So, it's not an insanity defense, but there is an element of "Nature made me this way! It's not my fault that I derive pleasure from murdering people!" — Xanatos

Yeah, I was not saying they are the same. It just "almost sounds like" in that the person is disclaiming responsibility beyond the tradition defenses of "I didn't do it" or "I was justified in doing it." The law has not gone so far as to excuse a murder based on genes or biology made me do it. There are "heat of passion" defenses and whatnot, that are similar, but just being a killer, well, hell, we're all killers. Even Gandhi stepped on stuff.

successfully alter criminals' biology — Xanatos

Taking testosterone out of the equation might help.

I would choose first scenario by spending resources on proving state fallibility — SpaceDweller

I'm going to roll with that, because, I confess, I didn't understand the rest. But it is late in the day for me.

I'm assuming proving individual cases count as "this person is not guilty and will not be executed"

Otherwise it depends on how many resources you have and how much it costs per case.

Castration could solve this problem quite nicely.

Technically speaking, the murder wouldn't be excused. The person would still be incarcerated. But they would be spared execution.

Castration could solve this problem quite nicely. — Xanatos

There are female killers but it is possible testosterone plays a part in those too? I don't know. Hard to see it with a poisoning or whatnot. Heat of passion, or anger or rage, maybe.

Some of us aren't that appalled by it — James Riley

Sad but true. It's quite possible that I don't fully grasp the issue though. I mean I have some idea of people demanding an eye for an eye justice - the hurt from a wrong refuses to go away unless blood is shed - but then...what of the notions of forgiveness and mercy?

the hurt from a wrong refuses to go away unless blood is shed — TheMadFool

Even that is too cognitive. The eye for an eye thing is more visceral, and comes from rage, and anger, (which are really just manifestations of fear). So it's not like the hurt will go away if vengeance is exacted. A person is not even thinking about hurt or how to get rid of it. The hurt doesn't even register when they are looking to inflict pain on their "enemy." I totally understand it.

With time, distance, objectivity, we know the vengeance will not make the hurt go away. We might get a short-lived "high", but when it goes away, we are still back to hurting. The state, however, can aid a victim in getting their pound of flesh, and then feel justified in saying "Okay, we did justice for you, now quit stewing and get back to work." But even the state is more inclined to just exhaust our energy and resources to the point where we are too beaten to engage in self-help (vengeance). The state wants peace and really only cares about us to the extent it can keep the peace and get everyone back in the saddle.

Forgiveness comes with time, and an understanding that it can prevent us from being victimized twice. If we can't get over the wrong then it gets more wrong. The only way to stop that, is to forgive, even if only for our own sake, and moving on.

Mercy is for the objective person, like the state, or for the person who has mature heart. It's hard to see mercy while hurting. But if one can, then great.

Even that is too cognitive. — James Riley

I totally understand it. — James Riley

The irony!

Okay, we did justice for you, now quit stewing and get back to work. — James Riley

:rofl:

The state wants peace and really only cares about us to the extent it can keep the peace and get everyone back in the saddle — James Riley

:ok: :up: I suspected as much but it's comforting to know there are others who think the same way.

Forgiveness comes with time, and an understanding that it can prevent us from being victimized twice — James Riley

You mean forgive but don't forget?

Mercy is for the objective person — James Riley

Is there any other acceptable state of mind?

Look, I'm just confused (as you are it seems) about judicial killings. Here's something to ponder upon: I've been told that Scandinavian countries have very low crime rates and this includes crimes that carry mandatory death sentences in other regions; plus, Scandinavia scores high on the happiness index. This surely speaks volumes on the rationale, stated/proposed, for capital punishment. It seems there's a very important lesson to learn from our Scandinavian brothers and sisters - a peaceful society with acceptable crime rates is possible without resorting to extreme forms of punishment such as executions, and that's our window of opportunity to distance ourselves from the controversy-mired modes of justice (the death penalty). Why would anyone want a problematic method of doing things when what's desired can be had without it?

AFAIK, black females are on average more crime-prone than females of other races are. Do black females on average have more testosterone, or what? Serious question, BTW.

Forgiveness is for those who ask for it and who genuinely want it, no?

Forgiveness is for those who ask for it and who genuinely want it, no? — Xanatos

Indeed! But here's something to think about. Take Christianity, a religion, in which Divine Mercy figures prominently in the relationship between sinner and the Almighty. Yet, Christianity has, to my knowledge, a list of unforgivable sins. Go figure!

Yet, Christianity has, to my knowledge, a list of unforgivable sins. Go figure! — TheMadFool

This is incorrect.

No sin is "unforgivable" as long as once asks for forgiveness.

What you are referring to is Jewish doctrine and/or out of context interpretation.

If you scroll down, unforgivable sin is refusal to ask for forgiveness or to claim that work of the holy is the work of the unholy, both of which means no forgiveness and it thus not forgiven.

very well summarised and I guess at this point I agree with you :up: I doubt amnesty have "tossed it" on the table for the reasons I have mentioned. I am pretty sure they are reliant on donations, etc.

AFAIK, black females are on average more crime-prone than females of other races are. — Xanatos

I don't know the answer to that, but, if true, I suspect it's not biological.

The irony! — TheMadFool

I probably should have used another word, like "relate" or "I'm feeling it".

You mean forgive but don't forget? — TheMadFool

Well, that's true too, but I was thinking more about how, if a person does you wrong, you only make it worse by carrying it around after it's useful life (whatever that is). Thus, you get screwed twice.

Is there any other acceptable state of mind? — TheMadFool

We've all been pretty subjective all our lives, especially about things the closer they are.

Why would anyone want a problematic method of doing things when what's desired can be had without it? — TheMadFool

I don't know. It could be that something that is "working" actually works better in an environment that has other ills that go along with it. When you have more freedom from, you might lose a little freedom to. For instance, I think the measure of a country's freedom could be directly and proportionally measured by how difficult it is to get away with crime unseen. Imagine what kind of country we would live in if there was no crime? No thanks.

Anyway, I'm going to step back from The Philosophy Forum for a while. I like this community and I want to reassess my approach. As I start to get comfortable with a place, I start getting flip and less (for lack of a better word) professional. Besides, I've got a metric shit ton of reading I've been turned on to.

Till I knock on yer door.

With the "innocent until proven guilty" rule we favor the risk of not punishing an offender over punishing an innocent. (y)
With the death penalty, we add a finality into the mix.
Doesn't seem quite right, for a legal system having to deal equally with everyone.
At least, I wouldn't vote the death penalty in, unless I was prepared to face the music myself — killing of an innocent by a death penalty that's on me, thus rendering me guilty with finality.
Maybe I'm just culturally biased.

I doubt that it would be very politically correct to try testing for biological explanations for this, which is why to my knowledge no one is actually doing this. It's similar to the race and IQ debate. Since genetic explanations for average racial and ethnic IQ gaps are taboo, extremely few people actually want to do research on them for fear of what they might discover. Environmentalist James Flynn himself pointed this out.

I don't believe black women are more violent than non-black women. But if they were, and if one were precluded from looking at one possible reason out of fear or considerations of political correctness, nothing is stopping the from eliminating other possible reasons. I think if a real scientist started with socio/cultural influences, they might find the culprit. The only thing they would then have to fear is what their own actions might have contributed to those influences.

"It's kind of fucked up that we got news this week that Arkansas executed an innocent man and it barely registered." The Rude Pundit

Not sure if that is true, or if enough time has elapsed for Arkansas to ruminate on it, but it could be I was wrong.