how is possible connect the morals of "rich second generation" with -he killed Zhang because he feared the "peasant woman would be hard to deal with" ?
I think the sentence is fair. What he did really is beyond imagination
it should be "murderer executed for murder". He's an adult, and the execution is not because of hit-and-run, right?
Capital punishment is a carnivalesque spectacle of political fantasy. Its ability to deter violent crime is a utter myth, so it serves no real purpose from a public policy standpoint. In developed countries, paying the bureaucrats involved in administering the death penalty actually costs the public more money than imprisoning a criminal for life.
But I suppose it satisfies the victims' families thirst for blood, and at least in this case, it makes poor folks feel like someone's looking out for them, because the gubbermint is gonna tear that rich kid a new asshole. So, hey! No need for class warfare, folks! Nevermind the bulldozers. They're for a forced eviction down the street. Move along now, nothing to see here. Remember, we're looking out for you, little guy, because we don't let rich kids get away with murder.
Or at least that seems more plausible than the utterly mistaken idea that the death penalty protects the people. Settled that its value is totally symbolic, I actually like the idea of the death penalty; I would just prefer if people would acknowledge that it is nothing more than an evolved and slightly more just form of human sacrifice.
I just think that victims or victims' families should be the ones to swing the axe, rather than letting the state sanitize the experience. That, or its potential as a mass communications tool should be fully exploited, and we should have gladiatorial deathmatches like in The Running Man.
Hahahaha ... too much philosophy for simple peasant such as myself ... one thing I know, if anything ... life is cheap in China, whereas "face" is priceless ...
@Alex, You're asking me to disprove a negative. That's impossible. l2logic
Instead, you cite one piece of evidence showing that the death penalty prevents violent crime. Just one. That's all.
"Everyone knows the pros/cons of capital punishment and the economics of it."
Hi, I'm nobody. Enlighten me.
As I said before, the amount of paperwork involved in reliably discharging the death penalty costs more to taxpayers than life imprisonment.
"For the liberals among us, is there really any moral justice in a murderer serving 15 years life (as happens in the UK) then being able to live back in society?"
This is a straw man fallacy. No liberal is arguing for 15 year sentences for murderers.
That's assuming I would like to drink beer with a small-time faceless troll.
As much as I'm sure you enjoy sticking it to the man, you've still managed to side-step the whole moral side of an issue that crops up whenever a morality debate is started.
We need more threads about sex, race and cultural misconceptions these days
I’m pretty much against the death penalty in every case.
The moral argument seems to come down to something along the lines of ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,’ this is somehow seen as just. If a person does something bloody stupid, immoral, ‘evil’ or whatever, I cannot see how doing the same thing back to them is in anyway just. If anything it creates a framework where the initial act is somehow justified, so it is all a bit self defeating.
A lot of the time capital punishment is about satisfying the bloodlust and or vengeful feelings of other people, in an attempt to make them feel better, this hardly seems a prudent way to carry out social policy.
I guess there is an argument about using it as a crime deterrent but I’m not convinced, the problem is that when people commit acts that they can be given the death penalty for, hey are not necessarily behaving particularly rationally. So they are unlikely to think, ‘Maybe I won’t kill my wife today, as I could get sentenced to death and that wouldn’t be very nice…’
The death penalty is ineffective as a deterrent, old news is old
Torture penalty? Don't they cane people in Indonesia or somewhere? Why not try something like that?
Or we could go with the Henry Rollins school of capital punishment, where we execute people by bludgeoning them on the 50-yard line during the Super Bowl halftime show.
"Torture, mothafucka. I'll fuckin'...yeah, I'll fuckin' lay your nuts on a fuckin' dresser, just your nuts layin' on a fuckin' dresser, and bang them shits with a spiked fuckin' bat. BLAAOW!" - Clifford Smith
Can anyone else hear a very faint swooshing sound in this thread?
"I think China has sort of streamlined the procedure to get rid of unneccesary 'paperwork.'"
They have - I think it's called holding trials that last less than a day, with no appeal process.
I'm pretty sure Dando is referring to the U.S. system, which involves endless appeals, re-examinations, court proceedings...all of which end up costing thousands of dollars in legal fees and hours of manpower in courtrooms and offices.
The death row inmate in question is continuing to eat, sleep and live in prison throughout the process - this cost would be present regardless of whether or not the appeal process existed.
But you can see how keeping an inmate in prison for the years, or maybe even decades, that the appeal process takes + the actual cost of the appeal procedures might be more expensive than just keeping the guy in jail for the same amount of time and getting rid of all of the cumbersome and expensive legal proceedings that come with a death row appeal.
Or we could just do it the Chinese way and shoot him in the back of the head within days of his arrest.
Well, nuts. That was a waste of time.
@Scott, I said:
"In developed countries, paying the bureaucrats involved in administering the death penalty actually costs the public more money than imprisoning a criminal for life."
And didn't repeat the developed part upon second reference to the phenomenon. I should point out that you are a superlative cunt for not noticing this, since the very sentence you quoted was prefaced with "As I said before." The devil is in the details, eh?
The US is one of very few developed countries that still employs the death penalty, and it is widely known that the appeals process accrues greater legal costs than life imprisonment. Japan also still employs the death penalty, but from what Eastwood tells me, it's implemented very differently there.
What other developed countries still use the death penalty? Israel? Look at you fellas wailing about my "sidestepping" morality (sorry, too busy with grown-up ethics to give a piss, pal) or cracking wise about my "forum godliness". Yeah. Naw. I'm not touching Israel with a ten foot pole. What, and let someone quote me out of context and call me a Nazi? Fat chance, you ugly cunts.
so r u saying that government administering death penalty in order to cut cost rather than morality count? u r praising those corrupted officials,huh,,,shame on those humanitarian scholars,they should get imprisoned for life!
I'm not touching Israel with a ten foot pole.
You got me. I also hate gigantic people from Poland.
And through what arcane legal calculus does one arrive at a "120% guilty" verdict?
"confessing for a crime shouldnt warrant leniency."
The Chinese courts have a tradition of granting some form of leniency to criminals who confess/turn themselves in, somewhat like the States. They actually went against precedent in this case, because of the circumstances of the murder.
In the U.S., it's a formal judicial process called plea bargaining, and cops aren't likely to suddenly abandon this sound law enforcement tactic, particularly one that helps them pad their arrest/conviction statistics.
and what makes u humanists think administering imprisonment for rest of life is more humane than death penalty?
I hope you're not referring to me as a humanist.
Here I go again, not giving a fuck. Classy way of riffing on High Priest, bro. +10 Internets.
8==D --- ( . )( . )
“ok, let's rip
fuck, cunt, piss, wank, toss, shit, pussy etc etc”
says the Archbishop.
@Micah, Which begs the question: HOW? The judge's whim? A second jury? Race of the convicted? Astrology? Enacting such a policy would add another layer of complexity to an already complex process.
If you barred law enforcement and prosecuting attorneys from allowing plea bargaining, a lot of criminals would never even be convicted of the most serious of crimes.
I think it's very easy to look at the death penalty and associate it with conceptions of Old Testament style vengeance, but I think it's a little misleading to do this. I don't really see the problem of integrating an acceptance of capital punishment into your tacit consent of the crime and punishment model that most societies are based on.
I mean, in terms of punishing people for crimes there is an element of using it as a deterrent (to discourage a certain action) and an element of rehabilitation (to make the criminal behave in a more socially acceptable way), but I think the primary thing is that societies are based on this idea that doing something bad will lead to negative consequences. Call it karmic law, retribution, justice, whatever, the imminence of punishment itself is something that is fundamental and necessary.
What people who are ethically against the death penalty seem to be saying is 'We don't believe we should do such a bad thing as a form of punishment', but personally I think you can commit crimes that are so serious and so heinous that the punishment that follows them should be that extreme. I think 'the punishment fits the crime' is a more accurate idiom than 'eye for an eye', and I think in this particular instance (a guy confesses to killing a mother after he knocks her down for fear of having to pay out compensation) the punishment is entirely appropriate.
I am not suggesting there isn't a carnivalesque celebration of death that accompanies the death penalty whenever it's meted out. I think that as long as death has been used as a punishment, there have been people there to celebrate it and to treat it as a public spectacle. But I don't think that's really an argument against it so much as a statement about people in general. I know that you guys are suggesting that the existence of the death penalty is to satisfy this bloodlust but I'm optimistic enough to think you've got it the wrong way around and that the bloodlust is a result rather than a cause.
Looking at death penalty in the context of the Old Testament is problematic, I was just pointing out that people do tend to view it this way and I think it is very reductive.
The thing is, perhaps unlike you, I don’t think law enforcement and sentencing etc. needs to be particularly punitive or indeed karmic. You say you,
‘..think the primary thing is that societies are based on this idea that doing something bad will lead to negative consequences.’
I disagree, and you prefer to use this questionable anthropological narrative to support the death penalty
For me the focus is not so much about morality per se, but in deterring crime and minimizing potential dangers for society. I can’t see how the death penalty fulfills this role.
Sure, if you thing the role of society is to ‘punish,’ then yes, capital punishment is a winner. My approach is more practical.
As for your comments about carnivalesque (a great word methinks) bloodlust, yes, I think you have a point...
@Daniel, But if the death penalty is ineffective as a deterrent, and killing people certainly doesn't rehabilitate them, then what's its value besides entertainment?
What Carlos was suggesting is an alternative to the retributive theory of justice--that old axiom of evil cannot go unpunished--which we've grown accustomed to accepting uncritically at the expense of more comprehensive theories. Restorative justice is like the graphic novel to this comic book sense of morality.
Let's put it this way: we can spend all this time and money trying to seek a balance between expedience and accuracy in discharging death sentences for capital crimes, or we could spend even just half that money comforting the victims and actually help to ease their suffering.
Where and when in the wet hot FUCK is that moral crusade?
The morality of the death penalty is like the morality of warfare. Even if you can prove that Hussein or Gadaffi or bin Laden or whoever deserves it, military action is in a very real and objective sense a theft from the helpless whose suffering could be eased more with just a thousand dollars worth of food than the government can ever hope to accomplish with a single million dollar cruise missile and the collateral damage it will likely cause.
Micah can complain about the collateral damage to taxpayers all he wants; What Carlos and I are asking is: Where the fuck is your moral outrage when the victim's family loses a mother or father? Where the fuck is your moral outrage when the convicted's family loses a mother or father? Do any of these people deserve to suffer? I don't think so.
Radical fucking idea here: abolish capital pnishment, replace all death sentences with life imprisonment (with labor!) and channel even HALF of those pernicious legal costs associated with administering capital punishment towards actually fixing what's left of society.
Your fucking radical idea is not feasible in China,ok? if you can guarantee the defendant operating the imprisonment for rest of his life,then no problem.But death sentence here is one-off,he will be shot this year,no matter his parents spend how much money on bribing those officials is not gonna save him.If we can administer death sentence on those corrupted officials effectively, then no problem, will be more radical than u, how about just denounce the defendant in public?
It certainly isn't feasible in China at this particular moment in history, but as the Chinese legal code matures and rule of law becomes more firmly situated in Chinese society, I'm pretty confident that China will join most of the rest of the developed world in discarding the death penalty as archaic and ineffective.
Personally, I don't give a fuck about whether it's humane or not. Fuck human rights. My retirement plan is to put my brain in a giant robotic exoskeleton so I can slaughter and enslave the rest of you meatbags.
Perhaps capital punishment is useful now to distract a bunch of landless peasants, evicted tenants, unpaid migrant workers, and marginalized ethnic minorities from their suffering. But it still doesn't do anything objectively positive for society. It's just another tool of mass communication.
"It's just another tool of mass communication."