It actually is a recognized human right, not just an implied one.B.Schuss wrote:
Procreation is a basic human right, if you will.
This was entered into force by the UN on 23 March 1976.International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights wrote:
Article 23
1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized.
3. No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
4. States Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children.
Last edited by SenorToenails (2008-04-10 13:28:45)
Removing someone from society is the same as removing them from the gene pool directly in my opinion. The whole point of society is to find a mate and pass on your genes, and for mutual protection and benefit to eventually pass down your genes. Taking away someone's place in society is taking away any possibility to ever reproduce, not as a secondary, but as a hidden primary reason. The punishment itself is that they are removed from society.FEOS wrote:
You keep confusing a collateral effect with the primary reason for capital punishment. Notice the second word in the phrase: punishment. The process is about punishing the individual (in the ultimate sense) for their crime(s). The intent is so that they cannot re-enter society and commit their crime(s) again. It has zero to do with their genes or the passing of them. The fact that they are unable to pass their genes on because they are dead (which isn't really the case, with modern technology) is collateral to the true reason for the punishment.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I see the two as one and the same.SenorToenails wrote:
I disagree. The logic is that the person is unfit for society. Not that their genes are unfit for society.
A person's only true goal in life is to pass on their genes. Keeping someone from that goal is essentially killing them. Viewed this way eternal imprisonment is equal, but it places an unnecessary economic burden on society.
If that were the true punishment, what should happen to the children of those criminals convicted?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Removing someone from society is the same as removing them from the gene pool directly in my opinion. The whole point of society is to find a mate and pass on your genes, and for mutual protection and benefit to eventually pass down your genes. Taking away someone's place in society is taking away any possibility to ever reproduce, not as a secondary, but as a hidden primary reason. The punishment itself is that they are removed from society.
I don't know if this thread has covered this yet, but what about the argument that sterilizing people with severe genetic conditions prevents another life from having to suffer from them?
I'm always leery of giving the state power over this kind of thing, but if it spares society the potential for more people with severe defects from being born, I'd have to support this prospect....
I'm always leery of giving the state power over this kind of thing, but if it spares society the potential for more people with severe defects from being born, I'd have to support this prospect....
KilledSenorToenails wrote:
If that were the true punishment, what should happen to the children of those criminals convicted?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Removing someone from society is the same as removing them from the gene pool directly in my opinion. The whole point of society is to find a mate and pass on your genes, and for mutual protection and benefit to eventually pass down your genes. Taking away someone's place in society is taking away any possibility to ever reproduce, not as a secondary, but as a hidden primary reason. The punishment itself is that they are removed from society.
kidding
They should be put in a better living situation, possibly state-run, depending on the crime. Not as a prison, but to beat some morals into them to make sure they don't turn out like their parents.
I would not advocate them being put into the kind of child protective services we have now...but we're talking about ideals anyways. As it stands, they should be put with their closest competent relatives if possible. They should be psychologically examined to see if there are any similarities between them and their parents.
For the record because I think it's pertinent, I think development is about 70% environment and 30% genetics.
I think for the most part severe genetic conditions only crop up in situations where it isn't apparent in either parent, so it's a surprise. In the coming years with better and better technology in detecting these genetic anomalies in couples before they have a child this kind of stuff will be as preventable as possible.Turquoise wrote:
I don't know if this thread has covered this yet, but what about the argument that sterilizing people with severe genetic conditions prevents another life from having to suffer from them?
I'm always leery of giving the state power over this kind of thing, but if it spares society the potential for more people with severe defects from being born, I'd have to support this prospect....
The ones that obviously have a genetic disorder will die out naturally relatively quickly. I don't think it would be a good idea to be sterilizing people based on possible genetics disorders depending on their mate.
You are making the assumption that their child may not be able to live a happy productive life inspite of their genetic condition. The reason this will never be easy is that someone has to be making the call as to whocan and who can't, and at what point is the risk to high.Turquoise wrote:
I don't know if this thread has covered this yet, but what about the argument that sterilizing people with severe genetic conditions prevents another life from having to suffer from them?
I'm always leery of giving the state power over this kind of thing, but if it spares society the potential for more people with severe defects from being born, I'd have to support this prospect....
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
That right there is an explanation for why the death penalty is not (and would not be) an effective tool for genetic cleansing.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
For the record because I think it's pertinent, I think development is about 70% environment and 30% genetics.
Just because dad was a horrible murderer doesn't mean that little Billy will turn out the same. Pretty much everyone accepts that.
The death penalty does exist for the reasons I stated, even if you reject them. They may not be good reasons, but those are the stated ones. Them being removed from the gene pool is a side effect, but claiming it's the main reason is like saying a dog craps on the lawn with the express purpose of fertilizing it.
We agree on something here.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I don't think it would be a good idea to be sterilizing people based on possible genetics disorders depending on their mate.
Last edited by SenorToenails (2008-04-10 18:04:20)
if they have kids take them away from them im not one for second chances
You can't pretend 30% isn't a significant amount. Darwinism is not a swift or effective process, but it does make a difference.SenorToenails wrote:
That right there is an explanation for why the death penalty is not (and would not be) an effective tool for genetic cleansing.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
For the record because I think it's pertinent, I think development is about 70% environment and 30% genetics.
Just because dad was a horrible murderer doesn't mean that little Billy will turn out the same. Pretty much everyone accepts that.
The death penalty does exist for the reasons I stated, even if you reject them. They may not be good reasons, but those are the stated ones. Them being removed from the gene pool is a side effect, but claiming it's the main reason is like saying a dog craps on the lawn with the express purpose of fertilizing it.
The reasons you are giving seem to me like how society as a whole rationalizes killing people. The logic behind all of them seems weak, and the fact that there are I believe 8 different recognized reasons behind the punishment process, it seems like a thin veil to me when we're talking about human lives. To me it looks like you're writing "Hersey's" on the side of the poo and calling it chocolate.
You missed the point of my analogy. The fact that the dog crap might fertilize the lawn is secondary to the real reason the dog defecated. The real reason why is the dog needed to go.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You can't pretend 30% isn't a significant amount. Darwinism is not a swift or effective process, but it does make a difference.
The reasons you are giving seem to me like how society as a whole rationalizes killing people. The logic behind all of them seems weak, and the fact that there are I believe 8 different recognized reasons behind the punishment process, it seems like a thin veil to me when we're talking about human lives. To me it looks like you're writing "Hersey's" on the side of the poo and calling it chocolate.
The death penalty reasons are weak, and that is why many societies are eliminating capital punishment. Those reasons are like taking dog crap and labeling it as Hershey's.
And I haven't seen anyone quantify the effect of environment on gene expression, which is why I didn't address that number directly. Do you have a source on that?
Are you also against life imprisonment? Capital punishment is just life imprisonment without the taxpayer paying for their every meal.SenorToenails wrote:
You missed the point of my analogy. The fact that the dog crap might fertilize the lawn is secondary to the real reason the dog defecated. The real reason why is the dog needed to go.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You can't pretend 30% isn't a significant amount. Darwinism is not a swift or effective process, but it does make a difference.
The reasons you are giving seem to me like how society as a whole rationalizes killing people. The logic behind all of them seems weak, and the fact that there are I believe 8 different recognized reasons behind the punishment process, it seems like a thin veil to me when we're talking about human lives. To me it looks like you're writing "Hersey's" on the side of the poo and calling it chocolate.
The death penalty reasons are weak, and that is why many societies are eliminating capital punishment. Those reasons are like taking dog crap and labeling it as Hershey's.
And I haven't seen anyone quantify the effect of environment on gene expression, which is why I didn't address that number directly. Do you have a source on that?
It hasn't been quantified, and I doubt it is something that can be. That is my opinion, based solely on intuition and experience.
I'm suggesting only the ones with the defects be sterilized -- not their mates. They would still be free to carry someone else's child and raise it as their own if they so choose.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The ones that obviously have a genetic disorder will die out naturally relatively quickly. I don't think it would be a good idea to be sterilizing people based on possible genetics disorders depending on their mate.
Except that capital punishment costs more than life imprisonment. And with life imprisonment, your freedom is confiscated, not your life.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Are you also against life imprisonment? Capital punishment is just life imprisonment without the taxpayer paying for their every meal.
There is a logical issue with the death penalty. If you kill, the state kills you. But how is that more just?
Pure conjecture? Let's leave that out of the debate. I am ill equipped to debate genetic expression also.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
It hasn't been quantified, and I doubt it is something that can be. That is my opinion, based solely on intuition and experience.
No fucking way. I find it really, really hard to believe it costs more to the state to knock someone off than feed them for twenty years. We are talking about dollars here right?SenorToenails wrote:
Except that capital punishment costs more than life imprisonment. And with life imprisonment, your freedom is confiscated, not your life.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Are you also against life imprisonment? Capital punishment is just life imprisonment without the taxpayer paying for their every meal.
There is a logical issue with the death penalty. If you kill, the state kills you. But how is that more just?Pure conjecture? Let's leave that out of the debate. I am ill equipped to debate genetic expression also.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
It hasn't been quantified, and I doubt it is something that can be. That is my opinion, based solely on intuition and experience.
Life is freedom. Not so much that life without freedom isn't worth living, but life without freedom isn't really life at all.
Justice has nothing to do with it in my mind. Only what is best for the people as a whole. Usually those are synonymous, but retribution for the sake of it is justice, but not best for the people.
I did not mean for it to be debate, I was only throwing that out there so you could more readily understand my position.
The majority of the reason why the death penalty costs more than life imprisonment is because, while the person is on death row, they are still being fed and housed. Most people on death row stay in appeals court for at least a few years. Several others stay for over a decade. When you add the additional court costs and all the bullshit red tape that comes with things like lethal injection, then yeah, it actually costs more.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
No fucking way. I find it really, really hard to believe it costs more to the state to knock someone off than feed them for twenty years. We are talking about dollars here right?
I definitely agree with the first part. The second part sort of makes sense -- it's very utilitarian.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Life is freedom. Not so much that life without freedom isn't worth living, but life without freedom isn't really life at all.
Justice has nothing to do with it in my mind. Only what is best for the people as a whole. Usually those are synonymous, but retribution for the sake of it is justice, but not best for the people.
I did not mean for it to be debate, I was only throwing that out there so you could more readily understand my position.
I would just argue the system cannot be trusted enough to administer death.
And we finally come to one...Turquoise wrote:
The majority of the reason why the death penalty costs more than life imprisonment is because, while the person is on death row, they are still being fed and housed. Most people on death row stay in appeals court for at least a few years. Several others stay for over a decade. When you add the additional court costs and all the bullshit red tape that comes with things like lethal injection, then yeah, it actually costs more.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
No fucking way. I find it really, really hard to believe it costs more to the state to knock someone off than feed them for twenty years. We are talking about dollars here right?I definitely agree with the first part. The second part sort of makes sense -- it's very utilitarian.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Life is freedom. Not so much that life without freedom isn't worth living, but life without freedom isn't really life at all.
Justice has nothing to do with it in my mind. Only what is best for the people as a whole. Usually those are synonymous, but retribution for the sake of it is justice, but not best for the people.
I did not mean for it to be debate, I was only throwing that out there so you could more readily understand my position.
I would just argue the system cannot be trusted enough to administer death.
I'm pretty much talking a perfect justice system here. Never gets it wrong, no appeals, you do something wrong, chopping block at dawn.
As it stands right now I would not be comfortable putting anyone to death without the extensive appeals process, but I can see that changing in the future. With better technology such as security systems, DNA testing, the possibilities of personal tracking and more these days, I can see the justice system getting a lot more accurate, at least factual wise, in the future. More bullshit red tape will probably continue to hold back the process in the future, but at least identifying guilt will be easier and faster.
If people did start looking to clean up the dregs of society I'm sure reforms would follow to clear up a lot of this bureaucracy and make it much cheaper to put someone to death.
So I would agree the current system is bordering on not being able to kill anyone in good conscious, but I see that changing in the future. Maybe not in the western world, but in the world's next premiere society at least.
Good points... I especially look forward to the prevalence of DNA testing. The only downside is the ease at which DNA evidence can be planted.
The main issue I take with the death penalty has to do with the power of judges and human nature. Judges hold way too much power over sentencing IMHO. I think juries should have the final say in both the verdict AND the sentencing.
On the flipside, while I want juries to have more power, I also realize that the prejudices and ignorance that a jury might have will distort things like who receives the death penalty. It's already been statistically proven that minorities disproportionately receive the death penalty more often than whites when looking at the same types of crimes. Part of this is the fault of judges, but part of it is also due to juries.
I guess what I'm getting at is that human nature keeps us from being logical and even-handed about serious matters oftentimes. This would appear to be especially true when deciding who should get the death penalty and who shouldn't.
The main issue I take with the death penalty has to do with the power of judges and human nature. Judges hold way too much power over sentencing IMHO. I think juries should have the final say in both the verdict AND the sentencing.
On the flipside, while I want juries to have more power, I also realize that the prejudices and ignorance that a jury might have will distort things like who receives the death penalty. It's already been statistically proven that minorities disproportionately receive the death penalty more often than whites when looking at the same types of crimes. Part of this is the fault of judges, but part of it is also due to juries.
I guess what I'm getting at is that human nature keeps us from being logical and even-handed about serious matters oftentimes. This would appear to be especially true when deciding who should get the death penalty and who shouldn't.
Yes, dollars.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
No fucking way. I find it really, really hard to believe it costs more to the state to knock someone off than feed them for twenty years. We are talking about dollars here right?
It's the gigantic appeals process associated with it.A Duke University study found... "The death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of imprisonment for life." ( The costs of processing murder cases in North Carolina / Philip J. Cook, Donna B. Slawson ; with the assistance of Lori A. Gries. [Durham, NC] : Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Duke University, 1993.)
"The death penalty costs California $90 million annually beyond the ordinary costs of the justice system - $78 million of that total is incurred at the trial level." (Sacramento Bee, March 18, 1988).
"A 1991 study of the Texas criminal justice system estimated the cost of appealing capital murder at $2,316,655. In contrast, the cost of housing a prisoner in a Texas maximum security prison single cell for 40 years is estimated at $750,000." (Punishment and the Death Penalty, edited by Robert M. Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum 1995 p.109 )
"Florida spent an estimated $57 million on the death penalty from 1973 to 1988 to achieve 18 executions - that is an average of $3.2 million per execution."
(Miami Herald, July 10, 1988).
"Florida calculated that each execution there costs some $3.18 million. If incarceration is estimated to cost $17000/year, a comparable statistic for life in prison of 40 years would be $680,000."
(The Geography of Execution... The Capital Punishment Quagmire in America, Keith Harries and Derral Cheatwood 1997 p.6)
Figures from the General Accounting Office are close to these results. Total annual costs for all U.S. Prisons, State and Federal, was $17.7 billion in 1994 along with a total prison population of 1.1 million inmates. That amounts to $16100 per inmate/year.
(GOA report and testimony FY-97 GGD-97-15 )
Opinion. I agree life in prison isn't worth living, but for some reason, people want to live any life as opposed to none at all.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Life is freedom. Not so much that life without freedom isn't worth living, but life without freedom isn't really life at all.
Like I said before, those are the stated reasons for the death penalty. I can't really argue for them, because I don't believe in them a whole lot. You'd think that would make my conflict pretty cut and dry, but I do think that some crimes are so terrible that the stain on humanity of a person should be removed from the land of the living. But that is an irrational desire.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Justice has nothing to do with it in my mind. Only what is best for the people as a whole. Usually those are synonymous, but retribution for the sake of it is justice, but not best for the people.
I did not mean for it to be debate, I was only throwing that out there so you could more readily understand my position.
responded to the cost thing aboveSenorToenails wrote:
Opinion. I agree life in prison isn't worth living, but for some reason, people want to live any life as opposed to none at all.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Life is freedom. Not so much that life without freedom isn't worth living, but life without freedom isn't really life at all.Like I said before, those are the stated reasons for the death penalty. I can't really argue for them, because I don't believe in them a whole lot. You'd think that would make my conflict pretty cut and dry, but I do think that some crimes are so terrible that the stain on humanity of a person should be removed from the land of the living. But that is an irrational desire.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Justice has nothing to do with it in my mind. Only what is best for the people as a whole. Usually those are synonymous, but retribution for the sake of it is justice, but not best for the people.
I did not mean for it to be debate, I was only throwing that out there so you could more readily understand my position.
It's a basic instinct. Besides, they may want to live, but it isn't their choice anymore anyways. I'm just saying I don't feel nearly as bad about taking a life that I know will be imprisoned for the rest of their life anyways.
Not an irrational desire, a very natural, social one. The one that drives us to want perfection not only in ourselves, but in the society around us.
No, I meant I want the death penalty because I feel society deserves retribution.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Not an irrational desire, a very natural, social one. The one that drives us to want perfection not only in ourselves, but in the society around us.
But I don't like the idea of the state being able to take life, especially in an imperfect system.
Society isn't perfect, we have to make do with what we can. We will always make mistakes, but if we're scared of our own shadow we won't get anywhere.SenorToenails wrote:
No, I meant I want the death penalty because I feel society deserves retribution.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Not an irrational desire, a very natural, social one. The one that drives us to want perfection not only in ourselves, but in the society around us.
But I don't like the idea of the state being able to take life, especially in an imperfect system.
I think the aforementioned extensive appeals system us as sure as possible we aren't killing the wrong people.
You want the death penalty.SenorToenails wrote:
No, I meant I want the death penalty because I feel society deserves retribution.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Not an irrational desire, a very natural, social one. The one that drives us to want perfection not only in ourselves, but in the society around us.
But I don't like the idea of the state being able to take life, especially in an imperfect system.
You don't want the State to take life.
I'm here for you, cheap.
or make up your effing mind.
That's why I was trying to stay away from the discussion of whether the death penalty is right or wrong.ATG wrote:
or make up your effing mind.
No. Everyone has an equal right to reproduce; no matter how f***ed up they are. Hell, thats what keeps a species alive.
Heres the problems with your argument:
Heres the problems with your argument:
- How is hell are they actually gonna stop specific people, or anyone for that matter, from 'reproducing'? They can't unless they jail every last person (or tie every last tube and snip ever last guy).
- Who's to say which people can and can't reproduce?
- How are you gonna track down ever serial killer, rapist, murder, etc.?
- Just because they themselves are f***ed up means nothing about how their children will turn out. Sure they may have a higher risk if they are fully raised by that person but it still means absolutely nothing.
- And again, how in the world are they gonna stop anyone from having kids? Thats like telling a person to stop shitting, bf2 noobs to stop bunny hopping or telling the world to stop using electricity.