Capital Punishment

[mike777]

As I said I am one of those fundamental religious believers that think evil is incarnate so with that said.....I am also against capital punishment on religious grounds.

 

I think taking religion or retribution out of the the criminal justice system is really pie in the sky utopian thinking(impossible in any real earth world) but ok lets do it because you say it is the right or best thing to do.

 

 

What now, all the really really bad guys are just sick with bad genes or wiring so make them take gene or brain operations? OTher? Spend our limited resouces on understanding them and much less on retribution.

 

By the way with all of this said I am a big booster of brain imagery. I am biased towards much more money being spent on basic brain research, so maybe we agree on this point. :)

 

If so I wish you good luck on running on that. As heartless and ugly as it sounds people vote local money for education, police, roads not more jails or judges or social workers but good luck on your plan.

 

Americans are really bad at this. After 9/11 we said retribution and bomb Afganistan we did not say hold on.......... hold on, we need to understand why people are mad at us, what are we doing wrong, how we the USA can stop getting people mad at us, we need to talk with them and really understand what is going on.

 

From what I have seen Europe and Asia and South America can be pretty bad at this also, in other words they are for retribution. See the other day in Belgrade.

 

We say kill Richard Speck, or whoever fill in the blank or let them rot in jail and we will forget them or not care if inmates attack them.....

 

In the next election maybe it seems we may have a choice, the Democrats who will talk and work along side the UN and use diplomacy, talk with our enemies and not bomb them or McCain who will Bomb first and ask questions later.

[mikeh]

I think taking religion or retribution out of the the criminal justice system is really pie in the sky utopian thinking(impossible in any real earth world)  but ok lets do it because you say it is the right or best thing to do.

 

 

What now, all the really really bad guys are just sick with bad genes or wiring so make them take gene or brain operations? OTher? Spend our limited resouces on understanding them and much less on retribution.

 

Why do we need to conflate retribution with religion?

 

There is certainly ample support, in the field of evolutionary psychology, for the idea that the ability to harbour a desire for retribution carries with it a reproductive advantage... bearing in mind the social environment in which our ancestors lived.

 

As an individual, when I have suffered from criminal misconduct (my car being broken into, for example) I have felt the urge to inflict some serious physical pain on the culprits, and I can imagine but have never, fortunately, experienced the urge to violence that would come over me if a family member were brutalized or killed.

 

But retribution per se is an ugly thing. It demeans us, in my view. It lowers us to the level of the person who committed the act.

 

How many of us watched the video of Saddam's execution? I started to watch but, within a few seconds, mentally shuddered at what I was doing and exited the website.... and felt 'dirty' for having even logged on. I am sure that I would have felt differently had I had my family gassed to death on his orders.... at least, if that had happened shortly before his execution.

 

What is worse about retribution is that it becomes all too often a self-perpetuating cycle. Look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While there are broader underlying themes, all too often the cycle of rocket or suicide attacks by Palestinians provokes a missile strike or an armed incursion by the Israelis which in turn is used as a justification by the Palestinians for more rocker and suicide attacks... each side sincerely proclaiming that their response was retribution.

 

While this kind of vicious circle will not usually arise in cases of state-sanctioned retribution against individual criminals, the utility of the retributive principle, the moral validity of the principle, must surely be in question.

 

As for trying to understand what makes a criminal mind tick, why not spend money trying to address the causes of criminal behaviour? The US, in particular, seems obsessed with trying to deal with the consequences of behaviours rather than the causes. Obesity: generates the diet industry, while soft-drink and candy companies are allowed to place vending machines in schools and physical education classes are eliminated on cost reasons! Billions are spent by the (legal) drug companies promoting illnesses.... I mean, whoever even heard of 'restless leg syndrome' before a company developed a treatment for it? Unless you are exposed to US television, I doubt that many would imagine the advertising for anti-depressants that fill the airwaves.... suggesting that virtually every bad feeling warrants powerful medication! While virtually no attention is paid to prevention.

 

Why not try to understand the source(s) of the aberrant behaviour? I am not suggesting buying into the once-popular but now largely discredited notions that all problems are due to a poor environment. I am not suggesting tearing down prisons or firing police officers. But I am suggesting that spending a few millions or even billions on prevention may be a huge money-saver in the long run.

 

As for the idea of 'limited resources', it is tough to know whether to laugh or cry. The US imprisons more of its population, by a wide margin, than any other westernized country. It turns millions of recreational drug users into criminals, while at the same time making thousands of sociopaths rich due to the drug trade. It is a country where, in many places, it is possible to go to prison for life for 3 convictions for shop-lifting, if the DA decides to treat the crimes as felonies. It has countless billions to lavish on Haliburton and other private war profiteers. It favours the wealthiest upper class in the world with virtually no meaningful level of taxation while denying tens of millions access to basic health care. It can talk about planning a manned mission to Mars yet it can't 'afford' to improve the socio-economic status of its underclass.

 

The US is a wonderful country, and I do not mean to slag it.. but when an American claims that they should better use their limited financial resources to send people to prison for decades rather than divert ANY of the money spent on other matters to understanding WHY they have such huge murder rates, armed robbery rates, drug addictions, etc it makes me laugh and/or cry.

 

The US is a great country, whose main fault is that it could be even greater. Americans, on the whole (based on my limited personal knowledge) are generally wonderful people.

[luke warm]

This post illustrates what I think a number of other posters have missed: that for people such as Lukewarm, the concepts of good and evil are, it seems to me, concepts that have an existence beyond being merely descriptive terms. 'Evil' lives... it can possess people and cause them to do terrible things. It represents the antithesis to good... it smacks of Satan while 'good' smacks of God.

not if God *is* good, winston... it's obvious that he could have created any number of worlds, or none at all... assume none... he creates none yet he (good) still exists

 

and 'without evil there can be no good' was meant in the sense that if you, me, we, deny the existence of evil we also deny the existence of good

no, that isn't what i think at all... i believe that 'good' and 'evil' describe the nature of God and man, respectively... there is evil in the world because God created man and allowed man to have free will... man isn't possessed by some evil spirit or force, man's nature leans toward evil, he freely *chooses* evil... we all have this nature, we all make this choice, to varying degrees (do you agree?)

 

but if a person denies evil exists, in whatever form, how can that same person affirm that good exists? i don't see how he can... there must be some standard by which a thing can be called 'good' or 'evil'... josh and helene were closest to what i was trying (evidently not as well as i'd like) to say

And so it is. I do deny recognition of 'evil' as some spirit or force that will pervert the mind of any human. Lukewarm's logic depends upon an unproven and unprovable major premise: that god exists. Deny that illogical and (nowadays) irrational premise, and the argument falls away.

illogical how? irrational how? i'd say that your very ability to have opinions on these things presupposes my God... for example, the mind you are using to discuss these things (your mind), is it concrete or abstract? is it extended in space or not extended in space?

[mike777]

Well you did not quote where I am for more spending in one medical area. If knowing more about the brain helps what you advocate, good.

 

OTOH you list countless countries where retribution runs rampant. I think hoping for a criminal justice system without retribution as a large part of it may take a different human race or at the very least I think having a criminal justice system that reflects utopio and not the real world is dangerous.

 

I think hoping for a justice system with zero impact on it from religion will take a different human race. :)

Note how many argue secularism is just another religion. A religion with Humans playing the role of God and deciding what genes are saved and how they are saved. :)

[Winstonm]

not if God *is* good, winston... it's obvious that he could have created any number of worlds, or none at all... assume none... he creates none yet he (good) still exists

 

and 'without evil there can be no good' was meant in the sense that if you, me, we, deny the existence of evil we also deny the existence of good

 

 

 

no, that isn't what i think at all...

 

You quote yourself and then claim that isn't what you think at all?

Jimmy, you drinking again? :)

[fifee]

I do not think it should be ruled out completely, but much more care should be taken with this verdict than otherwise. It would not be something that I would leave just to a jury.

 

I'm thinking about cases where it is bleedingly obvious that you have the right person, combined with a statement that this person could NEVER function again in society. It should be an option for at least serial child abuse, serial killers and serial rape cases.

 

A very select group of people are just wired in some way that if they ever get out, the rest of us will not be safe because they WILL strike again.

 

A great majority of those on US death row would not qualify for this.

No capital punishment Period.

 

I am optimistically thinking that we have evolved beyond these barbaric customs, but I am still waiting for rehabilitation to be the main focus of the prison system and the courts.

 

We no sooner build a new prison than it is full and we are needing more. What's wrong with this picture?

 

I think we should use whatever we have in our arsenal and start asap to - educate, rehabilitate, de-program, re-program or whatever it takes. We had had many "leaders" who have shown us how easy this can be for a determined person.

 

Some may never make it back into society but unless we make a bigger effort to begin to rehabilitate criminals, we will just need to continue building more jails.

 

P

[mikeh]

 

but if a person denies evil exists, in whatever form, how can that same person affirm that good exists? i don't see how he can... there must be some standard by which a thing can be called 'good' or 'evil'... josh and helene were closest to what i was trying (evidently not as well as i'd like) to say

And so it is. I do deny recognition of 'evil' as some spirit or force that will pervert the mind of any human. Lukewarm's logic depends upon an unproven and unprovable major premise: that god exists. Deny that illogical and (nowadays) irrational premise, and the argument falls away.

no, that isn't what i think at all... i believe that 'good' and 'evil' describe the nature of God and man, respectively... there is evil in the world because God created man and allowed man to have free will... man isn't possessed by some evil spirit or force, man's nature leans toward evil, he freely *chooses* evil... we all have this nature, we all make this choice, to varying degrees (do you agree?)

 

No, I don't. In fact I regard this type of attitude as repugnant. A copout. An abandonment of reason. A denial of evolutionary psychology. A resort to superstition. I hope you get my point :unsure:

 

illogical how? irrational how? i'd say that your very ability to have opinions on these things presupposes my God... for example, the mind you are using to discuss these things (your mind), is it concrete or abstract? is it extended in space or not extended in space?

 

I fail to understand the logic that connects my having (what passes for) a mind and the existence of your (or any other's) god.

 

I don't know why I have a mind, any more than I know why the universe exists. That admission of ignorance is far more honest, intellectually, than any attempt to 'explain' these mysteries by invocation of a god-entity. As I and others far more intelligent than I have said, the labelling of areas of human ignorance 'god' is no explanation at all. It begs the questions as to who created god, or how it created itself and why it bothered? God is a 'black box' solution. It tells us nothing of meaningful content, by way of explanation, but affords some of us an excuse to stop thinking.. the answer is the black box and we can't look inside... indeed, the very notion of looking inside (to be able to make our own, improved black box, for example) is heretical.

 

I do agree with one thing you wrote earlier, although I think that your usage was incorrect... I do think that my mind is an emergent property of my brain and the physical processes that occur therein. I think that once those processes cease, because I am dead (if only brain dead), then 'I' cease to exist. Which is one reason I don't think that we will ever upload our consciousness into computers or more advanced devices.. we may create copies indentical in behaviour to our minds, as best as an outside observer can detect, but the actual consciousness is inseparable from the meat. There ain't no soul, I'm afraid. That must scare the bejesus out of a lot of people, which is why there are so many death bed conversions, and why there is truth in the saying that there are no athiests in foxholes. Fear of personal extinction may explain religious belief, but it doesn't validate religious belief.

[luke warm]

not if God *is* good, winston... it's obvious that he could have created any number of worlds, or none at all... assume none... he creates none yet he (good) still exists

 

and 'without evil there can be no good' was meant in the sense that if you, me, we, deny the existence of evil we also deny the existence of good

 

 

 

no, that isn't what i think at all...

 

You quote yourself and then claim that isn't what you think at all?

Jimmy, you drinking again? :unsure:

heheh... funny how 2 martinis can affect one, eh? i should have had a third, maybe i'd have just gone to bed

[TimG]

There ain't no soul, I'm afraid. That must scare the bejesus out of a lot of people, which is why there are so many death bed conversions, and why there is truth in the saying that there are no atheists in foxholes.

I don't think it's the fear of the end, but rather the fear of what might happen if death is not the end. It is easy for me to sit here and say that I do not fear death -- I won't suffer after death, or experience anything after death, because I will be no longer. But, what if I am wrong and there is something after death? Then I, and my incorrect atheist views, might have something to fear in death; if I'm wrong and the Christians are right, then I'm going to suffer for a very long time. Death would then be a very scary prospect.

[mikeh]

Then I, and my incorrect atheist views, might have something to fear in death; if I'm wrong and the Christians are right, then I'm going to suffer for a very long time. Death would then be a very scary prospect.

Just how petty is this god we are supposed to fear? If it exists, it equipped me with a mind, exposed me to a certain environment, and I opted for reason rather than wilful ignorance. And for this, I am condemned to an eternity of hell? Nice god-being.... any entity that malicious is unworthy of respect. Moreover, living in the presnece of such an insecure, malevolent god entity wouldn't be a lot worse than the alternative.

 

If there is a god, it should judge me by the way I treat others, not by my refusal to grovel before it.

[Codo]

Just how petty is this god we are supposed to fear? If it exists, it equipped me with a mind, exposed me to a certain environment, and I opted for reason rather than wilful ignorance. And for this, I am condemned to an eternity of hell? Nice god-being.... any entity that malicious is unworthy of respect. Moreover, living in the presnece of such an insecure, malevolent god entity wouldn't be a lot worse than the alternative.

 

If there is a god, it should judge me by the way I treat others, not by my refusal to grovel before it.

1. If there is a good, you or me or any other man is not able to judge about HIS descissions. We may not even understand them.

 

2. Like you, I believe that God should judge us about what we did. But if he does, why shouldn´t he prefer the guys who decided to life an ethical live and praise him to the guys who life an ethical live and deny his existence?

At least I would. But see point 1, I am not and I may not understand his concept.

 

As an example from earth: If I am looking for a new manager in my company. Who will I take? Mike, who always did a great job, but denies that I am the boss, he even ignores my existence? Or Luke, who always did a great job and told all his mates, what a good Boss I am? Sorry Mike, no business class ticket for you this time. ;)

[mike777]

". Like you, I believe that God should judge us about what we did"{

 

1) Ok you can tell God how he should judge

2) Mainline Christian theology says no.. no no....

3) Mainline Christian theology says....God chooses who he saves and who he does not.

4) Mainline Christian theology says......GRACE......this is really big word. :)

 

Jewish,,,Muslim....Hindu..other.....they can tell us who or how saving is decided. :)

 

I have not read all the posts but so far I see two themes

1) Capital punishment is bad because i say so.

2) Capital punishment is not justice because a) rights are blurry...;) judgement is blurry.

 

Of course I say Cp is bad since my Church leadership says it is bad because reason abc......so..........blame me.

[Codo]

". Like you, I believe that God should judge us about what we did"{

 

1) Ok you can tell God how he should judge

2) Mainline Christian theology says no.. no no....

3) Mainline Christian theology says....God chooses who he saves and who he does not.

4) Mainline Christian theology says......GRACE......this is really big word. ;)

1. I believe is not a synonym for: I can tell.

2. No no no to what?

3. Indeed, what´s new?

4. Yes Grace is a big word and it is wonderful to believe that HE will be graceful. However, Grace is not just a gift to anybody, you must at least really regret your bad doings.

[mike777]

". Like you, I believe that God should judge us about what we did"{

 

1) Ok you can tell God how he should judge

2) Mainline Christian theology says no.. no no....

3) Mainline Christian theology says....God chooses who he saves and who he does not.

4) Mainline Christian theology says......GRACE......this is really big word. ;)

1. I believe is not a synonym for: I can tell.

2. No no no to what?

3. Indeed, what´s new?

4. Yes Grace is a big word and it is wonderful to believe that HE will be graceful. However, Grace is not just a gift to anybody, you must at least really regret your bad doings.

NO

 

If you really seek knowledge see Priest..if you just want to be silly ok....

[helene_t]

There is certainly ample support, in the field of evolutionary psychology, for the idea that the ability to harbour a desire for retribution carries with it a reproductive advantage... bearing in mind the social environment in which our ancestors lived.

 

As an individual, when I have suffered from criminal misconduct (my car being broken into, for example) I have felt the urge to inflict some serious physical pain on the culprits, and I can imagine but have never, fortunately, experienced the urge to violence that would come over me if a family member were brutalized or killed.

 

But retribution per se is an ugly thing. It demeans us, in my view.

Agree 100% with this.

 

Whenever one of my bicycles got stolen I felt a desire to inflict severe punishment on the perpetrator. Fortunately I'm not a judge, and even if I were I would, fortunately, not be allowed to deal with cases where I was the victim.

[Codo]

NO

 

If you really seek knowledge see Priest..if you just want to be silly ok....

Sorry, I should have ignored your last post, but I am willing to learn and ignore them in the future.

 

Thanks for your encrypted answers. I have no clue what you want to say.

But your response convinced me that not to know everything is the better part this time.

[Al_U_Card]

So, if we acted based on this poll (1 for vs 3 against), we could make wanting to use the death penalty punishable by a death sentence (how ironic) and then the only people left would be against the death penalty and they couldn't be sentenced to death! Everyone gets what they want and (Mike777) Cubs win!

[luke warm]

no, that isn't what i think at all... i believe that 'good' and 'evil' describe the nature of God and man, respectively... there is evil in the world because God created man and allowed man to have free will... man isn't possessed by some evil spirit or force, man's nature leans toward evil, he freely *chooses* evil... we all have this nature, we all make this choice, to varying degrees (do you agree?)

 

No, I don't. In fact I regard this type of attitude as repugnant. A copout. An abandonment of reason. A denial of evolutionary psychology. A resort to superstition. I hope you get my point :P

so if i believe that the nature of God is good, and the nature of man is evil, i've abondoned reason and resorted to superstition? are you not acquainted with any theist whose intellect and reason you respect, or do you consider your reasoning ability and intellect superior to all of them?

 

since you're on record as saying there's no such thing as good and evil, i'm not against using terms you feel more comfortable with... take a couple of examples... imagine a 16 year old who steals a candy bar from the local store... across town another 16 year old robs and kills the clerk in a local store

 

how would you categorize those acts?

illogical how? irrational how? i'd say that your very ability to have opinions on these things presupposes my God... for example, the mind you are using to discuss these things (your mind), is it concrete or abstract? is it extended in space or not extended in space?

I fail to understand the logic that connects my having (what passes for) a mind and the existence of your (or any other's) god.

it would help if you'd answered my questions re: the mind... concrete (suspended in space) or abstract (not SiS)?

[mikeh]

 

 

illogical how? irrational how? i'd say that your very ability to have opinions on these things presupposes my God... for example, the mind you are using to discuss these things (your mind), is it concrete or abstract? is it extended in space or not extended in space?

I fail to understand the logic that connects my having (what passes for) a mind and the existence of your (or any other's) god.

it would help if you'd answered my questions re: the mind... concrete (suspended in space) or abstract (not SiS)?

so if i believe that the nature of God is good, and the nature of man is evil, i've abondoned reason and resorted to superstition? are you not acquainted with any theist whose intellect and reason you respect, or do you consider your reasoning ability and intellect superior to all of them?

 

You have, in previous posts, conceded that it is not possible to positively demonstrate the existence of god. It is a matter of faith. A conscious choice to believe in the existence of that which cannot be shown to exist. Yes, I understand that religious believers argue that the evidence of god is all around us, but, as I have said repeatedly (and I do not for a second claim originality of thought here), it is illogical to argue that the existence of the universe implies the existence of a god that should be worshipped. We laugh at cargo cults.. feeling sorry for the ignorant islanders who conflated the trappings of western civilization with gifts with divine provenance. Yet, the same feelings that inspired the cargo cults underlies the feeling that the existence of the universe demonstrates the existence of a god whom we should worship.

 

Furthermore, since every religion has its own god or gods, few of whom are compatible with those of other religions, and since ALL believers can make the same argument... 'my god(s) has to exist, else how do we explain the universe'... most of them are wrong. Indeed ALL of them are 'wrong' according to the majority of religious people. I doubt that any one religion has held a substantial plurality of believers at any time over the past 5000 years or more.

 

Referring again to earlier posts, in my view, it was rational for our ancestors, dependent on their own senses and nothiing more, to infer the existence of supernatural powers. But as our ability to explore, conceptualize and experiment with reality has grown, as our understanding of the physical mechanisms that explain physical phenomena has grown, the realm of the 'not understood' has shrunk and continues to shrink.

 

A rational being would, I believe, now conclude that there is some chance that we, as a species, will continue to shrink the areas of ignorance. We may be incapable, at least in our current form, of grasping the essence of how the universe can to be, or what lies outside, but ideas such as brane theory are already allowing us to intellectually explore different universes even if the laws that govern the interrelationships between these universes make it impossible for the inhabitants of one to ever directly perceive another.

 

A rational being would, I believe, now conclude that there is both less need and less justification for the invocation of a supernatural god entity.

 

A rational being does not opt to replace a desire for evidence and logical argument based on evidence with 'faith' or an acceptance of a mental construction of the universe devised by scientifically-illiterate and ignorant writers or preachers 1000 or 2000 or 4000 years ago.

 

You do. I do not doubt your good intentions. I suspect, from your postings, that in our daily lives and in how we want to see people behave towards each other, we have a lot in common. And how we live our lives is, in the end, more important than the stories we tell ourselves about why we live them in that manner. So, despite the vigour with which I debate you, I want you (and other readers) to know that I respect you and your beliefs, even tho I think that you are misguided :) And I accept that, from your perspective, I am the misguided one :)

since you're on record as saying there's no such thing as good and evil, i'm not against using terms you feel more comfortable with... take a couple of examples... imagine a 16 year old who steals a candy bar from the local store... across town another 16 year old robs and kills the clerk in a local store

 

how would you categorize those acts?

 

The stealing of a candy bar is a silly, immature act. I know... I stole a candy bar when I was 15 and was caught. It was a prank... I had more than enough money on me to pay for it, but I wanted to see if I could get away with it.

 

The killing of the clerk is a horrible crime. There would, I am sure, be something profoundly wrong with the killer. Maybe he/she was high. Maybe he/she is a sociopath, devoid of empathy. Whatever the reason, the perpetrator should be caught, and punished. If he or she was so mentally impaired (not from temporary causes but congenitally) as to not know or appreciate the nature of the act, then he or she has to be isolated from society since otherwise he or she may well do it again. If he or she was addicted and driven to the act by a combination of the drug and the need to score, then he or she should be punished, should be required to do community service and should be forced to undergo counselling.. which may, of course, not work... note that I said 'punished' as well as treated.

 

By the way, I am NOT on record as saying there is no 'good'. I am on record as saying that I do not believe in evil in a religious context. I wouldn't object to the use of 'evil' as a descriptive word, to dennote particulary heinous acts, but only if we could remove, from the term, any religious or supernatural connotation.

 

I may sound inconsistent, but I don't, for whatever reason, perceive the term 'good' as carrying the same religious connotation. So I do see behaviours that I am happy to describe as 'good'. Often, I add, by atheists :)

 

As for your options for the description of mind, I frankly don't understand your point. I already stated that I see 'mind' as an emergent property arising from the topography and internal biological workings of the brain. Stop the brain, kill the mind.

[jtfanclub]

The stealing of a candy bar is a silly, immature act. I know... I stole a candy bar when I was 15 and was caught. It was a prank... I had more than enough money on me to pay for it, but I wanted to see if I could get away with it.

 

The killing of the clerk is a horrible crime.

Except, of course, they could be exactly the same event.

 

You try to steal a candy bar. Clerk pulls a gun. You freak, and grab the gun. There's a struggle. The gun goes off. The clerk dies.

 

You have stolen a candy bar. You have also robbed a store and killed the clerk. And yet to you they're two completely different acts in which one was a prank and one makes you a sociopath.

 

Maybe you should rethink this rush to judgement stuff.

 

Or maybe you should ignore this post, and keep judging.

 

Up to you.

[mikeh]

The stealing of a candy bar is a silly, immature act. I know... I stole a candy bar when I was 15 and was caught. It was a prank... I had more than enough money on me to pay for it, but I wanted to see if I could get away with it.

 

The killing of the clerk is a horrible crime.

Except, of course, they could be exactly the same event.

 

You try to steal a candy bar. Clerk pulls a gun. You freak, and grab the gun. There's a struggle. The gun goes off. The clerk dies.

 

You have stolen a candy bar. You have also robbed a store and killed the clerk. And yet to you they're two completely different acts in which one was a prank and one makes you a sociopath.

 

Maybe you should rethink this rush to judgement stuff.

 

Or maybe you should ignore this post, and keep judging.

 

Up to you.

Wow.. do you read the posts you criticize?

 

Lukewarm posited two scenarios, neither of which were that the thief freaked and the gun went off. I addressed what I saw as the scenarios: one a bit of shoplifting and the other armed robbery and murder. I didn't see them as equivalent.

 

Looking back to my youthful stupidity, I can assure you that had the clerk pulled a gun on me, I might have and probably would have both ***** my pants and lost bladder control but I guarantee you that I wouldn't have wrestled for the gun!

 

Moreover, it is NOT the act that makes the perpetrator a sociopath. The shoplifter might be a sociopath while the killer is suffering from some other form of problem... unless you think that killing a store clerk is consistent with no mental/emotional problem whatsoever. My point was that the killer requires either isolation or punishment, where the punishment may well be combined with treatment if the underlying condition that contributed to the act was susceptible to treatment. What was your point?

[jtfanclub]

Wow.. do you read the posts you criticize?

 

Lukewarm posited two scenarios, neither of which were that the thief freaked and the gun went off.

He posted:

 

since you're on record as saying there's no such thing as good and evil, i'm not against using terms you feel more comfortable with... take a couple of examples... imagine a 16 year old who steals a candy bar from the local store... across town another 16 year old robs and kills the clerk in a local store

 

There's nothing in there that the thief freaked and the gun went off...or that it was an armed robbery, or anything in between. Maybe you would have lost bladder control, maybe not. How about if the owner took a shot at you first?

 

My point was that the killer requires either isolation or punishment, where the punishment may well be combined with treatment if the underlying condition that contributed to the act was susceptible to treatment. What was your point?

 

My point is that people rush to judgement from descriptions as vague as the one Lukewarm gave. That people are on death row for "felony murder" in scenarios very similar to the one I gave, or even less, like holding up a bank with a fake gun and a teller has a heart attack. People hear "bank robbery, teller dies", and off to death row they go!

[bid_em_up]

People hear "bank robbery, teller dies", and off to death row they go!

Do you make this stuff up?

 

In case you forget, the local district attorney must first decide to even seek the death penalty (and they usually don't take recommending this lightly, there must be extenuating circumstances) and declare his intent to do so as part of their pre-trial motions, the defendant then still has to stand trial (assuming he isn't able to plea-bargain his case down to a lesser sentence), he must then be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, AND go through a sentencing phase of his trial, where both the jury and the judge hear evidence of why the defendant is deserving of the death penalty and then deciding to actually impose the death sentence.

 

Please don't act like it's a given that anyone who commits an act of murder or who kills someone indirectly through their actions is automatically sentenced to death row. That just isn't the case.

[sceptic]

I do not think it should be ruled out completely, but much more care should be taken with this verdict than otherwise. It would not be something that I would leave just to a jury.

 

I'm thinking about cases where it is bleedingly obvious that you have the right person, combined with a statement that this person could NEVER function again in society. It should be an option for at least serial child abuse, serial killers and serial rape cases.

 

A very select group of people are just wired in some way that if they ever get out, the rest of us will not be safe because they WILL strike again.

 

A great majority of those on US death row would not qualify for this.

No capital punishment Period.

 

I am optimistically thinking that we have evolved beyond these barbaric customs, but I am still waiting for rehabilitation to be the main focus of the prison system and the courts.

 

We no sooner build a new prison than it is full and we are needing more. What's wrong with this picture?

 

I think we should use whatever we have in our arsenal and start asap to - educate, rehabilitate, de-program, re-program or whatever it takes. We had had many "leaders" who have shown us how easy this can be for a determined person.

 

Some may never make it back into society but unless we make a bigger effort to begin to rehabilitate criminals, we will just need to continue building more jails.

 

P

I just can't get my head around, why should we bother, do we not have better people to spend our time and resources on, surely spend the money on the victims, not the prepetrators

[luke warm]

You have, in previous posts, conceded that it is not possible to positively demonstrate the existence of god. It is a matter of faith. A conscious choice to believe in the existence of that which cannot be shown to exist.

have i? i don't recall making such a statement, but if you run across it please let me know... i can positively demonstrate that my (theistic, christian) worldview can account for the things we're discussing (good and evil, rationality and logic)... i don't think you can do that with your (athestic, naturalist[?]) worldview... i can also illustrate by disjunctive syllogism the existence of God, but it isn't an apologetic i like to use - it says nothing about the God i believe in

Yes, I understand that religious believers argue that the evidence of god is all around us, but, as I have said repeatedly (and I do not for a second claim originality of thought here), it is illogical to argue that the existence of the universe implies the existence of a god that should be worshipped.

on this matter of originality, let's agree here and now that the posting of footnotes is unnecessary... neither of us would be able to stay 100% original, even if we were to have a 'formal' debate on an issue... while i'm at it, neither will i accuse you of circularity in an argument, because when the issue is 'truth', nobody can argue without presuppositions (imho)... i might accuse you of begging the question, but that isn't the same

 

the addition of "... that should be worshipped." in your quote above is why i don't debate in a more 'traditional' sense, although many traditional arguments are quite good

Furthermore, since every religion has its own god or gods, few of whom are compatible with those of other religions, and since ALL believers can make the same argument... 'my god(s) has to exist, else how do we explain the universe'... most of them are wrong.

i, of course, can't speak of any other belief, only of my own... and i'm perfectly content to show that the christian worldview can account for things such as good and evil, hope, justice, logic, while the atheist worldview can't

Referring again to earlier posts, in my view, it was rational for our ancestors, dependent on their own senses and nothiing more, to infer the existence of supernatural powers. But as our ability to explore, conceptualize and experiment with reality has grown, as our understanding of the physical mechanisms that explain physical phenomena has grown, the realm of the 'not understood' has shrunk and continues to shrink.

let me ask you something... if it can be shown that your worldview can't *rationally* account for the things you believe, would you be willing to examine one that can?

A rational being does not opt to replace a desire for evidence and logical argument based on evidence with 'faith' or an acceptance of a mental construction of the universe devised by scientifically-illiterate and ignorant writers or preachers 1000 or 2000 or 4000 years ago.

what is logic? from whence does it come? is it dependent, contingent, or what? how do *you* account for it?

I suspect, from your postings, that in our daily lives and in how we want to see people behave towards each other, we have a lot in common.

i'd certainly agree with that... i'm pretty sure a whole bunch of us on this forum could get together, have a few drinks, share a few laughs, and be none the worse for it

And how we live our lives is, in the end, more important than the stories we tell ourselves about why we live them in that manner. So, despite the vigour with which I debate you, I want you (and other readers) to know that I respect you and your beliefs, even tho I think that you are misguided :) And I accept that, from your perspective, I am the misguided one :)

i certainly think that how we live is of paramount importance... now i'm not being argumentative here, but i honestly don't know how it's possible for an atheist to rationally assert that what one does or thinks has any bearing whatsoever

 

for example, ted bundy lived his life his way... he thought it was perfectly acceptable to hit a woman on the head, rape her then kill her... you (i'm certain) believe this behavior to be abhorrent ... so do i ... the difference is, i have a worldview in which i can rationally say that his acts were abhorrent... yours, it seems to me, can only say that his acts don't meet with your approval, though i'm sure you'd grant that they might meet with *someone's* (hannibal lechter?) approval

As for your options for the description of mind, I frankly don't understand your point. I already stated that I see 'mind' as an emergent property arising from the topography and internal biological workings of the brain. Stop the brain, kill the mind.

again, not trying to be difficult here, but what do you mean by 'emergent property'? is it material? immaterial? physical? metaphysical?

 

oh, one little thing... what we're doing here isn't really 'debating'... we're conversing :) debate is more rigorous, and we'd both (rightly) be held to higher standards by the referee(s)