Three Seas Forum

the archives

dusted off in read-only

  •  

The value of a life posted 01 July 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionThe value of a life by Aldarion, Sorcerer-of-Rank

This is a direct result of a conversation I had at work last night with a co-worker, although it is strongly influenced by a dozen years of questioning my attitudes toward this topic.

I'll begin by stating that I am opposed to capital punishment in any situation whatsoever. Last night, a co-worker and I were discussing a 1st degree murder case in Nashville where a woman ran through a police barricade and ended up killing two officers. I mentioned that there was some question as to whether or not she lost control of the car and that the hitting of the officers was incidental to the attempt to break through the barricade. My co-worker argued that because it was the police, special laws apply, including the possibility of imposing the death penalty for any case in which a police officer dies as the result of the criminal committing another felony, such as robbery.

This led to the pending execution of a Memphis criminal, Phillip Workman, who was given the death penalty in 1981 because a police officer died in a shootout after Workman was caught fleeing from a store that he had robbed. The evidence that has come to light seems to indicate that the bullet that killed the officer came from another officer, yet the state has argued successfully so far that due to the circumstances, Workman's death sentence was still valid.

I argued that the application of the death penalty in certain 1st degree murder cases should be replaced with mandatory life without parole, noting not just the famous Stanford statistics of 1 in 7 death penalty cases being overturned completely, but also focusing on the message that it sends when we execute someone 20-30 years after their crime was committed. I suggested that maybe a different approach should be tried, maybe establishing on a larger scale a prison works industry, where the inmates can produce things that can be sold to consumers to create some sort of good out of the bad that they have caused by their deliberate actions.

The co-worker countered with the argument that he, and many other Americans, do not want their tax dollars to go toward the maintenance of these violent offenders. He brought in the Bible as support for the common belief about the legality of the death sentence, despite recent urges from religious leaders (especially the Quakers and now the Catholic Church) to have such sentences commuted to life without parole, on grounds of moral decency.

But his reply brings up a larger question: Just how much value do we grant to a human life? Is there a certain dollar amount that should be placed on a person's contributions (or conversely, on the damage that he/she has caused society)? What does it say about societies that do weigh monetary concerns into the equation of how to treat its citizens, not just the criminals but also those who are deemed "less fortunate?" Are some humans "naturally" going to be "worth more" than others? And bringing it back to the death penalty, what effects does such a sentence have on the average citizens, knowing that such a recourse is available?

Just curious to hear thoughts on this. view post


The value of a life posted 01 July 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionThe value of a life by Anonymous, Subdidact

You make excellent points.

As for myself, I don't believe in the death penalty for a few reasons:

1. Mistakes in convictions are often made and the death penalty can't be undone. (Obvious, but very important).

2. It is assumed that extreme punishments act as deterrents, but they only do if the person committing a crime considers whether they will get caught. Many people committing crimes never consider the possibility of getting caught, so the deterrent effect is useless in their cases.

3. Justice shouldn't be the same as punishment or revenge (moral grounds).

I don't think it is a waste of tax-payers dollars to have a truly just justive system. That is one of the things civilisation is all about. view post


The value of a life posted 01 July 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionThe value of a life by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

I have mixed feelings on this. I would like to see those who kill people be themselves killed, but I also see the flaws inherent in such a system. As our prison system now stands, I am for the death sentence, and I think I would be hard pressed to change my mind.

Hi Linda! Why don't you join the forum? We are friendly. view post


The value of a life posted 01 July 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionThe value of a life by Aldarion, Sorcerer-of-Rank

Linda: Welcome, glad to see you around these parts as well! <!-- s:D --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_biggrin.gif" alt=":D" title="Very Happy" /><!-- s:D -->

SN: I understand your mixed feelings. Years ago, I too felt much the same. I'm certainly not the type who's going to condemn anyone for arguing that there are merits to capital punishment (in fact, it'll be interesting to see what list of merits that can be drawn up), but over the years, my value system that I've constructed just has led me to conclude that I cannot support such a system, not just because of the possibility of errors in the system, but also because I have seen some adverse effects in the average populace. When it's easier to have someone executed, it can often lead to a desensitation of a society's emotions regarding the act of ending the life of a human being. The "turn up the juice" signs outside a prison before an execution are just disturbing and makes me wonder what lessons, if any, people have learned from the believed necessity of ending another's life for crimes against society. view post


The value of a life posted 01 July 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionThe value of a life by Wil, Head Moderator

Quite honestly I am in favor of the death penalty, but let me say this first: I do not think that "special laws" should apply because it was a police officer that was killed. Don't get me wrong, I have a great respect for law enforcement, but I don't feel that we can change the rules for them.

I agree with the fact that our judicial system needs a major overhaul. There are many major failings, one of which is the overcrowding of our jails and prisons. Not to mention the conditions that the prisoners live in. Many live in better conditions then they did when they were free. I feel that the death penalty is necessary in this case because there simply isn't enough room or money to house all these criminals. There needs to be some way to reduce the numbers of said criminals and rehabilitation works only in some cases.

I do believe that there are crimes that deserve death; the killing of an innocent for one, and mass murder for another. Both these crimes are very detrimental to society, and thus should be punished harshly. I don’t believe that the death penalty should be used for revenge or anything like that, but to remove a threat from society, one that can, if left unchecked, threaten to destroy society as a whole.

As to the question “can we put a price on life?” I think that some ways we can, and do. The worth of your life is decided when you look at what said person has given to society as a whole. One who simply leeches of society, I feel, is worth less then someone who contributes a great deal. Since we are such social creatures, and put a great weight on the community, I feel it is valid to judge someone based on what they contribute. view post


The value of a life posted 01 July 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionThe value of a life by Loof, Peralogue

I think having any death penalty at all is horrible for the simple reason that in my opinion killing the criminal is just a second murder. I don't think I can come up with any crime at all that I think merrits a death penalty.
I also have serious doubts about most prison systems as I think most of them only brew worse criminals. But I guess thats a different debate... view post


The value of a life posted 01 July 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionThe value of a life by Aldarion, Sorcerer-of-Rank

Quote: &quot;Wil&quot;:3najt8bp
Quite honestly I am in favor of the death penalty, but let me say this first: I do not think that "special laws" should apply because it was a police officer that was killed. Don't get me wrong, I have a great respect for law enforcement, but I don't feel that we can change the rules for them.[/quote:3najt8bp]

But here lies a major problem - the enforcement of the laws vary according to person and situation. In such a case, death penalty opponents would argue, there is room for subjectiveness to creep into the system that decides which punishment to mete out. I'll address this in more detail below.

I agree with the fact that our judicial system needs a major overhaul. There are many major failings, one of which is the overcrowding of our jails and prisons. Not to mention the conditions that the prisoners live in. Many live in better conditions then they did when they were free. I feel that the death penalty is necessary in this case because there simply isn't enough room or money to house all these criminals. There needs to be some way to reduce the numbers of said criminals and rehabilitation works only in some cases.


Let's look at these sentences (nothing personal, just pointing out what you state here is what many others have stated before):

You mention the overcrowding of our jails and prisons. Yes, Americans jail more people as a percentage of the population than any other "free" and "democratic" nation. Yet over 50% of these people are non-violent offenders. Overcrowding thus has little to nothing to do with those serving time for violent crimes, if these statistics are to believe. Likely, there are other explanations for this overcrowding (such as mandatory sentencing) and other possible solutions (a move toward a greater focus on rehabilitation and treatment rather than incarceration).

As for the quality of life "going up" for some, what does this have to do with the death penalty? Yes, the majority of those who commit crimes come from the lowest and least educated groups of citizens (and non-citizens). Yet conditions are not as cozy as what many have been led to believe. I know of those cases for special equipment, but often that is purchased for control purposes (take away certain things, such as exercise equipment, and the potential for rioting increases exponentially. I work in a youth residential treatment center, which functions similarly to a minimum-security prison in many ways. We've learned from past experiences not to restrict freedoms too much among the residents, because if the means of defusing energy and frustration are removed, it becomes like a powderkeg).

And now the issue goes toward money. If only a relatively small minority (say 25%) of prisoners are there for the killing of another human being, irrespective of motives or methods of killing, then wouldn't the argument that prisoners need to be executed more often due to overcrowding become a thorny issue? Only a small number of those convicted of murder ever receive the death sentence, because often the murders were done in acts of passion. That is why the courts have differing degrees of murder.

But I will agree on the need to reduce those who are in prisons, albeit in certain situations (non-violent) and for other options (such as mandatory treatment/rehabilitation).

I do believe that there are crimes that deserve death; the killing of an innocent for one, and mass murder for another. Both these crimes are very detrimental to society, and thus should be punished harshly. I don’t believe that the death penalty should be used for revenge or anything like that, but to remove a threat from society, one that can, if left unchecked, threaten to destroy society as a whole.


But why not life without parole? Isn't that a harsh enough sentence, to sentence one to live, suffer, and die without ever leaving a maximum-security prison? It seems to be an effective punishment in Western Europe and in 12 American states. What purpose could the death penalty serve but to act as a symbol of reprisal/revenge? That's a question I've had for years on this issue. Why execution and not incarceration?

Side note: I would highly recommend Michel Foucault's Disclipine and Punishment as a nice primer book on the move from public punishment to private. He cites Beccaria quite a bit, if I remember correctly.

As to the question “can we put a price on life?” I think that some ways we can, and do. The worth of your life is decided when you look at what said person has given to society as a whole. One who simply leeches of society, I feel, is worth less then someone who contributes a great deal. Since we are such social creatures, and put a great weight on the community, I feel it is valid to judge someone based on what they contribute.


But what are the implications of such a question? Look at how you answered. I'm not attacking you for having such an opinion (in fact, I'd commend you for thinking things through more than many do on this issue, on either side), but there's a sense that those who commit violent acts are often viewed as somehow being "less than human" than those who were victimized (the active victim, and the passive victims, such as the offended society that is sickened by such a criminal act).

It is not an attitude exclusive to this topic. No, it extends out into virtually every branch of human interaction. Has for millenia and probably will continue to do so. Is it right? Is it wrong? Or is it morally neutral to do so? I would think it would depend upon the person judging, the situation being judged, and the foreseen consequences of such a judging.

Nice reply, Wil. Should be interesting to see how this dialogue continues.

Oh, and before I forget, I also recommend highly Norman Mailer's The Executioner's Song, a story about the life and death of Gary Gilmore, the first American executed after the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976. view post


The value of a life posted 02 July 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionThe value of a life by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

I think that life is cheap. It is really only in the industrialized world life begins to take on any value. I think we tend to forget that third world countries lose thousands of people to earthquakes. I heard a story on the news some time ago talking about the catastrophic loss of seven in the US. We are padded and cushioned.

For those reasons I find no argument on moral grounds, save that of whether it is actually more of a punishment to force them to live out their lives. Contrarily, the arguments I do feel carry weight are those of wrongful execution, public funds, and prison conditions. view post


The value of a life posted 02 July 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionThe value of a life by Loof, Peralogue

How can the fact that alot of people die anyway have any effect at all on what is moral and what isn't? Just because lots of people die in trafic every year doesn't make it ok to go out and run over pedestrians on purpose. view post


The value of a life posted 02 July 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionThe value of a life by Aldarion, Sorcerer-of-Rank

Only in industrialized nations? Actually, one could make the argument that life is more personalized in the rituals and customs of pre-industrial societies than is the case today in a more alienated, "mass" society that offers up the image of the Individual to replace the village or Tradition.

I'll have to search through some of my old research materials for a couple of papers I wrote in college and grad school on symbolism and death, but I do recall that there was a lot of symbolism attached to a birth as well as to a death. So I would have to disagree most strongly with the assumption that life was viewed as "cheap" in any culture, pre-industrial or not.

And as for the other point, about whether or not opposition to capital punishment should be grounded on moral reasons, one could argue that the main impetus for actually having such a system of punishment would be due to moral outrage and a demand for an eye-for-an-eye type of justice. After all, on a purely pragmatic level, prisons that house prisoners that are never to be granted parole can do just as well in preventing further violent acts as execution would, with less change of an innocent person being killed by the state for a crime he/she did not commit.

I guess I should state here that I reject Objectivism (not Ayn Rand's ill-conceived "school", but a historical approach toward evidence and causation) in favor of a more Subjective approach that accounts for human emotions in the equation of human interactions. view post


The value of a life posted 03 July 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionThe value of a life by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

Alright, let me clarify. What I mean is this:

1. I don't have any moral objections to killing a human being in retribution for a killing. I don't believe in the forgiveness policy.

2. That leaves the value of life to be considered, which is nil in the context in the world. People die every day. There is nothing that special about any human life.

In regards to the life is cheap comment, I did not mean that it is percieved as cheap by less industrialized nations (though it would seem to me, purely on specualtion, that it would be), so much as the fact that it just is. A lot of people die by means that would be preventable with development or better control and order.

Sorry if anyone finds this offensive. I respect life and others, but when someone takes a life I believe they forfeit theirs. view post


The value of a life posted 03 July 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionThe value of a life by Wil, Head Moderator

There is nothing that special about any human life.


This is something that I would argue with. Depending on what a person contributes to society as a whole, dictates their worth. When someone, (say a scientist, artist, along those lines) gives something to society (the community, the world) it makes them worth more then the person who simply leeches from society. view post


The value of a life posted 03 July 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionThe value of a life by Aldarion, Sorcerer-of-Rank

Quote: &quot;Sovin Nai&quot;:11s42ref
Alright, let me clarify. What I mean is this:

1. I don't have any moral objections to killing a human being in retribution for a killing. I don't believe in the forgiveness policy.[/quote:11s42ref]

I'm curious now. Which forgiveness policy are you talking about? A Christian (in all its forms) policy? A Jewish one? Muslim? Other Theistic beliefs? Utilitarian ideas on forgiveness? Which?

Or do you mean forgiving just because some other Agency (whether it be a God, State, or Tradition) says you have to because it heals others?

Just seeking clarification. Hrmm...this belief in a forgiveness policy could make for an interesting discussion of its own.

2. That leaves the value of life to be considered, which is nil in the context in the world. People die every day. There is nothing that special about any human life.


I'd disagree with that last comment. Whether or not something (a life, an action, a process, etc.) is "special" or not depends on associational values that we, as members of societies, place upon ourselves, others, and on objects. I would argue that any life that has its corpse disposed of in any form of ceremony would be considered "special," although probably for vastly differing reasons if compared across space and time with previous and present cultures.

In regards to the life is cheap comment, I did not mean that it is percieved as cheap by less industrialized nations (though it would seem to me, purely on specualtion, that it would be), so much as the fact that it just is. A lot of people die by means that would be preventable with development or better control and order.


A lot of people, in "rich" and "poor" nations alike, die each and every day, whether from preventable causes or not. What I sense lying behind your words is a belief in something analogous to what historians have called the Whig Model of History - that belief that nations/cultures/societies/people are on a scale of sorts from "primitive" to "advanced," with suffering and "lesser" forms of social organization at one end and bounty and "democratic" social forms at the other end.

This model has been discredited in recent decades, especially among cultural historians and others who've noted that the amount of material possessions has little to nothing to do with human quality of life. In fact, there's some evidence emerging that indicates that human health has deteriorated among "advanced" nations in comparison to "primitive" ones. One example cited is the vast increase in mental disorders and illnesses in urban areas, an increase that is well above any accounting for underreporting in less industrialized/urban areas.

So yeah, there might be more cases of physical disease like typhoid fever and malaria that kill others, but this seems to be offset by the sheer mental misery that afflicts a much greater percentage of urban dwellers.

So I guess in the end, it's all a wash.

Sorry if anyone finds this offensive. I respect life and others, but when someone takes a life I believe they forfeit theirs.


No offense taken here, far from it in fact. Years of grad school tend to instill a very tough skin, especially among social science fields <!-- s;) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- s;) --> It's been nice debating and counterpointing here. Not enough people these days bother to take the time to explore their own beliefs, not to mention those of others. I guess that's what I am finding refreshing about this topic and forum in particular - actual honest discussion and exploration of themes. view post


The value of a life posted 05 July 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionThe value of a life by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

Thanks.

Re forgivness: I mean that I feel forgiveness is up to each and every person and there is much to be said for not forgiving. I have seen too many people forgive and forgive and get hurt by the same person again and again. If someone chooses not to forgive, I think it can be just as justified, perhaps more so, and healthy as forgiveness.

Re life is cheap: Given the number of people who die every year from every different sort of cause, there is not enough weight behind one person's life to offset the punishment of death. In response to Wil, I see what you are saying, and I suppose I agree. However, most convicts have contributed little to society, and so that does not factor into my death penalty stance, I guess. view post


The value of a life posted 05 July 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionThe value of a life by Aldarion, Sorcerer-of-Rank

Quote: &quot;Sovin Nai&quot;:6wqshwyq
Thanks.

Re forgivness: I mean that I feel forgiveness is up to each and every person and there is much to be said for not forgiving. I have seen too many people forgive and forgive and get hurt by the same person again and again. If someone chooses not to forgive, I think it can be just as justified, perhaps more so, and healthy as forgiveness.[/quote:6wqshwyq]

Thanks for clarifying this for me. I agree for the most part with what you've said here. Forgiveness means little in the long run if the offending party isn't sorry and makes no attempt to be penitent and to redress the harm he or she has caused. Yeah, forgiveness should not be doled out like free ice cream days, so I think we're in agreement here.

Re life is cheap: Given the number of people who die every year from every different sort of cause, there is not enough weight behind one person's life to offset the punishment of death. In response to Wil, I see what you are saying, and I suppose I agree. However, most convicts have contributed little to society, and so that does not factor into my death penalty stance, I guess.


I don't believe I can agree with this, however, although I understand where you're coming from here. I guess it's just because I don't have this idea of a model that can judge just how much or how little a person is worth (which is the reason why I posted this in the first place, to discuss if there really can be such a model established). Then again, I'm one of those who tend to divorce a person's perceived "worth" from the application of such a punishment as the death penalty. I just wonder why it's even necessary in a world that's shown that plenty of wealthy nations can have abolished capital punishment without suffering dire consequences. Maybe I'm just more worried about the impact such a state sanction regarding killing a person can have on a nation. view post


The value of a life posted 07 July 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionThe value of a life by MagnanimousOne, Candidate

Forgiving should be as much, if not more, for the benefit of the forgiver. Ultimately, anyone who holds a grudge is doing themselves harm. It's like the old saying "It's better to give than to receive".

I believe that you carry those hard feelings with you and they build up and make you bitter. You continue to be the victim, instead of healing.

Learn from your experiences, don't let them control you.


On the topic of the death penalty, I disagree with it. What benefit is there?

Save money? Really? Any idea how much it costs to convict and carry out a death sentence compared to a life prison sentence? Me either but I'm betting the difference is a lot smaller than you might imagine.

Reduce prison crowding? Really? As others have pointed out, the percentage of the overall prison population that is on death row is miniscule. Overcrowding is a result of mandatory sentences and drug crimes. Legalize illicit drugs and you can fix overcrowding and gain huge tax revenues. Two ways to save/make $.

Deter others? Really? Again going back to the small percentage of criminals whose offence may qualify them for death row, is this kind of person actually thinking of the consequenses before they act? Hmmm, I was thinking I'd like to kill that cop, but since they might kill me in return, I better not. I think most of these people are oblivious to the consequences. What about those criminals who feel they've already commited acts that will result in the death penalty and therefore have no compunctions about doing more or worse until they get caught?

By taking a life your life is forfeit. Eye for an eye? Is this really justice? How does killing someone serve the greater good? Do you believe that if someone is convicted of rape they should be raped in turn?

Anybody know who killed the most people in the US? The state of Texas - a serial killer with a license to kill!

I haven't had this disucssion before so if my arguments don't make sense, please enlighten me. view post


The value of a life posted 16 July 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionThe value of a life by saintjon, Auditor

I also agree that you can't really evaluate a person's worth, just because there'd be so much conflict over who gets to hold the measuring stick (or put the numbers on it in the first place).

My grandma isn't a scientist, or an artist, or anything like that. But, her husband died when she was relatively young and she was left to raise 6 kids with no money. There isn't a single person among my aunts and uncles who could tell you how she did it. She's a hero. There aren't going to be any public awards for her, no gala dinners celebrating her accomplishment, but she made a contribution of preserving her family through a very difficult time. I don't think most of the people who would attempt to establish that sort of worht of a life on her would take that into account. They'd see an old retired woman, with little money and little to show for her life beyond a family of fundamentally decent people.

I think for many criminals it is easier to die anyways, and for some of them life in prison becomes just that, their life. I think we need to think outside the box a bit, I mean, no one's going to reform if they don't want to, anyways. We need to always be thinking of a better way to get through to these people so they will want to improve their lives.

Good point about forgiveness, but there is still the duty to protect the people of society. view post


The value of a life posted 17 July 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionThe value of a life by drosdelnoch, Subdidact

The whole thing differs from country to country, in the UK we abolished it nearly 40 years ago (not sure on the dates) but its not just one murder that gets you life imprisonment its several, a life sentence over here means I think about 15 years minimum before parole.

Value on a life? Not sure how you value a life, do you value it over the course of income over a lifetime for what theyve lost and pay that or is it a certain amount of cash. Personally I think that the world values life as cheap although to each individual its priceless. If your worried about the cost of paying for someone to stay locked away for the rest of thier natural life (wondering if there is such a thing as unnatural life) then why not give them a chance to earn thier freedom in the army such as so many "suicidal missions". Its been done in the past, look at a number of the lads shot for cowardice during the first world war, a number of them were given the chance to avoid it by taking such missions and a number survived. Its also had success in medieval times, although quite how it would work today is unknown. The french also gave a lot of Germans the chance to either be hung or join the foreign legion, a number did so and survived to old age.

As to the death penalty it may be a "cheap" way of disposing of societies misfits but personally Im against it, not just for those who are later proved innocent but also the fact that there is really no fool proof way of killing them cleanly, in fact, if theyre going to be killed anyway, why not wheel them into an operating room and remove the organs, that way some people benefit from the death.

Also you cant have one rule for some and another for everyone else, everyone has to be treated equally for deterants to work. view post


The value of a life posted 19 July 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionThe value of a life by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

The problem with offering freedom for service is that some people are mentally unstable, and they may have issues beyond their control which induce violence. This then makes for a non-viable system. view post


The value of a life posted 20 July 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionThe value of a life by Loof, Peralogue

But wouldn't a more "humane" solution to the mentaly unstable people be therapy rather then a death sentance?
In my eyes a deathsentance can never be the "correct" solution only the easy one.

Do all you that are in favor of the death penalty disagree with this? And if so why? view post


The value of a life posted 26 July 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionThe value of a life by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

I wasn't saying that this wouldn't work for everyone. But some people therapy doesn't help, at least not to a release point, and so you couldn't have a blanket policy. In fact, I think a less extreme form would be better for petty crimes. view post


The value of a life posted 30 July 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionThe value of a life by drosdelnoch, Subdidact

That quite clearly brings up an interesting point, when its been researched it has been found that the majority of serial killers have suffered brain trauma at some point and that part of the brain has died, due to this it effects their morality in the situation, should they be treated different due to the fact that they have brain damage or is it more of a case to argue that they'll never get better so what does it matter.

In additon to this, how do you value a life, in medieval times everyone was worth the same with the damage inflicted payed out accordingly, in this day and age do you place it on the percentage of what they'd earn or is it a case of everyones equal. For example would an unemployed person be considered worth the same as an executive or would it just be a case of tough luck he earned his place. But likewise could it be argued that the orignal owner placed his son with no qualifications in charge just because he started the business and treated him as a figurehead. Would he be worth the exec who worked his way up wage wise or would he be considered the same as an unemployed person but was just lucky due to circumstance.

Hopefully this will have raised some interesting points. view post


The value of a life posted 03 August 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionThe value of a life by Sovin Nai, Site Administrator

I feel that when contemplating the value of a life as it relates to the legal system, there can be no differentian made between any two humans, regardless of any other factors. The question is: are we willing to kill in retribution for crime? Is a human life, regardless of whose, valuable enough not to take if they have committed an atrocity?

Drosdelnoch: What I was saying about serial killers is that they can never be released back into society because they cannot be cured (so far as we know). Any justice system offering them an out is not practical. view post


The value of a life posted 28 August 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionThe value of a life by AjDeath, Didact

I do not remember where I got this statistic (will look it up) but I remember reading that one corporation that had to pay for wrongfull death suites judged each human life to be worth one million dollars a piece. A fair price for life? Not in my opinion. Killing people does not solve anything, it is an easy way to avoid our (society's) responsibility in the development of the criminal human being. It ends the result, not the cause. view post


  •  

The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown