Azat Posted September 2, 2003 Report Share Posted September 2, 2003 We in the US can top that one off. There was a murderer who was sentenced for life. He wanted a sex change and the state had to pay for it. Initially the state said no, but he took them to court and won. Un-Fin-Believable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 Vava, your justification here above is economical not moral. Force them to work there, and the money generated from it would pay what they cost to the society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vava Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 But again, my question is: Is slave labour moral? Do you feel more comfortable forcing people into labour camps? The door is wide open - where are you going to draw the line? Do you honestly feel that the product of this forced labour might actually be a profitable concern? Or at the very least, self-sustaining? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 But again, my question is: Is slave labour moral? Do you feel more comfortable forcing people into labour camps? The door is wide open - where are you going to draw the line? Do you honestly feel that the product of this forced labour might actually be a profitable concern? Or at the very least, self-sustaining? Vava, those criminals have harmed the society, how can you compare that to labour workers? I mean, is it not normal to work when you can, to eat, to pocess things, do things that you would want to do? I mean, they have a place to sleep, they can eat, have activities, they have libraries, even internet... things that we will pay for. So, how would it be different than one that would work to pay for those things... and the plus would be a reparation to the society, more particullary to the families that he has caused harm. Again, I fail to see any reasons why one should be killed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 Domino, why would a criminal who is imprisoned for life want to work? What possible motivation could he or she have? The only way you are going to get them to work is through torture... and that, would be more inhumane than killing the bastards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted September 3, 2003 Author Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 Domino, why would a criminal who is imprisoned for life want to work? What possible motivation could he or she have? Working could be a great way out of boredom. Also, if the prisoner is ugly he may just turn beautiful (according to Armenian wisdom) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harut Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 The main reason I would be against death penalty is the possibility of an innocent person being held responsible for something he or she didn't do. so, how better is it to imprison someone for the rest of his/her life for something he/she didn't do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harut Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 Another note: Punishment exist to punish someone, in order to change him, in order to make him a better person, in order that he does not do the same mistake. not necessarily. it can be used to teach others to not do the same thing. you hang a robber in the middle of square, then pour gasolline and burn him...see how many will continue to rob. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 Harut, I am sure that may work for students who fail a class. do you think we should make an example of one or two students to make sure that no one else fails? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 Harut, I am sure that may work for students who fail a class. do you think we should make an example of one or two students to make sure that no one else fails? Being a moron is not a crime last time I checked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 Late 80's and early 90s stats(I interned for a company that use to manage jails when I was a student): Incarcerating a person in jail in CA use to cost about 22,000 per year. Killing someone on death row cost about a million dollars because the constitution in this country is written such that they have to appeal all those cases to the state supreme court even if the inmate wants to be killed from day one. So for those who want to save money it is cheaper to let them rot in jail. Working: I think if given the opportunity to work vs sit in a small cell all day long I would take work. However death penalty people do not work in prison. they are kept in small cells and are only allowed 1 hour of daylight in a 12' by 25' courtyard to exercise or hang out. I am against the death penalty as it does not accomplish anything. US is the only western country that has the death penalty(if I am not mistaken) yet it does not deter crime in this country when we compare crime rates to that of other countries. Also Texas and Louisiana put more people to death then all the other states combined, yet they have crime rates that are as high as california where I believe we have not had anyone killed in the last 10+ years. So how can anyone tell me that death penalty deters crime? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamavor Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 ....not to speak about the human and theological aspect which was the initial question? Who has the right to take somebody else’s life? The convict? Or the government? Or both? If “yes” then, put them together in jail for life without parole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harut Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 Who has the right to take somebody else’s life? who has the right to take away somebody else's freedom? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 Domino, why would a criminal who is imprisoned for life want to work? What possible motivation could he or she have? The only way you are going to get them to work is through torture... and that, would be more inhumane than killing the bastards. Sip, 95% will probably work. No work, no internet, no some of the benefits that the usual person out of jail won't have without working. Life conservation(with ecosystem conservation) should be above any social values we have. Killing someone, does not bring anything, when it does affect our social values. What justification you have to kill someone? I still fail to see any justification. I mean, such an extrem action, shall have a very good reason. More extrem your action is, more stronger your argument shall be. I am happy that Quebec is the place all over North America, where the population is the most strongly opposed to death penality. To Harut: I would say that death penality is worst for our security, and it does not scare those psychopaths. Why it is dangerious, now prove me wrong here. Imagine that a sick bastard is a serial killer, and that he has already killed, he knows very well that once they catch him, he would be condemned to death. What would he do when he took hostages, and the polcice is all over him telling him to give it up? Will he release the hostages? He already know that he would be condemned to death. His sentence by his previous actions is already known for him, and it is the worst possible for this individual. What reason has this individual to release the hostages? I mean, once he release them, or they will open fire on him, or once on court, he will be sentenced to death. On the other hand, if he is sick on the head... he won't have the death sentence. What this means, is that those sentenced to death, are those that are considered sane, and those not, the ones considered insane. Those insane are the most dangerious, because they are the ones that you can not predict their actions, you don't know if they will follow their treatments etc... So again, once is insane, and he knows he is insane, would death penality scare him? Not at all... Now, those for death penality, I am waiting you to bring a valid reason, an argument to the measure of the extrem action you agree with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 so, how better is it to imprison someone for the rest of his/her life for something he/she didn't do. This way he/she can potentially still prove his/her innocence and get out. With death penalty, you lose this choice. who has the right to take away somebody else's freedom? Harut, that's a question you should be asking the criminal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 You have to be fairly screwed up in the head to commit the kinds of murders that would lead to death penalty ... so at that point, I don't think you can analyze the criminal mind using rational basis for analysis! So ... that throws out the entire "deter crime" etc argument. Right now, it's too expensive to carry out capital punishment ... no doubt about it and I won't argue that. However, that is not an argument for or against capital punishment in general. It just says how stupid the system is right now. Now, in general, I am totally FOR capital punishment because after a certain point, a life is more trouble that it is worth. Thus, you eliminate the loses and move on. It's simple economics ... and DON'T tell me life is infinitely valuable. Of course it is NOT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 On a side note, I think moderators should get to vote as many times as they want on polls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 Sip, whom has the right to tell that one will lose his right to live? I reinsert my comment on lions. Lions are dangerious to humans, if they were to live with us, they will kill us. Is it a reason to kill them? No! You just separate them from us. The same goes with those criminals... they are like another specy, you just separate them from us. Ah and! As for moderators should have the right to vote more than once. Nope! Tha Domino is your Universe, your Universe should have at the very least as much right to vote as the total of the voters here + 1 Another comment like that, and I'll call McCarthyologist to vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted September 3, 2003 Author Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 Now, in general, I am totally FOR capital punishment because after a certain point, a life is more trouble that it is worth. Thus, you eliminate the loses and move on. It's simple economics ... and DON'T tell me life is infinitely valuable. Of course it is NOT. Obviously there are as many opinions on the value of life as there are separate individuals. A suicidal will certainly not value his/her life as much as someone who has a satisfied life. But one can never know another persons valuation of life. Only because we think somebody's life is not worth much doesn't mean it is true. We shouldn't even think of somebody elses life as having a certain fixed value. It is neither moral nor rational, we have no right to do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 You have to be fairly screwed up in the head to commit the kinds of murders that would lead to death penalty ... so at that point, I don't think you can analyze the criminal mind using rational basis for analysis! So ... that throws out the entire "deter crime" etc argument. the deter crime argument was specifically for Harut. For the example that he had put about a public hanging or something like so. BTW in general harsher sentences do not work. Look at what a failure "3 strikes law" and longer sentences have become. The jail population in the US is growing and there is no end to it it seems. Right now, it's too expensive to carry out capital punishment ... no doubt about it and I won't argue that. However, that is not an argument for or against capital punishment in general. It just says how stupid the system is right now. Sip, I think the system is correct. I strongly am for the multiple automatic appeals and such. Just in the last 5-6 years because of DNA testing some 100 people were released from jail who on death row. If we did not have "the system" they would have been killed. BTW2: I put that argument because someone had said that they are a burden on society and cost too much to keep them alive. --- I think the US needs to look around and see why our crime rates are so high. Why is human life so worthless to these few who commit these crimes. I am no expert on this but I feel it is due to lack of education and a strong upbringing at home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamavor Posted September 4, 2003 Report Share Posted September 4, 2003 who has the right to take away somebody else's freedom? Harut du archetype u anarchist yes!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harut Posted September 7, 2003 Report Share Posted September 7, 2003 Harut, I am sure that may work for students who fail a class. do you think we should make an example of one or two students to make sure that no one else fails? he he. actually we should try that. that would be one heck of a show, especially after the party. ok, getting serious here...i voted 'NO' on the poll. i'm too much of a humanist and forgiving. but i thought that few things weren't right, even though they were to support my view on the issue.unfortunately i don't have any reason to justify my vote. i just don't feel comfortable with taking someone's life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harut Posted September 7, 2003 Report Share Posted September 7, 2003 Harut du archetype u anarchist yes!!! bayts, bayts, bayts yes inch em arel...? yes miayn hartsnum em. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted September 8, 2003 Report Share Posted September 8, 2003 Domino, here's a Kantian style of argument against your lion analogy ... If we killed all lions, they would be extinct. Obviously that's bad. If we killed all murderers, humans would not be extinct and we would probably have a better world... well, at least the world won't be any worse. Aha!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted September 8, 2003 Report Share Posted September 8, 2003 (edited) Domino, here's a Kantian style of argument against your lion analogy ... If we killed all lions, they would be extinct. Obviously that's bad. If we killed all murderers, humans would not be extinct and we would probably have a better world... well, at least the world won't be any worse. Aha!!!!! Sip, don't sell the bears... before having killed him. Your analogy does not work... Kantian rational 3 "Laws" does not permit you select a "type" of people(by giving special rights) and a type of killing(murder).So your question should rather be. "If we were to kill everyone, what would happen? " You know why? Lets show you why this question should be asked, and why your logic does not make sense. Lets repost your quotation. If we killed all murderers, humans would not be extinct and we would probably have a better world... well, at least the world won't be any worse. Suppose that you kill someone, you would be a murderer, but more importantly a killer. Death penality is not considered as a murder, that would mean, that killing is only considered murder when it is not permited by the state in question, when it is, than it is a killing but not a murder. Now, we come to a Kantian rationality problem, because the first question you should ask would be. "If everyone was to define a kind of killing that is justified and exclude if from the definition of what is a murder, what would happen?" So, therefore, the word "murder" should not be used in this cases, because it would fail the first stage of the trial. Because this question would not be good for humanity, and would lead to its destruction. We would now be forced to use only the words "killing" and "kill." Since the word "murderer" has failed the test of rationality. Now, lets correct your question, by replacing the word "murderer" by the word "killier." "If we killed all killers, humans would not be extinct and we would probably have a better world... well, at least the world won't be any worse." Aha!!!! Now, lets see what would be the problem of such a sentences. Suppose that one killed, and he is killed because he has killed. The one that has commited the "killing" is in his turn a killer, therefore, from your question, he should be killed, and the killed should in his turn be killed... That would lead to the total extermination of humanity... So, what all this brings us to? Kant rationality test is not selective, it can't exclude by giving special rights to some, because this special right would fail the test right away(like the usage of the word "murder"or "murderer"). Edited September 8, 2003 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.