Yes. No. Yes. No. Maybe. Sometimes. Crap.

[jchrisobrien]

Call it the astrological influence of being a Libra cusp (concerned with balance), call it weighing both sides of the issues, or call it plain on wishy washy, but I have a profoundly hard time coming down on one side of the fence or the other for a lot of the big moral issues out there.  The Tookie Williams execution is the latest example of this.  If you don't know, just plug tookie williams in google and read about him yourself, you can make up your own mind as to whether he is repentant or not. 

I was raised Roman Catholic, so I was taught that killing was wrong, be it during war, murder, execution, or abortion.  Later I learned about exemptions during wartime, and taking a life while defending your self, and a thousand other shades of grey.  I've seen the hypocrisy of people who are pro-choice but anti-death penalty, and those who say life is sacred unless you are a murderer.  I hear the arguments on either side, and I sway to and for depending on the eloquence of the speaker or the precision of their logic.

It's more than frustrating, it's weak.  Your beliefs define your character, and if you're beliefs change with the wind, what does that say about you?  I believe that people are organic: they grow and change over time, and once your learn something that doesn't mean you are committed to that belief for the rest of your life.  Change should occur after you wrestle with an issue, hold up your beliefs to a spotlight, kick the tires and see how they hold. 
Buy the car because you like it, not because the salesman made you like it.

I am a vortex of thoughts and opinions.  Murder is the worst thing you can do to someone. Forgivness is a sign of civilization.  People have to take responsibility for their actions, and suffer the consequences if that applies.  People can change.  Some people never change.  You can come from a horrible background and neighborhood and better yourself.  You can come from a cultured, civilized background and be an amoral prick who justifies their vile behavior through philosophy or a thousand shades of grey.  People will say anything to save their life.  You can't force someone to change.

If it's inhumane to kill someone who has killed another, what do you do to them?  How should they pay for their crime?  How many years of your life should you sacrifice to pay for the years you took from another?  Can you ever really pay for that crime, and if you can't, why bother incarcerating them in the first place?  I am told there are plenty of studies that say that the death penalty is not a deterrent.  By that token, people are going to kill or rape or steal regardless of what you do.  What is our response to that? 

These kind of question quickly spiral out of the micro view and into the macro.  They become questions of culture, of society.  People wouldn't steal if they weren't poor.  Any society that grows has rules, and needs ways of punishing people who break those rules.  All kinds of words on all sides of the argument again.  Drowning in a sea of emotion and logic.

If I really buckle down and think about it, I can come up with answers that satify me.  It's good when things happen that make you question your beliefs, and even better if you can be consistant about them in the end. 

Comments

[plankton.livejournal.com]

i also have a tendency to be stuck in a million shades of grey far too often, but i don't feel that way when it comes to the death penalty. repentence and forgiveness have nothing to do with the question, the system is demonstratably biased and corrupt so the death penalty can't exist. if humans judgement and justice were infallible then we would have to consider if something is gained from killing someone who kills someone else (i still feel like more is lost from society than gained), but since this isn't the case i see it as distraction to the core reason it should be abolished.

that said, if someone killed someone that i love i wouldn't be surprised if i wished they were dead, but i don't think people who are in such a terrible mindstate should be dictating what is law. i can't support it as a state-sanctioned policy, nor can i understand those who do.

Without understanding, there can be no communication

[silas7.livejournal.com]

I suppose the inevitable response is: what do you do with a convicted killer? One who is unremorseful of their crime? What is lost from society when a murderer is executed?

The system may be corrupt, and it should be continually changed and upgrade and turned into something better. In the meantime, people are being killed every day.

People talk about an eye for an eye, and yet that is still at the center of our legal system today. If you do a crime, you get a punishment. Steal from someone? Go to jail. Break someone's window? Pay a fine, or replace it.

Understanding it should be easy, ACCEPTING it is another matter. A killer has proven that they are a danger to other people, and the surest way to put an end to that danger is to kill them so they don't kill anyone else. That is a theory. Some people accept that, some people reject that.

Should our system be overhauled? Yes. This gets into the bigger spiral again, because we have to overhaul our justice system, and our penitentiary system. Rehabilitation over incarceration. But you can't rehabilitate people that don't want it. Some criminals say they are victims of society, and it's not them who have to change, it's society. Now you're talking about a social change, removing poverty in the cities, removing the need for crime.

The desire for justice, or vengence disguised as justice, has been around forever. I don't know if we will ever outgrow it. That would involve all societies and cultures being on the same page, and I don't see that happening ever.

Re: Without understanding, there can be no communication

[plankton.livejournal.com]

I suppose the inevitable response is: what do you do with a convicted killer? One who is unremorseful of their crime? What is lost from society when a murderer is executed?
put that person in jail, make sure they never get out again. what is lost from society when a murderer is executed is the possibility that an innocent person will also be executed. i'm more than happy to leave some peoples' revenge fantasies unfulfilled to guarantee that the legal system doesn't fuck up and kill someone falsely convicted. as for remorse, to a certain extent it doesn't matter. i don't believe in life sentences for everyone who kills another person for any reason, i would base release on whether or not the felon will be likely to commit another crime. if so, i wouldn't let them out. that would be dumb.

The system may be corrupt, and it should be continually changed and upgrade and turned into something better. In the meantime, people are being killed every day.
yes, and the death penalty hasn't been shown to be a good way to prevent murders from happening. murder rates are significantly lower in europe, eh? why? they have nothing to fear. perhaps they're all wusses over there?
(i know that murder rates can be correlated to a wide range of social factors along with the distribution of wealth and opportunities - if these are fixed then i imagine murder rates will go down here too. fyi see bowling for columbine if you haven't already. moore's attitude bugs me at times, but a lot of good points are raised and demonstrated.)

Understanding it should be easy, ACCEPTING it is another matter. A killer has proven that they are a danger to other people, and the surest way to put an end to that danger is to kill them so they don't kill anyone else. That is a theory. Some people accept that, some people reject that.
yes, but conversely, the surest way of having a wrongfully convicted person die is to keep the death penalty. based on what recently happened in illinois, i don't believe this is an uncommon thing.

Should our system be overhauled? Yes. This gets into the bigger spiral again, because we have to overhaul our justice system, and our penitentiary system. Rehabilitation over incarceration. But you can't rehabilitate people that don't want it. Some criminals say they are victims of society, and it's not them who have to change, it's society. Now you're talking about a social change, removing poverty in the cities, removing the need for crime.
oops looks like you already talked about some of this! i should read the whole response before replying. :) i'm all for very careful rehabilitation. if it sticks, great, after they've served the appropriate amount of time to 'pay' for the crime, let them out. if they want nothing to do with getting better, they're never getting out. this is where things start to get sticky for me, since it is presumably possible to game a system like this. a tremendous amount of checks and balances would have to go into the release process to make sure that bad seeds are not escaping.

The desire for justice, or vengence disguised as justice, has been around forever. I don't know if we will ever outgrow it. That would involve all societies and cultures being on the same page, and I don't see that happening ever.
well i'm sure the -impulse- to have a death penalty when a loved one is killed is inately in a large percentage of the population. however, in a large number of countries, they have refused to listen to this urge and don't allow their government to kill people for crimes they are convicted of. it's interesting to see how religeous attitudes seem to divide those in favor vs those against. maybe those atheists aren't so mean after all. ;)

[water-childe.livejournal.com]

Call it the astrological influence of being a Libra cusp (concerned with balance), call it weighing both sides of the issues, or call it plain on wishy washy, but I have a profoundly hard time coming down on one side of the fence or the other for a lot of the big moral issues out there.

While my astrology is different (Pisces, with a ridiculous number of other 'water' influences in my different houses, along with 'Scorpio' being my rising sign. Whimsical and dreamy because of being a Pisces, yes? But the Scorpio part makes me stubborn, often forceful, and a bit of a showboat.)
I think I share your problem. I'm pro-choice. I hate hate hate the idea of taking a potential human life. I believe that women should have access to abortion, but that they should (hopefully) think of it as an option they they will never have to use. A necessary evil. I do think that the vast majority of advocates of pro-choice do think that way. I've personally spoken to more then a few pro-life advocates (Operation Rescue) who act like anyone who is pro-choice honestly relishes the idea of killing an unborn child! As far as the dealth penalty goes, I'm a little more for it then against it, but I'm far from 100% comfortable with the idea. I do believe that in some cases, people can repent, and change for the better, even when they have committed horrific crimes. But I honestly believe that our prison system is not set up to really rehabilitate anyone. I think that before we sentance anyone else to death, the entire nation needs some serious prison reform. I'm very aware and very uncomfortable with the fact that statistically, our country seems more willing to sentence people to death if they are non-whites, then otherwise. I sometimes wonder if what it really all boils down to, is that in many cases, you either pay with your wallet (and jailtime) or you pay with your life.
Also, not to cloud the issue, while murder is a terrible crime, rape continues to be treated like it's not that big a deal, at least as far as our court system is concerned. It might sound extreme, but I've thought it through, on repeated occations since I was 15. If I was given a choice between death and rape? I'll take death. Really.

[silas7.livejournal.com]

re: abortion - If you say taking a potential human life should be allowed, we are creating a condition where murder is permitted. A baby can't exist outside of the mother, and lives like a parasite, but it's not going to change into something else, it's a human being in progress. You are killing something that will be human. In high school, I thought abortion was murder, pure and simple. By college, I thought the unborn had no rights and could be killed at the mother's request. Now? It's still in flux. More attention should be spent on contraception and prevention, which would lower the amount of actual abortion circumstances, but still leave the issue itself.
re: death penalty - prison and criminal reform do need to occur, and I can be satisfied with locking some up for the rest of their life in lieu of the death penalty. Society as a whole needs to pony up the money if they don't want to see people killed. More taxes, more support for a prison system. Again, all focus in on the end result (execution) and not enough on the steps leading to it (fair trials, rehabilitation).
re: rape - Rape should absoulutely be treated like the serious offens that it is, Rape, torture, physical or mental damage, all of these bring up Quality of Life arguments. My brain turns off at the thought of being tortured, but would I rather die that live w/out my hand? or my legs? That's another bucket of worms.

[water-childe.livejournal.com]

Abortion technically is murder. I'm not going to try and say otherwise. I completely side with you on contraception and prevention. I see abortion as a necessary evil.
Forcing a woman to have a child, when she does not want that child is wrong. Giving her no safe or viable alternatives other then having the baby, is essentially forcing her. Even when people are careful, and take appropriate measures to ensure that pregnancy will not occur, mistakes do happen. I've known personally a handful of women who have had abortions for various reasons. In all circumstances, while they ultimately believed they made the right choice, they also deeply regreted having to keep that potential human being from happening. Psychologically it stays with you, and never really goes away. If I ever had to have an abortion, I'm positive that I would mourn for that life I had stolen. But, I would still wouldn't have the baby. I'm very glad that I've never had to make that decision and work to ensure that I never will.

Society as a whole needs to pony up the money if they don't want to see people killed.

Agreement. I think one of the things preventing that from happening is the failure of most to actually try and mentally place themselves in the circumstances of criminals. As if to say that criminals are not people just like you and I, or to say things like, "Well, I wouldn't do anything LIKE THAT so it's something I don't have to worry or think about." What if you were falsely accused? What if you'd done nothing more then be in the wrong place at the wrong time? It apparently does happen. It almost happened to me.

I've never given serious thought to how much I could deal with in terms of torture. It defintely would hinge on Quality of Life.

Cost is also a big issue. It's all about cost.
The fact that I live and breath probably means that someone else, or maybe even a few someone elses can't. I'm a liberal, well educated, white women. While I'm not at the tippy top of the human food chain, I do have dozens more options available to me that others whom are not as well off may or may not have. I have privledges. Often I think about how seemingly arbitrary choices I make might really effect others. Not that I think for a second that I'm all that important. But everything is connected in some fashion or another. It's the sort of thing you can go dizzy or even mad thinking about.

[pyrric.livejournal.com]

I've seen the hypocrisy of people who are pro-choice but anti-death penalty

I'm pro-choice and anti-death-penalty. Do you think I'm a hypocrite?

[pyrric.livejournal.com]

I should add that I won't be offended if you think my beliefs on this subject are hypocritical. I don't mean so sound all "screw you man!"; I truly understand that people view these things in different ways, and that it's possible to think someone holds hypocritical beliefs and still have respect for them in general as a person. I'm just interested to hear your opinion of this.

[silas7.livejournal.com]

I would have to know more about your specific beliefs before I could tell if you are hypocritical or not. Based on what I already know, you seem consistant in your beliefs, which is an awesome foundation.

I mean, hell. People are flawed. I don't like hip hop, but I own albums by Ice T and Public Enemy. That's not exactly consistant behavior :)

[silas7.livejournal.com]

That depends on what you believe about unborn kids. If you don't think abortion is murder, they you aren't a hypocrite. A Christian who believes life begins at conception, but supports the death penalty, is a hypocrite.

I have a hard, hard time convincing myselt that terminating a pregnancy isn't taking a life. On the other hand, if that life isn't wanted (fathered by rape), should the mother be forced to carry it?

I want truths, but all we really have are beliefs.

[fudjo.livejournal.com]

Do we value human life? Which human lives do we value? To what degree (or in what manner) do we value these human lives? Is this particular entity human?

In the case of abortion, you might have someone who values human life and views a fetus as a human life, but also feels that the life of the pregnant woman must be valued more. I'm not stating what pyrric's views are, as I don't know the full details of them and it's not my place to speak for her, but rather giving an example of how one might be pro-choice and not hypocritical.

[spriggan.livejournal.com]

I heard/read that the deal cincher for most people was that Tookie never confessed to the murders, so never really apologized for them. Yet, he was willing to spend the rest of his life in jail doing good. (My comments are based on the assumption that he is doing good with his anti-gang work in jail.) While I can see the desire to not forgive a man who won't admit to murders he has committed, why not concentrate more on reaping the benefits of the good work he is now doing? Is blame and vengenance so important? Would one have to _forgive_ Tookie to do this, or could it just be a matter of practicality? It's interesting that you put it as a sign of civilization; what is more important to civilization, that we are all forgiving, or that we can accept the gray areas and do what's best for our fellow people?

[silas7.livejournal.com]

Tookie chose to ues the time he had left warning people against leading the gang life, and trying to get gang members to straighten themselves out. His lack of apology/confession is telling, I'd need to read more to come to grips with his specific case. In general, if someon admits they did wrong, and shows physical repentence as Tookie did, then they should be forgiven.

Blame and vengeance are less important, but an acknowledgement of wrong doing is an important step in the forgivness process. There is also the difference of forgivness on the personal and societal level. The victim's survivor's don't have to forgive the killer, but society as a whole should do so, if the killer has demonstrated his contrition. The killer has to show that they're sorry, and society has to then decide on accepting it or not. For a civilization to exist, there need to be rules. How a civilization enforces those rules help determine it's level of enlightenment.

[silas7.livejournal.com]

I'm sure that depends from person to person. Some people just remain unrepentent about what they did. Only over time can we see if someone is really repentant, or is just biding their time until they can go out and kill again.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_perihelion_/]

what if sin isn't so much an indicator of right from wrong as it is a measure of the burden someone takes on their soul by performing certain acts? then a person's soul, and their character, can become overburdened by too many small acts selfishness, cruelty and vice or by just a few acts of outright evil. leaving that person broken or as morally rotten as spoiled meat.

I also believe that a change of heart isn’t sufficient recompense for great sin. It has to be affirmed by some kind of repentant action. and that the sole purpose of that penance is to help lift the burden being carried by one's soul. it is not for redemption or forgiveness in the material world. (and any expectation that it would do so, certainly calls the veracity repentance into question.)

however, there are circumstances under which doing wrong is necessary either for the greater good or just to achieve goals deemed worth the price. (self-defense being one of those cases.) nonetheless, this does not relieve the person of the onerous, the burden, the blackening of their soul, brought on by their actions.

this applies to societies as well as individuals. every time society decides to incarcerate or kill someone, it is taking on the burden of doing harm to someone (irrespective of the good that might be doing society as a whole) to further their own agenda. and one can never lose sight of the fact each and every such act darkens one's soul.

not that I don't believe in incarceration or the death penalty. I just think people should be honest with themselves as to what they are doing, why they are doing it and the price inherent in their choices.

[silas7.livejournal.com]

A person's soul can be overburdend and worn down by small evils. I'm focusing on the bigger issues here: the big burdens on the soul, if you will.

I agree with your second point. Repentant action is the proof that you are trying to lift the burden of your sin, trying to make better what you have ruined. Actions speaking louder and all that. Make amends for your wrong doing. You might be forgiven, you might not, but what's important is that you are doing something positive.

I agree again. People may have to do wrong things: killing people in war, or killing someone in self defense. You still killed someone, it's still something that you have to face. Taking another life, under any circumstance, affects you. Granted, you don't want to die, but still.

Honesty in one's motives is one of the noblest goals we have.

Just another response

[flutterby369.livejournal.com]

"It's more than frustrating, it's weak. Your beliefs define your character, and if you're beliefs change with the wind, what does that say about you?"

Well, as you stated above, people and times change, as well as your beliefs. It depends on what "truths" you find out for yourself and how you value those tidbits. My beliefs and wants in many things are not important and mainly "bashed" by mainstream society, but that does not bother me in the least. Yes, many of my beliefs have changed, for I have changed greatly and have been shown many things. It more or less depends on the person who is changing their beliefs. Are they doing it because it is "P.C." to do it, or is it because they really want to? Every action has a reaction, be it "good" or "bad". Everything will be complained about, no matter how "good" it is for mankind and the such.

It pleases me to hear that you had a moment of questioning in your beliefs and found yourself through it. You are still learning grasshopper, and this crazy life has more in store for you.

It takes a strong person to make a stand. It takes a stronger person to stand by their decision.

Re: Just another response

[silas7.livejournal.com]

Changing your beliefs because you think you are wrong is one thing. Changing your beliefs because someone is more charismatic than you? Not so much.

Oh I still question and muddle through them. I think it's really important that if you are for or against something, than you have some kind of solution to deal with the situation.

Oh, for the wisdom to know which decision is right.

[sinspired.livejournal.com]

Regardless of the rights and responsibilities of society to provied a fair and just system of deterrent and punishment, and, indeed, a moral framework for crime, the fact remains that it was Mr. William's decision to kill 4 people in the commission of two robberys in a state and at a time when he knew or SHOULD have known that he could die for that crime. Despite his protestations of innocence, despite his reform, the fact is, he made a choice, and has paid for it.

There are three types of people arguing against this:
Those who, despite the evidence, are convinced he was railroaded.
Those who, despite his guilt, believe he was reformed.
Those who, despite his choices, believe we should not kill under any circumstances.

His responsibility was to be a person who did not commit these acts, or, at the very least, in our court system full of holes, a person who can create reasonable doubt that he committed these acts. He was neither.

The states do not rush to these executions. They give ample and repeated options to stay and/or stop an execution for those who have some legitimate means of it.

This is probably the problem. If there was no chance of weasling out of a punishment like this, it would act as a deterrent. But the founders made many tough choices (some wrong, ask any child of former slaves about the "3/5 compromise"), and this was one of them... That it is better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be punished. So our entire system is built around it.

So, I have some sympathy I can find those who maintain his innocence based on some sort of evidence... To the rest I say, he will reap his rewards later, be they good or bad.

[silas7.livejournal.com]

There is that, too.

The law says if you kill, you will be killed.
He killed.
He was killed.

The law itself was carried out. Whether the law is right or just is the question. Whether a man can redeem his actions is the question. Whether we can accept that is the question.

[nepenthedreams]

I have a really hard time with the death penalty, not being really sure what I think.

On Tookie...I obviously would have pardoned him. I beileve in redemption.
However, one might argue that if his punishment had been enacted immediately, he wouldn't have been able to redeem himself. It's an interesting moral question - what could all those dead people done (for good or evil) if they had been allowed to live? But for the same question, what could the murdered people have done had they been allowed to live?

I just take this question as one that is beyond me.

[silas7.livejournal.com]

Out of all this discussion, I have found (I think) a rock to stand upon.

I would have pardoned him too. I would have probably released him.
I would sentence people to life in jail. If they show forgivness, I would release them (after 10, 20, X years).

If they kill again, no prison. If found guilty, kill them. No wait. And I would live with the death of their second victim on my conscious for the rest of my life.

People complain about wrongful death and the like. Yes, that sucks. How much does it suck when a convicted killer kills again?

[jasonlizard.livejournal.com]

So what about the hypocrisy of being pro-life and pro-death penalty? I'd rather call it conceit than hypocrisy, but that's just my take one it. Not that that has much to do with the price of tea in China...

Any living, thinking, conscious human being who has made certain decisions needs to be held accountable to those decisions. Unfortuantely, the law of the jungle doesn't really apply in the strictest sense and those people aren't always selected out. Rather, we live in a complex society which chooses to better serve justice and that's where the complications begin.

I think killing criminals is often too merciful. If you really want to punish someone, lock them up and never let them out. If you're sadistic, let them out when they're 60 or 70 and have completely lost touch with society and are at their weakest and let society beat the crap out of them.

However, how do we justify that we keep our criminals in better conditions than our poor. We spend more than $60,000 per prisoner per year yet it seems that neither the prospect of jail or death is enough to deter crime. I suppose then you have to either blame society for producing criminals or blame politicians for making so many criminals from society? If drugs weren't illegal, would Tookie Williams be alive today? The money wouldn't have been there so would the gang? If we didn't have other racial issues in this country would the economies of our inner cities have collapsed creating this vacuum into which we've lost at least a generation if not more?

The problem with rules is that they don't often solve problems, they only bound them.

[silas7.livejournal.com]

Oh that's just as bad! It's inconsistent, which is what I have the biggest problem with. Saying it's wrong to kill unborn kids but OK to kill convicted murderes is bad if you belive that all life is sacred.

See my earlier comments about the spiral. One man's murder becomes an indictment of our entire socio/political system, our way of life. I talked before about how we spend more on criminals than on the homeless. I wondered what was more cruel: killing someone, or shutting them in a cell for the rest of their life. People must be accountable for their actions, but we have to back that as a society. If we allow the death penalty, we must allow that an innocent person may die. If we allow LWOP, we must accept that we are spending money to keep these people alive. If we can stand behind our beliefs, with all the ramifications, that is at least a first step.

Without rules, we have nothing. Rules provide structure. The trick is making sure the rules work for everyone. If they don't, they need to be changed.