Is "permanent removal from society" an acceptable punishment to you?

[rpgamerd00d]

(sorry, I can't do polls)

(reference thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3004153)

(reference post)

When someone commits a crime, we (as society) have two choices:
1) Temporary removal from Society, with rehabilitation with the intent to release them back into society.
2) Permanent removal from Society.

First of all, do you support option #2? How do you rationalize that as an acceptable punishment?

OK, so, once we remove someone permanently from society (option 2), thats it. They are done. Game over. The amount of time their body stays alive is pretty much irrelevant to society. WE don't care, and WE are not affected by it. That person is gone from society FOREVER AND EVER. NEVER coming back. Therefore, to society, that person is "dead", regardless if their body is physically alive or not.

Second: Do you support the death penalty?

If not, why not?

If you advocate the removing of a person from society permanently, then in your head, you can rationalize that action as "acceptable" because you know in your head that they are actually alive in a jail cell somewhere, getting food+water, and waiting for Natural Death to occur. If that is the case, why can't you accept the death penalty? Why is it that your same brain can't somehow rationalize putting that person to immediate death? Don't you find that odd?

To me, its a matter of pure practicality. I've already accepted the permanent removal of the person from society. Once I've accepted that, putting them to death now has no effect on society (because we established that above), with the exception that they are no longer consuming food + water resources, and costing taxpayer money to support them.

I am curious to know why people who are opposed to the DP, can somehow rationally accept "life in prison until dead". Is it a religious belief? Or is there some other reason you feel that way?

[k_jerome]

1. i support the DP in extaordinary circumstances...

such as the piece of crap that was Saddam Hussein.

[rpgamerd00d]

2. OK, but why not in all circumstances which would remove someone permanently from society?

[k_jerome]

5. i simply do not think it is applied fairly in this country. nt.

[rpgamerd00d]

8. OK, so you are against it because we, as humans, make mistakes/have biases.

Is that fair to say?

Would you be for the DP if somehow (hypothetically) that was not an issue?

[k_jerome]

13. that is fair...

as far as the hypothetical, i honestly don't know. since i have no religious basis for objection to the DP, i would probably lean toward it as an acceptable form of punishment for certain crimes.

[Warpy]

4. Nah, he could have spent years in prison writing his memoirs

and future generations could study his relationship with one certain evil and powerful family as a cautionary tale. Of course, that's why they hurried up and hanged him before the new Congress could start asking questions, and on a Muslim holy day.

I've only seen one person who could have justified the death penalty in my lifetime, and that was Ted Bundy. He escaped twice and continued his killing.

Everybody else has stayed in the can, pretty much. The few who have escaped have kept low profiles to avoid run ins with cops.

I'm sure many people are happy with vicarious revenge. I'm not one of them. I'd have preferred to see him charged with war crimes, not issuing legal (in his country) execution orders against men who tried to kill him. That, too, would have provoked questions embarrassing to a certain evil and powerful family.

This whole thing was an execution rushed at an inappropriate time after a trial in a kangaroo court. I'm glad some people feel a rush of self righteous vindication. I don't. I'd rather have kept him around to help rid us of a certain evil and powerful family.

[Uncle Joe]

3. Logic and emotion

The only reason for the death penalty is emotional, a salve for the family and friends of the murder victims. Logically, killing a murderer will do nothing to bring the victims back.


On the other hand the argument against the death penalty is logical and emotional. If an innocent person is executed by mistake, there is no going back. Emotionally there will be no salve for the family and friends of the innocent victim executed by the state and logically this will not be justice for the murder victims. If a person is sentenced to prison for life and evidence is presented at a later date exonerating them, something can be done to at least partially rectify the situation.

[rpgamerd00d]

6. So, your only objection to the DP is that humans are fallible and make mistakes.

Would you support the DP 100% if (hypothetically) we had a magic wand we could wave that would prevent all mistakes in sentences?

(Yes, I really want to know the answer to a hypothetical.)

Eliminating mistakes, do you support the DP?
Example: You have video showing the crimes in question, and, say, 1000 eyewitnesses.

[Uncle Joe]

18. I believe the death penalty to be a slippery slope

and to support it in sure fire cases as you mention will inevitably lead to it's use where the eyewitnesses are corrupt or the video doctored.

The only sure fire guarantee to prevent an innocent person from being executed by the state is no death penalty.

I believe a murderer spending their life in prison is as close to human justice as possible without killing the innocent.

[mac56]

70. Well put, Uncle Joe.

I agree 100%.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

7. agree

completely. nicely stated. :)

[GemMom]

9. I support the death penalty

for murderers, especially those who molest children then murder them.

[noamnety]

10. Human Rights are not inherently a religious concept.

I am not religious. And I oppose the death penalty. Actually, I've heard a Lutheran Pastor preach that the concept of human rights is counter to religious principles, that the concept is the work of Satan. (That was the last day I stepped foot in that church.)

You make it sound as though physical removal from open society is synonymous with being brain dead or something. A person in prison is capable of growing emotionally, of contributing to society in some way - perhaps contributing more and doing less damage than many people who are out in the open, in fact. There are authors and activists who live inside prisons and do good work and inspire others. They are still human, deserving of human rights, even if their contact with others is limited for the safety of those others.

You also misleadingly imply that having the death penalty saves tax payer money. The opposite is true, please do some research on that before spreading bad information. When you have the death penalty, other costs are cut to pay for it. Typically social programs that people need to survive or that will keep others out of prison are the things that are cut to pay the costs associated with having a death penalty. Even IF you went with the assumption that a person in prison is a person with no worth (which I believe is an inhumane viewpoint), expecting others to sacrifice their lives to support your wish for vengeance is unconscionable, imho.

Personally, I'd like to see a system where nobody is sentenced to the death penalty, but those convicted who get life without parole should be given the option of assisted suicide, if and only if that's what they want to do. Their needless suffering in jail against their will doesn't serve society's interest in any way, just as murdering a person doesn't serve society's interest in any way. It's not my place to make a life or death decision for them, nor is it your place to decide whose life has worth and whose doesn't.

[rpgamerd00d]

15. You're a little off on the taxpayer thing.

Currently, it actually costs more to put someone to death that it does to sentence them to life, this is true, and you are right.

But that is only because we have the option of life in prison vs death, and the costs come about when lawyers try to alter the sentence FROM death TO life in prison.

If life in prison did not exist as a penalty, and only death did, thoses costs would, of course, vanish.

This thread is very hypothetical, I know that. Still, its an interesting discussion.

[noamnety]

22. Faulty logic

The costs are associated with taking every precaution to make sure a person isn't wrongly killed - which is a proper thing to do. The cost isn't related to whether the alternative is life in jail vs. 40 years in jail.

When you remove the option of life in jail, your faulty premise is that all those who would have gotten it would be instead convicted to death. The reality is that juries are reluctant to give the death penalty because it is so final, and they often don't want to be responsible for that, either for moral reasons or for fear of being wrong.

So your end result would be that more dangerous criminals would be on the street, putting others at risk, if you won't allow a jury to put them away for life.

Basically you are arguing for a more expensive system that comes at the expense of those who can least afford it, which puts my safety at risk, and - as an added bonus - increases other violent crime - because when you have a society that promotes violence, guess what happens?

Again, you need to do some research, both on the psychology of how juries convict, and crime rates where the death penalty is an option, and where it's not an option.

[uppityperson]

11. I accept permanent removal from Free society, and not death penalty

I do not believe everyone can be rehabilitated and released into Free society. Some need to be permanently removed from free society, stay locked up in prison society. They are in society, just not the free world. I do not support the death penalty as everyone has the right to continue to live, yes even poor starving homeless people who need help to get food, shelter, etc.

As far as a bunch of the rest you write, you seem to be implying that my brain is irrational by believing this. If that is how you really believe, I have nothing more to add to this insulting argument. Please clarify.

[noamnety]

14. Thank you

I also found the OP to phrased in an extremely insulting way.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

12. Good questions

I don't believe in the death penalty for a number of reasons, the first being that I feel it is used capriciously, especially against minorities. I would rather that ten murderers who did the deed be allowed to live rather than have one innocent person executed, and there is always a chance that some evidence will come to light to show that a person is, indeed, innocent.

Ok, now to the permanent removal from society--ie, life in prison with no possibility of parole. I prefer this option to the death penalty for the reasons listed above. Prison life is hard, but I don't believe a life sentence without parole automatically means you are in a supermax on 23 hour lockdown, either. A person in prison still has the choice to make something of their lives--what of Robert Stroud, for example? http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/stroud/5.html

[Kelly Rupert]

16. Yes. And death is not.

An inmate in jail for life is removed from society. However, that person is still quite alive and active. They may read, breathe, think, talk, eat, drink, and sleep. They are still persons with sentient minds. They are removed from society at large because they pose a direct threat to those around them, but they are still humans.

The mere fact that you can't see them or interact with them does not mean that killing them and letting their lives take their course are identical. Your logic is simply insane.

You provide two reasons why it is acceptable to kill a prisoner:
1. They will never interact with American society at large*.
2. They are a drain on American society.

(*You claim "society," but a lifer can still interact with prison society. Since that's the case, by "society" you obviously mean "mainstream American society.")


Now, let's explore that a little bit. By your logic, it is perfectly acceptable to drop nuclear bombs on China, killing every Chinese.

Take the average Chinese. You will never interact with them. You will not talk with them. You will not see them. They will never be a part of American society. However, China is a strategic competitor to the United States. By competing for resources, the Chinese place a drain on American society. Why not kill 'em all?

Also by your logic, it is perfectly acceptable to kill elderly shut-ins, recluses, and hermits, because they do not interact with society and, through social security and medicare, place a burden on society at large.

Your logic places absolutely zero value on human life--to you, people you cannot see may as well be dead. This is either intensely immature or sociopathic. Your pick.

[rpgamerd00d]

20. Your analogy is ridiculous on its face.

I never limited society to American society.

[Kelly Rupert]

24. Why not?

Seriously, why not? You declare that once they're out of sight of "society," it's okay to kill them. How do you define "society?" If you arbitrarily define it is "people not in a prison," then why do you stop there? Why are people in prison that you can't see not worthy of consideration, when people in China are?

Why are people in prison not worthy of consideration, when elderly shut-ins who have even less communication with society are?

You base your worldview on arbitrary lines of demarcation, it seems.

[rpgamerd00d]

26. I do not base my worldview on anything arbitrary, I base it in concrete:

- Those who do not commit heinous crimes.
- Those who do.

What have you got against the Chinese, anyway?

[Kelly Rupert]

31. So people who have been convicted of crimes are, to you, no longer persons.

Then you believe that torture is acceptable? If they're no longer people worthy of consideration, shouldn't it be? Should we amend the Constitution?

[rpgamerd00d]

37. Of course not, I don't believe in cruel and unusual punishment.

That is why people sentenced to life w/o parole should be killed.

Its very cruel and unusual to make them live in a cell for the rest of their life, imho.

[beam me up scottie]

49. I don't believe in cruel and unusual punishment-people sentenced to life w/o parole should be killed

You're such a humanitarian. *BMUS swoons*

[LWolf]

17. I think about this from a slightly different perspective.

I'm not interested in "punishing." I don't want to be a god; I don't want to be more than just another human being trying to live life. I do believe in consequences; natural and imposed. I don't think of consequences for the purpose of "revenge" or "punishment," but for learning, and protecting.

I rationally accept "life in prison until dead." Not as "punishment," but as protection from further harm. My idea of prison would be small, single, solitary cells complete with toilet, shower, window, and fresh air, but no access to others. Access to books, music, paint, paper, whatever, but no access to other people. I don't mind someone spending their lives exploring ideas, or expressing themselves on paper, learning, growing, changing, evolving...as long as the rest of the world is protected from their propensity to harm. Kind of like a monastic retreat, for the betterment of themselves and the protection of the rest of the world.

That's the way I think when I refuse to engage in hate or ego.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. I support option #1.

To do otherwise is to remove humanity not just for the perpetrators of crime but from ourselves.

Most of us have committed acts of cruelty complete with rationalizations for doing so. "I was a kid and didn't know any better.", "I was angry and couldn't help myself.", "I did it in self-defense.", "He/she deserved it." "I was drunk/loaded." etc, etc.

Yet most of us, become "rehabilitated" through experience, developing compassion for our fellow human beings, or some sort of ostracization.

Could Saddam have been "rehabilitated"? Or Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Pinochet? I doubt it, but who knows? How about the people who carried out their orders? Eichmann? Yamashita? How about the guards at Abu Ghraib? How about the pilots who dropped bombs on Iraqi civilians? "Just following orders"?

How about our own mass-murderers? The founding fathers who enabled the slave trade and slavery? Those that indulged in the genocide of the Native Americans? A long list of politicians that sent troops to kill and die?

I'm not religious, but some guy said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." I think he too was executed by the state. But, they could have thrown him in prison for life.

[beam me up scottie]

21. I reject your premise.

I reject your premise. I never said death=life, you did.
I said, a Life Sentence (which is defined as "spending the rest of your life behind bars until you die") is the EXACT SAME SENTENCE as a Death Sentence. The only difference is the method of execution. In a death sentence, the method of execution is hanging, eletrocution, lethal injection, etc. In a Life Sentence, the method of execution is ... aging.

In BOTH CASES you've sentenced the person to DIE. One just TAKES LONGER.

It's based on faulty logic and a callous disregard for human life.

Okay, we're done.

[rpgamerd00d]

23. Hmm, I see no flaw in that logic. Maybe you could point it out to all of us?

[Kelly Rupert]

25. It's easy to see.

You disregard the life that the person would have from sentencing to death, simply because it takes place in an area you are not.

[rpgamerd00d]

29. The life of that person is over. Its irrelevant what they do in prison.

They surrendered their "rights" to sell books, work out, plot their escape, become an in-prison drug lord, bribe guards for boose and cigarettes, and otherwise enjoy the rest of their life, when they committed the crimes for which they are being punished.

[beam me up scottie]

33. Irrelevant. Well yes, except for that breathing thing.

But, hey, breathing/not breathing...what's the difference?

[Kelly Rupert]

34. Wow, so conviction of a crime strips you of humanity?

I suppose you think that Abu Ghraib was perfectly acceptable, then.

[rpgamerd00d]

39. I think you need to re-read the thread again.

I said conviction of a crime that would result in your permanent removal. Not just any old crime.

[beam me up scottie]

45. I reject that premise as well.

. I view life in prison as a cruel and unusual death sentence.

I mean, think about it - you're sentenced to be removed from society till you're dead.

That is basically a death sentence, and the method of your execution is - age.

I mean, think about it.

[uppityperson]

44. The life of that person is over. Its irrelevant what they do in prison.

See, they might still be human but they are irrelevant and their life is over, see? :sarcasm: amazing, isn't it? sure wish search function was working for me.

[uppityperson]

41. "it is irrelevant what they do in prison?" Wow

so you see prison as only a punishment, not to protect broader free society from someone? And being in prison means their life is now irrelevant? wow. simply wow.

[rpgamerd00d]

42. You, also, need to re-read the thread.

This thread is about those imprisoned forever.

Those imprisoned forever are irrelevant.

[beam me up scottie]

48. "Those imprisoned forever are irrelevant."

Don't mind me, just capturing the highlights for the new folks. :hi:

[uppityperson]

54. oh, believe me, I have reread it

you believe that once you are in prison forever, your life is irrelevant, and that any of us who feel differently are irrational at best. Quotes below are taken from what you wrote here so far.

"Currently, it actually costs more to put someone to death that it does to sentence them to life" perhaps true in the specific sense that it costs more to kill someone than sentence them, but misleading in that is also costs more to keep them alive in prison than to kill them.

"The life of that person is over. Its irrelevant what they do in prison" is what you right.

"If you advocate the removing of a person from society permanently, then in your head, you can rationalize that action as "acceptable" because you know in your head that they are actually alive in a jail cell somewhere, getting food+water, and waiting for Natural Death to occur. If that is the case, why can't you accept the death penalty? Why is it that your same brain can't somehow rationalize putting that person to immediate death? Don't you find that odd?" Taken to the extreme, as long as we are all going to die, might as well just kill us now. Why can't your brain somehow rationalize that?

"Those imprisoned forever are irrelevant."

[rpgamerd00d]

55. It is 100% fallacious to equate killing a convicted criminal = killing everyone

If you want to make a point, try to avoid ridiculous assertations.

[uppityperson]

59. have we met before? Your way of picking and chosing what to respond to seems familiar

not responding to what I write, except to pick 1 tiny point and then insult me, seems familiar. How about the rest of what I wrote, copying what you wrote?

[rpgamerd00d]

60. I have no issue with the other things you wrote.

[uppityperson]

66. and once again you answer without answering.

I think the answer is yes.

[Garbo 2004]

97. Nelson Mandela received a life sentence and was serving it. His life was "irrelevant" after he was

imprisoned with a life sentence?

And those who are later freed from life sentences or Death Row because it turned out they were not guilty of the crime for which they were imprisoned? Their lives were "irrelevant" to whom? You? Them? Their families?

[RestoreGore]

52. Say that should it happen to someone you love

Do you also apply this coldhearted logic to those who are INNOCENT and unfairly imprisoned and put to death? And just FYI, even those convicted of crimes still have Constitutional rights regarding the treatment they receive. It is what is called living in a humane Democratic society.

[rpgamerd00d]

53. Yes, I do.

And why is it that you imply being put to death isn't Humane? We do it in some states right now, 100% legally.

[beam me up scottie]

58. Yes, you do believe INNOCENT people should be put to death if they're unfairly imprisoned?

Wow.

I reject that premise too.

[uppityperson]

61. because the death penalty is legal it is Humane?

:rofl:

[rpgamerd00d]

62. Of course!

We have laws against cruel and unusual punishment.
Forms of DP are approved by state legislatures.
For example, its illegal to draw and quarter someone, but its legal to use lethal injections (in some states).

There are laws dictating what forms of DP are and are not legal.

Clearly your question was facetious, right?

[uppityperson]

65. Legal=Humane, omg.

edited to add, tell me more, please

[rpgamerd00d]

69. Legality = Morality.

Ponder that.

[beam me up scottie]

72. You're goofing on us, right?

No one in their right mind would equate morality with legality.

Well, except for the current administration, of course.

Like I said, no one in their right mind would equate the two.

[rpgamerd00d]

75. I'm not entirely sure you get the meaning of it.

Legality = Morality

That doesn't mean all legal things are moral.
Heh.

It is a philosophical expression.

Think about it some more.

[uppityperson]

78. Can you explain what you are trying to get us to ponder since I am so stupid to not understand

you say legality=morality, yet you say all legal things aren't moral. So legality=morality but not necessarily. See, I cannot understand as you are too deep for me. please explain more.

[rpgamerd00d]

82. Its philosophy.

What one believes to be moral and immoral manifest themselves in society as laws.
If you believe something to be immoral, then you would naturally seek a law against it.
If you believe something to be moral, then you would naturally oppose a law against it/seek a law supporting it.

Therefore, its always interesting when someone speaks out against something that is legal, and calls it immoral.

N'est pas?

[beam me up scottie]

83. "phiosophy"

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

What's "phiosophy"?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Oh, man, now I gotta pee... be right back!

[uppityperson]

85. now now now, be tolerant of typos, we all do those

the rest though, that is deserving of the rofls.

[beam me up scottie]

86. I'm going to put that in my sig line!

"It's phiosophy"

The smug self-serving sanctimoniousness of it is absolutely brilliant!

It could be the next you "All your base belong to us"

[uppityperson]

84. No way. One might hope so, but this is not how or why laws are passed.

That is the theory but not the actuality. Laws are not passed to manifest morality. Nope. Good luck with that.

[beam me up scottie]

87. No, it's mob rules, actually.

I suppose it could be your philosophy, though.

[uppityperson]

88. Here is an example.

Looking out my window I notice one of my cats. I can go kill her, and it is legal for me to just kill it because I am tired of it, or perhaps am moving. Is this moral? It is legal. Simplistic example, but still it is true. "Therefore, its always interesting when someone speaks out against something that is legal, and calls it immoral." Simple because something is legal does not mean it is moral. And questioning the morality of an immoral law makes me...what?

[Solon]

96. Actually that's changing...

Willfully killing an animal that you do NOT have a license to kill, especially a companion animal, is punishable, depending on state or locality, by up to 5 years in prison in some rare cases. By the way, most licenses only apply to certain game animals. This excludes farmers, humane societies, and vet offices, who all kill animals for different, but legal reasons.

[uppityperson]

100. It does depend on how and where.

killing an animal because I am raising it to kill it (for fur, to eat, to wear, etc) is moral while killing it because I tire of it isn't. I know. Trying to come up with a quick example there, knew it had its problems, but still. How about it was legal to kills Jews and Roma in the 30's, 40's, but wasn't moral.

[Solon]

102. Also depends on species...

as an example, its illegal to hunt cats, even feral cats, for their fur, while killing rabbits for the same purpose is legal. The laws can be confusing, to say the least, also the manner of death, in all cases, is "as humanely as possible", for game animals, that means using a gun or bow and arrow, for most others, high powered air pistols, beheadings, etc. In the case of controlling population of domestic animals, chemical euthanasia.

Also, yeah, the killing of other Humans has been legal in certain places at certain times in history, and was considered perfectly legal, though that doesn't mean it was ever moral.

[uppityperson]

90. Here are some other examples

Guantanamo Bay
Habeas Corpus no longer being legal
listening in on my phone conversations
torture

Legal? Yes. Moral? no

[beam me up scottie]

91. So, It's Good To Be King?

:shrug:

[uppityperson]

93. No, just "moral", see?

Because we legislate moralities, because it is legal it is moral. So why do we need to keep passing more laws? Perhaps because morality changes, see? Now bow down before the Lord of the Dollar and worship it's moralities! yummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[beam me up scottie]

95. D'oh!

me gets it now.

its phiosophy

[beam me up scottie]

80. No, I get it. It's George Bush's philosophy. Quite simple, actually.

It goes something like "thems that makes the rules..." and, well, you know the rest.

[uppityperson]

73. if it is legal it is moral? Are you questioning my morells?

OMG!!! That's HUGH also!!11

[RestoreGore]

104. Legal doesn't make it humane n/t

[beam me up scottie]

30. LIFE = DEATH

"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?... Has it ever occurred to your, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?... The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."

- George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 5

[uppityperson]

36. I regect your premise.

If you advocate the removing of a person from society permanently, then in your head, you can rationalize that action as "acceptable" because you know in your head that they are actually alive in a jail cell somewhere, getting food+water, and waiting for Natural Death to occur. If that is the case, why can't you accept the death penalty? Why is it that your same brain can't somehow rationalize putting that person to immediate death? Don't you find that odd?

Seems you are saying that, taken to apply more broadly, since we are all going to die, are waiting for natural death to occur, why not just kill everyone now?

[Guaranteed]

27. It sounds like you're talking about a dog or a cat,

using its quality of life as a matter for judgment of whether or not to end it. But we're talking about people, here.

As such, our system isn't perfect, and neither is our judgment. With imperfect judgment, we should err on the conservative side, and just lock them up where they can't do any more harm.

[Brazenly Liberal]

28. Yes to permanent removal. No to death

"I am curious to know why people who are opposed to the DP, can somehow rationally accept "life in prison until dead". Is it a religious belief? Or is there some other reason you feel that way?"

Sometimes life in prison for the offender is the only way to protect innocents. Take for example, the monsters who rape and murder children. These guys have a recidivism rate approaching 100%, even into old age. There is no point when letting them out of prison will not endanger innocent children.

[NoPasaran]

32. I think it's pretty extreme

My crimes aren't really all that serious.

[rpgamerd00d]

38. LOL! Good one.

Heh.

Obviously I should have said serious crimes.

[noamnety]

35. Looking at your usename now

What I'm deducing from that is that you enjoy video game violence. Do you think there's a relationship between those who get off on pretend killing people and those who have a low regard for human life in general?

You might find this
http://www.mediaed.org/videos/MediaGenderAndDiversity/GameOver/images/film_box an interesting film, not that I expect you'll watch it.

[beam me up scottie]

40. If we could nominate individual posts,

you'd be on the front page with that one! :thumbsup:


I take it that like me, you've already tried to discuss the subject with the op.

[rpgamerd00d]

43. Thank you, Senator Frist.

nt

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Solon]

99. Actually, as a gamer, I interepret his username a little differently...

Since he's an RPG gamer, I just assume he LIKES playing Chaotic Evil characters, I prefer Lawful or Chaotic Good characters myself.

ON EDIT: A slight change, he with the who legal=moral argument, sounds like a Lawful Evil or Lawful Neutral character.

[uppityperson]

101. link here to term definitions. Thanks for this thought.

http://www.answers.com/topic/alignment-dungeons-dragons
black and white rather than shades of grey?

[Solon]

109. I view the alignments as somewhat simplistic....

Though, given the limitations inherent in such games, somewhat forgivable. By the way, upon reading my edit, its damned near incomprehensible to me, I had confusion cast on me before I typed that, that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it! :)

[rpgamerd00d]

114. If you actually knew D&D, you'd know that players can only be

good or neutral. Only the "bad guys" can be evil.

[uppityperson]

115. this info is given on this webpage about Lawful Evil...

http://www.answers.com/topic/alignment-dungeons-dragons
Lawful Evil

Lawful evil is the methodical, intentional, and frequently successful devotion to a cruel organized system.

Lawful evil characters methodically take what they want within the limits of their personal code of conduct (which are frequently their laws, as this alignment tends to only work for people in positions of power) without regard for whom it hurts. They care about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. They play by the rules, but do so without mercy or compassion. They are comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but are willing to serve. They loath to break promises, and are therefore very cautious about giving their word unless a bargain is clearly in their favour.

This reluctance comes partly from their nature and partly because they depend on order to protect themselves from those who oppose them on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They feel these personal morals put them above unprincipled villains but also know that they are protected by the orderly, systematic structure they exist in.

An example of a lawful evil organisation would be a cult practising human sacrifice and torture, with a strict code of conduct, strict system of hierarchy, but evil practises.

[RestoreGore]

47. Perhaps those who believe killing is justified

Just aren't strong enough spiritually and morally to be the better person. Admittedly because we are all human it isn't easy to do it, but I would have hoped that as far as we have come as a civilization through all of these centuries and after seeing all of the bloodshed and violence we have continually perpetuated by our own hand, still taking glee in hanging someone when there are other options would have passed us by a long time ago. In Elizabethan times, people were hanged, then drawn and quartered and their entrails pulled out and burned in front of a large crowd of people egging the executioner on. Do you find that HUMAN? I sure as hell don't, and it sure doesn't seem like this species has progressed much from there. Perhaps that is what disappoints me most of all.

[Selatius]

50. To your final question: Because God is the only one who can judge who dies.

A person who is alive in prison and spends the rest of his life atoning for his crime still has the opportunity and the ability to change his mind. That does not come when he is taken out and killed. Generally speaking, the ideal point of prison is reform, but US prisons are becoming gladiator arenas.

[rpgamerd00d]

51. So, US Law should be based on Christian belief?

Is that what you're saying?

[Selatius]

56. As a Deist, I do not favor casting my belief on others, but the prohibition against the DP...

is also to be found among secular humanist teachings as well. Much more to the point, when you're dead, you can't think. Therefore, you can't have an opportunity to change your mind. You can if you're still alive. There is still opportunity for reform there, but there isn't when you're dead.

[rpgamerd00d]

57. Damn, that is actually a really good arguement.

I hadn't thought of that before.

You make me ponder now.

[beam me up scottie]

64. It never occurred to you that people could THINK in prison?

What did you think they were doing in there?

[rpgamerd00d]

67. Heh, it wasn't the "thinking" part that makes me ponder.

Its my beliefs (which I have omitted from the conversation) about ones state of mind when they die.

[beam me up scottie]

74. Oh, so you're a religious man?

Why does that not surprise me?

[rpgamerd00d]

76. No, I am not, actually.

I never said "religious beliefs", I just said "beliefs".

I don't follow any formal religion.

[beam me up scottie]

81. You don't follow any formal religion? Well that's good.

The poor christians have enough blood on their hands, I think they're trying to improve their image.

[Solon]

108. I follow an informal religion myself...

we have casual Fridays.

[uppityperson]

68. being irrelevant of course! Did you see the one legal=humane?

:rofl:

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

79. ok, shhhh

you are so lucky, I haven't. waiting, waiting, waiting, no one loves me. tiny tear

[uppityperson]

63. God is Christian? WOW!!1, that's HUGH!!!!!11

[beam me up scottie]

71. You've reached that stage, haven't you?

It's futile.

How do you reason with someone who thinks killing is more humane than living and questions the logic of anyone who disagrees?

[Nikia]

89. Because we value life in our society

This has been a long part of our culturual history that orginally had its basis in religion but is has become part of secular humanism too.
Because we value life, infanticide is rare and punished if it is discovered, even if the child is profoundly disabled or the parents cannot afford to take care of it. Because we value life, we do not kill people with disabilities that will prevent them from living independently and doing economically valuable work. We do not kill old people who are no longer capable, even the ones who will live out the rest of their days in a nursing home, dependent upon the care of others. Because we value life, execution is rarer than life without paraole or sentences so long that they might as well be.
There are societies past and present who don't value life like we do and have no problems with disposing of those who are judged to be worthless or defective in one or more of these ways.

[beam me up scottie]

92. POTD, Nikia, POTD.

No one has said it better.

[noamnety]

94. Time to play Guess The Author

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's anti religious laws. ...

... Never before have I written so long a letter. I'm afraid it is much too long to take your precious time. I can assure you that it would have been much shorter if I had been writing from a comfortable desk, but what else can one do when he is alone in a narrow jail cell, other than write long letters, think long thoughts and pray long prayers?

... Today, as I sit behind bars I realize that there are many types of freedom, and that in spite of my confinement I remain free in many important ways. What good is freedom if we are afraid to follow our conscience? What good is freedom if we are not able to live with our own actions? I am confined to a prison but I feel, today more than ever, connected to all humanity. Behind these bars I sit a free man because I listened to a higher power, the voice of my conscience.

While I was confined in total segregation, I came across a poem written by a man who refused and resisted the government of Nazi Germany. For doing so he was executed. His name is Albrecht Hanshofer, and he wrote this poem as he awaited execution:

GUILT
The burden of my guilt before the law
weighs light upon my shoulders; to plot
and to conspire was my duty to the people;
I would have been a criminal had I not.

I am guilty, though not the way you think,
I should have done my duty sooner, I was wrong,
I should have called evil more clearly by its name
I hesitated to condemn it for far too long.

I now accuse myself within my heart:
I have betrayed my conscience far too long
I have deceived myself and fellow man.

I knew the course of evil from the start
My warning was not loud nor clear enough!
Today I know what I was guilty of…

... Above all, we want equal political rights, because without them our disabilities will be permanent. I know this sounds revolutionary to the whites in this country, because the majority of voters will be Africans. This makes the white man fear democracy.

But this fear cannot be allowed to stand in the way of the only solution which will guarantee racial harmony and freedom for all. It is not true that the enfranchisement of all will result in racial domination. Political division, based on colour, is entirely artificial and, when it disappears, so will the domination of one colour group by another. The ANC has spent half a century fighting against racialism. When it triumphs it will not change that policy.

This then is what the ANC is fighting. Their struggle is a truly national one. It is a struggle of the African people, inspired by their own suffering and their own experience. It is a struggle for the right to live.

During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die. ...

Two of those were written in jail by prisoners who, I suppose if they had died in prison through natural causes, you'd feel we should have executed at the start, because there lives would have been "irrelevant" if they'd died in prison.

The third was also written from a jail cell, by a person sentenced to life in prison, so I suppose to you his life had no value, and he may as well have been executed to save tax payer dollars rather than supporting him during a 27 year prison stay. Fortunately, those who award the Nobel Peace Prize are a better judge of humanity than you are.

[demgurl]

98. Permanent removal from society is acceptable for me.

I am against the death penalty in any and all circumstances. It is not a religious view as much as it is a moral and very spiritual view. I understand that in our society there is a system of payment for crimes committed and that that means some people are locked away for life. I understand we need such a process to protect society from the person performing their misdeeds again.

I also believe in karma. These people will be payed back in some form or the other. It may not be in this life but it will be paid off.

I am strong in my belief that it is not up to me to judge someone. I am not egotistical enough to feel I can act in a god-like fashion and give or take life in any way.

My husband has stated he would have a hard time not wanting revenge if something horrific happened to one of our family members. I told him that if anything horrific even happens to me, I do not want revenge done in my name or memory.

You see, in life, there are many ripple effects to what we do. Most remain unseen but they are still there. At times we do not fathom that what has happened has occurred because of something else we have done. It could be on a large scale such as a terrorist attack or it could be something small as paying someone a compliment.

You must start with the small things to truly understand the impact of the big actions. Giving someone a compliment can change their day. Perhaps they were in a bad mood and you made it better. Or perhaps they were in a good mood which you changed to great. Now they call up a loved one just because they are in a good mood and they say how much they love them. The loved one goes out and because they are in a good mood they let a car go ahead of them and that car turns out to be you and you are in a big hurry but you are paid back for your kindness.

But then there are bad things that you do such as giving a person, who cut you off in traffic, the finger. Maybe the person goes on to do nothing bad but perhaps they start to vent on their cell phone and they miss the fact that a dog is going into traffic, or worse, a child. Yes, they should have been paying attention but it is partially your actions that put these actions into motion. We all have something very powerful at our fingertips and it is our responsibility to remember that. The effects only multiply as you get on a grander scale.

This is the reason I do not hold anger any more. I have seen the ripple effects of anger and revenge and I wonder why anyone would want to have that effect on ourselves, our loved ones and those around us who we have perceived as having done wrong.

Permanent removal is acceptable since we do not hold ourselves so high as to take one's life. Death is not acceptable and nor will it ever be.

[Liberal Veteran]

103. 123 people have been released from death row.

How do you release someone from the grave?

[ljm2002]

105. There are some differences...

...most notably, when the State finds it has made a mistake, it can at least partially rectify said mistake by letting the living prisoner go free; whereas, when the prisoner has been executed... well, there ya go. Not much anyone can do at that point.

Secondly, no matter how you slice it, if the State is in the business of dealing out death, then there are people paid by the State who must actually do the deadly deed. I.e., state-sanctioned killing. Each person who commits an act of execution has killed for pay. I don't know about you, but that creeps me out. (leaving aside the questions of soldiers and war, and assassins who operate on behalf of our secret agencies...)

Also, there is the chance for some (but not all, I will admit) killers that they may yet redeem themselves while in prison. The case of the former gang member who was put to death last year (? not sure of timing) -- he did lots of work trying to convince others like himself not to take the route he had taken. So we should remember that possibility as well.

Then there is the fact that you will never be able to find out certain things from a dead man or woman. Timothy McVeigh is a case in point. Questions continue to arise about who may have been complicit with him. Maybe had we kept him alive, some of those questions could be answered. Certainly, this point is an important one in the case of Saddam Hussein, in my opinion.

The death penalty is not meted out equally. Blacks are several times more likely to receive the death penalty for any given crime, than are whites. That in itself is enough to put a moratorium on it, at the very least.

Finally, since the death penalty is no deterrent to violent crimes, it is pointless anyway.

With all that said, I do support the sentence of life without possibility of parole for certain crimes. Certainly we do not want to see serial killers ever let loose; society does have the right and the imperative to protect its citizens. But a civilized criminal justice system removes the element of vengeance. All of us recognize the attraction of vengeance for certain crimes, and most of us are capable of exacting it -- I know there are some crimes that when I hear of them, I'd like to kill the perp myself. But these urges, while human, cannot be encouraged in a civilized society -- not least because all of us are capable of making a wrong judgment, and killing the wrong person in order to have the immediate gratification that we imagine vengeance will bring.

Killing criminals to show that violence is wrong is an oxymoron. It's like hitting your kids to impress upon them that hitting is wrong. It teaches them the opposite lesson. When we kill criminals, we don't teach them anything -- they're beyond it -- but we do give a message to the population that killing is okay in some circumstances; and it desensitizes us to killing.

[Sapphire Blue]

106. Will your next thread be titled 'rpgamerd00d's Final Solution? Or perhaps 'Mein Kampf'?

[uppityperson]

107. one of the better succintest responses here. thank you. eom

[Solon]

111. Nah, it'll be "Capital Punishment, for Dummies", or

"The Total Idiot's Guide to Genocide", something along those lines.

[rpgamerd00d]

113. Google "Godwins Law"

:rofl:

[Nutmegger]

110. I don't support state sanctioned REVENGE KILLING

Never will I support such a barbaric ritual.

[porphyrian]

112. Removal from society ignores the root problems.

Yes, there are some behaviors (stabbing children in the head, for instance) which are simply unacceptable and must be stopped if not prevented. But, rather than wait for it to happen and punish offenders after the fact, we should be addressing what causes people to commit crimes/unacceptable behaviors in the first place. Punishment is always after the fact, and that's too late.