8 ms·

Right, it also serves to remove that person from society as they are a threat to others. When you kill someone, it stops being about you and your "rehabilitati

Right, it also serves to remove that person from society as they are a threat to others. When you kill someone, it stops being about you and your "rehabilitation" and more about other people.

HarryHirsch 6y ago
When you kill someone, it stops being about you and your "rehabilitation" and more about other people. That's not correct, and tells something about your preconception. I was told by someone who had been to prison that those doing time for murder or manslaughter are considered less dangerous, they killed their target and that was that. The ones in there for GBH, those are the ones you have to look out for, they have low impulse control and low intelligence and are basically incorrigible.
- trident5000 6y ago
  I'm not sure if I take this comment seriously and answer it to be honest.
  - HarryHirsch 6y ago
    The comment was meant extremely seriously. It's the old conflict of intent versus outcomes. A murderer certainly intended to kill his target, but such a person isn't necessarily volatile or dangerous. But an impulsive person may well kill a person or three even though he didn't intend to. What's worse, and what should society do about it?
  - ddingus 6y ago
    I would, if I were you. Seriously. From a policy POV, the comment is entirely serious and rational, appropriate.
- Djvacto 6y ago
  GBH == Grievous Bodily Harm, for anyone else who didn't know before.
- gher-shyu3i 6y ago
  It's about justice. If someone took another person's life, they gave up their right to live. It's not hard, and it works in proper societies.
  - implements 6y ago
    > ... they gave up their right to live ... You’re stating a moral axiom, one that is widely and increasingly rejected in civilised countries. Assuming you mean “capital punishment for intentional murderers” then how do you defend this? A murderer kills to satisfy some need, you appear to wish to death on someone to satisfy some need of your own ie “justice”, even presumably when you aren’t personally victimised by their crime. It seems capital punishment creates at least two evils - an unnecessary taking of human life, and the encouragement of sadistic ideation in the general population.
    - gher-shyu3i 6y ago
      Don't give me this "civilized countries" false dichotomy. It's not only condescending, but wrong. Taking a life can be a necessary evil. In "civilized countries" as how you put it, the next of kin has the choice on whether to forgive the killer or take blood money, or have him executed by the court. This is for one on one incidents. For other cases, such as serial rapists or serial killers, the decision is 100% in the hands of the court, as it is way bigger than a single interaction.
      - implements 6y ago
        Taking a life can be necessary to protect one’s life or the life of others, but that isn’t the case in capital punishment as someone in custody is no longer a mortal threat to society. Regarding civilised or not, perhaps this might be of interest: https://goodessaysblog.wordpress.com/2016/10/23/capital-punishment-necessary-evil-or-relic-of-uncivilised-past/ https://goodessaysblog.wordpress.com/2016/10/23/capital-puni...
        gher-shyu3i 6y ago

Right, it also serves to remove that person from society as they are a threat to others. When you kill someone, it stops being about you and your "rehabilitation" and more about other people.

HarryHirsch 6y ago

When you kill someone, it stops being about you and your "rehabilitation" and more about other people. That's not correct, and tells something about your preconception. I was told by someone who had been to prison that those doing time for murder or manslaughter are considered less dangerous, they killed their target and that was that. The ones in there for GBH, those are the ones you have to look out for, they have low impulse control and low intelligence and are basically incorrigible.

trident5000 6y ago
I'm not sure if I take this comment seriously and answer it to be honest.
- HarryHirsch 6y ago
  The comment was meant extremely seriously. It's the old conflict of intent versus outcomes. A murderer certainly intended to kill his target, but such a person isn't necessarily volatile or dangerous. But an impulsive person may well kill a person or three even though he didn't intend to. What's worse, and what should society do about it?
- ddingus 6y ago
  I would, if I were you. Seriously. From a policy POV, the comment is entirely serious and rational, appropriate.
Djvacto 6y ago
GBH == Grievous Bodily Harm, for anyone else who didn't know before.
gher-shyu3i 6y ago
It's about justice. If someone took another person's life, they gave up their right to live. It's not hard, and it works in proper societies.
- implements 6y ago
  > ... they gave up their right to live ... You’re stating a moral axiom, one that is widely and increasingly rejected in civilised countries. Assuming you mean “capital punishment for intentional murderers” then how do you defend this? A murderer kills to satisfy some need, you appear to wish to death on someone to satisfy some need of your own ie “justice”, even presumably when you aren’t personally victimised by their crime. It seems capital punishment creates at least two evils - an unnecessary taking of human life, and the encouragement of sadistic ideation in the general population.
  - gher-shyu3i 6y ago
    Don't give me this "civilized countries" false dichotomy. It's not only condescending, but wrong. Taking a life can be a necessary evil. In "civilized countries" as how you put it, the next of kin has the choice on whether to forgive the killer or take blood money, or have him executed by the court. This is for one on one incidents. For other cases, such as serial rapists or serial killers, the decision is 100% in the hands of the court, as it is way bigger than a single interaction.
    - implements 6y ago
      Taking a life can be necessary to protect one’s life or the life of others, but that isn’t the case in capital punishment as someone in custody is no longer a mortal threat to society. Regarding civilised or not, perhaps this might be of interest: https://goodessaysblog.wordpress.com/2016/10/23/capital-punishment-necessary-evil-or-relic-of-uncivilised-past/ https://goodessaysblog.wordpress.com/2016/10/23/capital-puni...
      - gher-shyu3i 6y ago