Lady Sidhe's threads are always so good at helping Cellarites find common ground.

Ack! Sorry, MrNoodle -- I must have caught you just before you deleted. I removed my post with your quote.

(and sorry I didn't catch it earlier. eep.)

no worries. this topic gets my boxers in a wad more than any other, and it's not always easy to self-edit the anger before I hit "post". Anyway, my ignore list only has one other spot, and I'm saving it for someone who is determined to attack me personally with every post. you don't fit that category.

I guess a few things come to mind as I read through this convoluted thread:

I am taking a risk at saying that most of the people in this world who commit crimes like peds and murders and torture don't have the same concept of human life that the majority of people do...meaning that they might not have the same level of respect. So, if these people don't respect others lives, why should they respect their own and be deterred from committing a crime for which the punishment would be death? I just cannot believe that the death penalty would deter most criminals from making choices to commit crimes, de facto. Personally, if I knew that eating spaghetti was a crime punishable by death and I HAD to eat spaghetti....because I just had to...I would sooner suffer death than the squalor that is a life in prison. But, then I am not crazy enough to kill and rape people. I don't think the issue here is really "should there be a death penalty". I think it is more of an issue of "what will stop crime more quickly and easily". To think this is possible with the flawed but better-than-anarchy system is like believing the tooth fairy will deliver you a winning lottery ticket.

The argument about the families' wishes for revenge as a response to anti-death penalty arguments is clearly an emotional diversion. However painful, horrible and gutwrenching the crime and the sufferings of the families of victims, as a system, we can't rely on those emotions to determine the outcome of another's life. The facts are really what matter, and if the facts simply don't prove (beyond the shadow of a doubt) what some people believe, that just is not good enough. That is why we have appeals, and due process, etc. If we didn't, anyone could get arrested for anything they "may" have possibly done and forget the idea of being proven...the emotions of the victim would be enough to convince a judge that "this person needs to be put to death". If that were enough, the emotions of the judge, the lawyer, the innocent bystander, the anybody-who-gets-a-newspaper would have precedence over the facts and that is where our entire system goes from flawed to completely arbitrary. We may as well get out our pitchforks and nooses, at that point. At least we *have* a system, flawed or not.

Who are we to determine who dies? Who is anyone? Nobody has that "right". That is why it is unlawful to kill a person...because nobody nobody nobody has the right to take a life of another person. Even our judicial system (which is made up of people, also). If we are going to make a law for the civilization, it should be applicable to all. No killing for us, no killing for the government. (don't get me started on the war)

Self defense is a different notion. It isn't killing, it is protecting. When a situation warrants self defense, no it is not always necessary to kill a person to stop them from doing something, but if killing them is the ONLY way to stop a man from raping or killing you or someone else, then that shouldn't even be debated. But the *facts* should be able to prove that the person was defending themselves, and not guilty of just plain killing.

you're right Glatt - LS's threads do tend to spiral into big EffU fests.

MrNoodle, don't ignore Jag - he may be a limey/eurotrash/aussie twit who is worthy of a thousand lashes from a bicycle chain :mg: , but he does a very good job at making some of us look at issues from a different perspective, when he doesn't spiral into vehement condescension (like many of us do from time to time). that doesn't mean he will ever change your mind on anything, but multiple perspective discussion is why we are in the cellar, right? i had someone on my ignore list for awhile, but i decided that even if that person is always wrong, i was doing myself a disservice by discarding ever point they attempted to make.

Kitsune - do you really believe that the "justice system" is about Justice, or more an exercise in legal maneuvering over a thinly veiled agenda? i tend to believe the second is true for the most part - on both sides of the legal/political spectrum. i believe justice was removed as the central focus many years ago.

it *is* so much easier than having a point isn't it sweetie. No loss from my perspective. Pity I'm not british or the racist slur might've been the only logical thing he'd have said.

This is an interesting question and what I see in the legal system is probably why I've been arguing the points I have. My view a lot of cases, I notice that a lot of the sentances tend to not attempt to repair what has been done, but rather just throw someone in jail. I understand that is what civil trials are for and maybe because they don't make the news as often, I tend to see the jail time be the only correction made for the criminal's actions. While it attempts to "teach a lesson", act as a deterrent to others, and remove the criminal from society, I notice that the victims are left to piece their lives back together on their own. When my car was broken into, I was surprised to find that I was given two options that would decide what happened to the stereo thief: he could either go to jail and have a criminal record or could do community service work for 18 months and repay me for the money I had to pay to the insurance company.

The answer, to me, was obvious: why let someone rot in jail when they could be both contributing back to the society they once damaged and help me recover the costs they caused me to incur? This is why the death penalty, and a lot of the justice system, never made much sense. Why not keep the criminal around and force them not only to be out society but to also put effort and work back into the system they once worked to destroy?

Justice, to me, is about attempting to put things back the way they were. I know this isn't the real definition of it, but as a victim it is the way I'd most like to see it. Of course, with a murder there is nothing that can be done to restore life, but putting another person to death doesn't do anything in a positive direction, either.

phew, love you too.

Got a better idea? Our democratic system is fairly shite too while you're at it.

The reason jaguar is on my ignore list is because I only have so many cheeks to turn. I have studiously avoided responding in kind to his posts (with a couple of failures), and tried to make it about ideas and not about personal dislike. Over the course of several months, I have come to realize that he is incapable of giving me the same courtesy, so I choose not to read his posts. No particular ill-will, he's just making it unenjoyable for me to participate -- I believe deliberately so.

There are any number of people who say the same things jaguar does, and disagree with me just as vehemently, without trying to incite me. Those people's ideas, I'm interested in.

(these are the times when being Christian is very limiting insofar as letting off steam. I used to could make your ears bleed. sigh.)

I feel the need to interject. It's not that I have much personal against him, it's just that I find myself violently opposed to practically everything he posts, from xenophobic rubbish about Muslims to logically flawed attacks on Sartre. Nothing personal, just deep disagreement. I also find the hypocrisy of a self-confessed Christian who seems to think quite so many people need to be killed or deserve to be killed annoying. If you want to play pious at least be consistent.

well, to be fair Jag, there was a biblical instruction to leave "no stone standing upon another". so the bible is definitely a bit more flexible as to the rules of war and punishment than we are. ;)

and Jag, just to clarify - i wouldn't REALLY condone whipping you with a bicycle chain. unless, it was cleaned and sanitized first. i wouldn't want you to get an infection. sort of like before someone gets the needle, they swab the flesh around the penetration point first... no nasty infections in OUR morgue, thank you very much.

Kits - i don't view the intent of the Justice system as being simply about returning the victim to their previous condition.

the criminal has stepped out of bounds and harmed, not just the victim, but society as a whole. if the crime is severe enough then life in prison, or death are perfectly acceptable to me. i don't feel the justice system is about retribution, but rather punishment. big difference.

my mind is at ease, grease is a bitch to get out of flash wounds.

I thought it was about justice?

who's Justice? mine? you don't agree with mine. yours? i don't agree with your definition either. therein lies the problem. we, as a culture, cannot agree upon the definition, let alone the vehicle for justice.

i personally believe that once properly convicted (with room for appropriate appeal) the individual has given up many of their rights. i don't have a problem with the death penalty when carried out in measured, consistant manner. my goal isn't to teach that person a lesson, it is to remove them from society. why lock them up forever? if the crime was heinous enough to justify removing them from society permanently, why keep them alive? to teach them a lesson so they won't repeat their crimes in another life? i believe locking someone in a cell, a new criminal-only society to contend with, with no hope for eventual release is more cruel and unusual than death. if such a policy deters someone from committing a crime, so be it - but that isn't the intention. you broke the rules, you were found guilty of doing so, you pay the price, you are no longer a burden upon society in any way.

also, important to note - i don't believe sitting on death row for years should be an option. run through the appeal system which should be streamlined and when you are done, you are either acquitted, or taken in to have your arm swabbed.

But we have, that's why we have the penalty system we do inside the criminal justice system we do, no?

I think the thing with the death penalty timelag is that old chesnut I was attempting to bring up with noodle is what if the courts were wrong. Sure, you might've still lost 20 years of your life but you're still alive and haven't been castrated with a hot iron or whatever noodle thinks is appropriate. I don't think prison works either way but at least there is hope if you're wrongly convicted.