The Cellar - View Single Post - Yes, the banning of the juvenile death penalty was...

Catwoman · 05-25-2005, 04:48 AM

glatt, thank you. SO many people wouldn't have thought of - or would have rejected - that question. It's so good to hear someone else saying something so important.

Anyway, let's address the question. Do we need justice?

Scenario A
Man commits murder. Man is sentenced to death or life imprisonment. Man will never kill again.

Scenario B
Man commits murder. Man is sent to prison. Man no longer a danger to society. Man gets released. Man has the option of a) rehabilitation or b) comitting another murder. That is man's choice.

Scenario C
Man commits murder.

Scenario A appears to be the safest, most logical option, if we agree that murder is bad (I will make this assumption) and that the act of murder is likely to be repeated (I wouldn't assume that) and an indicator of an unsafe human being (ah my assumptions are coming unstuck).

Let's start again. "Murder is bad." Agreed. We can be sure of that as we can be sure of anything.

"The act of murder is likely to be repeated." The man killed someone, therefore he will kill again. I'm sorry, I can't make this leap of logic. Past should not be taken as an indicator of future on it's own merits. It can be an indicator, but one needs to analyse the present to be completely sure. (For example, when I was 16 I liked Boyz2Men. Now I don't. The fact that I once did is no indication that I do now.)

The final principle, "Murder is an indicator of an unsafe human being" is closely linked, but instead of suggesting that the man who committed the murder is likely to do it again, it insinuates that there is an underlying factor that caused the man to kill, and this underlying factor is irredeemable, and thus, logically, if murder is bad, the man is bad, and should be destroyed or removed from society.

Scenario A most effectively caters for this line of thinking.

Now, to Scenario B. The man is punished, but it's a bit of a half-ass punishment. He is sentenced to 25 years but only serves 12, costs the country a good few dollars and then returns to society. If rehabilitation has occurred (ie he will not kill again), the punishment has served its purpose. If it hasn't, that's thousands of dollars and another victim wasted. So how do you know if rehabilitation has occurred?

In the first instance, one needs to look at what the word suggests. 'Re-habilitation'. Re-habiting. The man was once 'habitable' (fully integrated into societal habits ie not killing), and broke the habit. Therefore he needs to be rehabilitated to become once more a correctly functioning member of society. This suggests that he is not inherently BAD, but he broke the rules and, more importantly, that the act of breaking a rule as a one off incident and not a mark of a habitable person - a person who's habit is murder.

The word 'murderer' also suggests that there is no such thing as a one-off killing. Once labelled a murderer, he will always be a murderer, even if he only did it once. Is it right that because I stole some make up when I was 12 I am forever labelled a thief present tense?

So, we now have two arguments. The 'that man is bad' argument, concluding in the death sentence or life imprisonment; or the 'that was a one off' perspective, concluding in rehabilitation.

Finally, Scenario C. Man commits murder. Nothing is done in the way of punishment. Questions are asked only by academia, not society. There is no cost on society in the way of dollars or emotions - including news reportage, court cases, moral debates. The person he killed is dead. He continues to function in society as he did before the murder.

I would recommend Scenario C for the one-off rule breaker. The woman who snaps and kills her violent husband. The son who kills his mother's rapist.

I would recommend Scenario B for the habitable. The serial killer. The child porn fanaticist. These are people with a passion, a compulsion, a habit. It's just the wrong habit. Redirect it to something constructive. It's not the habitual nature in itself that's at fault, but the way in which they choose to express it. Some people switch lights on and off 12 times before leaving a room. This obsessive compulsion is the same as that of a celebrity stalker, or a serial killer. They have an obsession. Treat the obsession, redirect their obsessive nature towards church or music or anything less dangerous.

Now, one might (quite understandably) agree that the compulsive nature is not evil in itself, and one could tolerate obessive compulsive behaviour in friends or hell even mildly in themselves. But then, why does HER compulsion manifest itself in harmless activities such as light flicking whereas HIS compulsion becomes something much darker: a murderous compulsion.

Do you see that this does not matter? I am going to go slightly back on myself now and say that is IS the compulsive nature that's at fault, NOT the manner in which it is lived out. The compulsive light-flicker has the same internal makings of a serial killer. They are just better integrated into societal habits: better conditioned.

If you are religious, you may believe in clear-cut good and evil. And if we agree to live in a theocracy then people who murder should be sentenced to death. Not out of spite or retribution, but to remove them from the planet. Destroy the enemy. You don't need to gloat in public, because if they are actually evil it won't have any impact anyway. If they're not evil, and they feel embarrassment at public humiliation, maybe you shouldn't have prescribed Scenario A, as this person is clearly capably of retribution because he feels embarrassed. Embarrassment is a social feeling, betraying a desire to be socially accepted which means he is habitable.

I'm tired of writing now. Hopefully someone else can pick up from here.

05-25-2005, 04:48 AM	#36
Catwoman stalking a Tom Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: on the edge of the english channel Posts: 1,000	glatt, thank you. SO many people wouldn't have thought of - or would have rejected - that question. It's so good to hear someone else saying something so important. Anyway, let's address the question. Do we need justice? Scenario A Man commits murder. Man is sentenced to death or life imprisonment. Man will never kill again. Scenario B Man commits murder. Man is sent to prison. Man no longer a danger to society. Man gets released. Man has the option of a) rehabilitation or b) comitting another murder. That is man's choice. Scenario C Man commits murder. Scenario A appears to be the safest, most logical option, if we agree that murder is bad (I will make this assumption) and that the act of murder is likely to be repeated (I wouldn't assume that) and an indicator of an unsafe human being (ah my assumptions are coming unstuck). Let's start again. "Murder is bad." Agreed. We can be sure of that as we can be sure of anything. "The act of murder is likely to be repeated." The man killed someone, therefore he will kill again. I'm sorry, I can't make this leap of logic. Past should not be taken as an indicator of future on it's own merits. It can be an indicator, but one needs to analyse the present to be completely sure. (For example, when I was 16 I liked Boyz2Men. Now I don't. The fact that I once did is no indication that I do now.) The final principle, "Murder is an indicator of an unsafe human being" is closely linked, but instead of suggesting that the man who committed the murder is likely to do it again, it insinuates that there is an underlying factor that caused the man to kill, and this underlying factor is irredeemable, and thus, logically, if murder is bad, the man is bad, and should be destroyed or removed from society. Scenario A most effectively caters for this line of thinking. Now, to Scenario B. The man is punished, but it's a bit of a half-ass punishment. He is sentenced to 25 years but only serves 12, costs the country a good few dollars and then returns to society. If rehabilitation has occurred (ie he will not kill again), the punishment has served its purpose. If it hasn't, that's thousands of dollars and another victim wasted. So how do you know if rehabilitation has occurred? In the first instance, one needs to look at what the word suggests. 'Re-habilitation'. Re-habiting. The man was once 'habitable' (fully integrated into societal habits ie not killing), and broke the habit. Therefore he needs to be rehabilitated to become once more a correctly functioning member of society. This suggests that he is not inherently BAD, but he broke the rules and, more importantly, that the act of breaking a rule as a one off incident and not a mark of a habitable person - a person who's habit is murder. The word 'murderer' also suggests that there is no such thing as a one-off killing. Once labelled a murderer, he will always be a murderer, even if he only did it once. Is it right that because I stole some make up when I was 12 I am forever labelled a thief present tense? So, we now have two arguments. The 'that man is bad' argument, concluding in the death sentence or life imprisonment; or the 'that was a one off' perspective, concluding in rehabilitation. Finally, Scenario C. Man commits murder. Nothing is done in the way of punishment. Questions are asked only by academia, not society. There is no cost on society in the way of dollars or emotions - including news reportage, court cases, moral debates. The person he killed is dead. He continues to function in society as he did before the murder. I would recommend Scenario C for the one-off rule breaker. The woman who snaps and kills her violent husband. The son who kills his mother's rapist. I would recommend Scenario B for the habitable. The serial killer. The child porn fanaticist. These are people with a passion, a compulsion, a habit. It's just the wrong habit. Redirect it to something constructive. It's not the habitual nature in itself that's at fault, but the way in which they choose to express it. Some people switch lights on and off 12 times before leaving a room. This obsessive compulsion is the same as that of a celebrity stalker, or a serial killer. They have an obsession. Treat the obsession, redirect their obsessive nature towards church or music or anything less dangerous. Now, one might (quite understandably) agree that the compulsive nature is not evil in itself, and one could tolerate obessive compulsive behaviour in friends or hell even mildly in themselves. But then, why does HER compulsion manifest itself in harmless activities such as light flicking whereas HIS compulsion becomes something much darker: a murderous compulsion. Do you see that this does not matter? I am going to go slightly back on myself now and say that is IS the compulsive nature that's at fault, NOT the manner in which it is lived out. The compulsive light-flicker has the same internal makings of a serial killer. They are just better integrated into societal habits: better conditioned. If you are religious, you may believe in clear-cut good and evil. And if we agree to live in a theocracy then people who murder should be sentenced to death. Not out of spite or retribution, but to remove them from the planet. Destroy the enemy. You don't need to gloat in public, because if they are actually evil it won't have any impact anyway. If they're not evil, and they feel embarrassment at public humiliation, maybe you shouldn't have prescribed Scenario A, as this person is clearly capably of retribution because he feels embarrassed. Embarrassment is a social feeling, betraying a desire to be socially accepted which means he is habitable. I'm tired of writing now. Hopefully someone else can pick up from here. __________________ I've decided I'm not going to have a signature anymore.