View Single Post

Old 12-23-2008
No country specified. To select a country, go to User CP -> Edit Profile -> Country Khushrenada
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,833
 Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!

Originally Posted by DaDaimon View Post

Your two points boil down to:

1) You don't want to risk an irreversible punishment.

2) The criminal justice system isn't made for revenge.

My reply to that is
1) If you don't want to risk an irreversible you shouldn't be doling out punishment in the first place. Every punishment is irreversible when you get down to it. Your problem is with the way we evaluate evidence and the fact that we are fallible, not with the death sentence.
How you can equate the death penalty to life imprisonment in terms of reversability truly boggles the mind.

No matter how much you try and equate the two, it is infinitely more possible that a person who has been wrongly accused can be recompensed for this than that of a corpse.

You've rightly said that every punishment comes with the risk of doing it to the wrongly accused, and we dole out larger and larger punishments for this, we have to draw a line somewhere and something which can never be taken back is where I draw the line. That's the main difference.
Also the abolishment of the death penalty could have unintended consequences.
For instance there would be more innocent people serving a life sentence who nobody would give a fuck about. Guess how many of them would be freed compared to them serving a death sentence? Seeing the media attention for those serving a death sentence and hardly any for those serving a life sentence, I am guessing none.
How is this a point in your favour in the slightest? Shall we pose another question, how many wrongly accused victims do you think would choose to die rather than serve life in prison considering that there's ever hope they may be freed upon overturn of their charges?

This is without even factoring in that there would be a constant diminishing chance that this would happen which would cease to be upon the last person previously serving the death penalty dying.

I'm sorry but saying that we should keep the death penalty just so that death row inmates get more publicity which apparently will increase their likelihood of being pardoned borders on madness, it is by far the most whimsical argument I've ever heard.
2) Distinctive fields within the legal system perform different functions. The civil law is based upon restoring inequities that have arisen due to wrongful actions. Criminal law is based upon adding additional damage. This is based upon the historical role of our criminal system. Revenge.
I'm sorry but it's not It's sometimes a coincidental companion of justice, but justice and revenge are fundamentally different.
Tell me why is in every criminal system a strong presence for inflicting pain mental or physical on those convicted? Could it possibly have to do with its history and our need for it? I have personally never lost someone to a brutal murder, however I can perfectly well understand the need for revenge in the case of the victims.
I understand fully the victims desire for revenge but it makes it no less morally questionable.

If this system is all about revenge, if you kill my mother so I kill hers in a similar fashion am I to assume that I will be allowed to walk freely ?

Your countering it with 'personal growth' shows to me a lack in empathy.
No it doesn't - it shows a realistic view of how a lawful and moral society must function and someone who hasn't overdosed on shit like Batman. Killing them will give momentary reprieve from the crushing blow of losing someone close or a similar trauma, this wont be solved at all by the killing however. It's purely the way the brains wired, nothing more. They're going to have to grieve and there is nothing anyone can do about that. So I'm sorry revenge isn't a reason because it doesn't actually achieve much of anything either.

Killing the murderer for someone elses personal satisfaction is completely immoral no matter which way you slice it and that's what it boils down to.

Revenge serves a biological function, the hormones released and the rush give some form of consolence a form of control in the case of the victims, who's control has been taken away.
I'm sure it does.

We should then by this reasoning legalise murder for pathological psycopaths as they recieve a similar "biological function" from the "hormones and endorphines released and the rush give some form of pleasure".

The victims never had control, they had the illusion of control and I'm sorry I'm not willing to murder someone to make someone else feel better ever.

Much less risk murdering innocent people to do so.

Tell me, if I was with the mother and father of 3 murdered children and I told you behind the glass there was someone who there was a 50/50 chance was guilty who had been convicted would you be keen to flip the switch?

I'm going to hazard a guess and say no.

Can you perhaps provide a reason for any system that will kill someone innocent eventually it's only a matter of time when you would say no to this scenario? Where's the line then? What are your "acceptable losses"? Would a ratio like 100:1 comfort you enough to murder someone? 1000:1?

This is sweeping aside the fact that victims in other nations without the death penalty [e.g the whole of europe, canada, australia and pretty much anyone else in the developped world) do fine without it (bringing us back to the problem being the grieving process and not the momentary benefit of revenge)?

Yes I have a blog. Read it newbie.

Khushrenada is offline

Reply With Quote