Newfoundlander Posted February 26, 2012 Report Posted February 26, 2012 This may be why support for the death penalty is on the rise... high profile murderers have been in the news. The Robert Pickton trial, Clifford Olson died, Karla Homolka released... there are some people who are so sickening that the question "well why *not* execute them?" becomes a serious discussion. Somebody like Paul Bernardo or Clifford Olson ...there's no questions as to their guilt, and there's no way that monsters like this could ever be considered "rehabilitated" enough to ever be allowed out of prison. So ... why not the death penalty for cases like this? I think probably there are two main arguments... one is that the definition of "cases like this" is highly subjective. Any murder case that provokes strong emotion and public outrage could potentially become "cases like this". The other is a philosophical discussion about what limits should be placed on the power of the state. -k Well in the case of Bernardo he can never get parole and I believe he is in his own area where he has no contact with others besides his own guards. He is still only 47 years old, we are spending so much money just to have him locked up for life. Quote
Shakeyhands Posted February 26, 2012 Report Posted February 26, 2012 Well in the case of Bernardo he can never get parole and I believe he is in his own area where he has no contact with others besides his own guards. He is still only 47 years old, we are spending so much money just to have him locked up for life. How much are we spending? Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Wild Bill Posted February 26, 2012 Report Posted February 26, 2012 Do you believe the will of the majority is always right or ethical? That's irrelevant! "always right or ethical" is an OPINION! We are talking democracy here! The will of the majority must prevail! If it is to be decided that a minority view must hold over that of the majority, who can possibly make that decision? The answer is, ethically NO ONE can! In practice, what happens is some elite makes the decision! THEY decide that the majority of the people do NOT have the Law reflect their views! Now of course, when you happen to agree with the minority over-ruling something you see no problem. In fact, you likely see it as a positive thing! However, if the shoe was on the other foot you might feel quite differently. I believe in populism. The people have a right to have their government reflect their views and values, EVEN WHEN THEY ARE WRONG! In fact, maybe MOST when they are wrong! It is only through making mistakes that most of us ever learn to correct our approach. Deny someone the opportunity to make mistakes and you deny them the chance to ever learn. Who says the majority should be denied> Me? You? How about it should always be me! Wouldn't that make me some kind of dictator? If you think so, why would it be any different if YOU got YOUR way? I'm REALLY looking forward to your answer! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
cybercoma Posted February 26, 2012 Report Posted February 26, 2012 So if the majority of people believe that all Jews should be rounded up and thrown into gas chambers, you would consider that right or ethical because it's the will of the people? Quote
Guest Manny Posted February 26, 2012 Report Posted February 26, 2012 (edited) I'll take the words of single wise man over 10,000 dumb asses. Fact is, the majority are generally poorly educated and too easily swayed in their opinions by the influence of mass media. No, sorry, I will not listen to or follow the "herd", just because they all think so. Edited February 26, 2012 by Manny Quote
Wild Bill Posted February 26, 2012 Report Posted February 26, 2012 (edited) So if the majority of people believe that all Jews should be rounded up and thrown into gas chambers, you would consider that right or ethical because it's the will of the people? No, I would NOT consider that "right or ethical". I would consider it democratic! There's a big difference! First off, I consider your comparison so unlikely as to be almost impossible. Even Hitler kept his Final Solution largely secret even from the German people, who never got to vote on much of anything let alone gas chambers under Hitler's regime. It's much more likely that if the German people HAD a populist government at the time those gas chambers would never have been built! Clearly, it was a LACK of populism that let the minority view of Hitler's prevail! I think you are supporting MY argument here, CC! Even so, if Canada ever had a referendum or whatever to do such a terrible thing I would not oppose it as a matter of politics. I would just get a gun and take a stand myself! That being said, in such an extreme example such as yours I have no doubt that Canada would be making a mistake of horrendous proportions and would thus learn a horrendous lesson. Have you got any examples more geared to the real world? Edited February 26, 2012 by Wild Bill Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Michael Hardner Posted February 26, 2012 Report Posted February 26, 2012 Have you got any examples more geared to the real world? What if they made it illegal for religions to advertise on television or to recruit new members ? Does that seem more likely ? What if a government moved to disallow immigrants from certain religions from entering Canada ? Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
cybercoma Posted February 26, 2012 Report Posted February 26, 2012 My point is that democratic does not always mean right or ethical. Quote
punked Posted February 26, 2012 Report Posted February 26, 2012 Just pointing out the civil rights act in the US would never have passed a majority vote. Quote
Wild Bill Posted February 26, 2012 Report Posted February 26, 2012 What if they made it illegal for religions to advertise on television or to recruit new members ? Does that seem more likely ? What if a government moved to disallow immigrants from certain religions from entering Canada ? Again, while I might personally disagree it would at least be democratic, assuming the new Law clearly came about as a result of a majority view of the people. Obviously, that can't be the case now or we would have the death penalty still on the books! There would be no polls showing so many people wanting it returned. With your examples Michael, this would be an example of the people learning from mistakes! Under our present system of non-populist elitism, they are not allowed to make such mistakes. Worse yet, since the Laws at times can represent the minority views of an elite they can make worse mistakes, such as the tyranny of Human Rights Commissions, where a citizen can be unfairly charged and given zero financial help for his defense while his accuser can lie with impunity and have his side fully funded! To me, these cases are as bad as executing an innocent man! If someone is unfairly charged, we don't hang him. We just destroy him financially and publicly so his life will never likely be positive again! I have enough faith in my fellow citizens to believe that if given the direct power they would never allow such inequities to have the force of law. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Wild Bill Posted February 26, 2012 Report Posted February 26, 2012 Just pointing out the civil rights act in the US would never have passed a majority vote. Are you sure? At that time or forever? In the entire USA or just in a few cracker states? With all the riots and racial strife going on, do you think a majority would have voted to let it continue? Or do you believe that the majority of Americans at the time were evil and would rather have died than allow racial equality? How do you know if the majority at the time WANTED equal rights and the crackers were in the minority? If you have anything to prove your premise I'd be interested in seeing it. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
punked Posted February 26, 2012 Report Posted February 26, 2012 Are you sure? At that time or forever? In the entire USA or just in a few cracker states? With all the riots and racial strife going on, do you think a majority would have voted to let it continue? Or do you believe that the majority of Americans at the time were evil and would rather have died than allow racial equality? How do you know if the majority at the time WANTED equal rights and the crackers were in the minority? If you have anything to prove your premise I'd be interested in seeing it. I am sure. The latest polling TODAY says only 58 % of Americans support the civil rights act. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted February 26, 2012 Report Posted February 26, 2012 I am sure. The latest polling TODAY says only 58 % of Americans support the civil rights act. What are you talking about? Even in the 60's the majority supported the Civil Rights Act. Quote
punked Posted February 26, 2012 Report Posted February 26, 2012 What are you talking about? Even in the 60's the majority supported the Civil Rights Act. Again even today only 58% of American support the Civil rights act. Gallup polled MLK's I have a dream speech in 65 I think at the time half of American disagreed with it while only 30% supported or something like that. You can a rosy view of American, they always do the right thing, however it is never popular to do anything. Quote
g_bambino Posted February 26, 2012 Report Posted February 26, 2012 I would consider it democratic! It's democracy as ochlocracy, otherwise known as tyranny of the majority. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted February 26, 2012 Report Posted February 26, 2012 With your examples Michael, this would be an example of the people learning from mistakes! Under our present system of non-populist elitism, they are not allowed to make such mistakes. Worse yet, since the Laws at times can represent the minority views of an elite they can make worse mistakes, such as the tyranny of Human Rights Commissions, where a citizen can be unfairly charged and given zero financial help for his defense while his accuser can lie with impunity and have his side fully funded! But the legal model we use now is itself a product of learning from mistakes. It doesn't allow the population to pass laws that contravene constitutional rights. Why plan for the people to learn from their mistakes but not the courts ? Who is more likely to learn from their mistakes ? Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
g_bambino Posted February 26, 2012 Report Posted February 26, 2012 But the legal model we use now is itself a product of learning from mistakes. True. The dangers of the mobile vulgus (from where we get the word "mob"), or fickle crowd, was known to the Ancient Greeks. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted February 26, 2012 Report Posted February 26, 2012 (edited) Again even today only 58% of American support the Civil rights act. Again. What are you talking about?? I see nothing to back up this claim. Gallup polled MLK's I have a dream speech in 65 I think at the time half of American disagreed with it while only 30% supported or something like that. "Something like that," eh? You do realize that MLK's speach and the Civil Rights Act are two different things, right? Bottom line, the majority supported it. You can a rosy view of American, they always do the right thing, however it is never popular to do anything. I've never said any such thing - and my "view" on this is based on the facts. Edited February 26, 2012 by American Woman Quote
Wild Bill Posted February 26, 2012 Report Posted February 26, 2012 But the legal model we use now is itself a product of learning from mistakes. It doesn't allow the population to pass laws that contravene constitutional rights. Why plan for the people to learn from their mistakes but not the courts ? Who is more likely to learn from their mistakes ? Michael, it still all comes down to who actually decides? The people or someone else? Who says the people are wrong and that something is moral or right? Who do we trust to make such decisions? Judges? Who are appointed and not elected? Who are fallible men? I simply have more confidence in my fellow citizens as a whole than I do with some elitists. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
punked Posted February 26, 2012 Report Posted February 26, 2012 Again. What are you talking about?? I see nothing to back up this claim. "Something like that," eh? You do realize that MLK's speach and the Civil Rights Act are two different things, right? Bottom line, the majority supported it. I've never said any such thing - and my "view" on this is based on the facts. When have I ever made a claim that has not been backed up. Again today only 58% of Americans support the Civil rights act. There was even less support for change in 64. http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/05/polling-on-civil-rights-act.html Quote
Guest American Woman Posted February 26, 2012 Report Posted February 26, 2012 When have I ever made a claim that has not been backed up. Again today only 58% of Americans support the Civil rights act. There was even less support for change in 64. http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/05/polling-on-civil-rights-act.html Did you read your link? Republican primary voters in South Carolina were polled. Your "58% of Americans" is, in reality, 58% of Republican primary voters in South Carolina. Again. The majority of Americans in the 60's supported the Civil Rights Act. Quote
Wild Bill Posted February 26, 2012 Report Posted February 26, 2012 Did you read your link? Republican primary voters in South Carolina were polled. Your "58% of Americans" is, in reality, 58% of Republican primary voters in South Carolina. Again. The majority of Americans in the 60's supported the Civil Rights Act. I love it when people don't even read their own links! It's just more proof of how some people are more religious than scientific with their thinking! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
g_bambino Posted February 26, 2012 Report Posted February 26, 2012 I simply have more confidence in my fellow citizens as a whole than I do with some elitists. Tell that to Socrates. Quote
Wild Bill Posted February 26, 2012 Report Posted February 26, 2012 Tell that to Socrates. Socrates had the last laugh. The Greek people would have been far better off if they had not executed him. Judging by the state of Greece today, I'm not sure if even yet they have learned their lesson. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.