by Valis 65 Replies latest social current
If we are allowed to incarcerate people based only upon our need for protection, then all people perceived as dangerous--whether they have actually committed a crime or not--are susceptible to be arrested.
Justice is a consequence, not a prevention. Societies and individuals have differing opinions as to what is a just consequence.
bebu
Bebu,
Protectory measures (mandatory treatment, visit restrictions etc.) are taken every day toward people who haven't (yet) killed anybody. Protection is a social necessity. And what you imply is that this is completely distinct from justice which refers to an already committed crime. I agree. Now read the posts above and see that most death penalty advocates actually argue from the need of protection. You have demonstrated that this argument is not valid.
Now what is justice supposed to do? From recent collective examples (South Africa, Rwanda) it appears that its main utility is trying to express the truth of what happened, and work for social reconciliation. This is a difficult task and may take years, inasmuch as justice has to take into account both the culprit's guilt and the victims (or their relatives)' claim for vengeance. Only the latter calls for "punishment". In every civilisation justice mediates and temperates vengeance. Some people would torture the killer to a slow death, others would forgive, but justice allows neither. What justice decides is the result of some political and general negotiation (the penal law). In some countries it still implies the death penalty, in others it doesn't. What is at stake, imo, is how a society as a whole (not this particular victim) considers "vengeance". Political decisions on this matter include both a consideration of public opinion and a political will to make public opinion evolve. When the death penalty was abolished in France, a majority of people was favorable to the death penalty. In time, with the actual experience of the positive effect of abolition on crime statistics, very few people would ask for it.
I personally believe violence (including State violence) fosters violence: eye for eye and the world will go blind.
Nark & Magoogle,
I have to agree,,this need for vengence (or to punish) is not justice,,(justice ????), it is merely a twisted feeling of gratification,,it is a sick pleasure. Now just because i say this,, does not mean I have no desires for vengence, or to punish some one,,it means that I don't usaully give into the desire when ever it comes,, or sneaks up on me because I view it as not good.
I have been conditioned by patriotism to view my country first,, that we fight just wars and are told we are the "good guys" . We have been conditioned by the society in which we live to view punishing a person with death is okay as long as he deserves it. I can see where this punishment concept is learned from infancy,, many parents disipline thier children for good reasons and sometime may go a little over board and beat the crap out of them to make themselves feel better because in there eyes for that moment the child really deserved it and so they got gratification while hitting or punishing. And when the anger goes away they feel bad because now they have created of gap between themselves and the child.
I'm rambling I know I just can't seem to get more to the point of the beastly quality of punishment,,we are evolving and I think in the future man will look back and say we were a violent bunch,,the same way we today look at the stonings of persons for religious reason.
I live in Texas where we actually execute those criminals convicted and sentenced to death. I think that the death penalty is fine when it's administered sometime near the actual conviction. 20 years on death row may seem awful but it's still 20 years of living("better to be a live dog than a dead lion." Proverbs somewhere) And criminals, especially young ones get all kinds of attention from women outside the prison. Peterson may even get married in prison! Heck he might even get a PhD in something related to horse manure.
My preference for Peterson would have been life w/o parole and then see how long he would last in gen-pop. Now that would've been better than his whiny face showing up every now and then on the news. BTW he still claims he's innocent and the pirate smurfs did it.
From what I saw of him, he was emotionless and expressionless. Another moron. What did he expect to gain from all this, fame but not death? "Vanity my favorite sin."
Continuing the off topic discussion on the death penalty...
Even if you believe in execution as a penalty for certain crimes, as long as it is administered in a country where innocent people are set up to receive it ... How on earth can you justify it?
Illinois - case in point: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/01/31/illinois.executions.02/
We live in a corrupt society. There is no possibility of 100% accuracy, honesty, fair application of this penalty. All civilized societies in the world have recognized the fact that they will also have this element of corruptness existent in their government and its institutions. Disregarding any debates as to the morality of the death penalty ------ the fact that it cannot be fairly administered should be reason enough to abolish it.
My question to you (those who do support the death penalty): How many innocents condemned to die are acceptable to you in order to support your position?
We could always reopen places like Alcatraz and only put murderers and child molesters there. Then you let them have the run of the place and finish each other off. No death penalty, just letting the "innocent" deal with each other.
Sincerely,
District Overbeer
My comments regarding *innocent* had nothing to do with Scot Peterson, Valis. If you believe that all people on death row are guilty, you've got your head in the sand.
Biscuits...I know what you are saying and I took a shower a couple days ago so there shouldn't be too much sand honest..Here in texas they kill people on death row really fast. The problem I see is that yes, we have old cases where the evidence couldn't be scrutinized by DNA matching and other forensic evidence. I agree there should be a moritorium on executions that involve old cases where new science might lead to differing verdicts. However, if you have someone today that is convicted on solid evidence backed up by a guilty verdict I think is different and should not be viewed like the old cases. Where the line would be drawn I dunno. Just some thoughts.
Sincerely,
District Overbeer
Val-guess I was a bit snide in my retort.
But honestly ... I agree that our science is much better than before. But with corrupt cops and prosecutors who have been shown to be willing to do most anything to convict someone or close a case (yes even *gasp* plant evidence) ... as was seen in Illinois, my point is that as long as there is not a perfect system ... where the death penalty is involved, the price is too great.
And to me that means, that even if some guilty individuals are NOT put to death, if it saves even ONE innocent individual ... then we cannot afford to have the penalty in place.
As I said, to me this is just from a legalistic point of view, not moral.
