Printable View
fairness/justice is an appropriate definition for punishment and how I understand it and am using it here.
As far as the rest of what you have said djr33, I'd say that so far our views are closer to identical than similar. I wonder if the correct phrase here is amazing coincidence.
EDIT: Sadly I must go to sleep :(.
I have to say, it's nice that in this thread I (we?) have found agreement with some on some topics and with others on other topics. That rarely happens in debates like this.
@John, his death would be justice, to the families of the people he killed if not to the whole of norway. If those people think he deserves death, then I can do naught but agree with them.
OK, I think I've got it now.
Even though it's no deterrent, you have to kill people to protect society, leaving them in jail won't take care of that.
Killing people though inherently unfair as it's carried out in the justice system is OK even though it's more expensive than life in prison because the Bible tells us so and besides, they had it coming.
If you look at it that way, It all makes perfect sense. Hey, I guess I agree with you guys too.
"We just want justice." is often heard from the victim's family, meaning they want the person in custody (who very often at that point hasn't been convicted of anything) killed. When I hear that on TV I cringe. I don't believe it. I believe they may think that's what they want. I'm with traq on this one. It will not bring back their loved one, and will not make them happy. The perpetrator's execution is just more death and more trauma in the end.
Losing a loved one is never easy. I've had my share of it and seen many others go through it. I'm not particularly good at it. I have known some who appear to be. They're able to hold on to the good things and their love for the person, while at the same time letting the person go. They forgave them for leaving and forgave themselves for all those things that survivors often feel guilty about.
I've never known anyone who murdered anyone, nor anyone whose loved one was murdered. Even so I am certain, as certain as James seems to be that everything is answered in the Bible, that those who are bereaved in that manner do best if they are able to forgive the murderer.
Do I detect a hint of cynicism there?
In what way?Quote:
Originally Posted by bernie1227
Simply the way it was phrased makes me think you have a hint of cynicism, however I cannot judge the nuances of speech from text.
I'm realistic.
So you're a bit of cynic then.
Edit: cynisim != realism
John, I'll respond in detail to your post. From your tone, it's hard to tell whether you're using sarcasm as a rhetorical tactic or if you're upset by this-- if the latter, just say so and there's no need to continue. I'll assume the former.
Overall, and I can only speak for myself, I don't see this in an absolute sense at all. I think it's in reality imperfect and could be improved. That said...
One aspect here is that I don't really mind the idea of as I said "locking them up and throwing away the key". But that has its own problems (money, arguably cruel treatment, and the problem of parole being given perhaps too easily or being earned-- I don't know all of the details on that one). So if they're really equivalent (either dead or alive, the prisoner never leaves jail) your point here is fine.Quote:
Even though it's no deterrent, you have to kill people to protect society, leaving them in jail won't take care of that.
1) "inherently unfair" is only your opinion-- I don't see it as inherently unfair. I see it as being implemented in that way. Perhaps you're arguing it can't even in theory be fair-- if that's the case, then the same can be said about parking tickets. I don't see why that means we can't have parking tickets.Quote:
Killing people though inherently unfair as it's carried out in the justice system is OK even though it's more expensive than life in prison because the Bible tells us so and besides, they had it coming.
2) The expense issue is ridiculous; I'm against the death penalty as it is because of that-- if it's actually more expensive to bother executing something, then don't bother-- that's simple math. But I think that's a contradiction and should be fixed. It shouldn't be more expensive. That's a flaw in the system, not a reason to abandon it.
3) the "Bible" argument is irrelevant to me; and for those who believe what the Bible says, we can say that at least generally it is because they like the perspective it has to offer and agree with the foundations-- at least I hope that religious people are rational in that way (it would be strange to disagree with the Bible but follow it anyway). So the source may be the Bible or our own opinions, but either way they're our opinions, no? (I personally dislike using the Bible as an excuse; but that doesn't mean it can't be a source of perspective, as long as you agree with what it says.)
4) "they had it coming"-- no, not really. They just didn't respect the system so they don't get the benefits of the system. Imagine a slave-- someone who should be protected and freed by the system, no? But then imagine that same slave owning slaves. Is that really the same to you? Does that slave-owning slave deserve to be freed just as much as other slaves? In a system setup based on arbitrary morals (I fully believe everything is arbitrary-- even, for example, that killing is bad-- this is something cultural not an inherent truth-- except inasmuch as it makes things problematic for a society, so it's a useful rule and obviously convenient in that we're not always in danger of immediate death from everyone around us-- I think it's a good part of culture), it is the case that if someone is breaking the rules, then it doesn't seem they also need to be protected by them. Maybe that's not enough of a reason to execute them (for committing murder) but it certainly makes me less concerned with their welfare if they don't respect that same right for others.
Indeed. That's a problem, it's based on a very biased perspective clouded by strong emotion and is unproductive beyond the victims (=families) feeling some sort of power/revenge. But try not to conflate all of these arguments together-- it's not a simple issue of yes/no on everything all at once, but the individual points.Quote:
"We just want justice." is often heard from the victim's family, meaning they want the person in custody (who very often at that point hasn't been convicted of anything) killed. When I hear that on TV I cringe. I don't believe it. I believe they may think that's what they want. I'm with traq on this one. It will not bring back their loved one, and will not make them happy. The perpetrator's execution is just more death and more trauma in the end.
Others in this thread do seem to hold that position, though. To some extent I can see some reasoning in it-- should the victims' families wish to forgive the prisoner and allow them to go free, that seems a lot more acceptable (would you agree John?), so I can see that it should go both ways. It's not revenge exactly, but the idea is simply that the fate of the prisoner could be decided by those affected-- in a perfect world that might make sense. On a practical level, I still don't agree with this and especially not with watching the execution as a spectacle.
I'm not entirely certain that it's necessary to forgive them. I actually have difficulty understanding this (frequent) usage of the word "forgive", or perhaps in the phrase "forgive but never forget"-- to me, it's fine to hold someone accountable and believe they are accountable. But to the extent that emotions are involved, it's important to let those go. But this is more because focusing on the murderer isn't healthy/helpful, and they should be focusing on both the memories of the loved one and moving on with life. Acceptance and forgiveness are not the same to me; here, acceptance is the one that matters. (And certainly not in the sense of welcoming/adjusting to the murderer's perspective, just accepting that it happened and so forth.)Quote:
I've never known anyone who murdered anyone, nor anyone whose loved one was murdered. Even so I am certain, as certain as James seems to be that everything is answered in the Bible, that those who are bereaved in that manner do best if they are able to forgive the murderer.
In summary, these are all very valid points about the problems involved in the implementation of the death penalty. But they are not necessarily reasons to not have it as an option, at least in an absolute/inherent sense assuming it were implemented better. Do you agree with that, John?