h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

40 questions that tell wether they are a psychopath? Honestly, they might as well try and lay their horoscope.

I'm not talking about a written test, and I'm don't mean 'closed' questions with one word answers. The questions have been formulated to be 'open' (i.e., requiring lengthy answers), and the way each question is answered (or evaded) will reveal something about the person being questioned. The questioning is done by a trained clinical psychologist, can take a couple of hours or more and, apparently, it does work.

>I remember reading that Bush Jnr spent an average of fifteen minutes - that's an *average*, please note - considering the final appeals of those who were on death row.

>Obviously, when morons like that are involved in the execution of prisoners, it can't be called murder. I mean, you have to be of a certain mental competence in order to stand trial for murder...

I can accept that some people don't agree with executions. However, I expect them to know something about the system when they try to argue the point.

When President Bush was Governor Bush, he didn't have the power to commute death sentences. All he could do was issue a stay of execution. Only their parole board could commute the sentence to life. The length of time that the governor spent reviewing the case isn't really relevant. His decision wasn't all that important.

Bush doesn't deserve the credit or the condemnation for executions carried out in the State of Texas during his time as governor.

I guess all that does not matter. The important thing is that we bash the president.

So are the scientists suggesting that there is some sort of 'Psychopath gene'? Perhaps paedophiles' DNA does have more in common with crabs than humans.

A psychopath gene? I believe moral is in the genes so it doesn't seem that strange to me.

I do however think the questionnaire thing seems fairly suspicious. There is a lot of bogus in psychology.

There have been done some brain scans which seems to show psychopaths has something wrong with the brain. That the back of the brain doesn't connect properly with the front part. But I don't know much about it.

Murder - I think that it's always wrong to kill someone, no matter the reason - except in self defence

As for paedophiles - I read something about a state in the US that had a law something like this (if I remember correctly):
If the crime is repeated, the paedophile is chemically chastrated (sp?)
That sounds OK to me...

At common law, murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought. More or less by definition, an execution after a trial is not murder.

I don't want innocent people executed. I believe that they should be provided with the finest counsel available. If the police did get the wrong person, I want to know early so that they can reopen the case and find the right one. They already have a nearly endless appeals process during which any issues can be reviewed ad nauseum (which is probably the way it should be).

I'm not above revenge. The death penalty isn't a general deterrent. Most of these idiots can't think beyond the next step much less 15 years down the road to when they might be executed if they are caught. However, I think there does need to be a balancing of the scale. That's where executions come in.

Imagine yourself, kidnapped, raped, threatened with a gun, tortured over days, and then finally strangled. What would balance the scales for that? Imagine, a robbery in a convenience store. The perp comes in with a knife. He orders the clerk on the ground and tells him not to look back. He takes his mask off to open the cash drawer when you come out of the bathroom and you get a really good look at his face. So he slits your throat over $60. We can't torture people. The best we can offer is their death.

As for paedophiles - I read something about a state in the US that had a law something like this (if I remember correctly):
If the crime is repeated, the paedophile is chemically chastrated (sp?)
That sounds OK to me...

They give them depo prevera . It's only effective if they keep getting treatments after that, and people have gone on to reoffend after that. I think Life Without Parole or a needle should await those people too. Molestors are, in their own way, more dangerous than most murderers. Many murderers have killed the person they're good at. They're supposed to make pretty good trustees.

So how do you define mailicous forethough then? What happens if I think killing Bush would save humanity? Someone could argue that wasn't malicious forethough. Or use that scottish law they used at the nuclear powerplant. a crime to prevent a greater crime.

If it was about revenge I don't think they should be killed. To me it seems a lot worse to spend the next 15 or more years locked up in a cell. But I think revenge is a bad idea.

"The best we can offer is their death."

There's something very disturbing about the use of the words "best" and "their death" in that statement, but I can't quite put it into words...

HappyDude, I agree that rehabilitation should be the primary purpose of the penal system (which is not to say the only purpose). Of course, as others have pointed out, you can't always rehabilitate. Interestingly, the cases where you can't rehabilitate are often the cases where punishment as a deterrent wouldn't have worked either - for example the case Xanatic described in #19.

FWIW, I don't think punishment as deterrent or revenge has any place in a civilised society - rehabilitation and protection of society should be our only concerns. I'll qualify that statement by saying that since we don't yet live in anything like a civilised society, punishment as deterrent may be a necessary evil. It should be minimised though.

Two Bit, "However, I think there does need to be a balancing of the scale." Does this mean you subscribe to the two wrongs make a right theory? A bit Old Testament isn't it?

Less flippantly, the only "good" that could come from punishment as revenge would be to make the victim's family feel slightly better, and really I can't imagine that they'd feel sufficiently more happy to justify a killing.

Or, a logical point, what about the case where someone has been murdered, but the victim had no family or friends, in other words, nobody is upset by his death. There can be no purpose to punishment as revenge in this case, but if we take this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion we should punish murderers proportionately to the number of family and friends they have (or something similar). An obvious absurdity.

Wesley, let's just hope that we don't stumble across that "area of the internet the size of Ireland"!

"I don't want innocent people executed. I believe that they should be provided with the finest counsel available. If the police did get the wrong person, I want to know early so that they can reopen the case and find the right one. They already have a nearly endless appeals process during which any issues can be reviewed ad nauseum (which is probably the way it should be)."

Two Bit, I take it you are referring to executions in the USA?
Try & remember that;
the same rules do not apply elsewhere in the world;
and that even in the USA (the country that celebrated human rights week with 2 executions) appeals only work if in a fair legal system where good & proper legal advice is available., I'm not sure this can be said of any system that sentences juveniles and the insane to death. May I suggest you read http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/AMR510072002?OpenDocument&of=THEMES/DEATH+PENALTY, you may consider its source biased but you may also find it an education.


“We can't torture people. The best we can offer is their death.”
Are you really advocating torture? I would say there are far better things we could hope for in this respect than death.

Just for the record if anyone ever Kills me I don’t want to put to death I want helped and removed from the general population until they are safe.




From Amnesty International
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

latest information shows that:

75 countries and territories have abolished the death penalty for all crimes

14 countries have abolished the death penalty for all but exceptional crimes such as wartime crimes

20 countries can be considered abolitionist in practice: they retain the death penalty in law but have not carried out any executions for the past 10 years or more

making a total of 109 countries which have abolished the death penalty in law or practice.

86 other countries retain and use the death penalty, but the number of countries which actually execute prisoners in any one year is much smaller.

Two Bit asked >>"Imagine yourself, kidnapped, raped, threatened with a gun, tortured over days, and then finally strangled. What would balance the scales for that?"

My answer - nothing could possibly balance the scales for that. If I or one of mine was a victim of violent crime I'm sure I'd be baying for blood - but that doesn't make it right. The only way to balance the scales is if you could undo the crime.

So what would I want to do to somebody who acted like the examples Two Bit gave us, or the case Xanatic mentioned where somebody kidnapped a little girl, imprisoned her for years and tortured her? I'd lock them up, for life, without possibility of parole, in a high security prison. I would advocate a fairly austere regime in the prison.

This wouldn't balance the scales, any more then executing them would. But it would take them away from society, and it would take away their liberty and their hope - and that's a pretty unpleasant punishment.

And of course, if it should later turn out (despite being provided with the finest counsel and protracted appeals that would be provided in the ideal world in which we do not live) that we had the wrong man, we could let him out.

Do they really give them Depo?
That is the injectable female contraceptive I have used for the past two years. I didn't know it had that effect on men. Seems I have been voluntarily chemically castrating myself!



I think it doesn't help to bring in such emotive scenarios as an excuse for state sanctioned murder. We seldom make our best decisions when angry or upset.

I think possibly the worst thing you could do to somebody in terms of punishment is not to lock them up for the rest of their lives, or to execute them, but to make them understand, comprehend and empathise with the pain that their victims suffered as a result of what they did.

Unfortunately I can't think of a way to go about doing that.

Yep, don't kill vampires, give them their soul back.

That's one more thread with Buffy mentioned

Yes, I'm refering to the practice in the United States. I doubt there are many people from nations on this board that allow executions except for the Americans.

Should we stop the wheels of justice because it falls on the wrong weak. I don't think it matters if someone declares it's human rights week. Life goes on. In my opinion, executions are not inconsistant with human rights.

I don't think we allow the execution of juveniles in the United States. The age of adulthood is set by state law. In Georgia its 17. If you're recognized as an adult, you take on the responsibilities and consequences of adulthood. I have no problem with the execution of a person who is 17 if they're recognized as an adult. They can tell right from wrong.

As for the insane or retarded, there has to be a finding of facts by the jury. If they're insance, they have the oppertunity to present that to the jury. If the jury disagrees, what's the problem? It's their job to determine facts. If a murderer is insane or retarded, it doesn't change what happened to the victim.

I read the Amensty International artcile. I was unimpressed. I didn't see anything new.

One of the issues they bring up is the way executions are inconsitantly applied. I see it as local control and local values influenceing the justice system. I don't have a probelm with it. Our DA is pretty liberal about seeking the death penalty. We value the lives of our murdered citizens more than some other places do. In my opinion, the DA shoudll have to explain in open court his reason for not seeking the death penalty in any captial case.

I don't advocate torture, and I damn sure didn't say that I did.

I do use emotional arguements in support of executions. It's an emotional subject. Y'all use them to. You sympathise with murderers, torturers, kidnappers and rapists. I look at it from the victim's point of view. There have to be some pretty severe aggravating circumnstance before the death penalty can be charged.

Executions during war are sort of a seperate issue than civilian criminal executions.

"I don't advocate torture, and I damn sure didn't say that I did"
glad to hear it, but it could of been read that way.

"You sympathise with murderers, torturers, kidnappers and rapists. I look at it from the victim's point of view."

I can't speak for anybody else, but what you said certainly does not reflect my views as reflected here.

I advocated earlier in this thread looking at it from the wrongly convicted innocent's point of view. They are victims too. How about them, Two Bit? Do they matter less? Is it just a numbers game - there aren't very many so it's acceptable? Or do you think the justice system incapable of error?

Most of what I have said has been said before further up the thread, but I am going to say my piece.

Surely we have to look at this question in the context of what are we trying to achieve with our response to crime?

Are we trying to ensure that the crime is not committed again? Or are we seeking reparation? Revenge? Punishment? Reformation of character? What?

There was an outcry in the UK when joy-riders who stole cars and smashed them into buildings were given a chance to repair and race bangers. The outrage was because it appeared to reward crime. However it was reported as being the most successful way of preventing repeat offences.

Our most recent case which really faced us with this question was what on earth to do with the boy-murderers of Jamie Bulger. They were aged about 10 at the time. There were no conclusions found.

If the crimes are fairly trivial, like joy-riding, then surely the objective must be reformation of character. Which is one of the reason that I support education and therapy within the penal system.

But if the crime has damaged someone irreperably or killed them, then it is much harder to be that magnamanous. We start to deal with revenge and punishment. And the concept that the criminal must pay for their crime. (This is not a concept I disagree with, by the way, but neither is it a concept I agree with).

Another thing which makes the mix more complex is that most societies are more heterogenous than they were a hundred years ago. Societies are fractured, and no longer have a single world view. The 20 years for drug smuggling in Bankok (?) seems harsh to liberal Brits who smoke the odd joint at the weekend. As does amputation for theft. (Is that still practiced, btw?) But most Western countries citizenry, or at least their inhabitants, include peoples of many cultures. So those countries have no single world-view on which to base the State's response to crime.

Have we lost faith in the concept of Justice? What IS a fair and equitable response to murder?

In answer to the question: if the State Kills, is it Justice or Murder? I have to say it is murder in the cause of justice, and better than blood-feuds. But I am glad to live in a country which has abolished the death penalty.

Ben