DD Social Thread (v1)

[bernie1227]

download opera? <yoda>opera hate you have?</yoda>

[keyboard]

<yoda>Opera, dislike I do</yoda>

[djr33]

John (and Bernie and James), the question of reasons for the death penalty is a good one to bring up.

That's why earlier I said I'm not anti-death penalty, but at the same time I wouldn't really consider myself pro-death penalty in any strong sense. If it were replaced by a literal rest-of-life-in-prison sentence, it would have about the same effect for me. (In some sense, I'm not sure that's fair, though, that the state would actively protect and preserve their lives including things like food and potentially expensive medical care, when other people don't have that-- if anyone is starving, then why should life-in-prison prisoners be fed? Or perhaps it has something to do with the difficulty in distribution of services, so that in theory everyone could be fed but some people just can't actually receive the food; ok if so. But if it's not, if there's ever a case where someone innocent doesn't receive food and a for-life prisoner does, that's crazy.)

The reasons of "fear" and "revenge" don't convince me. Neither one seems like a reasonable motivating factor. There are three reasons I see for it:
1) It's practical. This may sound like an incredibly cold thing to say, but it seems reasonable to me. If it is more efficient to execute someone than keep them in jail for the rest of their life, and if it is guaranteed that they are guilty and so forth, this seems like a reason that can be defended.
2) There's something simply fair about it. I don't like "eye for an eye", but there's a point where someone has done so much damage that maybe "1 eye for 10 eyes" starts to look a lot more reasonable. These would need to be for the significantly extreme cases.
3) I'm unconvinced by the reasons against it. Therefore, it's an option, and as much as (1) and (2) apply, it seems that the death penalty could or perhaps should.

My position is obviously quite moderate on this. I think that anyone with a stronger position than mine probably is motivated by something stronger, such as fear or revenge or perhaps literal "eye for an eye", or (misguided) ideas of it being a deterrent.

If "lock them up and throw away the key"* and execution are the two options, I don't seen any practical difference between them. But I also don't see why either is necessarily better than the other. And anything weaker than a death penalty position opens the door to lighter and lighter sentences. Norway giving a mass murderer only 22 years seems crazy to me (regardless of how old he is).

(*Obviously there would be an exception for anyone later proven innocent. But I'd like to hope, even if it's completely unreasonable, that these cases have sufficient evidence. The extent to which the evidence is uncertain, manipulated or anything else is also reason for me to consider, in those cases, allowing parole, lighter sentences, etc. But for those to which that does not apply in any sense, I'd stand by this.)

[james438]

djr33 seems to have a pretty good understanding of why I am for the death penalty. Simply put, the death penalty serves as punishment and to protect society. I base my position on the Bible as much as I can. It is not about revenge or fear or as a deterrent.

[jscheuer1]

eye for an eye, or in anders case, 77 eyes.

Closer to 154 eyes. So revenge is your idea of a good outcome. I think that speaks for itself.

[jscheuer1]

Simply put, the death penalty serves as punishment and to protect society. I base my position on the Bible as much as I can. It is not about revenge or fear or as a deterrent.

Full 180 there.

As a Christian what method of execution do you think Jesus would recommend? Electrocution, lethal injection, something else perhaps?

[james438]

I'm not trying to defend my position, just very briefly explain it or, more accurately, state it.

To answer your question I doubt Jesus would recommend any of those, but would refer the answer to the government. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. The same goes here. Christians are commanded to obey the government so far as it doesn't violate scripture.

[traq]

an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
harboring vengeance is like drinking poison and expecting the other man to die.

revenge, and by extension, punishment, is not a valid motivation. Rehabilitation or repentance are (not that I'm suggesting that either of those are accomplished, or even seriously addressed, by our justice system). And yes, protection of the society must be the primary concern. At the same time, how does it make sense to imprison someone for life? Obviously, you are unconvinced that they will rehabilitate, and you are convinced that it is unsafe to release them. I don't approve of killing as punishment, but I also don't think it's moral to keep anyone locked in a room for twenty, thirty, sixty years.

capital punishment or not, the most serious shortcoming our justice system holds is the lack of healing and closure. Watching someone be put to death brings closure? No. It's another traumatic experience. Forgiveness brings closure. And it's far more important to the victims [loved ones] than to the perpetrator of the crime.

------------------
I had refrained from participating in this discussion, until now, because I didn't want to spark any arguments, and I was concerned that the conversation might devolve. I know we're all mature adults, here, but these are passionate topics. Those are some of my views. Thanks for sharing yours, everyone.

------------------
James: I understand your point, though I don't agree with your reasoning. Caesar's image was on a coin, not a sword.

[james438]

Traq, are you saying that punishment is an extension of revenge? If so I want to add that I don't see it that way or believe that is the case.

Yes, these are passionate topics, which is why it is very important to me to be very careful what I say. These viewpoints won't upset me, but my viewpoints can easily upset others and I wouldn't want anyone to lose any friendships over this. That may sound extreme, but I think caution is warranted here.

[djr33]

djr33 seems to have a pretty good understanding of why I am for the death penalty. Simply put, the death penalty serves as punishment and to protect society. I base my position on the Bible as much as I can. It is not about revenge or fear or as a deterrent.

Interestingly, my stance has nothing to do with the bible, but does seem similar. The one point I'm not sure about is "punishment". That's not really how I see it. It's more practical than that-- in terms of fairness/justice, it's not about revenge/punishment for what they did but instead a reaction to how they have essentially forfeited their membership into society as it is organized, done something so wrong that it is considered inexcusable. So it's not that the execution should be bad for them, but rather that anything else seems too generous. And as I said before, there's also something about feeding/caring for someone in prison (sentenced to life without parole) that seems contradictory to me*. There's no problem with that if everyone else already has everything they need but the budgets/resources for prisons are extreme. Something is wrong with America anyway, though, because of how many criminals/prisoners/prisons we have! Perhaps fixing that would make the rest of it a non-issue.


(*There may be some prisoners for whom life in prison without parole is exactly right-- I'm talking about the cases where that seems too light. I have no problem, in theory, with someone receiving a sentence of life in prison without parole, given that, for whatever reasons, the sentence fits the crime. I don't mean to conflate the two, but rather to focus on the extreme/bad cases.)

Full 180 there.

Not as I read it-- if "protect society" simply means eliminate offenders, then that's compatible with execution without any necessary intent to deter others from doing the same thing. (It would still function in that sense if the executions were confidential and not known to the public.)



None of this strikes me as too complicated for religion/Jesus-- if war can be justified to Christians, then I see no inherent reason why execution can't be. If someone wants to take a completely pacifist stance, then that's fine as well, but not in any way a necessary part of Christianity as far as I know.

capital punishment or not, the most serious shortcoming our justice system holds is the lack of healing and closure. Watching someone be put to death brings closure? No. It's another traumatic experience. Forgiveness brings closure. And it's far more important to the victims [loved ones] than to the perpetrator of the crime.

Really good points, and none of those reasons are ones I would use to defend the death penalty. In fact, the spectacle of it (and the executions themselves) seems completely bizarre to me. The arguably necessary execution is enough in itself; watching it is something else, something I'd consider problematic/wrong. (Except to the extent that "seeing is believing", wanting proof. But if we can't trust the government to actually carry out the executions when they say they do, then the whole system is messed up enough we shouldn't be allowing them to execute anyone anyway.)

I had refrained from participating in this discussion, until now, because I didn't want to spark any arguments, and I was concerned that the conversation might devolve. I know we're all mature adults, here, but these are passionate topics. Those are some of my views. Thanks for sharing yours, everyone.

I absolutely agree and this is an interesting topic; so far the posts have been completely acceptable, on topic and not personal, as far as I can see. If anyone feels differently, feel free to say that, and we can cut this conversation off.

Traq, are you saying that punishment is an extension of revenge? If so I want to add that I don't see it that way or believe that is the case.

Hm, that's similar to how I read your earlier post as well. Perhaps you mean something closer to my (vague) phrasing above? Perhaps "logical consequence" rather than anything implying an intentionally negative 'punishment'? Or forfeiture of rights/respect-- by not respecting something (eg, life) it seems that one has forfeited some rights of protection related to it-- in the same sense that the theft of a car thief's car doesn't bother me too much. I'm not saying it should happen; I'm saying that if it does, it doesn't warrant much support from society for it.