Capital Punishment

[Danoff]

Sure you would. But is an actual death sentence (which is to say not the mere threat in an effort to draw out a plea and avoid a lengthy trial) a justifiable response? Mind you I'm not advocating for the crime to go unpunished.

Rape is a kind of torture, and generally people rank torture as being worse than death. Naturally that's not the case for all kinds of torture - like the torture of having to read the Scarlet Letter in high school *shudders*. But it is I think widely socially recognized that torture can be worse than murder. If you can agree to that, I think you'll find that it is difficult to place rape (which itself comes in many forms) as being necessarily inherently unworthy of being treated as severely or even more severely than murder.

 

[TexRex]

Rape is a kind of torture, and generally people rank torture as being worse than death. Naturally that's not the case for all kinds of torture - like the torture of having to read the Scarlet Letter in high school *shudders*. But it is I think widely socially recognized that torture can be worse than murder. If you can agree to that, I think you'll find that it is difficult to place rape (which itself comes in many forms) as being necessarily inherently unworthy of being treated as severely or even more severely than murder.

To whatever degree, torture isn't in and of itself final in the way that actually ending a life is. Yes, it's likely very difficult to carry on living as one did prior to said torture, but the opportunity to carry on in some capacity is still there.

 

[Danoff]

To whatever degree, torture isn't in and of itself final in the way that actually ending a life is. Yes, it's likely very difficult to carry on living as one did prior to said torture, but the opportunity to carry on in some capacity is still there.

Ok so we haven't found common ground yet.

Obviously you believe suicide and euthanasia exist. They exist in part because of pain (emotional and physical) that one experiences to a degree that they would prefer not to "carry on". So you'll have to at least admit that many many people find it preferable to die than to live in pain.

Edit:

Also I believe it was @Famine who commented that many rapes should actually be reclassified as murder if the rape victim ultimately kills themselves, which happens more than we all might hope.

 

[TexRex]

Ok so we haven't found common ground yet.

Obviously you believe suicide and euthanasia exist. They exist in part because of pain (emotional and physical) that one experiences to a degree that they would prefer not to "carry on". So you'll have to at least admit that many many people find it preferable to die than to live in pain.

Choice, preference...these exist only for those who are still alive. One may choose to end their life after having been raped because they still have the opportunity to do so.

Also I believe it was @Famine who commented that many rapes should actually be reclassified as murder if the rape victim ultimately kills themselves, which happens more than we all might hope.

That is absolutely something I can get on board with. If rape can be demonstrated to have resulted in the victim's death, it should be punishable as such.

 

[Danoff]

Choice, preference...these exist only for those who are still alive. One may choose to end their life after having been raped because they still have the opportunity to do so.

That was not the point, and doesn't refute what I wrote. The point was that it can be a fate worse than death, as attested to by people who have the choice.

That is absolutely something I can get on board with. If rape can be demonstrated to have resulted in the victim's death, it should be punishable as such.

Then you agree that rape can be at least as bad as murder.

 

[TexRex]

That was not the point, and doesn't refute what I wrote. The point was that it can be a fate worse than death, as attested to by people who have the choice.

And my point was that turture isn't in and of itself final; it doesn't end one's life unless it does, at which point it's torture that resulted in death and should be subject to appropriate punishment.

Then you agree that rape can be at least as bad as murder.

I'd like you to explain how you've concluded that, because whether I agree or not, I don't believe one can make such an inference without reading what I didn't write.

 

[Danoff]

And my point was that turture isn't in and of itself final; it doesn't end one's life unless it does, at which point it's torture that resulted in death and should be subject to appropriate punishment.

That's not an issue. I don't disagree with it, it just doesn't change the discussion.

I'd like you to explain how you've concluded that, because whether I agree or not, I don't believe one can make such an inference without reading what I didn't write.

If a person commits suicide after a traumatic event, it's two separate events - suicide, and trauma. The suicide was a choice (your phrasing), and the trauma was a crime (in this case). In our example, the rape doesn't cause death, the person chooses it. The rape causes pain, which the person finds worse than death. The person actively selects death as a preferable alternative.

The crime is rape, not murder. If the victim chooses to kill themselves, that's not inherently connected to the crime. But you have admitted to seeing the connection in this case. In short, the rape caused the pain which was worse than death (in the eyes of the victim). At a minimum, you have to then consider the crime to be as bad as the outcome (death), in order to link them in this way.

Explain where you think I've missed you.


Edit:

In our (not so) hypothetical, rape causes pain which is worse than death, and the person subsequently kills themselves. You agree that the rape is responsible for the death, so you tacitly accept that it responsible for the pain, which is at least as bad as the death, and in the eyes of the victim, worse.

 

[TexRex]

If a person commits suicide after a traumatic event, it's two separate events - suicide, and trauma. The suicide was a choice (your phrasing), and the trauma was a crime (in this case). In our example, the rape doesn't cause death, the person chooses it. The rape causes pain, which the person finds worse than death. The person actively selects death as a preferable alternative.

The crime is rape, not murder. If the victim chooses to kill themselves, that's not inherently connected to the crime. But you have admitted to seeing the connection in this case. In short, the rape caused the pain which was worse than death (in the eyes of the victim). At a minimum, you have to then consider the crime to be as bad as the outcome (death), in order to link them in this way.

Explain where you think I've missed you.


Edit:

In our (not so) hypothetical, rape causes pain which is worse than death, and the person subsequently kills themselves. You agree that the rape is responsible for the death, so you tacitly accept that it responsible for the pain, which is at least as bad as the death, and in the eyes of the victim, worse.

One may or may not choose suicide* following trauma, and that choice is a direct result of one's ability to cope with the trauma. One's choice to commit suicide does not objectively** make the trauma itself any more severe than the trauma endured by another who opted to not commit suicide.

*Is it really my phrasing? When is suicide anything but a choice?

**Edit to add.

 

[Danoff]

One may or may not choose suicide* following trauma, and that choice is a direct result of one's ability to cope with the trauma. One's choice to commit suicide does not objectively** make the trauma itself any more severe than the trauma endured by another who opted to not commit suicide.

*Is it really my phrasing? When is suicide anything but a choice?

**Edit to add.

When someone commits suicide following (or during) any kind of torture, what they are telling you is that the torture was worse than death. None of it is "objective", but you're hearing from the victim (which is the person that matters) that torture can be worse than death.

Therefore, you must inescapably conclude, that torture can be worse than death. At least for some individuals.


Edit:

I understand the point that you're making. You're saying that no matter what you do to someone, it's always worse to the kill them. If you stop short of killing them, at least the have a choice. if you kill them, they have none, so it's worse to kill them.

You're right, adding murder to anything makes it a worse crime. Torturing someone and killing them adds to the list of offenses. That's the case even if torture is an 11 and murder is a 10. You get 21 with the torture+murder, whereas you'd have had an 11 with torture alone, and 10 with murder alone.

What I am saying is that people have rated torture at 11 and death at 10. So we necessarily know that for at least some torture, it can be worse than death. I'd be a little surprised to find anyone seriously contending that point.

 

[TexRex]

When someone commits suicide following (or during) any kind of torture, what they are telling you is that the torture was worse than death. None of it is "objective", but you're hearing from the victim (which is the person that matters) that torture can be worse than death.

Therefore, you must inescapably conclude, that torture can be worse than death. At least for some individuals.

And if the torture can be demonstrated as being the cause for one to commit suicide (not a big ask, as far as I'm concerned), the perpetrator(s) should be punished accordingly.

I understand the point that you're making. You're saying that no matter what you do to someone, it's always worse to the kill them. If you stop short of killing them, at least the have a choice. if you kill them, they have none, so it's worse to kill them.

You're right, adding murder to anything makes it a worse crime. Torturing someone and killing them adds to the list of offenses. That's the case even if torture is an 11 and murder is a 10. You get 21 with the torture+murder, whereas you'd have had an 11 with torture alone, and 10 with murder alone.

What I am saying is that people have rated torture at 11 and death at 10. So we necessarily know that for at least some torture, it can be worse than death. I'd be a little surprised to find anyone seriously contending that point.

And, for what it's worth, I do get what you're saying.

For me, death as final for death as final is acceptable (without getting into the manner by which guilt was determined). I can't honestly rule out finding death as final for anything less than death as final acceptable, but it really is dependant on specific circumstances.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I don't see how anyone could accurately *rate* death.

I'm not strongly against capital punishment (I think letting states decide is probably the best way to handle it) but I think it should eventually be eliminated. It's not so much about the perpetrators of violent crimes or even so much about the victims or even the nebulous concept of justice. To me its about the rest of us and the spiral of violence and the kind of civilization we want to be. I would rather children grow up in an environment where their government doesn't kill people on purpose. Its definitely necessary to keep dangerous people out of society, but beyond that I don't see the value in executing them. Is there evidence to suggest that people avoid murdering people in states with the death penalty at statistically meaningful rates?

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

I think you've seen what I wanted to show you. The criminal justice system offers you the luxury of wishing away the death penalty. Without that infrastructure, you'd be hard pressed to avoid capital punishment.

Indeed, which is a nice luxury to have

 

[Danoff]

Indeed, which is a nice luxury to have

Yes, but it comes at great expense to eliminate it completely. You can cut it back to 1 execution in 40 years (in Colorado's case), and it's still useful for putting away monsters like Chris Watts without the risk of letting him free, without trotting the details before the public, without putting friends and family through the agony of a length trial and appeals process, without spending millions on endless legal battles.

Getting rid of the last 1 person in 40 years costs a ton, not just in money but in risk of setting our worst loose on the public and people living in fear of a retaliation when a botched trial sets an OJ free. So it's a costly luxury if you want it all.

 

[polysmut]

When is suicide anything but a choice?

If it's a choice influenced by a mental illness which the individual didn't choose to have?

 

[Danoff]

Yes, but it comes at great expense to eliminate it completely. You can cut it back to 1 execution in 40 years (in Colorado's case), and it's still useful for putting away monsters like Chris Watts without the risk of letting him free, without trotting the details before the public, without putting friends and family through the agony of a length trial and appeals process, without spending millions on endless legal battles.

Getting rid of the last 1 person in 40 years costs a ton, not just in money but in risk of setting our worst loose on the public and people living in fear of a retaliation when a botched trial sets an OJ free. So it's a costly luxury if you want it all.

Colorado got rid of its death penalty.

You don't have to get rid of the death penalty to commute sentences. And you don't have to actually kill anyone while the death penalty is in place. The last execution in CO was 1997. But that didn't stop the state from prosecuting Watts efficiently using the death penalty (opting for a guilty plea for life in prison to avoid the death penalty). I think the governor made a mistake here.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I believe that the death penalty should be for certain people . Such as maniacs and pedophiles

What is a maniac? And isn't pedophilia a thought crime?

 

[TexRex]

What is a maniac?

Here's 10,000 of them, if it helps.

 

[UKMikey]

Wow... Natalie looks like Cherie Blair now.

 

[TexRex]

Wow... Natalie looks like Cherie Blair now.

That's Mary Ramsey. Natalie left in '92 and Mary joined up a few years later.

Edit: '93, it seems. Mary's first album with the band was 1997's Love Among the Ruins.

 

[UKMikey]

That's Mary Ramsey. Natalie left in '92 and Mary joined up a few years later.

Edit: '93, it seems. Mary's first album with the band was 1997's Love Among the Ruins.

I'm sorry my 10,000 Maniacs knowledge is so out of date.

 

[TexRex]

I'm sorry my 10,000 Maniacs knowledge is so out of date.

I...I had a bit of a crush on Natalie Merchant.