lethal injection

[deadendphilosopher]

jaeksmith said:

deadendphilosopher said:

I don't believe in the death penalty mainly because I guess I believe that life and the pursuit of happiness should be unconditional rights for every human being.

Do you believe that we have some kind of inherent 'right' to life and to pursue happiness?

Where does this 'right' come from?

Well what exactly do you mean by inherent? I believe that everyone should have the right to life and the pursuit of happiness because these are things we all want (with the exeption of suicidal individuals maybe), and I don't think one person's desires are more justified than another person's. Though like I said, if one person's desires are posing a problem for the desires of the majority, I think it is better for that one person to suffer than the majority/society to suffer.

I'm not sure if I believe there's any such thing as right and wrong. However, if there is such thing, my definition of right would be anything that supports life, and my definition of wrong would be anything that destroys life. I'm curious to hear other definitions though. Because the desire for happiness/satisfaction/avoidance of pain or whatever name you give it (basically the desire for positive feeling) is so fundamental to the flow of life, I think it is wrong to try to obstruct anyone from pursuing happiness. (I think this desire is fundamental for the flow of life because I think it is the ultimate motive for every action.) So if I were operating in a paradigm of right and wrong I think it is everyone's right to live and pursue happiness.

Even if there is no such thing as right and wrong, and I am operating in a paradigm of selfishness, I feel it is ultimately best for society (and therefore myself) to give everyone these rights. I think it would help cause people to see everyone else as an actual person, instead of a "good" or "bad" person, or at least shift attitudes in that direction, and I think this would lead to more overall acceptance in society. I think it would decrease stress in society, and I think stress is the cause of most aggression against society. So even if these rights aren't inherent in everyone by virtue of right and wrong, I think everyone should be given these rights in the interest of society.

deadendphilosopher said:

I could also be argued that abolishing the punishment of an enemy of society deprives one of one's right for revenge, however I don't really think revenge is constructive in for anybody in the long run.

The legal system isn't setup to affect revenge - nor even an-eye-for-an-eye. It's ideally setup to protect society.

Ideally a society provides a person with certain benefits if they agree-to and follow it's rules. If a person don't follow the rules, then it has to deal with that person.[/quote]

Why should the benefits of society be conditional?

[/quote]Jail and death-penalty are ways of dealing with a person who is causing problems in the society. As well, the legal system does not implement the eye-for-an-eye idea. It doesn't stab a person who stabbed someone else. It doesn't tortue-to-death a person who tortured someone else to death. (In fact it's unconstitutional to apply "cruel and unusual punishment").[/quote]

I know officially the government doesn't implement the eye for an eye idea, but it does seem to propagate attitudes that flow in that direction. I'm not necessarily against punishment altogether, however I think that the goal of all punishment should be instructive; I don't think it's purpose should be to cause suffering. And in the case of individuals who are beyond instructive measures, I don't see the use of punishment at all, because it seems to me that the threat of punishment will probably not deter such individuals from crime anyway.

[jaeksmith]

deadendphilosopher said:

Well what exactly do you mean by inherent?

Mainly I was trying to figure out if you believed that there are some rights provided by a supernatural force (ie. a god), whether you just feel that they are a good ideal, or if there was some other force providing them.

(The meme you are using is from the Declaration of Indepence, which definately suggests it is imbued in us: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - but many of us uphold these ideas, whether or not we believe in the supernatural).

Am I correct to interpret that you don't believe in a supernatural force?

deadendphilosopher said:

I feel it is ultimately best for society (and therefore myself) to give everyone these rights.

Society is an institution that provides a person with certain benefits and protections (rights) as long as you agree to (and do) abide by it's rules. If a person doesn't abide by societies rules should society continue to give that person the predicated benefits and protections (rights)?

You keep talking about how we need to be fair to everyone - but what is fairness? Without society there's ideally chaos. With society we have the possibility to achieve more. Why should a society support anyone who does not support the society?

deadendphilosopher said:

I'm not sure if I believe there's any such thing as right and wrong. However, if there is such thing, my definition of right would be anything that supports life, and my definition of wrong would be anything that destroys life. I'm curious to hear other definitions though. Because the desire for happiness/satisfaction/avoidance of pain or whatever name you give it (basically the desire for positive feeling) is so fundamental to the flow of life, I think it is wrong to try to obstruct anyone from pursuing happiness. (I think this desire is fundamental for the flow of life because I think it is the ultimate motive for every action.) So if I were operating in a paradigm of right and wrong I think it is everyone's right to live and pursue happiness.

I believe your discussion has little to do with the death penality. You seem more interested in discussing judgement of people and their values.

The funny thing is you keep saying everyone needs unconditional acceptance... then you add conditions: only if they don't violate others right to life... and yet isn't that often where the death penalty is applied? (Thus, you seem to disagree, but agree).

So, shall we remove the death penalty from this discussion?

I'm sure you'll find almost everyone (if not everyone) on the forum agrees that there is way too much judgement of people by other people as being good and bad.

deadendphilosopher said:

I know officially the government doesn't implement the eye for an eye idea, but it does seem to propagate attitudes that flow in that direction. I'm not necessarily against punishment altogether, however I think that the goal of all punishment should be instructive; I don't think it's purpose should be to cause suffering. And in the case of individuals who are beyond instructive measures, I don't see the use of punishment at all, because it seems to me that the threat of punishment will probably not deter such individuals from crime anyway.

Wait... you confuse me sooo much.

So, if someone is beyond instruction, just what should we do with them?

Do you really believe that, if we remove stress, we'll be living in a utopia? Stress does suck - but it is far from the root of all evil (inter-personal problems). How a person reacts to stress is separate of stress (like you said, probably depends on their environment).

People are generally egocentric. People want for themselves. Forget stress. (Infact the less stressed a person feels, the more they are able to affect harm on others without feeling regress - see psychopaths, for example).

Generally, if a person finds they can get what they want through any means (brutality?) without retribution- why should they not use any means (brutality?) to get what they want (without retribution)?

- - -

I find there to be more issues because people do not get proper feedback when they should (including forms of punishment). If little Johnny keeps harrassing his sister and causing problems even after you've asked Johnny to be nice (and discussed how being nice makes the universe better). What do you do? Nothing? Johnny is not going to grow up to be a very fun person to be around...

Obviously we need to deal realistically with people (instead of labelling them using some unbased foundations on good or bad). But, in the same sense we need to be realistic about our imperfect humanity.

[jaeksmith]

I've only just started listening to the book The Sociopath Next Door - which I'm finding deep and expansive. I just came across a line that is quite relevant to the drive-of-humans side of the recent discussion:

"[This particular] belief is especially hard to let go of. ... We calll on an updated version of the weak-reason paradigm. We speculate that the offender has been deprived or that his mind is disturbed or that his early background makes him do it. We remain extermely reluctant to propose the most forward explanation- that either God or nature simple failed to provide him with a conscience."

Just like how non-shy people seem to be unable to comprehend deep rooted social anxiety, the author mentions how hard it is for many of us to see that some people (about 1 in 25) have conscience oriented issues...

[lennythegiant]

deadendphilosopher said:

I know this thread is a bit old, but I hope others will reply to my post anyway.

I don't believe in the death penalty mainly because I guess I believe that life and the pursuit of happiness should be unconditional rights for every human being. By unconditional I don't mean that people should necessarily live or pursue happiness in any way they choose if this gets in the way of other's rights, however I feel that every human being is equally deserving of these rights.

Well someone that committed murder did take away those rights from the victim. Why should they be allowed to keep those rights then?

[Astroruss]

lennythegiant said:

deadendphilosopher said:

I know this thread is a bit old, but I hope others will reply to my post anyway.

I don't believe in the death penalty mainly because I guess I believe that life and the pursuit of happiness should be unconditional rights for every human being. By unconditional I don't mean that people should necessarily live or pursue happiness in any way they choose if this gets in the way of other's rights, however I feel that every human being is equally deserving of these rights.

Well someone that committed murder did take away those rights from the victim. Why should they be allowed to keep those rights then?

That's an excellent question, and one i believe whose answer plays directly into the judicial question; what to do with crminals?

Some societies go by the golden rule; do unto others as you would have them do to you. In this case, if a murderer kills another person, than that murdered also does not deserve to exist.

Other societies move towards a more complacent approach. They want to rehabilitate the murderer; in this, attempt to correct the problem, which was getting the murderer to refrain from the same crime being committed again.

I like to go on a more middle path; i believe criminals of this degree should be punished, locked up, work in labor, whatever. I also believe that while this criminal is incarcerated, therapists or psychologists should work with the criminal to rehab him, and attempt to correct the problem.

The difficulty is this; while rehabbing works for most people, or so it seems, why do murders continue to occur? Circumstances drive persons to do desperate acts like taking a life, but this cannot be the only answer. Murderers kill because they like to kill, or did at one point when the crime occured.

A combination of imprisonment and rehab can work best. As far as lethal injection is concerned, i think that for a very small few, removal from society is necessary, because rehabilitation cannot work for a person that likes to kill or cannot control their own actions.

It's an imperfect answer, but hey, we live in an imperfect world.

[Naptaq]

I'll share a quote from one of my favorite books that changed my mind about capital punishment.

" If it is wrong to kill another human being, that principle can allow no exceptions, regardless how emotionally appealing a construct may be used to justify the exception. Thus, a society which condones capital punishment will always have a problem with murder. Both are products of the same level of perception. To the murderer, the killing of the victim is also a justifiable exception."

That reminds me of another brilliant quote:
"I am prepared to die, but there is no cause for which I am prepared to kill." ~ Gandhi