[Vision2020] The death penalty....a deterent?????

[Saundra Lund]

Kai wrote:
"I see, too, you've tossed the gender thing in with your "paternalistically"
comment. Ummmm, excuse me, there are plenty of women who feel the same way."

<sigh>  Kai, before you freak out over gender, perhaps you should get out
your dictionary:
"Main Entry: pa.ter.nal.ism 
Pronunciation: p&-'t&r-n&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : a system under which an authority undertakes to supply needs or regulate
conduct of those under its control in matters affecting them as individuals
as well as in their relations to authority and to each other"
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/paternalism

I accept your apology  :-)

You also wrote:
"The greatest good for the greatest number makes sense. There is no sense in
the least good for the least number, now is there?"

So, can we then assume you support Mills' utilitarianism?  If so, then I
think we can have some real fun discussing ethical doctrines -- and their
flaws -- here on the Viz  :-)   Somehow, based on your V2020 posts, I never
would have pegged you as a moral relativist. . . 

But, I don't want to hog the philosophy debate here, so you can go first,
and hopefully we'll have some input from some of our other resident
philosophers as well  :-)


JMHO,
Saundra Lund
Moscow, ID

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
nothing.
- Edmund Burke

***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2006, Saundra Lund.
Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside the Vision 2020 forum
without the express written permission of the author.*****

-----Original Message-----
From: Kai Eiselein, editor [mailto:editor at lataheagle.com] 
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 10:02 AM
To: Saundra Lund; vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] The death penalty....a deterent?????

Then, by God, let the victim or family of the victim choose the penalty!
As a matter of fact, many states allow those affect to address the
court/offender and make their wishes known.
Just because it LOOKS human doesn't mean it IS human. In your argument,
Saundra, Hitler, had he not committed suicide, would have lived, along with
a mountain of monsters who passed as human.
I see, too, you've tossed the gender thing in with your "paternalistically"
comment. Ummmm, excuse me, there are plenty of women who feel the same way.
The greatest good for the greatest number makes sense. There is no sense in
the least good for the least number, now is there?
It is precisely because we are fallible that the death penalty is
effective......so that someone like Duncan has NO chance of getting out and
going on another rampage.


-----Original Message-----
From: Saundra Lund [mailto:sslund at adelphia.net]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 9:42 AM
To: 'Kai Eiselein, editor'; vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] The death penalty....a deterent?????


Hi Kai,

You wrote, in part:
"So you think putting a dangerous offender in prison wth three hots and cot,
medical and dental care, access to a law libray so he or she can file appeal
after appeal is worse than death? Then think about this.
What about the victim and or the victim's family who have to relive the
crime every time that offender is in the news with a new appeal or is filing
a lawsuit because conditions aren't "humane". He or she wasn't too worried
about humane treatment of the victim. Opening old wounds of those hurt by
the offender's actions time and time again isn't humane, in my opinion."

Thanks for the opportunity to address this fallacy!

You are making assumptions about survivors and the families/loved ones of
victims that just aren't true for all of them.  Sure, *some* survivors and
the families/loved ones of *some* victims support the death penalty, but
there are lots who don't.  For those in the latter category, the imposition
of the death penalty against their offenders is nothing more than a State
sanctioned revictimization.  And, in my opinion and experience, that's not
humane.

It seems to me we've gotten around that to some extent by arguing
paternalistically that "we know what's best" and "the greatest good for the
greatest number," as evidenced by your appeal to a dead offender has zero
chance of recidivism.

To me, neither of those are adequate justifications for revictimization.

And, that's without even mentioning the *fact* that as humans, we and our
judicial systems are fallible!


JMHO,
Saundra Lund
Moscow, ID

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
nothing.
- Edmund Burke

***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2006, Saundra Lund.
Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside the Vision 2020 forum
without the express written permission of the author.*****

-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Kai Eiselein, editor
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 9:07 AM
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [Vision2020] The death penalty....a deterent?????

The death penalty was never meant to be a deterent. It is a punishment.
Our society, and every other, has the obligation to decide what to do with
those that cannot or will not live without harming others. To that end, our
society has decided that some people have committed crimes so heinous that
death is the penalty for committing them.
Here are some irrefutable facts:
1: As long as a dangerous offender is alive, he or she has the potential to
injure or kill others.
2: As long as a dangerous offender is alive he or she has a chance of
getting out of prison, either by escape, mistake or intention.
3: A dangerous offender who has been put to death has a zero percent chance
of recidivism.
So you think putting a dangerous offender in prison wth three hots and cot,
medical and dental care, access to a law libray so he or she can file appeal
after appeal is worse than death? Then think about this.
What about the victim and or the victim's family who have to relive the
crime every time that offender is in the news with a new appeal or is filing
a lawsuit because conditions aren't "humane". He or she wasn't too worried
about humane treatment of the victim. Opening old wounds of those hurt by
the offender's actions time and time again isn't humane, in my opinion.
Cost: I would suspect much of the cost for execuyting a convict comes from
the myriad appeals that go on for decades, not from the actual
holding/executing of the convict.
Is the monetary cost any more relevant than the emotional cost to the victim
and/or family? I think it is less so.


=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,  serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================



__________ NOD32 1.1825 (20061022) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com