Brain differences in political orientation

Status
Not open for further replies.
sallylou said:
Wirelessly posted (droid)

I had a professor who said an individual's need for retribution is different than society's need for justice. I thought that was an interesting distinction.
I think that people who consider more variables in the equation tend to be more open to different ideas.
Click to expand...

Exactly. People fail to understand the differences in the different types of justice. Our criminal justice system is not meant to be based on retributive justice.
 
saywhatkid said:
The logic would possibly be:
  • Saves money on keeping a lifer alive
  • It acts as a deterrent to some
  • Provides a final resolution to the victim's loved ones

I have mixed feelings on death penalty. In the obviously guilty, I would be in favor of it for extreme crimes.
Click to expand...

Statistics and hard numbers disprove the first two. Closure can be obtained without the death penalty. Therefore, adherence to those arguments after they have been disproved over and over again is not logic. It is emotion. In fact, it is diametrically opposed to logic when one insists on holding onto disproven ideas.
 
saywhatkid said:
Only because there are so many sharks churning the water in search of a payday (lawyers)

There are a lot of reasons for death penalty, but I am not gonna research it. In case you wonder, I rarely research anything. I post opinions of myself, gleaned from what I have seen and read over my lifetime.

How has keeping Charles Manson alive worked out for you? Just curious...
Click to expand...

Charles Manson was not convicted of first degree murder.:cool2: But the emotion inherent in pulling such a controversial criminal out of your is obvious.
 
saywhatkid said:
I agree 100%. My issue is with the obviously guilty, the ones that do not deny; those are the ones that should be eligible for execution. Why should I pay for John Gacy to become a woman?
Click to expand...

False confession is certainly not unheard of.:cool2:

What does John Wayne Gacy's transgender status have to do with the death penalty? Your emotion is showing again.:giggle:
 
Beowulf said:
Believe it or not, I was being honest. Buh bye. :lol:
Click to expand...

So was I. In fact, I never even think about him until someone playing on the fear factor when it comes to crime brings him up.
 
jillio said:
Exactly. Support for the death penalty is borne of unreasonable and emotionally charged fear. It is obvious in the responses when asked, 'Why do you support the death penalty?" Never any statistics or research to back up their support...just emotionally laden claims of the risk of a criminal getting out and doing it to them. And no matter how many times one points out the unreasonableness of that fear with actual fact, they continue to hold onto it and use it as the foudation of their reasoning.
Click to expand...

Fanatical thinking! Jeez, they have only been using the death peanalty since the beginning of time. It is called punishment for some, law by others, some can't be rehabilitated, to others a monetary savings. I tend to lean toward the law and punishment thought. Strangely this thread has started to look like a religious discussion which I thought was forbidden! :hmm:
 
i used to support the death penalty until I asked myself the following questions:
why do I support death penalty for Jeffery Dalamer but not Ted Bundy?
Ted's crimes were as brutal as Jeffery's crimes so it occurred to me that my choices were perhaps a bit arbitrary.

Then there were the mass murders in Norway and while discussing it, I learned states with no death penalty have lower crimes and I did some research and found out that there were statistics that could support one poster's position that nations with no death penalty have lower crimes.
 
saywhatkid said:
Me too.

What purpose does keeping him alive do? He still has his followers, he still gets his name out there when he comes up for parole. You telling me that putting this guy in the gas chamber would have cost more that 40 years of prison food, medical treatment, other legal crap, and parole hearings? You ain't being very logical.
Click to expand...

Again, he was not convicted of first degree murder. That is the only crime for which a death sentence can be applied.

What purpose does it serve? It serves the principles of humane and civilized justice instead of an emotionally based need for retribution.
 
Beowulf said:
How is supporting the death penalty a logical response? :shock:
Click to expand...
It's the worst punishment legally allowed for the worst crimes committed. That seems logical to me.

I don't emotionally shout for death to be meted out. I support allowing states to decide whether or not to carry out death sentences under their jurisdiction.

I support allowing sentences to be determined by the judges and juries.
 
deafskeptic said:
My parents were mainline Baptists before they converted to the Presbyterian church.

I remember meeting Fundies and Pentecostals in Staunton. They were a bit ... exotic to me at first when I went to VSDB.
Click to expand...

Exotic is a very diplomatic description.:giggle:
 
Re Charles Manson:

"On March 29, 1971, the jury completed deliberations on the penalty phase of the trial. Manson and the three female defendants had shaved their heads for the reading of their verdicts.

"'We, the jury in the above-entitled action, having found the defendant Charles Manson guilty of murder in the first degree...do now fix the penalty as death'."

Patricia Krenwinkel responded: "You have just judged yourselves."

"Better lock your doors and watch your own kids," Susan Atkins said.

All four defendants received the death penalty.

"...In 1972, the California Supreme Court abolished the death penalty in the state and all of the defendants are serving life sentences."

Charles Manson and the Manson Family — Verdict — Crime Library on truTV.com
 
airportcop said:
Fanatical thinking! Jeez, they have only been using the death peanalty since the beginning of time. It is called punishment for some, law by others, some can't be rehabilitated, to others a monetary savings. I tend to lean toward the law and punishment thought. Strangely this thread has started to look like a religious discussion which I thought was forbidden! :hmm:
Click to expand...

How, exactly, has it become a religious discussion? No one is discussing doctrine or preaching their particular belief system. We are discussing social concepts.

So, because the death penalty has been used since the beginning of time, one should just continue to use it without question? :roll:

Many, many things have been done in the past that are inhumane by society's standards. Should we bring all of those back, as well? The object is to move forward, and become more civilized; not backward to less civilized.
 
airportcop said:
Fanatical thinking! Jeez, they have only been using the death peanalty since the beginning of time. It is called punishment for some, law by others, some can't be rehabilitated, to others a monetary savings. I tend to lean toward the law and punishment thought. Strangely this thread has started to look like a religious discussion which I thought was forbidden! :hmm:
Click to expand...

Did anyone mention God or Rama?
We used to bleed people centuries ago but we no longer do this. Reason why? We found better ways to treat people.

We have found better ways to deal with criminals as well. While some may not be rehabilititeable, I would think the majority are treatable. However, they often have a hard time adjusting to the outside and people will not readily hire those with a criminal past. Society must be treated as well if we are to rehabilitate our criminals.
 
jillio said:
Charles Manson was not convicted of first degree murder....
Click to expand...
Yes, he was convicted of first degree murder, and he did receive the death penalty.
 
Reba said:
Re Charles Manson:

"On March 29, 1971, the jury completed deliberations on the penalty phase of the trial. Manson and the three female defendants had shaved their heads for the reading of their verdicts.

"'We, the jury in the above-entitled action, having found the defendant Charles Manson guilty of murder in the first degree...do now fix the penalty as death'."

Patricia Krenwinkel responded: "You have just judged yourselves."

"Better lock your doors and watch your own kids," Susan Atkins said.

All four defendants received the death penalty.

"...In 1972, the California Supreme Court abolished the death penalty in the state and all of the defendants are serving life sentences."

Charles Manson and the Manson Family — Verdict — Crime Library on truTV.com
Click to expand...

And the state of CA dropped the death penalty in 1972.
 
deafskeptic said:
i used to support the death penalty until I asked myself the following questions:
why do I support death penalty for Jeffery Dalamer but not Ted Bundy?
Ted's crimes were as brutal as Jeffery's crimes so it occurred to me that my choices were perhaps a bit arbitrary.

Then there were the mass murders in Norway and while discussing it, I learned states with no death penalty have lower crimes and I did some research and found out that there were statistics that could support one poster's position that nations with no death penalty have lower crimes.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If you will actually take the time to become informed regarding the arguments used for the death penalty, you will see that none of those arguments hold water. Yet people form an emotional attachment to those arguments.
 
jillio said:
That would be the part that controls sense of humor. Conservatives generally have a somewhat atophied humor area.
Click to expand...
Au contraire. I have a very good sense of humor, including self deprecating humor and repartee. I simply prefer humor that doesn't require belittling other people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top