The Death Penalty

[ST88]

On the TV show, "Homicide", one of the characters describes the Death Penalty this way: "It's wrong... and necessary." On TV, it's often used as leverage to get suspects to confess -- I don't know if it works this way in real life. But the idea is that the threat of death as a punishment for violent crime is part of its effectiveness.

We often hear the religious among us talk about the sanctity of life when it comes to topics like abortion and assisted suicide, and though many religions have come out against the Death Penalty, only one actually puts a fair amount of resources towards opposing it (Quakers, I believe).

Most of the world's nations have banned the death penalty, and yet the U.S. is made up of people who arrived from most of the world's nations. We have a culture of death in this country -- idealizing death as the ultimate punishment, in some ways the ultimate exile from society. In this way, the U.S. is less pragmatic than other nations, and more reliant on an image of the ideal society. The ideal society myth is part of the reason why people emigrate here.

The Death Penalty strikes me as pie-in-the-sky reasoning about what death should mean to people and how the threat of it affects their behavior. In pop-sociology, what it is intended to do is deter people from committing violent crimes for fear of having the government put them to death. This is ludicrous, of course, but the ideal is still around.

What is the purpose of Capital Punishment, and is it a fair way to deal with the worst violent criminals in society? What does religion have to say about the death penalty, and how has it informed U.S. opinion?

[juliod]

No, there is a problem (illegal drugs) and something you want to think is a problem (the pharmaceutical industry). One is illegal, the other is not.

Just because a probem is "legal" does not mean that it is not a problem. Nor that it does not do social harm. Nor that we shouldn't focus on it. Nor that we should concentrate more on "illegal" problems if those problems are of lesser magnitude. I'm afraid your conserativism is showing.

Just because your pet problem isn't being addressed doesn't mean we should ignore the real problem that exists.

I didn't say that, did I? But it is wrong to focus on a smaller problem if a bigger problem is also apparent. That guarantees your efforts will at most give poor returns.

Who says they are denying medicine to the poor.

Everyone who looks at the issue.

They are providing a product to anyone who can pay for it.

And yet doing so with massive government subsidy. And charging much more than the euivalent market price in other developed countries. And using their control of the legislature to block imports from Canada and Europe.

And in any case, my point was that they posatively do harm by selling drugs known to be dangerous, encouraging unecessary or harmful treatment, and increasing the cost of health care. At best they could be described as "wicked".

Only if it needs modifying, and only if we do so through pr(e)scribed methods.

You have a strange viewpoint. You propose massive upheavals of our system (get rid of appeals, get rid of plea-bargains) that would lead immediately to collapse, but still hold "the law" to be some sort of fixed idol.

Simply ignoring a law you don't like is stupid.

No one has suggested that. You need to stop framing the argument in characitures. I think it leads to your view that everything would be OK with the death penalty if we could just get rid of appeals. ecause you see things in charicature, you find the wrong problem. The problem is not the length of the appeals process, but the fact that many innocent people are being condemned.

DanZ

[Cephus]

Just because a probem is "legal" does not mean that it is not a problem. Nor that it does not do social harm. Nor that we shouldn't focus on it. Nor that we should concentrate more on "illegal" problems if those problems are of lesser magnitude. I'm afraid your conserativism is showing.

You have yet to explain why your perception of a problem is more important than a clear and existing problem. You might not like what the pharmaceutical industry does, but it still isn't against the law.

And I'm damn proud to be conservative, thank you.

I didn't say that, did I? But it is wrong to focus on a smaller problem if a bigger problem is also apparent. That guarantees your efforts will at most give poor returns.

That's about as silly as saying that because all murderers aren't prosecuted, we should ignore stock swindlers because it's wrong to focus on a smaller problem.

Everyone who looks at the issue.

I looked at the issue and I think you're wrong.

And yet doing so with massive government subsidy. And charging much more than the euivalent market price in other developed countries. And using their control of the legislature to block imports from Canada and Europe.

The US has a much higher development cost due, for the most part, to the ridiculous lawsuits that most drug manufacturers get hit with. People sue at the drop of a hat, even over stupid things they do to themselves and then look for someone to point a finger at. That's stupid liberalism at work.

And in any case, my point was that they posatively do harm by selling drugs known to be dangerous, encouraging unecessary or harmful treatment, and increasing the cost of health care. At best they could be described as "wicked".

No law against being "wicked". If you don't like their drugs, don't take them.

You have a strange viewpoint. You propose massive upheavals of our system (get rid of appeals, get rid of plea-bargains) that would lead immediately to collapse, but still hold "the law" to be some sort of fixed idol.

No, it's not odd at all. There are ways which Americans can modify the laws of our country. Those include through our elected officials and the ballot box, among others. Revolution simply doesn't work without massive repercussions.