Capital Punishment- Motives and Methods

Post Reply New Topic

Now, before we go on about a debate about capital punishment, let me tell you something. Given my revelation of the nature of death as being the end of all consciousness, I do not think about the death penalty lightly. However, I still think that there are many crimes that do deserve the ultimate penalty. And not just that, but some crimes should not allow the criminal to go out quietly. I think a suitable punsihment for them would be for them to be declared "outside Helsinki".

These are the crimes I feel deserve the death penalty, or "outside Helsinki":

*Premeditated murder, being for the pursuit of pleasure or profit, and especially with sexual assault/rape/mutilation/disrespect to the victim, and with no or little remorse perceived post hoc. Doing so to a child or an infant is especially heinous. Only extreme psychopathologies may be excused, and must be confined to appropriate accomodations for the rest of their natural.

*Rape, particularly the rape of a minor, and violent rape (especially whereby the victim either dies, according to the year and a day rule, as a result of the rape, or suffers serious injury, or is infected by a serious venereal disease). Rape by any sexual orientation will not be tolerated.

*Molestation of children and pedophilia, particularly active pedophiles who have caused physical and/or psychological harm to victim.

*Serial incitation to suicide, if it can be proven.

*Serial defrauding that has not only cost a large sum of monies, but has also directly or indirectly led to the death of the defrauded persons.

Now, I have put two polls here: The main one is a categorical one: what factor influences or would influence your decision (real or hypothetical) for a criminal to be put to death. The answers are:

*Deterrence: The usage of the death penalty deters criminals from doing so themselves. The old argument.

*Retribution: The victims, and their friends and family are avenged by the act of capital punishment.

*Legal due process: To show that the law indeed functions, and is equal to all transgressors.

*Eugenics: The perpetrator is taken out of life and thus society, and thus will commit no more crimes.

*Not applicable at all: For those who completely oppose the death penalty on all grounds.



The second poll is within the posts themselves, and requires you to simply say whether certain criminals who are sentenced to death can be "outside Helsinki". The Declaration of Helsinki (See here) greatly restricts scientific research on humans, mostly because of the effects of German research during the Holocaust. However, we are not dealing with an ethnic minority or a religious one, but what could debatably be called a moral one. That is, people to whom other people do not factor into their equations as people, but rather means to an end. It is my belief that the tables should thus be turned. Medical science can progress just that little bit faster to save lives that are actually worth saving.

Believe me, I doubt there is more than a dozen or so people in each prison around the world that would be 'eligible' for such a practice. I don't take such a belief lightly either. I know this can easily go into the territory of Auschwitz and Belsen. But I want people to consider this very seriously before answering. The experiments themselves must be specifically designed to actually be of major benefit to humanity. Drug testing, genetic therapy, and so on.

I also do not believe on doing this to the truly mentally disturbed. I'm not talking about true psychopaths and sociopaths, but rather those who do not truly understand the mores and morals of society. They do not deserve such treatment. No, I am saying do this to those who broke the law in full knowledge and malice aforethought, and did so for profit, power or pleasure.

I have already made my views on criminals "outside Helsinki" clear. What about you?

I'm against capital punishment (with some exeptions, such as Saddam Hussein, Che Guevara, Vidkun Quissling and so on). Capital punishment may work in theory, but in reality it doesn't work.

Retribution

Mainly retribution and deterrence, with a hint of Eugenics. Criminals who commit horrible crimes like that shouldn't be allowed to live.

Eugenics? That has to do with making certain that only people with desireable biological traits breed. You could accomplish the same by sterilizing criminals.

It was the term I had thought of. I also meant to remove from society completely.

A question: how are you defining "extreme psychopathologies"?

I'll post my views on the subject when I'm not so tired. Tomorrow maybe.

As in completely unable to define right and wrong properly. I'm not talking psychopaths and sociopaths, many actually function well in society as they learn how to do so. I'm talking people unable to learn or socialise or function properly.

I think that sums it up.

You mean like people with AS?

I think the type of people you're talking about have cognitive differences much the same as a sociopath or someone with AS. That's not to say in certain circumstances they shouldn't be removed permanently from society, but if you're going to do so, it should be with regard to the fact that they are human beings. Also, consider that justice is never perfect. You may just torture to death an innocent person.

I did not mean a person with AS or autism. I meant someone either insane, or completely incapable of changing themselves. I don't think, anyway, that there are many killers or rapists with AS or autism anyway.

I have to take your "Not applicable at all", as I believe you mean the conventional "Capital punishment", as in the legally delegated murder of a person.

I will never impose the obligation on another to perform such an act.

If you were to meet myself and my niece, say, walking down the street, and you attacked her, I would kill you.

Actually, I'd try rather hard to prevent it going that far, but if that was necessary, I would do it. I have been placed in this position, and the attackers concerned probably never realised how close they came.

I take full responsibility for all my actions.

Within legal structures, as they exist today, the permanent incarceration of some offenders is as far as I can go. However, should they volunteer to undergo medical treatments that might result in their deaths, I think I could easily live with that. (Provided they could be shown to be of sufficiently sound mind to understand what is being done.)

You may not mean but your description includes some people with AS or other cognitive difference:



You're proposing torturing to death someone who has had the misfortune to inherit the wrong genes. Although you've attempted to couch the idea in altruistic terms, you've not hidden the fact you believe that the person should suffer. Do you enjoy seeing others suffer, Quatermass? Hmm... What purpose does that serve other than to give you and the baying masses emotional satisfaction? Don't some of the people you want to torture to death enjoy seeing people suffer, too?

Oh, that's not a personal attack, btw; I'm just asking, okay?

I meant, if you read my original post, that those would be excused from the death penalty. When I said 'extreme psychopathology', I meant 'extreme mental illness'.



In other words, those who are extremely mentally ill (like extreme schizophrenia, for example) do not have the death penalty applied to them. Instead, confinement to appropriate accomodation should be used. You misread my earlier statement.

As for enjoying watching people suffer, well, providing it is done to a person who deserves it... We all have that capacity, ascan. Remember the case of the Christian student taken against his will to the Colosseum by his mates, only to be infected by the bloodlust, and enjoying every minute of it.

I don't think I misread anything, Quatermass. I'm suggesting that anyone capable of the kind of crimes you'd torture them to death for is likely to have some genetically-determined cognitive difference. We may not be able to pin a label on that difference, but does that make it any less real than one we can?


Yes, we do all have that capacity. We all have the capacity to kill, too, but we normally don't, and the state discourages such behaviour. What you're suggesting is for the state to promote the torture of people to satisfy the emotions of its citizens. So, politicians decide who gets tortured, and who doesn't. Where does that end? The Colosseum?

You are twisting my words ascan. Read my statements carefully, or not at all.

Really? I think not. You've stated:


You want them to suffer, in other words. That's known as torture. How have I twisted that?

And why not comment on my suggestion that people capable of the crimes you describe may have some unidentified cognitive difference? Afterall, many such deficits in individuals are recognised only because of their prevalence.

Also, although this may go outside the line of discussion you intended, is there any evidence that having a handful of human guinea pigs every year will actually contribute substantially to medical research? On balance, don't you think the primary force driving this would be politicians pandering to the bloodlust of the proles?

Of course, you can claim moderators prerogative and brush my comments aside as an irrelevance, if you wish!