It's drivel because it is plainly nonsensical that a threat of punishment would turn psychopaths into saints. But maybe if you could explain how, I might be able to see the counter intuitive genius behind your thesis and acknowledge my mistake.
Kill the killers because killing is wrong. I'm not seeing the logic in that. If you're going to say an action is wrong, and that people who do it are evil, doesn't it negate the legitimacy of that notion when you perform the act that you say to be wrong?
I already did explain. If we send a clear message we are going to kill you in a timely manner then it makes sense that it would go down. This is simple stuff.
You're right, psychopaths cannot be cured or rehabilitated, that's why they need to be executed when they kill, like a rabid dog would be destroyed in the interest of public safety.It's drivel because it is plainly nonsensical that a threat of punishment would turn psychopaths into saints. But maybe if you could explain how, I might be able to see the counter intuitive genius behind your thesis and acknowledge my mistake.
You're right, psychopaths cannot be cured or rehabilitated, that's why they need to be executed when they kill, like a rabid dog would be destroyed in the interest of public safety.
You're right, psychopaths cannot be cured or rehabilitated, that's why they need to be executed when they kill, like a rabid dog would be destroyed in the interest of public safety.
That's it?
I suppose it does have the merit of being simple. Congratualtions. You have found the perfect cure to cure psychopathy and to mitigate the most harmful effects of schizophrenia.
Kill a few quickly.
Of course, for people who are not mad, as "being caught" seems to have nothing to do with deterrence in your "simple" world, we can disband all the police forces in the world as well.
As long as we kill people quickly all our problems will be solved.
I expect the Nobel Prizes will be rolling in.
So you are clear that capital punishment is not a deterrent.
Most murders are commited due to fits of rage or commited while commiting another crime. If I remember right psychopaths actually make up for around 1% or less of all murders. So while a death sentence wouldn't deter a psychopath it should be a deterrant for those commiting a murder for other reasons.
If you wish to have a dialogue with me? You are gonna have to leave your pomposity at the door.
Most murders are commited due to fits of rage or commited while commiting another crime. If I remember right psychopaths actually make up for around 1% or less of all murders. So while a death sentence wouldn't deter a psychopath it should be a deterrant for those commiting a murder for other reasons.
If you wish to have a dialogue with me? You are gonna have to leave your pomposity at the door.
Kali said:Bleeding hearts wish to whine and cry...
So you are clear that capital punishment is not a deterrent.
Of course you have thought your solution through. So you presumably support executing psychopaths whether they have committed a crime or not, as, like a rabid dog that had killed or bitten no-one, psychopaths are a serious threat to public safety at five years old when they have committed no crimes but their eyes have began to swivel.
Or is it not quite the same?
Every argument except vengeance collapses under pressure. And of course the vengeance argument isn't an argument. It's an emotional reaction.
So how does it cure "fits of rage"?
There are many other states of mind that impair someones ability to control themselves. Certain typres of epilepsy for one.
The people who commit the most heinous crimes - the ones that inspire the clamours for vengeance the most - are generally suffering from conditions which impair their ability to make clear choices. If there is any deterrent that can make any difference here it is clearly around the certainty of being caught, not the punishment. Even then it is likely that this effect would be marginal as one of the underlying characteristics of these conditions is an inability to assess the consequences of ones actions.
Trust me, THAT is not going to happen. :mrgreen:
I would be more for capital punishment if there weren't so many innocents (as has been previously pointed out). For me, it is quite a stretch that people can decide whether or not someone deserves to live, but I am willing to consider the idea.
If I could be guaranteed that everyone convicted was guilty, I would be more inclined to side with capital punishment.
This is similar to my view. I believe the DP is used much too much for leverage and political ambition. Every single murder one case is now being threatened with capital punishment as leverage for the defendent to avoid it by taking a plea bargain. Often District Attorneys will push for the DP even in circumstantial cases, because a big DP win can mean promotion and recognition. I mean, execute someone based on circumstantial evidence?? But it has been done, and there are still people on death row who are innocent, I'm absolutely certain.
Bottom line, I do not believe the DP should ever be on the table except for the most heinous multiple murders, which there is literally no doubt of innocence... like when cops find a dozen bodies buried under the floorboards. Serial killers and mass murderers, with overwhelming physical and DNA evidence... now we're talking about realistic death penalty cases.
We need to severely restrict the ability to bring DP cases to court so that when we do so, there can be no doubt that the individual is guilty of mass murder, and is legally sane.
"I'm a Christian, I've made mistakes myself, I believe fervently in second chances. But Michael Vick killed dogs, and he did in a heartless and cruel way. And I think, personally, he should've been executed for that. He wasn't, but the idea that the President of the United States would be getting behind someone who murdered dogs? Kind of beyond the pale."
This is not true, and it doesn't really help our anti-DP case to believe that it is. You do not have to be insane to step over the line into killing and heinous acts. Psychiatry draws a clear line between mental illness and personality disorders. One is not the other. One can understand the distinctions between right and wrong and, while not necessarily empathising with their victims, can recognise the consequences of their violent actions. The others cannot. I am as anti- the death penalty as you, but we only win the argument if we concentrate on rational and ethical, rather than ad hominem, arguments.And yet clearly "the most heinous" crimes are commited by nutters - serial killers, child killers etc.. virtually no mass murderer is "sane". So when we punish them we do so from a completely different moral vantage point. We knew right from wrong and execute them as if they knew it just like us.
This is not true, and it doesn't really help our anti-DP case to believe that it is. You do not have to be insane to step over the line into killing and heinous acts. Psychiatry draws a clear line between mental illness and personality disorders. One is not the other. One can understand the distinctions between right and wrong and, while not necessarily empathising with their victims, can recognise the consequences of their violent actions. The others cannot. I am as anti- the death penalty as you, but we only win the argument if we concentrate on rational and ethical, rather than ad hominem, arguments.
... Clinton sent an insane person to his death, for public popularity...
Andalublue adequately responded to the rest of your post, but could you please give further information on the above statement? Who was this insane person, and in what capacity was Clinton (which Clinton, btw, Bill or Hillary) responsible for sending him to his death?
And Christopher Hitchens is an ass, with zero credibility to anyone except those desperate for the good-old-days of Clinton-bashing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?