Capital Punishment (12 Viewers)

[Layce Erayce]

I cannot agree on this.

This rule (an eye for an eye...) is a form of archaïc justice. It was the only rule that was used by prehistoric people. You kill a man of my clan; we kill a man of your clan,... rather dull. How can this really resolve a solution?

A society goes wrong, when people actually have the authority to sit together and discuss whether a man should live or not.
The state might tell you how to live, and punish you if you don't follow the rules, eventually taking you out of the society (putting you in prison).

But no living man has the right to decide whether one should live or not.

But the criminal has the right to choose? And he has the right to carry out what he chooses?

:coffee:

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Snoop]

That actually makes me think of the biblical scene where Jesus, after being judged by Pilatus, is being presented to the people. They have the right to choose to free him, or a convicted criminal.

And of course they all go: "Barabas, Barabas, ..."

But i'm sorry, I shouldn't mention rligious items in here I guess...

I already mentioned that in my second post or third

 

[JCK]

I'll get a lot of flak for saying it, but an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth is justice. Anything less is mercy.

We both know how primitive is that, why do you accept other forms of evolution but justice has to stay at its original level?

 

[Slagathor]

But the criminal has the right to choose? And he has the right to carry out what he chooses?

:coffee:

No, which is why the criminal is removed from society for committing unlawful acts that the people of the society in question (through the democratic system) have laid down.

 

[Geof]

But the criminal has the right to choose? And he has the right to carry out what he chooses?

:coffee:

No!!! he hasn't got the right to kill. And he has to be punished for that.

 

[Geof]

I already mentioned that in my second post or third

You're right. My apologies

 

[Layce Erayce]

We both know how primitive is that, why do you accept other forms of evolution but justice has to stay at its original level?

Its not primitive. +2 and +2 are always equal to each other no matter how evolved you may be. Anything besides that is being lenient or merciful.

Im not against mercy but Im against calling leniency or mercy "justice". I dont believe society should ever practise what I believe to be justice- not because its bad but because it can never be implemented perfectly.

Geof: The punishment has to fit the crime, no? Well what else fits the crime perfectly?

Erik: The criminal is removed from participating physically in society, but his legacy is permanent, is it not? Besides, doesnt my tax money go to paying for his stay in prison?

 

[JCK]

Its not primitive. +2 and +2 are always equal to each other no matter how evolved you may be. Anything besides that is being lenient or merciful.

Im not against mercy but Im against calling leniency or mercy "justice". I dont believe society should ever practise what I believe to be justice- not because its bad but because it can never be implemented perfectly.

Geof: The punishment has to fit the crime, no? Well what else fits the crime perfectly?

Erik: The criminal is removed from participating physically in society, but his legacy is permanent, is it not? Besides, doesnt my tax money go to paying for his stay in prison?

With your analogy, a person who rapes has to get raped. A person who steals should be subject to theft and the death penalty only applies to those who have murdered. See how primitive is that?

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

About Code of Hammurabi circa 18 century BCE.

 

[Layce Erayce]

With your analogy, a person who rapes has to get raped. A person who steals should be subject to theft and the death penalty only applies to those who have murdered. See how primitive is that?

Your view of what is primitive is subjective based on your experiences. It is not an ultimate, final, objective statement. I find it "primitive" too, but I find it "just" all the same. Not practical but it is indeed deserved.

Of course Im not talking about what law should do, I am only talking about the meaning of true justice.

 

[JCK]

Your view of what is primitive is subjective based on your experiences. It is not an ultimate, final, objective statement. I find it "primitive" too, but I find it "just" all the same. Not practical but it is indeed deserved.

Of course Im not talking about what law should do, I am only talking about the meaning of true justice.

True justice cannot be applied, this is why laws were created.

 

[Slagathor]

Erik: The criminal is removed from participating physically in society, but his legacy is permanent, is it not? Besides, doesnt my tax money go to paying for his stay in prison?

And you're saying the death penalty eliminates his legacy where life in prison does not? That doesn't make any sense to me...

Regarding the cost:

From: http://www.cijfers.net/horror_03.html

En nee, executeren is bepaald niet goedkoper dan opsluiten. In de Amerikaanse staat Florida kost het veroordelen en terechtstellen van een moordenaar gemiddeld US $ 3 200 000,- Voor dat bedrag kun je ook zes mensen levenslang opsluiten...

Translates as:

Execution isn't cheaper than locking someone up for life. The price tag attached to covincting and executing a murderer in the American State of Florida amounts to US$ 3 200 000.- on average. That amount would suffice for locking up six people for a life time in jail.

 

[sallyinzaghi]

I guess its all a matter of perspective. Honestly, between the death penalty and life imprisonment, I'd like to see - say - Ted Bundy getting the death penalty. He deserves it. Cold? So was his killings.

 

[Geof]

Geof: The punishment has to fit the crime, no? Well what else fits the crime perfectly?

It sures fits the crime perfectly. A bastard who rapes someone should feel what it is to be raped. But how constructive is that?

You know, I'm a law student. And in my studies, I found that criminal law is the most human department of the Law (at least in European systems). Every rule has to be intrepeted in favour of the suspect. Everything is done to help convicted criminals. Help him psychologically, help him to learn a new job, to study while in prison, and eventually help him to reinsert in society once he is freed.

This whole system is based on two thoughts:
1. The criminal crossed a line and must be punished.
2. The criminal has a problem and must be helped.

If he's a total madman, he'll be locked in a psychiatric institute and not freed until he's cured.

What about the families of the victims, will be your legitimate question? They're also taken care of.
1. They'll get a pecuniar compensation from the author of the crime. If he's unable to pay, there is a public fund that will take care of that.
2. They'll get psychological help.


You might say this is naive, or that it's just pity and no justice, but IMO it's just being human.

If a dog becomes dangerous and bites people, give it a lethal injection. It's just an animal, you can't help it. I'm sorry, but you can't do that to human beings, whatever they have done.

 

[Holygr4le]

Rep @ Geof.

 

[mikhail]

With your analogy, a person who rapes has to get raped. A person who steals should be subject to theft and the death penalty only applies to those who have murdered. See how primitive is that?

I've always thought castration would be a suitable punishment for rape, but that's just me. :wink:

 

[Layce Erayce]

It sures fits the crime perfectly. A bastard who rapes someone should feel what it is to be raped. But how constructive is that?

You know, I'm a law student. And in my studies, I found that criminal law is the most human department of the Law (at least in European systems). Every rule has to be intrepeted in favour of the suspect. Everything is done to help convicted criminals. Help him psychologically, help him to learn a new job, to study while in prison, and eventually help him to reinsert in society once he is freed.

This whole system is based on two thoughts:
1. The criminal crossed a line and must be punished.
2. The criminal has a problem and must be helped.

If he's a total madman, he'll be locked in a psychiatric institute and not freed until he's cured.

What about the families of the victims, will be your legitimate question? They're also taken care of.
1. They'll get a pecuniar compensation from the author of the crime. If he's unable to pay, there is a public fund that will take care of that.
2. They'll get psychological help.


You might say this is naive, or that it's just pity and no justice, but IMO it's just being human.

If a dog becomes dangerous and bites people, give it a lethal injection. It's just an animal, you can't help it. I'm sorry, but you can't do that to human beings, whatever they have done.

I believe everything you said to be correct and the right thing to do. But its only the right thing to do if it pertains to keeping society running or going as normal. It diffuses the problem. Is that not the goal of criminal law?

It does not deal with justice between the perpetrator and the victim. The family gets aid, the criminal gets punished/aid, but the score between the two is never made even.

My position is not practical Geof, it is just phisolophical thinking. But behind every law there is a philosophy, no?

PS- As for the criminals, I think that the best deterrent starts in early childhood where criminal tendencies and psychological conflict tends to start and lead into criminal behavior when they grow up.


:coffee:

 

[Layce Erayce]

And you're saying the death penalty eliminates his legacy where life in prison does not? That doesn't make any sense to me...

Regarding the cost:

From: http://www.cijfers.net/horror_03.html



Translates as:

Well the death penalty should be the most severe punishment to sane criminals who do not show any remorse for their crime whatsoever and do not acknowledge the impact it had on its victim or victims.

Erik: Did that say $3,200.00? I doubt that. Did the article show the breakdown of expenses?

Anyway, the people who care about the cost are the taxpayers.

 

[Desmond]

True justice cannot be applied, this is why laws were created.

Which is what he said.

Im not against mercy but Im against calling leniency or mercy "justice". I dont believe society should ever practise what I believe to be justice- not because its bad but because it can never be implemented perfectly.

 

[Geof]

I believe everything you said to be correct and the right thing to do. But its only the right thing to do if it pertains to keeping society running or going as normal. It diffuses the problem. Is that not the goal of criminal law?

It sure is. Criminal law is there to keep a society peaceful.

It does not deal with justice between the perpetrator and the victim. The family gets aid, the criminal gets punished/aid, but the score between the two is never made even.

Partly true. The judge wil try to even the "scores" by condemning the perpetrator to pay compensation to the family. This compensation has two goals:
- Compensate for the moral damage
- Compensate for the loss of money (ex: the victim used to work and win money for his family)

But of course, money won't give you back your wife/child/parent, and thus the scores will never be even.

My position is not practical Geof, it is just phisolophical thinking. But behind every law there is a philosophy, no?

Read this on the subject. it's quite intersesting. It's from Wikipedia.

Restorative justice assumes that the victim or their heirs or neighbors can be in some way restored to a condition "just as good as" before the criminal incident. Substantially it builds on traditions in common law and tort law that requires all who commit wrong to be penalized. In recent time these penalties that restorative justice advocates have included community service, restitution, and alternatives to imprisonment that keep the offender active in the community, and re-socialized him into society. Some suggest that it is a weak way to punish criminals who must be deterred. These critics are often proponents of retributive justice.

Retributive justice or the "eye for an eye" approach. Assuming that the victim or their heirs or neighbors have the right to do to the offender what was done to the victim. These ideas fuel support for capital punishment for murder, amputation for theft (as in some versions of the sharia).

Psychiatric imprisonment treats crime nominally as illness, and assumes that it can be treated by psychoanalysis, drugs, and other techniques associated with psychiatry and medicine, but in forcible confinement. It is more commonly associated with crime that does not appear to have animal emotion or human economic motives, nor even any clear benefit to the offender, but has idiosyncratic characteristics that make it hard for society to comprehend, thus hard to trust the individual if released into society.

Transformative justice does not assume that there is any reasonable comparison between the lives of victims nor offenders before and after the incident. It discourages such comparisons and measurements, and emphasizes the trust of the society in each member, including trust in the offender not to re-offend, and of the victim (or heirs) not to avenge.



I guess you're more in favour of retributive justice, while I'm more on the side of restorative (and in a lesser way, transformative) justice.