Should China die?
- Thread starter swimmerXC
- Start date
The_Zergling
Junior Member
If the allegations are true then it is indeed a truly despicable thing and China should spend the rest of her life behind bars.
However, I am opposed to the death penalty, so though it may seem like "righteous justice" to put her in a microwave or something, I don't think we should.
This whole thing...the incident, the publicity, this thread-makes me sick. It shows mankinds endless love of death as long as it is happening to other people. The more exotic the better.
The_Zergling
Junior Member
Well the sad thing is that bad news sells. I jumped in mostly because I was hoping to have a debate about the death penalty, but decided to test the waters first for fear of going off-topic. But then again there's not much good that can come out of staying on-topic regarding this anyway.
The-Zergling:
Perhaps give it a try ...
Well it depends on what you think the purpose of punishment is to be. Seek revenge, reciprocate and really scare other people not to do something similar.
Or if you say no matter what has been done, it's the task of the penal system to guard the puplic from the contravener until he/she is resocialized. Because you state everybody has the right of men to live whatever might have been done. And with neglecting that right by death penalty you somewhat go on the level of that contravener.
There you can ask the question if someone who denys that right to others also gives up that right for him-/herself or if it is inalienabe.
On the other hand, to hold someone imprisoned for perhaps 60+ years costs the community a lot of mony, and there may be the question why this should be paid to someone who was so destructive to that community.
Very difficult point, indeed ...
Perhaps give it a try ...
Well it depends on what you think the purpose of punishment is to be. Seek revenge, reciprocate and really scare other people not to do something similar.
Or if you say no matter what has been done, it's the task of the penal system to guard the puplic from the contravener until he/she is resocialized. Because you state everybody has the right of men to live whatever might have been done. And with neglecting that right by death penalty you somewhat go on the level of that contravener.
There you can ask the question if someone who denys that right to others also gives up that right for him-/herself or if it is inalienabe.
On the other hand, to hold someone imprisoned for perhaps 60+ years costs the community a lot of mony, and there may be the question why this should be paid to someone who was so destructive to that community.
Very difficult point, indeed ...
D
Deleted member 675
Guest
If you take the life of someone who has taken a life (unless you actually have to), then you are no better than them. I am opposed to the death penalty, though obviously she should spend the rest of her days in jail.
RedMercury
Junior Member
Hehe, whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Darn China bashers! :roll:
The_Zergling
Junior Member
This is indeed a complicated issue with many valid viewpoints arising from different considerations. The abolitionist stance is that the death penalty should never be employed. However, many who argue for it use faulty logic when doing so - and in fact help strengthen the belief that capital punishment is in principle acceptable. If you argue that a convicted murderer's IQ is too low to know what is or is not moral that implies that if he had scored slightly higher on the IQ test he would be worthy of death, to focus exclusively on evidence from DNA proving that many on death row are innocent also implies that the cleary guilty deserve to die.
This approach does nothing to change the conviction in our (American and possibly Chinese, who both have the death penalty) society that the existence of a few confessed murderers who score decently on IQ tests and have been caught in the act justify the entire institution of capital punishment.
There was a noteworthy move back in 2003 when then Governor George Ryan of Illinois commuted all the death sentences in the state, changing them into life in prison. However, his reason for doing so was that he felt the system was flawed, not that the death penalty is fundamentally injust. While his move was laudable, it did not in one way change our society towards opposition to capital punishment itself. Indeed it is best to use whatever tools or rhetorical strategies are at your disposal for the case at hand, however the best argument will always be the one that bluntly asserts the moral injustness of capital punishment in all cases.
An argument that does this is one that does not focus on the convicted criminal and what is to be done to him - but rather on who we are and what we are about to do. Only by approaching the problem from a moral aspect can its contradictions (as opposed to mere flaws) emerge.
What are we doing when we execute an individual? What is the penal system there for? To guard society from the prisoner? Something noteworthy about the true nature of capital punishment may be seen by the odd practice of keeping death-row prisoners on suicide watch. Why stop them from taking their own lives if our ultimate goal is to execute them anyway? Quite obviously part of the aim of capital punishment is not just to remove the individual from society, but to state to society that he has been killed.
Looking at it this way, it resembles a ritual slaughter more than we might like to think. There is a stark difference between slaughter and extermination. Capital punishment is not simply the practice of reducing the number of living murderers on this planet.
There is an important difference between views held by reformists, and those held by abolitionists (like myself). While reformist arguments are useful for saving lives of individual Death Row inmates on a case by case basis, they do not challenge the fundamental incompatibility of the death penalty with other basic principles of morality and justice that we as a society claim to accept.
That is why I challenge the reformist arguments because any effort to make the system more humane can only help prolong the notion that in principle capital punishment is acceptable.
So what are major reformist arguments?
Possible Innocence
Recent advances in DNA forensic testing has forced us to realize how unreliable the legal system's judgments have been in murder cases. This was the reason Governor Ryan commuted all death sentences in Illinois. However, he believed that capital punishment was still justified, but only when the system was perfected.
Now an abolitionist would hope that perhaps one day it would be so hard to execute someone that it would be de facto eliminated even if it is a legal option in the law books. But to put this into perspective, let us first assume that Iran will never be considered a decent society as long as there is the legal possibility that teenage girls can be stoned to death for unchaste behavior, even if this punishment is never declared or carried out.
If a legal possibility is never to be used then it may as well be stricken from law; if not then it is because society is still committed to its basic concept. Our societies will still be tainted by the savagery of our commitments, even if we never act on them.
We can imagine a hypothetical society that remains committed to the principle of capital punishment for the guilty, but cannot finds it impossible to establish 'absolute guilt'. Verdicts may be overturned in any other sentence besides death - the criminal has this possibility open as long as he lives. In this sense capital punishment is unique in that it is irreversible, even if future contingencies would change his fate.
Moral Salvation
There are many theories to human nature, all of which are to be respected in a decent pluralistic society. Some theories believe that we are inherently rotten but are capable of being saved from some sort of declaration in which the person says, "I am saved!". An alternate theory states that we are all inherently prone to doing bad things, but only our actions and not our declarations settle the matter.
In the US where oftentimes you will see sadly that words are given more importance than actual actions and character, it is not surprising to see many prisoners on Death Row claiming to have been "saved". This should not be considered at all in any legal system.
The most common transformation in a predominately Judeo-Christian nation (population-wise) is that of salvation from Jesus. However, nowhere in the gospels is there anything stating that someone must be saved in order to be deemed worthy of respect and life. If anything, we are told that we are to value the lives that are most wretched, most low. Death row conversions are irrelevant to any serious abolitionist argument.
Cruelty of method
Execution methods have differed from time to time, but their roots are not based on justice or moral progress, but what is fashionable at the time. Maybe hanging was popular decades ago, then legal injection, then the electric chair - these are all simply illusions that we have become moral - we have not. We like to believe that our moral standards are improving, but anyone that looks at the punishments objectively should realize that we are the same. Supposedly humanitarian efforts to improve execution have brought us nothing; capital punishment still hurts, and the end result is still death. Why is this important?
There is a paradox in that we retain capital punishment in a system where corporal punishment is outlawed. (This is not Singapore) This is a very odd situation, and some say that the only just way would be a method in which we could simply erase the souls from existence without doing harm to their body, hence the argument for quick and less painful deaths.
But frankly this doesn't work, because when you kill someone you by definition do harm to their body. Hell, even if some day we can find a way to kill someone that makes them feel as if they're just falling into a sweet, seductive sleep, check back a few weeks later and you'll see the body isn't doing too well, to say the least.
There are several other arguments - but I have highlighted the most visible ones.
Now obviously, not everyone on Death Row is an idiot. Neither is everyone on Death Row innocent. Not everyone on Death Row underwent a spiritual transformation, and besides under the circumstances the sincerity of the claims must be examined. When you argue that you should not kill a Death Row prisoner because he is innocent, is retarded, has turned a new leaf says nothing at all about the justice and morality of the death penalty itself.
Responding to killing by killing or even allowing the possibility shows us what kind of society we are. We are a vengeful society, and in Governor Ryan's terms, absolutely guilty.
The_Zergling:
I realize that the death penalty is not only about removing the convicted from the society but more something like an official statement. "He cannot decide himself when his life ends, it's us (the state / law enforcement) and if anyone else should also commit such a crime, look what will happen to you." So, in some way, you're killing a person to make an example.
Some people over here in Germany argue that this is just the wrong way. It's said America has a problem with the cruelty and big numebers of crimes. Now the point that some officials try to counter that by showing executions on TV (as far as I know has happened) just makes cruelty a part of society and therefore has the effect of increasing such crimes.
I know that's a difficult statement but IMO it's not total nonsense.
Another point is keeping one imprisoned for the rest of his life, may be a greater penalty then death, because in the latter case it's over relatively fast, whereas some decades in jail is hard to live through.
I realize that the death penalty is not only about removing the convicted from the society but more something like an official statement. "He cannot decide himself when his life ends, it's us (the state / law enforcement) and if anyone else should also commit such a crime, look what will happen to you." So, in some way, you're killing a person to make an example.
Some people over here in Germany argue that this is just the wrong way. It's said America has a problem with the cruelty and big numebers of crimes. Now the point that some officials try to counter that by showing executions on TV (as far as I know has happened) just makes cruelty a part of society and therefore has the effect of increasing such crimes.
I know that's a difficult statement but IMO it's not total nonsense.
Another point is keeping one imprisoned for the rest of his life, may be a greater penalty then death, because in the latter case it's over relatively fast, whereas some decades in jail is hard to live through.