I did say I support the death penalty more than others in this thread but I don't actually believe in it. I don't hate it as a supposed "barbaric" institution but I don't think it should be used. Playing the devil's advocate and I confuse even myself
To be honest, i shouldn't speak for other people, but i reckon the issue of the death penalty screws with most peoples heads. I hate the idea of them, but on one hand some people are better off getting out the easy way.
I recently watched In the Name of the Father (1993) and Conviction (2010) both of which are based on major miscarriages of justice in the UK and US. I was against the death penalty beforehand but watching these films really brings home the excruciating fallibility of the investigators and courts.
it is an issue and i'm aware that certain kind people (i.e., black, brown, poor) tend to be unjustly convicted more often than the rest of the population just because of the general prejudices against them. what i stated had to do with the concept of death penalty itself, though. i think most of evolutionary psychology is crap, personally, and i don't believe that everyone--or as studies like this often like to say, "most" people--has the same reaction to the same situation. this study just reminds me of one study i read on a "pro-life" website once about how women who've had abortion are depressed, overwhelmed by guilt, etc.--which we ALL know just isn't true. some women DO feel that way, but others don't. by the same token, some people DO feel even worse after a revenge, others don't. using a recent event as an example, the father of meredith kercher feels pretty good once amanda knox (and raffaele sollecito) was convicted. it doesn't matter if amanda (and raffaele) didn't actually do it--as long as he's convinced that she was involved AND as long as she stays in prison he would feel that justice has been served. conversely, if amanda ever gets out earlier than she's supposed to, he's going to be more upset than ever. for a personal reason, i prefer to forgive, forget, or at least let things go and not make much fuss over things i have no control over. i don't, however, expect everyone to think or behave the way i do--at least not immediately after they find out their loved ones have been brutally murdered--and if i were in charge of someone who's been proven to be guilty of something like this i would definitely order that he be killed. the family/friends of the victims may not find catharsis at the murderer's execution, but it's only when he's dead can they begin to find their way there. anyway, i really don't see any point in keeping a proven murderer alive just so we can feel superior to the rest of the animals. the world has a population of almost 7 billion people. the value of some people's lives are worth less than others'.
The death penalty has been around since we've been caveman in some form or another. it's just the world we live in these days (Westerns). If someone doesn't agree with it and voices their opinion, people try to change it. (Not that i agree with this).
I'm the same as Lemex. Changed from not liking capital punishment, to liking the idea of it more. Why? Because when I was 6, my Aunty was murdered. The murderer showed no remorse at all, even boasted about all the sickening things he did to her corpse. And it isn't just this situation that makes me sway to the other side either. There are numerous cases just the same. It saddens me that there are people out there who are proud of their murdering sprees, etc. In my Aunt's case, the murderer, her ex husband and father to her children, was given a mandatory life sentence WITHOUT parole. He was given parole 6 - 7 years later, has seen his grandchildren, seen his own children grow up and have families, etc, while my poor Aunt was never given the chance to see any of this. Her children were her life and she never got to stay to watch them grow. I don't see why he should be allowed to see the beauty in life when she can not. It is unjust in my opinion. As for the original question about contacting a prisoner. I would not feel happy with a minor contacting such a person, but I personally would do it if I wanted to do it. If a minor were genuinely wanting to, they should have to do it with parental permission and the parents should have to see all communications back and forth. It is much safer that way.
It's the no remorse part from these people, that I'm for it. Sounds like an old fart, but seems to be a lot of people doing stupid things (not just murder) that have no remorse whatsoever. And i hate that. What i liked about America too, is that those that are underaged can suffer these consequences too. Saw the other day, 2 teens killed a pizza delivery man for the fun of it. Totally didnt care either. it was as if it was pure sport for them.
But at the same time, a prisoner should NOT be permitted to have any contact with the outside world. They have been removed from society for a reason and should NOT be permitted to have anything to do with society. I think it is very poor judgment on the systems behalf for allowing this man contact with the outside world in any way. You aren't put in a prison cell to play around online, or to have a free ride, you are in prison to be punished for a crime you committed. Allowing this person to converse with the outside world is just sheer stupidity and lessening his suffrage for the crimes he has committed, even if the people who contact him only give him abuse, whatever, it can still be a privilege/pleasurable thing for someone who has been locked away for a lengthy period just to have contact with the outside world.
Torana Clearly, this is a source of personal pain for you, and that changes your perspective, which I can understand. However, if a killer gets parole after an insufficient number of years, that is a flaw within the justice system of that particular nation - it's not an argument that strengthens the case for capital punishment in my opinion. As for taking away contact with the outside world, letter writing, internet etc - why? Unless you are purely motivated by revenge and want this person to suffer as much as possible. For me, the removal of my liberty would be the greatest imaginable long-term punishment. I have mentioned in a previous post on this thread how, in my native country, there are at least a couple of high profile killers who have found rehabilitation, and who are now free, and do charity work and help to influence young offenders etc. They are now very worthwhile members of society who had lost their liberty for a long period and who now feel remorse for what they did. But these people could not have educated and improved themselves in prison if they had been denied outside contact and access to books etc - a role which is largely played by the internet in the 21st Century. Nothing that happens to a murderer can bring back the loved one that he has taken away. Making him suffer for every moment of his remaining life and never releasing him achieves absolutely nothing. Showing him humanity, encouraging him to improve himself, and eventually, if it is deemed appropriate, releasing him back into society to play a positive part is far more worthwhile.
This is also a very good point. I think punishment of all kinds is a tricky subject. Societies, especially small societies are pretty good indications that Evolutionary Psychology is accurate on at least some level. Say if 100 people seen the same crime chances are most people wouldn't do anything because everyone would assume that someone else would step in. The lesser the crowd, the more the chance of someone intervening. So, you think that Human beings should try to ignore their most primal desires and emotions? Interesting. Why?
I just don't see why people consider humanity to be somehow above the animal kingdom, and be disguised by some of the things we do as a species. In the words of Christopher Hitchens: 'our problem is this: our prefrontal lopes are too small, and our adrenaline glands are too big, and our thumb/finger opposition isn’t all it might be; and we are afraid of the dark, and we are afraid to die.'
To hell with it then - free for all! Lock up your daughters! Get the guns at the ready! Sorry for being facetious. I really don't understand your point.
No not really. Thats was a 18th and 19th century theory. If you look into it society is based on or very hardwired instincts of cooperation, empathy, taking care of each other, etc. Society isn't about based on ignoring primal desires, but are based on going along with them. We are hardwired on being mostly nice, cooperating and taking care of each other. Violence, etc is the exception, not the rule.
True. I suppose society is based on socialising an element of society who can't control our primal desires. That's another pandora's box that I won't get into...!
My point is, humans are a race of animal. Poorly evolved, not perfect, sometimes overly ignorant, and overly aggressive. My point is; humans are not on a pedestal over all other species in the animal kingdom, we should accept our limitations, instead of acting like we are something better than we are. It's why I question the whole idea behind sentences like 'this should not happen in this day and age! Not in our rational, sensible 21st century minds!' I don't know how else to put it.
That's possibly the most pessimistic statement I've heard in all my life! Martin Luther King et al will be turning in their graves.
I fail to see why that is pessimistic. If anything I would say I'm rather hopeful we can learn to deal with our animal nature, and become something better eventually. I don't think - though - that it will be a simple case of a change in the zeitgeist.
Because humans can still can be amazingly aggressive and ignorant. I don't think a change in the zeitgeist will just instantly make everything better. Take slavery, for example. In the early years of civilization it was acceptable (even in the bible) but there has been a massive shift in opinion over the past 400 years, but yet slavery still exists.
In debates i always reach an impasse with people who are proponents of the status quo. I don't respect the "things are just the way they are there's nothing we can do" position. It is pessimistic and very much ignores the success of populist movements for progress - civil rights movement and votes for women. You spectacularly undermine this by calling it 'zeitgeist'.
But racism and inequality still exist. Zeitgeist just means 'Spirit of the times': racism for example is today not very socially acceptable; it was, not a very long time ago, and racism still exists and is still fine in some circles. Those circles have not changed because of the change in the zeitgeist, so why should we expect this change in opinion to be a very powerful force straight away? A change in opinion does not make a problem go away.
I think as long as we can look at methods of execution in some extreme Muslim states, such as stoning, and think of them as barbaric, then it demonstrates that we aspire to rise above a certain level of behaviour and a certain level of "justice", so I certainly don't agree with the whole "know your limitations" argument. I just see the wilful taking of someone's life against their will by electric chair, lethal injection etc, as another example of such barbarism. We simply pat our backs and tell ourselves that it's a more civilized and "humane" way of doing it, but we should strive for better, which for me is not killing them at all. And don't even get me started on the fact that a lot of these guys can serve 10-15 years in prison, with the spectre of their death hanging constantly over them - a sentence in itself - and then get marched away to be executed. To me that is just plain wrong.
I know what zeitgeist means and I think it's a tacky word for this debate. It's usually said by pretentious journos to talk about the 'cultural zeitgeist' of some obscure hipster band. I still don't understand your point in defending the status quo. So we shouldn't discourage racism because it has always existed? @Halcyon - I agree with you. I think Death Row is the biggest punishment of all.