First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Is the death penalty not enough for some crimes?
17065 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Fredericton, NB
Offline
Posted 5/22/15 , edited 5/22/15


In my opinion at least, their is a fine line between between redeemable and being a problem. The fact is these people are less than worse, they hold a pretty big negative balance. For some things, there is no redemption, and at the end of the day, the victim is never satisfied. Something was taken from them, and some things are never going to come back. No matter how how much we wish, this wishes and dreams, and trampled on, forever. I can't see the reason why I would ever forgive an individual like this. They are less than human, much less, a demon and a plague to the planet. So personally I don't afford them 'ethics' or anything of that sort, but if I did, the next sentence should still follow.

Note for clarify, the state is flawed, the state is messed up, especially in the USA. Their law system is totally F'd up. Nonetheless, in an more idealistic world, even not 'perfect,' just slightly better than 2015 is where my angle comes from, though it may even be applicable in the current, though I won't really claim much, as even Canadian Law, I only know the business sector. The fact is, let's say you kill them, some people would be happy to die, it's an easy way out. Life in prison? What good is that really doing for society? Nothing. Are the prisoners really 'living life'.. not really. One might say that a death by injection of drugs and diseases is more humane than life in prison. Life behind bars, can you imagine that? I don't know if you can consider it life at that point. That is far closer to 'revenge' than experimentation. Experimentation in most cases is probably more humane than life in prison, yet, we as a whole society, get a benefit from it. So in some ways, prison is much more ethical than life in jail.

Now that this stage we are taking alternatives, between jail and experimentation. That should level the field. Of course experimentation on people might not be the most ethical, though jail sure as hell isn't the most ethical either. To note though, those research ethics were primarily created for abuse. No ethical frameworks are future-proof and can predict the applications in the future. Buchenwald, for one, was a tragedy, and hence, the concern with ethics. However, this is not perfect and should not rule out all future applications.

I suppose the difference is your personal opinion of ethics vs mine. I for one think experimentation might be both more beneficial to society and better than life in prison, It's really all opinion.

35035 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 5/22/15 , edited 5/22/15

J-POP187 wrote:

I love it when the first thing people do is compare things to Nazism.


A discussion of retracting informed consent from human research subjects will inevitably result in Buchenwald being brought up. The abuses of the Nazi regime were a core pillar for cementing that institution's necessity. To not bring it up would be to leave the elephant in the room unmentioned.


First the people in the camps were civilians they weren't convicted murderers. Also note these civilians in these death camps where never given trails and the few who did get trails "i.e. the rich or influential of that time", were not allowed to argue evidence or present their own evidence. What I'm talking about are people who been given there day in court and yes after the whole trial and appeal process they were still found guilty.


What difference does any of that make on the ethics of conducting experiments on unwilling human research subjects? Why is it suddenly ethical as long as the subject is a convict?


Please keep try to keep examples to more modern times.


To reiterate, the example I provided was a central factor in the development of current research ethics. You cannot eschew it from the discussion you're trying to have. You simply can't. The institution you're proposing to trim ought not be trimmed, and Buchenwald provides but one very illustrative example of why that is the case. People who are not in a position to refuse consent, and worse yet aren't even given the option, are not to be experimented upon.


Once a crime has been done it can never be taken back so why should people who could care less about life and society rules garner more sympathy than their victims? While I understand your against the death penalty in any form, you must realize that more than half the country supports capital punishment.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/gallup-poll-who-supports-death-penalty


That sidesteps the issue you're getting at: forced participation in human experimentation. What's the polling data on that? As for why people ought to care about whether prisoners are being forced into being subjects of experiments, it's because people ought to care about research ethics and need to understand that forcing people into being research subjects is itself an unethical act.


As for making use of the condemned I would give more credit to America. If they actually started testing on people I firmly believe they would do everything in there power to make sure they reduce any unnecessary pain. But let be honest this would never happen in the states. At best I would hope for anyone on death row would be encourage to sign over their organs for someone who really needs them.


Might I advise inquiry into a one Dr. Albert Kligman as a starting point, then?


Finally what would be your solution?


Simply put, adherence to the ethical standards applicable to medicine and research is my alternative proposal. We're not really discussing the death penalty in this thread; we're discussing matters beyond the death penalty. Whether to torture inmates, whether to experiment on them, whether to subject them to humiliating conditions or treatment, and so on.


I believe capital punishment gives closer to the victims. I have no sympathy to people who are willing take a innocent life. Although let me makes this clear I understand the fear of executing an innocent by mistake is what turns many people off from capital punishment. As we discuss before the evidence of someone guilt " cameras never lie,multiple witness reports that i.d. the same person" are what would put my mind at ease if such a thing should ever happen.


As I said, for the purposes of this thread that's neither here nor there. Would you feel the same if it were revealed that a person you'd tortured, or who experienced irreparable damage from experimentation conducted without their consent, or who you'd allowed to be actively humiliated, turned out to be wrongfully convicted? You'll have potentially destroyed a human being from within, and for no reason.

That's the core of the ethical dilemma: there is no such thing as absolute certainty in prosecution and conviction of suspects, so you can't just shrug when prisoners are tortured, or experimented upon, or humiliated intentionally, or executed. The prospect of inflicting such horrible things upon the guilty is a difficult enough dilemma, but when you introduce the wrongfully convicted into the equation the dilemma not only becomes infinitely more complicated, it takes on ever greater urgency. To refuse to torture, forcibly experiment, humiliate, or execute resolves the dilemma neatly.
869 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / London
Offline
Posted 5/23/15

wolfbrother0 wrote:


piratequeen369 wrote:

Revenge isn't justice, it's just retaliation caused by passionate but thoughtless anger. I can understand the death penalty for terrorists but really, torturing is sinking down to their level, if you want torture for crime, go live in the Middle East and see if you'll like it, what was it? 30 lashes with a whip for a woman if she steals? You don't have to be a natural born criminal to do that, you could just be messing around with friends. Anyway, the thing is, sometimes innocent people framed for a crime will get tortured, not a good idea.


It being revenge is just your opinion which is caused by a backwards love of criminals and ignorance. Some crimes the only punishment that fits is death. To treat criminals of that level as anything other than animals is insane. The death penalty is not torture by the way.


How is it ignorance? Just because I don't feel the same way you do and don't want people to be tortured? I'm sorry, I don't have the mind of a petty criminal. Revenge is doing to others what they have done to you, sometimes tenfold. That's how I translated criminals "deserve" torture. I know the death penalty is not torture you imbecile, I mentioned the death penalty because people also say silly about the death penalty like they do about torturing criminals. The torturing isn't for the criminals, it's for the victim's friends and family's personal feelings and if it's about their feelings then that is revenge, is it not? Please look up the meaning of revenge. Also the fact that you stated that you thought I meant that the death penalty was torture shows you don't comprehend anything I was saying. If you've got an argument against why this is not revenge, say it instead of just saying "revenge is just your opinion."

Did you even read what I told you? Isn't a punishment what you give to a person who you want to improve their behavior? It is not a punishment if their life is to end, it's getting rid of a person you don't like, stop trying to justify killing a person. Although I describe the death penalty like this because I know I have not made it clear enough for you, I UNDERSTAND THE NECESSITY OF THE DEATH PENALTY, just don't bloody call it a "punishment." Was Osama Bin Laden killed as a "punishment" for is naughty behavior, like some little child who will learn his lesson? I don't think so, I just think the whole world wanted him dead.

Or are you claiming America was his mother who saw it as her duty to calm her tantruming child? It is not like he was a citizen which America wanted to punish so he could learn his lesson and be released into society once more. "Punishment" is the wrong word to use.

I have had proper debates on this subject, going towards a grade for an English exam, I really doubt you've got anything to say which can contest all I've said.
Posted 5/23/15 , edited 5/23/15

Bavalt wrote:

I'm pretty ambivalent about the death penalty in the first place. On the one hand, it's more cost and space efficient to deal with some criminals in this way, but I think that's the death penalty's only valid defense. I don't believe in vengeance as justice, and I don't necessarily subscribe to justice being a good thing in the first place. I'm more a supporter of rehabilitation where possible, with justice being most useful as a sort of threat over the heads of would-be criminals, but a waste when actually carried out. The goal should be to make sure someone won't do something inconvenient again, rather than to make them suffer because of what they've done.

With that in mind, yes, I think the death penalty is the worst we should be seeing within the justice system, and I see no reason not to do it in a humane way if we're going to do it at all. Revenge is an ugly thing, and succumbing too far to it can be damaging to a person's reputation and relationships. Best not to encourage that sort of self-destructive behaviour by condoning or celebrating it.

I do support the idea of subjecting certain violent criminals to medical research, though. The idea of enduring dangerous and unpredictable testing, to me anyway, seems far more terrifying than being killed, so I'd hazard to guess that it would be a more effective deterrent than the punishments we have now, and that sort of research has all kinds of potential to yield useful knowledge. If it's a choice between destroying a person or making use of them, the latter seems far more reasonable to me; I would argue that this sort of procedure should replace the death penalty.

Again, though, I don't see the point in making a criminal suffer solely for justice; it seems barbaric to me.


no research.. there's the chance they'll get close to the researchers and for whatever reason, baddies are apparently hot to some civilians lol.
35035 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 5/23/15 , edited 5/23/15

KnightOfZero1991 wrote:

In my opinion at least, their is a fine line between between redeemable and being a problem. The fact is these people are less than worse, they hold a pretty big negative balance. For some things, there is no redemption, and at the end of the day, the victim is never satisfied. Something was taken from them, and some things are never going to come back. No matter how how much we wish, this wishes and dreams, and trampled on, forever. I can't see the reason why I would ever forgive an individual like this. They are less than human, much less, a demon and a plague to the planet. So personally I don't afford them 'ethics' or anything of that sort, but if I did, the next sentence should still follow.

Note for clarify, the state is flawed, the state is messed up, especially in the USA. Their law system is totally F'd up. Nonetheless, in an more idealistic world, even not 'perfect,' just slightly better than 2015 is where my angle comes from, though it may even be applicable in the current, though I won't really claim much, as even Canadian Law, I only know the business sector. The fact is, let's say you kill them, some people would be happy to die, it's an easy way out. Life in prison? What good is that really doing for society? Nothing. Are the prisoners really 'living life'.. not really. One might say that a death by injection of drugs and diseases is more humane than life in prison. Life behind bars, can you imagine that? I don't know if you can consider it life at that point. That is far closer to 'revenge' than experimentation. Experimentation in most cases is probably more humane than life in prison, yet, we as a whole society, get a benefit from it. So in some ways, prison is much more ethical than life in jail.


Life sentences are a way to ensure that those who are wrongfully convicted have ample opportunities to be vindicated and released, and provided the state is attentive to keeping inmates' living conditions humane (including addressing the problems of overcrowding, excessive isolation, and rape) it's really up to them whether to consider their lives worth living. Why should you be granted the power to parse out who is or isn't human, or whose lives are or aren't worth living?


Now that this stage we are taking alternatives, between jail and experimentation. That should level the field. Of course experimentation on people might not be the most ethical, though jail sure as hell isn't the most ethical either. To note though, those research ethics were primarily created for abuse. No ethical frameworks are future-proof and can predict the applications in the future. Buchenwald, for one, was a tragedy, and hence, the concern with ethics. However, this is not perfect and should not rule out all future applications.


Those aren't alternatives at all. We're talking about experimenting upon people who are in prison. I don't see how you even came to the conclusion that these prisoners would be living somewhere other than a cell. The difference is that you're proposing that we experiment upon people in addition to keeping them locked up.

You're right, no ethical framework is perfect and will always have to be updated in response to new discoveries and thoughts. With that in mind, let me say this about construction of future ethical rationales: if one is trying to find ways to justify engaging in the abusive practices typical of a Nazi concentration camp (in this case experimentation on unwilling, perhaps even unwitting human subjects) you're extremely likely to be heading the wrong way with your framework. Doubly so if the rationale includes something to the effect of a declaration that some people aren't really people.


I suppose the difference is your personal opinion of ethics vs mine. I for one think experimentation might be both more beneficial to society and better than life in prison, It's really all opinion.


It is not merely my personal opinion. The statements I've been making are in accordance with present ethical standards as established by the cumulative efforts of the research community, the medical community, and the legislatures of both international NGOs and several nations (including the United States). The requirement for a genuine process by which to obtain consent isn't an idea of my own invention.
17380 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 5/23/15 , edited 5/23/15

I'm going to say this as clearly as possible.
Every one of your actions is irreversible. Period.
There are no crimes nor acts of good will that can be erased.
So every time you go around spreading pain or suffering you permanently make the world worse.
And every time you go around spreading goodwill and compassion you make it better.
It is not acceptable, under any circumstances, to wish for others to come to harm.
Posted 5/23/15 , edited 5/23/15
I think we should extend the death penalty to other things though.

Like rapists, domestic abusers, and animal abusers.

I don't think we should waste our tax dollars housing and feeding someone who does these things. It costs less to execute them.
30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 5/23/15

AiYumega wrote:

I think we should extend the death penalty to other things though.

Like rapists, domestic abusers, and animal abusers.

I don't think we should waste our tax dollars housing and feeding someone who does these things. It costs less to execute them.


I would leave it to criminals that can't control their impulses and therefore can't learn to become safe before they are released.
27705 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / TX
Offline
Posted 5/23/15

BlueOni wrote:


It is not merely my personal opinion. The statements I've been making are in accordance with present ethical standards as established by the cumulative efforts of the research community, the medical community, and the legislatures of both international NGOs and several nations (including the United States). The requirement for a genuine process by which to obtain consent isn't an idea of my own invention.



While your correct on the current ethics of this. I would argue if the convicts had a chance to volunteer for a program like this and their family will be compensated, plus you have oversight while the scientists " of course voluntary who want to take part in this research". While I see people protesting this I could see the big picture where results are being made and once that happens it's human nature to follow success. The program would spread and the scientific community would revise the rules and morals of such a practice.

As for the topic is the death penalty not enough for all cases. I don't believe so but if we could have options or in this case the convicts has options
such as once you sentence is carried out can we use your body for research, donate your organs to those who need them. I'm trying to find a compromise between those who support capital punishment and those who don't. Would you have a problem with a voluntary program?
6506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 5/23/15 , edited 5/23/15
So to shift gears, my state is considering abolishing the death penalty.

There hasn't been an execution here since 1997, which is before a lot of people around this site were born.

The governor recently told a district that they shouldn't increase their gas tax to pay for roads, because that money shouldn't come from tax dollars.

The governor also recently secured the drugs necessary to execute the three people on death row who have exhausted their appeals, and it's my guess that he did this in order to have recent examples of the death penalty to make it seem more relevant to the constituents.

So roads, fix those with your own dollars. Criminals, kill those with tax money. Reading the news anymore is like



12472 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Utopia
Offline
Posted 5/23/15

CSPower wrote:

die the way they killed.
is that not true justice?
if not, what is?


i like this idea for the truly horrible criminals
6506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 5/23/15

A-Eky wrote:


CSPower wrote:

die the way they killed.
is that not true justice?
if not, what is?


i like this idea for the truly horrible criminals


So we should get to be sociopaths to sociopaths because it makes us feel better.

That's just being a sociopath.
12472 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Utopia
Offline
Posted 5/23/15

morechunch wrote:


A-Eky wrote:


CSPower wrote:

die the way they killed.
is that not true justice?
if not, what is?


i like this idea for the truly horrible criminals


So we should get to be sociopaths to sociopaths because it makes us feel better.

That's just being a sociopath.


how else would you deter them from committing such heinous crimes, obviously our current methods are not working. this could be worth a try, then again i don't know how effective it will be though.
38129 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
New Brunswick, Ca...
Offline
Posted 5/23/15 , edited 5/23/15
The problem with what you are indirectly implying, is that it directly affects the executioner/personnel involved.

I have family that works with people involved with executions, and they gave off some names of studies that had correlated with what they had found out on the effect executions have on the executioner and those involved with the execution.

With just a few exceptions, after so many executions many of the personnel get depressed and start considering suicide. The studies that they have ran also show that those who do make it through without getting depressed had a really high chance of turning into cruel people or developing some psychological issue.


So My answer is no, because of the effect it Already has on the people involved already, and because Im a Paragon T5 Mass Effect player.
501 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
42 / M / A Mile High
Offline
Posted 5/23/15
Here in CO we currently have a major death penalty trial going on. I am sure most are aware of the circumstances; a former med student with a history of mental illness walked into a crowded movie theatre and shot dozens of people, killing several.

After his arrest, the gunman offered to plead guilty in exchange for a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. The prosecutor declined this and instead is pursuing the death penalty.

This trial will cost several million dollars of taxpayer money, and subsequent appeals will cost even more. Putting the gunman to death is not going to bring anyone back to life, it isn't going to reverse anyone's injuries or erase the pain the event caused for those involved. When he is found guilty, if he is sentenced to death he will still spend decades in prison awaiting appeals. So taxpayers will be on the hook for millions of dollars more than if the prosecutor would have agreed to life in prison without parole.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.