«Home

Is There Any Crime That Justifies Execution?

Capital Punishment: Justified or Not?

Many have been executed and many are yet to be from Jesus to Ken Saro-Wiwa to Saddam.

Is there any crime/action the justifies execution?

Avatar
Newbie
34 answers

@ allonym

If I understand correctly:

1. you agree with the premise that genetics determine the boundqries of behaviour

2. you disagree with my opinion that chemical castration should be employed as a punishment because in your opinion, the link betzeen the two is too weak to justify the use

We both have different opinions on valid grounds. My starting point is the protection of society and therefore, I look at the impact on the complete population. You start from the the link between the individual perpetrator and his punishment

Let's agree to disagree

0
Avatar
Newbie

ok, so this is what i need to provide:

1) Sources showing environment determines behavior more than genetics

2) Sources showing psycopaths possess qualities we would admire in others

But, while I may agree with your argument about genetics setting limits for behavior, I disagree with your conclusion that in some cases, chemical castration should be employed. I don't think I can bring up sources for this because this probably hasn't been studied by many scientists recently. (In the past, chemical castration was used on a wide variety of ppl, mainly minorities, and I would not want to quote from those studies).

So, taking your statement - genetics sets limits on behavior - I say, its still not enough justification for castration in any case. If my gene's don't limit my behavior, then it is up to ME to do so. People who commit the crimes that would meet your standard for castration still chose to do it. Just because their genes allowed them to push themselves past a certain point does not mean that if everyone or someone else had similar "limits or nonlimits" they will turn out the same way.

0
Avatar
Newbie

And, once again, I'm [b]NOT [/b]advocating screening for genetical dispositions.

And mob justice is not exactly the type of crime I was thinking of.

2. I never said that chemical castration is sufficient as a solution

0
Avatar
Newbie

the last thing you want to give a homocidal maniac is a gun and an authority to use it.

0
Avatar
Newbie

well, actually, we could have a nice argument about hitler, though not in the way its been originally brought up.

Even if I would accept your argument that genetics provides some bounds for behavior, I'm sure you know that a lot of the characteristics of a mass murderer - I'm trying to guess what kind of heinous crime you mean - are some of the same characteristics of other powerful (and non lethal) people in our society. Screening by genetics would then remove both sets of people.

- This is assuming I agreed with the premise of genetics setting bounds for behavior.

- Look at the mob justice in Nigeria - is that a heinous crime deserving of capital punishment or chemical castration - it would seem many Nigerians possess such a "gene".

Even if I accepted that part of your argument, I still don' t feel castration is an adequate solution. I don't feel capital punishment is a solution - it isn't, - it's supposed to be a deterrant. Its been shown that in most cases, people who commit - higher "degree" crimes tend to have started from smaller ones. The solution would be to attempt to find a way to rehabilitate or remove problems which may cause entry into crime. Of course there will still be people who commit them. But this solution is better for a couple reasons.

1) Chemical castration only reduces any possibility of FUTURE offspring DIRECTLY from that person. Technology is moving to the point where you don't need sperm or egg to form a human being

2) The problem with the person still exists - and still needs a solution

0
Avatar
Newbie

I read somewhere that tests for APD/psychotic tendencies are already being used to screen police officers in the US.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Please read the book I mentioned. [b]Pinker [/b]can certainly express the argument way better than I can.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I must appologise here, but I still do not agree with this statement or premise, because it only leads to re-inforce the presumption that people do not have free will to make certain choices.. I still subscribe to behaviour, and the boundaries thereof, being a consequence of environment and/or circumstances..

In life, we all have the ability to exert our free-will, that's what makes us the higher species of the animal kingdom.. By trying to assert that one's behaviour is a determinant of one's genetic make-up, we tend to allege that one becomes pre-disposed towards certain behaviour and actions as a result of one's genetics.. This now removes free-will from the equation.. This is not the case, we choose to commit a crime or not... we choose to take a life or not.. it is not a compulsion as a result of one's genetics..

Adolf Hitler tried to espouse theories along similar lines.. [the superiority of a certain race as a result of their genetic superiority].. the world has proved him wrong today.. (the last comment is not meant in any derisory way, but just to highlight the flaws in such an approach to construing the problem of genetics being a pre-cusor to ones actions)..

All in all, I believe that only fear of experiencing a similar fate as one's victims would be the only way to check one's actions and behaviours in society.. And I'm not referring to the extreme hopeless cases of deviancy like the "Anti-Social Personality Dis-order" mentioned earlier, but crimes committed by Joe Public, who he feels he can get away with...

0
Avatar
Newbie

Actually, I'm not talking about people who we feel are supremely deviant, but rather people who have committed a horrible crime. Big difference.

Let's get back to my argument. The boundaries of behaviour are determined by genetical factors. the exact expression thereof is mainly influenced by the environment. This differentiates rates of behaviour across societies and shows which policies are successful. As long as you do not tackle the ultimate determining factor in behaviour (genetics), you cannot possibly [i]solve [/i]the problem, you can only contain it

And, all in all, chemical castration is a less drastic and more humane solution than capital punishment.

You last statement does not logically follow from your previous arguments, so whether or not you're willing to help create it is irrelevant as long as you have not established your last statement

0
Avatar
Newbie

Culling the gene pool of the future by selectively castrating people who we feel are supremely deviant is not an acceptable solution to the problem. While you may be able to show me some evidence which ties genetics to behavior, there is lots more stronger ties between behavior and environment. Further, a society which accepts chemical castration as a solution to a problem is a society which will breed someone who feels that the solution to HIS problems is chemical castration of everyone else. And this society is not one which I am willing to help create.

0
Avatar
Newbie

The gargantuan premise for the aforeseen situation as regards infant mortality and corporal punishment, when advanced with the theorems regarding chemical castration, capital punishment, and other melodramatic accomplishments of martial law and criminal di-empowerment, are a nullity!

Problems reading the above paragraph? That is what it's like to follow these complex debates between nferyn and allonym!

0
Avatar
Newbie

Ludicrous? You haven't made any case for it being ludicrous. Maybe you don't agree with my motivation or presmisses, but it certainly isn't ludicrous

0
Avatar
Newbie

I was not advocating chemical castration as a solution to any problem. I was attempting to point out how ludicrous that idea - or any similar ones are.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Blank Slate: Denying Human Nature in Modern Life by Steven Pinker

(see: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0141885858/qid=1130796387/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_11_1/202-9068849-6947066)

Specifically concerning adequate punishment, I do disagree with your position. The goal [/b]of the [b]justice system is not to punish people, but to protect society. Wanting to use severe punishment may be emotionally satisfying, but it hardly solves the problem.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Its is actually both a punishment and a (possible) solution. Chemical castration not only robs the men of their ability to procreate, but also of the other advantages from testosterone, such as a sex drive, finding pleasure in sex and the health benefits testosterone gives to men.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@ allonym...

I can see where you're coming from.. you've thrown a new twist into this.. as in, not only punishing the offender, but in addition making sure that like-offenders are not made in future..

But I still believe that these offenders are not genetically made that way, but rather are products of environmental factors and circumstance.. I do not believe ones genes pre-dispose one to commit crimes... So, going to the extent of saying that preventing such people having progeny would act as a form of punishment, to me doenst really cut it as per adequate punishment..

To me, such people should be tortured, repeatedly... and make to suffer, prior to being put to death.. But our "civil society" would frown on such attitudes as barbaric..

Life imprisonment to me would not be adequate as a form of punishment.. cos in the final analysis, the victim is "dead", and the offender has his/her life... Life imprisonment assumes that such people can be reformed after a considerable period of time.. FOr some crimes, reform in not the answer, but accountablility for their actions and crimes..

0
Avatar
Newbie

I don't understand? You call castration a punishment? I thought you were for castration so that they could not create children of the same type.

So, are you saying castration is a punishment for a crime?

Or castration is a solution to future bad people?

If you are saying the first, then how exactly does chemical castration punish anyone - other than robbing them of the ability to procreate?

If you say the second, then what was wrong with what i said?

0
Avatar
Newbie

You can only punish people for their actions, not for what they are or what they think.

And why do you add whoring into this?

0
Avatar
Newbie

chemical castration for extra violent criminals? How about chemical castration for extra silly people? slow people? whores on the street?

0
Avatar
Newbie

"Research has shown that individuals with APD are indifferent to the possibility of physical pain or many punishments, and show no indications that they experience fear when so threatened. Central to understanding psychopaths is that they do not appear to experience true human emotions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

So while it is true that mose people will avoid murder if there's the risk of capital punishments, psychopaths (the worst kind of killers) are not "most people". They are not afraid of the consequences of their actions and they do not feel bad for their victims. The fear you want to create by capital punishment is wasted on them!

0
Avatar
Newbie

I support that. Some of these people may be suffering from Antisocial Personality Disorder and who knows if they'll pass it to their children?

"Research has shown that individuals with APD are[b] indifferent to the possibility of physical pain[/b] or many punishments, and show no indications that they experience fear when so threatened; this may explain their apparent disregard for the consequences of their actions, and their lack of empathy when others are suffering."

"Central to understanding psychopaths is that they do not appear to experience true human emotions, or at least, they do not appear to experience a full range of human emotions. Emotions which the true psychopath exhibits are the fruits of watching and mimicking other people's emotions. This is to mask their sociopathic tendencies from others."

The fact that it's more common among men suggests that, evolutionally, this disorder favors men more than it favors women. This suggests to me that male psychopaths are 3 times more attractive to women than female psycopaths are to men. We men are less likely to choose psychopaths as our partners. Go, men, go!

0
Avatar
Newbie

I cannot see when it would be permitted. Capital punishment is not even a real punishment as it relieves the perpetrator of the crime from his pain. Life imprisonment is much more appropriate.

Serial Killers and the like are usually people with a serious personality disorder that goes unchecked by society. When there are a lot of barbaric killers or serial killers in a society that can commit their horrible acts, it tells us more about the difunctions in society than about these killers. You will always have people on the fringe that have abnormal behaviour, it's how you deal with it that makes the difference.

A possible solution would be chemical castration for extra violent criminals (it's usually men anyway) so that these [i]animals [/i]don't produce any offspring and that we have less of these people in our future generations.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@fabian - cut their "things" off and make them jump into a basin full of sharks

0
Avatar
Newbie

True, but what punishment should be given to a man who defiles children and kills them slowly?

0
Avatar
Newbie

IMHO All human life is sacred.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@ CimonJorr, you said it already. Somebody who took a life must be ready to die too. Especially when the victim is a minor, a child or they Molested their victim before. HANG THEM ALL AND SHOW NO MERCY !

0
Avatar
Newbie

Really depends on the crime...................

Serial Killers, child molesters, Dr Death, Dr. Hannibal Lecter (fictional character in Silence of the lambs who killed humans and ate their flesh) I believe they should be gotten rid of.

Sorry if i offend anyone with my post, but its just my opinion.

0
Avatar
Newbie

murdering someone unfairly justify execution of that person.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Someone who is prepared to take a life should be prepared to give up his/her own..

It's the only way you can remain accountable.. I may understand the sentiments of the "pro-lifers" but disagree with the logic..

When people are prepared to face the repercussions of their actions, then shall they treat people and life with the dignity it deserves...

0
Avatar
Newbie

Thnx for callin me to order (indirectly)..was just coming from the other thread (d 12 yr old boy who was murdered). reason why i made d previous posts.

I'm Pro-Life too. I wish everyone is. Life imprisonment is better than death penalty. Its same gravity (except in sum cases when amnesty international help grant sum convicts pardon).

I vote for Life Imprisonment.

0
Avatar
Newbie

But not before a fair trial in which is has been proved beyond reasonable doubts that the offence was committed. Life imprisonment is better, except when the person is really an animal. For example, serial killers.

One thing about me is that I might call for "death penalty" in response to a gruesome act of murder, but if you put me in a jury and ask me to vote, I will always vote for life rather than death. I'm pro life, I really don't believe in killing people in law, war, mobs, or private life.

Life is irreplaceable and once it's gone it's gone. Let's treat it reverently.

0
Avatar
Newbie

"He who lives by the sword must die by the sword".

His/her life isnt more precious than the ones s/he has taken. If he doesnt value other peoples lives...his shouldnt.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Yes! If someone has killed more than one human being, I think such a person deserves execution.

0
Avatar
Newbie
Your answer
Add image

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.