1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Messed up views on death?

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by nero120, 4 May 2006.

  1. nero120

    Soldato

    Joined: 12 Jan 2004

    Posts: 6,824

    Location: Londinium

    Im starting this thread as a response to a post I read by PinkPig in the locked thread in GD about Moussaoui evading the death penalty:

    Erm, does this strike anyone as a little hypocritical? Killing someone in the name of a safer society and deterant of capital crime is absolutely wrong, but locking them up in a hell hole for the rest of their natural life is fine and just and the mark of a civilised society? I would have thought the goal here is to preserve the balance, not to take some sick pleasure from incarcerating him with no hope of release, or re-education. Surely death is the logical choice?

    The thing is, this attitude seems quite prevalent in our society and it strikes me as laughable. Why is it that many people in our society have such a twisted view on death and seem to lose all reason when it is involved? What are your opinions on this?
     
  2. anarchist

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 2 Dec 2004

    Posts: 9,702

    Location: Midlands

    I guess because somebody's life is basically the entirity of them. Take that way and they are gone forever. Locking them up forever might be cruel, but they are still at least alive and hence still a person.
     
  3. cleanbluesky

    Capodecina

    Joined: 2 Nov 2004

    Posts: 24,654

    Killing has been constructed as a 'moral' issue - yet so has justice. I think that death is no worse than being in a horrible prison but they are morally constructed differently in the minds of the people.
     
  4. nero120

    Soldato

    Joined: 12 Jan 2004

    Posts: 6,824

    Location: Londinium

    But thats just semantics though isn't it? If someone is trying to approach this from a moral perspective, and then they say "locking someone up in a cage for the rest of their life is much lass barbaric than the death penalty", how can they be taken seriously? Its simply an opinion, nothing more - and they are willing to stake a lifetime of misery on it.
     
  5. anarchist

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 2 Dec 2004

    Posts: 9,702

    Location: Midlands

    I would rather be locked up forever than dead that's for sure.
     
  6. phykell

    Mobster

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 4,410

    rm
     
    Last edited: 6 Aug 2007
  7. wnb

    Mobster

    Joined: 27 Feb 2004

    Posts: 3,939

    I thought the reason for sentancing was to rehabilitate ppl you can hardly do that if they are sentaced to death, but then again been sentanced to life in prison does not tie in with rehabilitation either. My personal view is that he should have been sentanced to death, but the American system chose life instead.
     
  8. Vonhelmet

    Caporegime

    Joined: 28 Jun 2005

    Posts: 48,107

    Location: On the hoods

    Death is absolute. There is no going back, which means that obviously life is over for the person being killed, and also has an awful lot of implications for situations in which people are wrongfully executed.
     
  9. nero120

    Soldato

    Joined: 12 Jan 2004

    Posts: 6,824

    Location: Londinium

    Would that be true in this case though? I don't think so. This man is without a doubt responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. If there were ever the case for a death penalty, this would be it.
     
  10. Vonhelmet

    Caporegime

    Joined: 28 Jun 2005

    Posts: 48,107

    Location: On the hoods

    Except for the fact that his crimes (conspiring) don't warrant the death penalty.
     
  11. aztechnology

    Mobster

    Joined: 12 Aug 2004

    Posts: 2,503

    Location: Oop North

    On what in particular, the case in point or the general moral issue of a lifetimes incarceration rather than a death penalty?

    For the case in point it seems to me that the right decision was reached. It seemed that Moussaoui wanted the death penalty to be viewed and to be viewed as some sort of Martyr. He has been denied this and I think that this is a good thing - though there is a case that a lifetimes incarceration is martyrdom enough.

    Also from the (admitedtly cursory) reading I have done on this, it did seem as though the American Govt. and public are still looking for a scapegoat for 9-11, well, not really a scapegoat, a target for revenge perhaps, and that Moussaoui was being set up for the death penalty for a sense of closure, even though he actually played a relatively minor role in 9-11, perhaps more likely being involved in a second wave of attacks, c.f. Richard Reid - the Shoe Bomber. In this case a death penalty would not seem "Just" no matter who wanted it.

    As to opening a debate on whether death is a "humane" alternative to a lifetimes incarceration, I'm sure that any discussion up here won't change many peoples minds, but for the record, I would rather see someone locked up rather than executed. It has nothing to do with the fact it might or might not be more or less humane than a particular alternative. It lies wholly with the fact that the consequences of incorrect convictions lead to an irreversable situation.

    Society should not take from an individual something it can not give back.

    I don't think that the justice attempting to be served in this case is some sick pleasure in depriving this man of his freedom. I think that this man has been put away because he has committed a crime worthy of incarceration, and that he has had a life tariff imposed because the consequences of his release are too serious. - anyway, that's what I would like to think ;)

    Death to me never seems to be a logical choice in this situation, it just seems to be a knee jerk choice when we can't be bother to think up an alternative.

    Ok. enough, I have to go vote Liberal ;)
     
  12. aztechnology

    Mobster

    Joined: 12 Aug 2004

    Posts: 2,503

    Location: Oop North

    Except that the American Legal system thinks this is not the case.

    His ultimate responsibility was not proven to an extent that he was given a death penalty.
     
  13. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    True, even one of the victims' relatives doesn't want the death penalty and called him an al-Queda wannabe, who wishes he was responsible for 9/11 but really isn't.
     
  14. crashuk

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 7 Dec 2005

    Posts: 2,691

    well the death penalty is a way out , being lockup for the rest of your life well thats a lot worse
     
  15. nero120

    Soldato

    Joined: 12 Jan 2004

    Posts: 6,824

    Location: Londinium

    But thats not really the point. If you read my initial post it was trying to get across the point that most people view life imprisonment as more civil than the death penalty. Forget doubt or jurys for a moment and imagine a situation where you had a mass-murderer caught and he has confessed to the brutal murders of many innocent people under no stress. Do you:

    a.) lock him in prison and throw away the key
    b.) execute him
    c.) let him loose on the streets

    Most people would either choose a or b, but why would they choose a over b? What would that choice be based on? Some archaic opinion or fear of death? Not many other cultures in history was so afraid of death than ours. Why does death have to be so awful as everyone seems to want to make out? Because we are so materialistic and lack any kind of spirituality (not necesarily religion) and do not want to admit it, so we tell ourselves we are being civil by locking someone away in a hole for the rest of their lives rather than be done with them.
     
  16. nero120

    Soldato

    Joined: 12 Jan 2004

    Posts: 6,824

    Location: Londinium

    If that is your opinion then how do you justify taking 20 years of someones life only to tell them one day they were wrongfully convicted and now they are free. Society can not give them back their life. Your opinion is my case in point - that people in our society have this warped view that handing a broken person a few years of freedom after a lifetime in prison is somehow justification for not killing them. That killing is somehow worse than locking someone up for their whole life, on the off chance that they may be released after a lifetime of misery.
     
  17. Vonhelmet

    Caporegime

    Joined: 28 Jun 2005

    Posts: 48,107

    Location: On the hoods

    Death is awful, as I stated above. At risk of inducing some bizarre recursive paradoxical argument... If it wasn't so awful, why would be even be arguing about using it as a punishment for murder?
     
  18. nero120

    Soldato

    Joined: 12 Jan 2004

    Posts: 6,824

    Location: Londinium

    Quite simply, because it removes them permanently from society without (necessarily) causing as much worldly pain and exhibiting the social barbarism of life incarceration. One must judge whether the level of the crime befits a permanent removal from society (i.e. death) or to be locked up for a certin amount of time and hopefully rehabilitated. Life imprisonment is a rediculous barbaric notion, and one that illustrates a society scared of death and wanting to avoid it at all costs, even cruelly locking someone up for their entire natural life.

    Death is not awful, how can you judge something you know nothing about? All you can say is death removes a person from our world permanently, that does not make it 'awful'. There are many ways a person can die, some worse and more painful than others, but that pain is usually momentary. If you had the chance to ask William Wallace if he'd prefer to be hung, drawn and quartered or lokced in a cage for the rest of his natural life, what do you think he'd say?
     
  19. Vonhelmet

    Caporegime

    Joined: 28 Jun 2005

    Posts: 48,107

    Location: On the hoods

    First up, look at my sig.
    Secondly, as much as you claim the attitude of *not* killing people shows a scared attitude to death, I think your approach to it shows an overly cavalier attitude to it.

    Death is awful, precisely because it is an end of life. It's pretty awful for the person dying. There's not many people who are glad when death comes, I'd wager the percentage is tiny. Most people would do anything to avoid death because most people quite enjoy it round here, and many don't believe there is much beyond this.

    If nothing else, the risk of killing an innocent person is enough to say that the death penalty is utterly unacceptable.
     
  20. nero120

    Soldato

    Joined: 12 Jan 2004

    Posts: 6,824

    Location: Londinium

    This is not GD sonny. If you want to debate, you actually have to come up with a resonable response, rather than criticising spelling or making accusations (regardless of what you see visage/virii doing).

    Congratulations on avoiding all of my points. So you think death is awful because people fear the unknown and you would rather lock them up for their entire life... blah blah blah blah. OMG i cant believe your making me repeat this again. Where are all the intelligent posters? Dolph? Phykell? Anarcist? CBS? Virii? Visage? Help!

    Cop out. I can see the wrong person is responding to my posts.
     
    Last edited: 5 May 2006