by Elsewhere 149 Replies latest jw friends
happy new year BTW and hope you had a great xmas and enjoyed The Plaza lights
Happy new year, Stillajwexelder! The Plaza lights are lovely. I see them most every night since I work at the art gallery down there.
Do drop in when you can. We'll toast the new beginnings of a new year.
Hugs,
Robyn
Of course, the abstracted argument is different from the real-world one. Accepting the death penalty as neccesary in cases where there is absolute proof the person being executed did it is one thing; absolute proof is only available in a minority of cases.
- In the USA a disturbingly high number of death-row prisoners who have their cases independantly scrutinised show severe miscarriages of justice.
- These include a failure to investigate evidence which would have cleared the suspect.
- A black person is far more likely to be executed for the exact same murder than a white person
Believe it or not, i actually agree with you on this part of it. Our judicial system sucks. Most do. I am talking about the abstracted view, and I would prefer the death penalty happened only with solid DNA evidence. Such as the man who kidnapped a five year old girl, raped her repeatedly and killed her. They found his DNA in the girl.
I don't want him killed slow. Or tortured. Just off the playing field so he can't do it again. And the $80,000 it would take to take care of him be used for a family that uses it.
Now, if you want to talk about the USA's death culture, can we talk about the Netherlands disturbing trends with euthanasia?
"Do what nature failed to do: Abort the abnormality." sounds pretty much nazi to me. this kind of thinking should not exist anymore. let it never happen again.
So, in one post you say that there is no evil people, only evil deeds. Then you turn around and imply that I am evil by calling me a nazi. You go further and state that my kind of thinking should not be allowed to exist anymore. You imply that my thoughts are so evil that I should have them removed from my mind. That I should be silenced.
Funny that you would not stifle a murderer but would stifle my right to believe what I believe.
Robyn
Ooooh. Robyn's guilty of a THOUGHT CRIME!!!!
Ooooh. Robyn's guilty of a THOUGHT CRIME!!!!
LOL Avi!
I'm such a bastard. A nazi even. Worse than a woman who strangles another and rips her baby from her womb.
I need saving in a biiiig way.
*looks toward heaven Europe for salvation*
Damn formatting. I wonder if things would improve if I subscribe to DSL?
Robdar
Good people do not do evil things.
Black and white thinking. In the Falkland's Conflict there were a few instances where British troops were fired on and killed whilst accepting a surrender. I understand (from someone who served there) that the Argentinian units involved were slaughtered in revenge - even though in most cases only one or two of the opposing troops were actually guilty of anything.
Good people doing evil things.
avishai
... the Netherlands disturbing trends with euthanasia?
Disturbing trends?
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/308/6940/1346
"Almost all patients (99.4%) have health care insurance, and 100% of the population is insured for the cost of protracted illness. There are no financial incentives for hospitals, physicians, or family members to stop the care of patients. Moreover, the legal right of patients to health care on the basis of their insurance will override budget and other financial agreements."
"Van der Maas et al found that there were 2300 cases of euthanasia and 400 cases of assisted suicide in the Netherlands in 1990 (1.8% and 0.3% of all deaths)."
"The number of initial requests was around three times as high, indicating that in many cases alternatives were found, patients changed their minds, the doctor turned down the request, or the patient's life ended naturally."
"In almost all cases of euthanasia and assisted suicide the patients were terminally ill; in 58% of all cases the shortening of life was estimated to be one week at most and in 83% less than one month. Almost three quarters of the patients requesting euthanasia had cancer (the cancer death rate in the Netherlands is 27%). Most patients dying at home (85%) had malignant diseases. Over the age of 75 and especially over 80 euthanasia was only rarely applied. The most important reasons for the request for euthanasia were futile suffering (29%), avoidance of humiliation (24%), and unbearable suffering (18%). Although pain was among the reasons in 40% of cases, only in 5% of cases was pain mentioned as the most important reason."
"Euthanasia and assisted suicide are still subject to criminal law. The maximum punishment for euthanasia is 12 years' imprisonment; for assisted suicide it is three years. Hence, a doctor is formally open to criminal prosecution.
This does not imply, however, that all doctors who have performed euthanasia or assisted suicide are actually prosecuted. During recent years court decisions have developed so as to indicate that euthanasia is not a regular medical act, but that doctors will not be judged guilty if they perform euthanasia and assisted suicide in a prudent way. The legal basis of this verdict is the force majeure wherein the doctor must act. The doctor is confronted with conflicting obligations: towards the patient as a caregiver, and towards the law as a civilian. Professional obligations force the doctor to act against the formal provisions of the law but in accordance with viewpoints developed in medical ethics and in accordance with the explicit wish of the patient who relies on him or her."
"Conclusion
The Dutch practice of euthanasia is not fuelled by a scarcity of health care resources. Most such deaths take place at home in patients with a life expectancy of less than a month, after hospital treatment has proved ineffective. The number of cases of euthanasia in nursing homes is very low. Finally, the whole Dutch population is insured for the costs of protracted illness, and financial incentives do not influence medical decisions concerning the end of life.
It has also been argued that insufficient treatment for pain is given in the Netherlands; this is a reason, the argument continues, why patients are forced into an unnecessary wish for euthanasia. Whether or not this is the case is not of crucial importance for the practice of euthanasia, since in only about 5% of cases is pain the most important reason for requesting euthanasia. There are no indications that palliative care in general is insufficient.
Will the "Dutch experiment" lead downhill inevitably? This article has shown that we are now confronted with at least two important issues: the presence of cases of ending of life without an explicit request and the existence of a related "grey area," and the dilemma of the gaps in reporting of cases to the public prosecutor.
The tendency in the Netherlands is, however, not downhill but uphill. This can be concluded from the substantial increase in reported cases; the increased awareness of the requirements in cases of euthanasia; and the awareness of the existence of cases of ending life without an explicit request, and therefore the possibility of addressing this issue and diminishing this category by securing patients' wishes before they become incompetent (for example, by the use of living wills)."
Please note the figures for deaths not defined as euthanasia must be seen in the light of the fact that in the Netherlands there is great openess about the issue. In other countries different legal systems make this openness an impossibility, and therefore often under report."
Recent figures are much the same, http://edition.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/11/24/netherlands.euthanasia/, but the law has changed so doctors "no longer face potential murder charges."
But the safeguards are still there;
"Setting out strict guidelines, the proposed law -- which looks set to be agreed next Tuesday -- insists that adult patients must have made a voluntary, well-considered and lasting request to die and face a future of unremitting and unbearable suffering if they do not.
The doctor must have told the patient about his or her situation and prospects, and reached the firm conclusion there was no reasonable alternative. A second physician must be consulted and the life must be ended in a medically appropriate way."
Why are you disturbed avishai? Nice try, but without asserting people do not have the right to self-determination (i.e. to die if they will anyway), you haven't much to go on there.
Especially since the same thing is happening in most countries WITHOUT a protective legal system. For example, Shipman (English doctor who killed loads of old people, around 200 I think) would have been caught in Holland WAY before he tried to fiddle a will (which is what brought his massive death rate to attention). And he wasn't practicing euthanasia; he was killing people.
I'm glad we have some common ground in applying the death penalty in cases where there is not absolute proof.
But, like I say, it's not a me good you bad thing and if I was you and you were me you we would be saying the opposite to what we now say, in all liklihood.
It is a cultural thing. If the death penalty resulted in a low murder rate I'm sure Europeans would be more in favour. It doesn't. But if you've been killing murderers for YEARS, it is logical that if you stop killing them the murder rate will go up. Even though it doesn't happen, it is logical it will.
Toe-may-toe, Toe-mah-toe!
Black and white thinking. In the Falkland's Conflict there were a few instances where British troops were fired on and killed whilst accepting a surrender. I understand (from someone who served there) that the Argentinian units involved were slaughtered in revenge - even though in most cases only one or two of the opposing troops were actually guilty of anything.Good people doing evil things.
The example you gave occurred under extreme stress and on a battle field--not in a citizens private abode.
You are comparing emotionally driven manslaughter to premeditated murder. There is no comparison.
Sometimes things are black and white, Abaddon.
Robyn
Robdar
I'm curious; outside of cases like this, where there is conclusive proof, do you feel the death penalty is appropriate?
I agree that premeditated murder is bad. And that is what happens if someone who is innocent is executed. That will always be a danger in cases without absolute proof.
I agree that emotionally driven manslaughter is less bad than pre-meditated murder. However, I think to assume that people cannot have an underlying mental or medical problem that causes an emotionally driven manslaughter, is to assume too much.
If someone does kills due to a mental or medical problem, to argue they are evil is to go back to the Stone Age, where diseases were believed to be caused by evil spirits.
If someone kills because they are ill, we cannot justify killing them because they are evil; they are ill.
Of course we can decide that our society will cull people who are ill and kill as a result of that, on grounds of safety.
But if we do that. let us say that is why we do it. Don't pretend it is all about killing evil people.
Most things I have read written by those involved with the criminally insane are happy to say they have met people who were just evil; the professionals reverting to layman's terms as they struggle to describe the difference between someone who is ill and someone who is so malign they transcend any description or medical justification.
But those are a minority.
And then we have economically motivated murder. That is bad. But I think if we paid more attention to reducing the inequality that drives some groups to be more murderous than others, we would stop far more deaths than making an example of a few each year.
And we should also view those in power as equally responsible for deaths caused by them in seeking profit as accountable as a drive-by shooter who kills a little girl at the same time as killing a rival dealer.
Seriously, if you could show the death penalty was certain to produce low murder rates, I'd be more open to the pragmatic aspect of killing killers. But it doesn't.
I believe it is easier for a society to 'fry' a disproportionate number of black people each year so people can feel society is doing something, than it is to address the issues that bring a disproportionate number of young black people into situations where they might end up facing a murder rap.
If they are doing what they do as a result of environment and opportunity, how can we claim they are evil?
"Bad people! Kill!" works less well than "Why people bad? Fix!".
Humans are no different from dogs. Two pups from the same litter can be raised different, one end up dangerous, the other a perfect pet.
Dogs are not sentient (as we are). But, just as we ALL needed tools to pull us out of Dubdom, so too do people need tools to pull themselves out of social disadvantage.
A Dubbie who is not equipped or does not develop the tools to extract themselves from a cult is not a worse person than those who get out. They can sometimes be helped.
A person from a disadvantaged community who is not equipped or does not develop the tools to extract themselves from it, is not a worse person than those who get out. They can sometimes be helped.
To reduce it to good and evil massively over-simplifies the issue in all but a minority of cases
I'm curious; outside of cases like this, where there is conclusive proof, do you feel the death penalty is appropriate?
Death penalty is only appropriate when there is proof. Unfortunately, most murderers, who know that what they are about to do is wrong, do not murder others in front of witnesses. So, in a case involving murder, it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the person accused is indeed the murderer. That is why DNA evidence is very important.
In Montgomery's (the killer) case, there is DNA evidence and cyber evidence. Then there is the Stinnett baby, Victoria, she attempted to pass off as her own offspring. The evidence is very damning. Wouldn't you agree that the evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt?
If someone kills because they are ill, we cannot justify killing them because they are evil; they are ill.
Of course we can decide that our society will cull people who are ill and kill as a result of that, on grounds of safety.
But if we do that. let us say that is why we do it. Don't pretend it is all about killing evil people.
You make valid points (as always) and I have no problem with the above. What I have a problem with is when somebody says that there are no evil people, only evil deeds. IMO, it takes an evil person to do something like this. In this case, It doesn't matter if Montgomery is ill or not. She knows that what she did is wrong. She should pay for the life of Bobbie Jo Stinnett with her own life. She is a menace to society. Execute her "on grounds of safety".
To reduce it to good and evil massively over-simplifies the issue in all but a minority of cases
I never said that all murders can be reduced to good and evil. I agree that it oversimplifies things. But to reduce it to "there are no evil people, only evil deeds" over simplifies the matter also. It also ignores the obvious.
BTW, the Montgomery case is a "minority".
Robyn
I believe that it was France that was the last European country to end capital punishment. They were still cutting peoples heads off with the guillotine right up until 1977 although they'd stopped doing this in public around 1939.
I've read that they consider decapitation the most civilised way to die as a severed head only lives for around a minute after being removed from the body. That compares to around 7 minutes in the electric chair, 10 in a gas chamber and goodness knows how long by lethal injection, this is because the muscles are frozen solid and no-one knows at what point death actually occurs.
Englishman.
