A Legal Executioner.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Then apparently, it has nothing to do with capital punishment.  Otherwise, you'd have to explain how an outside event causes a change within oneself.

We have already agreed there  can be no closure for victims families if something so horrible happens like the torture and murder of their young child.

My remark was in answer to your statement that "Closure and revenge are indistinguishable".

Both closure and revenge are internal states-of-mind.  In particular, revenge seems to dissolve into a state of lethargy and passivity with the absence of the object of anger; indeed, some have described a feeling of regret that their anger object is no longer a living being.  They seem to have thrived on the existence of the toxic person.

Both closure and revenge, when requited, seem to result in a kind of quietude.  I"m not sure there is a difference.  Part of the problem is that 'closure' is so ill-defined...indeed, it seems to have been an invented term precisely to deny revenge.  Hence my impression that it is a hasty and handy borrowing from the idea of a police dossier. In that case, 'closure' is simply a cover term for revenge, and a way to deny and sanitize one of emotions s/he knows s/he should not harbor.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Both closure and revenge are internal states-of-mind.  In particular, revenge seems to dissolve into a state of lethargy and passivity with the absence of the object of anger; indeed, some have described a feeling of regret that their anger object is no longer a living being.  They seem to have thrived on the existence of the toxic person.

Both closure and revenge, when requited, seem to result in a kind of quietude.  I"m not sure there is a difference.  Part of the problem is that 'closure' is so ill-defined...indeed, it seems to have been an invented term precisely to deny revenge.  Hence my impression that it is a hasty and handy borrowing from the idea of a police dossier.  In that case, 'closure' is simply a cover term for revenge, and a way to deny and sanitize one of emotions s/he knows s/he should not harbor.

I honestly don't see it like that Quill.

If some horrible tragedy has happened to you, as in the violent deliberate death of a child, I think that closure  just isn't possible, but to carry on living your own life productively there has to be some sort of acceptance. Some people even find the strength to forgive......whether the perpetrator is alive or dead is immaterial, but having them forever splashed all over the papers for decades would certainly make it harder imo..

The opposite is wanting revenge. I feel if a person is revengeful they will never achieve any sort of acceptance, they hurt themselves more than anyone else.

Again, you are defending the term 'closure' but you have abandoned the idea that the death penalty brings closure.

We could go on and on about the term 'closure', but if that is all we do then we would be in a debate about etymology, and not the real world.

I'm only here to say that if someone thinks there is something called 'closure' that one gains at the execution of another person, I say bullshit.  I doubt whether closure is anything other than time putting something out of mind, but if someone says he wants the death of his father's killer, I say he's looking for revenge. Let's not pat-a-cake it.  End of...

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Again, you are defending the term 'closure' but you have abandoned the idea that the death penalty brings closure.

We could go on and on about the term 'closure', but if that is all we do then we would be in a debate about etymology, and not the real world.

I'm only here to say that if someone thinks there is something called 'closure' that one gains at the execution of another person, I say bullshit.  I doubt whether closure is anything other than time putting something out of mind, but if someone says he wants the death of his father's killer, I say he's looking for revenge.  Let's not pat-a-cake it.  End of...

You don't see a difference, I do. End of.

Not when it comes to human executions. As you yourself point out, grief is related to recall. That sort of closure comes only from not recalling...or, passage of time and forgetting.

If we are talking about closure from execution of another human, you are talking about revenge.

Syl wrote:I thought it was "end of"?

It was, until you needed more explaining. Lol

Syl wrote:I don't see execution as revenge. I see it as a logical way to tie up loose ends when someone has NO chance of ever being let out to mix in society ever again....I am  talking of the most heinous crimes committed by a person of 'sound mind'.

Ask yourself...what "loose ends"? The only loose end that I can see is revenge. Capital execution costs more than a lifetime in prison, so that can't be it. The only "loose end" is the emotional one...and that's revenge.

Syl wrote:What I do see as "revenge" is when people are happy to see someone suffering and rotting in prison for the rest of their days because "the death penalty is too good for them"....which is often heard said.

I don't see that esoteric moment as a huge sentiment, except perhaps among sadists. But again, isn't what you are suggesting an appeasment of overt revenge?

"Capital execution costs more than A life time in prison"

Explain.

How can there be extra trials when the criminal is dead?

I know if you go ahead and just shoot the guy in the back of the head, it's inexpensive.  But in our modern society, in order to execute, we have instituted so many safety measures, legally and otherwise, that it is more expensive to condemn a man to death:

Death Penalty Information Center wrote:Cases without the death penalty cost $740,000, while cases where the death penalty is sought cost $1.26 million. Maintaining each death row prisoner costs taxpayers $90,000 more per year than a prisoner in general population. There are 714 inmates on California's death row.

Look at the sentiments expressed here.  Everyone is concerned that we don't err on the side of death.  The only way to assure that is to take the time and effort in legal procedures, to make sure he or she is the one!

I know what you are thinking, nicko.  I feel the same way: we don't show our own soldiers that consideration!  We don't show concern that we are sending our people into harms way needlessly.  

This is why I am so strenuously against purposeless wars, especially those without endgames.  It's my way of expressing the same concern for our military men and women, as we show for convicts.

Raggamuffin wrote:The fact that they have so many appeals in the US just shows that they don't really have much faith in the system. If they did, they would just accept the verdict the first time - and the sentence.

Exactly.  Another way to express it is, people have a strong sentiment toward doubt.  You see it on juries as well...people just take longer, and are more apt to opt for reasonable doubt in capital cases.  Civilization has evolved in such a way that life is valued over everything.

Were that it were so with the lives of our soldiers.  We get our egos involved with wars...so much so that we cannot assess situations, or understand consequences.  Again, it's the revenge motive.  We are so obsessed with the insults of the other person, that we run ourselves into quicksand chasing him.

That's the game that ISIS is playing with us right now: Here doggy...here doggy.  C'mon boy, get the stick, boy...into the quicksand!