A thought experiment on the death penalty.

[gnome]

I don't know if this holds up... but it crossed my mind today.

Which is more cruel... to cut off someone's limb, or to kill them? I would say it's clear that most people would choose the loss of a limb over death.

However, our government has the authority to kill criminals convicted of a serious enough offense... but not the authority to cut off the perpetrator's limb.

How is that logically justified?

This is not my principle reason for opposing the death penalty. I'm not even sure it's any reason at all. I'm just seeing where it goes in debate.

[crimresearch]

Simple answer is that such punishments used to be acceptable to many nations...as they were dropped as 'uncivilized', that put them in the 'cruel and *unusual*' category...and hence prohibited under the US Constitution.

As far as why a punishment is more or less acceptable to a given society, that would seem to be the result of ongoing processes within that society.

[Ladyhawk]

Good question. Perhaps because maiming someone quantifies the "unusual punishment" phrase as in "cruel and....". Death probably isn't considered unusual ?????

In my perfect world, rapists, terrorists, (a.k.a. the bad guys) would not be subject to the death penalty. Instead, they would be made part of an international game show wherein they may survive intact from one episode to the next...or maybe not. Maiming would not only be allowed but encouraged since, with the right PR Monkey, one could get $1 million or more per 30 second commercial. I haven't completely nailed down the format but it goes something along the lines of having done to you what you did unto others. But, the guilty party doesn't get killed! He/she either loses so many body parts that they can't play anymore or worse....they get to come back on the next show and play again...and again...and again...

I know, I digress. I need a job. Quick.

[shanek]

Originally posted by gnome
I don't know if this holds up... but it crossed my mind today.

Which is more cruel... to cut off someone's limb, or to kill them? I would say it's clear that most people would choose the loss of a limb over death.

However, our government has the authority to kill criminals convicted of a serious enough offense... but not the authority to cut off the perpetrator's limb.

How is that logically justified?

This is not my principle reason for opposing the death penalty. I'm not even sure it's any reason at all. I'm just seeing where it goes in debate.

I would say that both punishments are cruel and unusual because they cannot be undone.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by shanek
I would say that both punishments are cruel and unusual because they cannot be undone.

Hmmmm...well, technically, a limb could be replaced with an artificial one.

And, if you believe the Bible, the dead do come back to life (reference: Lazarus, Christ). So, no harm done. :D

[gnome]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Simple answer is that such punishments used to be acceptable to many nations...as they were dropped as 'uncivilized', that put them in the 'cruel and *unusual*' category...and hence prohibited under the US Constitution.

As far as why a punishment is more or less acceptable to a given society, that would seem to be the result of ongoing processes within that society.

Right, I'm looking for the societal reasoning behind death being more acceptable than dismemberment... granted, you can't just ask "society" but you can look at cultural mores and speculate...

[gnome]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
Good question. Perhaps because maiming someone quantifies the "unusual punishment" phrase as in "cruel and....". Death probably isn't considered unusual ?????

In my perfect world, rapists, terrorists, (a.k.a. the bad guys) would not be subject to the death penalty. Instead, they would be made part of an international game show wherein they may survive intact from one episode to the next...or maybe not. Maiming would not only be allowed but encouraged since, with the right PR Monkey, one could get $1 million or more per 30 second commercial. I haven't completely nailed down the format but it goes something along the lines of having done to you what you did unto others. But, the guilty party doesn't get killed! He/she either loses so many body parts that they can't play anymore or worse....they get to come back on the next show and play again...and again...and again...

I know, I digress. I need a job. Quick.

I know how ya feel, and it would indeed be quite entertaining to many. My general problem on that one is that it's unwise to cater to such bloodthirsty instincts in the populace, even if the subjects are deserving.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by gnome
I know how ya feel, and it would indeed be quite entertaining to many. My general problem on that one is that it's unwise to cater to such bloodthirsty instincts in the populace, even if the subjects are deserving.

Ah, but with any luck, the show would eventually run out of players! Or at least be resigned to being a bi-annual event...;)

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by shanek
I would say that both punishments are cruel and unusual because they cannot be undone.

I don't think I agree with the "cannot be undone" notion as a qualifier for a punishment being cruel and unusual. Can 25 years (or a week) served be undone? Can that time be given back?

I think they're cruel and unusual because killing people or cutting off their limbs is simply cruel and unusual.

[Tmy]

Is there any proof that death is cruel. Killing them may be the greatest gift of all. It may the the opposite of punishment.

[The idea]

Originally posted by gnome
I would say it's clear that most people would choose the loss of a limb over death.

Suppose someone who has five million dollars and no income commits a crime. Suppose the person is given two choices:
(1) give all the money to the government and/or victim (if there is a victim); or
(2) have one leg amputated.

If the person chooses to have one leg amputated, does that indicate that the five million dollar penalty would be cruel and unusual punishment?

[gnome]

Originally posted by The idea
Suppose someone who has five million dollars and no income commits a crime. Suppose the person is given two choices:
(1) give all the money to the government and/or victim (if there is a victim); or
(2) have one leg amputated.

If the person chooses to have one leg amputated, does that indicate that the five million dollar penalty would be cruel and unusual punishment?

Holy crap, you may be onto something here.

This calls for immediate pondering! More words later...

[RandFan]

Originally posted by gnome
Which is more cruel... to cut off someone's limb, or to kill them? I would say it's clear that most people would choose the loss of a limb over death. Oh, I love the question. My hats off to you gnome. I consider myself pro death penalty with some reservations. That is a question that makes me uncomfortable with my position. That is why it is a great question.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by gnome
Holy crap, you may be onto something here.

This calls for immediate pondering! More words later...

Who cares what the culprit thinks. For that matter, who cares what the victim thinks. If the victim forgives the criminal, do we not prosecute?

[Aoidoi]

Well, I think originally people were tortured, held up for public ridicule, and abused out of a principle of compensation for the crime committed. Either you had the money to compensate someone for your crime (bible lists price for raping a virgin, IIRC), or you are punished to make up for that lack. An eye for an eye meant you either pay the guy whatever an eye is worth, or give up yours. Nice and just.

More recently it's been considered that drawing and quartering people is a tad over the top, makes quite a mess, and it annoys the horses, so they went to other methods. We still have the fine cause it's pretty easy to say "you burned his house down, you pay for it." But getting money for your raped daughter is no longer so politically correct. So now we combine the concept of punishment with that of rehabilitation. The idea that after John. Q. Criminal has repaid his debt (one way or another) he can be a useful member of society again. Which is hard to do if he was a serial leg chopper and is now out of limbs.

So, we take their time. This is still nicely cruel, but far less messy. Timeouts for criminals instead of pointy sticks through sensitive bits. Much more civilized, and you hypothetically don't make them into a crippled burden on society. Instead, they can go on to become a fully functional burden on society.

But, more on point for the thread, the death penalty comes in where the crime is so great they cannot possibly repay the debt incurred, and the crime was so great there is no chance of ever being allowed the risk of rehabilitation. After the first 10 murders, you figure it's a tad unreasonable to give any sort of opportunity for the 11th.

So, inflicting bodily harm is a no-no as it isn't all that useful for rehabilitation, and many people would object to it as a form of retribution. You know, having to worry about the one armed man holding a grudge, and all (though only in one hand). But the DP has no qualms about rehabilitation, it's when society deems rehabilitation (even in prison) is not worth the risk and retribution is all that's left.

Or maybe people are just more squemish about intestines on the floor now. Not like the good old days, where the amount of blood on your doctor told you how good they were. Those were the days.

So, to sum up, 1+1=2, and cutting off people's limbs doesn't benefit anyone, while the DP removes a threat permanently.

[Tmy]

Heres my question. If we were all atheists would we have the death penalty? Its seems that the pro DP motive for many people is that the bad guys really get their punishment in the afterlife.

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by Tmy
Heres my question. If we were all atheists would we have the death penalty? Its seems that the pro DP motive for many people is that the bad guys really get their punishment in the afterlife. Anecdotal, but I'm an atheist who has no philosophical problem with the DP. I have numerous practical issues with it, but I've got no problem with a society killing the most dangerous of murderers. As the individual in question it sucks, but as long as that individual is a multiple murderer I can't say as I'm too concerned with their feelings.

It's that pesky possibility of offing someone who doesn't actually deserve it that gives me pause. Barring Britney Spears opening fire on TRL and admitting to the crime, it's pretty hard to be absolutely sure you've got the right person. But with enough evidence, and particularly DNA, I'm thinking there's got to be some sort of acceptable level where you can say "not only are we sure he did it, we're so sure we're just gonna whack him."

[SixSixSix]

I've never really made a decision on capital punishment that I would consider at all "final"; passionate speakers from both sides can often sway me.

The "pro" is that it removes the possibility of a repeat offender. Removing a limb probably doesn't do this; if you lop off my hand, it doesn't necessarily stop me killing with the other one. I suppose you could snap my spine and render me a quadroplegic, but it's hard to see how that's in anyone's best interests (consider the medical bills alone - and if you're not going to pay them, you're killing me indirectly after such a punishment, which is just as bad).

The "cons" to capital punishment are many, of course. You have to consider the possibility of a wrongful conviction, the very real chance that the murder was a "heat of passion" thing that doesn't really render the offender a menace to society, and of course the possibility that the guilty offender will reform and perform a useful service for society (I'm as skeptical as the rest of you regarding that latter, but the possibility is one of the reasons we don't just arbitrarily lock up shoplifters for life). The "cons" of removing a limb share similar problems, but with less likelihood of redemption (it is hard to see how your average crook is going to look kindly on a society that whacked off his arm, for example).

Looking at it one way: at some point, everyone is going to die. (Yes, even me!) So capital punishment is at most only accelerating a natural process. The same inevitability does not apply to mutilation. I don't necesasrily hold this forth as THE explanation, but it is AN explanation for why we regard mutilation as unacceptable even in a society that permits capital punishment (which Oz doesn't, incidentally).

[Dorian Gray]

Originally posted by SixSixSix
Looking at it one way: at some point, everyone is going to die. (Yes, even me!) So capital punishment is at most only accelerating a natural process. Everyone is going to get shorter, get fatter or incur some bone loss and elasticity loss too. So why isn't skin-stretching, amputation, force-feeding or beheading just hastening a natural process?

[SixSixSix]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Everyone is going to get shorter, get fatter or incur some bone loss and elasticity loss too. So why isn't skin-stretching, amputation, force-feeding or beheading just hastening a natural process?

"Incur some bone loss" is not "amputation", but the rest seem feasible. I have no moral qualms at all about the idea of force-feeding (eg) as a punishment, but it doesn't really fit the crime in most cases. Capital punishment does, to a degree - you killed our Trace, so we'll kill you.

As I said - I'm not pro capital punishment particularly, though. From a practical perspective it often works out cheaper to imprison someone for life rather than execute them.

[BPSCG]

Then there was the guy on trial for exposing himself:

Bailiff: "Are you Lester Horwinkle?"
Accused: "If I wasn't Lester Horwinkle, I wouldn't be here, now would I?"
Bailiff: "Ahem. Take the stand."
Lester (not quite under his breath): "Kiss my ass..."

(Bailiff reads charge: ) "How do you plead?"
Lester: "I plead insanity, Your Honor!"
Bailiff: "Insanity!?"
Lester: "I'm just crazy about that kinda thing!"
Judge: "Mister Horwinkle, this is not the first time you have appeared before this court on this kind of charge, and it is my duty to make sure it never happens again. Bailiff, whack his pee-pee!"
Lester (being dragged off): "Getcher hands off me, ya dirty bastards!!!"

From Cheech and Chong's "Big Bambu." Or maybe it was "Los Cochinos." It was college and I was too stoned to remember...

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
Good question. Perhaps because maiming someone quantifies the "unusual punishment" phrase as in "cruel and....". Death probably isn't considered unusual ?????

A quick look at human history shows the death penalty is anything but unusual.

Europeans are, justifiably, skittish about it. After all, living memory is loaded with political executions. To say nothing about thousands of years of history there.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
Hmmmm...well, technically, a limb could be replaced with an artificial one.

And, if you believe the Bible, the dead do come back to life (reference: Lazarus, Christ). So, no harm done. :D

Actually, all Christians should be opposed to the death penalty. Why? Because when a person dies, their chances for redeption are over. Thus you are condemning them, more likely than not, to eternal hellfire.

One of the more subtle points of Jesus was to turn the other cheek. Which is to say, don't do anything that may drive people further from the message of salvation, or you might be responsible for their lack of salvation. If you drive people from you, you will drive them from the religion you represent (it is the most important thing in your life, right?) and thus you get to go to hell, too!

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
But with enough evidence, and particularly DNA, I'm thinking there's got to be some sort of acceptable level where you can say "not only are we sure he did it, we're so sure we're just gonna whack him."

In fact, the great "DNA freedom rush" from jail never occured. In fact, most people in jail who are given the opportunity for a DNA test opt to skip. Hmmm...wonder why?

[Beerina]

Originally posted by SixSixSix
I've never really made a decision on capital punishment that I would consider at all "final"; passionate speakers from both sides can often sway me.

The "pro" is that it removes the possibility of a repeat offender.


One further point, made by George Will, but rarely directly mentioned, is that it simply expresses society's extreme revulsion at the act.

"We really, really, really don't want people doing this sort of thing. It is terrible. Here's the penalty. Think about it."

[kalen]

Originally posted by Beerina
In fact, the great "DNA freedom rush" from jail never occured. In fact, most people in jail who are given the opportunity for a DNA test opt to skip. Hmmm...wonder why?

I'm pretty sure the justice system isn't so bad that most of the people in jail are innocent and are just waiting to have DNA tests.

Can you tell me where I can find more on the "DNA freeedom rush". I tried to google that phrase and came up with nada.

[Tmy]

DNA aint the be all end all. How many people are found guilty based on eye witness accounts or circumstantial evidence. DNA does nothing for those cases.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Beerina
Actually, all Christians should be opposed to the death penalty. Why? Because when a person dies, their chances for redeption are over. Thus you are condemning them, more likely than not, to eternal hellfire.That's not true at all. Any good Christian will tell you everyone is a sinner, and unredeemed sins are what condemn you to Hell.

You get out of Hell by acknowledging Jesus Christ died on the cross as payment for your sins, and accepting his death on the cross as payment for your sins. You can do that moments before your lethal injection and be saved.

If you don't do it, you go to Hell, whether you're a mass murderer, a petty thief, or Mother Theresa, because all people are born sinful.

(Note: I'm just passing the message along - not saying I believe it.)

[SixSixSix]

Originally posted by Beerina
Actually, all Christians should be opposed to the death penalty. Why? Because when a person dies, their chances for redeption are over. Thus you are condemning them, more likely than not, to eternal hellfire.


I don't see that as necessarily proving your case. Many Christians are quite happy with the idea of condemning people to eternal hellfire, and it is difficult to think of someone more deserving than a killer.

[/b]
One of the more subtle points of Jesus was to turn the other cheek.[/B]

On occasion, yes. He wasn't particularly consistent on this. Didn't exactly turn the other cheek when the fig tree refused to sprout fruit, for example.

And in any case it's only possible to argue this at all if you assume that the New Testament makes everything in the Old Testament obsolete. The OT God wasn't shy about the odd smite.

[gnome]

Originally posted by kalen
I'm pretty sure the justice system isn't so bad that most of the people in jail are innocent and are just waiting to have DNA tests.

Can you tell me where I can find more on the "DNA freeedom rush". I tried to google that phrase and came up with nada.

I would look up "The innocence project"

http://www.innocenceproject.org/