The death penalty

[Laurens]

How do you evaluate the following situation;

A man molests a little girl. The man is sentenced to spend a certain amount of years in prison. The man does not want to die. In fact he hopes to live long enough to have a chance at molesting another little girl.

The girls life is destroyed. Years later, she goes to a doctor and tells him she is unable to live through the pain in her life caused by the sexual abuse she went through as a child and she wants to die.The doctor eventually helps her commit suicide.

In my opinion prison ought to serve 2 functions, firstly and most importantly to protect society from dangerous and harmful individuals. Secondly to rehabilitate the criminals so that they are no longer a threat to society. If the individual is not rehabilitated then they should be monitored carefully to make sure they do not commit further crimes upon release. I think the idea of prison as punishment should be scrapped because clearly it doesn't provide a deterrent and doesn't aim to release a safe individual at the end of it. It's important to note that I said ought at the start here, because I realise that the system I describe doesn't reflect the actual prison system, rather the one I believe ought to exist.

In the case of the child molester, if he intends to commit further crimes upon his release, one would hope that the conditions of his release would alleviate this risk. If he manages to commit another crime, because he wasn't being monitored properly then he should be put into prison again with a much harsher sentence. I don't think he should be executed for having the intention to commit another crime. Nor should he for committing another offence. As I mentioned before killing him isn't a punishment to him, it's just an act of vengeance and I believe that our judicial system ought to operate on a higher level of consciousness than that.

The doctor is not going to encourage the girl to commit suicide. She will be given help with her trauma and everything would be done to ensure that she does not commit suicide. If you go to your doctor and say 'I feel suicidal' don't expect them to rub their hands and say 'okay so how shall we do it?'

 

[thenexttodie]

How do you evaluate the following situation;

A man molests a little girl. The man is sentenced to spend a certain amount of years in prison. The man does not want to die. In fact he hopes to live long enough to have a chance at molesting another little girl.

The girls life is destroyed. Years later, she goes to a doctor and tells him she is unable to live through the pain in her life caused by the sexual abuse she went through as a child and she wants to die.The doctor eventually helps her commit suicide.

In my opinion prison ought to serve 2 functions, firstly and most importantly to protect society from dangerous and harmful individuals. Secondly to rehabilitate the criminals so that they are no longer a threat to society. If the individual is not rehabilitated then they should be monitored carefully to make sure they do not commit further crimes upon release. I think the idea of prison as punishment should be scrapped because clearly it doesn't provide a deterrent and doesn't aim to release a safe individual at the end of it. It's important to note that I said ought at the start here, because I realise that the system I describe doesn't reflect the actual prison system, rather the one I believe ought to exist.

In the case of the child molester, if he intends to commit further crimes upon his release, one would hope that the conditions of his release would alleviate this risk. If he manages to commit another crime, because he wasn't being monitored properly then he should be put into prison again with a much harsher sentence. I don't think he should be executed for having the intention to commit another crime. Nor should he for committing another offence. As I mentioned before killing him isn't a punishment to him, it's just an act of vengeance and I believe that our judicial system ought to operate on a higher level of consciousness than that.

The doctor is not going to encourage the girl to commit suicide. She will be given help with her trauma and everything would be done to ensure that she does not commit suicide. If you go to your doctor and say 'I feel suicidal' don't expect them to rub their hands and say 'okay so how shall we do it?'

Which part of this post shows you have any grasp on reality?

 

[Steelmage99]

Which part of this post shows you have any grasp on reality?

Which parts do you find objectionable?

Please, fight the temptation to say; "All of them".
In order to move the conversation along you really need to address specific points.

 

[Laurens]

Which part of this post shows you have any grasp on reality?

We are speaking in a philosophy forum so I do not see why I should refrain from talking about things that I believe ought to be the case. I was clear about that in my language.

Also I might point out that you seem to imply that a child molester should be executed for intending to reoffend, and that a doctor is going to assist the suicide of someone suffering severe trauma rather than helping them get better. Neither of those demonstrate a particular understanding of reality.

EDIT:

Ooops I thought this was in the philosophy forum. In any case that doesn't matter, the point is discussing political ideals and oughts is not a measure of being out of touch with reality. I don't think much of what I said was unrealistic, if it was show me how and why, don't just assert that I'm out of touch with reality.

 

[Nesslig20]

I think Laurens and I agree on this

In my opinion prison ought to serve 2 functions, firstly and most importantly to protect society from dangerous and harmful individuals. Secondly to rehabilitate the criminals so that they are no longer a threat to society. If the individual is not rehabilitated then they should be monitored carefully to make sure they do not commit further crimes upon release. I think the idea of prison as punishment should be scrapped because clearly it doesn't provide a deterrent and doesn't aim to release a safe individual at the end of it. It's important to note that I said ought at the start here, because I realise that the system I describe doesn't reflect the actual prison system, rather the one I believe ought to exist.

In the case of the child molester, if he intends to commit further crimes upon his release, one would hope that the conditions of his release would alleviate this risk. If he manages to commit another crime, because he wasn't being monitored properly then he should be put into prison again with a much harsher sentence. I don't think he should be executed for having the intention to commit another crime. Nor should he for committing another offence. As I mentioned before killing him isn't a punishment to him, it's just an act of vengeance and I believe that our judicial system ought to operate on a higher level of consciousness than that.

The doctor is not going to encourage the girl to commit suicide. She will be given help with her trauma and everything would be done to ensure that she does not commit suicide. If you go to your doctor and say 'I feel suicidal' don't expect them to rub their hands and say 'okay so how shall we do it?'

My opinion about the death penalty is that it is:
1. Useless since It isn't a deterrent to crime. The countries/states that have the death penalty still have a higher crime rate (even if you exclusively look at the crimes that have death as the punishment).

2. And absurd since it is basically murder. Lawful murder. And the only reason it is done that is as a deterrent (which again doesn't work) and out of revenge. Eye for an Eye, tooth for a tooth. A barbaric motto I heavily disagree with.

Also I don't see prison much as a punishment, but more to remove people that are harmful to society to somewhere else where they can't harm others and also the ones that can should be rehabilitated (psychological help and maybe even an education if they are illiterate, etc) before going back to society. At least, that's what prisons should be in my opinion.

 

[thenexttodie]

We are speaking in a philosophy forum so I do not see why I should refrain from talking about things that I believe ought to be the case. I was clear about that in my language.

Also I might point out that you seem to imply that a child molester should be executed for intending to reoffend

Not at all, they should all be executed right after conviction.

..and that a doctor is going to assist the suicide of someone suffering severe trauma rather than helping them get better. Neither of those demonstrate a particular understanding of reality.

Laurens, being a doctor does not make one a standard of moral fortitude. They have arrested about a hundred doctors in Florida in the last few years for knowingly giving dangerous opiates to people who do not need them, just to make a extra two or three hundered dollars. Many people have died because of this.

EDIT:

Ooops I thought this was in the philosophy forum. In any case that doesn't matter, the point is discussing political ideals and oughts is not a measure of being out of touch with reality. I don't think much of what I said was unrealistic, if it was show me how and why, don't just assert that I'm out of touch with reality.

You are being unrealistic because you are suggesting we take concepts which envolve parameters we unable to define and apply them to our justice system. What for? Why should we do this?

Even if could take every murderer or rapist and magically do something to them which ensures they will not reoffend and let the free to become functioning members of society. Give them a chance to become successfull business owners. Meanwhile their victims lives and the lives of their victims families are destroyed.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Fallacy Friday Lives On (F.F. #6)

 

[Laurens]

Not at all, they should all be executed right after conviction.

What other crimes do you think warrant execution?

Laurens, being a doctor does not make one a standard of moral fortitude. They have arrested about a hundred doctors in Florida in the last few years for knowingly giving dangerous opiates to people who do not need them, just to make a extra two or three hundered dollars. Many people have died because of this.

You're right, there are always some bad eggs. But I know full well that most doctors are not going to assist the suicide of someone who wants to kill themselves because they are emotionally distressed. If only because it would ruin their career if they did.

You are being unrealistic because you are suggesting we take concepts which envolve parameters we unable to define and apply them to our justice system. What for? Why should we do this?

Even if could take every murderer or rapist and magically do something to them which ensures they will not reoffend and let the free to become functioning members of society. Give them a chance to become successfull business owners. Meanwhile their victims lives and the lives of their victims families are destroyed.

So you think killing the perpetrator will magically remove the trauma of the victims?

I said in my post that some people are beyond rehabilitation, and they should serve long sentences that keep the populace safe from them. Again the main reason I said we have prisons is to keep the population safe from dangerous people. However, if we can also rehabilitate those people so that upon release they are far less likely to reoffend then we should, because rather than releasing a dangerous person we'd be reintroducing a safe person into society. As it stands some people are put in prison for minor offences, get involved with other criminals in prison and upon their release commit worse crimes, because nobody has put any emphasis on rehabilitation.

Sure a percentage will always reoffend, but if we can do anything to reduce this we should.

 

[thenexttodie]

What other crimes do you think warrant execution?

Any action which involves a violation of a persons right's, by force, with the intention of doing evil to that person. I think I have covered all such actions. No?

Laurens, being a doctor does not make one a standard of moral fortitude. They have arrested about a hundred doctors in Florida in the last few years for knowingly giving dangerous opiates to people who do not need them, just to make a extra two or three hundered dollars. Many people have died because of this.

You're right, there are always some bad eggs. But I know full well that most doctors are not going to assist the suicide of someone who wants to kill themselves because they are emotionally distressed. If only because it would ruin their career if they did.

Well it's happening now. And it's legal. So what are you talking about?

You are being unrealistic because you are suggesting we take concepts which envolve parameters we unable to define and apply them to our justice system. What for? Why should we do this?

Even if could take every murderer or rapist and magically do something to them which ensures they will not reoffend and let the free to become functioning members of society. Give them a chance to become successfull business owners. Meanwhile their victims lives and the lives of their victims families are destroyed.

So you think killing the perpetrator will magically remove the trauma of the victims?

Why would you even ask me something so fucking dumb?

I said in my post that some people are beyond rehabilitation,

How do you know? Can you even define rehabilitation?

As it stands some people are put in prison for minor offences, get involved with other criminals in prison and upon their release commit worse crimes, because nobody has put any emphasis on rehabilitation.

That's a good point. But I would never suggest putting people in prison at all for minor crimes.

 

[Laurens]

Any action which involves a violation of a persons right's, by force, with the intention of doing evil to that person.

How can you possibly have such a vague definition for the criteria by which someone should be executed?

So beating up someone that you dislike, because you dislike them is a capital offence? I'm pretty sure that fits your criteria.

Well it's happening now. And it's legal. So what are you talking about?

What is happening now? Where is it legal? Sources please?

Why would you even ask me something so fucking dumb?

Because you asked "what about the victims and their trauma?" when I mentioned rehabilitating the criminal. Which seemed to imply that not rehabilitating them and instead executing them would have some bearing on the victim's trauma.

How do you know? Can you even define rehabilitation?

Rehabilitated: The state of having abandoned a previous destructive, dangerous and/or criminal lifestyle.

 

[thenexttodie]

Any action which involves a violation of a persons right's, by force, with the intention of doing evil to that person.

How can you possibly have such a vague definition for the criteria by which someone should be executed?

Which part is vague to you?

So beating up someone that you dislike, because you dislike them is a capital offence? I'm pretty sure that fits your criteria.

Yes. Absolutely.

Well it's happening now. And it's legal. So what are you talking about?

One of your fellow athiests already provided a source somewhere in this thread.

Why would you even ask me something so fucking dumb?

Because you asked "what about the victims and their trauma?" when I mentioned rehabilitating the criminal. Which seemed to imply that not rehabilitating them and instead executing them would have some bearing on the victim's trauma.

I've never used the word trauma anywhere in this thread. I've asked you to evaluate the contrast between the life of rehabilitated child rapist who is free to go about his merry way with the life of his victim whose life he destroyed. Something which you have not yet done.

How do you know? Can you even define rehabilitation?

Rehabilitated: The state of having abandoned a previous destructive, dangerous and/or criminal lifestyle.

Should a rehabilitated person be in prison?

 

[thenexttodie]

Laurens, would your mother be justified in using lethal force to defend against an attacker who beating her because he does not like her?

 

[thenexttodie]

Are you running away from this thread?

 

[Laurens]

Laurens, would your mother be justified in using lethal force to defend against an attacker who beating her because he does not like her?

The situation would need analysis. For example a person might use force to defend themselves but carry on using force beyond the point at which they have safely defended themselves, in which case you cannot argue self defence.

If the only course of defence is to kill then it is justified. But its far from black and white. If someone rushes you and you shoot them in the head for example one might argue that the mode of defence is excessive given the nature of the attack. Each case needs to be assessed on its merits.

If the scenario you describe is justified self defence it is in no way analogous to the death penalty. The death penalty is analagous to apprehending an attacker, tying them up and restraining them, and then shooting them in the head. No court would ever say that was self defence.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[Laurens]

Are you running away from this thread?

You can call it running away if you want.

I call it having better things to do than educate someone else's child

 

[Nesslig20]

Are you running away from this thread?

You can call it running away if you want.

I call it having better things to do than educate someone else's child

 

[Dustnite]

Are you running away from this thread?

You can call it running away if you want. I call it having better things to do than educate someone else's child

 

[thenexttodie]

The situation would need analysis. For example a person might use force to defend themselves but carry on using force beyond the point at which they have safely defended themselves.

Well I am using your own scenario. A man attacking someone else because he does not like that person (your mother). So... analyze it.. What are you waiting for?

 

[Laurens]

The situation would need analysis. For example a person might use force to defend themselves but carry on using force beyond the point at which they have safely defended themselves.

Well I am using your own scenario. A man attacking someone else because he does not like that person (your mother). So... analyze it.. What are you waiting for?

What has this got to do with the death penalty.

I already said, if someone was attacking my mother and she or I defended ourselves then it would be down to a court to decide whether or not we acted in self defence.

If we did kill said attacker, and it was deemed self defence this is in no way analogous to the death penalty.

The death penalty is not a use of force to prevent a violent crime in it's tracks, it is a use of force to kill someone after the fact, after they have already been apprehended.

This would be like tying up the attacker, securing my mother and then killing them. Or like hunting down and killing the person I suspect of harming my mother. Neither of which are self defence.

 

[thenexttodie]

What has this got to do with the death penalty.

I already said, if someone was attacking my mother and she or I defended ourselves then it would be down to a court to decide whether or not we acted in self defence. [/quote]Whenever a criminal forces a victim into a situation where lethal force is a legal option, justice would demand that said criminal would receive the same penalty as the victim would receive if wrongfully convicted of murder.

I am sure that you are smart enough to understand why.

If we did kill said attacker, and it was deemed self defence this is in no way analogous to the death penalty.

Whenever a person is intentionally killed, it is either rightfully or wrongfully so. Would you agree with that?