• Yeah, actually.
  No, they don't have the right to kill, but why does the state, then?
  I said it earlier in the thread: an eye for an eye will leave us all blind.
  I don't feel killing a murderer solves anything. It just gives the state a sense of power over the lives of its citizens, more than it's entitled. Jail is not a privilege, it's a punishment. Not every person who's killed someone is a horrible, thoughtless person fulfilling a blood-lust. I don't think it's right for the state to decide who should die, no matter what they've done. It often becomes a spectacle, and a spectacle of a death is nothing I agree with.

An eye for an eye would only leave some blind.

We aren't ALL murders now.

• Everyone is capable of murder; not everyone is moved to it. That doesn't mean that every murderer need be murdered.

Everyone is capable of killing. Not everyone is capable of murder.

The law sees a difference between killing and murder.

I think it is unnecessarily cruel to jail a person for life. I believe that it violates the ammendment for "Cruel and unusual punishment." If you have already determined that this person cannot be ever paroled or let back into society, you are just putting them into an environment where they might kill again.

I said it before and I'll say it again: People are killed all the time in jail, especially by people who have already killed. By putting murderers in the same jail as non-murderers you are endangering the lives of people who may not deserve it.

Our jailing system is terribly flawed. We do not cure criminals, we allow them to fester. They do not get rehabilitated in jail, they learn how to commit new crimes. Jail is a horrible place where often you must do horrible things to survive.

While jail is not meant to be a wonderful place, the people coming out should not be as bad or worse than when they went in.

Serial murderers, serial rapists should get the death penalty, no questions asked. These people are sociopaths with no possibility of curing.

People who commit first degree murder, well though out planned murder, should get the death penalty. If they are so depraved as to plan the death of a murder, they do not have the right to live in my eyes.

For people who commit lesser types of murder or manslaughter, they should be rehabilitated in a mental institution. These are often crimes of passion, brought on by fits of rage. They should receive help. If they cannot be helped, we should have some system to use these people so that people who are not rehabilitated are not released back into society.

If the jailing system were better then criminals who truely got better, received the full purpose of their punishment could come back to society without that stigma above their head. Many good people did bad things for stupid reasons and they should not be bad people for their mistakes.

As for innocent people being convicted of crimes they did not commit: That is the fault of the prosecutor not the jailing system. Complain about over zealous prosecutors who manipulate evidence to say what they wish.

Originally Posted by stilettolover

Serial murderers, serial rapists should get the death penalty, no questions asked. These people are sociopaths with no possibility of curing.

I disagree with this appraisal, but I also have a question: do you think sociopathy is something people or born with or that they learn? If people are born as sociopaths, it's hardly fair to kill them for something they can't help. I'm not excusing murderers or rapists - I do think violent felons should be gaoled, but I just don't think the death penalty is much of a solution. Sure, it deters the one person who is stopped, but who else?

The death penalty is not about detering crime, but preventing known criminals from commiting more crimes.

I would like to note that I have a degree in psychology. Sociopathy cannot be proven in children. There are many children who have signs of sociopathic behavior who grow up to not be sociopaths. It is difficult to pinpoint sociopathy, because not all sociopaths rape or kill--or have been caught. Some torture. Some are voyeurs. It's difficult to define the broad scope of it.

But there is no cure for sociopathy. You can medicate a sociopath, but you cannot magically give them a sense of moral being. They are the way they are because they believe that they do not need to be accountable for their actions, right or wrong. They understand that what they are doing is wrong under normal circumstances--but it is not wrong for them. Even lobotomies and hemispherectomies have produced little effects.

I personally believe that sociopathy is predisposed but triggered by environment.

*snort* im all for labour camps.. at least while they are working they are actually doing something and not hurting each other and still helping to give back to the community

• So you're willing to kill people for a predisposed condition?
  And if it's triggered by environment, it's still not something that can be helped so they're being killed for the way they grew up.

I am willing to kill someone who cannot be cured so that they will not kill again.

It is not about killing them for the way they grew up, it is about stopping them from doing more harm.

I mean, you could just throw all the lifers in the same prison and let them kill each other. That would be so much more humane. :roll:

At the very least they should not be mixed with other people who have lesser sentences.

Originally Posted by stilettolover

The death penalty is not about detering crime, but preventing known criminals from commiting more crimes.

I don't think it's about prevention - I think it's about punishment.

Sociopathy cannot be proven in children. There are many children who have signs of sociopathic behavior who grow up to not be sociopaths. It is difficult to pinpoint sociopathy, because not all sociopaths rape or kill--or have been caught. Some torture. Some are voyeurs. It's difficult to define the broad scope of it.

But there is no cure for sociopathy. You can medicate a sociopath, but you cannot magically give them a sense of moral being. They are the way they are because they believe that they do not need to be accountable for their actions, right or wrong. They understand that what they are doing is wrong under normal circumstances--but it is not wrong for them. Even lobotomies and hemispherectomies have produced little effects.

An organisation of individuals decided sociopathy cannot be proven in children - I don't think they're infalliable (organisations and individuals), and I don't think it's wise for people to put faith in things that are highly variable.

By what you've said, it sounds like the people who think they're qualified enough to decide on these things for all of us have given up on sociopaths/people with sociopathic tendencies. Hundreds of years ago, mental disorders we now know are treatable would have been the reason some people were killed. Times change - I'm sure the brain doctors will figure it out.

I would assume sociopaths have a lower trigger range than non-sociopaths, and while I don't absolve them of any criminal choices they make, I think it's harder for them to resist criminal behaviours most everyone else can pass on.


Getting back to the point somewhat, er, I remain unchanged in my opinion (I'm sure you feel the same). I think the death penalty is horrific and disgusting no matter who it is levelled on and what kind of crimes they have committed - I cannot see any good in killing a person. I'll also leave this quote, because I think it's an excellent point from a famed executioner:

"I have come to the conclusion that executions solve nothing, and are only an antiquated relic of a primitive desire for revenge which takes the easy way and hands over the responsibility for revenge to other people ... The trouble with the death penalty has always been that nobody wanted it for everybody, but everybody differed about who should get off." - Albert Pierrepoint.

I will rephrase: The death penalty should not be about punishment it should be about preventing further crimes of the same nature. It should not be about detering crimes that have no happened, but used to prevent those who are already known to kill from killing any further. Putting people in jail does not stop them from killing, it creates an environment of violence and survival of the fittest.

The purpose of the death penalty needs to be redefined.


Faith is put into those people because it is their purpose in life to diagnose and treat such conditions and to classify them so others can diagnose and treat.

Sociopathy is not new--those "brain doctors" have been trying to cure it for a very long time with absolutely no success. It is the one condition that we cannot cure, because there is no physical way to do it! Even doing a lobotomy--fundamentally removing a portion of the frontal lobe which controls personality and decision making--does nothing! It has nothing to do with personality, how the brain communicates... there is something missing in these people's heads that cannot be artificially replaced.

You cannot compare the people of hundreds of years ago who knew nothing about mental disorders and killed those people--who they thought were plagued with demons, btw--to current scientists who know what is wrong but cannot change it.

Sociopaths cannot resist criminal behaviors because they do not see their actions as being wrong. They understand that for other people the same actions are wrong, but the same laws do not apply to them.

I understand that you want to believe in the inherent good of all people--but not everyone can be fixed.

• But the death penalty is punishment.
  But if someone spends their life in jail, how are they perpetuating crimes?

Being in jail doesn't stop crimes from happening, it just puts a lot of criminals in one place.

People kill in jail. Steal. Rape. Abuse. Maim. Torture. People make a business of smuggling drugs into jail. There are gangs.

This stuff happens even in low security facilities, but even more so in moderate or high. The people who get put into low security facilities get put there for white collar crimes like fraud and DUIs. But in moderate and high security facilities you have people who commit multiple violent crimes mixed with first time offenders.

Jail is not about serving your time, it's about surviving it. =|

Originally Posted by Jupiter

If people are born as sociopaths, it's hardly fair to kill them for something they can't help. I'm not excusing murderers or rapists - I do think violent felons should be gaoled, but I just don't think the death penalty is much of a solution. Sure, it deters the one person who is stopped, but who else?

I think it's more fair to kill a sociopathic murderer than to allow sociopaths to kill innocent people with little to no penalty.

Originally Posted by jessyta

I think it's more fair to kill a sociopathic murderer than to allow sociopaths to kill innocent people with little to no penalty.

Life imprisonment isn't a major penalty? I think people take freedom for granted - imprisonment isn't really a walk in the park.

Originally Posted by stilettolover

I will rephrase: The death penalty should not be about punishment it should be about preventing further crimes of the same nature. It should not be about detering crimes that have no happened, but used to prevent those who are already known to kill from killing any further. Putting people in jail does not stop them from killing, it creates an environment of violence and survival of the fittest.

The purpose of the death penalty needs to be redefined.

Since I think killing people for any reason is fundamentally wrong, I don't think the death penalty should be about anything - I don't think it should exist. I don't think redefining it will make it more fairly applied or understood, and I don't think that makes it more acceptable, either.

I appreciate your position - I just think it's wrong to kill people, regardless.

Faith is put into those people because it is their purpose in life to diagnose and treat such conditions and to classify them so others can diagnose and treat.

Sociopathy is not new--those "brain doctors" have been trying to cure it for a very long time with absolutely no success. It is the one condition that we cannot cure, because there is no physical way to do it! Even doing a lobotomy--fundamentally removing a portion of the frontal lobe which controls personality and decision making--does nothing! It has nothing to do with personality, how the brain communicates... there is something missing in these people's heads that cannot be artificially replaced.

You cannot compare the people of hundreds of years ago who knew nothing about mental disorders and killed those people--who they thought were plagued with demons, btw--to current scientists who know what is wrong but cannot change it.

Hundreds of years from now scientists will likely think the same thing of people treating mental illness now. It's only been thirty/forty years since homosexuality was declassified as a mental disorder - these are the people whom we are supposed to put our faith in? They're not infalliable - I take such information with a grain of salt, and I think it's wise for people to not blindly trust people in such professions or organisations are really deciding what is best for everyone.

They are just people, after all - they chose to dedicate their lives to this, but that doesn't mean they're best suited to it, nor does it mean they don't make mistakes.

I don't think they should give up - it's completely weak for any doctor to take the position that something is incurable.

Sociopaths cannot resist criminal behaviors because they do not see their actions as being wrong. They understand that for other people the same actions are wrong, but the same laws do not apply to them.

I understand that you want to believe in the inherent good of all people--but not everyone can be fixed.

It's not about people being good - it's about killing being inherently wrong and a person's ability to appreciate the crimes they commit in an appropriate context. Sociopaths obviously can't do this - it's not fair to hold them to the same standard as everyone else who can.

Do you know who thought that homosexuality was a mental disorder? It wasn't the psychologists! At least not all of them. It was the psychologists who changed that definition.

Yes, they are constantly updating what they can do, how they can discover things, how they can treat disorders.

But in my opinion sociopathy isn't ever going to be curable. It isn't even treatable. Anywhere you put that person they are going to do bad things.

It's not that they don't appreciate right from wrong--because they do. It's that they do not believe that they are accountable for their actions. That is what sets a sociopath apart from people who are mentally altered--they choose to kill or rape or torture or whatever else because they know it is wrong and they want to do it.

Hannibal Lector. A fictional character, but absolutely point on true. Charles Manson. Never killed anyone but convinced others to do it for him.

I accept that you do not agree with killing in any form, but I feel the need to convince you that sociopaths need to be seen and dealt with as something other than human. They are inhuman. They do not act as humans should, not capable as reasoning as humans can.

Originally Posted by Jupiter

Life imprisonment isn't a major penalty? I think people take freedom for granted - imprisonment isn't really a walk in the park.

Not nearly as major as being DEAD.

People in prison get visits from their families. The families of victims of murderonly get to visit a hole in the ground.

Seems to me the victim & their families are the ones truely being punished.

Originally Posted by jessyta

Not nearly as major as being DEAD.

People in prison get visits from their families. The families of victims of murderonly get to visit a hole in the ground.

Seems to me the victim & their families are the ones truely being punished.

Obviously! That's why I disagree with it.

The application of law certainly shouldn't be about who has it worst, should it? I certainly do not discount the feelings of relatives of murder victims, but I also don't think those feelings should be given too much weight - this isn't just about their loss, it's also about someone's life.

Originally Posted by stilettolover

Do you know who thought that homosexuality was a mental disorder? It wasn't the psychologists! At least not all of them. It was the psychologists who changed that definition.

Er, psychologists were part of the society that believed in the prejudices that allowed it to be considered a mental disorder - they wrote their ridiculous manual so they could facilitate easy discussion with each other by stating out their general beliefs on the matter. I might be misremembering, but I'm pretty sure it was originally considered to be an aspect of sociopathy.

As for changing the definition - only under massive pressure to do so.

Yes, they are constantly updating what they can do, how they can discover things, how they can treat disorders.

But in my opinion sociopathy isn't ever going to be curable. It isn't even treatable. Anywhere you put that person they are going to do bad things.

I simply disagree. Considering all of the things we were unable to do in the past and what the human race has achieved across time, I don't think it is is impossible, nor do I think it is acceptable to simply give up on a portion of said race just because we think we're beaten.

It's not that they don't appreciate right from wrong--because they do. It's that they do not believe that they are accountable for their actions. That is what sets a sociopath apart from people who are mentally altered--they choose to kill or rape or torture or whatever else because they know it is wrong and they want to do it.

It's about context - how they appreciate right from wrong is retarded by the fact they are sociopaths. It's not something they can help, so it isn't really fair to hold them to the same standard as people who are able to make such distinctions.

I accept that you do not agree with killing in any form, but I feel the need to convince you that sociopaths need to be seen and dealt with as something other than human. They are inhuman. They do not act as humans should, not capable as reasoning as humans can.

I can't be convinced that killing a person is acceptable. It's people who would be classed as "inhuman" who need our help more than anyone.

Originally Posted by Jupiter

The application of law certainly shouldn't be about who has it worst, should it? I certainly do not discount the feelings of relatives of murder victims, but I also don't think those feelings should be given too much weight - this isn't just about their loss, it's also about someone's life.

Someone who obviously had little respect for the life of another, since they deicided to take it upon themselves to kill.

I don't put much weigh on the value of a murder's weight. My personal feeling is society as a whole would be better off without those that maliciously kill, and it's wrong to value their lives higher than we value the lives of innocent people.

Someone who obviously had little respect for the life of another, since they deicided to take it upon themselves to kill.

Perhaps - how would anyone really know? But to me their motivation is irrelevant - I don't think the death penalty is right whatever the circumstances of the crime.

My personal feeling is society as a whole would be better off without those that maliciously kill, and it's wrong to value their lives higher than we value the lives of innocent people.

I think so, too - alas, they're here, and I don't agree the solution is to kill them.

I don't value the lives of murderers more than the lives of innocent people - I just don't value them so little or so callously that I think death is an acceptable form of punishment.

Originally Posted by Jupiter

Perhaps - how would anyone really know? But to me their motivation is irrelevant - I don't think the death penalty is right whatever the circumstances of the crime.

To you motivation may not be relevant, but thankfully it IS relevant to the justice system.

If a person kills in self defense, their motivation was their own safety and therefore they should not be punished in the same way as a person who kills for financial gain or another reason.

Life in prison.

I believe that people can and do change, even the worst people, and that everyone should have a second chance... a chance to reform.

So you think Hitler deserved a second chance?

[edit]

My thoughts on the death sentence vs. life in prison. If you're going to give someone life in prison with no chance of paroe then you might as well kill them. If there's no way for them to get out of there then "punishing" them by keeping them there won't do anything.

Also because it'd be cheaper on my taxes. I don't want to have to pay so that some guy who raped/murdered people can live till old age.

• I don't think it matters; I don't see life in prison as necessarily a "second chance".
  I see it as a punishment, but I don't see death as an appropriate punishment, and I don't see it delivering the common good.