Quandry

Unfortunately, I don't agree. I've had my mother tell me enough times, "two wrongs don't make it right." And while "three rights make a left" is kind of irrelevant, my idea is, "two wrongs make it fair, and since one wrong is more of an injustice than two, fairness is the most 'right' you could hope for."

And if you take a life, the fair thing to do is to take your life. It's not about second chances; and as much as I agree with the Hammurabi Code-style mentality, that seems the most honourable and correct path.

The person you kill doesn't get a second chance to live. Why should you, when you killed him?

I'm not for or against the death penalty. I think that life in jail is likely to be a fate worse than death; death is an easy way out. I think that imprisoning someone for the rest of their life and forcing them into meaningless, useless slavery is cruel and unusual torture; I'd rather be put out of my misery and die free, from the consequences of my actions.

You've kicked your dog a couple times? Then hey, I'd understand if the dog wanted to kick you back, just a couple times. If the dog forgives you, then it's all good, you're free from punishment. If the dog kicks you back, guess what, you deserve it, and you're still no longer burdened with the weight of your crimes. You either have a loving dog, or you get your fair retribution, but in either case, it is a good outcome, and you have learned from your mistake.

Murder, however, is NO joke. If you murder, and the succeeder/family wants to see justice done, it's quite fair and just to do so. If not, or if they want another punishment for you (that isn't cruel & unusual of course), then you get off lucky and have a chance to start over clean. It should be the victim or family of the victim that decides whether or not to GIVE you a second chance, because murder is too serious to be giving out second chances like passes to amusement parks. It is unsafe to the public to make every card in the monopoly deck a Get Out Of Jail Free card.

Ever hear that saying, "forgive and forget?" Or maybe a smarter one, "forgive but never forget?" The second one is better. Forgiving is good, if it's something that CAN be forgiven (forgiving a murder may not be forgivable by many, props to the strong ones who can forgive murder). But you should NEVER forget, otherwise, you have *failed* to learn anything from the past, and you are doomed to repeat it.

Just like if you murder someone now, it's put on your permanent record. It's a "permanent record" for a reason. It's not "all murderers will always be murderers," it's "some murderers will always be murderers," and "all murderers are guilty of at least one murder." Since all murderers are guilty of at least one murder, and since some of them can still be murderers, it follows that certain restrictions must be put into place to protect the common interest from ALL murderers, since it's impossible to tell if someone is touched by change or not.

 

First, I agree prison is a pretty shitty punishment, what with all the rapes and abuse. Probably cruel and unusual for that reason, actually. But I really don't want to get into another discussion about justice and how to punish crimes. There's a thread in the Christian section that me and one other person spent about 6 pages of pretty long posts on. I don't want to go there again.

But I will say this: I don't buy the "eye for an eye" style of law. You ask why my slayer has a right to life, since he denied mine. I say because he is still alive. Killing him is not making it fair, because it's wrong to take life. Two wrongs don't make a right, and a second wrong won't make things fair either. I believe only good means attain good ends; if justice is a good end, we cannot use more murder to get there. What better example of cold blooded murder is there than an execution? It smacks of revenge, not justice.

As far as the last paragraph of what I quoted above, well, anyone can be a murderer. Most murders aren't cold and calculated plots, usually it's crimes of passion. Now, it's not that I'm excusing them, we always have choice and a killer makes a bad one; but at the same time, everyone has a tipping point, and one has to consider the situation. Its not ok that the person let themselves get out of control, but one must wonder why the situation was able to get out of control in the first place. It becomes a much bigger issue: why is our culture so fucked up that we have so much murder? This does not do well in answering the question of how to deal with the one murderer, but I think if we could understand it we'd be on the way to not having to even worry about murderers and what to do with them.

(if you're interested, here's that thread. the discussion really starts at around page 4 I think http://hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78880)

 

I dunno. You could consider it cruel and unusual punishment to the public to allow offenders free reign to commit crimes. Prison is just a "time out" for certain elements in society to discipline them. You can't get laid, you are hanging out with a lot of other people who do not respect others feelings so maybe getting hurt by these people will teach you to respect others feelings. Some people need to go back to prison a bunch of times before they get it (my friends doing 2-5, has a couple of other pending charges, etc, was already in for 2-5 before, got out, did some more wack shit, I even told him I didn't like what he was doing, don't do that around me, but he really didn't get it... I hope that he learns this time- great guy with a few flaws that need to be fixed).

The hope behind "an eye for an eye" is that by experiencing the pain that you inflict upon others you will realize that it is wrong to inflict this pain upon others (unless it is to teach them not to inflict this pain upon others).

 

Hikaru, you know you rock my socks... But I totally disagree.
IMHO, even the most heinous of crimes, do not deserve the punishment of the dealth penalty. Killing people, isnt going to teach people NOT to kill. And, MAYBE I could understand where you're coming from if there haven't been SO many mistakes with the dealth penalty. Ever seen "The Green Mile"...though there's a bit of fiction in it [John Coffee sucking diseases out of ailing humans] a lot of it rings true ...like, being falsely accused, and being penalized with a death sentence. I did a report on this once, and I can't remember exact figures, but I DO remember the amount of wrongly accused was insane... and they were killed, for what?!

What if a dog bit you... broke skin, made you bleed...but you didnt die...would you bite him back and make him bleed, or hit him?

You also said it yourself that death is an easier way out for these criminals... Most criminals have miserable lives, and would love nothing more than to just die... So for some, it's almost as if we'd be rewarding them.

Human life, and life in general, is TOO MUCH to just fuck around with and decide one's fate... The death penalty is my eyes, is COMPLETELY unacceptable and shouldn't even exist. I agree with your mother's wise words.

I also believe that anyone who murders, has something mentally wrong... Sure, killing someone is HORRIBLE, and cannot be replaced or reverted... but, to punish someone who is mentally ill with such a thing as killing them is absurd. Sure it may cost money, but imho, instead of being killed they should be treated and helped.

If the whole "eye for an eye" thing was to ring true for everything, then every single soldier who has killed, and lived throughout a war, then therefore should be technically aborted.

To me, "eye for an eye" is just completely immature, and it won't accomplish a thing.