The Death Penalty - for or against?

Capital punishment should

1. be abolished. I am against the death penalty.
23
23%
1. be abolished. I am against the death penalty.
23
23%
2. be used under martial law only (only war-related).
1
1%
2. be used under martial law only (only war-related).
1
1%
3. be used only when it comes to extreme crimes.
10
10%
3. be used only when it comes to extreme crimes.
10
10%
4. be used for all (no spec. circum.) 1st degree murders
4
4%
4. be used for all (no spec. circum.) 1st degree murders
4
4%
5. be used for more than just 1st degree murderers.
7
7%
5. be used for more than just 1st degree murderers.
7
7%
6. Don't know/neutral
2
2%
6. Don't know/neutral
2
2%
7. Other
2
2%
7. Other
2
2%
 
Total votes: 98
User avatar
Danika Stenvaag
Posts: 402
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:31 pm
SL Name: Danika Stenvaag
Caste: Panther
Role: Valkyrie Torva Chieftess
Home Stone: Valkyrie Forest
Contact:

Re: The Death Penalty - for or against?

Postby Danika Stenvaag » Fri Mar 16, 2012 11:05 pm

if you're talking about war glaucon, that's another topic. you would be off topic here. when i said i was against the death penalty and that a civilized society has a responsibility to pay for and feed it's jailed and imprisoned individuals, i'm speaking judicially. a shootout is one thing. once in custody and unarmed, it's another matter.

so if you mean war, a lot of people and countries say they are for peace and against war but view killing in war as a necessary evil in defending country and interests. a soldier goes into battle knowing what can happen, soldiers trained to kill each other. it doesn't give a soldier the right to kill innocent civilians tho. but this is a different topic of discussion.

everybody wants utopia, peace, love, happiness. no more wars. but we're not there yet.

do you mean a military court of justice? do you mean like when stalin's regime killed 17,000,000 russians? like when mao ze-dong's china killed 78,000,000? i'm against that. i'm against genocide. i'm against killing prisoners.

now if you'll excuse me, it's friday night, i'm heading out. i am thankful i have the freedom to go out and enjoy my weekend. i hope we all can maintain our civil rights to enjoy many more weekends to come...
Image
What is hidden in snow, is revealed at thaw. ~ Viking proverb

http://www.valkyriepanthers.com
User avatar
Anarch Allegiere
Posts: 1009
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 8:01 am
SL Name: Anarch Allegiere

Re: The Death Penalty - for or against?

Postby Anarch Allegiere » Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:09 am

This is a very shallow question that usually results in very shallow and the same arguments on both sides, but it -could- be a much deeper philosophical question instead of just saying "killing = evil".

I don't see "killing" as an ultimate evil. I see it more as a tool that you'd want to be in as least people's hands as possible, if you're not in a position of power to make sure it won't easily be used against yourself.

So as long as I'm not an emperor of my own continent I don't think my government should be using death penalties either.
User avatar
serene mistwood
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:56 am
SL Name: Izzy
Role: Social Gadfly
AkA: Isobel Mynx
Location: Earth

Re: The Death Penalty - for or against?

Postby serene mistwood » Sat Mar 17, 2012 8:50 am

You are right Draco – it is and there is indeed a much deeper philosophical argument. And what I find ironic is that those here who that argue for the death penalty (in particular Alice and Glaucon who brought Normans philosophy into the equation without seemingly even understanding it – by confusing the fiction of the books (and even playing in SL) with the underlying philosophy anyway) accuse the against camp of having some kind of moral and ethical religious type virtue when it is THEY that are displaying the herd mentality morals.

I am not religious. At least not in a typical sense. I hold to “Do what thou wilt” - a radical liberty with responsibility. What I am though – the same as Norman – is anti-statism. It is the right wing authoritarians and conservatives that try to legislate and enforce traditional morality and cultural practices upon us that I am against and which Norman is too. So to suggest he would be FOR the state having such power I find laughable.
,
I gathered that society, ideally, consisted of decent, honest, hard-working, self-reliant individuals, civil and neighborly, not sheep in need of a shepherd, appropriately to be hemmed in within the fences of the state, herds of the state, to be pampered, sheared, or butchered as the state might please. (io9 interview)


He would certainly NOT want the state to have such power, even in an impossible *perfect* society.

We can argue and debate morality in the visions of the perfect society (Plato), portraits of the happy, virtuous life (Aristotle), formal analysis of Morality (Kant), and impassioned defenses of the principles of utility and equality (Mill). But Nietzsche, (arguably Normans greatest influence), tried to show us that morals emerge as something mean-spirited and pathetic.

It is not because of MY morality that I argue against the death penalty, but because of YOUR morality.
"She still had all of her marbles, though every one of them was a bit odd and rolled asymmetrically." Firebirds Rising.
User avatar
Glaucon
Posts: 2832
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:07 am

Re: The Death Penalty - for or against?

Postby Glaucon » Sat Mar 17, 2012 9:46 am

Come now, Serene, just because we don't exactly agree on the topic, you don't have to get so mean. ;)

serene mistwood wrote:You are right Draco – it is and there is indeed a much deeper philosophical argument.


Yes, he is right. But that deeper philosophical argument is one you seemed to want to skip, since you said 'killing=bad, end of story' over and over again, or so it seemed to me. :) I am not sure if Draco's comment was one in support of your position.

And what I find ironic is that those here who that argue for the death penalty (in particular Alice and Glaucon who brought Normans philosophy into the equation without seemingly even understanding it – by confusing the fiction of the books (and even playing in SL) with the underlying philosophy anyway) accuse the against camp of having some kind of moral and ethical religious type virtue when it is THEY that are displaying the herd mentality morals.


Norman's opinion is kind of off-topic. Was just an observation. But fine... let's talk more about that.

And it seems that it's just a few folks arguing the 'for' side, and most arguing against side. Which would make me want to argue the 'for' side on principle, as it makes a debate more interesting. :) Not sure how that is going along with a 'herd mentality'. :?

I am not religious. At least not in a typical sense. I hold to “Do what thou wilt” - a radical liberty with responsibility. What I am though – the same as Norman – is anti-statism. It is the right wing authoritarians and conservatives that try to legislate and enforce traditional morality and cultural practices upon us that I am against and which Norman is too. So to suggest he would be FOR the state having such power I find laughable.


Ah, that is your point? You think he is a libertarian/anarchist that and, ergo, doesn't want to give the 'state' that kind of power? He calls himself a 'conservative, though. And I have no reason for assuming he is against 'strong community rule'. Much like cities in his 'semi-ideal' world, Gor (where the death penalty exists). He preaches about that in his books. He is just against states/societies that 'pervert' the natural inclinations of people and seek to impose their ideology. Which would be in opposition to what Tertonius seemed to be arguing.

I gathered that society, ideally, consisted of decent, honest, hard-working, self-reliant individuals, civil and neighborly, not sheep in need of a shepherd, appropriately to be hemmed in within the fences of the state, herds of the state, to be pampered, sheared, or butchered as the state might please. (io9 interview)


He would certainly NOT want the state to have such power, even in an impossible *perfect* society.


You mean small communities, handling matters themselves? Like those of the semi-mythical 'wild west', or the the archetypical Greek Polis? No death penalties used there? I think that is... not quite true.

The quote by Norman you provide doesn't say anything about the death penalty. You just read him being against it into it. The thing he said there is something that quite a lot of Republicans living in Texas would readily agree with. Just before saying they want the death penalty used more often. The death penalty has little to do with the 'power' of big states vs. smaller communities either. Smaller communties are just (or even more) likely to use it as large states.

We can argue and debate morality in the visions of the perfect society (Plato), portraits of the happy, virtuous life (Aristotle), formal analysis of Morality (Kant), and impassioned defenses of the principles of utility and equality (Mill). But Nietzsche, (arguably Normans greatest influence), tried to show us that morals emerge as something mean-spirited and pathetic.

It is not because of MY morality that I argue against the death penalty, but because of YOUR morality.


True. Nietzsche was not a fan of the death penalty. He wasn't a fan of laws. He wasn't a fan of many things. He wasn't a fan at all of people claiming to be 'civilized' and not 'barbaric'. He would have shaken his head at this whole discussion, both the arguments brought for by proponents and opponents of capital punishment. Happy to discuss any of those other names as well (Kant and especially Mill would be most relevant, I think. And Aristotle was already brought up above).
User avatar
serene mistwood
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:56 am
SL Name: Izzy
Role: Social Gadfly
AkA: Isobel Mynx
Location: Earth

Re: The Death Penalty - for or against?

Postby serene mistwood » Sat Mar 17, 2012 10:17 am

Come now, Serene, just because we don't exactly agree on the topic, you don't have to get so mean. ;)


Hey, I am never mean !

Yes, he is right. But that deeper philosophical argument is one you seemed to want to skip, since you said 'killing=bad, end of story' over and over again, or so it seemed to me. :) I am not sure if Draco's comment was one in support of your position.


Please point to where I said killing is *bad* or *evil*. I never once used those loaded descriptives. My main argument is that there is no difference at all between *illegal* murder and *legal* murder. I made no such duality between *good* and *bad*. Between civilised and uncivilised perhaps yes. If you equate those to being *good* and *evil* then that is your assumption. I said no such thing.

And it seems that it's just a few folks arguing the 'for' side, and most arguing against side. Which would make me want to argue the 'for' side on principle, as it makes a debate more interesting. :) Not sure how that is going along with a 'herd mentality'. :?


Ah, sorry. I am not psychic. ;)

Ah, that is your point? You think he is a libertarian/anarchist that and, ergo, doesn't want to give the 'state' that kind of power? .


I know he is, and that he indeed does not.

You mean small communities, handling matters themselves? Like those of the semi-mythical 'wild west', or the the archetypical Greek Polis? No death penalties used there? I think that is... not quite true.


Who mentioned small communities? He was talking of society in general.

The quote by Norman you provide doesn't say anything about the death penalty. You just read him being against it into it.

Ah, that old chestnut of *interpretation* that I can't argue with huh? Some things are just.. obvious.

True. Nietzsche was not a fan of the death penalty. He wasn't a fan of laws. He wasn't a fan of many things. He wasn't a fan at all of people claiming to be 'civilized' and not 'barbaric'. He would have shaken his head at this whole discussion, both the arguments brought for by proponents and opponents of capital punishment. Happy to discuss any of those other names as well (Kant and especially Mill would be most relevant, I think. And Aristotle was already brought up above)


More than happy to as I obviously disgree (partly) with you - though I am away for a couple of days now.. (hence brief replies) but you know where my IM box is if you want to discuss it :)
"She still had all of her marbles, though every one of them was a bit odd and rolled asymmetrically." Firebirds Rising.
User avatar
Glaucon
Posts: 2832
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:07 am

Re: The Death Penalty - for or against?

Postby Glaucon » Sat Mar 17, 2012 10:28 am

Oh, since you threw the gauntlet, Serene... :P

Kant:

If an offender has committed murder, he must die. In this case, no possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most miserable life, so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is judicially put to death.


Mill:

When there has been brought home to any one, by conclusive evidence, the greatest crime known to the law; and when the attendant circumstances suggest no palliation of the guilt, no hope that the culprit may even yet not be unworthy to live among mankind, nothing to make it probable that the crime was an exception to his general character rather than a consequence of it, then I confess it appears to me that to deprive the criminal of the life of which he has proved himself to be unworthy—solemnly to blot him out from the fellowship of mankind and from the catalogue of the living—is the most appropriate as it is certainly the most impressive, mode in which society can attach to so great a crime the penal consequences which for the security of life it is indispensable to annex to it. I defend this penalty, when confined to atrocious cases, on the very ground on which it is commonly attacked—on that of humanity to the criminal; as beyond comparison the least cruel mode in which it is possible adequately to deter from the crime.


Plato? His mentor/protagist socrates WAS executed himself, and defended undergoing his own punishment meekly (and not taking the offer of a rescue/escape offered to him by friends). Was Plato himself for or against capital punishment? Well... I am not sure I know of anything conclusive one way or the other, but most likely he was for (NOT having the death penalty would likely have been unthinkable in his time).

And here is a quote by a socialist leftish liberal, who seems to have a similar opinion to a few of us, here:

While the evidence tells me that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I believe there are some crimes–mass murder, the rape and murder of a child so heinous that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment.


You can guess who said that. ;)

Anyway... while these authority arguments do not mean much (after all, even great philosophers are children of their time, generally sharing the outlook most of those living in their era have, same as us, living now) their opinions are somewhat relevant in the sense that they show that you can be FOR the death penalty without being an unthinking irrational uncivilized caveman.

(Though I admit I am a caveman, of course... the pizza-eating kind).
Image
User avatar
serene mistwood
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:56 am
SL Name: Izzy
Role: Social Gadfly
AkA: Isobel Mynx
Location: Earth

Re: The Death Penalty - for or against?

Postby serene mistwood » Sat Mar 17, 2012 10:39 am

Bah, you missed my point. I had already dismissed the morals of Kant, Mill, Plato and Aristotle. It is the herd moralty being *mean spirited and pathetic* I am more concerned with. But perhaps for another day ... gotta go.
"She still had all of her marbles, though every one of them was a bit odd and rolled asymmetrically." Firebirds Rising.
User avatar
Glaucon
Posts: 2832
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:07 am

Re: The Death Penalty - for or against?

Postby Glaucon » Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:01 am

Sorry, posted my last post without seeing this one.

serene mistwood wrote:Hey, I am never mean !


You are too! And I'm hurtin'.

Please point to where I said killing is *bad* or *evil*. I never once used those loaded descriptives. My main argument is that there is no difference at all between *illegal* murder and *legal* murder. I made no such duality between *good* and *bad*. Between civilised and uncivilised perhaps yes. If you equate those to being *good* and *evil* then that is your assumption. I said no such thing.


Well, I might confuse that which you said with what Tertonius said. But.. while you may not have SAID that 'civilized' is 'good', when you use something not being 'civilized' as an argument reason for being against it, it implies that you think being 'civilized' is a good thing.

But oh... sorry, that is me being a know-it-all, not a substantive point. :)

Ah, that is your point? You think he is a libertarian/anarchist that and, ergo, doesn't want to give the 'state' that kind of power? .


I know he is, and that he indeed does not.


Is he? Well... maybe, in a way (even if he doesn't call himself that), but the thing with libertarians is that their are all kinds with all sort of opinions).

You mean small communities, handling matters themselves? Like those of the semi-mythical 'wild west', or the the archetypical Greek Polis? No death penalties used there? I think that is... not quite true.


Who mentioned small communities? He was talking of society in general.


I disagree. With Norman, it isn't just the individual vs the state. It is also very much the local community vs. the state. (I could look up quotes if you want).

The quote by Norman you provide doesn't say anything about the death penalty. You just read him being against it into it.

Ah, that old chestnut of *interpretation* that I can't argue with huh? Some things are just.. obvious.


Well, I disagree. And I honestly think he would say he is FOR the death penalty, if we were to ask him. (And if he was against, it would likely be the objection raised about possibly killing innocents, not the 'the state has no right' one, I think). But that is just my take on him, I am not sure. And I suppose it doesn't really matter.

True. Nietzsche was not a fan of the death penalty. He wasn't a fan of laws. He wasn't a fan of many things. He wasn't a fan at all of people claiming to be 'civilized' and not 'barbaric'. He would have shaken his head at this whole discussion, both the arguments brought for by proponents and opponents of capital punishment. Happy to discuss any of those other names as well (Kant and especially Mill would be most relevant, I think. And Aristotle was already brought up above)


More than happy to as I obviously disgree (partly) with you - though I am away for a couple of days now.. (hence brief replies) but you know where my IM box is if you want to discuss it :)


Oh... you do read your IM box when away? Addict! ;)
User avatar
Alice McConnell
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 8:17 pm
SL Name: Alice McConnell
Caste: For(r)est Girl
Role: Former gorum wordcount champ
Home Stone: Jara stole it
Owner: Var Viverra She

Re: The Death Penalty - for or against?

Postby Alice McConnell » Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:29 am

Glaucon wrote:One question I would like to ask those that are so strongly against the death penalty. If you find the killing by the state of an 'enemy of society (like a serial killer or a mass murderer) reprehensible and uncivilized... how do you feel about your state killing non-citizens in war? Most likely, the enemy soldiers killed by your state's soldiers are most likely NOT bad people, have probably not done anything bad. So, isn't that even more barbaric?

(And yes, this one should be easy to counter)


That one IS easy to counter. Correct counter isn't that war and the justice system are completely different things (because internal law-breakers can amount to 'enemies' on exactly the same grounds that enemy soldiers can: they threaten the piece/safety/freedom/rights of the citizens) but because if you make the comparison, an enemy soldier is like a criminal that hasn't been arrested yet, and someone found guilty and in captivity should be compared to a prisoner of war.

As for Mill: he was for the death penalty. As you say, a child of his time. But I'd say that his philosophical approach (utilitarianism) is typically one that supports most of the more pragmatic arguments AGAINST the death penalty, as brought up here (like Rob's).

And as for Norman... I don't know. But as for his 'gorean philosophy', as far as I can tell from the books, it seems he isn't so much in favor of the state executing criminals as he seems to appreciate the idea of retribution by individuals (in the name of honor). In his world, the 'state of nature'/'law of the jungle' reigns... outside of tiny pockets within city walls. And even within cities, the rule of law is far from perfect or absolute. And as far as I thought of his ideas/ideals in opposition to stuff said in this thread, it was stuff said by Tertonius.

But you are right. Norman is interesting, but like the other big names mentioned, whatever they thought ultimately doesn't hold any authority. But some of their arguments might be worth examining, perhaps.

And here is a quote by a socialist leftish liberal, who seems to have a similar opinion to a few of us, here:

While the evidence tells me that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I believe there are some crimes–mass murder, the rape and murder of a child so heinous that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment.


You can guess who said that.


I can't. Who?
iJudas

Re: The Death Penalty - for or against?

Postby iJudas » Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:06 pm

Not wading through everything written before my post (can't be arsed).

I'm sort of 'for' it and also 'against' it. I mean, if a murderer knows he can get the death penalty for murdering one person, why does he draw the line there and not kill twenty people? He gets the same punishment either way so has nothing to lose by going out in 'style'.

Now, if he murdered a child or interfered with a child in any way....I'd go out of my way to see him/her hang for the crime, as would many of you out there. You don't fuck with the future.

If you illegally take a life, you forfeit your own.

There's just too many grey areas....

Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron