|
Post by liljessncda on Nov 8, 2015 20:53:52 GMT -6
Where does this say "public scrutiny"? He said they should be responsible just like judges, district attorneys and wardens. Since we do not punish judges, district attorneys and wardens (except by firing them when they are incompetent) I took that to mean "answerable to the public". Do you disagree with my interpretation? Obviously I do! "Held accountable for their deeds", that to me doesn't sound at all like, subject to public scrutiny as you define it.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Nov 8, 2015 23:12:26 GMT -6
Bottom line, the DP should always be an option for the obvious " no doubts", a crime that reaches the DP qualifications. These cases where the inmate was exonerated were ALREADY "proved beyond a reasonable doubt". But the judge and jury didn't realize that the prosecution had cheated. Tell me how you plan to solve this problem.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Nov 8, 2015 23:13:13 GMT -6
He said they should be responsible just like judges, district attorneys and wardens. Since we do not punish judges, district attorneys and wardens (except by firing them when they are incompetent) I took that to mean "answerable to the public". Do you disagree with my interpretation? Obviously I do! "Held accountable for their deeds", that to me doesn't sound at all like, subject to public scrutiny as you define it. Do you at least agree to abide by fugly's own words, when he tells you what he meant?
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Nov 9, 2015 8:23:33 GMT -6
Obviously I do! "Held accountable for their deeds", that to me doesn't sound at all like, subject to public scrutiny as you define it. Do you at least agree to abide by fugly's own words, when he tells you what he meant? Bernard stated what I was trying to say, just a bit more eloquently and precise.
|
|
|
Post by Big Al on Nov 9, 2015 23:08:20 GMT -6
@ Fuglyville. Your sources in the original post refer to movies. Do you believe everything you see in movies?
Plus, you coped and pasted a direct quote from Wikipedia.
What's your point really? It seems obvious that executioners would be shunned by some people.
But is it MOST people? And which people shunned them?
You would obviously shun them buy why? What is the real reason you would shun them?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Nov 9, 2015 23:56:21 GMT -6
@ Fuglyville. Your sources in the original post refer to movies. Do you believe everything you see in movies? "The workers who end up on lethal-injection teams may have no medical training and, perhaps because they’re hired to perform executions more than one time, seem to deal with more negative psychological effects. A 2005 survey of more than 200 members of execution teams—often states will include many people on such teams, so no one person feels responsible—found they deal with stress and cope by distancing themselves from the moral aspects of their work. ABC News talked with one man who executed 62 people by electrocution and lethal injection over his career. "To make that transformation from corrections officer to executioner ... it was hard,'' he said. "You have to get away from yourself. You have to eliminate yourself."" www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/ready-aim-fireIf what they are doing is so good, how come they feel so guilty?
|
|
|
Post by Big Al on Nov 10, 2015 0:19:27 GMT -6
I don't think that most people who believe in the death penalty truly think it's "so good".
The true issue is not wether it's good or not but if it's appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by Big Al on Nov 10, 2015 0:22:00 GMT -6
Most, if not all, that have participated in the execution process are at one time or another done with it. Might I even say disgusted with it.
It's a dirty job. But somebody has to do it.
I would only accept that a sensible person would be eventually repulsed by the dispatching of so many people.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Nov 10, 2015 1:00:01 GMT -6
I don't think that most people who believe in the death penalty truly think it's "so good". The true issue is not wether it's good or not but if it's appropriate. If what they are doing is appropriate, how come they feel so guilty?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Nov 10, 2015 1:00:46 GMT -6
It's a dirty job. But somebody has to do it. Why? Nobody does it in Europe.
|
|
|
Post by Big Al on Nov 10, 2015 1:07:46 GMT -6
Yes but they have for many years. Because they decided to stop now means nothing. Doesn't make them any better or smarter or more civilized.
And why is the death penalty any worse than all the other forms of killing happening around the world on an hourly basis?
Natural, legal and illegal.......
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Nov 10, 2015 2:15:02 GMT -6
And why is the death penalty any worse than all the other forms of killing happening around the world on an hourly basis? If it's no worse, why do the executioners feel so guilty?
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Nov 10, 2015 5:06:26 GMT -6
And why is the death penalty any worse than all the other forms of killing happening around the world on an hourly basis? If it's no worse, why do the executioners feel so guilty? Everyone who deals out death as a job - executioners, soldiers, certain police officers - feels guilt occasionally, and they should. When you make your living killing people, feeling guilty is a good thing - it means that you still have a functioning moral compass.
|
|
|
Post by supermax on Nov 10, 2015 14:09:29 GMT -6
Seems to me that your position is based on an incorrect premis - you are comparing apples and oranges.
An executioner is carrying out the will of the people. He is effecting a legal homicide which has been through a judicial process where evidence has been brought and tested, and yet, a sentence has been deemed to be appropriate for the crime committed.
In law, i.e. on behalf of the constituent people the executioner is effectively "enacting their will" - it is not his will. I am sure that you actually understand the difference between an illegal homicide or capital murder, and, legal homicide.
As an aside, I do not think that "execution" is actually a profession.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Nov 10, 2015 17:48:17 GMT -6
Seems to me that your position is based on an incorrect premis - you are comparing apples and oranges. An executioner is carrying out the will of the people. He is effecting a legal homicide which has been through a judicial process where evidence has been brought and tested, and yet, a sentence has been deemed to be appropriate for the crime committed. So what? The point is that the profession is, and has historically been, treated as shameful. And the executioners themselves feel guilt. This is all evidence that what they are doing is wrong, whether or not they are merely the hand of the people. Not that "the hand of the people" argument cut much ice for the nazis. (But I had better stop before white diamonds gets outraged that I am making a restricted comparison between the DP and the holocaust.)
|
|
|
Post by supermax on Nov 11, 2015 4:28:56 GMT -6
So what ? You don't care that the basis of the position is fatally flawed ?
For example, soldiers, policemen, firefighters, doctors all face situations where they hold the life/fate of others in their hands. Are you suggesting that they would feel no guilt for decisions or actions they took during the course of their duties ? Are you trying to suggest that somehow law enforcement or corrections officers should be immune to their involvement ? It would be very worrying if such officers were required to have the moral character of an amoeba.
In terms of your view, don't you think that the condemned murderers due to their actions should "own" the guilt subsequently created, i.e. by society and by anyone required by the society they serve to conduct executions ? Do you accept that condemned murderers create many many victims as a result of their actions ?
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Nov 11, 2015 5:25:28 GMT -6
So what ? You don't care that the basis of the position is fatally flawed ? For example, soldiers, policemen, firefighters, doctors all face situations where they hold the life/fate of others in their hands. Are you suggesting that they would feel no guilt for decisions or actions they took during the course of their duties ? Are you trying to suggest that somehow law enforcement or corrections officers should be immune to their involvement ? It would be very worrying if such officers were required to have the moral character of an amoeba. In terms of your view, don't you think that the condemned murderers due to their actions should "own" the guilt subsequently created, i.e. by society and by anyone required by the society they serve to conduct executions ? Do you accept that condemned murderers create many many victims as a result of their actions ? There is one vital difference - policemen, firefighters and doctors actually serve an important purpose in society; that's more than you could say for an executioner. And no, they should not. Why? The execution is not a given, natural consequence of their actions - an execution is a willed act, both by society and those who carry it out. Yes, there are still some states whose laws condone the death penalty - but those laws are made by people, and they can be changed by people. Those who keep the death penalty on the books, those who dole out death sentences, those who confirm them and those that carry it out - they are all part of the responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Nov 11, 2015 9:02:57 GMT -6
So what ? You don't care that the basis of the position is fatally flawed ? In terms of your view, don't you think that the condemned murderers due to their actions should "own" the guilt subsequently created, i.e. by society and by anyone required by the society they serve to conduct executions ? Do you accept that condemned murderers create many many victims as a result of their actions ? This question was avoided as usual.
|
|
|
Post by supermax on Nov 11, 2015 12:47:00 GMT -6
[/quote]There is one vital difference - policemen, firefighters and doctors actually serve an important purpose in society; that's more than you could say for an executioner.
And no, they should not. Why? The execution is not a given, natural consequence of their actions - an execution is a willed act, both by society and those who carry it out. Yes, there are still some states whose laws condone the death penalty - but those laws are made by people, and they can be changed by people. Those who keep the death penalty on the books, those who dole out death sentences, those who confirm them and those that carry it out - they are all part of the responsibility. [/quote]
Are you suggesting that corrections officers do not serve an important purpose to society ? I consider that corrections officers play a vital role in society, they protect us from those who have and may do us further harm. I see prisons and the treatment of offenders as a vital role of any society. The judicial system and law would in my view be entirely worthless if there were no prisons or correction institutions. Do you not see that there is a direct correlation between law, corrections institutions and corrections officers ?
Execution is a direct consequence of actions taken by individuals - it is for this reason that, for example thieves are not executed. Further, it is a punishment attributed by an enacted and well known statute; are you of the opinion that the general populace does not know that there is a potential punishment by execution in certain states ? The actions of murderers, their actions, not the actions of society lead directly to the enactment of the law in effect. It is a direct consequence, to consider otherwise is somewhat perverse. To respond to your statement, I agree with you that an execution is willed, it is in fact a deliberate act, however, it is willed by the society where the law is in effect not by the corrections officers involved, do you accept this or are you suggesting that an execution is carried out at the will of the officers involved in the execution event themselves ?
I fundamentally agree with your position that laws are made by people, that is certainly true. Do you accept that people make up society ? It is not possible for one individual (to my knowledge) to for example enact a law which would then be enacted, for example, could I enact a law which would result in the introduction of executions for shoplifters ? So the society who has enacted the law is ultimately responsible for the sentence - you seem to now accept that the society who has chosen to enact the punishment of execution is in fact responsible, not the individual corrections officers concerned or have I misunderstood you ?
As whitediamonds pointed out, you have not responded to my final question - it would be polite to do so - so I will repeat it here in the hope you will respond -
In terms of your view, don't you think that the condemned murderers due to their actions should "own" the guilt subsequently created, i.e. by society and by anyone required by the society they serve to conduct executions ? Do you accept that condemned murderers create many many victims as a result of their actions ?
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Nov 11, 2015 13:04:32 GMT -6
There is one vital difference - policemen, firefighters and doctors actually serve an important purpose in society; that's more than you could say for an executioner. And no, they should not. Why? The execution is not a given, natural consequence of their actions - an execution is a willed act, both by society and those who carry it out. Yes, there are still some states whose laws condone the death penalty - but those laws are made by people, and they can be changed by people. Those who keep the death penalty on the books, those who dole out death sentences, those who confirm them and those that carry it out - they are all part of the responsibility. [/quote] Are you suggesting that corrections officers do not serve an important purpose to society ? I consider that corrections officers play a vital role in society, they protect us from those who have and may do us further harm. I see prisons and the treatment of offenders as a vital role of any society. The judicial system and law would in my view be entirely worthless if there were no prisons or correction institutions. Do you not see that there is a direct correlation between law, corrections institutions and corrections officers ? Execution is a direct consequence of actions taken by individuals - it is for this reason that, for example thieves are not executed. Further, it is a punishment attributed by an enacted and well known statute; are you of the opinion that the general populace does not know that there is a potential punishment by execution in certain states ? The actions of murderers, their actions, not the actions of society lead directly to the enactment of the law in effect. It is a direct consequence, to consider otherwise is somewhat perverse. To respond to your statement, I agree with you that an execution is willed, it is in fact a deliberate act, however, it is willed by the society where the law is in effect not by the corrections officers involved, do you accept this or are you suggesting that an execution is carried out at the will of the officers involved in the execution event themselves ? I fundamentally agree with your position that laws are made by people, that is certainly true. Do you accept that people make up society ? It is not possible for one individual (to my knowledge) to for example enact a law which would then be enacted, for example, could I enact a law which would result in the introduction of executions for shoplifters ? So the society who has enacted the law is ultimately responsible for the sentence - you seem to now accept that the society who has chosen to enact the punishment of execution is in fact responsible, not the individual corrections officers concerned or have I misunderstood you ? As whitediamonds pointed out, you have not responded to my final question - it would be polite to do so - so I will repeat it here in the hope you will respond - In terms of your view, don't you think that the condemned murderers due to their actions should "own" the guilt subsequently created, i.e. by society and by anyone required by the society they serve to conduct executions ? Do you accept that condemned murderers create many many victims as a result of their actions ? [/quote] I tried to answer your question, but perhaps I should have been clearer: No, I do not. Is that clear enough for you? To your other statements: Correctional officers are important for society and common welfare, their participation in carrying out executions are most definitely not - and by enabling those executions to take place, they share in the responsibility. Executions are nor necessary, nor do they improve common welfare, nor do they improve the security of the common, nor do they deter further murderers... Need I go on?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Nov 12, 2015 1:14:45 GMT -6
For example, soldiers, policemen, firefighters, doctors all face situations where they hold the life/fate of others in their hands. Now who is comparing apples and oranges? Soldiers, policemen, firefighters and doctors are some of the most respected professions in our society. Yet soldiers would be insulted to hear you compare them to executioners. Why is that? Maybe it's because soldiers, policemen and firefighters put their lives on the line. Executioners, on the other hand, poison restrained cowards from a position of complete safety. You really don't see a difference? Because I do. Anyone would be proud to marry a doctor. No-one would be proud to marry an executioner. Your child might express a wish to become a firefighter, soldier, doctor or cop. And you might dream of the day he graduates to such a profession. But if your child expressed a wish to become an executioner, you would take him to see a shrink. In fact, doctors refuse to take part in executions. Why is that, if the profession is so honorable? The bottom line is that nobody is proud to be an executioner. In fact they hide their acts, not just from the public, but even from themselves. As the article above said, they put multiple people on the execution team "so no one person feels responsible". But if what they are doing is so great, why don't they want to feel responsible?
|
|
|
Post by hangman1981 on Jan 24, 2016 16:27:16 GMT -6
I could be an execution if it paid well! ) Wouldn't want to make a career out of it.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 24, 2016 16:31:35 GMT -6
I could be an execution if it paid well! ) Wouldn't want to make a career out of it. Why not?
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Feb 9, 2016 11:43:48 GMT -6
Just because you feel it is a wrong does not make you right. That's right. What makes it wrong is the possibility of executing innocents. That standard of right and wrong makes almost every human action, and many inactions, wrong.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 9, 2016 13:58:07 GMT -6
That's right. What makes it wrong is the possibility of executing innocents. That standard of right and wrong makes almost every human action, and many inactions, wrong. Executions are not accidents. Don't compare the two.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Feb 12, 2016 10:28:35 GMT -6
That standard of right and wrong makes almost every human action, and many inactions, wrong. Executions are not accidents. Don't compare the two. According to stats 1 out of 25 sentenced to death are innocent. Not sure if that means factually, by being "exonerated though.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Feb 16, 2016 19:23:48 GMT -6
Executions are not accidents. Don't compare the two. According to stats 1 out of 25 sentenced to death are innocent. Not sure if that means factually, by being "exonerated though. The word "exonerated" excludes any concern about guilt or innocence. Many murderers who were exonerated were clearly guility
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Feb 16, 2016 19:27:31 GMT -6
That standard of right and wrong makes almost every human action, and many inactions, wrong. Executions are not accidents. Don't compare the two. Executing the wrong person is an accident. But a difference on that point doesn't change the standard.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 17, 2016 14:03:15 GMT -6
Executions are not accidents. Don't compare the two. Executing the wrong person is an accident. No. Convicting the wrong person was an accident. Executing them was deliberate.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 17, 2016 14:04:23 GMT -6
According to stats 1 out of 25 sentenced to death are innocent. Not sure if that means factually, by being "exonerated though. The word "exonerated" excludes any concern about guilt or innocence. Many murderers who were exonerated were clearly guilty For a pardon, acquittal, or dismissal to count as an exoneration, it must have been the result, at least in part, of evidence of innocence. www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/glossary.aspx
|
|