Why do people tolerate violence behavior?

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 1:52 am

We've also had some similar cases here in Australia, which is what led me to think of it.

(By the way, Spiral, your avatar pic is intensely disturbing.

)

PMWrestler · Post by **PMWrestler** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 1:52 am

Jestyr wrote: You'd want to make damn sure your justice system is convicting the right people, then. Overturning a conviction is a lot harder when you have to try and scoop their brains back into their skull.

Of course some people would be wrongly executed. There's just no way around that. But if 2 or 3 innocent people are killed, but the fear of being shot in the head for killing someone prevents 200 murders or rapes....that would be find by me.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 1:53 am

It's a self-portrait, too.

Which reminds me, is there any quick-and-easy linkable web-hosting I can get to store images? I'd like to be able to flash some of my better stuff on here for critiques and comments.

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 1:54 am

PMWrestler wrote:Of course some people would be wrongly executed. There's just no way around that. But if 2 or 3 innocent people are killed, but the fear of being shot in the head for killing someone prevents 200 murders or rapes....that would be find by me.

Even if the wrongly-convicted person on Death Row was you, or a loved one? Would you be fine with it then, thinking 'never mind, this is still scaring off two hundred potential murderers'?

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 2:05 am

PMWrestler wrote:Of course some people would be wrongly executed. There's just no way around that. But if 2 or 3 innocent people are killed, but the fear of being shot in the head for killing someone prevents 200 murders or rapes....that would be find by me.

Jestyr's counterpoint is good, but I'm going to expand on it.

You're isolating those innocent people from their environments. Those innocent people have families. They have children. They have children. Co-workers. Each time one of those innocent people dies, society is stained by it. Their blood splatters on everyone they touched before they died. Step back, then step back again, then do it once more. There are no individuals--we're all pieces of a much larger whole.

PMWrestler · Post by **PMWrestler** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 2:08 am

Even if the wrongly-convicted person on Death Row was you, or a loved one? Would you be fine with it then, thinking 'never mind, this is still scaring off two hundred potential murderers'?

When a fireman dies, they reassure thier family by telling them something that seems to be applicable here:

"No greater love hath a man than he who lay down his life for his brother"

So hell, if you had a way to kill me right now, to save 200 people, I'd jump at the chance....I'd pay to do it. And anyone who wouldn't is selfish, and in my opinion, a coward and horrible person.

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 2:17 am

Okay, but firemen/women - and police, and military personnel - make a choice to be a potential martyr. That's a lot, lot different from being dragged from your life, accused of a horrible crime, and then be killed, with "executed for rape" forever your epitaph (not 'died saving people from a burning building'.)

PMWrestler · Post by **PMWrestler** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 2:21 am

Okay, but firemen/women - and police, and military personnel - make a choice to be a potential martyr. That's a lot, lot different from being dragged from your life, accused of a horrible crime, and then be killed, with "executed for rape" forever your epitaph (not 'died saving people from a burning building'.)

True, you're remembered differantly, and your memory is tainted if you're executed from a crime. But still....you can't argue with the fact that 200 people are more important than 1 person.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 2:24 am

What about the 200 people that innocent person left behind?

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 2:30 am

Good lord. I don't even know where to start. This is like Evan in the "How to Beat Your Children" thread.

Okay, let's start this...hey. I know where to start this. In a new thread.

PMWrestler · Post by **PMWrestler** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 2:31 am

What about the 200 people that innocent person left behind?

I'm not sure what you mean by that Do you mean the people that they knew?

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 2:37 am

You must have missed my post above. Yes.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 2:37 am

PMWrestler wrote:
Spiral wrote: What about the 200 people that innocent person left behind?
I'm not sure what you mean by that Do you mean the people that they knew?

He means:

Spiral wrote:You're isolating those innocent people from their environments. Those innocent people have families. They have children. They have children. Co-workers. Each time one of those innocent people dies, society is stained by it. Their blood splatters on everyone they touched before they died. Step back, then step back again, then do it once more. There are no individuals--we're all pieces of a much larger whole.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 2:38 am

Damn you and your fast posting, Spiral!

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 2:40 am

I had less to type.

I'm also procrastinating, which helps.

PMWrestler · Post by **PMWrestler** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 2:47 am

You're isolating those innocent people from their environments. Those innocent people have families. They have children. They have children. Co-workers. Each time one of those innocent people dies, society is stained by it. Their blood splatters on everyone they touched before they died

I'm not debating the fact that it would be a terrible thing. I'm saying it would be a neccesary evil. Because just like you said, each of these people have loved ones. Now multiply that by two hundred innocent people who all, also have loved ones. Are they less important? Why should one man be equal to 200? or even 2?

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 3:12 am

"It is better that ten guilty men escape than one innocent suffer."

You want to undermine the entire concept of our way of life, to punish innocent men without care. Freedom is the core of this country, and if you're going to give that away, you're going to destroy this country, all in the name of safety and vengeance.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

PMWrestler · Post by **PMWrestler** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 10:00 pm

You want to undermine the entire concept of our way of life, to punish innocent men without care. Freedom is the core of this country, and if you're going to give that away, you're going to destroy this country, all in the name of safety and vengeance.

I understand that a system like that would undermine all that America stands for...but righ now, society is crumbling anyway. Murder, rape, terrorism. Until we can find a way to attack the social issues that these are derived from, we need a drastic solution.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 10:37 pm

PMWrestler wrote:
You want to undermine the entire concept of our way of life, to punish innocent men without care. Freedom is the core of this country, and if you're going to give that away, you're going to destroy this country, all in the name of safety and vengeance.
I understand that a system like that would undermine all that America stands for...but righ now, society is crumbling anyway. Murder, rape, terrorism. Until we can find a way to attack the social issues that these are derived from, we need a drastic solution.

I don't know what you're talking about. How is society "crumbling?"

Lektrogirl · Post by **Lektrogirl** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 11:45 pm

PMWrestler
So hell, if you had a way to kill me right now, to save 200 people, I'd jump at the chance....I'd pay to do it. And anyone who wouldn't is selfish, and in my opinion, a coward and horrible person.

I'm selfish, a coward, and a horrible person then because I love my life, I do not want to die yet, I have people who love me, and I love many people, why would I want to end all of that which I am for 200 people? Does my existence any less than all of their's? Who is to say that?

Execution is just as wrong as murder in my opinion, in fact it is murder, condoned by the State. Life sentences are good enough in my opinion, for a couple of reasons. One being that it gives the convicted enough time to appeal their cases before a higher court, and another being that in extreme cases executing a prisoner might create a martyr, who needs that?

Spiral I would really like to read what you have to say on rape, please post it, but in another thread if possible. Thanks.

PMWrestler
I understand that a system like that would undermine all that America stands for...but righ now, society is crumbling anyway. Murder, rape, terrorism. Until we can find a way to attack the social issues that these are derived from, we need a drastic solution.

Do you think that murder, rape, or terrorism are things new to human civilization? Society is not crumbling away, not at all.

You sound like an Alarmist, there are enough "solutions" already in place, the American way of life does not need something "drastic", it needs many Americans to calm down a bit.

What are the things that you think America stands for?

PMWrestler · Post by **PMWrestler** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 12:18 am

I love my life, I do not want to die yet, I have people who love me, and I love many people, why would I want to end all of that which I am for 200 people? Does my existence any less than all of their's?

I'm not saying that your life is trivial. All I'm saying is that everything that makes you up, people that you love, and people that love you......is the same thing for those other two hundred people. It's the same if it was only two people. And of course your existance means less than thiers. It's simple math. One life does not equal two. One life is less than two.

Do you think that murder, rape, or terrorism are things new to human civilization?

Of course they aren't new. Except now our stance on them has changed. Wasn't it this thread where someone made excuses for murder? Saying that in some cases, it was justified for a civilian to kill another civilian? That is why society is crumbling.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 1:33 am

PMWrestler wrote: Wasn't it this thread where someone made excuses for murder? Saying that in some cases, it was justified for a civilian to kill another civilian? That is why society is crumbling.

Let me get this straight; our society is crumbling because someone in this thread said that sometimes it was justified for a civilian to kill another civilian? I know this isn't what you're saying, but the thing is, you're not saying anything.

PMWrestler · Post by **PMWrestler** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 1:57 am

...our society is crumbling because someone in this thread said that sometimes it was justified for a civilian to kill another civilian? I know this isn't what you're saying, but the thing is, you're not saying anything.

No, not because one person thinks it does. It's that one person who represents a cross section of society who think that it's OK for one civilian to kill another civilian...and you're right, it doesn't make much sense...but it's because I'm not expressing myself correctly....maybe someone who feels the same way I do can put it better.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 3:05 am

PMWrestler wrote:
3278 wrote:...our society is crumbling because someone in this thread said that sometimes it was justified for a civilian to kill another civilian? I know this isn't what you're saying, but the thing is, you're not saying anything.
No, not because one person thinks it does. It's that one person who represents a cross section of society who think that it's OK for one civilian to kill another civilian...and you're right, it doesn't make much sense...but it's because I'm not expressing myself correctly....maybe someone who feels the same way I do can put it better.

I think I understand what you're saying, but it still doesn't make sense to me. Do you think this attitude is more prevalent today than it was previously? In other words, do you think it's getting worse, or do you simply think it's bad?

Glyph · Post by **Glyph** » Wed Mar 27, 2002 5:40 am

I'm not a pacifist like Lectrogirl, but I do agree that some violent crimes are punished far too lightly. I don't like "rehabilitation" as it is currently implemented. It is arrogant to think that we can change someone's life for them. The few criminals who do successfully rehabilitate themselves do it because they choose to do so. I think it should be offered to people who want it, but the main purpose of prison should be punishment, not rehabilitation. Do the crime, do hard time.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Fri Mar 29, 2002 2:04 am

The point isn't that people who do the crime don't do the time, but that the people who are doing the time aren't always responsible for what they were convicted of. When "doing the time" consists of getting murdered by the state, then you're damn monkey right I have a monkey problem with that.

The death penalty doesn't stop crime, it kills people.

Actually, studies have shown that the death panalty doesn't stop people comiting violent crimes, and in some cases actually increases the rate. Read here if you want more info.

Saving 200 innocents by killing people? Unlikely, you're probably just letting another 200 die, plus the one that was a martyr for the system.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Fri Mar 29, 2002 2:19 am

By the way, CE is right about the death penalty and its effect on violent crime. I was going to make a point of that if someone started a capital punishment thread and attempted to show it was a deterrant.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:41 am

Although, I find it hard to imagine that in an empirical test life without parole would prove /more/ effective.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Fri Mar 29, 2002 4:13 am

I wonder. I can see logical arguments for both sides, but this isn't a logical issue. Crime almost never is.

I suppose with the right statistics, you could compile an empirical test ex post facto, but I don't know that I'd be comfortable with the accuracy of the results.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Fri Mar 29, 2002 5:11 am

Of course, I find it hard to imagine any empirical test at all. But if we find that death is a lousy deterrent, we really should be able to extrapolate that life imprisonment is at least equally insufficient (and we could quell suspicions of the opposite by claiming that the sort of opportunistic irrationality such a case would invove should, if anything, require only harsher treatment from our morality, as the issue of the utility of the punishment then dissolves). And if two punishments are functionally similar, society's choice, it seems, is to choose whichever presents a lesser cost.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Fri Mar 29, 2002 5:26 am

Dot Man wrote:...we really should be able to extrapolate that life imprisonment is at least equally insufficient...

Not really. The difference between getting killed and having to hang around a set of bars for the rest of your days is quite vast indeed. They are not the same thing by a long stretch.

Also, there are other factors to take into acount. When everyone is glorifying death via the detention system, that acceptence will fall down into all levels. People more willing to accept it as a viable alternative. Also, there are people out there who have no problem with death at all, but spending their years bored and behind bars isn't exactally a happy option.

The two are very very different.

Also, the workings of the american death penalty is just bloody barbaric. The entire event is a specticle, which a whole bunch of people watch. In England, the process of the death penalty (when it was still about) took all of 30 seconds from leaving their cell to getting hung. They were also hung so as they would die instantly. In america, it's the whole dead man walking, march march march, any last words, big speach, ineffective death method when it was the chair, everybody watches on.

You think that makes the world a happy place? Howabout you think.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Fri Mar 29, 2002 6:25 am

Crazy Elf wrote:The two are very very different.

Righto, but I went there already. I don't think that sort of backward psychology should have any bearing on our moral calculus. Punishment properly done isn't meant as a forward-looking deterrent anyhow, and neither life without parole nor the death penalty is really a post facto (recidivist) deterrent. So if one is an appropriate penalty, then the other may as well be, provided there's no additional (economic, social, or moral) cost.

Also, the workings of the american death penalty is just bloody barbaric. The entire event is a specticle, which a whole bunch of people watch. In England, the process of the death penalty (when it was still about) took all of 30 seconds from leaving their cell to getting hung. They were also hung so as they would die instantly. In america, it's the whole dead man walking, march march march, any last words, big speach, ineffective death method when it was the chair, everybody watches on.

Yeah, you may have gotten the wrong idea from somewhere. Hell, I wouldn't be suprised if most American's had the wrong idea, also. But I would be pretty fucking suprised if the American death penalty was even logarithmically as sensational as some media portrayals have made it.

Glyph · Post by **Glyph** » Sat Mar 30, 2002 8:41 am

Marius wrote: Of course, I find it hard to imagine any empirical test at all. But if we find that death is a lousy deterrent, we really should be able to extrapolate that life imprisonment is at least equally insufficient (and we could quell suspicions of the opposite by claiming that the sort of opportunistic irrationality such a case would invove should, if anything, require only harsher treatment from our morality, as the issue of the utility of the punishment then dissolves). And if two punishments are functionally similar, society's choice, it seems, is to choose whichever presents a lesser cost.

I agree with you in principle, but the truly sad thing is, that after appeals and everything else, it is actually cheaper to imprison someone for life than it is to kill them. I wouldn't have as much problem with life in prison if it actually meant life in prison. However, you always hear about these killers getting out on parole, and whenever they are getting ready to finally give someone life in prison, it is after they have been in and out 5 or 6 times, for things that should have kept them in much longer. Look at all of the prior convictions that sick piece of garbage Bar Jonah had.

Prisons are a joke. I could say they are too lenient, with free cable tv, weightrooms, free computers, and frivolous lawsuits over everything. But I could also say they are too harsh, with recruitment by gangs, violence, and rapes. I mean, isn't that pathetic? It is truly the worst of both worlds.

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Sat Mar 30, 2002 9:27 am

Glyph wrote:I agree with you in principle, but the truly sad thing is, that after appeals and everything else, it is actually cheaper to imprison someone for life than it is to kill them.

I'd be really interested to see some figures on that, if you can provide them. Sounds surprising.

Adam · Post by **Adam** » Sat Mar 30, 2002 10:09 am

I read an article sometime within the last month or two talking about just that; the overall cost of the death penalty was higher than that of life in jail, if you factor in appeals and all that sort of thing, but I can't seem to find the link anymore. I'll keep digging...

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Sat Mar 30, 2002 5:11 pm

Adam wrote: I read an article sometime within the last month or two talking about just that; the overall cost of the death penalty was higher than that of life in jail, if you factor in appeals and all that sort of thing, but I can't seem to find the link anymore. I'll keep digging...

I don't doubt it. I'll bet a good search of activist materials could unearth dozens of studies that come to that conclusion. Now, I haven't critically read such literature, but I'm willing to risk a claim that the methodology is usually heavily biased, and the data rarely directly support the conclusions. Remember, a study that simply compares death sentences to other sentences, even if it computes an annual cost, fails in the end. Because nothing less than comparably strict sentences for compoarable crimes could be expected to prompt the same spate of appeals, and thus broadening inclusion skews data away from the truth, but in a direction that activists would be happy to see it go.

In any case, some cost issues can be allayed by repairing the process. And I have to wonder how many long drawn and expensive appeals were only that because they were financially supported by activist groups. And I have to wonder if transmuting all death sentences to life sentences with no chance of parole would prompt a shorter, less expensive appeals process.

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Sat Mar 30, 2002 7:18 pm

Jestyr wrote:
Glyph wrote:I agree with you in principle, but the truly sad thing is, that after appeals and everything else, it is actually cheaper to imprison someone for life than it is to kill them.
I'd be really interested to see some figures on that, if you can provide them. Sounds surprising.

That is indeed correct. I don't have any figures anymore, but we did study this in class. Keep in mind that you can have a large number of appeals and this inflates the cost to kill someone dramatically. In Texas however, it is cheaper to kill someone than it is to keep them in prison for life. Why? Because all your appeals are put into one shot.

Lektrogirl · Post by **Lektrogirl** » Sat Mar 30, 2002 9:05 pm

I don't doubt it. I'll bet a good search of activist materials could unearth dozens of studies that come to that conclusion. Now, I haven't critically read such literature, but I'm willing to risk a claim that the methodology is usually heavily biased, and the data rarely directly support the conclusions.

Why does it not surprise me that you would use the word "activist"? This isn't this first time I have seen you use this sort of statement, calling someone's information sources "activist", yeah everyone in the world is an activist except for the "honest, impartial, unbiased" folks you get your information from, right?

You seem to doubt anything that doesn't go along with your views, at least that's what I've gathered from the your postings recently. Do you ever allow for the fact that you may be wrong? Do you always attack a subject as though the other person's date is falsified, or biased?

Perhaps the sources you base your opinion on are the ones which are heavily biasd, or is that impossible? </s>

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Sun Mar 31, 2002 12:22 am

yeah everyone in the world is an activist except for the "honest, impartial, unbiased" folks you get your information from, right?

I get my information from all sorts of sources, and I watch for bias very carefully. Bias isn't a matter of agreement. It's something that you can find with a critical look at research methodology (which, go figure, I'm heavily trained in). I don't allege bias lightly.

Most people who are publishing studies on the death penalty are activists. It's the nature of the literature.

You seem to doubt anything that doesn't go along with your views

You're right, I do. I form my views very, very carefully, based on the best information I have, so I'm confident about them. Contradictory "information" often turns out to be lacking.

Do you ever allow for the fact that you may be wrong?

No. I wouldn't try to make a point if I thought it was wrong. Would you?

Perhaps the sources you base your opinion on are the ones which are heavily biasd, or is that impossible?

It's not impossible, but it's about as improbable as anything I can think of. I examine my sources pretty thorougly.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 4:50 pm

This made six pages with out a single word from me? Wow.

TLM · Post by **TLM** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:44 pm

Thread-Necromancy MOST foul!

Szechuan · Post by **Szechuan** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 2:07 am

3278 wrote:By the way, CE is right about the death penalty and its effect on violent crime. I was going to make a point of that if someone started a capital punishment thread and attempted to show it was a deterrant.

Hmm. I thought I once cited statistics agreeing with your point here, but you refuted them. Weird.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 2:42 am

Oh fuck. Some of this is just embarrassing. Did I really waffle on like that? Was I retarded?

I don't remember being retarded...

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 2:08 pm

/not say anything about the above post.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 6:57 pm

Szechuan wrote:Hmm. I thought I once cited statistics agreeing with your point here, but you refuted them. Weird.

That's not even remotely unlikely. One thing about having been a competition debater: I can prove either side of nearly any issue. Finding the truth is always more complex than finding evidence.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Fri Apr 27, 2007 1:10 am

Angel wrote:/not say anything about the above post.

There

is no

evidence

of

my

retardation

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:59 am

3278 wrote: One thing about having been a competition debater: I can prove either side of nearly any issue. Finding the truth is always more complex than finding evidence.

So very true. So very true.