erinmarie said:
I don't think this is the type of argument that should be considered solely by examining it logically.
I think this is a very interesting thing to say. The problem I have with it as an idea is that it's rash emotionalism that cases most murders to happen. And it's more rash emotionalism that causes people to cry for more blood in response to it having happened. But in the end, the only way to stop violence is to stop violence. We aren't going to stop violence by doing more violence, regardless of the emotional justifications and rationalizations to the contrary. And I just don't see any good reason to view this issue through the same character traits that have made it a problematic issue in the first place. We need to be logical about this because it's the lack of logic that has created the problem in the first place. Very few calm, logical, rational people kill other people. Lots of emotionally charged, angry, resentful, disatisfied, and vengeful people do kill other people. So if we want to diminish the instances of murder among us, then I think the only reasonable way to do it is to view the problem calmly, rationally, and logically.
erinmarie said:
I don't think we would ever have the capacity to prosecute 'future crimes' either (we all saw how Minority Report ended up), but that's hardly what I was getting at. You said that murderers shouldn't be put to death, one of your reasons was that some of these murderers are not repeat offenders...but how do we know that they aren't? How many unsolved murders/rapes are on the books out there? How many missing persons are there!?
My point is that we don't know any more about the likelihood of a murderer murdering again then we do about the likelihood of anyone else committing a murder. So such speculations are moot. And they lend no credibility at all to the idea that by killing all convicted murderers we can lessen the murder rate and make society safer. It' simply doesn't happen this way, and the assumptions themselves are illogical. The only murderers that we can reasonably assume will murder again are serial killers, but they are very rare, and thus not a reasonable standard for setting a blanket policy. Especially when that policy is detrimental to society overall.
erinmarie said:
And also, a life sentence is not hardly ever a life sentence. Recently in our area a man was released from prison after serving 30 years of his 'life sentence'. He had originally raped a little girl and her mother, and killed the husband/father. Nice. He (as far as any of us know) has not re-offended. But how FRIGGIN fair is that!? Clarify it for me, PureX...do you see it as fair?
"Fairness" has nothing to do with anything. "Fairness" is an illusion of our own invention. Because you have fallen for this self-induced illusion of "fairness", you think "punishing" other people for not doing what you think is "fair" is reasonable and rational. But it's not. It's pure self-centered emotionalism trying to justify it's desire to force itself on the rest of the world. And it's exactly this kind of rash, aggressive emotionalism that causes people to commit murder in the first place, just as it causes people to
want to kill in response. It's this irrational emotionalism that causes violence to inspire more violence in we human beings.
erinmarie said:
No no and no. You're still not hitting the nail on the head. I didn't say that I should, or that you should, or that Knight should, or President Bush should decide the fates of the guilty. That's already laid out, murderers should be put to death.
But it's YOU who just wrote that "murderers should be put to death". How is this not YOU who is deciding who should live and who shouldn't? And what gives you the right to make such a decision? ... A decision that effects and even ends the lives of others?
erinmarie said:
The guilty should be punished accordingly. It's just so simple.
Sure, it so simple when you ignore all the complexity. But the complexity is still there. Reality is still reality. Most murderers will not kill again. Many of them can and will become valuable members of society, both in prison and out. No one has the right or ability to decide who should live and who shouldn't, - all these complexities still exist, whether you choose to ignore them or not. I'm here to try and get you to stop ignoring the complex reality of the issue so you can stop promoting and supporting overly-simplistic solutions that don't work.
erinmarie said:
I think you think about things too much.
I think you're thinking about this life and death issue way too little. And that's a shame considering that you're one of the more intelligent folks using this web site.
erinmarie said:
Maybe you should just try and feel things out rather than sitting there and pondering the grander aspects of the sun and sky.
I feel things just fine. But I also appreciate that there is a time and place for emotionalism, and a time and place for setting our emotions asside so that we can deal with complex and difficult social problems more clrearly and effectively.
erinmarie said:
Oh, and the serial killer comment I had made was in response to what you said about how serial killers should be put to death, the rare extreme cases. You come up with this from an emotional standpoint, based on the fact that these people are dangerous, that they don't deserve to live, that they're a danger to society?
Not at all. Anyone who kills for the sake of killing, and will do so in or out of confinement, as opportunity presents, poses a real threat to everyone around him, now and in the future. Under such an extreme threat, I think it would be reasonable to conclude that this person be destroyed. Not as "punishment", and not for "fairness", not because he "deserved it", but simply for practical security reasons.
erinmarie said:
Right, but what I meant was someone that every killer starts somewhere, just because we catch him 'early' doesn't mean that he's not as guilty, or sick as the offender the authorities didn't catch till he ripped up five more victims...
It also doesn't mean that he can't be rehabilitated, and not only never kill again, but also become a valued and positive member of his society, in prison or out. In fact, in real life, the positive scenario is more likely than the negative.