General

[quote=TrueAtheist]@WontPostMuch What are your views on exile? Why don't we exile all these violent people to an island or something, kind of like what happened with Australia and look now we have Australia!

Before you were saying that they are committing a crime against society, and posing a threat to society right? Wouldn't the next logical step be to simply remove them from that society? I think killing them would be taking an even further step, not only are you removing them from society but you're removing their right to live on this planet and to exist at all.[/quote]

Nice conversation you two are having there

[quote=WontPostMuch]Exile makes no sense whatsoever. Especially in a world where space and resources are ever more valuable, why would we give a good habitable island away? And if we give them a bad island that's scarce, they may just die via not knowing how to survive or hell, may need regular supplies to stay alive. Besides, we def. have more criminals than islands to exile them to. Ultimately we'd be constructing a society full of criminals and psychopaths with no supervision. That sounds even worse than keeping them confined in a jail.

That's not counting the resources it'd take to get them there. And making sure they stay there. After all someone may unwittingly think they're stranded and rescue them. So well, for one, your plan is highly impractical and violates my views of what's acceptable.

Not to mention, lol @ right to live and exist. Since when was that a right? Bro, I don't even believe in human rights to begin with, so you'd have to make a case for them. Why would these people have a right to exist and live? I don't see any reason and I still don't understand this obsession with keeping them alive. Hell, you dump them on an island and tell them "good luck surviving" and think that's humane? I just don't see what's so wrong with just killing them. The world is shaped one way already and they don't fit. Too bad sucks to be them, end of story imo.[/quote]

Kk it's 5:30 a.m. I'm going to sleep now, pretty much convinced me it's okay to kill crazy people, gonna have some interesting dreams tonight probably.

Haha, good discussion though!

[quote=TrueAtheist]@WontPostMuch What are your views on exile? Why don't we exile all these violent people to an island or something, kind of like what happened with Australia and look now we have Australia!

Before you were saying that they are committing a crime against society, and posing a threat to society right? Wouldn't the next logical step be to simply remove them from that society? I think killing them would be taking an even further step, not only are you removing them from society but you're removing their right to live on this planet and to exist at all.[/quote]

Exile makes no sense whatsoever. Especially in a world where space and resources are ever more valuable, why would we give a good habitable island away? And if we give them a bad island that's scarce, they may just die via not knowing how to survive or hell, may need regular supplies to stay alive. Besides, we def. have more criminals than islands to exile them to. Ultimately we'd be constructing a society full of criminals and psychopaths with no supervision. That sounds even worse than keeping them confined in a jail.

That's not counting the resources it'd take to get them there. And making sure they stay there. After all someone may unwittingly think they're stranded and rescue them. So well, for one, your plan is highly impractical and violates my views of what's acceptable.

Not to mention, lol @ right to live and exist. Since when was that a right? Bro, I don't even believe in human rights to begin with, so you'd have to make a case for them. Why would these people have a right to exist and live? I don't see any reason and I still don't understand this obsession with keeping them alive. Hell, you dump them on an island and tell them "good luck surviving" and think that's humane? I just don't see what's so wrong with just killing them. The world is shaped one way already and they don't fit. Too bad sucks to be them, end of story imo.

@WontPostMuch What are your views on exile? Why don't we exile all these violent people to an island or something, kind of like what happened with Australia and look now we have Australia!

Before you were saying that they are committing a crime against society, and posing a threat to society right? Wouldn't the next logical step be to simply remove them from that society? I think killing them would be taking an even further step, not only are you removing them from society but you're removing their right to live on this planet and to exist at all.

[quote=TrueAtheist]How do you measure 'little to no chance of redemption'? I don't think we have enough knowledge on the whole nature/nurture debate, environment versus genetics debate, to come to a definite conclusion. [/quote]

No, but if they consistently show violent behavior, are evaluated as highly dangerous by professionals, often brag about their crimes, taunt the victim or their family, etc. that makes a case of its own. Why keep people like that around? I don't see a reason.

They would obviously have to earn the penalty. It wouldn't be something that's just lightly handed down. It'd be taken into consideration by a judge, evidence of their behavior would be present, all that stuff that we already do. We already have guidelines of whether or not someone deserves redemption, that's what parole is there for and sometimes we refuse to even grant them that chance (no parole). I don't see how this is that much more objectionable.

[quote=TrueAtheist]
But really how often does that happen? Say there's a gang member in prison and he sneaks in a pencil or something and flips out and stabs and kills two prison guards, action is definitely taken so that doesn't happen again, they'd give him one of those vests to restrain his arms and lock him up in solitary confinement or something. It still accomplishes the same goal without having to kill him.[/quote]

I don't understand this obsession to keep someone like that alive. So you've allotted numerous resources at keeping him alive in conditions that are shown to lead people to insanity and extreme discomfort. How is this a good idea in any way? What's so great about having someone like that still alive? I don't get it. It makes absolutely no sense to me.

[quote=TrueAtheist] I highly doubt there are that very many cases, if any at all where a prisoner acted out violently killing people, and then they didn't do much about it and he was able to do it repeatedly again.[/quote]

My point isn't "there isn't much to keep them from doing it again" it's "if they would like to do it again" what's the point in having society maintain someone that wants to harm society?

[quote=WontPostMuch]I already said I don't support mandatory abortions. That doesn't make any sense. At the same time, I don't see how that's also a surefire way of knowing that someone will become a killer. There's plenty of people that been in those disadvantaged positions that have risen up. The point of my view isn't to stifle all life that [i]could[/i] pose a threat, it's to stifle those that [i]do[/i] pose a threat and have little to no chance of redemption.

Even a gang member isn't all bad. They're likely to show emotions for their victims or at least show some emotion, remorse, etc. These aren't the focus of what I meant. what I meant are those hardened gangbangers that are unremorseful of their acts, routinely put guards and other cellmates in danger, etc. It's a special type of person. Not the "I joined a gang because I had to do it to survive" type of story in which case they aren't totally damaged. The kind that enjoys the pain inflected on others and it [i]shows[/i].

I agree with you, the die is already cast for those people. All the more reason not to feel remorseful if they're gone. Hey, victim of your situation and everything but that doesn't change that they put many lives at risk and at that point, who cares? They are a victim of their own circumstance and all that, but I refuse to be a victim of their circumstances too.[/quote]

How do you measure 'little to no chance of redemption'? I don't think we have enough knowledge on the whole nature/nurture debate, environment versus genetics debate, to come to a definite conclusion.

But really how often does that happen? Say there's a gang member in prison and he sneaks in a pencil or something and flips out and stabs and kills two prison guards, action is definitely taken so that doesn't happen again, they'd give him one of those vests to restrain his arms and lock him up in solitary confinement or something. It still accomplishes the same goal without having to kill him. I highly doubt there are that very many cases, if any at all where a prisoner acted out violently killing people, and then they didn't do much about it and he was able to do it repeatedly again.

[quote=TrueAtheist]Say a baby is born in Detroit, in a neighborhood where gang violence is extremely prevalent. It is being born to a mother who was involved in gangs, and will be raised in a community that has virtually zero employment other than gang activity. For most of the major gangs in this community, initiation into said gang involves doing a drive-by shooting of a random neighborhood, and statistically these drive-by's usually result in the death of several innocent people.

Should that baby be aborted?[/quote]

I already said I don't support mandatory abortions. That doesn't make any sense. At the same time, I don't see how that's also a surefire way of knowing that someone will become a killer. There's plenty of people that been in those disadvantaged positions that have risen up. The point of my view isn't to stifle all life that [i]could[/i] pose a threat, it's to stifle those that [i]do[/i] pose a threat and have little to no chance of redemption.

Even a gang member isn't all bad. They're likely to show emotions for their victims or at least show some emotion, remorse, etc. These aren't the focus of what I meant. what I meant are those hardened gangbangers that are unremorseful of their acts, routinely put guards and other cellmates in danger, etc. It's a special type of person. Not the "I joined a gang because I had to do it to survive" type of story in which case they aren't totally damaged. The kind that enjoys the pain inflected on others and it [i]shows[/i].

I agree with you, the die is already cast for those people. All the more reason not to feel remorseful if they're gone. Hey, victim of your situation and everything but that doesn't change that they put many lives at risk and at that point, who cares? They are a victim of their own circumstance and all that, but I refuse to be a victim of their circumstances too.

[quote=WontPostMuch]Well there we go, that's why it was put in place. For especially heinous crimes or by repeat offenders. For people like myself, I really couldn't care less if someone was raised one way or another, what simply matters is if whether these people can handle themselves or will just be a burden for everyone involved. In my view too, why keep gang members that routinely harm other cell mates and put guards at risk around?

The die is already cast, according to your logic they can't change much and it's all set. Imo, you of all people should embrace the death penalty, haha. Of course, we wouldn't do this to every killer. Crimes of passion, even greedy people that poisoned relatives for insurance money are not likely to be huge threats to society, so whatever. But once you do hang around some seriously damaged people you just realize how they serve no real purpose and are seriously messed up.

The issue I would have with that is the mandatory abortion and the severe mental strain it could have on a mother. But if we can detect individuals that are likely to be violent, we could better prepare to deal with them. Maybe they can turn out to be okay and under proper inspection or w/e they can be raised right. Or we can detect early on that they're broken and well, I'd rather have a dead sociopath at an early age than a sociopath start killing and torturing young kids at an early age and traumatize families.

Honestly, I don't see how ridding ourselves of people that would victimize other members of society is more inhumane than just killing them before they lead an unsatisfied life being outcasted by society before finally harming some innocent victim. They are unhappy unless they are harming someone else, so what kind of life is it that their leading? And more importantly, how is it humane to keep them alive until they hurt someone else?[/quote]

Say a baby is born in Detroit, in a neighborhood where gang violence is extremely prevalent. It is being born to a mother who was involved in gangs, and will be raised in a community that has virtually zero employment other than gang activity. For most of the major gangs in this community, initiation into said gang involves doing a drive-by shooting of a random neighborhood, and statistically these drive-by's usually result in the death of several innocent people.

Should that baby be aborted? Since it is likely it will grow up to be a menace to society.

[quote=TrueAtheist]Well okay yeah, I suppose if a seriel killer is convicted beyond a drop of doubt, and if there's concrete/irrefutable evidence, and if they're crazy and would likely kill again, then I wouldn't really care if they disposed of 'em.

But like you said those are extreme cases and would by no means represent the majority of murder trials. So I'm not willing to say I'm "pro-death penalty", I'm still against it but I would allow it for the exceptions you described.[/quote]

Well there we go, that's why it was put in place. For especially heinous crimes or by repeat offenders. For people like myself, I really couldn't care less if someone was raised one way or another, what simply matters is if whether these people can handle themselves or will just be a burden for everyone involved. In my view too, why keep gang members that routinely harm other cell mates and put guards at risk around?

The die is already cast, according to your logic they can't change much and it's all set. Imo, you of all people should embrace the death penalty, haha. Of course, we wouldn't do this to every killer. Crimes of passion, even greedy people that poisoned relatives for insurance money are not likely to be huge threats to society, so whatever. But once you do hang around some seriously damaged people you just realize how they serve no real purpose and are seriously messed up.

[quote=TrueAtheist]
And that's quite an extreme view you hold there about the mental disorders, really interesting to think about though. But I would say why wait until that person is born and grown up? What if the sonogram of the fetus shows strong signs that the baby will be born with a mental disorder that commonly has violence/aggressive behavior associated with it, do you think we should just abort all those babies? Going down that line of reasoning would lead to a very extreme/harsh/inhumane society.[/quote]

The issue I would have with that is the mandatory abortion and the severe mental strain it could have on a mother. But if we can detect individuals that are likely to be violent, we could better prepare to deal with them. Maybe they can turn out to be okay and under proper inspection or w/e they can be raised right. Or we can detect early on that they're broken and well, I'd rather have a dead sociopath at an early age than a sociopath start killing and torturing young kids at an early age and traumatize families.

Honestly, I don't see how ridding ourselves of people that would victimize other members of society is more inhumane than just killing them before they lead an unsatisfied life being outcasted by society before finally harming some innocent victim. They are unhappy unless they are harming someone else, so what kind of life is it that their leading? And more importantly, how is it humane to keep them alive until they hurt someone else?

[quote=WontPostMuch]There's obviously a difference between crimes of passion and serial killers. Serial killers are scumbags and if they aren't showing any signs of change (like 99% of them) why keep them alive? What possible purpose does that serve anyone? They can get out, prisons aren't safe. They pose risks to guards. Other cellmates. Keeping them in solitary confinement only drives people to insanity and again, huge maintenance cost.

And hell, even if they won't kill again, if they are still bragging about the crime they've committed and still taunt the victim's families, who cares if they would kill again? They are awful people and they shouldn't be around. Hell, even if they are innocent of the crime they've confessed to but torment grieving families and take delight on it, what purpose does it serve society to keep someone like that around? I'm talking about extreme cases here. I don't think cases where things are sketchy should lead to immediate death penalties but there's others where there just shouldn't be much controversy either.
Yes, those most of all. People with mental disorders that are beyond redemption would in my view be best put to death. Those people especially cannot understand the rules of society, cannot possibly enter any societal contract or engage in social behavior. Therefore, they are of no use to society. What's the point in keeping them around, save for medical studies?

They have nothing in a world that's structured by society and won't feel anything from engaging with society or living in a world that's predominated by society. Nobody wins if they're around.

The cases I'm mostly talking about are people who are way too damaged to function properly in society to begin with. Talking about those that torture victims and take delight in that. People who are unrepentant about their deeds. A wrongly convicted citizen wouldn't be bragging about all the people he has killed, and even if he did, why keep someone around that would take pride in the number of (imaginary) people they've slayed?[/quote]

Well okay yeah, I suppose if a seriel killer is convicted beyond a drop of doubt, and if there's concrete/irrefutable evidence, and if they're crazy and would likely kill again, then I wouldn't really care if they disposed of 'em.

But like you said those are extreme cases and would by no means represent the majority of murder trials. So I'm not willing to say I'm "pro-death penalty", I'm still against it but I would allow it for the exceptions you described.

And that's quite an extreme view you hold there about the mental disorders, really interesting to think about though. But I would say why wait until that person is born and grown up? What if the sonogram of the fetus shows strong signs that the baby will be born with a mental disorder that commonly has violence/aggressive behavior associated with it, do you think we should just abort all those babies? Going down that line of reasoning would lead to a very extreme/harsh/inhumane society.

[quote=TrueAtheist]Are you sure they pose a risk though? How do you know they will kill again? There's a wide range of people who can commit homicide, from a wife who kills her abusive husband to a serial killer who kills for fun. By law both would still be considered 1st degree murder.[/quote]

There's obviously a difference between crimes of passion and serial killers. Serial killers are scumbags and if they aren't showing any signs of change (like 99% of them) why keep them alive? What possible purpose does that serve anyone? They can get out, prison breaks aren't something new. They pose risks to guards. Other cellmates. Keeping them in solitary confinement only drives people to insanity and again, huge maintenance cost.

And hell, even if they won't kill again, if they are still bragging about the crime they've committed and still taunt the victim's families, who cares if they would kill again? They are awful people and they shouldn't be around. Hell, even if they are innocent of the crime they've confessed to but torment grieving families and take delight on it, what purpose does it serve society to keep someone like that around? I'm talking about extreme cases here. I don't think cases where things are sketchy should lead to immediate death penalties but there's others where there just shouldn't be much controversy either.

[quote=TrueAtheist]Also where do you draw the line? Do you think society should just start killing off the people who pose a threat? There are people with mental disorders which cause them to behave violently and irrationally as well, do you think we should kill off all those people too since they pose a risk to us "normal" people?[/quote]

Yes, those most of all. People with mental disorders that are beyond redemption would in my view be best put to death. Those people especially cannot understand the rules of society, cannot possibly enter any societal contract or engage in social behavior. Therefore, they are of no use to society. What's the point in keeping them around, save for medical studies?

They have nothing in a world that's structured by society and won't feel anything from engaging with society or living in a world that's predominated by society. Nobody wins if they're around.

[quote=MsDit]That's not the issue, the issue (one of them) is the uncertainty of convicting an innocent citizen, nothing can fix that. And while years of prison cannot be taken back either, at least the accused is still alive.[/quote]

The cases I'm mostly talking about are people who are way too damaged to function properly in society to begin with. Talking about those that torture victims and take delight in that. People who are unrepentant about their deeds. A wrongly convicted citizen wouldn't be bragging about all the people he has killed, and even if he did, why keep someone around that would take pride in the number of (imaginary) people they've slayed?

[quote=WontPostMuch]I don't get why killing sociopaths and the like isn't a viable option. Life imprisonment doesn't benefit anyone. It's a burden to society, these people won't reform (ofc they'd have to show it in their actions. Say a killer that regularly beats other prisoners, etc.) and keeping them alive serves no purpose. Even if the criminal finds happiness in prison, I don't see why that'd mean society should preserve his life. It's w/e.

Idc about choices and predeterminism or w/e. What I do care about is that these people pose a risk to others (be it via escape or to other, less dangerous criminals) and as a matter of pragmatism their life is useless. Society is pretty much just a structure of rules and these people will never abide by them, so why should society have to deal with them, let alone maintain them? Makes no sense imo.[/quote]

Are you sure they pose a risk though? How do you know they will kill again? There's a wide range of people who can commit homicide, from a wife who kills her abusive husband to a serial killer who kills for fun. By law both would still be considered 1st degree murder.

Also where do you draw the line? Do you think society should just start killing off the people who pose a threat? There are people with mental disorders which cause them to behave violently and irrationally as well, do you think we should kill off all those people too since they pose a risk to us "normal" people?

[quote=TrueAtheist]I'm against the death penalty because I don't believe in absolute free will. Neurology shows us cause and effect relationships, and I would posit that anyone who grew up in the exact same environment, around the exact same people, experiencing the exact same things as a murder, and had the same exact mental state at the moment of the crime, would by deterministic principles lead them to commit the same act. Even if the you don't want to go that far, it would be foolish not to admit that said predispositions would significantly affect your likelihood of committing such violent acts.

But at the same time I'm also a realist, we do not currently have fool-proof ways that guarantee healthy rehabilitation, so practically speaking until such medical or therapeutic possibilities exist we have to protect society from people who are dangerous, and the only way of doing that is either imprisonment or the death penalty. So in analyzing these two options and considering the current state of affairs and cost management life imprisonment is still the best option.[/quote]

I don't get why killing sociopaths and the like isn't a viable option. Life imprisonment doesn't benefit anyone. It's a burden to society, these people won't reform (ofc they'd have to show it in their actions. Say a killer that regularly beats other prisoners, etc.) and keeping them alive serves no purpose. Even if the criminal finds happiness in prison, I don't see why that'd mean society should preserve his life. It's w/e.

Idc about choices and predeterminism or w/e. What I do care about is that these people pose a risk to others (be it via escape or to other, less dangerous criminals) and as a matter of pragmatism their life is useless. Society is pretty much just a structure of rules and these people will never abide by them, so why should society have to deal with them, let alone maintain them? Makes no sense imo.

I'm against the death penalty because I don't believe in absolute free will. Neurology shows us cause and effect relationships, and I would posit that anyone who grew up in the exact same environment, around the exact same people, experiencing the exact same things as a murderer, and had the same exact mental state at the moment of the crime, would by deterministic principles lead them to commit the same act. Even if the you don't want to go that far, it would be foolish not to admit that said predispositions would significantly affect your likelihood of committing such violent acts.

But at the same time I'm also a realist, we do not currently have fool-proof ways that guarantee healthy rehabilitation, so practically speaking until such medical or therapeutic possibilities exist we have to protect society from people who are dangerous, and the only way of doing that is either imprisonment or the death penalty. So in analyzing these two options and considering the current state of affairs and cost management life imprisonment is still the best option.

The death penalty should be the choice of the defendant. They can choose life in prison, or no life. If they are innocent, then they will still have a chance for freedom.

[quote=Snovvy]@metaghost4: It has mostly to do with court costs. Hence why if cut costs, then we have a terrible track record for executing the right person.[/quote]

It's so stupid. If someone has confessed to the crime and is legit a socially screwed up person, we have video evidence or other near conclusive evidence of their wrong-doing or are just making trouble, why bother with endless court dates? It's ridiculous. Just reform the stupid appeals process and start saving money.

[quote=Casey]I say they change it to the yolo penalty.[/quote]

I see what you did there.

[quote=Casey]I say they change it to the yolo penalty.[/quote]

SaMe
#yoloswag

I say they change it to the yolo penalty.

Depends. If it's a one-time offender, like if they accidentally killed a stranger or something, then jail should be sufficient. But if it's like a serial rapist or murderer then to the chair with them!

no because going through all the work in putting a man to death takes up so much money.... better to just put them to life in prison

let em' die!

off with their heads!

Yeah, some people suck, will never change and there's no point in keeping them alive (srs)