[helene_t]

But Winston, what is the purpose of punishment? I know to some, punishment is an end in itself. I cannot understand that way of thinking but I know it's widespread. Anyway, that way of thinking evolved due to the survival value of deterance.

Presumably, the bureaucrats and politicians involved in making the laws have different ideas on this. Some may consider punishment an end in itself, some may consider it a way to deter, some may consider it a way to get people to vote for them. Some may believe in the socializing effect of prisons on the inmates.

The reason why we don't cut off arms of shoplifters is simply because the welfare of shoplifters is a priority that needs to be balanced against other ends. But if I fail to buy a DKK 20 train ticket in Denmark they will let me pay a DKK 750 fine, which makes perfect sense IMHO.

[bid_em_up]

The_Hog, on Feb 22 2008, 05:09 AM, said:

Codo, on Feb 22 2008, 03:52 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Feb 22 2008, 01:01 AM, said:

[However,  if you honestly believe that someone who rapes a 10 year old girl and then buries her alive or that someone who feeds a FIVE year old to an alligator somehow deserves or has the right to live out the rest of their lives in prison (which, to me, is exactly what you are saying if you think the death penalty is never appropriate) while these young innocent children died terrifying deaths at their hands, then, yes, I think your opinion (not you) is stupid.

Their right to exist ceased the moment they chose to commit such crimes.

Who are you to claim this?

You decide which murder was worse enough to be punished by the death penalty and which is not?
And people who have another opinion have a stupid opinion?

This speaks for itself, thank you for you wothless comments.

Ignore him Roland. His rantings are those of a person with a very sick mind.

As usual, you are totally clueless.

[bid_em_up]

Codo, on Feb 22 2008, 03:52 AM, said:

bid_em_up, on Feb 22 2008, 01:01 AM, said:

[However,  if you honestly believe that someone who rapes a 10 year old girl and then buries her alive or that someone who feeds a FIVE year old to an alligator somehow deserves or has the right to live out the rest of their lives in prison (which, to me, is exactly what you are saying if you think the death penalty is never appropriate) while these young innocent children died terrifying deaths at their hands, then, yes, I think your opinion (not you) is stupid.

Their right to exist ceased the moment they chose to commit such crimes.

Who are you to claim this?

You decide which murder was worse enough to be punished by the death penalty and which is not?
And people who have another opinion have a stupid opinion?

This speaks for itself, thank you for you wothless comments.

You're quite welcome.

You don't have to like my comments. I couldn't care less if you do or don't.

I am entitled to recognize what I believe is pure evil (and what any other sane, rational person should also) when I see it and I have no problem in stating that it should be eliminated from the face of the earth, if at all possible.

You dont like that? Too bad.

[blackshoe]

luke warm, on Feb 22 2008, 06:22 AM, said:

who cares? the question was, if you were king etc etc... i have my reasons for declining, you have yours (you don't trust yourself - which frankly is a good reason)

Don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing about trusting or not trusting myself, or declining or accepting an appointment as "king of the world".

The question is flawed - the options carry implications which indicate that more options are needed.

As to monarchy vs. democracy, it's the institutions I distrust.

[jtfanclub]

bid_em_up, on Feb 22 2008, 10:20 AM, said:

I am entitled to recognize what I believe is pure evil (and what any other sane, rational person should also) when I see it and I have no problem in stating that it should be eliminated from the face of the earth, if at all possible.

Are other people allowed to believe that you are pure evil (and believe any other sane, rational people should also believe this), and if so are they allowed to eliminate you from the face of the earth, if at all possible?

Have you ever considered the possibility that what you consider 'sane and rational' may not be what the majority believes is 'sane and rational'?

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Feb 22 2008, 06:22 AM, said:

who cares? the question was, if you were king etc etc... i have my reasons for declining, you have yours (you don't trust yourself - which frankly is a good reason)

Sorry but you always take the original question too literally. This is the same problem we had in that other thread not long ago, you answered the one question and refused to acknowledge any sort of participation in the future discussion. The question is there for the poll, the comments are there to further discuss the topic.

bid_em_up, on Feb 22 2008, 10:20 AM, said:

I am entitled to recognize what I believe is pure evil (and what any other sane, rational person should also)...

No one questions if you believe the first part of that, whether they agree or not. But as for the second part, it is that sort of closed minded pig-headed-ness that should be eradicated from the world a lot more than whatever group of people you consider evil enough to kill. It's the exact same problem our current government has. They make up their minds and then stop listening.

[mikeh]

Anyone who believes that they recognize pure evil when they see it is in impressive company. Osama bin Laden has long recognized the evil ways of the west, and he got a number of fellow-believers to do something about it.

A belief in good and evil may make life more comfortable for those who identify themselves as good (isn't it funny how everyone is on the good side... it's akin to the bizarre practice, prevalent in US team sports, of both sides praying to god that they will win.. which means praying that the other side loses.. you'd think that someone would have worked out by now that these prayers, by definition, show NO effect.. after all, both sides pray for the same thing and they each lose, on average, half the time ), but it is just one more excuse to avoid actually thinking.

'He is evil' means we can stop trying to understand him.

In terms of psychopathic or psychotic or other deranged or mentally unusual criminals, understanding might, eventually, lead to treatment. More importantly, understanding might lead to a reduction in similar behaviours by similarly impaired individuals, if only by allowing earlier recognition of those characteristics in others.

I read of a fascinating study in which a US university professor set up an experiment in which some students acted as prisoners (with distinctive clothing) and others as guards. The experiment was called off before its scheduled conclusion out of fear that some of the 'prisoners' would suffer serious harm at the hands of the guards, who had begun intimidating and brutalizing their fellow students.


And it seems absurd to believe that every prison guard or other individual who worked at the concentration camps in Nazi Germany was inherently 'evil'. Or that the Japanese who guarded Allied POWs were 'evil'. Or that the aircrew who flew on the Dresden bombing raid that killed 100,000 civilians in a firestorm were 'evil'.

Or that the commissars who enforced the creation of collective farming in the Ukraine in the 1920s were 'evil', even tho they caused the death by famine of countless innocents. And so on.

Normal people appear to contain within themselves the ability to act in monstrous ways in some circumstances, and they can always justify it to themselves. The psychopathic killer no doubt does so as well.

We are fooling ourselves if we believe that we can separate our fellow humans into good and evil.

I should add, I have interviewed a young man who stabbed a hitchhiker 19 times and drove her to the hospital. I have cross-examined a man I believe to have murdered his alcoholic wife for insurance money (Neither I nor the police could prove anything, and I may have been mistaken in my belief, but it was and remains my subjective opinion that he did it). And I have been involved in other cases in which I suspect it would have been easy to describe someone as 'evil' to explain what they did.

[luke warm]

blackshoe, on Feb 21 2008, 10:41 PM, said:

I don't trust democracy much. I trust monarchy less..

i don't think i put words in your mouth... that's what you said, so it made sense to me that you'd not choose to be king because you don't trust monarchs... if you were king you'd be a monarch, ergo

jdonn, on Feb 22 2008, 11:38 AM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 22 2008, 06:22 AM, said:

who cares? the question was, if you were king etc etc... i have my reasons for declining, you have yours (you don't trust yourself - which frankly is a good reason)

Sorry but you always take the original question too literally. This is the same problem we had in that other thread not long ago, you answered the one question and refused to acknowledge any sort of participation in the future discussion. The question is there for the poll, the comments are there to further discuss the topic.

the comments lose context without the original question... it would have been very easy to ask 'what are your feelings about capital punishment' without reference to being the king... what would *you* do *if* you were king of the world? and btw i think i've participated in many of the other posts

mikeh said:

Anyone who believes that they recognize pure evil when they see it is in impressive company.

i think i recognize evil (i don't know what's meant by "pure" evil), but i see it in all of us... it's just a matter of degree

Quote

A belief in good and evil may make life more comfortable for those who identify themselves as good

do you believe in good and evil?

[mikeh]

luke warm, on Feb 22 2008, 01:17 PM, said:

do you believe in good and evil?

No.

I do believe that there are people who, for various reasons, do not operate from the same moral or ethical basis as do I.

I don't think that that makes any of them 'evil'.

I do believe that there are people in behave in ways inimical to my view of how life should be lived. That doesn't make them 'evil'.

I have long believed in a fairly simple proposition, which is about as close as a universal truism as I have encountered: no-one sees themselves as the villain in their life-story.

I know people who cheat at the small and at the larger things. I know people who, when a cashier gives them too much change, keep silent. I know people who cheat at bridge. I know people who cheat on their spouses (including some people who profess to be religious). I know people who have killed people.. some of them 'in the line of duty', others (not friends of mine, fortunately) who killed through carelessness, and still others who committed murder (also, fortunately, not friends of mine). I know people who swear on the bible and lie. I know people who readily admit to the truth even when it is against their interest to do so.

I know bigots, I know fair-minded people. I know selfish people and generous people. I know people I believe have no real conscience and people who strain to accommodate others. I know people apparently at ease with themselves, and I know people in emotional torment.

In short, I share the human experience that I suspect most, and probably all, of those who are privileged enough to be able to post here (because of our relative affluence and the countries in which we live) share.

I don't know any 'evil' people.

[Al_U_Card]

mikeh, on Feb 22 2008, 12:44 PM, said:

Anyone who believes that they recognize pure evil when they see it is in impressive company. Osama bin Laden has long recognized the evil ways of the west, and he got a number of fellow-believers to do something about it.

I wonder if Osama saw the evil in the CIA agents that set him up with the training camps in Afghanistan to use the Muhajideen to weaken the Soviets in the 80's...

Or how his treatment for his kidney ailment at the Navy hospital was intended.

Or why he said that he didn't do it (on Sept. 12th) but was glad that it had been done.

Lots of good and evil mixed in there, showing just how hard it can be, at times, to sort it all out.

[helene_t]

I think I believe in good and evil. It is not something I feel strongly about, and maybe I could be pursuaded to agree with Mikeh if I were given some more psychological insight, or maybe it's just a semantics thing. As it is I tend to agree with Jimmy. It is something we all (or at least I) have in us, possibly to varying degree.

It is not particularly relevant to this thread, IMHO. A murderer could be a good person, I can imagine many non-evil reasons for killing someone. Yet it remains a very serious crime and should be punished as such.

[jtfanclub]

mikeh, on Feb 22 2008, 12:44 PM, said:

Anyone who believes that they recognize pure evil when they see it is in impressive company. Osama bin Laden has long recognized the evil ways of the west, and he got a number of fellow-believers to do something about it.

But that's looking at a cult. For example, I suspect that a majority of people in the world believe that a married woman who seduces a married man other than her husband and has sex with him is pure evil and should be put to death. Heck, I'm sure a significant percentage of American Christians believe that.

So should a woman who commits adultery be judged by 12 random people and be put to death if a majority of them think that she's pure evil?

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Feb 22 2008, 09:17 PM, said:

do you believe in good and evil?

So beyond that...

[kenberg]

Mikeh,

I suppose that the word "evil" could be banished but I don't know why we should. The Maryland case I mentioned involved a pair randomly selecting people unknown to them, including a child, and shooting them. It seems to me that "evil" is a reasonable description. What do you prefer? I don't know exactly the boundaries of the word "psychotic" but I am far from sure it would apply in their case. They did not seem to be the least bit confused about what they were doing or why. They just enjoyed shooting people, so they did it. I would like to reserve the word "psychotic" to at least have some correspondence with a medical diagnosis. We should have some word to cover this behavior. If "evil" is not it, what do you suggest? The current favorite is "inappropriate". I have always thought "inappropriate" applied to farting in church. The meaning seems to have broadened out lately. Shooting children from the back of a van is most inappropriate. Doesn't quite sound right.

I'll go with "evil" until a better term comes along. The problem of dealing with evil is a legitimate problem, and it won't get simpler if we rename it.

I have great respect for your posts, but this one baffles me.

Ken

[bid_em_up]

kenberg, on Feb 22 2008, 03:48 PM, said:

Mikeh,

I suppose that the word "evil" could be banished but I don't know why we should. The Maryland case I mentioned involved a pair randomly selecting people unknown to them, including a child, and shooting them. It seems to me that "evil" is a reasonable description. What do you prefer? I don't know exactly the boundaries of the word "psychotic" but I am far from sure it would apply in their case. They did not seem to be the least bit confused about what they were doing or why. They just enjoyed shooting people, so they did it. I would like to reserve the word "psychotic" to at least have some correspondence with a medical diagnosis.  We should  have some word to cover this behavior. If "evil" is not it, what do you suggest? The current favorite is "inappropriate". I have always thought "inappropriate" applied to farting in church. The meaning seems to have broadened out lately. Shooting children from the back of a van is most inappropriate. Doesn't quite sound right.

I'll go with "evil" until a better term comes along. The problem of dealing with evil is a legitimate problem, and it won't get simpler if we rename it.

I have great respect for your posts, but this one baffles me.

Ken

The case you refer to is that of John Allen Muhammad, the Beltway Sniper and his accomplice, Lee Boyd Malvo that I mentioned in my original post.

My understanding of their motivation was not so much that they enjoyed killing people, but instead that Mr. Muhammed somehow thought that either a) he could collect a ransom/payment of some sort in order to cease his killings or b ) it was some sick plot to make his wife (and kids) return to him.

[kenberg]

bid_em_up, on Feb 22 2008, 04:13 PM, said:

kenberg, on Feb 22 2008, 03:48 PM, said:

Mikeh,

I suppose that the word "evil" could be banished but I don't know why we should. The Maryland case I mentioned involved a pair randomly selecting people unknown to them, including a child, and shooting them. It seems to me that "evil" is a reasonable description. What do you prefer? I don't know exactly the boundaries of the word "psychotic" but I am far from sure it would apply in their case. They did not seem to be the least bit confused about what they were doing or why. They just enjoyed shooting people, so they did it. I would like to reserve the word "psychotic" to at least have some correspondence with a medical diagnosis.  We should  have some word to cover this behavior. If "evil" is not it, what do you suggest? The current favorite is "inappropriate". I have always thought "inappropriate" applied to farting in church. The meaning seems to have broadened out lately. Shooting children from the back of a van is most inappropriate. Doesn't quite sound right.

I'll go with "evil" until a better term comes along. The problem of dealing with evil is a legitimate problem, and it won't get simpler if we rename it.

I have great respect for your posts, but this one baffles me.

Ken

The case you refer to is that of John Allen Muhammad, the Beltway Sniper. He and his accomplice, Lee Boyd Malvo that I mentioned in my original post.

My understanding of their motivation was not that they enjoyed killing people, but instead that Mr. Muhammed somehow thought that either a) he could collect a ransom/payment of some sort in order to cease his killings or b ) it was some sick plot to make his wife (and kids) return to him.

Perhaps this is so. It's been a while. I lived, at the time, just a few blocks from the middle school where the kid got shot and of course we followed events closely at the time. I don't recall any ransom demand, and it seems like an odd way to woo a woman, but memory fades and you may be right on this.

[blackshoe]

luke warm, on Feb 22 2008, 01:17 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Feb 21 2008, 10:41 PM, said:

I don't trust democracy much. I trust monarchy less..

i don't think i put words in your mouth... that's what you said, so it made sense to me that you'd not choose to be king because you don't trust monarchs... if you were king you'd be a monarch, ergo

Your logic is flawed.

For one thing, I said I distrust monarchy. That's an institution, not a person.

For another, if we're going to take the poll question literally, it's hypothetical - "if you were king...". To answer by saying "I wouldn't be king, because, blah, blah" is specious. I didn't say that, and I don't.

I distrust monarchy, but if somehow I ended up as "king of the world", I'd try my best to do the job - or to find a way to abdicate in favor of someone who could do it better. I would not seek out such a position.

I distrust democracy, too. As (I think) Churchill said, it's a crappy system, but it's better than the others. I live in (and have fought for) a democracy. Given the alternatives, I think I'll keep on living here.

[jdonn]

Mike I think that is my alltime favorite post of yours.

[mike777]

It is pretty hard to have a justification for capital punishment if:
1) There is no evil in the world.
2) There is no deterence from capital punishment.
3) There is no justice from capital punishment.

However even if you think there may be evil in the world or deterence or justice in capital punishment one may still be against it.

However unlike many other posters I do not see any evidence that the mass of humans have moved beyond retribution. Just look at the hundreds of thousands in Europe last night who appeared to want retribution.

retribution



Main Entry: ret·ri·bu·tion
Pronunciation: \ˌre-trə-ˈbyü-shən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English retribucioun, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin retribution-, retributio, from Latin retribuere to pay back, from re- + tribuere to pay — more at tribute
Date: 14th century
1: recompense, reward
2: the dispensing or receiving of reward or punishment especially in the hereafter
3: something given or exacted in recompense; especially : punishment
---------------------------------------------

synonyms: reprisal, vengeance, revenge.

[finally17]

bid_em_up, on Feb 22 2008, 10:20 AM, said:

(and what any other sane, rational person should also)


You dont like that? Too bad.

The top part is the part I don't like. I have all sorts of bad words for people who hold this view in combination with a refusal to do anything more than cite emotional example, when its on any subject. I'm going to withhold them, but they're there.