Do we even believe in ourselves, or not? (Capital punishment or true life without parole not happening) (Iran, Mossad)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On a train ride to Philadelphia for the Bicentennial Parade on July 4, 1976 I rode with two of my former high school friends, Jim and Bill. We had graduated from high school the year before. At the time all of us were died-in-the-wool Democrats planning on voting for Carter over Ford.
Keep in mind these are bright people. Jim graduated from Yale, and Harvard Law School. Bill from Princeton, and since I lost touch with him, I don't know which medical school. Looking for an intellectual topic of discussion Jim, now one of my closer friends brought upthe Supreme Court's then recent allowance of capital punishment in limited circumstances, in a decision at the close of the term in June 1976. In June 1972 the Supreme Court had abolished all capital punishment. He favored the capital punishment. Bill, the other person and I did not, favoring life without parole. Jim raised the issue that some people are just of absolutely no use to society, and were beyond rehabilitation. Bill and I felt that life without parole was sufficient.
Rewind the clock to June 5, 1968. Sirhan Sirhan had just gunned down Robert Kennedy in cold blood, in a crime he later attributed to Robert Kennedy's vote to sell 50 fighter jets to Israel. He was sentenced to death, a sentence commuted to life by the 1972 Supreme Court decision. Now, fast forward to the last several days. A California parole board just voted to release Sirhan on parole. To me, he was Exhibit "A" for the death penalty, as was Charlie Manson and his group for a famous and brutal murder spree 14 months later. Both Manson and Sirhan have had regular parole hearings.
The "Great Debate" question is whether society has totally lost its belief in itself to the extent that we no longer consider willful, cold-blooded murder a line that must not be crossed? Why would we even consider parole for the likes of a Charles Manson or Sirhan Sirhan?
First you must telll me that you believe execution has some measurable benefit to society and show me empirical data that it deters or rehabilitates or in some other way influences anyone's future behavior.
Failing that, your position is reduced to revenge. If your own blood-lust is such that you wish to kill in revenge, we have nothing to talk about. You have forever forfeited your right to call yourself compassionate.
Sirhan was Jordanian. Those 50 jets were in fact later used to kill Jordanians. Sirhan was a soldier with a cause.
First you must tell me that you believe execution has some measurable benefit to society and show me empirical data that it deters or rehabilitates or in some other way influences anyone's future behavior.
Failing that, your position is reduced to revenge. If your own blood-lust is such that you wish to kill in revenge, we have nothing to talk about. You have forever forfeited your right to call yourself compassionate.
Ultimately if you want to have a society you have to have minimum standards for membership.One of those is not to kill another person in cold blood. Society must hae some rules proportionate to the wrong committed. Let's make one thing clear; RFK did nothing to hurt Sirhan personally and if he did Sirhan should have called the police. As for compassion, I have no duty to be compassionate to the likes of Sirhan, Charlie Manson and his group, or David Berkowitz. They certainly had none for me. When it comes to rehabilitation I don't have the stomach for it. I think Sirhan may be a candidate for rehabilitation since he was likely never mentally ill. His was a cold, calculating crime. As for all of them, whether to plow money into psychotherapy is a societal decision. I doubt you will mind many interested in the prospect.
As for revenge, when something is so heinous, there is simply nothing wrong with it. I refer you to the Jack London novel White Fang. The protagonist is a dog/wolf hybrid named, appropriately, White Fang. White Fang was bought from Native Americans (called First Nations in Canada) by a person who used the dog as a fighter, "Beauty" Smith. White Fang was "deputized" to fight with just about every dog or wolf that could be found. The dog put in to fight him was invariably ripped to piece, to the wild cheering of drunken crowds. Finally a bulldog was launched into the pen, who grabbed White Fang's throat. When White Fang was almost throttled and near death, a pair of decent people burst in, kicked the offending fight artist and sent the fight promoter sprawling, and then separated the animals and nursed White Fang back to health. When the cruel fight promoters returned to retrieve their "property", I don't recall if Beauty Smith was pummeled by the rescuers or ripped to shreds by White Fang. The reader cheered the outcome, a human beast bleeding to death in the snows of Yukon Territory. There are times that any decent person roots for vengeance. I don't think many were too upset when Adolph Hitler and Eva Braun committed suicide. I hope not many would have advocated rehabilitation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arr430
Sirhan was Jordanian. Those 50 jets were in fact later used to kill Jordanians. Sirhan was a soldier with a cause.
Wow. So it's OK to come to the U.S. to fight a foreign war? First, the 1967 War, before the assassination, was the last time Israeli fighter jets attacked Jordan. Second, since when is it OK to slaughter a U.S. Senator for his vote? This country is not under Taliban control, at least not yet. In our society, we take our disputes "inside." The only time a crime like this should not result in execution or life without parole is if the society doesn't believe in itself.
I suspect that any argument for Sirhan is going to have an ulterior motive, such as being unalterably opposed to the position of the United States.
On a train ride to Philadelphia for the Bicentennial Parade on July 4, 1976 I rode with two of my former high school friends, Jim and Bill. We had graduated from high school the year before. At the time all of us were died-in-the-wool Democrats planning on voting for Carter over Ford.
Keep in mind these are bright people. Jim graduated from Yale, and Harvard Law School. Bill from Princeton, and since I lost touch with him, I don't know which medical school. Looking for an intellectual topic of discussion Jim, now one of my closer friends brought upthe Supreme Court's then recent allowance of capital punishment in limited circumstances, in a decision at the close of the term in June 1976. In June 1972 the Supreme Court had abolished all capital punishment. He favored the capital punishment. Bill, the other person and I did not, favoring life without parole. Jim raised the issue that some people are just of absolutely no use to society, and were beyond rehabilitation. Bill and I felt that life without parole was sufficient.
Rewind the clock to June 5, 1968. Sirhan Sirhan had just gunned down Robert Kennedy in cold blood, in a crime he later attributed to Robert Kennedy's vote to sell 50 fighter jets to Israel. He was sentenced to death, a sentence commuted to life by the 1972 Supreme Court decision. Now, fast forward to the last several days. A California parole board just voted to release Sirhan on parole. To me, he was Exhibit "A" for the death penalty, as was Charlie Manson and his group for a famous and brutal murder spree 14 months later. Both Manson and Sirhan have had regular parole hearings.
The "Great Debate" question is whether society has totally lost its belief in itself to the extent that we no longer consider willful, cold-blooded murder a line that must not be crossed? Why would we even consider parole for the likes of a Charles Manson or Sirhan Sirhan?
My opposition to paroling Sirhan Sirhan is not that he committed murder. I believe even some murderers should be released after 53 years confinement in prison. Sirhan, I believe, is about 77 years old. The chances that he would kill again are remote to nonexistent.
The issue I have with paroling him is one very unique to that case. Sirhan did more than commit a murder that day in June 1968 when he shot Bobby Kennedy. He changed the course of American political history. Some argue, that Bobby Kennedy would never have been elected President even if he had lived. Even if that is true it does not change the fact that Sirhan's actions deprived millions of people of the choice to vote for the candidate they supported in the presidential election. That, to me, is in itself changing the course of political history. I think some killings are simply worse than others are and have greater impact upon society. These are factors that should be considered when the decision to release or not release an inmate is made. For that reason, I believe he should serve the rest of his life in prison.
My opposition to paroling Sirhan Sirhan is not that he committed murder. I believe even some murderers should be released after 53 years confinement in prison. Sirhan, I believe, is about 77 years old. The chances that he would kill again are remote to nonexistent.
The issue I have with paroling him is one very unique to that case. Sirhan did more than commit a murder that day in June 1968 when he shot Bobby Kennedy. He changed the course of American political history. Some argue, that Bobby Kennedy would never have been elected President even if he had lived. Even if that is true it does not change the fact that Sirhan's actions deprived millions of people of the choice to vote for the candidate they supported in the presidential election. That, to me, is in itself changing the course of political history. I think some killings are simply worse than others are and have greater impact upon society. These are factors that should be considered when the decision to release or not release an inmate is made. For that reason, I believe he should serve the rest of his life in prison.
I had a similar discussion the other night. Also, the killing of candidates adds a uniquely foreign element to our political process. This is not Afghanistan or even Latin America. We select our leaders with ballots, not bullet. The very argument in Post #2 is that this is a military struggle. That is just what politics in democracies is not.
The people who believe that it OK to assassinate do not believe in a society like ours. The point of my OP.
I had a similar discussion the other night. Also, the killing of candidates adds a uniquely foreign element to our political process. This is not Afghanistan or even Latin America. We select our leaders with ballots, not bullet. The very argument in Post #2 is that this is a military struggle. That is just what politics in democracies is not.
The people who believe that it OK to assassinate do not believe in a society like ours. The point of my OP.
Who -- exactly -- in this thread has suggested that it is OK to assassinate?
And by the way, has not this country conducted assassinations?
Ultimately if you want to have a society you have to have minimum standards for membership.One of those is not to kill another person in cold blood. Society must hae some rules proportionate to the wrong committed.
Your barbaric Old Testament "justice" has been failing for 5,000 years. and all civilizzed countries on earth have abandoned, excepy the US. In spite of your vengeance, 25,000 Americans will murder each other, this year and a million now alive will murder in the next 40 years. Where is your deterrent value in executing a couple dozen?
Who -- exactly -- in this thread has suggested that it is OK to assassinate?
And by the way, has not this country conducted assassinations?
As far as whether anyone has justified political assassination, read the thread. Sirhan is described almost as a soldier for Jordan. That says it all. i know, from prior constructive dealings with this poster, that he or she hardly means to justify assassination or violence of any kind. In fact, the way I understand this post is that he or she opposes almost all violence. The post is mixed in with others that take a far more "nuanced" view towards violence and I separated the responses.
Your barbaric Old Testament "justice" has been failing for 5,000 years. and all civilizzed countries on earth have abandoned, excepy the US. In spite of your vengeance, 25,000 Americans will murder each other, this year and a million now alive will murder in the next 40 years. Where is your deterrent value in executing a couple dozen?
I am responding jointly to a series of posts that have a common theme. Indeed they illustrate my point, that we do not believe we have rights superior to murderers such as Osama bin Ladin and Sirhan Sirhan. If the individuals (and they are not limited to two gentlemen on a discussion board) believed in the goodness of the U.S. there would be no issue whatsoever with killing barbarians such as Osama and Sirhan. They committed atrocities on American soil. Sirhan killed one person that we know of but as pointed out above that was an attack on our right to choose a President and introduced violence into the process. Osama killed 3000 in the U.S. and scores more at the Kenya and Tanzania embassy as well as doubtless other attacks.
In the days we believed in ourselves we would unashamedly go to war or engage in a "special operation." For the former don't believe me; just ask Tojo or Hitler, or the Kaiser of Germany. They'll tell you. For the latter, just ask Mossadegh of Iran. My position in this debate (and it's horrible that it's a matter of debate) is that we know longer take as a given that certain people "need to die."
As far as Old Testament justice being barbaric, what do you suggest as the replacement? It isn't perfect but the Old Testament was a huge improvement over what preceded it, which was unlimited blood feuds. It introduced the concept of rough proportionality into punishments. It is why there is no death penalty for stealing a loaf of bread or a bar of soap.
I suppose a topic of this Great Debate is whether we want a system of justice. Obviously not all do.
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 09-18-2021 at 05:31 AM..
Reason: Removed off-topic quoted post.
Rewind the clock to June 5, 1968. Sirhan Sirhan had just gunned down Robert Kennedy in cold blood, in a crime he later attributed to Robert Kennedy's vote to sell 50 fighter jets to Israel. He was sentenced to death, a sentence commuted to life by the 1972 Supreme Court decision. Now, fast forward to the last several days. A California parole board just voted to release Sirhan on parole. To me, he was Exhibit "A" for the death penalty, as was Charlie Manson and his group for a famous and brutal murder spree 14 months later. Both Manson and Sirhan have had regular parole hearings.
The "Great Debate" question is whether society has totally lost its belief in itself to the extent that we no longer consider willful, cold-blooded murder a line that must not be crossed? Why would we even consider parole for the likes of a Charles Manson or Sirhan Sirhan?
IDK about Charles Manson, but maybe parole for S.S. because he's been in prison all this time. Don't you think he may have paid his debt to society? Do you think he's likely to attempt murder again? Do you know anything about his case for parole at all, e.g. did the prison admin present statements that he had become a model prisoner, had shown great remorse eventually, and the like? If you have such info at your disposal, please share.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
