Not really. As I recall (from an abnormal psych class I took for the fun of it in 1951), all the PFL takes is local anesthetic, a knitting needle inserted above the eye in the eye socket, then stirred around while talking with the patient, until s/he demonstrates confusion. 
Occam
Fuzzy and Lois you have both pointed out some of the real problems with the death penalty and I donât disagree with most of them however I still do not agree with the premise that the death penalty is always wrong or cruel or that it is a reflection of a violent society or that it perpetuates violence.
On the first count, one could argue that a life in prison with no hope of parole or escape is among the cruelest of punishments. Is it really more cruel to impose the death penalty? Is life imprisonment just a way to ease our own conscience while imposing an even harsher penalty than death on the criminal? Some prisoners sentenced to life without parole have pleaded for the death penalty to avoid the prospect of a life without hope.
Stating that the death penalty is a reflection of a violent culture may make a good sound bite but I am not sure it is relevant to the argument unless one could prove that eliminating the death sentence would lead to a less violent society. That would be a very difficult premise to prove and I donât believe it is true.
I think it is often lost in these discussions that the purpose of a criminal justice system is multifold. Yes its main purpose is to prevent crimes through deterrence and in that regard the death penalty most likely fails. It also prevents crimes by removing violent individuals from soceity and in that respect the death penalty is successful although probably not much more than a life sentence. What gets forgotten though is that the justice system provides redress for wrongs to to an individual or family. It provides a institutionalized method of achieving retribution that is meant to replace the eye for an eye Hatfields vs McCoys violence that marked most of human history.
While we might like to pretend we are above that it is human nature to want to take out our anger on those who have caused harm to us and our families and when that harm was caused with intent and complete malice in the most horrific way imaginable the need to extract punishment is even greater. If society does not provide a method for doing that then people will take matters in to their own hands and we devolve into a world where one death is followed by another and another and so on. While life imprisonment may be enough to satisfy some individuals I am not sure its enough to satisfy everyone who has lost a loved one to murder under all circumstances. Thatâs why I believe there are some cases, while they may be few, where the death penalty is justifiable.
If someone shot your daughter and buried her alive and you saw the whole thing and then were face to face moments later with this person with a gun in your hand , would you refrain from the overwhelming impulse to shoot him dead on the spot? Would that have been cruel and unusual punishment for him? We put down dangerous animals. Why should we treat these animals any differently. Why does their genetics give them a right to special treatment that we wouldnât give to another dangerous animal? If we are going to truly be rational about this it shouldnât.
Fuzzy and Lois you have both pointed out some of the real problems with the death penalty and I don't disagree with most of them however I still do not agree with the premise that the death penalty is always wrong or cruel or that it is a reflection of a violent society or that it perpetuates violence. On the first count, one could argue that a life in prison with no hope of parole or escape is among the cruelest of punishments. Is it really more cruel to impose the death penalty? Is life imprisonment just a way to ease our own conscience while imposing an even harsher penalty than death on the criminal? Some prisoners sentenced to life without parole have pleaded for the death penalty to avoid the prospect of a life without hope. Stating that the death penalty is a reflection of a violent culture may make a good sound bite but I am not sure it is relevant to the argument unless one could prove that eliminating the death sentence would lead to a less violent society. That would be a very difficult premise to prove and I don't believe it is true. I think it is often lost in these discussions that the purpose of a criminal justice system is multifold. Yes its main purpose is to prevent crimes through deterrence and in that regard the death penalty most likely fails. It also prevents crimes by removing violent individuals from soceity and in that respect the death penalty is successful although probably not much more than a life sentence. What gets forgotten though is that the justice system provides redress for wrongs to to an individual or family. It provides a institutionalized method of achieving retribution that is meant to replace the eye for an eye Hatfields vs McCoys violence that marked most of human history. While we might like to pretend we are above that it is human nature to want to take out our anger on those who have caused harm to us and our families and when that harm was caused with intent and complete malice in the most horrific way imaginable the need to extract punishment is even greater. If society does not provide a method for doing that then people will take matters in to their own hands and we devolve into a world where one death is followed by another and another and so on. While life imprisonment may be enough to satisfy some individuals I am not sure its enough to satisfy everyone who has lost a loved one to murder under all circumstances. That's why I believe there are some cases, while they may be few, where the death penalty is justifiable. If someone shot your daughter and buried her alive and you saw the whole thing and then were face to face moments later with this person with a gun in your hand , would you refrain from the overwhelming impulse to shoot him dead on the spot? Would that have been cruel and unusual punishment for him? We put down dangerous animals. Why should we treat these animals any differently. Why does their genetics give them a right to special treatment that we wouldn't give to another dangerous animal? If we are going to truly be rational about this it shouldn't.An excellent reply.
Fuzzy and Lois you have both pointed out some of the real problems with the death penalty and I don't disagree with most of them however I still do not agree with the premise that the death penalty is always wrong or cruel or that it is a reflection of a violent society or that it perpetuates violence.In places like the US it is part of a broader culture that is firmly rooted in the use of violence, whether for entertainment, commerce, or the expression of national policy. If you're at the upper levels of US society you can get away with murder at a amazing level with little or no consequence, it just gets labelled something else. If you're poor or the member of a certain minority and you act out in what is to a large degree an encouraged manner then you face a very real chance of having the state execute you. There's more than a little amount of hypocrisy operating with the death penalty in all countries that use it including the US. It becomes a do as I say not as I do situatation.
On the first count, one could argue that a life in prison with no hope of parole or escape is among the cruelest of punishments. Is it really more cruel to impose the death penalty? Is life imprisonment just a way to ease our own conscience while imposing an even harsher penalty than death on the criminal? Some prisoners sentenced to life without parole have pleaded for the death penalty to avoid the prospect of a life without hope.It can also force the person who committed a serious crime to come to terms with their actions and possibly find a way to make restitution, but it should be in a manner that meets the victims families and societies needs. Also through a long and careful process it could contain the faint hope of a return to "normal" society. I also think that more than a few people who commit capital crimes really don't want to be here in the first place and knowing the state will execute them for killing others creates a motivation for a few to kill. Life imprisonment is a far less appealing future for someone who might hate life in the first place.
Stating that the death penalty is a reflection of a violent culture may make a good sound bite but I am not sure it is relevant to the argument unless one could prove that eliminating the death sentence would lead to a less violent society. That would be a very difficult premise to prove and I don't believe it is true.States that don't have the death penalty have lower murder rates and there is a spike in murders in the states with capital punishment in the months immediately after an execution. I guess the reasoning for those inclined goes something like, "If it's good enough for my government to do it's good enough for me too." And if we're all encultured to various degrees to accept a certain level of violence as normal in our lives then the death penalty is part of a larger context that includes the role of violence in society.
I think it is often lost in these discussions that the purpose of a criminal justice system is multifold. Yes its main purpose is to prevent crimes through deterrence and in that regard the death penalty most likely fails. It also prevents crimes by removing violent individuals from soceity and in that respect the death penalty is successful although probably not much more than a life sentence. What gets forgotten though is that the justice system provides redress for wrongs to to an individual or family. It provides a institutionalized method of achieving retribution that is meant to replace the eye for an eye Hatfields vs McCoys violence that marked most of human history.Sure it is, but the main role is to provide a stabilizing effect to the broader society and I don't think that is well served by having a highly biased and often flawed process that has no return past the point of carrying out an actual execution. ANd you may be removing a few individuals, but if the problem is the underlying focusing on violence as a means of personal expression, then having highly publicized killings of people does little to de-escalate the overall level of violence in society. The death penalty doesn't place the stigma on using violence in the first place, it places it on not using it in socially accepted norms. And I still don't think the role of the justice system is retribution, it's restitution, a redressing of an imbalance. All killing someone does is shift the balance to the other extreme and it inevitably swings back. Until violence itself as seen as the underlying problem there's always going to be people who stray out of the socially accepted limits. It's time to grow up as a society, and the eye for an eye limits on punishment for wrongs codified in places like the Bible set an upper limit for accepted retribution at that time, it's not an encouragement to seek revenge as many mistakenly seem to think. The logic behind it is, "If someone takes one of your eyes, it's only acceptable to at most take one of theirs in return". It doesn't mean that you are forced to retaliate.
While we might like to pretend we are above that it is human nature to want to take out our anger on those who have caused harm to us and our families and when that harm was caused with intent and complete malice in the most horrific way imaginable the need to extract punishment is even greater. If society does not provide a method for doing that then people will take matters in to their own hands and we devolve into a world where one death is followed by another and another and so on. While life imprisonment may be enough to satisfy some individuals I am not sure its enough to satisfy everyone who has lost a loved one to murder under all circumstances. That's why I believe there are some cases, while they may be few, where the death penalty is justifiable.A rational justice system seeks to address the imbalance created by one person or a group harming others, it needs to be as dispassionate as possible to be effective. But something like the death penalty is very a emotional issue for very good reason. Those who advocate for it often do so by appealing to emotion as can be seen in some of the posts here and as I said there are no comebacks from an execution. If the state gets it wrong they just murdered an innocent person. And no justice system on the planet is perfect so all states with the death penalty are committing murder. And in doing so they include the citizens who are part of the state in the crime, and many are outraged by this as they should be in my opinion.
If someone shot your daughter and buried her alive and you saw the whole thing and then were face to face moments later with this person with a gun in your hand , would you refrain from the overwhelming impulse to shoot him dead on the spot? Would that have been cruel and unusual punishment for him? We put down dangerous animals. Why should we treat these animals any differently. Why does their genetics give them a right to special treatment that we wouldn't give to another dangerous animal? If we are going to truly be rational about this it shouldn't.Once again, you're appealing to emotion I think. If someone just killed someone close to me but didn't present an immediate danger to me then I would be in the wrong legally if I did them harm other than restraining them for arrest. I don't think the justice system is or should be designed for individual satisfaction, it's about providing a consistent and stable means of addressing wrongs that are an inevitable part of living in a complex society with some individuals who aren't able to respect the rights and interests of others. If we don't need to kill people to achieve actual justice and I don't think we do, then the death penalty becomes something outside of the real justice system and can actually be harmful to real justice being applied as it creates so much chaos within the legal system, uses up so many resource that could be better used elsewhere and overall devalues human life as the issue is used for political purposes by the few who also show little or no respect for basic human rights.
I have to ask this question. Isnât the âsanctity of human lifeâ a religious term and concept? It is clearly used as though it means the same thing to everyone, just like god, angels, or the devil. For those who claim that human life is sacred, can they demonstrait how a murdererâs life is still sacred? It seems to me that this is very similar to how a fertilaized egg is a âsacred lifeâ according to many in religious circles. Perhaps our cultural value for human life is entirely a product of religious thought.
Excellent point, Handydan.
It does seem odd that we rail so strongly at the killing of individual people, most of whom are of less value than the huge amount of people who we are so willing to allow being killed during wars, because of inadaquate health care, mass starvation, etc.
Occam
I have to ask this question. Isn't the "sanctity of human life" a religious term and concept? It is clearly used as though it means the same thing to everyone, just like god, angels, or the devil. For those who claim that human life is sacred, can they demonstrait how a murderer's life is still sacred? It seems to me that this is very similar to how a fertilaized egg is a "sacred life" according to many in religious circles. Perhaps our cultural value for human life is entirely a product of religious thought.You know what's really funny though..... People can't get past the emotional issues of this topic and just stick to social/political reasons concerning the death penalty. It's almost like everyone is stuck in perpetual television land. It's like everyone gets their ideas and values from fictional TV drama. A nation becomes a better nation when it outlaws Death Penalties. It's kind of like when a nation adopts electricity or running water. It's a step up. It's progress. The death penalty is clearly a regressive action that is founded in things like the old testament and a time when a given judicial system was not fully developed into the 20th or 21st century. Death Penalties were clearly explainable in times when science didn't have a full understanding of forensics, psychology, pathology, institutionalization, therapy, advanced laws etc.... The Death Penalty is fading away in this world. One only needs to look at the countries who still implement it and those who have abolished it. It's not about the sanctity of life. It's about the progress of humanity.
You know what's really funny though..... People can't get past the emotional issues of this topic and just stick to social/political reasons concerning the death penalty. It's almost like everyone is stuck in perpetual television land. It's like everyone gets their ideas and values from fictional TV drama. .But this is a very emotional issue. You are talking about the deaths of at least two individuals. The violent murder of an innocent victim and the state sponsored killing of a criminal. Who has the right to state that the emotional issues are irrelevant and only the social and political issues are pertinent.
A nation becomes a better nation when it outlaws Death Penalties. It's kind of like when a nation adopts electricity or running water. It's a step up. It's progress.This is a value judgement not a statement of fact. I concede that this statement may have merit but not everyone would agree and it certainly may be possible to have a very progressive society that includes the death penalty in some form under some circumstances.
I have to ask this question. Isn't the "sanctity of human life" a religious term and concept? It is clearly used as though it means the same thing to everyone, just like god, angels, or the devil. For those who claim that human life is sacred, can they demonstrait how a murderer's life is still sacred? It seems to me that this is very similar to how a fertilaized egg is a "sacred life" according to many in religious circles. Perhaps our cultural value for human life is entirely a product of religious thought.You know what's really funny though..... People can't get past the emotional issues of this topic and just stick to social/political reasons concerning the death penalty. It's almost like everyone is stuck in perpetual television land. It's like everyone gets their ideas and values from fictional TV drama. A nation becomes a better nation when it outlaws Death Penalties. It's kind of like when a nation adopts electricity or running water. It's a step up. It's progress. The death penalty is clearly a regressive action that is founded in things like the old testament and a time when a given judicial system was not fully developed into the 20th or 21st century. Death Penalties were clearly explainable in times when science didn't have a full understanding of forensics, psychology, pathology, institutionalization, therapy, advanced laws etc.... The Death Penalty is fading away in this world. One only needs to look at the countries who still implement it and those who have abolished it. It's not about the sanctity of life. It's about the progress of humanity. Sanctity means holy, so it is a religious concept. Lois
The death penalty is just part of the end product of a culture that is inherently violent. Taking away the death penalty or keeping it does not effect the underlying causes of our high murder and crime rates. The death penalty is a symptom of a much greater social and moral deficiency that will be unaffected by by removing the death penalty. As a whole, we need to address the underlying causes for our high crime and murder rates. American culture is bloodthirsty by comparison to the rest of the world according to our much higher murder, violence, and incarceration rates.
For us to do something truly progressive about these issues is much more involved and complex than âsimplyâ eliminating capital punishment. We would still be the same violent culture, just without capital punishment. The small number of people executed compared to the number of people murdered is trivial.
The death penalty is just part of the end product of a culture that is inherently violent. Taking away the death penalty or keeping it does not effect the underlying causes of our high murder and crime rates. The death penalty is a symptom of a much greater social and moral deficiency that will be unaffected by by removing the death penalty. As a whole, we need to address the underlying causes for our high crime and murder rates. American culture is bloodthirsty by comparison to the rest of the world according to our much higher murder, violence, and incarceration rates. For us to do something truly progressive about these issues is much more involved and complex than "simply" eliminating capital punishment. We would still be the same violent culture, just without capital punishment. The small number of people executed compared to the number of people murdered is trivial.That may be true but the death penalty is symbolic of a much larger issue. Any country that considers itself civilized in the 21st Century should keep that in mind. Lois
That may be true but the death penalty is symbolic of a much larger issue. Any country that considers itself civilized in the 21st Century should keep that in mind. LoisI think the death penalty itself is symbolic of a state that is willing to use any means necessary to control its citizens.
The death penalty is just part of the end product of a culture that is inherently violent. Taking away the death penalty or keeping it does not effect the underlying causes of our high murder and crime rates. The death penalty is a symptom of a much greater social and moral deficiency that will be unaffected by by removing the death penalty.So then, interestingly, this inherent violence that is the Death penalty only manifests itself in about 12 US States and other countries because they have a "much greater social and moral deficiency" than the other states and nations that don't? So really it isn't about a "much greater social and moral deficiency". Otherwise the death penalty would be everywhere. Unless you can show me certain political/geographical areas which have a "much less social and moral deficiency"?(and by the way...if you can, do they have the death penalty?) Does this "much greater social and moral deficiency" somehow contain itself in Texas, which has the Death Penalty, but doesn't leak over into New Mexico, which abolished the Death Penalty?
Who has the right to state that the emotional issues are irrelevant and only the social and political issues are pertinent?Politicians. They make the law. They exercised those rights for over a thousand years. This is in direct regard to the Death Penalty. Wiki-
The death penalty was banned in China between 747 and 759. In Japan, Emperor Saga abolished the death penalty in 818 under the influence of Shinto and it lasted until 1156. Therefore, capital punishment was not employed for 338 years in ancient Japan. The Roman Republic banned capital punishment in 1849. Venezuela followed suit and abolished the death penalty in 1854[48] and San Marino did so in 1865. The last execution in San Marino had taken place in 1468. In Portugal, after legislative proposals in 1852 and 1863, the death penalty was abolished in 1867.See, those are some of the examples of rights being exercised. Laws determine rights. Emotions are typical left out of law making. Laws mainly cover social/political issues. Can you imagine what the world would be like if emotions dictated laws? If you feel so strongly about it MacGeyver, perhaps you should move to a state with the Death Penalty. Then you could satisfy your emotions.
Emotions are typical left out of law making. Laws mainly cover social/political issues. Can you imagine what the world would be like if emotions dictated laws? If you feel so strongly about it MacGeyver, perhaps you should move to a state with the Death Penalty. Then you could satisfy your emotions.Emotions clearly should not dictate laws and that is not what I am suggesting but emotions are often considered when making laws and in fact they need to be. Humans are emotional beings and in order for laws to maintain order they need to take that into account. Our tort system is a good example. Giving someone $1 million for pain and suffering doesn't actually remove their pain and suffering but it soothes the anger of being wronged. Pain and suffering awards are almost entirely meant to address the emotional aspect of a perceived injustice. As I stated above, while criminal law is there to protect society it is also there to address the anger of those harmed by the criminal so they don't take matter into their own hands. Its therefor incorrect to say that emotions don't play a role in the establishment of these laws. You incorrectly assume that I feel strongly about the position I am taking. I do not. I am intentionally creating debate here because this is a complicated issue and I think its necessary for people on both sides to challenge their position. How an individual feels about the death penalty is going to depend a great deal on their own life experiences. In a perfect world we wouldn't have the death penalty but the world we live in is far from perfect. There were 39 executions last year in a country of over 30 million people. Personally I think that is far too many. The vast majority of those people should get life in prison and there should be national guidelines and other measures to eliminate the state by state , racial, and gender biases that exist but I do believe there may be some individuals who are such monsters and so devoid of humanity that the world is a better place without them. If a murder has been committed which is so horrible that no one with any degree of humanity could ever conceive of doing such a thing and the facts are beyond question there may be some merit in taking that persons life if the surviving family members would be able to live in peace knowing that individual no longer walked the earth even in an 8X10 foot cell.
Emotions are typical left out of law making. Laws mainly cover social/political issues. Can you imagine what the world would be like if emotions dictated laws? If you feel so strongly about it MacGeyver, perhaps you should move to a state with the Death Penalty. Then you could satisfy your emotions.Emotions clearly should not dictate laws and that is not what I am suggesting but emotions are often considered when making laws and in fact they need to be. Humans are emotional beings and in order for laws to maintain order they need to take that into account. Our tort system is a good example. Giving someone $1 million for pain and suffering doesn't actually remove their pain and suffering but it soothes the anger of being wronged. Pain and suffering awards are almost entirely meant to address the emotional aspect of a perceived injustice. As I stated above, while criminal law is there to protect society it is also there to address the anger of those harmed by the criminal so they don't take matter into their own hands. Its therefor incorrect to say that emotions don't play a role in the establishment of these laws. You incorrectly assume that I feel strongly about the position I am taking. I do not. I am intentionally creating debate here because this is a complicated issue and I think its necessary for people on both sides to challenge their position. How an individual feels about the death penalty is going to depend a great deal on their own life experiences. In a perfect world we wouldn't have the death penalty but the world we live in is far from perfect. There were 39 executions last year in a country of over 30 million people. Personally I think that is far too many. The vast majority of those people should get life in prison and there should be national guidelines and other measures to eliminate the state by state , racial, and gender biases that exist but I do believe there may be some individuals who are such monsters and so devoid of humanity that the world is a better place without them. If a murder has been committed which is so horrible that no one with any degree of humanity could ever conceive of doing such a thing and the facts are beyond question there may be some merit in taking that persons life if the surviving family members would be able to live in peace knowing that individual no longer walked the earth even in an 8X10 foot cell. However, that is not the thinking in most of the Westen world and somehow, life goes on. Lois
However, that is not the thinking in most of the Westen world and somehow, life goes on. LoisLife goes on in lots of places including China and Iran. That doesn't mean the system there is better than ours or that we would be better off if we emulated it. I agree life would go on without the death penalty and maybe we would be better off without it. I am not sure that eliminating the option entirely makes society a better place though. That's just my opinion ( or lack of one ).