Nebraska repeals Death Penalty

[zoogs]

So why is a murderer allowed to Judge another and make them deserving of death?

He's not, and nobody makes the judgment that those people deserved death.

 

Would it be silly to quote Gandalf? Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them?

 

Also, doesn't the Bible say "an eye for an eye"?

To me -- and in the eyes of law -- this is irrelevant.

 

If we are not the ones to hold each other accountable, then you must be against judges an judicial law, no? Just curious of your postion on this.

Hold on. Nobody is saying don't hold them accountable. They are put on trial and if convicted, can be sentenced to life without possibility of parole. At that point not only are they permanently severed from society in the physical sense, but also been judged no longer worthy of inclusion.

 

We do not need to then go and kill them (but, especially as the severity of the crime increases, it is something that is harder to refrain from allowing). No matter the severity of their crime. Doing so will not stop anybody else from committing crimes in the future. They won't be killing anyone again themselves.

 

The point made above about desensitizing society to death is a great one, I think. Further, we are introducing the notion that it is justice to take life in exchange for a wrong. But that is not justice, it is vengeance. It serves only to promote the thinking that if you have been wronged _severely_enough_, then you are justified in killing someone. As a civilized 21st century society, we should instead be promoting the utter sanctity of human life. And the idea that when we are wronged, we can grieve and gather in support and heal...rather than the idea that we can't rest without exacting vengeance in equal measure.

 

People have been executing other human beings for a very, very long time. We've either been doing it right or we've been doing it wrong for quite a while.

We've been doing it wrong for a very long time. We can do better.

[True2tRA]

So why is a murderer allowed to Judge another and make them deserving of death?

He's not, and nobody makes the judgment that those people deserved death.Would it be silly to quote Gandalf? Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them?

Of course he is. A murderer has made the ultimate judgement on their victim. If you believe in God, then it has to be the Lord that gave man the will to kill is it not? If not, why do people kill each other? Deserved or not, the victim is dead. At some point man was given not only the physical capability but the mental capability to take anothers life. Many do not possess the desire to harm another, yet others do.

 

Also, doesn't the Bible say "an eye for an eye"?

To me -- and in the eyes of law -- this is irrelevant.

Irrelevant in the eyes of the law in what way? Isn't the death penatlty specifically based on this theory in itself? The theory that a man who takes another mans life should also be put to death?

 

 

People have been executing other human beings for a very, very long time. We've either been doing it right or we've been doing it wrong for quite a while.

We've been doing it wrong for a very long time. We can do better.

I agree.

[zoogs]

I should say, the murderer has not been allowed to do such a thing, which is what makes it a transgression. Society broadly is the victim here, and it must heal as well as banish the criminal. Delighting in blood vengeance and declaring that it is proper to execute non threats for reasons, we get in the way of healing. We fail to "do better" when presented with the opportunity to truly repudiate the heinous act that is murder. And however imperceptibly, these costs are borne by all of us.

 

To the latter point, I don't believe in God and the law is not Biblical. I think we should reject "eye for an eye" as an antiquated fragment of our baser, carnal instincts and instead demand our world to uphold the principle of "two wrongs make zero rights".

[BigRedBuster]

I don't know of anyone who "delights" in blood vengeance.

[Stumpy1]

I don't know of anyone who "delights" in blood vengeance.

You must not watch very many movies then.

[Stumpy1]

I should say, the murderer has not been allowed to do such a thing, which is what makes it a transgression. Society broadly is the victim here, and it must heal as well as banish the criminal. Delighting in blood vengeance and declaring that it is proper to execute non threats for reasons, we get in the way of healing. We fail to "do better" when presented with the opportunity to truly repudiate the heinous act that is murder. And however imperceptibly, these costs are borne by all of us.

 

To the latter point, I don't believe in God and the law is not Biblical. I think we should reject "eye for an eye" as an antiquated fragment of our baser, carnal instincts and instead demand our world to uphold the principle of "two wrongs make zero rights".

So we just let a murderer live out his life like nothing happened? I could care less if he is in jail for the rest of his life. Jail anymore is nothing but a second home to these guys and they probably have it better in there then they did out on the streets. I am one of those that believes in " An eye for an eye". I think the fate of the murder should be left up to the family of the deceased one(s).

 

Again, this is my opinion and I know that it truthfully can't/won't happen because there are people that are wrongfully accused and found guilty.

[BigRedBuster]

 

I don't know of anyone who "delights" in blood vengeance.

You must not watch very many movies then.

 

Movies aren't reality.

[zoogs]

I don't know of anyone who "delights" in blood vengeance.

To feel satisfaction from the knowledge that people (as long as they meet the 'deserves it' standard) are being made to pay with their lives -- and to *not* feel satisfied unless society is meting out such punishment -- what else could that be? We LOVE to see people die if we feel they have earned it. We HAVE to see them die.

 

So we just let a murderer live out his life like nothing happened? I could care less if he is in jail for the rest of his life. Jail anymore is nothing but a second home to these guys and they probably have it better in there then they did out on the streets.

Getting permanently outcast from society is not "like nothing happened". That would be going free, unsentenced and unconvicted.

 

But yes, I think so. Some of these people, living with what they did this way, will regain some element of their humanity over the course of their sentence. Others might not, but I think we should make the point that every human being deserves that chance at redemption; deserves life. IMO -- what better way to enforce the idea that the very thing these criminals did (taking life) is wrong? Isn't the goal to maximize the number of people within a society who have these values?

 

Once they have been guilty and properly removed from society, does it matter that they suffer? How come? Another point I would make is that murderers are often not just people living on the streets. Even for those people, I'm not sure a lifetime jail sentence after having been branded as a murderer unworthy of civilization is as cushy as you describe, but I do acknowledge for some people, it won't really make them hurt.

[BigRedBuster]

 

I don't know of anyone who "delights" in blood vengeance.

To feel satisfaction from the knowledge that people (as long as they meet the 'deserves it' standard) are being made to pay with their lives -- and to *not* feel satisfied unless society is meting out such punishment -- what else could that be? We LOVE to see people die if we feel they have earned it. We HAVE to see them die.

 

 

 

There is a big difference between being satisfied that justice was served and being "delighted" that someone was killed.

[zoogs]

Semantics, I guess.

 

I think a society where we have to see these people killed is one based not on justice, but on vengeance and "death and suffering to the deserving." We can completely shun this and there are present-day examples. We choose not to because we have to hit back. Is justice not served to murderers in those countries? How do they suffer as a society by not killing? How do we *not* suffer by equating justice with payback?

[BigRedBuster]

Semantics, I guess.

 

I think a society where we have to see these people killed is one based not on justice, but on vengeance and "death and suffering to the deserving." We can completely shun this and there are present-day examples. We choose not to because we have to hit back. Is justice not served to murderers in those countries? How do they suffer as a society by not killing? How do we *not* suffer by equating justice with payback?

If you break into my home, rape and torture my wife and children before killing them and then you are given the death penalty and killed, on the day you are killed, I am not feeling happy and going to go throw a party. I may feel relieved or somehow, in a strange sort of way satisfied. But, nothing in me would feel "delightful".

 

To be delighted that a human being is killed would take a pretty sick mind. I have never met someone who is pro death penalty who would fit that bill.

 

Now, I can't answer your last two questions because I am also against the death penalty. As someone who is relatively new to this side of the debate, your questions seem really really odd to me and as though you view the mind set of pro death penalty people very different than what I experienced while on that side.

[zoogs]

Hm...I'm not making commentary on individual people and their state of minds, I think. I'm trying to describe what I think are the problems and pitfalls of a society that has the death penalty. Perhaps delighted was a poor choice of word, but hopefully you know what I mean. Let's say it's not you who are affected, for instance, but to look at a murderer's execution and say, "GOOD. I'm glad he got his comeuppance in this way." That is a strange sort of satisfied, no? And that, I'd argue, is the weird cost of having the death penalty. While the benefits -- a few thousand more people dead versus rotting in prison -- seem pretty insignificant.

 

Apologies, BRB, I think we're mostly in agreement. Just tripped up over my wording.

[BigRedBuster]

Apologies, BRB, I think we're mostly in agreement. Just tripped up over my wording.

That's very possible.

 

I agree with the attitudes around an execution are strange. But, if you think of them in a very primitive manner, I think they are understandable.

 

I'm not a psychologist but I did stay at a Holiday Inn once so let me try.

 

The quality of security in our prisons now is relatively a new modern development. for thousands of years, humans have had to work to protect themselves from the mentally deranged ones amongst us that are willing and able to kill us and our loved ones. So, we developed methods of taking care of that threat.

 

If society doesn't have the luxury of a very secure prison system, that threat needs to be taken care of in another way. That "another way" is to simply get rid of that threat...(kill it). So, 1,000 years ago, if there was a mass murderer, the actual logical way to get rid of that threat was to kill that mass murderer before they kill more of us nice people. The society IS safer because that mass murderer is no longer on this earth to threaten us.

 

If that is the way people lived on this earth for centuries, then that is hard wired into our brains as the way to be safe from these people. I believe that primal thought process is the basis behind our society's supporting of the death penalty to this day. After an execution, people aren't partying and happy. It is a sense of relief that this person won't be able to do that to anyone again. In reality, our prisons are secure enough that as long as they are behind those walls, (will almost no chance of escaping or getting out) society is protected but our minds don't view it that way because that horrible person is still alive.

 

Does that make sense?

[zoogs]

Hey, I agree with that. Modern realities are very different from ancient ones. I was actually thinking of that earlier -- how executions probably were legitimately seen as a lot more necessary back in the day. A lot of our primitive nature though, is hard-wired (racism being an example, or slavery, or even genocide as an effective way of pacifying a conquered people), and hopefully we can move beyond a lot of them.

[Thanks_Tom RR]