the appropriate and inappropriate acts of killing each other based on context. There is no innnate love of one human for any other human - note I said "innate". We're conditioned not to kill each other from an early age, there is no basic instinct NOT to kill other humans though.

Of course that's just conjecture on my part but I find it interesting to think about these things.
Hmmm.

I reckon there is an innate love for one another. This is the "probably about group survival" thing you were talking about before. Love is how it feels from the inside.

Diuretic wrote: We're conditioned not to kill each other from an early age, there is no basic instinct NOT to kill other humans though.
Hmmm.:yh_questn

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:16 am

Bill Sikes wrote:

Surely the same goes for people who cause death by dangerous driving, and all

sorts of other things?

Slow down people! Go get a snack! Smoke is flying off my keyboard as I try to keep up! :wah:

Bill, I would argue that the above is correct in many instances. But not all.

Diuretic, I see your argument (and I'll raise you...)

(sorry, kidding) but I don't agree. I think you are assuming the rapist has rationality. While criminals can be calculating, rationality generally does not figure in at the time of the crime.

I understood K's post. It does seem like there is more empathy here for the criminal than there is for the victim. :-2

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:16 am

Bill Sikes wrote: Is that an "I'm clueless" from you then, or what?

Bill get a clue...

People don't hack there arms off for a living so I'm failing to see how you can establish the differences of human emotions based only on the choices they make.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:17 am

RedGlitter wrote: Bill...why would it be less heinous to rape a prostitute?

I was simply addressing K.Snyder's question in post #178. I did express any

feelings on whether it might be "less heinous" to rape a prostitute.

General comment: Perhaps there's a problem with "reading theaded" and not

quoting material, rather than "linear" and quoting? There seem to be many

misunderstandings, possibly because of this.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:18 am

Diuretic wrote: Of course murder is the most abhorrent crime. What others are there that are as abhorrent???

:yh_ooooo!!!

RAPE.

Abducting someone and then cutting off their arms and legs, leaving them in the desert for dead. (actually happened)

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:19 am

K.Snyder wrote:

People don't hack there arms off for a living so I'm failing to see how you can establish the differences of human emotions based only on the choices they make.

Please express your thoughts using different words. I have no idea what you mean.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:20 am

Bill Sikes wrote: I was simply addressing K.Snyder's question in post #178. I did express any

feelings on whether it might be "less heinous" to rape a prostitute.

It's definitely apparent that you did...so the next question is, why do you feel it's less heinous to rape a prostitute as opposed to someone who is not a prostitute? If you're saying that you didn't, then what was the purpose of your question?