I had the idea you lived there APL, must be awesome to live in such a cool place. I guess in the back of my mind I knew it was a jail, but I still question that dude's tactics. And of course, the fact that he's blatantly and proudly racist. What fun.

And you are correct. I don't think most people who murder expect to get caught, but that's mostly because they are stupid. Plus, I don't think people often plan murder, I would like to think the majority are crimes of passion (so to speak) and spur of the moment type things. In those situations, I don't think the person is in full use of their mental facilities (not to say they are insane) and clearly aren't thinking logically anyway.

Anyhow, I think that rotting in prison that is not luxurious is far more of a punishment than death. Aside from the fear and dread up to the point, once its done, they are free from punishment.

'His chest was pierced, he clenched his fist' Witness tells of nation's first firing-squad execution in 14 years



More at the link

Would any of you agree that if Gardner had not been so young when he was sentenced, his time on death row would have aged him tremendously, and he might have even died a natural death in the meantime? As it was he served almost 30 years before the sentence was carried out. THAT is what is the most inhumane and insane thing about this whole story, IMO.

I agree. No one should sit waiting like that. I cannot imagine.

I agree also. Seems to be a bit absurd to give basically what amounts to a life sentence and then an execution.

I have a question which may seem to be a bit odd, but I feel compelled to ask it anyway.

It seems to me that the dispute, or differences on this subject, (many subjects for that matter), are very, very subjective in nature. They are based on FEELINGS and BELIEFS, neither of which can be based on anything solid.

My question is this. Is it even possible to come up with an objective reason either for or against? Is there something that we are all missing, something that could give us a concrete answer as to what is really "right"?

Lefty, you felt that in my extreme examples, that I was trying to emotionally manipulate you. On a conscious level, this was not the case though I wonder if on a subconscious level this were the case. What I was trying to show was the WHAT and the WHY of my FEELINGS on this subject and the reasons for my BELIEF.

The thing is, both FEELINGS and BELIEFS, if one is willing to look at things OBJECTIVELY are subject to change based on observable evidence.

Look at all of the things we as humans argue about that is purely subjective in nature, with no real proof either way as to what the objective reality or what is really "right" really is on any given subject.

I mean just how much do we really know? The more I study, the more I come to understand just how little we do know. We either believe things based on faith, feelings, theory, or even in spite of empirical evidence because we refuse to see reality AS IT IS.

If we remove all of these things, what do we have left? Very little. Almost nothing in fact.

Is there a way to remove this gap between what is real and what we BELIEVE to be real? If there is, how would we go about it?

I can not help but FEEL that if we could stop all of this fighting over things subjective that we would have a chance, but of course I have no proof:( What an odd reality we live in.

Dave.

CE, you bring up some very good points and I've been thinking about what you've said since yesterday. In a sort of coincidence/irony thing, I watched the movie "Unthinkable" last night. It brings a lot of the things you said to question, but on a much larger scale. What is and is not acceptable, why, under what circumstances... Is one life more valuable than another?

I tried to imagine a situation in which I would actually want to kill another person. Truly this was difficult for me, because I honestly don't even kill bugs if I can help not to (I don't know how many I may have accidentally killed). The only situation that I can come up with is if someone were to hurt my son. But even in that instance, I automatically imagine a legal system sort of punishment. I assume that in the heat of the moment of finding out that someone hurt him in some horrible way, it is entirely possible that I may want to kill that person. BUT after the heat of the moment, knowing myself and my need for the use of logic (to me it is illogical to kill someone as a punishment) I would likely change my opinion and desire a more arduous punishment than death. This is for 2 reasons, first of all, death is immediate. There really is no punishment since after you die you are just... well, dead. Secondly, killing the "bad guy" would be far more painful for that "bad guy's" family than it actually would for the perpetrator himself. (Or herself.) I know that I have paid for the mistakes I have made greatly by having to live with the fact of the mistakes. Of course, I have a harsh conscious, so perhaps someone else may not punish themselves as much as I do myself.

Also, I was thinking that it is likely that most of the people who have committed violent crimes have done so in the heat of passion. While this is not an excuse, it really is a very understandable (as in it explains certain behaviors that are out of the norm) response. As in my example above, at the moment I found out something terrible happened to my son, if the perp was right there, I may very well do something violent to them. There are just far too many variables for me to accept a punishment of death for any crimes. I mean, if we were to say that only violent crimes where there is direct emphatical evidence (say a video) of the crime, then we use the death penalty as punishment. But what if the video was of me hurting/killing the person that just did the same to my son, though that part isn't shown in the video? I guess what I am saying is that having a punishment of death just seems too arbitrary. There are so many specific and personal details of a crime that makes it hard to say that anyone who commits this or that crime will be put to death.

I am just babbling. Going to finish cutting the yard.

Is there any way that humans can develop a belief without a feeling being a part of its development and continuation? We're often told to think with our heads and not with our hearts....or vice versa....by a variety of people during our lifetimes, and for a variety of reasons. Consider what happens when we're serving on a jury. We're told by a judge to put all emotions aside, and to consider just the facts and how the evidence, or lack thereof, either supports those facts or not. Then we go out to a jury room to determine the fate of a fellow human being.

Yet, how many of us can really turn our feelings off and on? I try to always keep a cool head, and usually succeed quite well, but I can also be having a bad day and not be quite so successful in hiding my feelings. It's not a woman thing, either, I might add.....it's simply a HUMAN thing. We'd have to be like the Star Trek characters Spock and Data otherwise.

Oh I totally agree Catherine. It was one of the things I was thinking about when I first read what CE was asking. I think something that does help us to not do horrible things is the fact that we have feelings and emotions that shape our choices. Otherwise, I believe we would "go back to nature" so to speak and kill, steal, etc. as soon as the desire/need arose. Animals kill competition for food, mates and territories. I am glad that people have feelings and emotions, otherwise laws would be useless. Talk to a person who is truly a psychopath and you could see a better illustration of what the world would be like if we could divorce ourselves from feelings and run truly on instincts, wants and desires.