by Amazing 272 Replies latest jw friends
Hello undecided,
What do you mean you have committed no crime?
Your first parents were guilty of trying to obtain wisdom.
This was a crime punishable by death. They were forewarned.
This is why the WTBS makes it a crime to try to obtain wisdom through publications other than theirs.
If you read this material, you will be sentenced to psychological death.
JRP
If I wanted your opinion, I would beat it out of you (seen in a bumper sticker)
JanH,
If you think the death penalty deters horrible crimes: why is the US both the only nation in the western world with the death penalty and by far the country with the highest crime rate?Read your money "In God We Trust"
JRP
If I wanted your opinion, I would beat it out of you (seen in a bumper sticker)
Dear Englishman:
This will probably be my last post on this thread, because these social issues are like trinitarian debates, they go round and round and accomplish little.
It does seem that the more fundamentalist a society is in terms of its religion the more vigorously it enforces 'punishment' for breaking that society's laws e.g. capital punishment.How nice for criminals.A more liberal and less fundamentalist society tends to be more tolerant and recognises individuality and diversity. These societies are usually 'softer' in their treatment of criminals.
Let us assume for this topic that your observation is correct about the U.S. being more "fundamentalist" than other societies; therefore relating "fundamentalism" to "capital punishment".
Would it likewise be fair to relate a nation's "fundamentalism" to its scientific and academic achievements?
So, why is this? It could be because religious fundamentalism demands a mental and emotional rigidity that requires regulated and obedient behaviour from everyone. People who do not follow a rigid religious doctrine have the capacity to believe people can change and would rather educate than punish. They would rather that people saw the sense in following laws than instil fear or social retribution e.g. capital punishment.You're right. If a sane human being of normal intelligence does not intuitively understand why they should not murder, torture, rape, or otherwise brutalize other people, I personally don't see how leniency would educate them, or what the redeeming value would be for the effort--especially from the perspective on non-religious thinkers.
When I hear that religions condone capital punishment I question whether they are really serving their God or whether they are merely aligning with social leaders to control their society. Marx may have had a point. Religious organisations are more to do with man and power here on earth than with spiritual issues. The Bible I know is full of contradictions, but few Christians would disagree that love and forgiveness is an overriding theme. Capital punishment is unforgiving, it is judgemental, it is final, and it is about man - not God.Well, I can agree with you on this one, Englishman, up to a point. However, its my impression that most religions, and in fact many of the religious people I know, oppose capital punishment. I admit that the ONLY justification I can think of for not imposing capital punishment for guilt-proven sadistic murderers is if one believes that it gives the killer a chance to "repent and get saved", believing that is the will of God. In fact, if I were not religious, I would probably be or support vigilantism. The compassion of non-religious people toward these beasts baffles me.
You still haven't responded to my question about killing for your country (war).
Ros
"A religion that teaches lies cannot be true"--The Watchtower, 12/1/91 pg. 7
Ros,
I take your point about a discussion that can finish up just going round in circles, I guess that I'm wearying of this one somewhat.
I don't know how I would re-act if I was called on to fight for my country. My grandfather fought in the trenches in WW1, my father was an RAF bomb-aimer in WW2. They were both affected by their experiences. I know that when England re-took the Falklands from Argentina I was busting a gut to go. Now I think that I would not be so taken in by Nationalist hype. I'm too old now anyway.
Re China, no, it isn't a religious society, but it doesn't claim to be a compassionate country either. My point is that religious societies as a whole are amongst the most judgemental and punishing groups in any country. There's something of the old "eye for an eye" about them.
I'm not going to comment further on this subject unless it takes a fresh direction, I'm very much aware that I live where there is no capital punishment and it's easy to criticise from afar.
Englishman.
..... fanaticism masquerading beneath a cloak of reasoned logic.
I'd just like to butt in and respond to Jelly's good questions.
1) It could be said that in China, communism is a religion. People live their lives according to it's dictates, and they put faith in it to improve and regulate their lives. China has replaced a supernatural god with the communist party; a priesthood with communist party officials etc etc. Looked at this way, China is indeed a very religious fundamentalist country, hence the adherence to the death penalty.
2) The Catholic church is against the death penalty now. But Catholicism has a very long history, and for most of it they have been extremely enthusiastic practitioners of the death penalty. As Western society has become more enlightened and religion has lost relevance and power, so the Catholic church has been forced to conform to more enlightened standards in an effort to preserve it's position. This applies to most western religions as well.
As for killing for ones country. If it is necessary in the last resort to do so to protect your country against aggression and pillage by another state, then imo, it is justified as self defence in extremis. This is not an applicable parrallel to the McVeigh situation however, or to the death sentence in general, since criminals are no longer a threat to the security of the state or it's inhabitants at the time they are sentenced to death.
Expatbrit.
hmmm well after reading this, I'm sticking with my origianl statement!
Ven
Hello, Expatbrit:
As for killing for ones country. If it is necessary in the last resort to do so to protect your country against aggression and pillage by another state, then imo, it is justified as self defence in extremis.Religion is not the only thing that brainwashes. It has a way to go to catch up with nationalism.
This is not an applicable parrallel to the McVeigh situation however, or to the death sentence in general, since criminals are no longer a threat to the security of the state or it's inhabitants at the time they are sentenced to death.Balony! Even most first-degree murderers can apply for paro--and can be granted it-- after a mere 7 years in the US. Read COMF's post about prisoner's on the first or second page.
Ros
"A religion that teaches lies cannot be true"--The Watchtower, 12/1/91 pg. 7
Hi Ros:
In war you may be killing decent people with families, not sadist killers.Quite true. However my comments were specifically to do with the case of an unprovoked attack by one state upon another. In which case killing in self defence is imo justifiable.
Even most first-degree murderers can apply for paro--and can be granted it-- after a mere 7 yearsThen perhaps the US system of incarceration needs work?
Expatbrit
Six of nine,
You seem to be suggesting that by saying that society has become as low as mcveigh by killing him, that i am just trying to win an argument. You say 'i don't even believe it for a second'.
You are wrong....by killing another human for whatever reason, we are as bad as this man. There are many arguments as to why we should pass the death penalty. But the bottom line is we have no right. Please do not think i am condoning what he has done....please do not think that i find his act as abhorant as you do....but we do not and should not sink as low.
Amazing ,
you said that the death penalty for you is not about deterrance or vengeance, but merely justice...
In a court of law, when the judge passes his/her sentence, he/she bases it upon justice...their measure for justice is balanced between deterrance and punitive....or punishment for the act (namely vengeance). Therefore the death penalty in this case is based upon those two things. To further add to this line of argument, years ago (and still in some countries)the death penalty was carried out in public....the body then dismembered (hung, drawn and quatered)....all of this done in public....to act as a deterrance!!.....the death penalty is about deterrance, it is about vengeance and nothing else.
I forget who it was that said that one can tell more about a society, as to how it deals with it's deviants....than anything else.
The death penalty for me tells me more about the society of in this case the USA state....than it does about justice.
Yours dig
Think not about trying to add days to your life, but instead think about adding life to your days.
Hi JanH: I have not visited this post and realized I did not respond to your last comment to me.
You said, "You merely assert that somehow, the state killing a criminal is "justice". You have not demonstrated this."
Correct, I made an assertion without demonstration. It was not my intention to demonstrate or prove anything. I was stating my belief, opinion, and view, which for anyone most often involves a measure of assertion.
You continued, "Justice is not any objective standard. It is a matter of individual feelings. It is, when we talk about punishment, nothing but revenge."
I disagree. If I steal $10 from you, then I should be made to pay it back plus your costs. That is a very simple illustration of an objective standard. As crimes escalate upward they often get more difficult and complex, and it becomes equally as difficult to apply an objective standard. Nevertheless, you make a mere assertion as I have done.
You continued, "In the US, I have seen evidence that you want punishment to be revenge. The role of the victims' families in punishment is one example."
Again, you make an asertion, but where is the onbjective evidence that proves your point?
You continued, "It is true that prison is cruel. However, if it wasn't a negative side to it, it would not be a deterrent."
Prison is not a deterant. The death penalty is not a deterant. Laws against crime are not a deterant. Laws are the means by which the people elect to deal with other people who do not respect and treat others kindly. Example: If there were no law against murder, then the vast majoriuty of people who have never committed murder would likely not suddenly go murder. Why? because they do not need a law to keep them from that act.
Without such a law, however, those who commit murder would have free reign. Again, The purpose of the law is to provide a mechanism, a vehicle in which to deal with people who commit murder. It is not about revenge, it is not about deterence, it is not about being mean. It is about security and justice.
You continued, "But you need not have the "prisoners create their own hell" prison system like you have in the US, where guards use gang rape as a means for internal "discipline"."
I am not sure what TV shows you watch on this, but normally guards do not use rape to control prisoners. Prisoners use rape to satisfy their warped sense of power and sexual drive. The prison system as we know it here in the USA and many other nations is wrong.
You continued, "It is true that some extremely few individuals are too dangerous to let go. It is not at all necessary to kill people for this purpose."
I must digress here and agree with you in part. I believe that we need to revisit our entire criminal justice system including the basis of many laws. Somehow many American laws have been created more to control than to truly met out justice. For example, I believe we need to find another model to deal with drug abuse, beside jailing such people. I believe that we need way more by way of counseling and rehabilitation.
That said, I do not want the Mr. McVeigh types locked up for life doing no one any good. Being in prison he is as good as dead. Even if he 'repents' what good does it do? What is he going to do? get out of jail and live a normal life because he suddenly feels sorry? Why be so cruel and lock these people up? In cases like his, just mercifully put them to sleep.
You said, "The best argument against the death penalty is the chance of error. The legal system has been demonstrated to be horribly inept at establishing facts in a criminal case. And the reference to the DNA testing leading to some people being released just demonstrates my point: courts are incompetent."
In my post, and comments, I agreed with Gov. Ryan of Illinois for suspending the death penalty in Illinois because so many errors were made, but there is a distinct reason for this, and I will get into it following your next point.
You continued, "When a new scientific method comes along, a lot of people who were convicted by juries of their peers are released. What does it tell us? That juries can't establish facts, especially not in highly emotional cases. If 1/3rd or whatever of those in death row were released, it is not unreasonable to assume that if the new tests had not come along, the majority of those -- if not all -- would have been executed. Also, this means that it is a reasonable conclusion that a comparable proportion of those executed in the US since 1973 was actually innocent."
Yes, you are correct, or at least I agree with you. But again, my point is not about these types of cases.
You continued, "When you are sawying "people should not be executed unless you are 100% sure" you say nothing at all. It is an established principle of all legal systems that there should be no unreasonable doubt for anyone to be found guilty, whatever the crime or punishment. Yet, as we see demonstrated again and again, it doesn't work."
You miss my point. The 'reasonable Doubt' rule is not about 100% certainty, such as 'beyond a shadow of a doubt.' The standard is high, but admittedly errors can be made, and in this I believe that the death penalty needs to be kept in restraint. What I said was, and you rightly quoted was 100%. IN those cases, DNA or other means are not necessary to establish guilt. McVeigh proudly admitted guilt with no remorse. That is an example of a 100% standard! That means that no error will be made when they inject the lethal shot to put the man to sleep.
You continued, "And when an imprisoned person is found innocent, he can be given some sort of compensation and released. When an executed person is found innocent, all you can do is rebury him. I am quite sure he appreciates that!"
IN those cases where 100% certainty is not available, I have already agreed that the death penalty should not be used. And if found innocent, then by all means I agree with your compensation suggestion. I will go one further, I believe that when a person has been out of prison for some time, they should be allowed to have their conviction erased so that they can have full restoration of their dignity and name. As it stands, once a conviction is one your name, you always have to explain it away. And it cost people jobs and growth.
You quoted me:--------------------------------------------------------
Compoaring the USA to China, Iran, Iraq is utterly absurd. Those nations kill at the drop of a hat, and for mere political dissidence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You then say, "So does the US."
That is utterly false, and you should know better than to make such absurd statements.
You continued, "The crime of espionage is a political one.
Surely, there are countries that are worse than the US. I am sure it is a source of great comfort to you knowing it is possible to find countries like Iraq, China and Saudi Arabia, that actually manage to do it worse."
There is no comfort. The comparison is absurd and not feasible. The USA goes to great lengths to assure a fair trial for serious crimes. Whereas in Iran if you are caught stealing you get your finger or even hand cut off. If you commit adultery, you get stoned to death. Yes, the crimes rates in those nations is low because people are scared shitless because they are so brutal. But even this brutality does not totally deter crime there, because point in fact, they exercise those means to punish people.
You continued, "One should hope, futile I see, that you would consider it better to be aligned with countries like France or Holland than to struggle to avoid comparison to Afghanistan."
I see no struggle to avoid any comparison. The comparison in my opinion is absurd in the first place. Also, my ancestors left places like France and Holland and England to establish a better place, and a place that I feel proud of today. The USA is not perfect, and other nations at times do some things better. But, I am not struggling in any sense of the word. I am in shock that you are able to struggle to try and compare the USA to China and Iraq.
You said, "According to Amnesty, in 2000 88% of known executions took place in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the USA. China is in a class of its own, killing more than 1000 people. Saudi-Arabia is known to have executed 123. The US executed 85. Iran killed at least 75 people."
The size of these nations might affect the numerical ratios. But that is really immaterial to this discussion. China rolls over political dissidents with tanks. That does not happen here. China's criminal justice system is almost non-existent by any reasonable standard. The USA does execute, but for far different reasons, and with far greater protection to the accused.
You said, "You are indeed in good company."
Again, the USA is not in company with those nations.
You continued, "When it comes to executing children, you really show your true colors when it comes to human rights. From Amnesty:
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seven countries since 1990 are known to have executed prisoners who were under 18 years old at the time of the crime - Congo (Democratic Republic), Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, USA and Yemen. The country which carried out the greatest number of known executions of child offenders was the USA (14 since 1990).
----------------------------------------------------------------------"
Nice quote. PLease provide the specific names, ages, states, and nature of the crimes where children in the USA under 18 years of age were executed - including specific dates.
You continued, "More and more countries have been abolishing the death penalty. Only a few hardline nations insist that their state should have the right to kill its own citizens in peacetime."
Each nation has its own way. Abolition of the death penalty, in and of itself proves nothing with respect to civility. The basis for its use is another matter. The USA takes strong measures to protect the accused. Admittedly errors are made, and in that I have already agreed that the death penalty should be suspended except in cases where 100% certainty is assured - such as the bold, proud, heartless admission of Mr. McVeigh, who murdered 168 men, women, children and babies.
You concluded, "Given the facts outlined earlier, demonstrating the gross erros of the US legal system, it is laughable when you claim defendents are better defended in the US than in these 3rd world countries. Ninety innocent people have been released from death row in the US. How can any country have a worse track record? Flipping a coin to establish guilt?"
You said the key words ... 90% have been released from death row in the USA! By your own admission you clearly make my point that we are a just, reasonable, and common sense nation. We are also humble enough to admit error, and we are willing to correct these. So, rather than being laughable as you assert, we are leading the world in a just system. Does it need improvement? Yes! Point already agreed to. But, you attempt to class the USA in with China is absurd and stretching your argument where the evidence and facts do not fit. Nice try. - Amazing
- Jan
