Evil Goblin Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Unless they have been drugged/poisoned/otherwise forced then they are responsible for their actions. There is a respectable argument that no-one is ever "responsible" for what they do or do not do. No-one actually has any choice but to do what they do and there is no such thing as free will - it's just an illusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Unless they have been drugged/poisoned/otherwise forced then they are responsible for their actions. There is a respectable argument that no-one is ever "responsible" for what they do or do not do. No-one actually has any choice but to do what they do and there is no such thing as free will - it's just an illusion. That is almost my point. I know that experiments have been done which shows that particular parts of the brain 'light up' (in a scanner) before the person is aware that they are going to move their arm or whatever, and these have been used to argue that free-will is an illusion, and we just do as our brain does. Therefore, you are your brain, and if that brain is so disturbed to commit mass murder it should be eliminated (from society temporarily or from existence, whatever your view point), whether a psychiatrist says it is due to abnormal brain functioning or not. This is all getting rather philosophical, and probably off topic, but interesting anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Not really off topic. The issue of responsible does enter into the realm of philosophy, as well as sociology. But for the purposes of clarity, what would be your thinking on a person who became schizophrenic (for example) and happened to commit a murder when they were in a delusional state. They caused the death. But are they responsible? Does they deserve to be killed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Not really off topic. The issue of responsible does enter into the realm of philosophy, as well as sociology. But for the purposes of clarity, what would be your thinking on a person who became schizophrenic (for example) and happened to commit a murder when they were in a delusional state. They caused the death. But are they responsible? Does they deserve to be killed? Depends. There are so many variables I don't think it's possible to generalise. If it could be demonstrated that the psychotic episode was a one off caused by a spiked drink then probably acquittal. If the psychosis was endogenous, but temporary, probably a long period of hospitalisation and close supervision on eventual release. But there are circumstances I believe that even in the presence of 'insanity', it would be better (for the society concerned) to go for capital punishment rather than risk the consequences of re-introducing the offender into that society. The recent Norwegian case for example. Tell me this - would you have shed any tears if he'd been taken out by a SWAT team in a helicopter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guzzi Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Wrighty, there is a world of difference between shooting a perpetrator who presents a 'clear and present danger' to human life, and judicial killing to prevent some hypothetical future crime. In the first instance, rapid incapacitation is the only option to prevent the deaths of victims. In the second, it is not. Life imprisonment would serve just as well. I haven't seen anyone try to address the question of miscarriage of justice, but I presume that you must be willing go accept a fraction of wrongful judicial killings, as there have been many miscarriages of justice in the UK and elsewhere over the years. I would assume also that you yourself would be willing to make that sacrifice if necessary, in the greater public good, or for one of your loved ones to do so. Finally, have you considered the terrible harm that would be done to the those involved in the process of judicial killing, from Court Officials to Prison Officers, not to mention the actual executioner? I believe that one would have to sacrifice a good portion of one's humanity in order to take the life of another in such a premeditated and cold-blooded way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 But there are circumstances I believe that even in the presence of 'insanity', it would be better (for the society concerned) to go for capital punishment rather than risk the consequences of re-introducing the offender into that society. The recent Norwegian case for example. Tell me this - would you have shed any tears if he'd been taken out by a SWAT team in a helicopter? For the society concerned? Well, society has to be protected from the insane, but if a person is later deemed to be healthy then you release them and if they pose a persistent danger you keep them away from society. There is no need to end their life and society does not have a legitimate claim to end the life. If killing is wrong then society cannot then justify ending the insane person's life, especially when there are alternatives to dealing with the threat from them. And what if their insanity was a product of their society? What then? How can a society end their life when it is to blame for how that person turned out? As for shedding a tear, it is not a question of shedding a tear. It is a question of determining the moral thing to do after a crime and how the victims and assailant are dealt with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 I haven't seen anyone try to address the question of miscarriage of justice, but I presume that you must be willing go accept a fraction of wrongful judicial killings, as there have been many miscarriages of justice in the UK and elsewhere over the years. I would assume also that you yourself would be willing to make that sacrifice if necessary, in the greater public good, or for one of your loved ones to do so. Of course I'm not willing to make that sacrifice - what a ridiculous argument. I'm not advocating a blanket 'eye for an eye' policy, I'm arguing that in certain circumstances, where guilt is not in doubt, capital punishment could be an option. It's clear that some here have strong philosophical and moral views against capital punishment - I don't. I'm not a huge fan of it, and I've read enough John Grisham to understand the arguments against it. I just don't agree with all of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesypeas Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 If this is the way that another country deals with drug dealers, what business is it of yours. We have enough crime on the streets of the uk where innocent people are mugged robbed and murdered by drug dealers and their ilk. Even if they are caught the sentences are so lenient as to be laughable. Bet they don't get too many repeat offenders in China do they So what is your view if someone is subsequently found to be innocent, after they've been shot? Presumably you would think it fine if the Birmingham six had been executed, only to be cleared of the crime a year later? You obviously have trouble reading CP, the woman has offended several times so hardly innocent. You obviously also realise that China does not do appeals so they are not likely to be found innocent are they. I am just commenting that we have no right to decide how other countries deal with their offenders. And of course you would be 100% sure that what you see on a documentary is the truth? You're just the kind of idiot governments rely on to soak up the shit they churn out. Last week they ran a story on TV news in Iran that their embassy was stormed in London, but it didn't happen did it? It's not often I agree with LDV's views, but on this occassion, and concerning you, I do. You're either a simple troll, or a cock. My money's on both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guzzi Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Of course I'm not willing to make that sacrifice - what a ridiculous argument. I'm not advocating a blanket 'eye for an eye' policy, I'm arguing that in certain circumstances, where guilt is not in doubt, capital punishment could be an option. It's clear that some here have strong philosophical and moral views against capital punishment - I don't. I'm not a huge fan of it, and I've read enough John Grisham to understand the arguments against it. I just don't agree with all of them. Well, you seem to be relying on the judicial system being 100% successful in discerning guilt from innocence. I believe it would be the very first human construct to work that well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 It's not often I agree with LDV's views, but on this occassion, and concerning you, I do.Everyone agrees with me on something. In general, everyone agrees with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesypeas Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 It's not often I agree with LDV's views, but on this occassion, and concerning you, I do.Everyone agrees with me on something. In general, everyone agrees with me. In general, you are probably a little deluded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passing Time Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 If this is the way that another country deals with drug dealers, what business is it of yours. We have enough crime on the streets of the uk where innocent people are mugged robbed and murdered by drug dealers and their ilk. Even if they are caught the sentences are so lenient as to be laughable. Bet they don't get too many repeat offenders in China do they So what is your view if someone is subsequently found to be innocent, after they've been shot? Presumably you would think it fine if the Birmingham six had been executed, only to be cleared of the crime a year later? You obviously have trouble reading CP, the woman has offended several times so hardly innocent. You obviously also realise that China does not do appeals so they are not likely to be found innocent are they. I am just commenting that we have no right to decide how other countries deal with their offenders. And of course you would be 100% sure that what you see on a documentary is the truth? You're just the kind of idiot governments rely on to soak up the shit they churn out. Last week they ran a story on TV news in Iran that their embassy was stormed in London, but it didn't happen did it? It's not often I agree with LDV's views, but on this occassion, and concerning you, I do. You're either a simple troll, or a cock. My money's on both. Good to see you have to resort to insults to get your half arsed point across. Had these comments come from somebody with a brain instead of LDV's lackey I might have felt insulted. However I could care less about your insults, views or you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Think you touched a raw nerve, Cheesypeas. He's highly defensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Well, you seem to be relying on the judicial system being 100% successful in discerning guilt from innocence. I believe it would be the very first human construct to work that well. By 100% successful do you mean absolutely right, all of the time? Of course that's not realistic, but I'm not arguing that it is. I'm simply stating that in some cases, where guilt is not in doubt, for some crimes I would not be against capital punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 But why? I don't think you have really explained your position well. You have mentioned human rights, but rights are not the issue here. What makes killing a person justified and what is your response to the argument I make of hypocrisy? Why am I wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.