Comments | ajacazz: Round Two...FIGHT!

ajacazz

Round Two...FIGHT!

Jun 17, 2005 15:48

Hey guys, I'm impressed with the turn out. I've added some more comments to the past free-thinkers post/religion post, so check it out and feel free to continue that thread on. I'd like to continue this civilized debate in a new subject area: capitol punishment ( Read more... )

Comments 7

madhadder123456 June 17 2005, 21:42:49 UTC

I think that this so called 'turn the other cheek' policy is the most respectful way to go in this whole morals thing. If someone kills someone and gets sentanced to life and you know they're going to regret it for the rest of their lives what they did, and they honestly won't do it again, then i think they should be let go. But then you got these 'gangster' people if you will, that just can't wait to be let out to bust some heads. If they're kept in the prison where they belong they can contribute to society by doing like labor on the roadside and what not.

prettypinkevie June 18 2005, 02:08:36 UTC

I never really understood killing for retribution. It just seemed like too light a punishment really. Maybe I'm sadistic and vindictive, but I always figured there were fates worse than death. Its really just a matter of figuring out what would make that particular individual miserable.

Rehabilitation isn't ever going to be rightly decided. There's so many details that need to be taken into account. For instance, a 60 year old man whose 18 year old crime has cost him his entire youth and middle age is more likely to honestly be a changed many than a 60 year old man whose 58 year old crime cost him two years out of retirement. The trouble with forgiveness is that you're always at the mercy of forgiven once they're no longer in need of your mercy. And the convicted are no exception. Its like taking back a friend who has wronged you in the past, its possible that they'll wrong you again. And they've done it before, so its likely they will again. But is there trust in you to do it anyway? It always depends on the friend...

i_iv_v June 18 2005, 05:56:14 UTC

Justice is a very hard concept, possibly above humans. After all, who gets the right to decide the punishment for the guilty? The victims? If the victims get to decide, they will decide using emotion, not logic and that's saying if the victims are still even alive. Emotion is not a fair way to determine punishment since no one is ever satisfied and justice is suppose to create a balance, harmony. From that point of view, "eye for an eye" is the best way to create a balance. So if a man kills another man's son, the killer's son should technically be killed for punished (or the man himself, though I personally would kill his son in this situation). But even then, is that still balanced? If the murderer's son was 30 and the other man's son was 12, that still doesn't balance out the crime, much like the post above by prettypinkevie since the murderer's son got to experience a great deal of life while the victim didn't get shit. So what's the best way to create effective punishment? Currently, there is no means to make a ( ... )

that_one_guy667 June 18 2005, 22:42:17 UTC

Leto's policy only functioned correctly because of his prescience telling him that he was doing the right thing to save the human race. What, per say, would happen if a man lacking such prescience and conscience were to rise to a leadership position and change laws to match his own agenda? He'd be able to legally kill people for disagreeing with him, a.k.a. Hitler reborn.

i_iv_v June 19 2005, 00:31:40 UTC

Yes, you are absolutely correct. I had forgetton to mention that Leto was prescient and understood and knew the consequences of the actions he did. Hence, God Emperor of Dune. I was only trying to say that his system did work for its purpose.

renoldswrapfoil June 19 2005, 05:27:53 UTC

The only thing about a life sentence is that it rarely means life. Some people who have been sentenced to life are released on perole after like 10 years. And even if they're sentenced to "life without perole" there are still loopholes. I mean, I guess killing criminals isn't good, because then we're sort of the same as them. Yeah, yeah, its for a worthy cause... just like the holocaust was to Hitler, right? But essentially, killing is killing, even if people do try to sugar coat it. But if we don't kill them, odds are they'll probably end up back out in society somewhere. So really, its kind of a "rock and a hard place" thing. No matter how you look at it, there's no really great way to handle criminals. Oh well. Society is doomed.

meansnoworries June 20 2005, 07:01:12 UTC

Is it right to seek revenge by killing a killer? No, of course not. From here it gets a great deal more complicated, though.

Is it right to rehabilitate those who want to contribute back to society? Absolutely. The problem lies in determining exactly who wants to honestly change their ways, and who just wants a free ride out of jail.

Is it O.K. to let a killer go free? Let me give a solidly indefinite answer. I do not know. On the surface it would seem not to be, however, there are those who will and want to change, and they should be given a second chance, because, I believe, people can change.

As i iv v eloquently put it, to whom should really fall the task of meting out justice? In issues like this, I am always thankful that the task does not fall to me to decide. However, were it to do so, I would say that the worst I could dispense would be life sentences. The awesome responsibility that anyone in that position has - one that I think people often forget - is that responsibility for an action which has no reprisal. Once a life ( ... )