dont_do_it_doug. Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 What about when we discover the first instance of somebody being murdered by the state for a crime they did not commit? This is absolutely inevitable by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 as i said doug when i think about it rationally it probably wont work or happen. in an ideal world we could execute murderers who we knew definately did commit the crime but then in an ideal world we would not have murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YLN Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 "All eight men reportedly faced the 126-man firing squad without blindfolds, singing Amazing Grace" What is this? I have great reservations about a country like Indonesia being allowed to execute a citizen of another country. What do I mean by a country like Indonesia? Well a country that might use a 126 man firing squad while the prisoners sing amazing grace. That kind of a country. A country that by all objective indices of corruption scores poorly, and is considered to be corrupt. For them to have the audacity to hold a citizen of another country, and then execute them, in what appears to be not unrelated to an election that is on the horizon, and against the wishes of the international community and especially the person's country of origin, is totally unacceptable and wrong. So you can say what you like about 'if you can't do the time', but the lives of these men is such an after thought in this scenario that you have to have some sympathy. Yeah you didn't do the crime, but these men aren't unlike you. You weren't in the room when they were told that all the border security are paid off, and that they're in with the Indonesian government, and that the poppy fields in the Golden Triangle are government controlled, so they've no interest in stopping you from leaving the country provided they get a big slice of the action. Unless of course there's an election coming up.... And you see all these other young guys driving expensive cars, throwing money around, and getting all the girls, just because they got minted through smuggling drugs. At the age of 22 and 24. Yeah I'd be tempted. As for Rugeley's question, is there any scenario where the death penalty would be justified and reasonable? Well the person who would be most likely to get the death penalty is someone who has killed someone, and where you think there's a very good chance they'd do it again if you let them out. They have a sociopathic personality and have a compulsion to kill. They have to be kept in solitary confinement because they are constantly aggressive towards guards and other inmates. They will be in prison for life. Should they receive the death penalty? If they were a dog they would be euthanised for sure, but they're human so what do we think? To keep him in solitary confinement might cost £70k per year, and he might live for another 40 years. That's £2.8 million. Wouldn't that money be better spent on nurses and doctors? I don't have a good answer for why he should be kept alive really.. Well what about a person with schizophrenia who thinks that every person he sees is sent by the devil to kill him. He's very mentally ill and does not respond to any treatment. He has to be kept under sedation 24 hours a day and has no quality of life. He would attack anyone who enters his room unless he is under this heavy sedation. He will never have another happy day, he lives in a semi conscious state of paranoid confusion and his family just can't visit him anymore. Should he be killed? Well he's less likely to be societally appropriate for euthanasia. What about someone who is brain dead and who is fully unaware of anything going on around him, and his only reminder that his existence is ongoing is terrible pain. Should he be euthanised? This one is probably a resounding yes from the gallery. So we have decided then that we think it is appropriate to make a determination about whether or not a person lives or dies in certain cases, but how did we determine which cases? We're not going to euthanise the schizophrenic, and we're certainly not going to euthanise the murderer, but why not? What distinguished the murderer from the brain dead person, or the ALS sufferer who left prior instructions or the MS patient. Is it that the murderer can wank himself off in his cell and that brings him quality of life? Well what about sending the £2.8 million to Nepal to help in the relief effort. It would probably save a lot of lives, if that's what we're interested in. Keeping humans alive. Or is it keeping our humans alive, to fight for team Britain. No it's not that, but then why? Why don't we have the death penalty in certain scenarios like this? Spend £2.8 million on condoms and sex education for Africa and save thousands of lives, and prevent thousands of lives being born into poverty and misery. Being born to die. Is it an uncomfortableness with death? Once a person is born, we don't like it to die. We want to stop it from dying. Send food. Keep these people alive. They have very little quality of life and most of their offspring will die. Keep them alive. The sanctity of life. Why have humans such an interest in the sanctity of life? Well because we're alive. George Carlin talks about it. It's pure self interest. We don't like the idea of the death penalty because we have a strong interest in preserving the notion of the sanctity of life. It's probably a subconscious thing. But if I am brain dead with no quality of life, then yeah you can kill me. In that scenario, killing is compassionate, but that's it. In some respects the intentional killing of a person might then be ok, and maybe we've started to think that, in some other scenarios, there might be value to euthanising others, such as the very severely mentally ill, and maybe even sociopathic murderers who show no sign of remorse. But what if the murderer changes his ways? What if he shows signs of remorse at a later date, and grows into a Crooks type character. Should we allow him to live long enough for this to maybe happen? He might discover writing poetry, or art therapy at age 55. I don't know. As for the death penalty for those who have killed by stabbing as distinct from strangling, I'm not sure what to say about that. I suppose yeah. Where someone has been stabbed, they should execute all the suspects by hanging, to give them a perspective as to how they should have done it. TL;DR - Indonesia has some nerve, death penalty is probably wrong. Eye for an eye is reductionist to the point of being totally irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 whats the difference between a human and a dog? serious question, ye i know a dog has four legs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts