Can stage yellow support the death penalty?

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, zurew said:

I think stage yellow person wouldn't support death penalty

Well, then you know that I'm Tier 1.

[AtheisticNonduality]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Some kind of 3 strikes policy where if you act abusively towards the staff of inmates, you get axed.

This is so impractical that corrupt guards and inmates could use this for witch hunts to kill people they don't like. Your ideas are actually more unrealistically utopian than those of the Green pacifists.

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

This is so impractical that corrupt guards and inmates could use this for witch hunts to kill people they don't like. Your ideas are actually more unrealistically utopian than those of the Green pacifists.

Of course there would have to be safeguards and a process.

The nice thing about prisons is that you got 100% cameras everywhere and you could record audio too.

Also, keep in mind that I'm talking about how to create the ideal system. I'm not so much focused on what the system is currently. To me the key question here is how do we want our ideal prison system to be? What should be we build towards?

Yes, there is corruption in the current system, but that will be ironed out as we develop it.

Think of it this way: if our whole society was at Stage Yellow, how would our prison system look? And what I'm saying is that we could still have a death penalty in that Yellow system. But in a Yellow system corruption would be far far less.

Edited September 4, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Loba]

I still haven't heard any rebuttal against the reasonable idea that we need to be studying the most deranged and corrupt in order to prevent them from ever developing in the first place.  When you kill them right off the bat, how do you learn from them?  It's just sweeping a problem under the rug.  We still don't fully know how to prevent people like this from being created, it needs to be figured out.  I mean, aren't there drugs out there that can sedate people to the level where they're mostly harmless?  If someone is so violent that they are fashioning weapons out of spoons, destroying the lives of their caretakers, I feel that there are probably medical interventions that can be put into place, just like you would do for anyone with a severe mental illness.  And if someone is that violent, we need to be looking to see if they have brain damage as well.

Also, if we are going by dangerousness and abuse, then severely disabled people can also be extremely dangerous, and yes, sometimes even malicious to caretakers.  They are also a burden on the system, but it would be absolutely reprehensible to harm them in any way.

I just can't see the justification for killing other people, no matter what they have done, if there are facilities that we can place them in and medications that we can give them to calm them down.

[zurew]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Well, then you know that I'm Tier 1.

Nope, I don't think so, its not impossible to imagine that two tier 2 person disagree on certain things (btw I don't consider myself one). 

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I would even be in favor of the death penalty for criminals who did not commit murder, but are so violent and abusive in prison that they are a nightmare to handle. Some kind of 3 strikes policy where if you act abusively towards the staff of inmates, you get axed.

I think most of the abusing and violence can be seriously lowered by changing the prison system - take a look at the scandinavians. I also think that your principle could be seriously misused by prison guards who are jerks (we know from stats that when you get into a hierarchically upper position, a lot of people will start to act like jerks and start to misuse their power) and some of them will force out certain reactions from the prisoners that wouldn't have happened otherwise, so you will end up killing prisoners who shouldn't have been killed otherwise.

I think the more reasonable way would be looking at stats and addressing at least the top 3 reasons why a person become a toxic, violent criminal.

 

[AtheisticNonduality]

2 minutes ago, zurew said:

Nope, I don't think so, its not impossible to imagine that two tier 2 person disagree on certain things (btw I don't consider myself one). 

lol

 

[zurew]

24 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Think of it this way: if our whole society was at Stage Yellow, how would our prison system look? And what I'm saying is that we could still have a death penalty in that Yellow system. But in a Yellow system corruption would be far far less.

I think if you manage to get to a utopistic world, then just then we can start to confidently say, and see if there are really people who are unchangeable.

I think its easy to assume, that there are people who are untreatable, when we are living in a society where most of the core problems are not addressed at all.

Edited September 4, 2022 by zurew

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Loba said:

I still haven't heard any rebuttal against the reasonable idea that we need to be studying the most deranged and corrupt in order to prevent them from ever developing in the first place.  When you kill them right off the bat, how do you learn from them?

Deranged people have been studied a lot. It's not like we don't know what causes derangement. It's usually a combination of bad genetic factors, bad environment, bad family, abuse, neglect, poverty, ideological brainwashing, history of mental illness in the family, etc.

The problem is that you can't fix all those things consistently for 350 million people. You can't really prevent a kid's parents from raping him if they are inclined to do so.

We can reduce all the bad conditions, but in the end a certain percentage of people will just be violent psychopaths.

Edited September 5, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

Nope, I don't think so, its not impossible to imagine that two tier 2 person disagree on certain things (btw I don't consider myself one).

Of course they can disagree, but that means that Yellow can support the death penalty.

No one said Yellow MUST support the death penalty.

[Carl-Richard]

Weird synchronicity, talking about executioners and then stumbling across this video:

 

[Danioover9000]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

You guys are missing the point of this thread. The issue was whether Yellow can support the death penalty. I think that has been answered.

I'm really not attached to the position itself. If you want to hug a psychopath, go ahead.

   I know right Leo?! I have, despite how sloppy I word myself, have demonstrated how a stage yellow systems thinker thinks like and how I'd handle a death penalty decision. I have stated, 5-1% of those who've values are dominantely stage red, with some degrees of cognitive and moral differentiation from the common sense and consensus reality of society, personality traits such as machiavellinism, psychopathy and sociopathy, life experiences and state of being, and the list of harmful behaviours they have committed and laws broken, that resulted, for example cannibalism, serial killings and rapes, and immense suffering to the victim or victims if alive, or if dead the victim's families having to live knowling how horrific their loved one died. And for my efforts, I am getting strawman to the left, ad hominem to the right, getting written off this way and that way to multiple polarities that is distorted.

   Another problem here, as you've also stated in your recent video of double standards, is a deep double standard here over the act of killing a person(s) ir execution, and virtue signal false compassion, until life throws a psychopath or criminal their way, I guarantee you that most here would back peddle and double take, and be for killing when their survival is on the line. Also, trouble understanding and empathizing with an actual psychopath, sociopath and machiavellian type of personality, along with other forms of mental disorders that increases their likelihood of committing such heinous acts.

   The message that the state wants to put to all it's population is this: We will kill those who kill more, and wish to cause more misery to most of society and it's civilians, and forbid such horrid acts of humanity. Behave, or die. I think it's a reasonable message, to those who are stuck in stage red.

Edited September 5, 2022 by Danioover9000

[Nilsi]

Instead of killing those lunatics, we should study them thoroughly and find out what's driving their madness. Besides, with all the wild emergent technology we'll soon be using, I doubt there will be such a thing as incurable madness. If it's genetic, just give the guy a good ol' CRISPR therapy, if it's acquired, I'm sure AI can solve that somehow lol.

It may be just and reasonable to kill certain people, but we can still make it a point to be merciful towards other sentient beings.

Edited September 5, 2022 by Nilsi

[zurew]

2 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

Another problem here, as you've also stated in your recent video of double standards, is a deep double standard here over the act of killing a person(s) ir execution, and virtue signal false compassion, until life throws a psychopath or criminal their way, I guarantee you that most here would back peddle and double take, and be for killing when their survival is on the line.

You don't need to assume virtue signaling all the time, you can explain most of our reasoning in other ways. Also your point about double standard doesn't stand, would you want to create a system based on your personal grudges and feelings? Its not a double standard, its to be reasonable about it and not being taken away by emotions and creating a system based on hurt.

Again, just because something is controversial and edgy, doesn't indicates, that automatically thats the best option, if the reasoning leads elsewhere, then we should chose that option.

2 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

 The message that the state wants to put to all it's population is this: We will kill those who kill more, and wish to cause more misery to most of society and it's civilians, and forbid such horrid acts of humanity. Behave, or die. I think it's a reasonable message, to those who are stuck in stage red.

That message doesn't work based on stats. In fact I saw the opposite, countries that use death penalty has bigger murder rates compared to countries that don't use death penalty.

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/murder-rates/murder-rate-of-death-penalty-states-compared-to-non-death-penalty-states

Edited September 5, 2022 by zurew

[Danioover9000]

@zurew

On 9/5/2022 at 8:30 AM, zurew said:

You don't need to assume virtue signaling all the time, you can explain most of our reasoning in other ways. Also your point about double standard doesn't stand, would you want to create a system based on your personal grudges and feelings? Its not a double standard, its to be reasonable about it and not being taken away by emotions and creating a system based on hurt.

Again, just because something is controversial and edgy, doesn't indicates, that automatically thats the best option, if the reasoning leads elsewhere, then we should chose that option.

That message doesn't work based on stats. In fact I saw the opposite, countries that use death penalty has bigger murder rates compared to countries that don't use death penalty.

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/murder-rates/murder-rate-of-death-penalty-states-compared-to-non-death-penalty-states

   I have to assume mostly likely it's virtue signaling, given how easy it is in the internet, to create user accounts, troll and hate speech, lie about how compassionate you really are, deepfake, meme making, and so on that the probability of trusting what's written in text form is lower.

   Okay, in a hypothetical scenario, if you had the leadership position, your own small group, leading subcultures like the cartel, the mafia, and the Vikings, what would you do to discourage your own tribe, or country, from killing its' own members, when the culture favors raiding, raping, acquiring slaves, and stealing resources from other inferior cultures? How would you try to discourage the behaviors of your group that's externalized outward towards other groups, from repeating from within your group?

[zurew]

@Danioover9000 I think prison is good enough for discouragement for people who care(I think stats support this aswell, if we compare it with places where there was no punishment at all). If you are talking about hardcore killers, I don't think those people would give a fuck about anything. If you want to lower the rates, you have to attack the roots and not the ending (how do we create these people, what should be an ideal society for people, how can we lower sadness and depression rates etc)

 

Also , if I go with your hypothetical, then I already seriously fucked up, because I have a society where almost everyone is a criminal, generally in those scenarios you cant do much other than waiting to let them burn themselves out or you can try to employ physical force, but I dont think that would be effective in a society,where most people aren't discouraged by prison, so why would they be discouraged by physical force? (if we already know, that death penalty don't discourage these people)

Edited September 6, 2022 by zurew

[gettoefl]

@Loba

you may enjoy this thoughtful if long article showing that even the seemingly irredeemable may be capable of reformation

https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2022/aug/31/cover-life-calipatria/

[Willie]

There is nothing inherently wrong with the death penalty. The people within judicial and prison systems who make these decisions can be corrupt and make mistakes, however. The mental health of everyone involved should be a priority, and every inmate should be given a chance at rehabilitation. If someone is clearly unwell and unable to reintegrate within society, why keep them?

[Inliytened1]

5 hours ago, Willie said:

There is nothing inherently wrong with the death penalty. The people within judicial and prison systems who make these decisions can be corrupt and make mistakes, however. The mental health of everyone involved should be a priority, and every inmate should be given a chance at rehabilitation. If someone is clearly unwell and unable to reintegrate within society, why keep them?

You are playing God as a finite being when you take a life.  That's why @Carl-Richard said it didn't feel right.  It's a low conscious act for that reason.   It is selfishness. 

Now, unfortunately we live in a selfish society so we have to deal with what we have.   Because the society is already selfish, we pile selfishness on top of selfishness and we are forced to go along with it because it's keeps the society going.  Perhaps it would better to tear everything down and rebuild.  But that's not the easy solution.   Humans prefer the easy solution.

Edited September 6, 2022 by Inliytened1

[Inliytened1]

30 minutes ago, JoeVolcano said:

You're playing god no matter what you do.

(So why not leave the playing to god.)

That's a cop out. 

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, JoeVolcano said:

You're playing god no matter what you do.

(So why not leave the playing to god.)

There is nothing to leave.