Against abortion for any reason? What about the death penalty?

[jarofthoughts]

I agree. I think this can be seen in Norway. There was an article after the guy killed all those kids there talking about the fact that he couldn't get the death penalty and comparing it to our system. They gave examples of Norwegians who agreed that their system is better and that he shouldn't get the death penalty.

It seems that if you are conditioned differently, then you don't tend to have the same thirst for blood.

Yup.
Here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/european-politics/118636-about-norwegian-penal-system.html

 

[Badran]

But this is the case whatever the punishment is. We're already assuming that no matter what else, the person has been arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to some sort of sentence. Whether the person is sentenced to life in prison or death, the justice system is still saying through its actions, "you are guilty of a heinous crime." You've also separated the perpetrator from his victims, which will hopefully reassure them that he can't victimize them again.

IMO, it's just social conditioning that teaches people that the "deserved" punishment for certain crimes should be death. If you teach them from the outset that the "deserved" punishment is imprisonment instead, then I think people will be less inclined to feel cheated when a person isn't sentenced to death.

I agree that this is how it works with many people, but i don't think we can simplify it to the level of including all people under this description. Many people have their own ideas of justice based on things other than merely how they were conditioned.

How does this work? Can you explain this to me? I really can't see it as anything other than bloodlust. I understand that some people really like the idea of revenge, but I don't think it's actually part of the grieving process.

Just thinking... can't your argument apply to other types of punishment as well?

Torture, for instance. I'm sure that there are some victims who would say that if they knew that their perpetrator was tortured every day for a year before he was executed, or even maybe just executed in a way that would take a few days to kill him, this would make them feel better. Should we do it?

We're both drawing the line somewhere. I draw it between "life imprisonment" and "execution". It seems like you're drawing it between "quick death" and more severe punishments. Why is that a reasonable place to draw the line?

And it's not like I'm pulling this out of the air. Many cultures have had much worse punishments than our modern-day types of capital punishment. For instance, in classical Japan, a person could be sentenced to seppuku, and not always with a kaishakunin. In these cases, the person would usually be in pain for several days until he bled to death. Why isn't this a reasonable punishment today? Or do you think it is?

Basically i'm drawing the line at the actions of the guilty person. Nothing is out of the question for me except things that supersede what the guilty person did (or are unsuitable or unfitting), and things that involve harm to others. In other words, as long as nobody is getting victimized in the sense that they're getting something there actions has not warranted.

I'm not also in favor of doing that (not against it neither), just think it should be allowed. I see no reason why i should have a right to forbid victims from doing exactly what was done to them to their attackers (not saying you want to forbid them, but just clarifying my position).

And even with capital punishment, when has a murderer ever met the same fate as his victim? The victim was (usually) killed abruptly, without warning. The murderer knows he's going to be killed well in advance - usually months or years beforehand - and has time to reflect, ready himself for death, and get his affairs in order. When the murderer is executed, it's usually done with some sort of regard to minimizing his suffering; few murderers extend this courtesy to their victims. It's simply not in our power to do truly to a murderer what he did to others.

I see your point, but we can only do what is possible or in our powers. We can't execute people without them knowing because we have to put them on trial first, be sure first. Which is something self explanatory and the victims would be able to understand. I think the victims are usually more than sufficed by the fact that (in the instance of murder for example) the guilty person has lost their lives too, since that is the main issue and the part where they're hurt the most.

Now, there certainly might be others who want more, but like i indicated i don't believe in a system that meets the victim's needs unconditionally.

But also, it seems that you're suggesting a general principle that isn't really the case, at least not in the West: that criminals deserve to have their crimes inflicted upon themselves. We just don't do this. We don't sentence rapists to be raped, assaulters to be assaulted, or arsonists to have their homes burned down. Why should we kill killers?

Well i wasn't arguing from that point view, but if you mean for someone that does accept that western point of view, why would they want this in regards to the death penalty especially, i certainly see what you mean.

But i think the answer to your question is in the posts of others who are supporting the death penalty and might accept this position. They offered other arguments for why they think there should be a death penalty.

I don't mean to suggest that civil courts should be handing out death sentences (or any criminal sentences at all); what I mean is that civil courts are concerned with restoring victims of wrongs to the position where they would be if the wrong had not been committed. Obviously, we can't restore a dead person back to life, but we can use the civil courts to award money from the criminal to his victims. It won't give a child his murdered parent back, but it might mean that the remaining family members aren't evicted because they can't pay their rent without the dead parent's income, for instance.

Ah, okay i understand. Well i at least agree that this should also be made available (if its not already), and that it would be an acceptable compensation to many victims.

 

[Badran]

I see what you're saying in the meta-application of justice, but the actual method is to end life.

I didn't dispute that, my point simply was that saying that its designed for death is both unfair and inaccurate (if thats what you meant). In other words, that it might unintentionally contribute to you feeling that there is such difference between both things which makes them incomparable. Thats mainly why i'm trying to make sure that this point is clear.

I don't know what other punishments you're thinking of that can't be discontinued...maiming? Yeah, as far as U.S. measures, I'm opposed to those kinds of punishments. Like I said, I'm not familiar with the penal system, especially systems outside of the U.S. I suspect our differing views are mostly due to cultural differences.

Any physical punishment for example would qualify i guess. I agree about the cultural differences.

I'm not being obtuse

I'm sure you're not. Feel free to reemphasize the point as you like, i'm okay with that.

I think both things are comparable, but i certainly understand why it isn't exactly the simplest of comparisons.

but I want to repeat that I still view these as comparing an entire system of methods to just one method. I grasp how the death penalty specifically results in death - I'm having trouble grasping which deaths you're talking about regarding the police system. What deaths are known upfront to be a possible result of police policies?

The way police officers handle criminals (or possible ones) in any given environment. The policies, while they may differ from one place to another, would still include some allowances for the judgement of the police officer where he/she might make a decision or take an action that might result in ending someone'e life. They are allowed to use force, and are equipped with lethal weapons. We know that this is part of that system, and thus we know that someone dying unfairly and meeting the criteria given before in the case of death penalty is entirely possible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree that this is how it works with many people, but i don't think we can simplify it to the level of including all people under this description. Many people have their own ideas of justice based on things other than merely how they were conditioned.

Sure, but as part of our social and cultural background, we're going to be introduced to ideas about what the "ultimate punishment" is or should be. To a large extent, this is going to inform our judgements, even if we end up disagreeing. Where we end up is going to be affected by where our starting point is.

Basically i'm drawing the line at the actions of the guilty person. Nothing is out of the question for me except things that supersede what the guilty person did (or are unsuitable or unfitting), and things that involve harm to others. In other words, as long as nobody is getting victimized in the sense that they're getting something there actions has not warranted.

But how do you determine what is warranted? What makes a quick death your "ultimate punishment" and not, say, a drawn-out, painful death?

I'm not also in favor of doing that (not against it neither), just think it should be allowed. I see no reason why i should have a right to forbid victims from doing exactly what was done to them to their attackers (not saying you want to forbid them, but just clarifying my position).

But then we end up with a contradiction. Sentencing someone to death for murder sends the message "killing is completely unacceptable"; but state-sanctioned execution sends the message "killing is justifiable". I think this creates a fundamentally hypocritical system.

I see your point, but we can only do what is possible or in our powers. We can't execute people without them knowing because we have to put them on trial first, be sure first. Which is something self explanatory and the victims would be able to understand.

I'm not saying that we need to replicate the exact details of the person's crime; I'm saying that your approach suggests that we should execute criminals in a way that's just as high on the "nasty scale" as their crimes.

We may not be able to execute someone without them knowing and preparing ahead of time, but we can compensate for this. What do you think it's worth; an hour of torture, maybe?

I think the victims are usually more than sufficed by the fact that (in the instance of murder for example) the guilty person has lost their lives too, since that is the main issue and the part where they're hurt the most.

In my experience, in places without the death penalty, the family is usually more than sufficed by the fact that the murderer has lost their freedom and won't be able to victimize more families in the same way.

Now, there certainly might be others who want more, but like i indicated i don't believe in a system that meets the victim's needs unconditionally.

Neither do I. But I'm glad that you've acknowledged that not all victim needs or desires necessarily need to be addressed by sentencing. So really, the only place where our opinions differ is where we should put the line between the desires we accommodate and the ones we don't. I say that the desire for the execution of the offender isn't a desire that we need to accommodate.

I'm sure some victims will be upset by this, just as some victims are probably upset when the offender is allowed a quick and relatively painless death... but some desires just aren't reasonable to meet.

Well i wasn't arguing from that point view, but if you mean for someone that does accept that western point of view, why would they want this in regards to the death penalty especially, i certainly see what you mean.

But i think the answer to your question is in the posts of others who are supporting the death penalty and might accept this position. They offered other arguments for why they think there should be a death penalty.

I haven't seen a response to this point from any of the other posters.

Ah, okay i understand. Well i at least agree that this should also be made available (if its not already), and that it would be an acceptable compensation to many victims.

Sure. But do you see my point about how the criminal justice system is more about serving the needs of society as a whole than it is about serving the needs (or wants)of the victim?

 

[Acim]

merely pointing towards the point that its natural for people to protect themselves, its instinctive or part of our methods for survival.

It's natural for us to kill each other as well, by this use of 'natural.' In some ways, that last statement is actually making your point. But I realize you'll probably disagree.

Just to understand your position more, you're basically non-violent correct?

Basically, but far more so in principle. I am a person who won't willingly kill insects. And yet I have, recently. The amount of physical fights I've been in my life (outside of training) is something I could count on one hand. But catch me in a particular mood, and throw say water on me, and I might strike back. But all of these incidents are against my 'better judgment' and the principle I think is most rational. Which is discussion/debate I feel we are having.

i fail to see how the body does not offer life (not sure what you mean by ongoing life though)... However, i fail to see why allow yourself to be a victim of someone else, if you can help it.

Reducing or removing allegiance to body identification as sole understanding for 'life as we know it' does dissipate ideas of victimhood. That may not be noticeable if a) you simply remove allegiance to body identity and leave vacuum there (which is unrealistic, but is perceived fear of those who have allegiance to body) and b) you attempt to change thinking for say minutes or low level of time, and think that is enough of that. I said previously that this can be lifelong work. I generally don't see victims anymore. Victimization and sacrifice are ideas we do to ourselves. Failure to see this and/or take responsibility for this, can lead to level of denial that will have emotional backing which is far too challenging for me to overcome here in forum intellectual discussion. But, I'll be clear that I absolutely stand by this as most reasonable approach to actual protecting and updating 'life as we know it' in way that is based far more on facts than emotion.

How is it that you're saying this body is not offering what we think it does yet think its so destructive when an attacker is killed? When a murderer is killed?

Our lower consciousness is the perceiver of body as means for attack and for destruction. It goes a bit deeper than this, but I'll stay away from that deeper understanding as I don't think it needs to be brought up, even while I hinted at it in previous post. What I did say, is that lower consciousness is essentially willing for you to identify with body, and identify with impermanence / destruction. The body becomes, in this understanding, more or less a symbol, but because of the identification as 'me' it isn't 'mere symbol' but instead is 'existence as you know it.' It is (higher) consciousness that is offering life as we know it, and as I (choose to) understand it.

That is, you seem to be suggesting that a victim being murdered is better than the victim defending themselves and killing their attacker... how come its so bad when the murderer, the attacker, the person who created this mess to begin with, gets killed?

The last question is a good one. Before that though, I will from this point be repeating what I finished last post with, which is forgiveness is the way a perceived victim can defend themselves. If forgiveness is undermined and seeing for what it isn't, it can essentially be mocked as 'ineffectual' or 'downright weakness.' But forgiveness, is mindset to employ now, not later when hypothetical life threatening situation arises to come take everything away from you.

For me, it is not wrong that we kill murders, but okay that murders do what they do (namely murder). It's all 'bad' though I'd spin it more in vein of, "not working." It's all an ongoing teaching of sorts that leads to awareness of 'attack sometimes works. Just look at that hurt person or dead person, and the point is made crystal clear. Attack works, and therefore is justified as way of effecting desired change in this situation.' That's the blunt way of seeing it for what it is. But also realizing that this will go on for as long as attack (and moreover fear and guilt) are determined to be what is valuable in living life as we know it. The way around this is via forgiveness. And while it can invoke a quick fix (in a miraculous sort of way), the reality is that if conviction is fairly strong in, "must defend body at all costs, hurting attackers is sometimes very good, and punishment is part of life," then the shift in perception that forgiveness is calling forth (which is actually very simple, I'd say obvious), will be perceived as incredibly hard, if not impossible. Hence, this can be lifelong, or could be something that is fully grasped, and way of life by end of this coming weekend.

Note ... i do not expect people to always be able to apply it, do not expect them to always apply it in the sense of letting go of things that belong to them, and do not judge people who do not to be doing something wrong. It depends.

I would apologize if beyond the intellectual discussion we are engaged in, if you think I expect this of everyone as in it is unreasonable to ever think anything other than forgiveness. I'm not applying forgiveness 100% of the time. Yet, I do think it applies 100% of the time where attack is perceived, or guilt is determined and desired to be met by punishment, or fear is overwhelming thought, and so on. I truly believe it applies, in reasonable way. But I'll work on expecting this of myself for awhile longer before I look to expect it of others. Here in intellectual discussion, I do believe it is way to replace mindset that conjures up hypotheticals where "you know for sure you're going to die unless you attack first."

So, in other words, you oppose all forms of punishments?

In principle, yes. But even "oppose" stands out for me. It is more in vein for me of, not seen as working out well for us.

How do you suggest things should work out in a society? Should all people forfeit their right to anything they own or care about?

I suggest things would work out as well, likely better, if there was element of society (as there is element within us) that practices forgiveness consistently, and is included in our way of life, rather than say off in some compound or isolated area trying to perfect things away from us. I think there is some of this going on already, but obviously there could be more. The more the merrier.

I think with ship in perception that comes with allegiance to forgiveness (really Love), the opposite of forfeiting anything and caring would occur. One way I do often put this shift in sound bite form is that to live this way, you have to sacrifice the belief in sacrifice. Currently, we think in order to 'save a life' or 'be a hero in this world' (based on many stories we have) that something very valuable in the physical world may have to be given up. Hence, we have slogan for soldiers who make the 'ultimate sacrifice.' IMO, heroic mentality doesn't work this way, especially 'in the moment.' It does what needed to be done, and is willing to set aside physical things as if they are no longer needed, not where the actual value is realized.

It seems that you view things in black and white and a rather too simplistic view (at least regarding this subject).

To use abortion as the example, how are you against abortion in any case?

How do you deal with cases where the woman's life is in danger? And what about if that is recognized when she's in the second month for example? How are you still against it?

Does that mean you're saying she should die?

In case of woman's life is in danger, I think it transcends the type of choice we are talking about. I believe it becomes the doctor's choice, more or less at this point. And, that I would trust doctor's wisdom (not 100%, but in general) who I believe would be looking to save physical form of all involved. I do think it quite plausible that prayer could help here, as could other spiritual measures that clearly influence physical perceptions. But if at end of some hypothetical situation where woman is essentially okay (not in immediate grave danger) and doctor is presenting data that says, 'only way for you to survive is if we abort the pregnancy,' then that would be the one hypothetical where I would say, absolutely the woman has right to choose her life over the life of fetus/potential human.

I am a bit more gray on this than I think you give me credit for and that I perceive others as. I think a woman can choose abortion whenever she desires. Just as I believe we all can choose murder whenever we desire. There's nothing really stopping that. Laws aren't preventing that and so, my grayness meter I think is a little bit deeper given what I feel is reality here. Given my ultimate stance of 'forgiveness is the way,' I've intellectually entertained a whole lots of stuff. In my book, it is all allowable. And in world we live in, I observe a lot of it has been done, is plausibly happening right now as you read this. And not a darned thing you are able to do about it given versions of 'how society should be set up.' Hence, forgiveness presents another way of seeing that while it may allow for a whole lot, does seek to correct the error where it is (first) made, rather than attempt to project correction as something 'they' have to do, or 'they' deserved to be punished, for what 'they' have done' in MY judgment.

 

[Kathryn]

Hmmm your view is problematic

You're ok with it when all options run out, but have a very descriptive view when it comes to the conviction of murderers, so which is it?

I believe that the death penalty can be appropriate when it is necessary to protect the lives of others. If there was irrefutable proof that the person on death row was absolutely, without a doubt guilty of the murder, and society could not be protected logically by any means other than putting the person to death, then I would consider the death penalty a viable option.

See, I see the death penalty only as viable as a means to protect society. I don't believe it is appropriate simply to punish the murderer.

Furthermore, I don't have enough confidence in our judicial system (or any others that I can think of off the top of my head) to allow that system to administer the death penalty. I see FAR too much discrimination and inequality in that system to consider it worthy of determining life or death for individuals.

 

[Badran]

Sure, but as part of our social and cultural background, we're going to be introduced to ideas about what the "ultimate punishment" is or should be. To a large extent, this is going to inform our judgements, even if we end up disagreeing. Where we end up is going to be affected by where our starting point is.

Of course, but as i will clarify later, i don't think i can actually say that there is an ultimate punishment for me, it depends on the criminal's crime. In other words, i don't believe in enforcing any ultimate punishment. However, i think your goal, of conditioning people (or convincing them) that we needn't or shouldn't go for certain lengths in punishments, either for ethical or practical reasons, can be achieved by other means rather than making the punishment unavailable and them just having to deal with it (where some of them will accept it and others won't). Because that way i won't feel i'm forbidding any victim from getting their justice (and in case you're wondering how do i feel this way when i clarified that i don't believe in meeting the victim's needs unconditionally, i will address that here in this post in another part).

But how do you determine what is warranted? What makes a quick death your "ultimate punishment" and not, say, a drawn-out, painful death?

A quick death is not my ultimate punishment. In a much earlier post i clarified that it should depend on the criminal, what they did. Basically, the line is dependent on what way has the criminal did his crime. On the crime itself. To give general examples that might make it clear, if someone blinds someone, i wouldn't oppose them being blinded too. If someone rapes someone, i wouldn't oppose the raped person getting to make the person who raped them suffer the feeling of being raped in whichever way etc...

In other words, i view it in a way that simply makes it clear to criminals that whatever they do, they should be prepared to the possibility that it will be done to them too, in exactly the same way (if possible). However, to clarify again, i still don't dismiss things like rehabilitation. I'm merely in favor of a system that allows for many things under it.

But then we end up with a contradiction. Sentencing someone to death for murder sends the message "killing is completely unacceptable"; but state-sanctioned execution sends the message "killing is justifiable". I think this creates a fundamentally hypocritical system.

I think its unfair for us to think both are the same, despite totally understanding the feelings towards this.

For example, are you also of the opinion that killing in self defense is the same as murder? I think it would be unfair for us to lump these things under the same category. I view killing as sometimes completely unjustified and the definition of injustice, and in other cases as justified and actually a good thing, or justice or resulting in a good thing.

I'm not saying that we need to replicate the exact details of the person's crime; I'm saying that your approach suggests that we should execute criminals in a way that's just as high on the "nasty scale" as their crimes.

We may not be able to execute someone without them knowing and preparing ahead of time, but we can compensate for this. What do you think it's worth; an hour of torture, maybe?

Thats the part where i said i would oppose unfitting or unsuitable punishments. That is, how that works here, is that i don't think we're actually capable of measuring it this way, so we might punish the criminal more than they deserve. If its possible however to measure it, i would be fine with it.

In my experience, in places without the death penalty, the family is usually more than sufficed by the fact that the murderer has lost their freedom and won't be able to victimize more families in the same way.

I understand that. My point with this statement was that people would understand our incapability of actually killing the murderer in exactly the same way, nothing else. And for those who are unsatisfied, the difference is that we actually can't do anything about it, unlike if we opposed the death penalty (I will clarify more on this point in the next part).

Neither do I. But I'm glad that you've acknowledged that not all victim needs or desires necessarily need to be addressed by sentencing. So really, the only place where our opinions differ is where we should put the line between the desires we accommodate and the ones we don't. I say that the desire for the execution of the offender isn't a desire that we need to accommodate.

Yeah, thats basically where we differ. But since my view of that line is at the point of what the actions of the criminal warrant (as long as its possible for us to do that, and without victimizing anybody), i wouldn't feel i'm taking anything away from victims. Unlike if it were that a certain punishment is out because its not practical, or because a majority vote decided they don't want it etc..

I'm sure some victims will be upset by this, just as some victims are probably upset when the offender is allowed a quick and relatively painless death... but some desires just aren't reasonable to meet.

I agree. But like i tried to explain in the previous part, it all depends on whether the victims needs are warranted or not. If they want the criminal to suffer something that supersedes what they did, then they're asking us to victimize someone and are being unreasonable, and i wouldn't be able to accommodate their feelings.

I haven't seen a response to this point from any of the other posters.

I don't want to speak for others, but for example if i understood correctly, one reason i understood was the part about some people being too dangerous to be let to live. That is, someone for example who killed a lot of people and have not shown any signs of being ready or willing for rehabilitation.

Sure. But do you see my point about how the criminal justice system is more about serving the needs of society as a whole than it is about serving the needs (or wants)of the victim?

Yes, i do. But i'm not sure those priorities should necessitate disallowing or in other words failing to apply this form of punishment. While in general the system is more concerned with society as a whole, it still doesn't necessitate that it would fail to compensate the victim, especially in a matter such as this. Perhaps its more complicated than i think it is in your system, but i'm talking more in general.

 

[Badran]

It's natural for us to kill each other as well, by this use of 'natural.' In some ways, that last statement is actually making your point. But I realize you'll probably disagree.

Its not the same as what i'm talking about. I'm not talking about things that are natural because they occur a lot, i'm talking about things that as a human they're part of your system so to speak. Most people don't kill, but most people will pull their hands out or away of something hot almost instinctively to protect themselves.

Basically, but far more so in principle. I am a person who won't willingly kill insects. And yet I have, recently. The amount of physical fights I've been in my life (outside of training) is something I could count on one hand. But catch me in a particular mood, and throw say water on me, and I might strike back. But all of these incidents are against my 'better judgment' and the principle I think is most rational. Which is discussion/debate I feel we are having.

I understand.

Reducing or removing allegiance to body identification as sole understanding for 'life as we know it' does dissipate ideas of victimhood.

........

But, I'll be clear that I absolutely stand by this as most reasonable approach to actual protecting and updating 'life as we know it' in way that is based far more on facts than emotion.

If you view it on the individual level as a form of sacrifice, in which case since also society as a whole supposedly benefits more people benefit etc.. My problem with that is i still fail to see how people defending themselves makes society worse in anyway, i see it quite on the contrary.

And i fail to see how not defending ourselves will make society any better. I see possibility for it to actually be worse.

Our lower consciousness is the perceiver of body as means for attack and for destruction.

........

It is (higher) consciousness that is offering life as we know it, and as I (choose to) understand it.

I really don't disagree entirely with that, just with what i feel is an over trivialization of the human body. That is, i don't see why we can't value both. I value it more than i think i should, because i'm not as spiritual as i'd like to be. But i think i do see where you're coming from. My problem is only like i said with what i feel is a needless negative or trivial consideration for this body. I'm sure you view it to offer something regardless of how different our view of it might be. And that something whatever it may be is worth protecting.

The last question is a good one. Before that though, I will from this point be repeating what I finished last post with, which is forgiveness is the way a perceived victim can defend themselves. If forgiveness is undermined and seeing for what it isn't, it can essentially be mocked as 'ineffectual' or 'downright weakness.' But forgiveness, is mindset to employ now, not later when hypothetical life threatening situation arises to come take everything away from you.

For me, it is not wrong that we kill murders, but okay that murders do what they do (namely murder). It's all 'bad' though I'd spin it more in vein of, "not working."

.........

Hence, this can be lifelong, or could be something that is fully grasped, and way of life by end of this coming weekend.

In much the same way as the above, i don't see why we can't reach a halfway, or in other words i can't see why it either has to be your way of seeing it, or the way of 'anything goes'. I wouldn't kill an innocent person in order to survive, but i would kill a person who is trying to kill me if i have to.

I do value forgiveness and/or love, but i neither offer it or believe i should offer it unconditionally (or seeking to do so).

I would apologize if beyond the intellectual discussion we are engaged in, if you think I expect this of everyone as in it is unreasonable to ever think anything other than forgiveness. I'm not applying forgiveness 100% of the time. Yet, I do think it applies 100% of the time where attack is perceived, or guilt is determined and desired to be met by punishment, or fear is overwhelming thought, and so on. I truly believe it applies, in reasonable way. But I'll work on expecting this of myself for awhile longer before I look to expect it of others. Here in intellectual discussion, I do believe it is way to replace mindset that conjures up hypotheticals where "you know for sure you're going to die unless you attack first."

I understand, i didn't think you were suggesting that, i understand you mean seeking that as much as possible. Unfortunately you're still either misunderstanding me or detecting things that just aren't there. By this i'm referring to the last sentence.

In principle, yes. But even "oppose" stands out for me. It is more in vein for me of, not seen as working out well for us.

Okay. So, in your view, the more people are able to comfortably victimize each other, the better it is? The more comfortable those who tend to victimize others get to do what they want, without being challenged in the way of punishments and stopping them etc... the better? Is it based on a belief that if that happens the world will improve wildly and things will be considerably different? Or is it based on a view of life to be always that way, and that we should not contribute to anything supposedly negative but rather be on the receiving end for a certain purpose?

To be honest, i by now think i understand how you view it, since you clarified you're non-violent. But, i'm still asking in case you hold different views than what i expect you to hold based on my understanding of your position or beliefs (and of course, i don't actually fully understand the position of people who are non-violent, let alone the fact that non-violence isn't necessarily the only thing at hand here in shaping your views, or based on which you hold your views).

I suggest things would work out as well, likely better, if there was element of society (as there is element within us) that practices forgiveness consistently, and is included in our way of life, rather than say off in some compound or isolated area trying to perfect things away from us. I think there is some of this going on already, but obviously there could be more. The more the merrier.

........

Hence, we have slogan for soldiers who make the 'ultimate sacrifice.' IMO, heroic mentality doesn't work this way, especially 'in the moment.' It does what needed to be done, and is willing to set aside physical things as if they are no longer needed, not where the actual value is realized.

I think this part as i understand it would actually answer the questions i asked you in the part above, but i asked them anyway in case i actually misunderstood this part. If i didn't, and they do actually answer them, don't of course answer those questions in the previous part of this post.

I also would think that based on what i said so far, you would probably be able to see where and why i would disagree.

In case of woman's life is in danger, I think it transcends the type of choice we are talking about. I believe it becomes the doctor's choice, more or less at this point. And, that I would trust doctor's wisdom (not 100%, but in general) who I believe would be looking to save physical form of all involved. I do think it quite plausible that prayer could help here, as could other spiritual measures that clearly influence physical perceptions. But if at end of some hypothetical situation where woman is essentially okay (not in immediate grave danger) and doctor is presenting data that says, 'only way for you to survive is if we abort the pregnancy,' then that would be the one hypothetical where I would say, absolutely the woman has right to choose her life over the life of fetus/potential human.

I am a bit more gray on this than I think you give me credit for and that I perceive others as. I think a woman can choose abortion whenever she desires. Just as I believe we all can choose murder whenever we desire. There's nothing really stopping that. Laws aren't preventing that and so, my grayness meter I think is a little bit deeper given what I feel is reality here. Given my ultimate stance of 'forgiveness is the way,' I've intellectually entertained a whole lots of stuff. In my book, it is all allowable. And in world we live in, I observe a lot of it has been done, is plausibly happening right now as you read this. And not a darned thing you are able to do about it given versions of 'how society should be set up.' Hence, forgiveness presents another way of seeing that while it may allow for a whole lot, does seek to correct the error where it is (first) made, rather than attempt to project correction as something 'they' have to do, or 'they' deserved to be punished, for what 'they' have done' in MY judgment.

I understand, but i think in that case there was a problem either with my understanding of your position or with the way you presented your opinions in the beginning (or both), or of course my understanding of what you're saying here in this part.

Because as i understand what you're saying here, its more like you're emphasizing forgiveness as something that a lot more of is needed, rather than declaring absolutes of some sort about how people should handle situations in life (even if we would still disagree on how much forgiveness is warranted or needed).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course, but as i will clarify later, i don't think i can actually say that there is an ultimate punishment for me, it depends on the criminal's crime. In other words, i don't believe in enforcing any ultimate punishment. However, i think your goal, of conditioning people (or convincing them) that we needn't or shouldn't go for certain lengths in punishments, either for ethical or practical reasons, can be achieved by other means rather than making the punishment unavailable and them just having to deal with it (where some of them will accept it and others won't). Because that way i won't feel i'm forbidding any victim from getting their justice (and in case you're wondering how do i feel this way when i clarified that i don't believe in meeting the victim's needs unconditionally, i will address that here in this post in another part).

I don't think it's so much a matter of conditioning people against the death penalty as not conditioning them to accept it in the first place. I think that to a large degree, acceptance of capital punishment is something that's learned, not innate.

A quick death is not my ultimate punishment. In a much earlier post i clarified that it should depend on the criminal, what they did. Basically, the line is dependent on what way has the criminal did his crime. On the crime itself. To give general examples that might make it clear, if someone blinds someone, i wouldn't oppose them being blinded too. If someone rapes someone, i wouldn't oppose the raped person getting to make the person who raped them suffer the feeling of being raped in whichever way etc...

In other words, i view it in a way that simply makes it clear to criminals that whatever they do, they should be prepared to the possibility that it will be done to them too, in exactly the same way (if possible). However, to clarify again, i still don't dismiss things like rehabilitation. I'm merely in favor of a system that allows for many things under it.

It sounds to me like you're advocating a system that's nothing like the justice system of any country I've ever heard of, and isn't what most capital punishment supporters are suggesting.

I think its unfair for us to think both are the same, despite totally understanding the feelings towards this.

For example, are you also of the opinion that killing in self defense is the same as murder? I think it would be unfair for us to lump these things under the same category. I view killing as sometimes completely unjustified and the definition of injustice, and in other cases as justified and actually a good thing, or justice or resulting in a good thing.

Self defense is different, because it's not about punishment. When you kill someone to protect yourself, you're not really killing him because he's a bad person or for any of the reasons of justice I outlined before; you're killing him because he represents a threat to your life, and if you don't kill him, he'll kill you. The motivation behind the act is the protection of your own life or others.

This doesn't mean that it's impossible to feel that it's better that the person is dead, but a person who kills someone because the person "needed killing" wasn't really acting in self defense. And even places that have the death penalty usually frown on summary execution without a trial.

Thats the part where i said i would oppose unfitting or unsuitable punishments. That is, how that works here, is that i don't think we're actually capable of measuring it this way, so we might punish the criminal more than they deserve. If its possible however to measure it, i would be fine with it.

How do you determine what a criminal "deserves" at all? If you can't measure what a criminal deserves when it comes to torture, then how do you determine that he deserves death in the first place?

Also, I think you may have inadvertently touched on something important: what does it matter what the criminal deserves or not? If the criminal (or aspects of the criminal, such as the "value of a human life" or the like) doesn't have any intrinsic value whatsoever, then you don't really need to be concerned with overdoing the punishment; it's not like any real harm would be done by it.

OTOH, if we do need to concern ourselves with these things, then this is an indication that the criminal does have some value... which means, IMO, that we should carefully reconsider any decision to destroy that value by ending his life.

I understand that. My point with this statement was that people would understand our incapability of actually killing the murderer in exactly the same way, nothing else. And for those who are unsatisfied, the difference is that we actually can't do anything about it, unlike if we opposed the death penalty (I will clarify more on this point in the next part).

But that's not really true. You could still satisfy them; for instance, you could have the offender tortured until the victim (or victim's surviving family) says "he's had enough"... and then you kill him. In practical and technical terms, there's nothing to stop this from happening right now.

Yeah, thats basically where we differ. But since my view of that line is at the point of what the actions of the criminal warrant (as long as its possible for us to do that, and without victimizing anybody), i wouldn't feel i'm taking anything away from victims. Unlike if it were that a certain punishment is out because its not practical, or because a majority vote decided they don't want it etc..

But again, this is very different from how most legal systems operate.

For instance, I wouldn't be surprised if many rape victims would want their attacker dead, but very few countries make rape a capital offense.

Also, I would say that because of problems like the sheer number of wrongfully convicted people who get executed, capital punishment would fall under the "it's not practical" category... if we consider our goal to be a fair and just legal system.

I agree. But like i tried to explain in the previous part, it all depends on whether the victims needs are warranted or not. If they want the criminal to suffer something that supersedes what they did, then they're asking us to victimize someone and are being unreasonable, and i wouldn't be able to accommodate their feelings.

But how do you decide what is warranted? How do you decide what sentence is as harsh as the crime committed? How much prison time is equivalent to a rape or a burglary? What state-approved method of execution is equivalent to a murder?

I don't think it works to base sentences on the principle of "an eye for an eye", because (to switch round thing metaphors for a moment) we'll always end up comparing apples and oranges.

Instead, I think it's better to base sentencing and punishment on things that are objectively measurable, like the four purposes I mentioned before. If the purpose of a sentence is deterrence, then we can measure this: we can see how crime rates change as we change the sentence, and we can tell if the sentence is actually accomplishing what we want it to do.

What you describe doesn't allow for any confirmation. It doesn't have a mechanism to let us measure the results of our justice system and say "yes, this is acheiving the outcomes we want" or "no, this isn't acheiving the outcomes... we need to change it this way."

To use an engineering metaphor, retribution-based sentencing is an open-loop system, but what I'm suggesting is a closed-loop system. What you describe doesn't allow for feedback to fine tune the operation of the system.

I don't want to speak for others, but for example if i understood correctly, one reason i understood was the part about some people being too dangerous to be let to live. That is, someone for example who killed a lot of people and have not shown any signs of being ready or willing for rehabilitation.

And in certain cases, I can understand this position. Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, I think this was the case for Saddam Hussein: there was a significant chance that if he continued to live in prison, his supporters would blow a hole in the prison wall and bust him out.

However, I think these sorts of situations are so rare that they're virtually irrelevant in a discussion of capital punishment in general. In the vast majority of cases, even if a person is dangerous and violent, this can be addressed by simply separating the prisoner from others.

Yes, i do. But i'm not sure those priorities should necessitate disallowing or in other words failing to apply this form of punishment. While in general the system is more concerned with society as a whole, it still doesn't necessitate that it would fail to compensate the victim, especially in a matter such as this. Perhaps its more complicated than i think it is in your system, but i'm talking more in general.

But going back to something I touched a bit on before, how could the criminal justice system actually compensate the victims? Nothing you do to the criminal is going to undo the crime he committed.

 

[Badran]

I don't think it's so much a matter of conditioning people against the death penalty as not conditioning them to accept it in the first place. I think that to a large degree, acceptance of capital punishment is something that's learned, not innate.

Thats quite possible to be the case. Since you'll always have supporters of the death penalty though, you would still have to work at advocating the ideas you think are best in order for more people to embrace them when they're wronged or victimized (rather than make it the general rule in the first place).

It sounds to me like you're advocating a system that's nothing like the justice system of any country I've ever heard of, and isn't what most capital punishment supporters are suggesting.

I agree in that at least i'm not aware of a system that is exactly like what i'm talking about, but i don't think its nothing like any of them.

Self defense is different, because it's not about punishment. When you kill someone to protect yourself, you're not really killing him because he's a bad person or for any of the reasons of justice I outlined before; you're killing him because he represents a threat to your life, and if you don't kill him, he'll kill you. The motivation behind the act is the protection of your own life or others.

This doesn't mean that it's impossible to feel that it's better that the person is dead, but a person who kills someone because the person "needed killing" wasn't really acting in self defense. And even places that have the death penalty usually frown on summary execution without a trial.

I wasn't saying its the same as self defense, there is a difference between the two of course. I was only using it as another example, to say that not any kind of killing is wrong. It depends.

How do you determine what a criminal "deserves" at all? If you can't measure what a criminal deserves when it comes to torture, then how do you determine that he deserves death in the first place?

It wasn't really about the torture part, it was about the part of 'converting' or 'translating' the element of the murderer killing the victim without warning into some form of punishment whatever that may be, prison or torture or anything else. I'm unable to see how we can do that.

However, the part about his death is simple because he caused the exact same to his/her victim.

Also, I think you may have inadvertently touched on something important: what does it matter what the criminal deserves or not? If the criminal (or aspects of the criminal, such as the "value of a human life" or the like) doesn't have any intrinsic value whatsoever, then you don't really need to be concerned with overdoing the punishment; it's not like any real harm would be done by it.

OTOH, if we do need to concern ourselves with these things, then this is an indication that the criminal does have some value... which means, IMO, that we should carefully reconsider any decision to destroy that value by ending his life.

I think you misunderstand what i'm saying and how i feel about this regarding certain parts. I wasn't suggesting even a little bit that a criminal has no value or anything of the sort. The criminal is only different from others in terms of the crime he committed. That does not mean he no longer has rights or is no longer a human being that we care about or seek to protect from being a victim etc... Like i said, only in regards to his crime is where he has lost certain rights. Thats why i oppose punishing him/her in a way that supersedes the crime committed.

But that's not really true. You could still satisfy them; for instance, you could have the offender tortured until the victim (or victim's surviving family) says "he's had enough"... and then you kill him. In practical and technical terms, there's nothing to stop this from happening right now.

I hope the part i explained above about the 'conversion' or 'translation' of him killing the victim without notice to something else clarifies this. It being impossible i mean. At least i'm not aware of how we can do that. In other words again, if the thing required of us means or demands of us that we do something unjust, or unwarranted (in the sense i explained), more victims would understand.

But again, this is very different from how most legal systems operate.

For instance, I wouldn't be surprised if many rape victims would want their attacker dead, but very few countries make rape a capital offense.

Also, I would say that because of problems like the sheer number of wrongfully convicted people who get executed, capital punishment would fall under the "it's not practical" category... if we consider our goal to be a fair and just legal system.

But in that case again, the rape victims would be calling for something unwarranted by the guilty person's crime. The rape victim is alive, he damaged her in a certain way but he didn't kill her, so he doesn't deserve to die. So, she's asking for something unreasonable and i can't do it because i would be victimizing him in much the same way he victimized her: doing something to them that they did nothing to warrant in anyway.

It would be different in that we're not basing our inability to fulfill the victim's needs on something not being practical, but because its unfair. We can't do it. And regarding the number of wrongfully convicted people, like i said i believe that can be addressed by demanding much, much more evidence than we do now. Demanding enough to eliminate any reasonable doubt.

But how do you decide what is warranted? How do you decide what sentence is as harsh as the crime committed? How much prison time is equivalent to a rape or a burglary? What state-approved method of execution is equivalent to a murder?

I don't think it works to base sentences on the principle of "an eye for an eye", because (to switch round thing metaphors for a moment) we'll always end up comparing apples and oranges.

I understand completely what you're saying and realize its very complicated. That said, i think basically jail or prison are more centered around protection to society and rehabilitation. However, when we're going to apply those other punishments in extreme cases, we can measure it on the criminal's crime.

Instead, I think it's better to base sentencing and punishment on things that are objectively measurable, like the four purposes I mentioned before. If the purpose of a sentence is deterrence, then we can measure this: we can see how crime rates change as we change the sentence, and we can tell if the sentence is actually accomplishing what we want it to do.

What you describe doesn't allow for any confirmation. It doesn't have a mechanism to let us measure the results of our justice system and say "yes, this is acheiving the outcomes we want" or "no, this isn't acheiving the outcomes... we need to change it this way."

To use an engineering metaphor, retribution-based sentencing is an open-loop system, but what I'm suggesting is a closed-loop system. What you describe doesn't allow for feedback to fine tune the operation of the system.

I'm not advocating a retribution based system, merely a system that includes that. Also, i'm not saying the criteria you mentioned are irrelevant, i do put them in consideration and think they're extremely important. We can still apply those here. Because like i said the system i have in mind would still include a lot from what you're talking about, and thus it will still be open for change and improvement in many areas.

In other words, it would just include more options, thats it.

And in certain cases, I can understand this position. Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, I think this was the case for Saddam Hussein: there was a significant chance that if he continued to live in prison, his supporters would blow a hole in the prison wall and bust him out.

However, I think these sorts of situations are so rare that they're virtually irrelevant in a discussion of capital punishment in general. In the vast majority of cases, even if a person is dangerous and violent, this can be addressed by simply separating the prisoner from others.

I understand what you're saying, but i don't see why we shouldn't include it in those cases at least, even if as something rarely used. I mean at least would you agree that we should use it in such glaring examples?

But going back to something I touched a bit on before, how could the criminal justice system actually compensate the victims? Nothing you do to the criminal is going to undo the crime he committed.

Well like i said we can only offer what we can do, and the victims know that we can't bring their loved ones back. But they know what are the other things that we can do. Perhaps i shouldn't have used the word compensate here.

 

[England my lionheart]

I voted pro choice for abortion because in some circumstances its the best choice IMO,i voted pro death penalty but not in the way of revenge or deterrent but simply that a pre meditated murderer is going to cost a lot of money to keep in prison,if the victim was a Child or Women and the motive was rape this makes it harder to protect them in Prison and also costs a lot more money.

To keep a person in prison in the UK costs £38.500 or more per year,this would pay for two new Nurses or other people of value,for many people the death penalty is a no go but it does make logical sense IMO.

 

[Magic Man]

I voted pro choice for abortion because in some circumstances its the best choice IMO,i voted pro death penalty but not in the way of revenge or deterrent but simply that a pre meditated murderer is going to cost a lot of money to keep in prison,if the victim was a Child or Women and the motive was rape this makes it harder to protect them in Prison and also costs a lot more money.

To keep a person in prison in the UK costs £38.500 or more per year,this would pay for two new Nurses or other people of value,for many people the death penalty is a no go but it does make logical sense IMO.

It's actually more expensive to put someone on death row because of the appeals process you have to give them. You can choose not to give them the extensive appeals process and save money, but then you risk putting even more innocent people to death.

 

[England my lionheart]

It's actually more expensive to put someone on death row because of the appeals process you have to give them. You can choose not to give them the extensive appeals process and save money, but then you risk putting even more innocent people to death.

OK i know mistakes were made in the past but there are people serving life sentences who committed clear cut premeditated murder,it not only saves money in the long term but a dead murderer cannot kill again,the French used to differentiate between a "crime of passion" and premeditated murder and i agree with that.

As for appeals,i don't think someone who has commited a premeditated muerder beyond any doubt deserves an appeal unless they have some really substantial reason,if the death penalty is to gruesome then at least allow the means for suicide for the prisoner.

 

[Magic Man]

OK i know mistakes were made in the past but there are people serving life sentences who committed clear cut premeditated murder,it not only saves money in the long term but a dead murderer cannot kill again,the French used to differentiate between a "crime of passion" and premeditated murder and i agree with that.

As for appeals,i don't think someone who has commited a premeditated muerder beyond any doubt deserves an appeal unless they have some really substantial reason,if the death penalty is to gruesome then at least allow the means for suicide for the prisoner.

You're still trusting the system to decide what is what. Either you allow the death penalty and pay extra for death row prisoners to be as absolutely sure they're guilty as possible, or you don't pay extra for that and run the risk of executing a higher number of innocent people.

 

[England my lionheart]

You're still trusting the system to decide what is what. Either you allow the death penalty and pay extra for death row prisoners to be as absolutely sure they're guilty as possible, or you don't pay extra for that and run the risk of executing a higher number of innocent people.

One is too high but there are more tools at our disposal to decide whether someone is guilty or not and once found guilty they should,IMO,either be executed or given the means to do it themselves,either way it ticks boxes,they cannot kill again,they aren't a burden to innocent people and the money saved from just 10 lifers would equate to a whole lot of Nurses and Teachers JFE.

 

[Dezzie]

I am pro-choice but personnally, I would NEVER abort my child. I am against the death penalty though.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Can you re-phrase this so it actually makes sense?

US prison population is approximately 2 million.

US death row population is a little over 3,000.

Let's assume that 30% of all cases are wrongful convictions.

30% of 2,000,000 is 60,000
30% of 3,000 is 900.

If we exonerated 50% of all wrongfully convicted inmates, now we've got 30,000 in prison, 450 on death row.

There are plenty of ways for a lot of those 30,000 innocent people to die in prison, by being murdered in prison, accidental death, suicide, untreated medical condition, old age. If 10% of them die in a given year, we're talking about 3,000 innocent dead people in prison.

An average of 45 people per year are executed. If 10% of them are innocent, we're talking about 4.5 wrongfully executed people.

3,000 > 4.5

 

[jarofthoughts]

I am pro-choice but personnally, I would NEVER abort my child.

Being in favour of people having a right in general and using it yourself are two completely different things.

I've never used pot in my life, but I'm in favour of legalizing it.
I'm very much a heterosexual guy, but I'm in favour of gay marriage.
And so on and so forth.

 

[Kathryn]

Most pro lifers aren't opposed to most abortions because they want to force their moral opinions on others. They are opposed to most abortions because they believe that human life begins at conception and that those human lives need to be protected.

In other words, it's a civil rights issue - and they want to protect the civil rights of the unborn child.

When pro choicers accuse pro lifers of wanting to infringe on womens' rights, they are, whether it's intentional or not, totally missing that point.

Most pro choicers don't like the idea of casual abortion, or abortion used as the sole means of birth control, and most are opposed to late term abortion. But they don't regard the fetus as a person - at least, generally speaking, not in the first trimester. They are more concerned with the rights of the mother.

The critical question, and the one that simply must be answered, is this - When does a fetus become a person worthy of protection?

Demonizing either side does absolutely no good and is a waste of time.

The same goes for the death penalty. Each side sees the question as one of human rights. Both sides are horrified by terrible crimes, and want to see justice served. Neither side considers murder to be something any society should trivialize or be lenient about.

Both scenarios - abortion and the death penalty - involve human tragedy and human rights, regardless of which "side" we're on. Supporters of every side of the issues are passionate about their cause because of their deeply held convictions regarding human rights.

When we ignore that salient fact and start slinging angry rhetoric, everyone loses.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Most pro lifers aren't opposed to most abortions because they want to force their moral opinions on others. They are opposed to most abortions because they believe that human life begins at conception and that those human lives need to be protected.

In other words, it's a civil rights issue - and they want to protect the civil rights of the unborn child.

When pro choicers accuse pro lifers of wanting to infringe on womens' rights, they are, whether it's intentional or not, totally missing that point.

If I didn't see how prevalent it is for anti-choice people to also be against contraception and proper sex ed, I might be inclined to accept this. But when people do things that contribute to abortion rates, I can't believe that they're all that concerned with preventing "death of innocent life".

Also, I see major disconnects between the "right to life" rhetoric on the abortion issue and how many (most?) of the people involved in the anti-choice movement behave on other issues.

If a person was truly concerned with protecting innocent life, I would expect to see this reflected in other positions as well: pro-universal health care, pro-social justice/human rights, and anti-war, for instance. All too often, I see supposedly "pro-life" people take decidedly anti-life positions on non-abortion issues.

And that's why I don't accept your argument that the anti-abortion movement is about protecting innocent life. Even if we were to accept that a fetus is an innocent life, a truly "pro-life" movement would look very different.