Let me break down your main question: "Is it wrong to be cruel to cruel people?"

You're assuming a behavior labels a person. A person is not their behavior. So whatever you're labeling them, "cruel", "rude", "insulting" or any variant of that, it's all based on your perspective in that one moment, when a person is much more complicated than that one little label.

So let's remove that. "Is it wrong to be cruel to people?"

That shouldn't even need to be answered.

~Shadowednavi

You'd also be hard pressed to find anyone on this forum who thinks the death penalty is a good thing anyway. Certainly amongst our British forum members where the case of Derek Bentley caused enough of a shockwave through our culture to say "never again."

You're assuming a behavior labels a person. A person is not their behavior. So whatever you're labeling them, "cruel", "rude", "insulting" or any variant of that, it's all based on your perspective in that one moment, when a person is much more complicated than that one little label.

Yeah, well, I already said "in practice, I'm not sure humans have all that sound judgement when it comes to who deserves what" in my earlier post. o.o
Of course a person is not their behaviour, but the point remains that some are still more prone to being cruel than others, or more prone to being insulting than others, etc... I agree, people are more complicated than other people's perceptions of them are, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't treat people differently for how they act.
And Craig, for what it's worth I was going by what I heard of the debate primarily from the US, (including something cited on the P&T:BS episode about it, saying 64% of Americans support the death penalty; P&T are against it and if popular opinion were on their side I doubt they'd say it wasn't) which obviously would imply popular support for it there. Maybe it's different in the UK, but then again the US has so much higher a population than the UK that the popular opinion amongst both countries combined would still be more weighted to that of the US.
I'm also curious as to why exactly people on this site would be more opposed to the death penalty than people on other sites anyway. Could it be that something about the nature of this site, or of the Sonic series itself, (assuming that is what brought the majority of users here) would tend to be appealing for reasons similar to why the death penalty wouldn't be?

I think the death penalty is unfair. It's not punishment enough! Taking another person's life is the most wrong you can do. For every single person who is killed, another 20, 30, maybe 40 people get hurt- that being their family and friends who may feel pain for the rest of their lives over it. And that can even mean literally- like in the movie "Faster", a man's brother is killed by a gang, and he goes out and kills everyone who was in that gang. You get what I mean? I think, the fair punishment would be spending the rest of their lives in jail.

Yeah, death penalty is more than just about the death of one person...no matter how much we like to blind ourselves to the family of the wrongdoer, you cannot forget about the overall spilling effect that execution has upon their family's lives - there's really no call or just reason for the world to resort to death penalty sentances.

The criminal may not have thought about them, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't either.

{ And yeah, that totally goes for Texas, too. }

I think the death penalty is unfair. It's not punishment enough!

Reminds me of another perspective; the idea that to some of them, keeping them in jail for the rest of their lives and trying to stop them from killing themselves is actually a worse punishment than just killing them. And within that there's idea that keeping them alive is "too" horrible as another alternative, to which the answer obviously isn't to kill them, but maybe to let them kill themselves.
For what it's worth, I don't think of the death penalty as a good idea either. I doubt there is really much point to it, let alone enough to justify something that risks killing innocents in the process. I was just using it more so as an analogy for more serious wrongs with more serious retaliations.
Come to think of it, that there's so many perspectives on how serious the death penalty is (compared to the alternatives) sort of reflects on the analogy as well. I guess the more generic version of it would be that if you do X to those who do X to Y... then it might actually be worse for them than it was for Y. Or, alternatively, not as bad. o.o

I think there's more of an underlying concern here.  It has nothing to do with the death penalty or for that matter being cruel to anyone in retaliation.  It's the fear that you'll get attacked by cruel people and have no way to defend yourself or seek help from the government to protect you, or at least ensure that the offenders won't just do the same thing again as soon as authorities have left the scene.

And let me tell you right now, those trolls who think they are trying to change the world by being trolls are part of the problem - not the solution.  But we can't live in fear of that happening to us.  If anything, that only makes us ever more vulnerable and doesn't resolve the problem.  I found the article that Matt linked to be rather disturbing, but I also think there is a good degree of hope to be found in the ideal of the closing statements.  We as humans, if we want to work toward a better world, must develop empathy for others.  We can't really get past our petty differences without that.

I found the article that Matt linked to be rather disturbing, but I also think there is a good degree of hope to be found in the ideal of the closing statements.

Actually, that article was just being used as a source for my example of "things that one would retaliate to" while still being obviously milder than issues like the death penalty.

But yeah, empathy should be the focus. The question is what do we do in response to those whose level of empathy, if significant, obviously doesn't stop them from being cruel to those who they have no reason to believe deserve it.

Trolls embody the opposite principle. They are liberal in what they do and conservative in what they construe as acceptable behavior from others. You, the troll says, are not worthy of my understanding; I, therefore, will do everything I can to confound you.

That is actually a very good way to put it.

Depends on the circumstances.

In the case of the death penalty, no it isn't okay for a number of reasons.

However, let's say you are being a douchebag to me. I have no qualms in being a dick right back to you. As far as I'm concerned you have it coming one way or another. Or someone who is a dick to many people and nothing happens to him/her until one day something very tragic happens to said person. I wouldn't feel an once of pity for him/her, let's put it that way.

In short: I like being nice to nice people, I don't like being nice to people that aren't nice to me.

That's probably the most natural way to handle it: to treat others as they treat you.  And most people don't necessarily have a problem with that concept.  But what has enabled us to reach a point in society where we can have safety and security to any degree is a general willingness to cooperate even if it is with other people we otherwise disagree with.  I believe in self-defense, but just being mean to others because they are being unpleasant to you feeds the cycle and give them more reasons to continue being mean to you.  Entire families have been senselessly killed in blood feuds that could have been avoided with a little more patience and mercy.  That's why in modern society, we punish people who murder, even if they are only "repaying" a murder done by someone else.  Justice cannot ever be accomplished if we have a constant string of murders and death ending entire bloodlines over petty disputes.

That said, you'd think that people who believe in doing unto others as they do to you would be the strongest proponents of the death penalty.  After all, if they just murdered one of your closest friends or family members, the most obvious feelings to have would be for them to suffer the same fate as the dead loved one.  But one of the greatest strengths of humanity is our capacity to forgive, and someone who has the will to forgive has perhaps the finest element of what makes us human.

From my experiences, people that are assholes to you will further take advantage of you should you simply "take it" and refuse to take action. As far as I'm concerned, if you are a dick to me and want my respect, you will have to earn it. I don't know about you guys, but my respect isn't something I just go throwing around like its nothing at all. I simply put, do not like douchbags and assholes. They may be nice to other people, and that's fine but if someone is being a dick already for no reason at all, I seriously doubt forgiveness will persuade them to being nice.

As I said, I believe in self-defense.  While I have utter respect for those people who have such great compassion that they will not raise a finger to harm another human being, I do not view that same human with the same respect if they do not protect others, particularly their families, from harm.  But defending can be done without attacking back - it isn't necessary to break someone's arm if you can place them in a disabling hold instead, for example.

There is a difference for a respect for all human life, and earning personal respect.  While I think a majority of all the world's problems would be solved if we all treated each other like kings, the fact of life is that we all have different agendas and there are inevitably going to be conflicts.  Part of that struggle is in earning and giving trust, which in some respects is a more treasured thing than even love.  Anyone who trusts someone else even after that person has burned them many times is asking for trouble.  It is possible to be compassionate, yet intelligent, at the same time.

Oh I don't doubt that for a second. Just from personal experience and dealing with many assholes in my time, I prefer to take the simple approach that if you act like a douchebag, I don't want anything to do with you. You can go on and have a happy life if you want, you can even win the lottery and that's all fine and good, but I still don't like you. I don't think that attitude is being cruel at all, I'm not causing you any direct harm (unless you feel that if I'm not worshiping you that I'm hurting you somehow).

Is there a chance that person could be a good person? Sure, there's a chance, but 9/10 out of ten it just won't happen. If you want me to like you so damn much after you've been an asshole, you'd best be prepared for lots and I mean LOTS of asskissing. I personally feel life is too short to be dealing with people that try to annoy or wrong you.

With that said, I do have a respect for human life, I'm just not patient enough to wait for the rare asshole to turn a new leaf and suddenly be nice again. As far as it matters to me, choosing to ignore all said douches I run across instead of giving them what is coming via karma is more than enough respect. Maybe my POV sounds a bit asshole-ish and not very compassionate myself, but I'm pretty sure we both come from two different backgrounds which no doubt influences both of our positions.

I support the death penalty completely, simply having it reduces crime. I can't fathom why so many here seem to be against it. If the individuel did something bad enough to get such punishment, That there is justice.
This punishment also eases alot of the hate and grief of the victims families.

n light of what recently happened with the death of bin laden i guess we can raise this issue again.

cause even if we all said the death penalty was wrong.. we agreed to the death of evil figures like bin laden, stalen, hitler.... -__- so this is getting into a tough to answer topic. we must've forgotten that part of the issue. there really are times when ending the existance of someone is essential isnt it?

To be fair, there's a difference between "a life for a life" and "a life for several thousand lives."

Even at that, IIRC he was shot because they weren't sure if they could take him alive. Even if they did, I'm pretty sure support for executing him would have been overwhelming.

Oh, and Xemesis, on what basis do you claim that having the death penalty reduces crime?

matthayter700 wrote:

---

To be fair, there's a difference between "a life for a life" and "a life for several thousand lives."

Even at that, IIRC he was shot because they weren't sure if they could take him alive. Even if they did, I'm pretty sure support for executing him would have been overwhelming.

Oh, and Xemesis, on what basis do you claim that having the death penalty reduces crime?

Heard it on the news when they were having a death penalty vs. non death penalty topic.

Simple basis really. Animals only innate fear is pain. So no matter the person, the threat of pain and/or death is much more persuasive than living for free in a cell.

Toby Underwood wrote:

---

Simple basis really.  Animals only innate fear is pain.  So no matter the person, the threat of pain and/or death is much more persuasive than living for free in a cell.  

You would think that, in theory, but in practice it is not that simple.

matthayter700 wrote:

---

Toby Underwood wrote:

---

Simple basis really.  Animals only innate fear is pain.  So no matter the person, the threat of pain and/or death is much more persuasive than living for free in a cell.  

You would think that, in theory, but in practice it is not that simple.

And Xemesis, "someone on the news" does not cut it. Was it the reporter? Was it an interviewee, and if so, was it some arbitrary social activist or an actual scientist in a relevant subject like psychology? (Not that even that would confirm it, as even scientists have biases, but being more specific would be a step up from your previous answer.)

I don't remember all of it now. But they were researchers looking are crime statistics and noticed that crime was dramatically lower in areas where the death penalty was allowed opposed to where it wasn't allowed. They said it was a wide statistic and it was proven places with death penalty blah blah blah. you get it.
I would just google it somewhere.

Xemesis wrote:

---

matthayter700 wrote:

---

Toby Underwood wrote:

---

Simple basis really.  Animals only innate fear is pain.  So no matter the person, the threat of pain and/or death is much more persuasive than living for free in a cell.  

You would think that, in theory, but in practice it is not that simple.

And Xemesis, "someone on the news" does not cut it. Was it the reporter? Was it an interviewee, and if so, was it some arbitrary social activist or an actual scientist in a relevant subject like psychology? (Not that even that would confirm it, as even scientists have biases, but being more specific would be a step up from your previous answer.)

I don't remember all of it now. But they were researchers looking are crime statistics and noticed that crime was dramatically lower in areas where the death penalty was allowed opposed to where it wasn't allowed. They said it was a wide statistic and it was proven places with death penalty blah blah blah. you get it.
I would just google it somewhere.

Did this happen to be Fox News?

Hukos wrote:

---

Xemesis wrote:

---

matthayter700 wrote:

---

You would think that, in theory, but in practice it is not that simple.

And Xemesis, "someone on the news" does not cut it. Was it the reporter? Was it an interviewee, and if so, was it some arbitrary social activist or an actual scientist in a relevant subject like psychology? (Not that even that would confirm it, as even scientists have biases, but being more specific would be a step up from your previous answer.)

I don't remember all of it now. But they were researchers looking are crime statistics and noticed that crime was dramatically lower in areas where the death penalty was allowed opposed to where it wasn't allowed. They said it was a wide statistic and it was proven places with death penalty blah blah blah. you get it.
I would just google it somewhere.

Did this happen to be Fox News?

I totally don't remember.

So, you say it was "researchers" on some news story, without specifying the specialization, claim you can't even remember what channel it was on, and then you expect me to google it (as if your vague description narrowed it down precisely) instead of citing it for your own case, and without addressing the argument made in my own link? Excuse me for not finding that convincing. o.o

Anyway, back to the subject at hand, I think it's pretty telling that some arguments against "being cruel to cruel people" revolve around simply blurring the distinctions between kind people and cruel people. Yes, people are more complicated than one label, but that doesn't erase the point that some people are simply more kind than others; it's just that the difference are more along a spectrum than any all-or-nothing scenario. And so, when the choice comes down to something like who to help in a given scenario, I would side with the more deserving ones. This isn't to say that "being cruel to cruel people" should be thought of as an end in itself, but if it's a means to benefit the more deserving ones? Probably worth it.

So, you say it was "researchers" on some news story, without specifying the specialization, claim you can't even remember what channel it was on, and then you expect me to google it (as if your vague description narrowed it down precisely) instead of citing it for your own case, and without addressing the argument made in my own link? Excuse me for not finding that convincing. o.o

Anyway, back to the subject at hand, I think it's pretty telling that some arguments against "being cruel to cruel people" revolve around simply blurring the distinctions between kind people and cruel people. Yes, people are more complicated than one label, but that doesn't erase the point that some people are simply more kind than others; it's just that the difference are more along a spectrum than any all-or-nothing scenario. And so, when the choice comes down to something like who to help in a given scenario, I would side with the more deserving ones. This isn't to say that "being cruel to cruel people" should be thought of as an end in itself, but if it's a means to benefit the more deserving ones? Probably worth it.

Xemesis wrote:

---

I support the death penalty completely, simply having it reduces crime. I can't fathom why so many here seem to be against it. If the individuel did something bad enough to get such punishment, That there is justice.
This punishment also eases alot of the hate and grief of the victims families.

---

While I have personal beliefs against the death penalty, I never use
them because I don't need to go there. The reason I'd never support the
death penalty is that if you can't even guarantee that you put the right
people in jail for non-violent crimes, then I don't trust your ability
to put the correct people on death row for violent crimes either. It
does not help knowing about the numbers of people released from death
row that were innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted. I
know matt's been asking for your research information, but I would be
interested in it as well. Most crimes don't reach the level of requiring
the death penalty and many of the ones that do are usually in one of
the following categories: personal (or domestic) in nature, caused by
"professional" criminals (gangs, etc.), or by those who most consider to
be "unbalanced" (and therefore aren't going to care about the death
penalty or might not be subjected to it due to being "legally insane"). Obviously there are crimes that don't fit in those 3 main categories of crimes that can result in the death penalty, but those 3 are very common. Additionally, one of the most common crimes that results in death where people are almost never sent to death row is driving
while drunk and accidentally killing someone. So, personally, I'd be hard pressed to believe that it is
possible to prove the death penalty deters or doesn't deter crimes in
general.

True Red wrote:

---

Xemesis wrote:

---

I support the death penalty completely, simply having it reduces crime. I can't fathom why so many here seem to be against it. If the individuel did something bad enough to get such punishment, That there is justice.
This punishment also eases alot of the hate and grief of the victims families.

---

While I have personal beliefs against the death penalty, I never use
them because I don't need to go there. The reason I'd never support the
death penalty is that if you can't even guarantee that you put the right
people in jail for non-violent crimes, then I don't trust your ability
to put the correct people on death row for violent crimes either. It
does not help knowing about the numbers of people released from death
row that were innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted. I
know matt's been asking for your research information, but I would be
interested in it as well. Most crimes don't reach the level of requiring
the death penalty and many of the ones that do are usually in one of
the following categories: personal (or domestic) in nature, caused by
"professional" criminals (gangs, etc.), or by those who most consider to
be "unbalanced" (and therefore aren't going to care about the death
penalty or might not be subjected to it due to being "legally insane"). Obviously there are crimes that don't fit in those 3 main categories of crimes that can result in the death penalty, but those 3 are very common. Additionally, one of the most common crimes that results in death where people are almost never sent to death row is driving
while drunk and accidentally killing someone. So, personally, I'd be hard pressed to believe that it is
possible to prove the death penalty deters or doesn't deter crimes in
general.

To be fair, that alone doesn't quite cut it. One major counterargument to that is the point that a murderer who escapes from prison could kill again, so in some cases NOT administering the death penalty would lead to the death of innocents. Even as prisoners are sent to higher-security prisons, the risk is still there. This is why issues like the moral implications of killing even those who did commit the crime are relevant anyway.

There is no usually in what I'm saying here. But if there wasn't sufficient enough evidence they would not give him the death penalty. Its where video evidence and eye witnesses are key.
I have heard of innocents being blamed for crimes but they didn't get the death penalty, Because usually in such cases the crime isn't severe enough when they have the wrong person. So what I'm saying is that innocents who are falsely accused are hardly ever accused of being actually murderers ect, Its usually some lesser crime.
I'm basically saying that they don't get the wrong guy often at all if the actually person was accused of murder.

There is no usually in what I'm saying here. But if there wasn't sufficient enough evidence they would not give him the death penalty. Its where video evidence and eye witnesses are key.
I have heard of innocents being blamed for crimes but they didn't get the death penalty, Because usually in such cases the crime isn't severe enough when they have the wrong person. So what I'm saying is that innocents who are falsely accused are hardly ever accused of being actually murderers ect, Its usually some lesser crime.
I'm basically saying that they don't get the wrong guy often at all if the actually person was accused of murder.

*Facepalm*

You say that in a thread where a video I linked to has evidence to the contrary! Obviously, your assumption often doesn't hold.

In practice, the question becomes, "how many deaths of wrongfully convicted inmates are an acceptable price to pay to execute those who are actually guilty?"

There is no usually in what I'm saying here. But if there wasn't sufficient enough evidence they would not give him the death penalty. Its where video evidence and eye witnesses are key.
I have heard of innocents being blamed for crimes but they didn't get the death penalty, Because usually in such cases the crime isn't severe enough when they have the wrong person. So what I'm saying is that innocents who are falsely accused are hardly ever accused of being actually murderers ect, Its usually some lesser crime.
I'm basically saying that they don't get the wrong guy often at all if the actually person was accused of murder.

*Facepalm*

You say that in a thread where a video I linked to has evidence to the contrary! Obviously, your assumption often doesn't hold.

In practice, the question becomes, "how many deaths of wrongfully convicted inmates are an acceptable price to pay to execute those who are actually guilty?"

I stand behind my posts. I know it can still happen tho.