[finally17]

mikeh, on Feb 22 2008, 01:44 PM, said:

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

do you believe in good and evil?

No.

.....


I don't know any 'evil' people.

I think you're conflating two concepts.

[bid_em_up]

kenberg, on Feb 22 2008, 04:24 PM, said:

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.

The ransom demand was never actually made.

According to testimony from Lee Boyd Malvo, it was their intent to carry out a three stage attack. Stage one was to kill six people per day for a period of 30 days. According to testimony, traffic prevented this from being feasible.

Stage two was to move on to Baltimore MD and kill a pregnant woman by shooting her in the abdomen, to shoot a Baltimore Police officer at point blank range, and then, at his funeral, set off explosive devices in order to kill as many police officers as possible.

Stage three was to ask for the ransom. If successfully aquired, Mr. Muhammad intended to use that money to recruit more young kids, train them in stealth and weapons use and then send them throughout the US to carry out mass murders in more cities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Allen_Mu..._Lee_Boyd_Malvo

[luke warm]

blackshoe, on Feb 22 2008, 04:35 PM, said:

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.

ok... if you were king of the world then the world would be living in a monarchy, one in which it's monarch (you) held no trust... do i have that right? what exactly is it you'd mistrust about this monarchy?

Quote

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.

it might be specious if saying something like that wasn't used as a qualifying statement... but to say "i wouldn't be king because blah blah, but if i was i'd blah blah" seems fine to me

mikeh, on Feb 22 2008, 01:44 PM, said:

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'.

what does it make them? wrong? misguided? i'm just trying to understand where you're coming from, i'm having trouble with that view... it seems to be saying that since there's no good or evil then the only 'right' or 'wrong' is societal

[bid_em_up]

finally17, on Feb 22 2008, 05:18 PM, said:

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.

So, you are saying that a sane and rational person should think that committing crimes such as this is acceptable behavior? Or somehow, not evil? (Feel free to substitute bad, wicked or whatever other adjective you see fit, if you do not believe in evil.)

Aaron, you seem to be under some sort of misconception. There is absolutely nothing emotional about my stating the facts of the horrendous nature of these crimes. The purpose of my giving the original cases was to show that monsters do exist in this world, and as such, the death penalty (imo) is an acceptable penalty in certain cases. The crimes defy all logic to any normal person. Most people prefer not to think that things like this can, and do actually occur.

I can't help it if a description of these crimes happens to elicit an emotional response from the reader. They should. In fact, the likely reason you don't like my citing these cases isn't really because "they are an emotional example" but instead, "I don't like the way they make me feel". They are sickening.

At the same time, to make the claim of "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." is simply refusing to address the subject at hand. It's not an emotional example, its a factual case. You can say no death penalty ever, if you wish. I say in some cases, the punishment fits the crime. These cases are examples of those that would qualify, imo.

If you can look at the two examples I have given, and at the cruelty and horror committed by the perpetrators and say to yourself "ya know self, I think these guys deserve to live, lets put them in jail for the rest of their lives, maybe they aren't guilty, maybe they can be rehabilitated", as you appear to be claiming, well then, I happen to believe that there is something seriously wrong with your way of thinking. There is no doubt about their guilt, or the seriousness and cruelty of their crimes, or that they would commit crimes of the same nature again if given the opportunity to do so, and in each case, both parties had already had multiple chances at "rehabilitation" via the prison system.

So we are supposed to slap them on the hand, say "Bad boys, back to jail you go"? With no death penalty available, you have no other choice. I would prefer to have all options available.

[finally17]

bid_em_up, on Feb 22 2008, 06:39 PM, said:

finally17, on Feb 22 2008, 05:18 PM, said:

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.

So, you are saying that a sane and rational person should think that committing crimes such as this is acceptable behavior? Or somehow, not evil? (Feel free to substitute bad, wicked or whatever other adjective you see fit, if you do not believe in evil.)

...

At the same time, to make the claim of "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." is simply refusing to address the subject at hand. It's not an emotional example, its a factual case. You can say no death penalty ever, if you wish. I say in some cases, the punishment fits the crime. These cases are examples of those that would qualify, imo.

No, I am saying that a sane, rational person should never declare "this is what all sane, rational people should think," almost completely regardless of the question being discussed. "Almost" just because there are obvious exceptions ("a heart rate between 50-85 bpm is generally good," "the sun is hot" for example).

But the statement "the death penalty is useful and necessary" is not one of these cases. This is made obvious, proven, by the fact that so many sane, rational people on this thread disagree with you.

QED

If you don't accept that argument as proof that your statement is bad, you are saying that the people on this thread who disagree with you are "insane" or "irrational" or both. And later you use the word "normal," thereby also applying "abnormal" to us. It's an implicit accusation, but it is absolutely there nonetheless.

It's not the view that the death penalty is acceptable and necessary that I said those words about, it's the view that you ever have a right to declare what "all sane, rational people should think."

Feel free to think the death penalty is acceptable, or even good. I disagree, but I said much earlier in this thread that I don't think the view is silly. It's the way you're arguing it that's silly.

[finally17]

sceptic, on Feb 22 2008, 06:58 PM, said:

in all this debate, I have still yet to see an alternative answer (workable) that we can use instead of the death penalty

please repost if I did not understand one of your posts and it shows a compelling arguement that may make me reconsider my stance on the subject, o would change someone elses view on the subject if you feel I am incapable of changing my opinion

In order to even begin to respond to this, it's necessary for me to understand what you think is wrong with:

life imprisonment in essentially solitary confinement

as an example. The US government has a variety of these, known as SuperMax prisons. See: Supermax. Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, and the guy who set off a bomb and the Atlanta Olympics, Eric Rudolph, are both held in such facilities.

[finally17]

sceptic, on Feb 22 2008, 06:14 PM, said:

As we in England have just had a case of someone stabbing a young girl to death and having sex with the body (look it up on the net if you want the details) lets make an assumtion that this person is not evil, but has some social issues, maybe he held down two jobs and the pressure got to him and he had to let it out somewhere ( a somewhat frivolous way of putting it, but I am sure you know what I mean)

The interesting thing about this case, is if ( and a big if because I am sure the sanctity of life brigade would be appauled by the suggestion that this young man with one or two issues in his life was a bastard or in anyway evil) he was excecuted after one of the 6 other serious sex offences he had committed he would not have been able to kill this young inoccent girl (maybe one or two of you would care to challenge that she was not inoccent, maybe she brought it upon herself) if he was executed after the first one, we would have save five people from emotional turmiol possibly lasthing their whole life, we would have saved a girls life, we would have saved a fortune in financial resources that could have benefitted a worthy person

Just what price are you anti death sentance people going to accept to uphold your views on the sanctity of life?????????????

It doesn't seem like an emotional rant to me. It's a very valid question with a very valid example. But since we already have, at least in the US, life imprisonment with no possibility of parole," I don't understand why that's not an acceptable alternative when your problem is: "we must make sure this perpetrator doesn't do this again."

This was said early on in the thread, and people said "well, he might not be able to do it to an innocent, but this guy could still kill other guards, or other inmates, perhaps ones whose only crime is theft."

To which I say "what's wrong with life imprisonment with essentially solitary confinement?" Personally I think this option should only be for extreme cases where the criminal has also severely harmed/killed after imprisonment, or serial killers, etc.

As for calling the guy a sick bastard, or even an evil bastard, go ahead, I won't disagree.

[edit due to your last post]
I say essentially solitary because these prisoners still see guards, still receive medical attention, and still must have access to their lawyers. Also, they get 30 minutes or an hour each day for physical activity. As well, I don't believe it's like movie portrayed solitary, they still have books and the like (heavily screened) I think. But this type of imprisonment actually happens.

If you think that's a worse punishment than death, I can definitely see that opinion...I just don't agree.

[the hog]

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

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.

Just curious. When is your membership of the John Birch Society up for renewal? How many white gowns with pointy hoods do you have in your wardrobe? Are you what Americans colloquially claim a typical "redneck"?

[kenberg]

Lifetime solitary confinement, or essentially lifetime solitary confinement, seems bad enough to me so that if I were facing it I think I would ask if execution was available as an alternative. However, we are reaching a point where there are some interesting other possibilities.

I believe that I have never met, face to face, any of the contributors to this thread. Still, I don't regard them as total strangers. So: We have just captures Hannibal Lecter. We have abolished the death penalty. Is he allowed to post to the BBO forum? Watch Youtube?

I mean this as a serious question, at least the general idea. Give me good food, health care, some books, and some sort of human contact and I guess I'll rethink asking to be executed.


Granted that executing or not executing someone is a serious difference in penalty. But on both sides of this choice there are also further major choices to be made. If we believe that it is morally wrong to execute a prisoner, it seems to me it is not a great leap to say that it is also wrong to cut off his human contact if we have an alternative that presents no danger to society.

My life has been so far removed from any personal experience with such issues that I find it really difficult to judge what is right.

[Winstonm]

Quote

But Winston, what is the purpose of punishment?

Simply to give the law validation. Johnny, if you color on the walls your are going to get spanked. (law). Johnny colors and gets spanked. (validation) The spanking validates the law. Punishment is a consequence for the given action.

Now sister Suzie may have witnessed this entire ordeal, and may have decided that coloring on the walls is not worth the consequence - but that is beside the point and has no bearing on the cause and effect actions of Mom's Law and the punishment Johnny received.

Mom made a law and then had to validate that law. Suzie's decisions are not even in the picture.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Feb 22 2008, 05:08 PM, said:

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.

Mike,

Thanks for the good and direct post explaining what you believe.

[Winstonm]

Quote

do you believe in good and evil?

This question in itself displays the black and white thinking against which I have ranted myself many times.
First, to plant someone in either camp requires a judgement. How can one judge another without literally being that other person?

We are all familiar with the saying that "first you must walk a mile in a man's shoes." This is simple but doesn't quite grasp the totality of understanding necessary to make a judgement.

It is not enough to walk in someone's footsteps with your physiology, your psyche, your pain level toleration, your genetics, etc. Because from your viewpoint there will always be choices that could have been made - but you are making this judgement based on your life experiences inside your physiology and psyche.

No, to understand the circumstances of someone else's actions requires being that person in his totality - literally living every second of his life with his cells, his genetics, his psyche....making choices based on HIS limitations.

Where you may look on the Ted Bundy's of the world as mad dogs worthy of nothing but disdain and death, I look on them with pity - they are flawed, too weak to be able to compensate for whatever life brought them.

In other words, they are sick, with about as much choice in the matter as you or I have in developing cancer. No one choses to be a sociopath.

How can someone be good or be evil when the very concepts have no meaning whatsoever to them? Taking a life has no meaning becasue life itself has no meaning.

No, what makes them good or evil is the judgement we place on them.

So to answer the question do I believe in good or evil, the answer is yes, because I see people making these judgements on a daily basis - and those judgements are real - but that doesn't make them valid.

[kenberg]

It could be that they have no choice in the matter, it could be that they do. Of course one can take the view that none of us have any choice in anything, it's all predetermined. A blind alley, that. There are people who kill, and who give every sign of choosing to kill. They think about it, they plan it, they intend to do it without getting caught, they seem perfectly rational.

One can say, as a matter of faith, that they must have had no choice because if they did then surely they would have chosen otherwise. I criticize no one's faith, but I think it is fair to ask that the faithful see it as a matter of personal faith. A faith I don't share.

[Winstonm]

Quote

It could be that they have no choice in the matter, it could be that they do.

Yes, and I should have qualified my post as talking about the pure sociopath, the one painted as consumately evil.

However, there is one element of truth that applies equally. I know I have the choice to murder or not to murder; however, I have no idea if you have that same choice. There is a simple reason for my ignorance - I am not you.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Feb 22 2008, 09:23 PM, said:

Quote

do you believe in good and evil?

This question in itself displays the black and white thinking against which I have ranted myself many times.
First, to plant someone in either camp requires a judgement. How can one judge another without literally being that other person?

We are all familiar with the saying that "first you must walk a mile in a man's shoes." This is simple but doesn't quite grasp the totality of understanding necessary to make a judgement.

It is not enough to walk in someone's footsteps with your physiology, your psyche, your pain level toleration, your genetics, etc. Because from your viewpoint there will always be choices that could have been made - but you are making this judgement based on your life experiences inside your physiology and psyche.

No, to understand the circumstances of someone else's actions requires being that person in his totality - literally living every second of his life with his cells, his genetics, his psyche....making choices based on HIS limitations.

Where you may look on the Ted Bundy's of the world as mad dogs worthy of nothing but disdain and death, I look on them with pity - they are flawed, too weak to be able to compensate for whatever life brought them.

In other words, they are sick, with about as much choice in the matter as you or I have in developing cancer. No one choses to be a sociopath.

How can someone be good or be evil when the very concepts have no meaning whatsoever to them? Taking a life has no meaning becasue life itself has no meaning.

No, what makes them good or evil is the judgement we place on them.

So to answer the question do I believe in good or evil, the answer is yes, because I see people making these judgements on a daily basis - and those judgements are real - but that doesn't make them valid.

maybe it's been unclear in this and all other threads i've posted in, but i judge myself harsher than i judge ted bundy... my question had nothing to do with personalities or individuals, but concepts... mike777 is right, if there is no evil there is no good (i think he said that, if he didn't i'm sure he meant to)

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on Feb 22 2008, 10:50 PM, said:

Quote

It could be that they have no choice in the matter, it could be that they do.

Yes, and I should have qualified my post as talking about the pure sociopath, the one painted as consumately evil.

However, there is one element of truth that applies equally. I know I have the choice to murder or not to murder; however, I have no idea if you have that same choice. There is a simple reason for my ignorance - I am not you.

I am not a psychiatrist, but my lay understanding of a sociopath is that he is capable of killing without remorse. He is not compelled to kill either with remorse or without remorse. The importance of this is that there are people, or so I have been told, who truly cannot help themselves. They need to be separated from society, clearly, but it is reasonable to feel pity. I think this happens, but I don't think it is the usual explanation. We should not lump the sociopath and the compulsive killer together.


I think the role of faith, of various stripes, is worth reflecting on. Several responders have said that they oppose capital punishment because they hold life sacred. This isn't my view, at least not exactly, but I can work with it. I see it more a matter of deciding who we are as a people. We can, as a people, decide that we will not take someone's life in this manner. It's not so much that I say life is sacred (that requires more of a religious bent than I have), more that I favor treating it as if it is. I can easily hold this view while acknowledging (or claiming, since many disagree) the existence of evil.


Some other responders have, in various ways, asserted that everyone is redeemable or somehow can be put on the right path. This also seems to be a matter of faith, at least I see little evidence for the truth of it. Of course there are famous examples. Saul on the road to Damascus. One of Leopold/Loeb, I forget which one. But usually such change doesn't happen. Maybe we just didn't try hard enough, but I would describe such a view as faith based. I am not knocking faith, but it's important to know when views are evidence based and when they are faith based.

An amusement along these lines of faith/purpose. Some years back a contrast between the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address was pointed out to me.
D of I: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.
GA: Dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

The D of I states an article of faith. The GA asserts that we will run the country on this basis, but doesn't get into whether the statement is self-evident or even true. It was suggested that this may reflect the changing philosophical views between 1776 and 1863, but I see it more as just an interesting difference between Jefferson and Lincoln.


At any rate, I think there is a lot to be said for the abolition of capital punishment.

[Al_U_Card]

A psychopath has no feelings for others or remorse for his actions as he cannot relate his responses to those of other individuals.

A sociopath has trouble maintaining social standards as he fails to comprehend or accept what is typically considered societal values as he feels above or unbound by those rules.

[Winstonm]

Quote

maybe it's been unclear in this and all other threads i've posted in, but i judge myself harsher than i judge ted bundy...

We can never change the fact that we are humans, therefore imperfect. What is the reason to judge yourself for being what you are?

Absolutism creates a standard against which you judge yourself and everyone else, and it is the basis of conflict, both inner conflict and outward conflict.

[Trinidad]

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

do you believe in good and evil?

Only evil people do...

Seriously, good and evil are religious terms. Most western, non-religious people believe in good and bad behavior and most of these people are well aware of the fact that what they themselves see as good or bad behavior, might not be viewed the same by someone else.

If you support that point of view, it is quite obvious that there is no universal good and evil. But if you are religious, then your spiritual leader will have told you that there is good and evil and that might settle it.

Rik

[mikeh]

finally17, on Feb 22 2008, 05:26 PM, said:

mikeh, on Feb 22 2008, 01:44 PM, said:

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

do you believe in good and evil?

No.

.....


I don't know any 'evil' people.

I think you're conflating two concepts.

I can see why you might think so, but you are mistaken.

The question was whether I believe in good and evil.

Evil is not some amorphous concpet that can exist outside of a human. No-one (at least no-one of whom I'd aware) would describe an inanimate object as 'evil'. Nor a dog, or a horse, or an insect etc.

We use 'evil' as an explanation for conduct that strikes us as abhorrent... conduct BY A HUMAN.

Using the concept in this manner strikes me as closely parallel to the use of the god notion to explain ultimate causes. It is a cop out. It is a way to avoid really thinking about WHY a person acts in this horrible manner. It may even be a way of denying that there may reside in each of us a capacity, in the wrong circumstances, to act in a similar way.

I am NOT suggesting that most people can readily become monstrous, but there is some compelling evidence that extraordinary circumsatnces can cause a breakdown in 'normal' morality. The threat of starvation can lead to cannibilism in ordinary people. The incitement of emotions can lead to genocide (Rwanda, anyone?). Mental illness, drug addiction and similar factors can lead to murderous behaviours.

And some people are simply wired differently. Someone born without the capacity for empathy can act in ways that horrify those of us with that trait. But my strong suspicion is that there will ultimately be a biochemical explanation for sociopathy, and other mental illnesses...akin to the knowledge that we have gained over the causes of such conditions as schizophrenia.

So when I describe the people I know or have known, including people who have committed acts that I suspect some here would describe as 'evil', and when I say that I know no evil people, I am saying hat I do not see 'evil' at work. I see flawed humans behaving in aberrant ways. I do not see evil people becaue I do not recognize the concepts of good and evil as anything more than moral constructs, no more capable of being an accurate or meaningful explanation than is the related god notion.