Human Rights/Abuse Discussion

[Gauntlet offline]

The Christian's thread reached thirteen pages. Other threads that are just as compelling don't make it past page two. In hopes of rectifying the pitiable sub-forum you lot call "General Discussion", I felt compelled to create this thread that will, with any luck, reach past 20 replies. I'll try to put up a new sub-topic every so often. This thread will cover as many aspects of human rights as it possibly can. I'm counting on some people to help keep this thread alive--I can't have an ongoing conversation by myself (I can, technically, but it doesn't seem right in text). Here we go:


lex talionis. An eye for an eye. Is the death penalty really acceptable?

Should criminals be subjected to mirror punishment (e.g., a murderer being murdered in the same fashion as his victim, an arsonist's home burned down, etc.)? Some scientists insist that these criminals are wired differently than your typical human--should we kill them under the government's hands for something out of their control? What if they aren't genetically different and do have the ability to change? Can they be given a chance to demonstrate their new reformation? What if others have learned from their past atrocities, became truthfully forgiving and remorseful, but are denied the chance to prove it? What if some of the criminals who have been punished under death were innocent?

Are these criminals really human? Let's hear some input. I want to hear some replies from a religious standpoint, scientific stance, from the eyes of the criminal him/herself, from a historical view, from a financial position, anything! Don't seclude yourself to looking at this from one view--try others, even if you don't necessarily believe that mindset. Explore a bit.

[JesusFreak offline]

Hm, I just KNOW who you were thinking of when you said religious.


Santa Claus!


All joking aside, this is a serious issue. I just have one question, and many opinions


How many millionares have been sentenced to Death Row?




I prefer some leniance because everyone should get a shot at redemption, but lenience only goes so far.

My personal opinion on the subject:
You kill a guy? You were the accomplice? Life in Prison with Parole. You killied a guy? Pre-meditatied? Death Row.

[. offline]

I just know personally I would never be able to judge ones life to death personally. I couldn't bare it and the weight of guilt would cripple me.

[Gauntlet offline]

Hm, I just KNOW who you were thinking of when you said religious.

Santa Claus!

Oh, he's quite good.

I wasn't really thinking about you in particular, but I still value your posts.

All joking aside, this is a serious issue. I just have one question, and many opinions

How many millionares have been sentenced to Death Row?

Good point indeed. But the chances of finding a serial killer in the already-small amount of millionaires (when compared to the entire populace) aren't too common. I don't think one murder is enough to guarantee the death penalty amongst the poor, but serial killers, repeated sex offenders, and the like, tend to get the syringe. I don't know of any millionaires who have committed several murders (with their own hands, if we're going down that route). But, I do agree; Benjamin has one hell of a sexy voice, and he does his job well.

I prefer some leniance because everyone should get a shot at redemption, but lenience only goes so far.

My personal opinion on the subject:
You kill a guy? You were the accomplice? Life in Prison with Parole. You killied a guy? Pre-meditatied? Death Row.

Interesting. I believe, from a legal standpoint, the accomplice is not fully responsible for any deaths or damages if he didn't do the deeds himself, but from a moral standpoint, he's just as guilty, isn't he? He could have backed out, he could have ran, he could have done some things to rectify the situation, but he went through and did it anyways. To me, that makes him just as guilty as his trigger-happy friend, but from a legal context, it's not that bad, right?

As for a premeditated murder, I disagree for several reasons. One, which may be the most appealing to some, is the fact that the death penalty is actually very expensive. There is a lot of legal work, such as trial expenses and appeals. For example, in the case of Florida, it has been approximated that $3.2 million is spent per execution. It is much cheaper to provide an inmate with life imprisonment--we're talking about roughly a quarter of the total price of an execution in most cases. The money that could have been spent on the death penalty could be spent on other inmates, or even send our money to a more worthwhile place, like schools and health care.

I mentioned it already, but I don't even know how I'd react to an innocent man being killed. With advancing technology and new evidence, the man could be removed from jail if he was proven innocent. Once he's dead, though, there's no way to bring him back.

From a religious stance, I don't think God placed us in charge of who deserves to die. It is claimed that the human mind cannot fathom the existence of the Trinity, but, somehow, we know enough about another human being to axe them? I believe the "Thou shalt not murder" line is supposed to support the notion that death is in God's jurisdiction, and that humankind is not fit to make these decisions. Frankly, I don't think we have the responsibility to determine whether a man is worthy of the death penalty. We're not supposed to judge people, and, therefore, we are not supposed to say whether or not they deserve a chance to live.

Sources:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108 (This is a non-profit pro-death penalty advocacy organizations that realizes the facts of high costs.)

http://www.deathpenalty.org/index.php?pid=cost

[Overcaffeinated Sloth offline]

Uhh... Gauntlet... it doesn't even matter the quantity of posts at tct. the fact was that there were a lot of people posting a lot abpout the smae thing and getting over the same arguents.

And to be honest... this is still a fan forum, GD is for stalking about stuff, but it'snot really meant for the deep though stuff. I'd like to remind you we're all teenagers, not psychiatrists and rocket scientists.

[Gauntlet offline]

Uhh... Gauntlet... it doesn't even matter the quantity of posts at tct. the fact was that there were a lot of people posting a lot abpout the smae thing and getting over the same arguents.

And to be honest... this is still a fan forum, GD is for stalking about stuff, but it'snot really meant for the deep though stuff. I'd like to remind you we're all teenagers, not psychiatrists and rocket scientists.

There's no reason you should feel the need to remind me that we're teenagers here. Teenagers can think a little, it's not going to hurt them. This is most definitely not out of their limits. I'm not asking for Oxford-level opinions, or a thesis on time travel.

Edit: Unnecessary content removed--including the one swear word. More kid friendly now!

[Overcaffeinated Sloth offline]

Oh, be quiet. you don't have to read my posts. Unfortunately, it's my job to read yours.

And yeah, it is the quality of posts. There's actually very little difference between mine or yyours or anyone else onhere, the difference is that I've been on here a lot longer, that's all. And if you have something so say about it, talk to me, don't wave it around like a little flag for everyone else to see. I

And actually, i'd like to point out that one of our moderators only has only about 700 posts, and so yeah, guess you just missed that. Or you know, just didnt feel like pointing it out.

But on top of that, I ended up forgetting what i was going to say to contribute to the tpoic, but having to edit your posts again for swearing kind of distracted me.

[Gauntlet offline]

I'm not going to pick apart your message to jab at you. You overlooked the base of my post. Do you understand why you really got to me? Of course, you didn't mention anything of your first post, which is the only reason that I posted a response, and, frankly, the only thing I really care to hear come from you.

But I'm not going to sweat it if you don't want to acknowledge it. I'm just going to marinate, become a giant beef patty, and enjoy my brainless, blissful teenage years.

Edit: But, I do apologize for personally insulting you. A heat of the moment kind of thing, if you will.

[Overcaffeinated Sloth offline]

Aww... that's okay... it really should be me who should be apologising here.... I was the one who didn't respect your thread in the first place. Come here... I wannaz give youz a huuuug...

And with that....

While the death penalty is useful for doing things to people who have done crimes considered hanis, it's unfortunately a very powerful tool that excuses killing. Sure, there are times when it's necessary because it is wrong (not saying wrong as in a paritcular beleif/culture, but wrong for every human), but implies a universal system of when thing should be excusable and when they shouldn't, which denouces the idea of human existence and potential anyways. It's a dangerous tool with even more dangerous side effects. And I think people need to realize the full effects of what it does before we allow its existence. However, we will never truly understand these effects until something is brought up and we can find a crack to wedge an argument in.

As for an eye for an eye, burning an arsonist's house is not the same, becuase the arsonist knows it is for punishment. If he suddenly forgot any experice he had of being an arsonist all together and didn't even know he did such a thing and then you burned his house, yes, it would be fair, because it would be under the same circumstances. However, if you can make him forget and denounce the arsonist inside him then there's no reason to burn it any more because he's no longer under the same infuence and he has new experiences now that has allowed the previous problem to be nonexistant. And so then you have a burned down house and one guy who's ticked that you apparently burned it for no reason, and that'll raise all kinds of dirt... so the entire idea doesn't make a lot of sense to me in the first place. There's no way to get a perfect equal exchange like that by repeating the action.

[Mewberries151]

*was going to post something, but Angelbolt's got it under control* ^^

I'm not an "eye for an eye" type of person, purely on the basis that any system that follows that line of thinking is forced to punish those who act in self-defense, as well as those who don't. And that doesn't seem entirely fair.

However, I do not enjoy hearing these repeated stories in which a murderer was jailed, then released from his sentence on parole, and then goes out and kills again. That just isn't fair to the law-abiding and peace-loving citizens of the world, and something in our legal system needs to be fixed so that things like that don't happen anymore.

I'm not sure what something like that would be, but, it needs to be figured out, to be sure.

[Gauntlet offline]

Before I forget, Mewberries, I saw your original post before you took it down. I'm really big on sarcasm, so I wasn't insulting the GD forum or LF. It's my favorite sub-board, anyways. Just trying to create a contrast through some humor.

Thanks for the replies. I agree with what has been said. On that note, I was reading someone else's post on another forum who fully supports the death penalty by saying that murderers may be genetically human, but they're not a real human being because they are devoid of remorse. I disagree with that--I mean, all murders are driven by something, and something, which is everything, is driven by emotion. Crimes of passion, greed, revenge, anger, etc.

Thoughts?

[Mewberries151]

Before I forget, Mewberries, I saw your original post before you took it down. I'm really big on sarcasm, so I wasn't insulting the GD forum or LF. It's my favorite sub-board, anyways. Just trying to create a contrast through some humor.

^^; I admit I have a terrible time with sarcasm. *blinks* Which is probably why I use so many emotes. ;; My bad then. *sweatdrops*

Thanks for the replies. I agree with what has been said. On that note, I was reading someone else's post on another forum who fully supports the death penalty by saying that murderers may be genetically human, but they're not a real human being because they are devoid of remorse. I disagree with that--I mean, all murders are driven by something, and something, which is everything, is driven by emotion. Crimes of passion, greed, revenge, anger, etc.

Thoughts?

Ehhhh...no, I don't think their reasoning is quite correct there. Not all murderers, at least, are devoid of remorse and/or all emotion. Some really do feel badly about what they've done.

However, I can see where a view like this would arise, particularly with murders in which the victim is completely random and/or innocent, or in which the murderer really doesn't show any outside (or even inside) feelings of remorse for doing what they did.

Honestly, anything having to do with the death penalty and/or murder is a horribly tough call.

[JesusFreak offline]

/agree


I support the Death Penalty when its something like Mass Murder, high treason (It's in the Constitution), or soemthing like that.


I would also like to say soemthing about "eye for an eye". It doesn't mean taking revenge, per se. its about repaying soemone for what you did to them. If you stole a car you get a new one for teh victim, If you killed his dog you get him a new one, and so on and so forth.


I think hard labor might be a better punishment than death. Still, there are a few criminals, consience or not, that have stepped over the line repeatedly. Life in Prison adds up to a LOT more than 3.2 million bucks.


And as for "Thou shalt not kill", what did the murderer do? He killed. The punishment in the Old testament is death, hence the oft-misinterpreted "Eye for an eye". Mirror punishment wasn't the focus, but mirror atonement.

However, I can see where a view like this would arise, particularly with murders in which the victim is completely random and/or innocent, or in which the murderer really doesn't show any outside (or even inside) feelings of remorse for doing what they did.

Funny, in the Old testament, there were these things called 'Cities of refuge", or summat, that people who accidentally killed somebody would go. If the elders of teh city tried him and found him guilty, they would announce his guilt and kick him out. If he was innocent, the elders would announce his innocence and he would be able to leave whenever he pleased.

[Vodka's Vengeance offline]

Yeah, I do support the death penalty, but only when it involves mass murder, like what Richard Ramirez did. People like him deserve to die.

[Gauntlet offline]

And as for "Thou shalt not kill", what did the murderer do? He killed. The punishment in the Old testament is death, hence the oft-misinterpreted "Eye for an eye". Mirror punishment wasn't the focus, but mirror atonement.

Dunno, man. I thought Christian's don't follow the words of the Old Testament, but the New Testament. They're very different, aren't they?

Doesn't really seem like killing a murderer is really fixing anything to me.

[JesusFreak offline]

And as for "Thou shalt not kill", what did the murderer do? He killed. The punishment in the Old testament is death, hence the oft-misinterpreted "Eye for an eye". Mirror punishment wasn't the focus, but mirror atonement.

Dunno, man. I thought Christian's don't follow the words of the Old Testament, but the New Testament. They're very different, aren't they?

Actually, no. That's a common misconception. Jesus came to fufill the promise and prophecies in the Old Testament, and to change issues relating to what would be affected with His sacrifice. However, the Pharisees added around 590 sub-laws to the stuff Moses recieved, so the Law as kinda messed up back during "Pax Romana"

[Mewberries151]

However, I can see where a view like this would arise, particularly with murders in which the victim is completely random and/or innocent, or in which the murderer really doesn't show any outside (or even inside) feelings of remorse for doing what they did.

Funny, in the Old testament, there were these things called 'Cities of refuge", or summat, that people who accidentally killed somebody would go. If the elders of teh city tried him and found him guilty, they would announce his guilt and kick him out. If he was innocent, the elders would announce his innocence and he would be able to leave whenever he pleased.

Er...that wasn't what I meant by "random" murders. What I mean by "random" would be like, if some guy who lives 20 blocks away from you, never talked to you a day in his life, picked up a gun, walked to your house and shot you full of holes for no apparent reason. That's what I mean by random...I did not say "accidental". That's a completely different case entirely. ^^;

[JesusFreak offline]

However, I can see where a view like this would arise, particularly with murders in which the victim is completely random and/or innocent, or in which the murderer really doesn't show any outside (or even inside) feelings of remorse for doing what they did.

Funny, in the Old testament, there were these things called 'Cities of refuge", or summat, that people who accidentally killed somebody would go. If the elders of teh city tried him and found him guilty, they would announce his guilt and kick him out. If he was innocent, the elders would announce his innocence and he would be able to leave whenever he pleased.

Er...that wasn't what I meant by "random" murders. What I mean by "random" would be like, if some guy who lives 20 blocks away from you, never talked to you a day in his life, picked up a gun, walked to your house and shot you full of holes for no apparent reason. That's what I mean by random...I did not say "accidental". That's a completely different case entirely. ^^;

Oh, Whoops!

I never understand those either. Are fueled by some sort of drug? That's gonna make it look worse at the trial.

I might have an answer to this whole debacle: hard labor! You just sit in a prison. At least with a sentence like hard labor you could do something productive like help break down rocks. Hard labor DOES NOT mean following the Nazi practice of haveing concentration camps work in chemical factories with no protection.


A sad fact is that 1 in 3 murderers are never punished, either because of being declared innocent or never being caught.

[Gauntlet offline]

Alright, well, since that has run its course (thanks to the few posters who contributed), might as well move onto a new subject. We might resume this later, if anyone cares.

Genetically modifying humans. Would the chance to reach beyond our human abilities be enough to warrant GMHs? How would technology advance if humans could travel to the deepest part of the oceans without much else but a pair of trunks? Most of the technological feats humankind has accomplished would go to waste once we could overcome all of the human limitations, wouldn't they?

Is it too risky? Would we forget that we are human--lose our identity--and just become something with scales, fur, fins, opposable thumbs, and a low sloping jaw suitable for feasting on small grains? What if we haven't realized the full implications of genetically modifying things--they're already injecting vegetable genes into fish, and vice-versa--and that meddling with these things may be too complicated for us? What if, in time, GMH became perfected, and pushed humankind beyond their original limits, but, in turn, you would be forced to comply. "For the better of humanity": Would you do it?

For; against; why? <s>Sci-Fi geeks, unite!</s>


Feel free to list any topics that should be discussed for next week, or whenever we change the topic.

[knifey offline]

Does the recently said topic include genetic engineering and cloning, as well?

[Gauntlet offline]

Sure.

[JesusFreak offline]

Genetic Enhancement? Not sure on that one. I believe in the sanctity of life (That's why I support the Death Penalty in certain situations), and I don't believe playing God with another's DNA, the blueprint on which his/her body is contructed, is a wise desicion.

[Tangent128 offline]

Probably not always wise, but the actual morality is grayer- if you somehow developed a gene for underwater breathing without messing with embryos, then injected it into one during IVF... Would that be moral? I really am not sure.

Not that I think that would happen. If you give somebody a designer gene, would they have to pay royalties when they have kids? The patent issues make it problematic.

[JesusFreak offline]

YOu DO know you can post topincs here, guys?

Okay, the new topic is...Welfare

Are the people entitled to a certain degree of assistance if their ancestors were oppressed, they're poor, or can't speak English?

Should the government be paying for people's happiness?

[Rail Runner offline]

There are two sides to this welfare/social security issue. There are some people, take myself for instance, because of my disability, SSI has helped me through most of my life. Even though I am receiving money every month, to help me live, I am still going out, finding a job, going back to school whatever, I am trying to better myself, I am trying to get off of SSI completely. There are those out there who receive this, who dont try to better themselves, and I have seen the extreme opposite, spending most of their money on wants, not needs. That kind of angers me, because this could be helping someone who really needs it, and not someone who is trying to play the system so that they dont have to work for what they want. I saw one mother who had 5 kids *no joke*..under the system, these kids also get a check every month, to help the mother buy the things they need, well instead, this woman ended up taking 3 checks for 3 of her 5 kids, and bought alcohol and other provisions for herself, in the end, the kids were taken away after an investigation.

In all honesty, the money isnt enough to do everything, it barely covers the basics, it surely cant buy happiness. Thats why Im working, and preparing to go back to school. There are others who abuse the system to no end, and it makes all of us honest people look bad.