Things I don't understand about the death penalty

[Deleted]

1. Since capital punishment exists merely for the feeling/the sense of justice rather than its deterrence which is of big controversy, I don't understand why there is so much oproar when mentally ill are sentenced to death. "It's not their fault, it's their illness" people say.

I am not a pro-DP, and I don't believe mentally ill criminals should be imprisoned, but they should be subject to commitment to a psychiatric unit and treated for their illness. Imprisoning them will only worsening their illness. But if there should be capital punishment, I don't see why mentally ill should escape that punishment. After all, the DP exists for the victims of the crime, and not for the sake of the individual.

First off, it is not like the individual is going to be rehabilitated in any way - for example deterred from committing a crime again, and thus it makes no sense neither to treat the mentally ill. It will only hurt the sense of justice for those who believe in capital punishment.

2. When talking about DP because of people's sense of justice, I ask you: What about MY sense of justice? I'm offended by the capital punishment. Why don't my sense of justice count as much as those 65-70 % who are pro-DPs? Death comes to us all sooner or later, but killing another human being, be it another individual - or in this case - the government - hurts my sense of justice.

3. Two wrongs doesn't make a right.
Killing a human being for killing another only makes two killings. One family may have their justice, but the other family, the offender's/crimal's family will lose a family member too - and remember - that family is just as innocent as the victim's family!

[whitediamonds]

Jan 23, 2010 17:32:45 GMT -6 @antipro said:

1. Since capital punishment exists merely for the feeling/the sense of justice rather than its deterrence which is of big controversy, I don't understand why there is so much oproar when mentally ill are sentenced to death. "It's not their fault, it's their illness" people say.



Wrong DP does not exist "only" for feelings.

All on DR are "mentally ill" REALLY who said that? Have facts on that or are some just evil?

If one is "insane" we do not execute them.



I am not a pro-DP, and I don't believe mentally ill criminals should be imprisoned, but they should be subject to commitment to a psychiatric unit and treated for their illness. Imprisoning them will only worsening their illness. But if there should be capital punishment, I don't see why mentally ill should escape that punishment. After all, the DP exists for the victims of the crime, and not for the sake of the individual.

For GP inmates and mental or psychological issues, they are in a psych unit until stable to be in GP and on meds.
Inmates who have "psychological issues" are treated inside for their illness and given meds for it.




First off, it is not like the individual is going to be rehabilitated in any way - for example deterred from committing a crime again, and thus it makes no sense neither to treat the mentally ill. It will only hurt the sense of justice for those who believe in capital punishment.


True one who has commited such heinous crimes to reach DP, I agree is not capable of being rehabilitated in any way.






2. When talking about DP because of people's sense of justice, I ask you: What about MY sense of justice? I'm offended by the capital punishment. Why don't my sense of justice count as much as those 65-70 % who are pro-DPs? Death comes to us all sooner or later, but killing another human being, be it another individual - or in this case - the government - hurts my sense of justice.

Majority always rules, some will just have to feel what about my sense of justice, same with the split on the abortion isssue. Not a perfect world never will be.



3. Two wrongs doesn't make a right.
Killing a human being for killing another only makes two killings. One family may have their justice, but the other family, the offender's/crimal's family will lose a family member too - and remember - that family is just as innocent as the victim's family!

It is not two wrongs, unless they kill more then one illegally, then it could become many wrongs like Gacy for example all the bodies he left and took from so many familys.

As far as the killer who took it unto himself/herself illegally to take lives of innocents, it is his familys tragedy brought onto them by their own family member, not sociietys cross to carry. That also was done by the killer.

[Californian]

Jan 23, 2010 17:32:45 GMT -6 @antipro said:

What about MY sense of justice?

Few here care, I can tell you that. ;D

I'm offended by the capital punishment.

The Constitution specifically authorizes capital punishment. Nowhere in that great document does it say you have a right not to be offended.

[Deleted]

The Constitution specifically authorizes capital punishment. Nowhere in that great document does it say you have a right not to be offended.

This is not a discussion about legal matters, but politics and morals.

It is not two wrongs, unless they kill more then one illegally, then it could become many wrongs like Gacy for example all the bodies he left and took from so many familys.

That is a matter of political opinion. I believe killing is wrong no matter who does it.

It is not two wrongs, unless they kill more then one illegally, then it could become many wrongs like Gacy for example all the bodies he left and took from so many familys.

There is no reason for making things worse than they are. It is not the killer who is killing himself, but the state killing the killer.

[Californian]

Jan 24, 2010 6:58:18 GMT -6 @antipro said:

The Constitution specifically authorizes capital punishment. Nowhere in that great document does it say you have a right not to be offended.

This is not a discussion about legal matters, but politics and morals.

Sez you. ;D

[mike5]

Jan 23, 2010 17:32:45 GMT -6 @antipro said:

1. Since capital punishment exists merely for the feeling/the sense of justice rather than its deterrence ....

Wrong.

.... I don't understand why there is so much oproar when mentally ill are sentenced to death. "It's not their fault, it's their illness" people say.

Since the uproar is by those against all capital punishment, you being one of them, it's a disingenuous argument. It's against the law to sentence people to death who did not know the difference between right and wrong at the time of the commission of the crime. It is also against the law to execute a prisoner who is unaware of the connection between his commission of the crime and his execution.

I am not a pro-DP.. .

Really? I would have never known.

and I don't believe mentally ill criminals should be imprisoned, but they should be subject to commitment to a psychiatric unit and treated for their illness.

Why not? One can be a criminal and mentally ill, too. Almost all of those on death row have personality disorders which are not really treatable. Does one who is sane at the time they committed the crime and then subsequently become mentally ill get a pass? How about if their illness is treatable by drugs? Do you just give them a prescription and set them free? Get real.

Imprisoning them will only worsening their illness.

Prison/jail is the only time most of them get treatment because someone is there 24/7 making sure they are medically compliant.

But if there should be capital punishment, I don't see why mentally ill should escape that punishment. After all, the DP exists for the victims of the crime, and not for the sake of the individual.

Okay, let's execute them all! Oh, wait...you're against all capital punishment. So, what you are really arguing is execute only the mentally ill and spare those from execution who are not mentally ill?

Seriously, I hate when people like you make these outrageous arguments contrary to your own position. It's a waste of time. You're not fooling anybody.

First off, it is not like the individual is going to be rehabilitated in any way - for example deterred from committing a crime again, and thus it makes no sense neither to treat the mentally ill. It will only hurt the sense of justice for those who believe in capital punishment.

Since you do not believe in capital punishment, you are in no way qualified to speak for those who do.

2. When talking about DP because of people's sense of justice, I ask you: What about MY sense of justice?
I'm offended by the capital punishment.

Who cares?

Why don't my sense of justice count as much as those 65-70 % who are pro-DPs?

Take a math class: 65-70 % is a majority over 30 -45%.

Death comes to us all sooner or later, but killing another human being, be it another individual - or in this case - the government - hurts my sense of justice.

The only thing you have demonstrated so far by your arguments is that you have no sense of justice.

3. Two wrongs doesn't make a right.

Boy, you are full of these cliches, aren't you? Well, right back atcha': Two wrongs may not make a right in your eyes, but it does make us even. Or, since execution is not a wrong, it's really a wrong + a right.

Killing a human being for killing another only makes two killings.

No, it makes one lawfully executed human being vs. one murdered human being.

One family may have their justice, but the other family, the offender's/crimal's family will lose a family member too - and remember - that family is just as innocent as the victim's family!

Oh, I beg to differ. In almost all these capital punishment cases, they argue that the person's life should be spared because they suffered abuse at the hands of their family. It's disingenuous to turn around and argue that the abusers are innocent.
Also, many family members of the murderer are relieved when they are executed because they were abused/threatened by them.

The family members of the murderer and the family members of the victim are treated equally in that they both live in a country where they can vote/advocate for or against capital punishment. Don't like it - change the laws. My major gripe is that antis are always trying to do it by lying their *%#*@* off.

[Deleted]

Since the uproar is by those against all capital punishment, you being one of them, it's a disingenuous argument. It's against the law to sentence people to death who did not know the difference between right and wrong at the time of the commission of the crime. It is also against the law to execute a prisoner who is unaware of the connection between his commission of the crime and his execution.

I'm not asking about legal issues, but the morals/politics behind the reason that mentally ill should not be executed if there exists death penalty.

They didn't know they did anything wrong, but its not like those who knew they did something wrong are going to be rehabilitated in any way (i.e. by imprisonment) either, so why should the mentally ill be exempt from the death penalty?

Why not? One can be a criminal and mentally ill, too. Almost all of those on death row have personality disorders which are not really treatable. Does one who is sane at the time they committed the crime and then subsequently become mentally ill get a pass? How about if their illness is treatable by drugs? Do you just give them a prescription and set them free? Get real.

In Europe we send them into closed psychiatric units and treat them. It's like prison in terms of depriving them of their freedom, but unlike a prison, they get the time to rest and the peace and care they need in order to recover. Sending them into a real prison will only worsening their symptoms. Mentally ill should be treated, not send in prison. Treatment for mental disorders is best done in psychiatric units.

Prison/jail is the only time most of them get treatment because someone is there 24/7 making sure they are medically compliant.

This is best done in a closed psychiatric unit, as we do it in Europe.
Almost any psychiatrist will agree with me.

Okay, let's execute them all! Oh, wait...you're against all capital punishment. So, what you are really arguing is execute only the mentally ill and spare those from execution who are not mentally ill?

No, that is not what I meant. I mean IF there is going to be DP, it should be for everyone who commits a capital offence.

Since you do not believe in capital punishment, you are in no way qualified to speak for those who do.

Some years ago I was actually a very pro-DP arguing for death penalty for murder and drug trafficking, but I got enlightened.

Take a math class: 65-70 % is a majority over 30 -45%.

The majority is not always right. Just because the majority says 2+2 = 5 doesn't make it true.

The only thing you have demonstrated so far by your arguments is that you have no sense of justice.

I do have sense of justice. It just differs from yours.

Boy, you are full of these cliches, aren't you? Well, right back atcha': Two wrongs may not make a right in your eyes, but it does make us even. Or, since execution is not a wrong, it's really a wrong + a right.

Killing is wrong, no matter who kills.

No, it makes one lawfully executed human being vs. one murdered human being.

Lawful or not, it is still killing, and in my opinion, killing is wrong no matter who does it.

Oh, I beg to differ. In almost all these capital punishment cases, they argue that the person's life should be spared because they suffered abuse at the hands of their family. It's disingenuous to turn around and argue that the abusers are innocent.
Also, many family members of the murderer are relieved when they are executed because they were abused/threatened by them.

Just because many (whatever "many" means) doesn't mean that there are families to murderers out there who have their loved one killed by the government.

The family members of the murderer and the family members of the victim are treated equally in that they both live in a country where they can vote/advocate for or against capital punishment. Don't like it - change the laws. My major gripe is that antis are always trying to do it by lying their *%#*@* off.

I'm also advocating against the death penalty, and if it comes to an election campaign for or against the DP, I'd vote against it.

[ltdc]

Jan 24, 2010 12:58:51 GMT -6 @antipro said:

Some years ago I was actually a very pro-DP arguing for death penalty for murder and drug trafficking, but I got enlightened.

you got enlightened? or sentenced for a DP offense?

[ltdc]

Jan 24, 2010 12:58:51 GMT -6 @antipro said:

Killing is wrong, no matter who kills.

a perfectly fine stance.....for you. but what you cannot do is claim killing is wrong period, under any circumstance and then come back and question issues like mental retardation, deterrence, justice, race, costs and so forth.

nor can you come back and say except for self defense, or police action, or war.

if killing is wrong, stay with it, but you can't pick and choose.

[wrench]

Jan 24, 2010 14:04:58 GMT -6 @antipro said:

you got enlightened? or sentenced for a DP offense?

Someone convinced me that DP is wrong.
The only crimes I have committed are: Software piracy, libel and not paying my TV license.

sounds like DP offenses to me. let's break out the gurney.

[Deleted]

sounds like DP offenses to me. let's break out the gurney.

Yeah, especially not paying my TV-license... thats terrible terrible... NOT!

[wrench]

Jan 24, 2010 13:31:42 GMT -6 ltdc said:

Jan 24, 2010 12:58:51 GMT -6 @antipro said:

Killing is wrong, no matter who kills.

a perfectly fine stance.....for you. but what you cannot do is claim killing is wrong period, under any circumstance and then come back and question issues like mental retardation, deterrence, justice, race, costs and so forth.

nor can you come back and say except for self defense, or police action, or war.

if killing is wrong, stay with it, but you can't pick and choose.

a very concise response, ltdc.
btw, antipro, before you get to picked apart, there are multiple anti-dp posters here. welcome aboard.

[Deleted]

btw, antipro, before you get to picked apart, there are multiple anti-dp posters here. welcome aboard.

Thanks

[Deleted]

but what you cannot do is claim killing is wrong period, under any circumstance

Killing is always (morally) wrong, but sometimes it is a neccessity (for practical reasons).

There is no need to extend the use of a morally wrong thing (killing) to the penal system.

[whitediamonds]

Antipro, Ironic you say you were pro, some years ago and are enlighten now.

I was anti and now pro and I am enlightend too now.

So who is right or really enlightened ?

Killing is wrong yet needed at times, not to just go slaughter whomever you want, whenever you want, however one wants for whatever evil purpose by an individual.

I do not understand why you say they are mentally ill, are they??? They are not just pure evil and wired that way !!!

Having been a anti and listening to the same defense wording over and over come's down to antis, none are judgemental, all big hearted, have morals and honest.

I am sorry, I found this all to be outright lies, be it on purpose with extented agendas against the DP, or so mentally caught up they believe it themselves and have no idea the full pic of where this movement is intending to take to extremes.

I am Saying it will not end there, it will go on and on to no REAL LWOP, that is cruel and unusual punishment too, excuses for the criminals are rampant, seems no one on DR is guilty, it is a political scheme etc etc etc...

Why the Sam Hill are so many murdered or should I say slaughtered, and no one is guilty or the courts are always prejudice, its all about money on and on and on.

I personally ran into too many antis that do not walk the talk, they are extremely judgemental in debates and toward others, not saying you are by the way.

If iI hear that term I am not judgemental then why the heck all the excuses for the killers? If they are mentally ill what about the mental and support for the vicims or victims of familys affected?
If so goodhearted/moral?

Should they not come first. I do not see this as a strong a debate going on for their rights and the aftermath of what they are left to deal with, "mentally", financially, support.

I personally believe in the LI it is very humane and saves others from the maddness, ones so evil cannot be contained, rehabilitated or medicated to not kill again.

If killing is wrong no matter what, I agree dont come back with reasons were it is ok, like self defense or police action, or a neccessay war. Abortion, etc the list is long.
Do not kill the dog who had attacked/ kllled a child either, I mean the dog is contained now right? It was after the attack the child was already dead, so why kill the dog??? According to
your blanket statement all killing is wrong !!!

[kingsindanger]

Antipro, so how would you sentence somebody such as Ted Bundy or even KSM?

[kingsindanger]

Jan 24, 2010 14:28:01 GMT -6 @antipro said:

but what you cannot do is claim killing is wrong period, under any circumstance

Killing is always (morally) wrong, but sometimes it is a neccessity (for practical reasons).

There is no need to extend the use of a morally wrong thing (killing) to the penal system.

You do realize that the people on death row are the people that would cut you into pieces if given the chance.

Lets try this. Would you be willing be locked in a cell with somebody on death row if he is holding an axe?

[mike5]

Jan 24, 2010 12:58:51 GMT -6 @antipro said:

I'm not asking about legal issues, but the morals/politics behind the reason that mentally ill should not be executed if there exists death penalty.

You don’t have a clue what you are asking most of the time. I tried to explain to you who is eligible for execution and who is not. Yours and other antis continual lumping them all under the category of “mental illness” is deliberately misleading. It is immoral to execute/punish those who are not culpable due to mental illness.

They didn't know they did anything wrong, but its not like those who knew they did something wrong are going to be rehabilitated in any way (i.e. by imprisonment) either, so why should the mentally ill be exempt from the death penalty?

Because they lacked the mens rea at the time of the commission of the crime. That's why.

In Europe we send them into closed psychiatric units and treat them. It's like prison in terms of depriving them of their freedom, but unlike a prison, they get the time to rest and the peace and care they need in order to recover.

That's why I detest europe, weenie.

Sending them into a real prison will only worsening their symptoms. Mentally ill should be treated, not send in prison. Treatment for mental disorders is best done in psychiatric units.

No. See previous answer in other post.

No, that is not what I meant. I mean IF there is going to be DP, it should be for everyone who commits a capital offence.

You are against the death penalty under any circumstances, remember? And if you are asking why we don't in the US, again, it has been explained to you numerous times already. That we are not backed into some imaginary corner by you, is not our problem.

Some years ago I was actually a very pro-DP arguing for death penalty for murder and drug trafficking, but I got enlightened.

I don't care and no, you are not enlightened.

The majority is not always right. Just because the majority says 2+2 = 5 doesn't make it true.

Try to keep focused. You asked: Why don't my sense of justice count as much as those 65-70 % who are pro-DPs? I told you why -- because yours is a minority opinion. And now that I know you're a weenie, you opinion even counts less.

I do have sense of justice. It just differs from yours.

No, you have no sense of justice at all. You want to execute innocent people just because they are mentally ill.

Killing is wrong, no matter who kills.

Stupid cliches, like the one above, are even more wrong.

Lawful or not, it is still killing, and in my opinion, killing is wrong no matter who does it.

And this is just you repeating the same old tired cliches. Please, we've heard them a million times before. Are you in high school?

Just because many (whatever "many" means) doesn't mean that there are families to murderers out there who have their loved one killed by the government.

Unintelligible.

I'm also advocating against the death penalty, and if it comes to an election campaign for or against the DP, I'd vote against it.

Uh, who cares? Didn't I say several times that citizens have the right to vote? However, from what I can tell, you are not a citizen of the US, so p*ss off.

[Californian]

Jan 24, 2010 14:14:45 GMT -6 @antipro said:

Yeah, especially not paying my TV-license... thats terrible terrible... NOT!

Jeeez, another stinkin' Euroweenie.

What'd you do, draw the short straw on the anti boards? ;D

[Elric of Melnibone]

Wonder if this is the same poster that was whining on prisontalk about how mean and hateful we are...?

Hate to tell you antipro, but we are not mean and hateful. We use logic and evidence, things your mods wont allow on your thug hugger, emerald lensed, carebear site.

In other words, run with the big dogs, or stay on the porch and enjoy a nice, hot cup of STFU.

[Deleted]

Jan 23, 2010 17:32:45 GMT -6 @antipro said:

I don't see why mentally ill should escape that punishment.

I know. You'd think that because of their mental illness, especially if they're claiming that made them do it, they'd be even more dangerous. Blame the antis. They're idiots.

After all, the DP exists for the victims of the crime, and not for the sake of the individual.

The victims are dead. DP doesn't exist for them. It exists because people like to pretend they're tough on crime and the easiest way to say that is to say 'killdabastaad'.

First off, it is not like the individual is going to be rehabilitated in any way - for example deterred from committing a crime again, and thus it makes no sense neither to treat the mentally ill. It will only hurt the sense of justice for those who believe in capital punishment.

That's a double negative, so you're actually saying it makes perfect sense.

Back in my childhood home on Brayton Road, Carmel, New York, right around the corner from me lived a policeman who brutally murdered his young lover and wrapped him in a carpet, putting him out with the trash. He was declared insane and sent to a mental institution. 4 years later, he was out. Two weeks later, they found the body of a 14 year old boy raped and murdered outside his home. He was sent to a mental institution.

Two wrongs doesn't make a right.
Killing a human being for killing another only makes two killings. One family may have their justice, but the other family, the offender's/crimal's family will lose a family member too - and remember - that family is just as innocent as the victim's family!

Look, I oppose DP too. But, really, any and all victims (including the murderer's family) are victims of the murderer and his choice to kill.

[mcbox]

@original Post:

The death penalty exists for one reason, and one reason only: to provide appropriate punishment to justify the crime that the offender committed for whatever reason. It does not matter what conditions the offender committed the crime under. If a person does not have the mind to control themselves, then they do not belong in society one way or another. Murdering someone in cold blood is not the same as killing a person in defense of your home and family, either.

I'm right there with you when you say that the mentally ill should not escape their punishment. The truly mentally ill can never be trusted, because they are without the natural restraints of conscience, self-control, regard for consequence and fear of punishment. In my opinion, these are the most dangerous kinds of people because they are naturally less than human - but still retain the ability to harm those around them.

It's good that you're offended by the death penalty. I'm offended daily by pop culture and our nation's tendency to glorify criminal activity, but am I so deluded that I think things are going to change just because I disagree with them? No, I'm surely not.

Killing is right, murder is wrong. To end someone's life in justice and in the defense of justice is right. When you end someone's life to terminate a threat of death, then that is justifiable killing. If a life is taken for any other reason, only then can we say that a crime was committed.

[brumsongs]

"The truly mentally ill can never be trusted, because they are without the natural restraints of conscience, self-control, regard for consequence and fear of punishment. In my opinion, these are the most dangerous kinds of people because they are naturally less than human - but still retain the ability to harm those around them."

Felix, please address this offensive nonsense.

[mcbox]

Something wrong with your fingers, Brum?

[brumsongs]

I could refute it in layman's terms if you like but you might as well have it from a professional in the field. First of all research the difference between mental illness and personality disorder. When you're done with that please define what you mean by "truly mentally ill." Lastly, provide a rationalisation for why, say, Van Gogh was less than human.

[mcbox]

Layman's terms, eh? It's a shame you'd put good ol' Felix out there like that.

Who is to say that van Gogh could not have killed? I read here that he became exceptionally psychotic only in the last two years of his life - before committing suicide. Is suicide not murder, or killing, in the very least? I say he was less than human because of his disorder, not because of what he gave to the world.

[brumsongs]

When the groundbreaking "mcbox blueprint for authentic humanity" alters criminal justice forever I'll consider your props for judging Van Gogh's place in the human hierarchy. And Churchill's for that matter.

[mcbox]

Churchill was never diagnosed, if I read correctly. Again, if Churchill actually suffered from manic depression, it would be the disease that made him sub-human, and not his contributions.

[brumsongs]

Jan 25, 2010 8:12:14 GMT -6 mcbox said:

Churchill was never diagnosed, if I read correctly. Again, if Churchill actually suffered from manic depression, it would be the disease that made him sub-human, and not his contributions.

This gets better. So, to summarise, it matters not what one accomplishes in life or contributes to society. To qualify as a full human being one must pass an arbritrary psychiatric test of normality. Against what benchmark are we all to be judged? For your argument to be credible presumably the ideal of humanity must be your good self. Would it be done on a scale (That lindsay lohan was alright in Mean Girls but she's only got 6/10 mcboxes so she's unemployable). Or pass or fail (That michael jackson was a total mcbox-failure) ?

[mcbox]

Was he or was he not diagnosed? Some people hold in high regard the 'contributions' of Mao Zedong, Hitler and Stalin, to name a few - since you seem to be stuck on the celebrities of old. Do you suppose we could get into a pointless argument of the orientation of intent now?

The 'benchmark' you mention refers to what is normal and acceptable in society. Of course, now comes the endless debate over what defines normal, so, have at it.