Sign Up for my Lynch Mob

[fluff]

Can't help thinking that the world would be better off without this guy in it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/4746642.stm

A father who battered and burnt his son to death has been given a life sentence after being convicted of murder.

Paul O'Neil, 33, from Newcastle, held the face of his three-month-old son Aaron against a gas fire and later fractured his skull with a head blow.

[Tenchiro]

Lynch mob eh? How's the dental plan? Oh wait, it's the UK.

Is airfare included?

[fluff]

Lynch mob eh? How's the dental plan? Oh wait, it's the UK.

Is airfare included?
If you're not commited enough that you need to ask questions you don't pass the screening. I want people who just want this guy dead, regardless of costs or fringe benefits.

[MMike]

I actually feel nauseous now.... sign me up.

[MMike]

...and I'll prvide my own propane torch......(though I'm not sure how I'll get it on the plane.....I'll figure it out)

[fluff]

I actually feel nauseous now.... sign me up.
I thought that you'd feel the same way that I do. How anyone could do this to their own son is way beyond my understanding.

[Tenchiro]

I am sure the gang rape he will receive in prison is far worse than what any lynch mob would be willing to provide.

Although I wouldn't mind holding his cheek to a hot grill for 10 or 20 minutes.

[MMike]

I thought that you'd feel the same way that I do. How anyone could do this to their own son is way beyond my understanding.


Yeah.....poor kid never even had a chance....just not fair...

[SilentJ]

I'm down. I'll bring pliers, a meat grinder, and a hungry rat.

[BurlyShirley]

I thought you were against the death penalty, all enlightened one. Surely you dont feel a life sentence is enough?

[stevew]

Send him over here. I'll drag him from the back of my car until there is nothing left. When I stop for gas, if he is still alive, I'll add salt to the open wounds.

[fluff]

I thought you were against the death penalty, all enlightened one. Surely you dont feel a life sentence is enough?
I'll even throw the switch, pull the trigger, drop the trapdoor, put the noose over his head.

[N8]

I've got some new rope.....

[MMike]

drop the trapdoor, put the noose over his head.

It will be more effective if you reverse those two...

[LordOpie]

mmmmm battered and fried baby back ribs.

[valve bouncer]

The death penalty arguement is not applicable in this case. I give him a year tops inside. He's gone. Those stairs are damn steep in prison.

[Ciaran]

The death penalty arguement is not applicable in this case. I give him a year tops inside. He's gone. Those stairs are damn steep in prison.
:stupid:

People like that do not last long in prison.

It's not often you read something that litterally makes you feel sick. This does.

[BurlyShirley]

:stupid:

People like that do not last long in prison.

It's not often you read something that litterally makes you feel sick. This does.
It makes me a little horny.

[valve bouncer]

:stupid:

People like that do not last long in prison.

It's not often you read something that litterally makes you feel sick. This does.
It's beyond awful mate, but does anyone think that the death penalty can actually stop these kinds of crimes? Obviously no-one would be on the streets if this guy got the special injection but what would be the point? Is revenge a legitimate arguement for the death penalty? To me it's the only arguement that has any legitimacy but is still too full of contradictions. My original flippancy aside, I cannot condone the death penalty under any circumstances.

[ALEXIS_DH]

It's beyond awful mate, but does anyone think that the death penalty can actually stop these kinds of crimes? Obviously no-one would be on the streets if this guy got the special injection but what would be the point? Is revenge a legitimate arguement for the death penalty? To me it's the only arguement that has any legitimacy but is still too full of contradictions. My original flippancy aside, I cannot condone the death penalty under any circumstances.

coldly thinking, it would be redundant and it would spare him the "donkey law" in prison....
i'd rather die fried, than spent the rest of my days (that wont be that many either) in a prison cell being lynched and gang raped everyday...

[Ciaran]

It's beyond awful mate, but does anyone think that the death penalty can actually stop these kinds of crimes? Obviously no-one would be on the streets if this guy got the special injection but what would be the point? Is revenge a legitimate arguement for the death penalty? To me it's the only arguement that has any legitimacy but is still too full of contradictions. My original flippancy aside, I cannot condone the death penalty under any circumstances.
I have issues with the death penalty for many reasons. And in this case no matter how you kill or hurt or punish this person, can justice ever really be served? Does revenge ever equate to justce? I don't think so.

[Westy]

Back to the lynch mob. Will there be badges, contrary to popular beleif I will need stinkin' badges.

[Changleen]

I have issues with the death penalty for many reasons. And in this case no matter how you kill or hurt or punish this person, can justice ever really be served? Does revenge ever equate to justce? I don't think so.:stupid: VB and Ciaran are right.

[fluff]

I have issues with the death penalty for many reasons. And in this case no matter how you kill or hurt or punish this person, can justice ever really be served? Does revenge ever equate to justce? I don't think so.
It would hardly be revenge unless the child was a member ofyour own family. I also fail to see how it would not be just for someone who commited a crime such as this to be executed.

Howvere, I am actually against the death penalty for other reasons:

If someone claims to be innocent how can we be sure that they are not? There have been sufficient miscarriages of justice and 'fit-up' jobs that it is not beyond the realms of possibility to execute someone for a crime that they did not commit; how many innocent people should be killed to ensure that we get all the guilty ones?

Even if someone confesses under interrogation it is not possible to be 100% certain that the confession was not obtained under duress.

So, barring verified video evidence of the crime it is very hard to be certain enough to execute anyone without risking killing an innocent person.

So, to return to the case in question; in my opinion if this guy commited this crime then he deserves to die and I do not see how it would be unjust. Inflicting a painful death upon him would be unnecessary and would diminish society so it should be humane.

However as I have said above I am against the death penalty and I therefore support the due process of law and the protection of accused and convicted criminals that is necessary due to the feelings that almost all people would have in a case like this.

[Old Man G Funk]

It would hardly be revenge unless the child was a member ofyour own family. I also fail to see how it would not be just for someone who commited a crime such as this to be executed.
One small note. When a case like this is brought before the court, it is usually The People vs. the defendant. From that standpoint, the defendant is accused of committing a crime against society. If we find the defendant guilty and then put him/her to death, then society is getting revenge.

Just for my two cents, I also oppose the death penalty in all circumstances. As Ghandi said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind."

[fluff]

One small note. When a case like this is brought before the court, it is usually The People vs. the defendant. From that standpoint, the defendant is accused of committing a crime against society. If we find the defendant guilty and then put him/her to death, then society is getting revenge.

If you take that logic further then justive simply becomes revenge. The difference in sentence should not make any difference in the motivation for the sentence, be it life imprisonment, a fine, or the death penalty it would be revenge by your reasoning.

In order for society to function there must be rules, these rules must be enforced; therefore wrongdoers must be brought to account for their deeds transgressing the rules, if you term this revenge rather than justice then that's great for you but in so doing you have basically rendered the word justice meaningless.

Someone who is prepared to murder another member of society is a danger to society and needs to be put where they cannot harm any further. The death penalty is the best answer to someone who has killed and likely would kill again, the only reason I oppose it is because our justice system (or revenge system to you) is fallible.

Gandhi's quote, whilst very reasoned in terms of revenge does not apply in terms of the law, where the criminals are brought to account for crimes against laws that they should have understood, with punishments that were previously published.

[Old Man G Funk]

If you take that logic further then justive simply becomes revenge. The difference in sentence should not make any difference in the motivation for the sentence, be it life imprisonment, a fine, or the death penalty it would be revenge by your reasoning.

In order for society to function there must be rules, these rules must be enforced; therefore wrongdoers must be brought to account for their deeds transgressing the rules, if you term this revenge rather than justice then that's great for you but in so doing you have basically rendered the word justice meaningless.

Someone who is prepared to murder another member of society is a danger to society and needs to be put where they cannot harm any further. The death penalty is the best answer to someone who has killed and likely would kill again, the only reason I oppose it is because our justice system (or revenge system to you) is fallible.

Gandhi's quote, whilst very reasoned in terms of revenge does not apply in terms of the law, where the criminals are brought to account for crimes against laws that they should have understood, with punishments that were previously published.
Justice and law/punishment are two separate things.

The 'eye for an eye' idea is revenge. Incarceration for all crimes is different than putting a nurderer to death. Analogous to that, would we steal something from someone who is convicted of robbery?

I fully agree with you in your assessment of the justice system, and I'm glad that you don't stand behind capital punishment. I can also see where you are coming from, because I used to think the same way. But, killing someone who first killed someone else is revenge. Incarceration is law. Do the victims feel some sort of revenge-like feelings from a verdict of guilty and a punishment doled out? I'm sure many do. But, it's not the same.

[BurlyShirley]

I say execute him, revive him, cut off his balls and then execute him again. This **** deserves something way more painful than simple execution, but it will work for me.

[fluff]

Justice and law/punishment are two separate things.

The 'eye for an eye' idea is revenge. Incarceration for all crimes is different than putting a nurderer to death. Analogous to that, would we steal something from someone who is convicted of robbery?

I fully agree with you in your assessment of the justice system, and I'm glad that you don't stand behind capital punishment. I can also see where you are coming from, because I used to think the same way. But, killing someone who first killed someone else is revenge. Incarceration is law. Do the victims feel some sort of revenge-like feelings from a verdict of guilty and a punishment doled out? I'm sure many do. But, it's not the same.
Law is whatever society decrees it to be, so in many ways is justice. Killing a murderer is revenge only if that person represents no further threat (in which case incarceration is also revenge, just different). In the case of a cold-blooded psychopath there is a good chance that that person would kill again so the only realistic options are incarceration or death, which you think reasonable is open for debate but to term it revenge is overly simplistic.

If someone steals it would be just to demand recompense and if necessary to take it without their agreement (which is analogous to compensation/damages in law). If they have the items that they stole they should be returned to their owners. Further punishment, whether by incarceration or financial penalty is necessary otherwise there is no rational reason for people not to steal; punishment for breaking laws is a deterrent (although the death penalty as opposed to life imprisonment is not necessarily any greater a deterrent).

In this case we are not talking 'an eye for an eye', we are talking about someone who (if guilty) is capable of killing a child for no good reason and is undoubtedly a danger to others for the rest of his life. They need to be put beyond the rest of society.

[Old Man G Funk]

Law is whatever society decrees it to be, so in many ways is justice. Killing a murderer is revenge only if that person represents no further threat (in which case incarceration is also revenge, just different). In the case of a cold-blooded psychopath there is a good chance that that person would kill again so the only realistic options are incarceration or death, which you think reasonable is open for debate but to term it revenge is overly simplistic.

If someone steals it would be just to demand recompense and if necessary to take it without their agreement (which is analogous to compensation/damages in law). If they have the items that they stole they should be returned to their owners. Further punishment, whether by incarceration or financial penalty is necessary otherwise there is no rational reason for people not to steal; punishment for breaking laws is a deterrent (although the death penalty as opposed to life imprisonment is not necessarily any greater a deterrent).

In this case we are not talking 'an eye for an eye', we are talking about someone who (if guilty) is capable of killing a child for no good reason and is undoubtedly a danger to others for the rest of his life. They need to be put beyond the rest of society.
From http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/revenge:

Main Entry: 1re·venge
Pronunciation: ri-'venj
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): re·venged; re·veng·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French revengier, from Old French, from re- + vengier to avenge -- more at VENGEANCE
1 : to avenge (as oneself) usually by retaliating in kind or degree
2 : to inflict injury in return for <revenge an insult>
- re·veng·er noun
Incarceration for murder is not "in kind or degree." The death penalty is. You can eliminate the threat of someone killing again through incarceration.

Demanding someone give back what they illegally took is not "stealing" from that person.

You might not see this as an eye for an eye, because this person clearly has no qualms about killing children. But really, it is. This person killed, so we want the right to kill him back. That's the very definition of it, and the definition of revenge.

[Old Man G Funk]

Here's something that people might find interesting on the whole death penalty debate:

http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_9.html#dawkins

[fluff]

From http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/revenge:

Quote:
Main Entry: 1re·venge
Pronunciation: ri-'venj
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): re·venged; re·veng·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French revengier, from Old French, from re- + vengier to avenge -- more at VENGEANCE
1 : to avenge (as oneself) usually by retaliating in kind or degree
2 : to inflict injury in return for <revenge an insult>
- re·veng·er noun


Incarceration for murder is not "in kind or degree." The death penalty is. You can eliminate the threat of someone killing again through incarceration.

Demanding someone give back what they illegally took is not "stealing" from that person.

You might not see this as an eye for an eye, because this person clearly has no qualms about killing children. But really, it is. This person killed, so we want the right to kill him back. That's the very definition of it, and the definition of revenge.
Whoa, slow down there, that's faulty logic.

Just because killing a killer could be revenge doesn't mean it is and just because the punishment is not the same as the crime doesn't mean it's not.

To truly eliminate a psychopath's potential to kill you would have to incarcerate him in solitary confinement; to some that would be worse than a humane execution. Furthermore killing someone 'humanely' by lethal injection (for example) is not in kind or degree compared to what this guy did to the child.


Revenge would be the pliers/blowtorch/castration ideas expressed by some in this thread - to induce suffering an pain akin to that suffered by the child. Humane execution has no pain or suffering attached; simply the removal of a defective member of society as effectively and humanely as possible.


Demanding someone give back what they illegally took is not "stealing" from that person.

Nor is a fine or compensation or incarceration. If you have a point here I'd like to know what it is, because you certainly don't have a valid analogy.

You might not see this as an eye for an eye, because this person clearly has no qualms about killing children. But really, it is. This person killed, so we want the right to kill him back. That's the very definition of it, and the definition of revenge.

Get off your high horse:-


Main Entry: pun·ish·ment
Pronunciation: 'p&-nish-m&nt
Function: noun
1 : the act of punishing
2 a : suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution b : a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure
3 : severe, rough, or disastrous treatment

Main Entry: jus·tice
Pronunciation: 'j&s-t&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English & Old French; Old English justice, from Old French justice, from Latin justitia, from justus
1 a : the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments b : JUDGE c : the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity
2 a : the quality of being just, impartial, or fair b (1) : the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2) : conformity to this principle or ideal : RIGHTEOUSNESS c : the quality of conforming to law
3 : conformity to truth, fact, or reason : CORRECTNESS

Main Entry: ex·e·cu·tion
Pronunciation: "ek-si-'kyü-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin exsecution-, exsecutio, from exsequi to execute, from ex- + sequi to follow -- more at SUE
1 : the act or process of executing : PERFORMANCE
2 : a putting to death especially as a legal penalty
3 : the process of enforcing a legal judgment (as against a debtor); also : a judicial writ directing such enforcement

[fluff]

Here's something that people might find interesting on the whole death penalty debate:

http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_9.html#dawkins
From your quoted article:
______________________________________________
Retribution as a moral principle is incompatible with a scientific view of human behaviour. As scientists, we believe that human brains, though they may not work in the same way as man-made computers, are as surely governed by the laws of physics. When a computer malfunctions, we do not punish it. We track down the problem and fix it, usually by replacing a damaged component, either in hardware or software.

__________________________________________________
Or if you cannot repair the faulty computer you discard it; you turn it off and throw it away.

Not one of Dawkin's greatest bits of writing.

[BurlyShirley]

From your quoted article:
______________________________________________
Retribution as a moral principle is incompatible with a scientific view of human behaviour. As scientists, we believe that human brains, though they may not work in the same way as man-made computers, are as surely governed by the laws of physics. When a computer malfunctions, we do not punish it. We track down the problem and fix it, usually by replacing a damaged component, either in hardware or software.

__________________________________________________
Or if you cannot repair the faulty computer you discard it; you turn it off and throw it away.

Not one of Dawkin's greatest bits of writing.

I was also thinking that if when my computer crashed, if it managed to maliciously take out a few of my kids or something. I probably wouldnt want to risk that again.

[fluff]

I was also thinking that if when my computer crashed, if it managed to maliciously take out a few of my kids or something. I probably wouldnt want to risk that again.

When Dawkins builds his first fully functional human being I may begin to believe that they can be repaired. Until then I will see computers and people as distinctly different mechanisms.

Edit: - I have a friend who is a psychologist, she was once engaged by a defence lawyer to produce a pyschological report on a guy who had killed a baby because it wouldn't stop crying and it was annoying him as it was in the back of his car. She told me that the guy showed no remorse and placed the blame entirely on the baby for the persistent crying. Her conclusion was that the guy would undoubtedly kill again under similar circumstances and should never be allowed out. Her report (commissioned by the defence) was discarded and the guy was sentenced to 20 years, eligible for parole in 10.

[Transcend]

When Dawkins builds his first fully functional human being I may begin to believe that they can be repaired. Until then I will see computers and people as distinctly different mechanisms.

Ya, computers make sense and do not drive like morons.

[Old Man G Funk]

From your quoted article:
______________________________________________
Retribution as a moral principle is incompatible with a scientific view of human behaviour. As scientists, we believe that human brains, though they may not work in the same way as man-made computers, are as surely governed by the laws of physics. When a computer malfunctions, we do not punish it. We track down the problem and fix it, usually by replacing a damaged component, either in hardware or software.

__________________________________________________
Or if you cannot repair the faulty computer you discard it; you turn it off and throw it away.

Not one of Dawkin's greatest bits of writing.
Not using it as an argument, just thought people would find it interesting.

Fluff, I know you aren't a big fan of Dawkins, but I don't think his argument rises or falls on whether his analogy is perfect or not. When you computer breaks, do you automatically toss it out, or do you try to fix it first? Why is it that we don't afford humans the same courtesy? I think that was the idea behind what he was saying.

[fluff]

Not using it as an argument, just thought people would find it interesting.

Fluff, I know you aren't a big fan of Dawkins, but I don't think his argument rises or falls on whether his analogy is perfect or not. When you computer breaks, do you automatically toss it out, or do you try to fix it first? Why is it that we don't afford humans the same courtesy? I think that was the idea behind what he was saying.
No, I do actually respect Dawkins very much, especially when he talks about subjects he fully understands and looks at all aspects of it. Here he is starting from an assumption that the death penalty is entirely about retribution (which he equates fairly accurately as revenge, though they are not entirely the same thing). However as I would hope my posts show that it not the only reason for having the death penalty.

What I have tried to illustrate is that the principle of the death penalty for homicidal psychopaths is the best way to prevent them killing again. I have also pointed out the there is a big difference between the death penalty in principle and in action.

I am opposed to the death penalty not because it is unjust or unnecessary but because it is impossible to ensure that it does not result in the death of an innocent person and that the cost of one innocent victim is (in my opinion) too high. If you incarcerate for life then there is the ability to free someone should they be proven innocent, no one can be brought back from the grave.

If you look closely at my posts you will see that not only do I not support the death penalty in practice but even in theory I woudl only advocate it for people who cannot be 'repaired'.

[Old Man G Funk]

Whoa, slow down there, that's faulty logic.

Just because killing a killer could be revenge doesn't mean it is and just because the punishment is not the same as the crime doesn't mean it's not....
(Snipped for brevity, not as an act of misrepresentation)
I'm not trying to be on any high horse here. I'm simply trying to make my point.

Incarceration is not responding "in kind" when we use it as a means of punishment for many different crimes. The punishment for stealing is usually jail time, which is not 'eye for an eye'. So, why do we insist on 'eye for an eye' when it comes to murder? And, yes, regardless of how humane you do it, execution still results in death. Dead is dead no matter how you look at it, and we generally reserve death for those who are responsible for death first, which is the essence of 'eye for an eye'.

Incarceration would take this person out of regular society, thus making him unable to kill those who are still a part of society. You are correct in that it does present a problem for those who are similarly incarcerated, in that they are now at risk from this person. One might make the argument that they are outside of society and therefore are valued less, so who cares if they get killed, but I don't like that answer either. In truth, I'm not sure I have an answer that will satisfy you on that score, except to say that I think there are ways of keeping people apart besides using solitary confinement.

[fluff]

Ya, computers make sense and do not drive like morons.

I just stuck my laptop behind the wheel of a friend's car. It crashed into the first wall it found.

[fluff]

I'm not trying to be on any high horse here. I'm simply trying to make my point.

Incarceration is not responding "in kind" when we use it as a means of punishment for many different crimes. The punishment for stealing is usually jail time, which is not 'eye for an eye'. So, why do we insist on 'eye for an eye' when it comes to murder? And, yes, regardless of how humane you do it, execution still results in death. Dead is dead no matter how you look at it, and we generally reserve death for those who are responsible for death first, which is the essence of 'eye for an eye'.

Incarceration would take this person out of regular society, thus making him unable to kill those who are still a part of society. You are correct in that it does present a problem for those who are similarly incarcerated, in that they are now at risk from this person. One might make the argument that they are outside of society and therefore are valued less, so who cares if they get killed, but I don't like that answer either. In truth, I'm not sure I have an answer that will satisfy you on that score, except to say that I think there are ways of keeping people apart besides using solitary confinement.
Would you be happier if I advocated the death penalty for rape or grevious bodily harm? What if we look at incarceration as the penalty for kidnapping and false imprisonment, does that make it revenge?

It only coincidentally happens to be an eye for an eye because it is the ultimate penalty and hence applicable only to the ultimate crime, it does not make it revenge.

If I were infallible, omnisicent and omnipotent and I was aware that someone existed who was going around cutting off the ears of everyone who had ginger hair and that they could not be fixed I would happily take the gift of life away from that person, not for the sake of revenge or retribution but for the sake of all the ginger-haired people of society.

[Transcend]

I just stuck my laptop behind the wheel of a friend's car. It crashed into the first wall it found.

If you ask the particle guy, it is because the government made it do it.

[Old Man G Funk]

No, I do actually respect Dawkins very much, especially when he talks about subjects he fully understands and looks at all aspects of it. Here he is starting from an assumption that the death penalty is entirely about retribution (which he equates fairly accurately as revenge, though they are not entirely the same thing). However as I would hope my posts show that it not the only reason for having the death penalty.

What I have tried to illustrate is that the principle of the death penalty for homicidal psychopaths is the best way to prevent them killing again. I have also pointed out the there is a big difference between the death penalty in principle and in action.

I am opposed to the death penalty not because it is unjust or unnecessary but because it is impossible to ensure that it does not result in the death of an innocent person and that the cost of one innocent victim is (in my opinion) too high. If you incarcerate for life then there is the ability to free someone should they be proven innocent, no one can be brought back from the grave.

If you look closely at my posts you will see that not only do I not support the death penalty in practice but even in theory I woudl only advocate it for people who cannot be 'repaired'.
Fluff, I get what you are saying. And, I think we are splitting hairs over this issue since we both oppose the death penalty.

Personally, I'm just not sure that we can separate the revenge factor from the act itself. I just have one question. If you reject the death penalty because you can't be sure that an innocent person won't be put to death, can you be sure that someone who can be fixed won't similarly be put to death?

[fluff]

If you ask the particle guy, it is because the government made it do it.
Please don't get him involved in this thread.

[Old Man G Funk]

Would you be happier if I advocated the death penalty for rape or grevious bodily harm? What if we look at incarceration as the penalty for kidnapping and false imprisonment, does that make it revenge?

It only coincidentally happens to be an eye for an eye because it is the ultimate penalty and hence applicable only to the ultimate crime, it does not make it revenge.

If I were infallible, omnisicent and omnipotent and I was aware that someone existed who was going around cutting off the ears of everyone who had ginger hair and that they could not be fixed I would happily take the gift of life away from that person, not for the sake of revenge or retribution but for the sake of all the ginger-haired people of society.
I don't think we will be able to agree on whether it is truly for revenge or not. I think in our present society it most certainly is based on the idea of revenge. I think you would agree with that sentiment, else you would probably be more inclined to support the death penalty.

If you were all-powerful, I certainly hope that you wouldn't kill that person for cutting off ears, but would perhaps be pro-active and fix that person before they cut off peoples' ears.

[Old Man G Funk]

Please don't get him involved in this thread.
Ditto that.

[fluff]

Fluff, I get what you are saying. And, I think we are splitting hairs over this issue since we both oppose the death penalty.

Personally, I'm just not sure that we can separate the revenge factor from the act itself. I just have one question. If you reject the death penalty because you can't be sure that an innocent person won't be put to death, can you be sure that someone who can be fixed won't similarly be put to death?
How many reasons do I need to reject the death penalty?

But to answer your question; who can decide who can and who can't be fixed? I know of no-one who is infallible (apart from the Pope if you're Catholic and Ohio if you hang around here) and what is seen as fact today could be seen as an old wives tale in twenty years from now.

But to turn the question around, how many chances are you prepared to take if you let someone who can kill a three-month old child go free?

[Transcend]

Please don't get him involved in this thread.

:rofl:

[fluff]

I don't think we will be able to agree on whether it is truly for revenge or not. I think in our present society it most certainly is based on the idea of revenge. I think you would agree with that sentiment, else you would probably be more inclined to support the death penalty.

If you were all-powerful, I certainly hope that you wouldn't kill that person for cutting off ears, but would perhaps be pro-active and fix that person before they cut off peoples' ears.
Sheesh, do you always have to be so literal; I said 'if they could not be fixed'. Ok, so arguably that means I would not be omnipotent but if I were infallible, omniscient and almost omnipotent and the only way to prevent suffering to ginger-heared people (after all have they not suffered enough) was to remove the perpetrator from the world then I would have no hesitation. The greater good of society and all that...

[Old Man G Funk]

Sheesh, do you always have to be so literal; I said 'if they could not be fixed'. Ok, so arguably that means I would not be omnipotent but if I were infallible, omniscient and almost omnipotent and the only way to prevent suffering to ginger-heared people (after all have they not suffered enough) was to remove the perpetrator from the world then I would have no hesitation. The greater good of society and all that...
I was sort of joking there, sorry that it didn't come across clearly....darned keyboard....I'm taking the keyboard out to shoot it................................................ .....

OK, I'm back now with a new keyboard.

I was sort of touching on the "issue of evil" and how we as a society sort of look towards reacting vs. being pro-active, etc. etc. etc. It's probably a little too heady for either of us on a Monday.

[Old Man G Funk]

How many reasons do I need to reject the death penalty?

But to answer your question; who can decide who can and who can't be fixed? I know of no-one who is infallible (apart from the Pope if you're Catholic and Ohio if you hang around here) and what is seen as fact today could be seen as an old wives tale in twenty years from now.

But to turn the question around, how many chances are you prepared to take if you let someone who can kill a three-month old child go free?
You only need one reason. Didn't mean to imply that you need any more reasons. I simply wanted to point out that our same failings in the area of determining guilt would translate over to our abilities to determine "can't be fixed." The question could be re-phrased as, would you support the death penalty if we had 100% reliability as to guilt, but we couldn't be sure whether the person could be "fixed" or not?

Turning the question is fair play. I certainly don't think we allow this person out into society. Is killing him the only way we can keep him out of society? No. We could also seek to get him some psychological help as well, because anyone who could do what he did has some issues.

[fluff]

I was sort of joking there, sorry that it didn't come across clearly....darned keyboard....I'm taking the keyboard out to shoot it................................................ .....

OK, I'm back now with a new keyboard.

I was sort of touching on the "issue of evil" and how we as a society sort of look towards reacting vs. being pro-active, etc. etc. etc. It's probably a little too heady for either of us on a Monday.
S'alright I saw the humour. Was that revenge on the keyboard?

[Old Man G Funk]

S'alright I saw the humour. Was that revenge on the keyboard?
Yes, it was....with extreme prejudice.

[fluff]

You only need one reason. Didn't mean to imply that you need any more reasons. I simply wanted to point out that our same failings in the area of determining guilt would translate over to our abilities to determine "can't be fixed." The question could be re-phrased as, would you support the death penalty if we had 100% reliability as to guilt, but we couldn't be sure whether the person could be "fixed" or not?

Turning the question is fair play. I certainly don't think we allow this person out into society. Is killing him the only way we can keep him out of society? No. We could also seek to get him some psychological help as well, because anyone who could do what he did has some issues.
At what point do we stop making excuses for the perpetrators of such deeds and accept that at the age of 33 you are responsible for your own actions? We all have issues of some kind, some of deal with them, others don't; if people aren't prepared to help themselves why should we bother with them? Society doesn't need more people, rationally this guy would be less of a burden dead.

To return to the question of fixability, if there was no doubt of guilt but any doubt of fixability then execute. Otherwise fix and put them to work repaying their debt to society in one form or another.

[Old Man G Funk]

At what point do we stop making excuses for the perpetrators of such deeds and accept that at the age of 33 you are responsible for your own actions? We all have issues of some kind, some of deal with them, others don't; if people aren't prepared to help themselves why should we bother with them? Society doesn't need more people, rationally this guy would be less of a burden dead.

To return to the question of fixability, if there was no doubt of guilt but any doubt of fixability then execute. Otherwise fix and put them to work repaying their debt to society in one form or another.
Fair enough.

I don't think we make excuses for people necessarily though. If someone has slipped through the cracks of society for years without their condition being detected, then society may shoulder some of the blame. The reason I say this is because of the societal stigma attached to things like mental health problems.