*laughing* Well, Ian, it's good of you to deign to trifle with us lesser developed beings. ;)
On Aug 26, 9:22 am, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm honestly quite shocked by some people's crude, black and white, > interpretation of justice. (Some people's attitudes are about what I'd > expect.) The release of a man to die is a demonstration of a nation's > supreme humanity. As soon as you de-humanise the culprit -- which is the > dangerous the step people are taking -- your own humanity is left highly > questionable. Certain crimes, in and of themselves, de-humanize the culprit. Have you considered that? However, knowing that we are ideological opposites on the Death Penalty, I know that we have a philosophical barrier here which prevents us from seeing eye to eye on this issue. The difference is, you believe that your view is more "enlightened and developed." C'est la vie. I'm used to dealing with that on various liberal viewpoints from which there will be no reasonable compromise in the middle. "You're a barbaric cretin, and I'm being polite to say so!" No, you're really not, but that's neither here nor there. You delve onward into the false dichotomy often presented in these arguments below, so I'll continue there. > > I think people need to proceed more cautiously: search their own mind and > decide whether they understand, intellectually and emotionally, the > difference between justice and revenge. There's abundant evidence in this > thread that people's notions of justice are -- and I'm being as polite as I > can muster -- under-developed. ...and there it is, the false dichotomy. Justice or revenge? Which is it? You MUST choose! No, actually, you don't have to choose between those two at all, because you're missing a third alternative altogether. Darwinian improvement of society. Why do I believe in the death penalty? It is neither for justice nor for revenge. It is because we have identified a risk to society which is so great that society deserves to be protected from it in the most sure way possible. This is why I favor the death penalty for crimes such as serial killers, sexual predators, mass killers (such as terrorists) and the like, and NOT for single instances of murder. This is not for justice, or revenge, but to permanently remove said threat to society. Recidivism among each of these criminal types is near 100%. There is no point in maintaining a false hope of "rehabilitation". When wolves attack the village, we do not waver and hesitate over killing "God's beautiful creatures", we band together as a people and protect the tribe. > > > He didn't think of it as revenge, he called it "dealing with the > > consequences of my actions". Is that really a culturally different > > perspective? > > Learning the lessons of youth over misdemeanours is some steps removed from > a life-sentence. I assume you weren't terminally ill at the time, either? Four felonies, Ian, with some time involved, and I was 18. Is the gradient of mercy only called into play with terminal illness? > > I know this is a serious discussion, but I can only think about the scene > from Monty Python's Holy Grail where the peasants are trying to get the > witch burnt. :) Indeed. When one is adopting a position of moral and intellectual superiority, it's a common mistake to assume that the countering viewpoint is that of ignorant peasants. Many a pompous politician has suffered ignominious defeat when over- calculating their own position in such a way. > > Ian --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
